Indigo Magic Desktop, Now On Linux 120
xynopsis writes: "Based on the Indigo Magic Desktop on Irix, this Linux version contains a new window manager called 5dwm, an enhanced Motif library that supports the Irix look and feel, and widget sets specific to SGI. IMD goes further than those "themes" available that simulates the Irix desktop experience by allowing applications written in Irix to be ported to Linux with little modification in the GUI front-end. Linuxworld.com recently interviewed its creator, Eric Masson, who is single-handedly porting this great Unix desktop to Linux." Quote: "The first major difference between GNOME and IMD is the low-level API being used. In the case of GNOME it's GTK+, originally developed for the popular GIMP application, whereas for IMD it's Motif, a much more mature and standardized API ... "
Recovering From Windows (Score:2)
Everyone I know -- including myself -- thinks this when first moving from an MS-Windows system to 4Dwm. (I don't know what the differences are between 4Dwm and this new 5dwm, so I'll stick to what I know.)
Then we all just eventually realize that we've fallen for Microsoft's trap: we've been trained to believe that the MS desktop and wm behavior are how a computer should behave. Once we get ourselves over that hurdle -- for example, right clicking on an object directly doesn't work, one must left click to select, and then right click to get the menu, which does come in useful occasionally -- we fly.
Still, I agree with you about KDE2. I like it better than 4Dwm, modulo the two or three annoying nonfatal bugs.
Re:Interesting idea. (Score:1)
Re:About these crazy interfaces... (Score:1)
Of course not! Who do you think I am? I'd first ask him how high he wanted me to jump, and then do the actual jumping. Jeez....
Re:I can't believe it hasn't been said yet (Score:1)
If {IRIX} then {LINUX} (Score:1)
I wouldn't worry about that part... the same 3D artists who've been using IRIX for years won't have any problem with Linux. From the animation user's POV, they're identical. The students where I work are 3D animators - we have a bunch of IRIX machines and one of our servers runs Linux - they can't tell the difference. To me, the sysadmin, there are differences, but for what they need to do - if they know one of the two, they know the other.
On the other hand, people who have only used WinNT find the transition to any UNIX a little frightening. But there's such a long history of IRIX in the 3D world, that most 3D artists are at least used to the idea.
Partially right (Score:2)
Re:But I HATE 4dwm (Score:1)
Re:I can't believe it hasn't been said yet (Score:2)
It turns out that the big visual effects production company Rhythm and Hues (R&H) and compositing software developer Silicon Grail have each contributed the time of one programmer toward the task of extending GIMP to 16-bit-per-channel images. Way to go, John Hughes and Ray Feeney!
thad
Now, I'm kind of sad... (Score:1)
quatto
#####IRIX4LIFE#####
Re:But I HATE 4dwm (Score:1)
Re:'Great Unix Desktop'? (Score:1)
Standardized? (Score:4)
Standardized? Oh, you mean managed by an actual company and sold for $149. I fail to see how it is more mature and "standardized" than Visual Basic.
Sure, Gtk sprang from the loins of Gimp. But I fail to see why people continue to believe that just because Gtk+ started out to fill a specific purpose, that nowadays it is completely incapable of doing it's job, which is to provide a capable graphical toolkit.
Re:Recovering From Windows (Score:1)
WM behaviour is fair game - that's what WMs are all about. I never have been much of a fan of mwm/4Dwm, but it can be tweaked to work more how I'd like. On the third hand, I have found that I haven't gotten around to spending that usual afternoon with
Mature and standard API (Score:1)
Personally, I'd say that GTK+ is more standardized, in a sense. More desktops use it than motif, by far.
-------
CAIMLAS
Re:Consistency has its value (Score:1)
The Athena widgetset is part of the standard X11 distribution, but it has the unfortunate side-effect of making your apps look like they escaped from a 70s research lab.
As I understand it, what 'real commercial developers' use is something like XDesigner and Motif, which gets you an environment a lot like VB in many ways, and an app that will run on any (CDE based, anyway) relatively current commercial unix system. Motif is now free, so it ought to start appearing as standard in linux distros, if it hasn't already (I haven't upgraded my linux box in a year or more).
I used XDesigner briefly at college, about 8 years ago, and it was pretty funky stuff - I guess the nearest to it for linux/free things would be Glade.
Interesting in light of Sun and HP (Score:1)
Re:I can't believe it hasn't been said yet (Score:1)
Re:'Great Unix Desktop'? (Score:1)
(Translation: I don't care what format GNU wants to use. I got this shit from you, so you fix the problem. I just want man to work.)
