Hi Kenny, those two links you gave cann't connect. Would you please paste it again, thanks a lot.

I don't think he found anything offensive, I think he just said he's glad to use another WM so he doesn't have to worry about GNOME's progress.

Works fine for me with Firefox 4 Beta 11.

I don't have any problems w/ Google Chrome.

Same here...maybe you could do with a little less transparency? It's a killer on FF's renderer.

You know scrolling with mouse on your new blog is painfully slow,

Maybe it was the mere mention of another window manager existing... some people get touching about their wm of choice... though, probably not as touchy as people with their OS.

I would rather see an improved pen based input than another on-screen keyboard

It's because of things like this that I'm glad I use Xfce.

(Not trying to slander your post, Kenny, just voicing my opinion )

another suggestion:
study hard, get a job (try Microsoft ), earn your own money and get a separate house!

Then again, they are your parents. The best thing to do is not care. Make them feel poweless to punish you... And or have a calm dicussion as to their reasoning.

Thanks for the review. I'm thinking Unity looks a bit more promising than Plasma (KDE). However, I haven't actually tried Unity yet. I'm a wait and see person :P

However, some issues with what you said. "Clutter-based UI to a Compiz-based UI" Compiz isn't a user interface. Infact, Compiz in the most pure form is a window manager that accepts plugins to complete all its tasks and at the base simply only allows you to move a window to the top layer by clicking on it. It also allows the plugins to access the composit manager effects.

Also, "people will be more familiar with it than they will with GNOME Shell ... use the visual effects they are already familiar with" is arguable. I know nothing of either but I found the plugin system annoying when starting compiz with an empty configuration. Especially considering you have to enable window movement ;P

Ahhh yes, if only those proprietary software manufactures loved to make software for non-proprietary OSes. Because, as we all know, Linux users expect everything to be free and won't pay for anything. And if they do come by your software its either reverse engineered, pirated, or used in a way not intended by the manufacture. Because all Linux users are experts on the matter ;P

Technically, if you could produce that type of jacked up parallax coating, you could have a 1080p image that was really a left and right eye interlaced images. HOWEVER, that quality would be even more degraded than a normal 1080i image as normal 1080i changes which row is drawn on each frame. This is why you end up with the 'comb' effect when you don't process an interlaced video image properly. Why reduce the overall image quality when doubling the pixels per inch is better and easier for 1080p in both the left and right? Either way, the coating would have to be shaped like this:
/|/|/|/|/|/|
|\|\|\|\|\|\
/|/|/|/|/|/|
|\|\|\|\|\|\

instead of what I would imagine would be
/\/\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/\/\/\/\

As you can imagine the first one would be far more difficult to machine. either requiring a mold or a time consuming laser cut. The one below would probably just need a strait line cut.

But! I have no idea if the one below is the way a 3D lcd parallax barrier would look. I just know this is how they look on hologram cards that are supposed to be for 3D pictures but often have an animation when moving from left to right.


As far as a touch screen 3d screen goes, you would still have a 2D touch interface. You can not have true 3d interaction until you have holograms. Well, headgear displaying 2 screens with left and right as well as motion tracking for hands is already possible. But head gear is annoying and nobody want to wear sensors on their hands.

On a related note, I saw and got to play with an interface tool that had an arm attached to a stylus. You could freely move the stylus without restriction but it was tied into a 3D scene and it would provide true barrier restrictions and textures. e.g. it would not let you pass through objects and rubbing the tip across the virtual surface would provide the same feed back. Ice would be smooth and slippery and wood or something else would feel rough and restricted. But that interface was looking at a 2D flat screen and the perceived depth had to be visualized by the user. Attaching that to an glove type interface could provide force feed back to your headgear. But if you could imagine. 2 primary arms and at least 10 minor arms attached to the primary arms. Lots of things to break.

I thought you disapproved of, even hated, commercial software?

One thing that I read somewhere but didn't think of before is that 3DTV is not quite like real 3D because in real life, your eyes have to change their focus to view objects at different depths, but in a 3DTV, your eyes are always focused at the same depth (the screen), no matter how near or far away the appearant object is.

The problem is that it's not known yet if when small children watch too much 3DTV, will their vision be permanently damaged because the lack of association between depth and focus?