PDA

View Full Version : What is the purpose of snazzy Window Managers/Compositors?



Emanuele_Z
September 2nd, 2012, 12:55 PM
Hi all,

as per suggestion on Ask Ubuntu I've posted same question here in the forums:
http://askubuntu.com/questions/183156/what-is-the-rationale-behind-snazzy-window-managers-composers
Basically, what's the point of using many more resources to have snazzy window managers?
Any idea?

Cheers

vasa1
September 2nd, 2012, 01:15 PM
I guess they closed the question because they want stuff that doesn't involve opinion and argument. More of a "how-to" rather than a "why is".

Anyway, the argument can always be that there are lighter alternatives available based on Ubuntu and those wishing for something lighter may use some of those others.

If Canonical wants to utilize its resources in a particular way, we can help or get out of the way ;)

Emanuele_Z
September 2nd, 2012, 01:34 PM
Thanks for the reply, but what is the answer to my question?
And btw, is not just about Canonical with Unity but even Gnome3 is on the same boat...

Again, what is the real benefit regarding snazzy WM apart a more plesant look for the eye?

What's your opinion about the question? :-)

Ps. using a similar answer to yours, please reply or, i quote, get out of the way, don't flame or spam.

vasa1
September 2nd, 2012, 01:44 PM
... what is the answer to my question?
...
Again, what is the real benefit regarding snazzy WM apart a more pleasant look for the eye?

What's your opinion about the question? :-)

To look attractive. Why isn't that sufficient reason? Why should there be an "additional" benefit?

2F4U
September 2nd, 2012, 01:44 PM
Different people have different opinons about what looks good and what they need to be productive. You could also ask why there are different desktop environments such as Gnome, KDE, XFCE, and so on. Wouldn't it be enough to just have one?
To have just one DE is the answer of companies such as Microsoft and Apple. In Linux, people have the choice.

Emanuele_Z
September 2nd, 2012, 02:44 PM
Different people have different opinons about what looks good and what they need to be productive. You could also ask why there are different desktop environments such as Gnome, KDE, XFCE, and so on. Wouldn't it be enough to just have one?
To have just one DE is the answer of companies such as Microsoft and Apple. In Linux, people have the choice.
Ok, I think you're missing the question. I'm all up about choice, don't get me wrong.
My question is more along the lines of, why do we have these resource consumer WM.
For example, Unity or Gnome3, if it's about productivity, how many companies are using those ui?
I don't know, in fact my fear is that the only _real_ purpose of the snazzy uis is just to be fashionable. Why is cool, but not productivity related.

I've and am using Linux professionally, to develop software, and productivity on Linux is about getting things done, using less and less the mouse and more they keyb.

My 2 cents,
Cheers! :-)

malspa
September 2nd, 2012, 02:51 PM
Well, if you spend a lot of time using a computer, why not make it a little more enjoyable? I mean, do you change the desktop background to something you like? Do you change the desktop theme, or stick with the default?

I think most modern computers can handle the extra fluff.

2F4U
September 2nd, 2012, 03:13 PM
Ok, I think you're missing the question. I'm all up about choice, don't get me wrong.

I don't think that I miss the question and it is about choice. Why can't you accept that people just like all the graphical gimmicks?


My question is more along the lines of, why do we have these resource consumer WM.

We have does desktops because there is a demand for them, i. e. there are enough people who want them and so there are enough developers attracted to work on them. Why would any developer work on Gnome or KDE if users would not use those?

ZoiaGuyver
September 2nd, 2012, 03:55 PM
The question your posing is also a little one sided.

The "snazzy" effects can help, opacity for active and non-active windows allow me to focus easier when multi tasking as an example. Most of the effects are to make things look "pretty" or "unified" you can interpret it either way.

There is another argument that would be related to "hardware". If we don't need even some of the effects that can be made, then why have graphics boards that are more powerful and have more memory than the cards we had 5 years ago?, the same goes for processors, memory and all hardware.

The resources a PC can provide has increased as well. Some of the effects are not just there as "eye candy" some are there accessibility also, Why would they limit the use of a PC to "productivity" and nothing more, the whole PC over the years has changed, a PC no longer relates to just being productive, its now seen as a "Entertainment" system also, along with that the look of the UI and the UX has changed.

The UI with all the bells and whistles makes a much better fit in multiple locations, ranging from the Office to the living room.

But I guess it would depend on the environment. I use my PC for many things, it's not just a productivity suite for me any more.

matt_symes
September 2nd, 2012, 04:17 PM
This is a thread with no real technical answer.


Basically, what's the point of using many more resources to have snazzy window managers?