--
Re:What are the advantages? (Score:1)
Bzzzzt. The Mac had themes before windows even got useable (post-3.1.)
Every GUI out there seems doomed to repeat the theming thad. Ah... fad.
A.
Re:'Great Unix Desktop'? (Score:1)
Umm, Qt _is_ professional (Score:2)
Excuse me? Gtk is a typical open source project where developers get to it when they can get to it. Qt on the other hand, is a professional toolkit. It is created by a company [trolltech.com] that spends all of their time working on it. The Unix version also happens to be GPL.
IMO this makes Qt an extremely viable alternative to Motif. In fact, Borland thought so too: just look at Kylix. Qt is not "just another toolkit."
Has everyone forgotten that?
-Justin
Kylix (Score:1)
Real Soon Now, I hope.
I can't believe that nobody has said... (Score:2)
-------
Re:Recovering From Windows (Score:1)
Clicking to select or point is the only intuitive thing about using a mouse. Everything else, from click-and-drag to double-clicking to right-clicking, is just what we've learned to do. It's completely arbitrary.
For example, what if the way the UI worked was that you left click a file icon then right click an executable to use that executable to open that file? It's definitely easier on the hands than clicking on the file icon and dragging over the executable icon until the executable highights, then releasing it. This is assuming that for some reason double-clicking the file icon would not open the correct viewer/editor.
PM (Score:2)
Re:Sadly - not available for download yet (Score:2)
Re:I can't believe it hasn't been said yet (Score:1)
Pixar's products supported platforms [pixar.com]
Nothing real [nothingreal.com]
Jig [steamboat-software.com]
As far as apps in the porting process, Maya is being ported to Linux (should be ready for SIGGRAPH) and the batch renderer is already available, Softimage XSI is being ported (a beta was shown running under RedHat 6.2, last SIGGRAPH users meeting).
Also several studios have worked on porting there on stuff to Linux or enhancing Linux apps. Most notably, the work that Rhythm and Hues have done on the Gimp, and studios like PDI porting there stuff to Linux, and Hammerahead among others:
Gimp for film [gimp.org]
So it's allready happening.
Re:Consistency has its value (Score:2)
Tcl/Tk is pretty portable among Unices and available for Windows as well. If run on Windows, it looks like a native application. I prefer Perl::Tk which gives you the same GUI with the power of Perl. But this is not as easily portable because not every machine has the Tk module.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sadly - not available for download yet (Score:1)
Please note that the previously scheduled release (01/01/2001) needed the ViewKit Runtime library to run.... So I've decided to re-write an optimized version of toolchest w/o the ViewKit lib which will be available by end of this week. I'm very sorry about the delay, but I can't release it like this... The toolchest application must be very small, fast and only based on pure Xlib and Xm
Re:SGI Motif is prettier than standard Motif (Score:2)
http://www.motifzone.net/themes/aqua.jpg
:P
- - - - -
Re:About these crazy interfaces... (Score:2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, that's a stupid idea. Because the minute the person learns how to do that, they come up with yet another stupid GUI toolkit for *NIX.
Re:About these crazy interfaces... (Score:1)
Re:Commercial stuff (Score:2)
Sometimes a cluster of Intel based machines just isn't as cost effective in the big picture.
--------------------
Would you like a Python based alternative to PHP/ASP/JSP?
Re:Now, I'm kind of sad... (Score:2)
Huh? 1 out of 4 times? Maybe it's your code, your implimentation of OpenGL, BSD?? Who knows... I have quite a few programs that run w/OpenGL on Intel hardware and I have no problems at all.
FUD man...
--------------------
Would you like a Python based alternative to PHP/ASP/JSP?
Re:I can't believe that nobody has said... (Score:1)
Nice to see IM ported... (Score:1)
Re:Now, I'm kind of sad... (Score:2)
A bit late, huh? Maybe 2 years? (Score:1)
But now? Irix is dead, Motif is dead, CDE is dead. OK, Indigo Desktop is pretty, but hey, it's a dead man walking.
Re:But I HATE 4dwm (Score:1)
However, I think the AC who responded wasn't the person who moderated. If it was.... Well, there's always M2.
Enlightenment IRIX Theme (Score:2)
Re:SGI Motif is prettier than standard Motif (Score:1)
The really nice thing about IM is the zoomable vector icons and this don't have them :(
Re:SGI Motif is prettier than standard Motif (Score:1)
Well, for one thing, if you are trying to put 10,000 things into a list, you probably need to redesign your interface.
