I wonder if I have a right to speak, being a user of the ggi library
instead of developing it. Hopefully my argument makes enough sense to
be taken seriously.
Bryan Patrick Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actualy I don't know how many of the distributions you follow but the
> current trend is for graphical installs. As a matter of fact I just
> installed a caldera 2.3 system and it is graphical only ie no fall back on
> text available. It uses X with the vga server. But your right a graphical
> ggi installer would be a clencher. As much as the unix world hates to
> admit even they are overly impressed with eye candy.
Personally I wouldn't like a graphical-only install. I like to run
Linux on a 'slow' machine like a 486. A graphical installer would be
nice, but fallback support along with it would be even nicer. I think
being able to run Linux on these cheap machines shows off the real
power of Linux even now.
In order to get libggi included with distributions, I think plain
eyecandy would suffice. Especially 'demos' are nice. Take a look at
http://www.scene.org and note that there are zillions of DOS/Windows
demos and about 5 to 10 (mostly pretty bad, or DOS ported) Linux
ones. For discussions and pointers to open sourced demos, visit
#demoscene on the Openprojects IRC network (http://openprojects.nu has
a list of IRC servers).
But now about this whole advertising topic,
I don't think advertising libGGI by means of making an awesome
screensaver or awesome application is a very good idea. Wouldn't it be
enough for the library to prove itself, as it is doing already? One
could make a screensaver in native X11 that runs 0.000001% faster than
the libggi version in X11, for obvious reasons, so the speed gain
proposed by the original author wouldn't be due to libggi. By
promoting libggi this way, people think they are being fooled, which
would make them angry in the end.
IMHO it'd be better to show off the real strengths of libggi. The
speed does not make the difference; libggi sure is as fast as can be
on most targets, but native target support would always be a
neglecitble teensy little bit faster. It would be hard to rewrite a
library that supports the awesome amount of targets, and the decent
API, though.
All in all It'd be better to advertise the real strengths of libggi to
developers than to 'end-users'. I think this has been done very well
over the past few years. If I'm not mistaken most distributions are
eager to support libggi anyway. Some of my libggi 'intros' (an ugly
hack and a party invtro) are included with the Stampede distribution
already.
No need to think up plans to take over the world.
Just my $0.02
--
Tijs van Bakel, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