The question could have easily been rephrased to question the converse and still not have any meaningful technical answer.

As such it has been "Moved to the Cafe".

Bachstelze
September 2nd, 2012, 04:20 PM
Again, what is the real benefit regarding snazzy WM apart a more plesant look for the eye?


What would the benefit of using a lighter WM be apart a smaller resource usage?

Jakin
September 2nd, 2012, 06:02 PM
If you are gonna be spending alot of facetime with your computer- with Ubuntu- and make ubuntu your own, personalize it- tweak it- then you want it to look damn good- right?

Windows users theme and tweak their desktops. Even the "mighty" Mac OS X; users tweak and edit their desktop themes. We do it to personalize, and we do it- BECAUSE WE CAN :)

mamamia88
September 2nd, 2012, 06:09 PM
Because it makes your computer more enjoyable to use? Nobody is forcing anything on anyone that is the beauty of linux.

vexorian
September 3rd, 2012, 03:31 AM
Hi all,

as per suggestion on Ask Ubuntu I've posted same question here in the forums:
http://askubuntu.com/questions/183156/what-is-the-rationale-behind-snazzy-window-managers-composers
Basically, what's the point of using many more resources to have snazzy window managers?
Any idea?

Cheers
To use more resources.

You know what a GPU is? It is a CPU designed for heavy weight taks that need lots of paralelism. One of today's GPUs has more processing power than the super computers of not long ago. A GPU is a magnificent beast, and a very powerful one.

So, the problem is, most desktop users have GPUs, but they don't get to use those resources that much. Why justify buying a GPU when you are not really using? In order for the GPU world to have progress, we needed an excuse to make home users need GPUs. So we decided to add GPU requirements to the basic desktop operations.


Anyway, if you are running a modern game inside a modern desktop environment you are doing it wrong.

Of course unity, GS and whatever will make your FPS drop. They all use your GPU. But when playing heavy games, you want them to use all the GPU available.

I run my heavy games like diablo 3 using a single terminal instead of a desktop environment. It is the ultimate minimal desktop environment and there is no unity eating system resources (there is nothing besides the terminal eating desktop resources). So it is great for games. I posted instructions on how to use it before (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=12153124&postcount=6).

For normal desktop use. I prefer unity, after some tweaks it work well. And since I am not gaming, I can use the GPU on other things. Like the transparency of the launching or the transparency of my terminal. And shadows for window borders and menus. It looks pretty.

This allows me to have the best of both worlds. For desktop work, I use an actual DE that makes me more efficient. Whilst for games, I use the most minimalistic thing ever invented thus letting them use 99% of my system resources. I mean, it does not matter how light LXDE is, a single terminal is even lighter.

I think it makes sense. Modern video games are designed to use all your system resources. Whereas desktop environments like unity or gnome-shell are designed to make you multi-task. Their objectives are completely opposite. So it is best to keep them separated.

In fact, I am looking into ways to make a "Diablo III" sesion, so that the only apps running would be WINE and Diablo III (not even a terminal!). Right now I cannot get it to work, there is probably something I am missing somewhere. But when I get it to work, it is going to be cool.

Bachstelze
September 3rd, 2012, 08:06 AM
You know what a GPU is? It is a CPU designed for heavy weight taks that need lots of paralelism.

No, a GPU is a processor (not a CPU) designed for graphics, as its name suggests. GPUs have recently been used for other tasks, but that does not mean they have been designed for them.

Paqman
September 3rd, 2012, 08:59 AM
Basically, what's the point of using many more resources to have snazzy window managers?


For the snazziness. Why shouldn't computers be pleasant to use if they have the resources to do it?

One main advantage of the compositing is that it offloads the graphical parts of the desktop onto the GPU, freeing up the CPU. This improves responsiveness and actually reduces resource usage compared to running the same desktop purely on the CPU.

forrestcupp
September 3rd, 2012, 03:16 PM
Believe it or not, some people want their computers to look like they are from the 21st century. It's possible to be productive and not look like butt. But if you're computer can't handle it, there are plenty of options out there that look like butt, if that's what you want. :)

But to address the issue of productivity: In the past, I've gotten a lot of use out of window transparency. I used it to make Gnucash somewhat transparent over my banking web site so that I could update my checkbook without having to switch back and forth between windows. I've gotten a lot of productive use out of being able to zoom into the screen with my mouse wheel, especially when working with something detailed in Gimp. Some people are more visually minded than technically minded, and seeing things like different window animations and Alt+Tab animations helps them to more quickly understand what's going on and be more productive.