Re:SGI Motif is prettier than standard Motif (Score:1)
Heh. I *do* sit in front of an SGI workstation for 8 hours a day, and let me tell you: it's easily the best development environment I've used. And I have a PC running Linux sitting right next to it; plugged into the same monitor. :)
Re:Recovering From Windows (Score:2)
Re:What are the advantages? (Score:2)
You don't 'customize' widget sets -- you customize applications, for instance your window manager. Adding new context menus in (finally) Windows 2000 is a customization of the Windows Presentation Manager, or whatever they call their window manager these days. This option is a nice addition to Windows 2000, but it represents a tiny part of what you might want to customize, and doesn't hold a candle to the customizeability of any window manager I've used under X11. Can you change the bindings on the keys and mouse? Can you change the location, shape, and contents of the title bars? The KDE window manager (kwm?) is okay, and evidently very flexible even though that flexibility isn't exposed through the gui configurator (or wasn't the last time I used it).
When you say you've used Motif, I expect you mean the Motif Window Manager, or mwm. Although this is the default wm on a lot of workstations, I don't actually know anybody that liked it. And the scary 'managability' that you mention probably comes from generality. fvwm is much nicer, IMO, for configuring, and the newer Gnome stuff is pretty easy through the fairly extensive gui configuration programs (but editing textfiles is still the most powerful).
Pure functionality is an interesting term, since it implies some sort of objectivity. I think what you must mean is "The Windows and MacOS window managers are my favorites". Neither one of these supports multiple virtual desktops, AFAIK. Neither one has the variety of applets and monitors that are available via KDE or GNOME or FVWM. And neither one provides decent command-line interfaces -- you can't resize the DOS prompt, no tab completion, no shell language worth speaking of, they don't even install doskey by default. No wonder Windows users are afraid of command line interfaces, the one provided by Windows is so bad!
I have no idea what you mean by "On PDA's, PalmOS follows a close second" -- second to what? Windows on PC? Again, I expect you're talking about window managers, not widget sets or operating systems. And comparing PDAs to PCs is stupid.
Overall, you sound a little confused about the structure of your operating environment. Linux in a nutshell: 1) kernel, 2) shell, 3) X11, 4) window manager. I can't really do Windows in a nutshell, because I'm really not that familiar with it. But I think it's all one big tangled ball of twine, which in Linux would be something like: 1) kernel+shell+X11, 2) window manager, 3) other parts of shell and X11. If you want to pick a fight, try to argue that the Windows model is better for security, stability, or performance.
Oh, and OS/2's Presentation Manager kicked Windows' and MacOS' window managers collective asses! =-)
Re:About these crazy interfaces... (Score:2)
Re:About these crazy interfaces... (Score:2)
Re:Bring out your dead?!? (Score:2)
About these crazy interfaces... (Score:1)
However, some API's are better than others for certain tasks (portability, scalability, speed), but I'm sure there's one out there that'll do the trick.
Motif? (Score:1)
Re:'Great Unix Desktop'? (Score:1)
Motif (Score:1)
he forgot to add "really ugly" to that.
Re:About these crazy interfaces... (Score:1)
Re:Bring out your dead?!? (Score:1)
Just because the Window Manager doesn't use Motif doesn't mean the applications don't use Motif. I can't see much incentive for application vendors to switch toolkits. Why should they care what Window Manager their app runs under?
Sadly - not available for download yet (Score:1)
Re:'Great Unix Desktop'? (Score:1)
Motif is mature like Ronald Reagan: senile! (Score:2)
-Don
Re:Interesting idea. (Score:1)
Oh really? Is that why the Windows GUI is consistent whereas almost every X application has its own and often ugly widget set?
Re:Motif? (Score:1)
Old Silicon Graphics logo (Score:2)
Bring out your dead?!? (Score:4)
Motif has flaws, but on technical grounds, is much more appropriate for "can't fail" applications than something like GTK+.
If you think that's dead, then you must be a little like the guy driving the dead wagon in the Holy Grail.
Re:Old Silicon Graphics logo (Score:2)
http://www.scottkim.com [scottkim.com]
-Don
Re:Umm, Qt _is_ professional (Score:1)
Also I like the feeling that porting to windows can be as simple as a recompile!
john
Re:Commercial stuff (Score:1)
java.sun.com has links to the IRIX 6.x tardist files
Re:About these crazy interfaces... (Score:3)
Probably...
If Linus would sanction one API that would have the advantage over tha others, most people would have less problems.
