Talk:Compiz/Archive 1

No redirect
This should not direct to Xgl. Compiz is NOT the same as Xgl. Since the XGL page has links that lead to Compiz, it should be common sense that their should be a Compiz page that does not simply redirect back to the Xgl page. Liquidtenmillion 19:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Compiz isn't really notable yet, but it's related to Xgl and the article about Xgl mentions Compiz. So at the moment we can have a redirect there and even a subsection there if it's important enough. You could revert back to bolding at the Xgl article instead of linking to a redirect though. --TuukkaH 17:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've extended the article a little by adding more information and links to Gentoo, Ubuntu, and Novell Linux Desktop, the main testbeds of Compiz. I'm a little tired as of this writing so please correct any mistakes I've made. LainOfIICHAN 07:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Factually incorrect
The article is factually inccorrect, it says "Compiz is built on a new X server, named Xgl" - this is not true. To run, it requries a X server which impliments the GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap function. There are two ways that this currently happens, one is Xgl and the other is AIGLX.

To make the article correct, it should say that "compiz requires a backend that implimenets specific functions, which currently only include Xgl and AIGLX". (a note on aiglx - it's really just a part of the normal Xorg X server, from version 7.1, unlike Xgl which is it's own X server).

The next paragraph which talks about Xgl's driver support should be moved to the Xgl page. Shenki 04:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Diagram?
Some kind of diagram showing how all these different technologies work together would be very helpful. References to pages about Compiz, Metacity, Gnome, X server, Xgl and Glitz are nice, but one diagram showing all of their relationships would greatly assist people in understanding this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.180.233 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 17 June 2006

Auto-raising?
It says " Auto raising of active windows ".. Is there any way of fixing this? repons at gmail dot com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.120.101.3 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 24 July 2006

Details?
What is the history of Compiz? Who developed it? (e.g., David Reveman of Novell) Who is QuinnStorm and how is her version of Compiz related to the original Compiz? --Gotgenes 02:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Beryl section
That posting from Quinnstorm could be of some interest fpr the Beryl-section ? ...shit, i'm using compiz right now and for some reason my 'AltGr' doesn't work, so i can't sign —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.60.121 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 24 September 2006

Screenshot
The compiz-quinnstorm screenshot would be more approtiate to the Beryl article.. They've already forked. I think we might need a "plain" compiz screenshot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.127.182 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 30 September 2006

Website?
Does Compiz not have a website? —Frungi 01:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Beta drivers
"A beta driver from NVIDIA supporting AIGLX is available."

This is just wrong! Nvidia already supports accelerated indirect rendering for a long time. What is new in the beta drivers, is the support for GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap. It has nothing to to with AIGLX. AIGLX is an extension to the dri interface to allow accelerated indirect rendering. But Nvidia doesn't use dri, they have their own implentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.81.228 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 6 October 2006

Video cards list
should be a good idea insert a list of site where there are the video cards compability list i have found this:

http://en.opensuse.org/Using_Xgl_on_SUSE_Linux

http://gentoo-wiki.com/HARDWARE_Video_Card_Support_Under_XGL

81.211.244.214 13:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

License
The licence is specified as MIT which one, is it the X11 licence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.45.69 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 15 December 2006


 * I believe the Compiz license is based on MIT, but it really a proprietary license customized to their needs. Some folks continue to put GNU GPL in the license section, and that is certainly incorrect. Yock 21:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)