I'm sure I could go on and on, but the point is that sometimes these compositing effects actually can help with productivity. Also, as powerful as they're making computers today, it's kind of a waste to leave 90% of that power unused.

thatguruguy
September 3rd, 2012, 03:21 PM
Believe it or not, some people want their computers to look like they are from the 21st century. It's possible to be productive and not look like butt.

That's just crazy talk.

tartalo
September 3rd, 2012, 03:33 PM
What would the benefit of using a lighter WM be apart a smaller resource usage?

Lower resource usage means also that the hardware will be useful a longer time, generating less waste. From an ecologic point of view that's important.

I don't know exactly how much energy consume is affected, but I suspect there's some difference.

(Writing this from KDE, but this thread made me think)

mamamia88
September 3rd, 2012, 03:38 PM
Lower resource usage means also that the hardware will be useful a longer time, generating less waste. From an ecologic point of view that's important.

I don't know exactly how much energy consume is affected, but I suspect there's some difference.

(Writing this from KDE, but this thread made me think)

there is no reason you can't be productive, have light resources, and look beautiful. check out some of the xfce screenshots out there.

vexorian
September 3rd, 2012, 06:43 PM
No, a GPU is a processor (not a CPU) designed for graphics, as its name suggests. GPUs have recently been used for other tasks, but that does not mean they have been designed for them.
Silly technicisms. I meant CPU as in processor, it is a strange habit.

Do you know what graphics are? heavy-weight tasks that require tons of parallelism.



Lower resource usage means also that the hardware will be useful a longer time, generating less waste. From an ecologic point of view that's important.
There are not too many hardware components that actually lose life time significantly due to load. I guess the most important one of them is the hard drive. But snazzy window managers don't put load on it, do them?

For CPUs, GPUs and RAM, high load is not as important as high temperature (for life expectancy). A CPU running at 25% that has poor cooling may actually be running at higher temperature than a 100% running CPU with proper cooling.

Of course then we have a better question. If you are only using 10% of your system resources, maybe it would have been better for the environment for you to buy system components that were more suitable for the light use you have. than to put very powerful components to waste.

tartalo
September 3rd, 2012, 07:11 PM
There are not too many hardware components that actually lose life time significantly due to load.

That's not what I meant, although what you say is interesting.

I was talking about the false need of replacing the computer that some software updates create.

Example: One friend I usually give support to recently approached me asking for advise to buy a cheap laptop after Unity replaced his Gnome 2 because "the computer was very slow", I proposed him to switch to Xubuntu instead, he liked it, we upgraded the RAM and done. That's a computer that has extended it's life thanks to a lighter DE.

By the way, a test about power consumption of different DEs: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_precise_desktop&num=1

EDIT: replaced url with a newer article

Lightstar
September 3rd, 2012, 07:32 PM
It's a matter of opinion.

I personally like it. I love polished beautiful desktops.
Some people don't, some just use a tiling window manager and have terminals up.

Luckily you are with linux. If you want something super simple, that uses grey boxes buttons. You can have it.

Supermouse
September 3rd, 2012, 09:06 PM
Well, for simple use, there's nothing that a fancy DE will give you that other DEs won't. Maybe cubes and transparencies, but nothing that will reeeealy improve your productivity and stuff.

But a fancy DE with compositing and benefiting from hardware graphics acceleration, in the proper hardware, will take some load of your CPU and pass it to the graphics adapter, who usually stays idle, and that is the purpose of a snazzy window manager.

KiwiNZ
September 3rd, 2012, 09:32 PM
Well, for simple use, there's nothing that a fancy DE will give you that other DEs won't. Maybe cubes and transparencies, but nothing that will reeeealy improve your productivity and stuff.

But a fancy DE with compositing and benefiting from hardware graphics acceleration, in the proper hardware, will take some load of your CPU and pass it to the graphics adapter, who usually stays idle, and that is the purpose of a snazzy window manager.


Working environment is an important factor in productivity levels.

fontis
September 3rd, 2012, 09:38 PM
Because at the end of the day you are interacting with a device and you want that experience to be aesthetically pleasing.

If it would suffice to just run **** for the sake of running them then we would still be using terminals with binary code only.

The level of ease with which you interact with a device evolves from the GUI that follows alongside it. Psychologically speaking this can be rooted back to how we as children play with symbols and images rather than plain lines drawn on a paper.