Yeah, and if Linus would sanction one OS kernel, then all the others would simply disappear, right?
Seriously, this is complete nonsense. Nobody can dictate what applications I would want to run (or the kernel for that matter). Would you switch mail-reader if Linus told you to? Would you use another windowing system than X if Linus told you to? Would you jump if Linus told you to?
Luckily, Linus is a sensible guy. I don't understand why otherwise intelligent people like you seem to think of him as some kind of omnipotent god, with the power to do anything he wants. Instead you should learn to think for yourself, and hack for yourself!
What are the advantages? (Score:3)
I've used Motif, and quite frankly the managability just scared me. KDE is my desktop of choice right now (although I would like more Linux apps developers to support the available menus).
In terms of pure functionality, Windows and MacOS are tied at first for me. On PDA's, PalmOS follows a close second (only problem-- limited resolution to draw new widgets).
Well ... (Score:1)
until (succeed) try { again(); }
I wonder why? (Score:1)
-Moondog
Re:But I HATE 4dwm (Score:1)
I then expressed what I had done about it (i.e. trying to get Gnome working under Irix).
I then explained why I don't just run Linux/MIPS: the lack of support for the Indy hardware. This was done to forstall the inevitable comments.
In what way was this "flamebait"? I never said that Irix itself was bad, just that the window manager wasn't what I wanted.
Given all the crap posts from trolls, why did you use a valuable moderator point on an honest opinion?
I'm deadly serious: please respond, either by email or as an AC post.
Re:'Great Unix Desktop'? (Score:1)
Re:Interesting idea. (Score:3)
PS> You can get he benifets of having another processor doing toolkit code by getting an SMP machine
Re:Bring out your dead?!? (Score:2)
Indigo Magic Desktop (Score:1)
were there, it would help. Just the sound on the Imapct2 is better than anything on a PC today.
Re:About these crazy interfaces... (Score:1)
Linux is just as innovative. Don't start a holy war, be-fan, because the only one that matters on
Re:'Great Unix Desktop'? (Score:1)
--
Re:I can't believe that nobody has said... (Score:1)
Sorry, it was just a joke, I wasn't going for realism. ;)
-------
Re:Now, I'm kind of sad... (Score:1)
either way, IRIX's OpenGL support rocks hardcore compared to XF86 3.6...maybe not 4 though as I haven't installed it yet.
fud me
quatto
Re:Recovering From Windows (Score:1)
But that's just my opinion...
Re:'Great Unix Desktop'? (Score:1)
Because he's diverted the energy that should have gone into man pages towards 'info'. Because he ought to know better than to break a good and widely accepted standard. Because I greatly like and respect RMS, and this decision shows him at his worst.
You definitely have a point. Linux distributors don't seem to take responsibility for their OS the way other Unix makers do. However, isn't Red Hat still losing money? Maybe for the slim margins they make they can't afford to pay much attention to each package. I wonder if the vendors could pool their resources - split up the man pages proportional to sales or something?
DFM is supposed to be that (Score:1)
Re:Interesting idea. (Score:1)
Oh really? Is that why the Windows GUI is consistent whereas almost every X application has its own and often ugly widget set?
UH, actually yes, that is the reason anyone using Windows has no way to customize it to suit thier own needs and style, much beyond changing the background. Linux has always been about the freedom of choice, if I don't like a Window Manager, fine there are many others out there to choose from. Windows has always been about Microsoft and what Microsoft thinks you want and need, if you don't like the way it looks your only choice is not to use Windows at all.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
Re:Bring out your dead?!? (Score:1)
Meanwhile, I still don't see commercial software developers spending millions to port their Unix apps from one toolkit to another. For example, I use Meeting Maker at work. It uses Motif. To the people who make the purchasing decision, the choice of toolkit is not even on the agenda. So unless MM rewrites from scratch for some reason, I don't see them changing.
Re:I can't believe it hasn't been said yet (Score:3)
Coupla bits o' info: Houdini was ported some time ago (a year? maybe more?). The latest linux journal has an entire article on how some folks ported a large Irix-based system to Irix (or something like that, maybe it was moving parts of the system to linux, but I do recall a section on prting irix code to linux). Sorry if this is hyperlink poor, but I just woke up... :)
--
Fuck Censorship.
Re:Bring out your dead?!? (Score:2)
PS> I much prefer Win32 and D3D to POSIX and OpenGL, but guess which one I program in?
