AIGLX, metacity, nvidia and Xgl

[Deron Johnson]

David Reveman wrote On 02/23/06 09:11,:

> I don't like a compiz/metacity split but I'm not sure what we can do
> here. I'll continue to reuse metacity code in compiz as plugins and I'll
> have a look at libcm asap and consider the possibility of integrating it
> with compiz somehow. 

Ideally, it would be great if everyone working on Linux compositing
managers could all pull in one direction and all work on one
Uber compositing manager, but I don't see that as realistic. That is not
how X and the open source communities work. Microsoft's approach is to
steal the best ideas from their competitors, synthesis it into a whole,
and then ram it down developer's throats. X has traditionally had
a different approach: provide fundamental mechanisms and then let
developer's of higher levels of the stack experiment and find creative
ways to use these mechanisms, and then let the cream rise to the top.

The whole area of composited desktops is new enough that I don't think
that one company has all the answers. There are bound to be a variety of
compositing managers which are trying different things. But I believe
that it is essential for linux that we foster interoperability between
compositing managers, especially as compositing managers evolve to
support true 3D windowing applications. In the 80's the ICCCM went
a long way toward ensuring that X applications could run under the
control of a variety of window managers. I think that we need to
work toward something similar for compositing managers. Linux embodies
the spirit of diversity, but we need to moderate that with
some degree of commonality if we want the Linux platform to be the
developer's choice for advanced GUI development, instead of Microsoft.

Thoughts?