The more "fun" you have interacting with something the more productive you are :P

forrestcupp
September 4th, 2012, 02:25 PM
I was talking about the false need of replacing the computer that some software updates create. That's true. But I suspect most people buy upgraded computers because they want them, not because they actually need them. ;)



But a fancy DE with compositing and benefiting from hardware graphics acceleration, in the proper hardware, will take some load of your CPU and pass it to the graphics adapter, who usually stays idle, and that is the purpose of a snazzy window manager.
That's the best point anyone has made in this thread, yet. People tend to forget that the whole purpose of compositing is to pass the graphical workload off to the GPU, which is where it should be. Without that, all of the workload for everything goes to the CPU, which is worse than not having compositing. The snazzy effects are just an added bonus.

vexorian
September 4th, 2012, 03:26 PM
Why would they have to update software anyway?

10.04 is LTS, which means you can use it with update support till 2015 if your computer is old. You can for example get new software versions of Firefox or LibreOffice without leaving 10.04 thanks to ppas.

And old is the keyword here. My 2GB of RAM, Core 2 duo is running incredibly well with 12.04.1 with all default effects on. We are talking about the lower end of the previous generation in processors running an ubuntu version that was just released. Computers that really can't use unity nor unity-2D must be quite old. Also, XCFE and gnome-fallback are supported by 12.04.1 anyway, letting your friend and many people with older systems still use the same OS.

We are not nearly close to having a planned obsolescence issue in the Ubuntu/Linux world. The computers that are truly so old that are no longer getting supported are living a case of true obsolescence rather than planned one

.

That's the best point anyone has made in this thread, yet. People tend to forget that the whole purpose of compositing is to pass the graphical workload off to the GPU, which is where it should be. Without that, all of the workload for everything goes to the CPU, which is worse than not having compositing. The snazzy effects are just an added bonus.

It is a good point. But I think it is not working that well in practice. compiz tends to use 10% of my CPU. When I switch to unity 2D, CPU usage of the DE tends to be about the same.

Paqman
September 4th, 2012, 03:56 PM
10.04 is LTS, which means you can use it with update support till 2015 if your computer is old.

It's actually only April 2013 for desktop. Five year support for desktops didn't come in until 12.04.

effenberg0x0
September 4th, 2012, 04:44 PM
There's no single answer to this question. All technical, economic, sociological, etc args will be valid. And all viable answers will be questioned.

The answer I accept is: "People tend to choose good looking things" or "it's easier to sell good looking things".

The long version of that reasoning is: "If we are to compete with other successful OSs, which currently hold a larger market share, we must do so in the same grounds, offering end users the same things they see as benefits, whether we accept these features as real benefits or not".

However, as all other args, it ends up going down to: "Most people can't understand/don't care about technical aspects such as the use of hardware resources/That's not what drives large scale adoption".

Then it turns into a flame war when the discussion is moved from these reasoning to "but we are a FOSS project, we should focus on the OS technical quality, not on the market. We should leave the market discussion to proprietary software companies".

And then we realize we're growing old and the discussion is still the same.

So, IMO, a similarly pointless question would be: "What is the purpose of discussing desktop environments". And the rationale would be "it wastes valuable resources and there's no possible final conclusion".

And the real question no one wants to talk about is "If there's freedom and options, why do we feel a need to understand, evaluate/judge, discuss and/or change the choice of others".

Regards,
Effenberg

forrestcupp
September 4th, 2012, 07:07 PM
It is a good point. But I think it is not working that well in practice. compiz tends to use 10% of my CPU. When I switch to unity 2D, CPU usage of the DE tends to be about the same.

Maybe. But Compiz is a Frankenstein, and it's not exactly the best example of a compositor. If it wasn't for Unity, I think Compiz would be completely dead.

QIII
September 4th, 2012, 07:35 PM
The relative merits of different compositor technologies notwithstanding, we are analog animals and respond well to analog visual cues even if they contain a lot of information.

A digital watch is "high tech", but an analog one is interpreted without as much "processing". "Eye candy", when not excessive, can convey a lot of information in a manner we are well wired to interpret.

Emanuele_Z
September 4th, 2012, 08:07 PM
Lower resource usage means also that the hardware will be useful a longer time, generating less waste. From an ecologic point of view that's important.

I don't know exactly how much energy consume is affected, but I suspect there's some difference.

(Writing this from KDE, but this thread made me think)
I think this reflects my way of thinking, as my mentality, and logical thinking.
But I do understand Gnome/Unity want to compete with OS X and Win7, and we need snazzy window managers then.

Cheers! :-)

vexorian
September 5th, 2012, 08:02 PM
Maybe. But Compiz is a Frankenstein, and it's not exactly the best example of a compositor. If it wasn't for Unity, I think Compiz would be completely dead.
I'd love ubuntu to make unity standalone so that we could use it with any compositing WM. But I guess that's too much to ask.