Re:Consistency has its value (Score:1)
Re:Interesting idea. (Score:2)
Well, there are cards already that have the entire OpenGL pipeline in silicon. Most workstation cards do, for example the 3dlabs Oxygen series. I think that with the addition of T&L the current gen of gaming cards comes close to full opengl-in-silicon if not completely attaining it (NB: these cards of course are not optimized for professional opengl work since they typically focus on speed over correctness).
Also, AFAIK most graphics cards today DO have operations to supprt windowing environment primitive drawing acceleration (things like quick rectangles, etc.). It's my impression that usually these are tailored to support the Windows GDI. Still I suspect that an enterprising wm author for another system could take advantage of common tasks if they had access to the asm calling specs.
You're definitely right about the more is good thing. Let a thousand different flowers bloom! :)
--
Fuck Censorship.
Re:Standardized? (Score:2)
Well the other poster replying is definitely right on the standard point (I've yet to see a commercial unix that didn't come with a motif runtime). On the price point, you do realize that you can get both the runtime and development packages for the latest Motif for free? I can never remember if it's www.openmotif.(com|org|net?) or www.motifzone.(com|org|net?). Sorry to be so fuzzy-headed about the URL, but I know it's there.
Heh. Actually I was annoyed enough with my lack of memory to go check and all of the URLs above (both openmotif and motifzone, each with all three gTLDs) work. So "quitcherbitchin" as my mom would say, and go download the stuff... ;-)
--
Fuck Censorship.
Re:But I HATE 4dwm (Score:2)
I got Gnome and E running on my Indigo2 (bad quality screenshot here [foottit.com]). However, I found it pretty slow and clunky compared to 4DWM (4DWM screenshot here [foottit.com]. I got it running from the tardists downloaded from freeware.sgi.com - you need to download a lot of freeware libraries to get it going, but the tardist installer should iform you about dependancies.
That being said, I actually like 4DWM and the SGI desktop environment as a whole. It is very stable and I find it provides me with everything I want when coding on a *NIX system.
Re:Old Silicon Graphics logo (Score:2)
Ask yourself where the CEO at the helm of SGI when they changed the logo now works.
I can't believe it hasn't been said yet (Score:4)
Now you may think that it's not going to happen because "Linux people aren't the type to pay for software at all, let alone software that costs thousands of dollars." This is the wrong way to look at things, the 3D companies are probably asking themselves right now if the artists that use their products are the type of people to use Linux. I think that 3D artists are the most likly to use Linux with the exception of the fleets of hackers who already do. If you have ever used a powerful 3D application you know that they are very complex. Learning Linux is a small price to pay for reliability a magnatude higher than NT. Linux drops out the cost of the OS too of course, and when dealing with Irix, that can add up. All those computers in the render farm no longer have to eat up licenses.
Now you may also think "That's great if a niche market uses Linux but I don't think it will make a huge difference." Think about this then. Photoshop is the standard imaging tool, hands down. Now if Linux takes a chunk out of the graphics market, guess what sweet application could replace it while saving $600 for every computer its used? I shouldn't have to say it, but the Gimp would shine. Graphics studios of any magnatude have armies of programmers on hand, sometimes more programmers than animators. Think what they would do if they got their hands on an open source program like The Gimp that lets them not only script simple tools very easily but extend the very program itself. If they played nice with others then the Gimp could get alot better, really fast. And how many other programs could make headway at the same time?
I know that this might seems like a jump in logic from having an Irix wm ported to Linux, but if Linux can make headway in the graphics market, cool shit will happen. The graphics scene doesn't care what everyone else uses for the most part. Studios of something of a blackbox alot of the time and if one tool works better for them, but no one else uses it, it doesn't matter. So Linux wouldn't even be a difficult transition when compared to what the average buisness would have to do to put Linux on desktops.
Apples, oranges, cheese, chalk etc (Score:2)
What the hell? How did this get modded up to +3?
What's the advantage of Motif over something like Windows?
I was going to give this guy the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant "Win32" until I read the rest of the post. I don't think he understands what the difference is between a widget toolkit (GTK+, Motif, GUI portion of Win32 API), an operating system (Windows, MacOS), and a desktop environment (KDE).
Themes are supported (and Windows was the first OS to really allow this anyway).
I can't decide if this is complete native cluelessness, or a plain and simple flamebait/troll. Really, not one of the UI toolkits "allows" or "disallows" theming - some just make it easier to do than others - and quite frankly, theming in Win32 is a fscking nightmare, messing with crappily documented non-client area messages, superclassing windprocs etc. If anything they tried hard to make it NOT themable (apart from the plus pack allowing you to set some colours, fonts and a background picture, that doesn't count, you aren't changing the UI.)
Re:What are the advantages? (Score:2)
1) kernel+shell+X11, 2) window manager, 3) other parts of shell and X11
In my experience I would say Windows is more like: 1) Kernel, 2) GDI, 3) X11 + window manager (tangled together), 4) Shell (perhaps differing terminology here) (in Windows, the default shell is explorer.exe, which is that task bar thing with the start menu -> this is just an application and you can change it, but doesn't change the stuff that X would assign to the WM, such as how window pane borders look etc. That stuff is handled in base windproc as "non-client" area messages, so your application can override them (they are very poorly documented), but they are handled in your applications thread - so the main difference a user might feel is that under X, if an application is hanging or keeping its thread busy, you can still move its window around, but if an application is hanging in Win32 (or just keeping the thread busy and not handling messages) then you can't move the window around).
The GDI layer is probably more the equivalent of X11 actually, and the window manager doesn't really exist - windows are basically managed by the application thread, and the common look and feel for apps stems from that they all derive behaviour from one standard message handling procedure. So it would be like not having a WM loaded in X, and all applications inherit from (say) a special GTK+ widget that draws the window borders etc. Its not a bad overall design *conceptually*, but its a fairly ugly API in practice.
Re:About these crazy interfaces... (Score:2)
How to simulate 4Dwm on Linux (Score:2)
1. Enlist a friend. Get them to administer a strong kick to your head. This will make you forget about the extensive customizability of fvwm, and stick with changing a small number of useless settings.
2. Get your friend to administer another strong kick to your head. This will mess up your vision so that fvwm's window titles and desktop pager appear very large, taking up a disproportionate amount of the screen. It should also affect your motor control, so you have to click twice to change desktops.
3. A third strong boot to the head may be required to forget all the keyboard shortcuts you have in fvwm. This may have already taken place due to the previous steps.
If you haven't guessed, I've got a favourite between fvwm and 4Dwm....
Peter
Re:Recovering From Windows (Score:2)
If you're wishing for some Irix-like wm themes: (Score:2)
Well, I've tried Irex [themes.org] for E, and it's pretty good (there is a gtk+ partner theme). Also just now while googling for a cache'd page of the very slashdotted 5dwm.org site, I ran across an IMD clone done using FVWM2 [rr.com]. Note that I have only the most cursory user experience with SGIs (too po' to afford one of them on my own :-( ), so I can't comment on exactingly true either one is to the IMD.
--
Fuck Censorship.
Interesting idea. (Score:4)
This seems to be one more piece to that puzzle, which is great! More power to those releasing it!
The only thing that's missing, IMHO, is graphics hardware. Actually carving the latest & greatest toolkits into silicon. (No, not as embedded code, with a processor to run it. Actually re-implement the code into actual dedicated hardware.)
IMHO, the first company (or geek) out with a card that'll handle the X11R6.4 protocol, plus the library APIs from Qt/KDE-2.1, Gtk/GLib-2.0, Gnome, OpenMotif-x.y (or Lesstif), OpenGL (or MESA), and this new Indigo Magic code, will slaughter the market on graphics.
I mean, who would =CARE= what the video card itself could do, if you already have all those capabilities? More to the point, more than a few graphics cards'll use "softcode" implementations, because they're easy to do and easy to maintain.
More to the point, by implementing the libraries, rather than a few trivial low-level graphics functions, we might yet see =very= high-powered window managers that don't require half the planet's computing power to get past the splash-screen.
(I like Enlightenment, KWM, Sawfish, etc, but I'd like them a whole lot more if I could get the same power without the memory & CPU costs.)
SGI Motif is prettier than standard Motif (Score:4)
So "it's ugly" isn't a very sound criticism of Motif anymore. Other criticisms, typically about run-time efficiency or difficulty of the API, are basically false. I found Motif easier to learn, a couple of years back, than GTK+. The API *is* very large, but fairly consistent. And any toolkit API will grow as it strives for more capabilities. This has happened and will happen more to GTK+ and Qt.
Please remember that *almost* *all* Unix commercial applications use Motif. And it works well for open-source apps too. My favorite: NEdit, can be safely described as So Good I Can Hardly Believe It.
'Great Unix Desktop'? (Score:2)
Of course, the site is already toast, so it's possible that it's a huge improvement, but IM as of IRIX 6.2 is no great shakes. I'd rather have KDE2 from what I have seen of that.