[GRLUG] GNOME3 [Was: Ubuntu 11.10 (Oneiric Ocelot) released!!]

[Michael Mol]

On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:35 AM, John-Thomas Richards
<jtr at jrichards.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 09:35:33AM -0400, Michael Mol wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Adam Tauno Williams
>> <awilliam at whitemice.org> wrote:
>> > Actually GNOME3 is quite lite;  but you *need* OpenGL acceleration.
>> > "Need" as in "must have".

>> > People say things like "you need 3D acceleration" - that statement is
>> > false.  If your OpenGL is working correctly you should be OK.

>> Request for clarification: I take it that Mesa's software rendering is
>> insufficient? I would think it should be able to make for a tolerable
>> experience as long as fancy effects like transparency are avoided.
>
> 3D acceleration (which has been pointed out is not a
> requirement)

(snipped irrelevant portions to make my point clear)

ATW starts by noting that you *need* OpenGL acceleration, but then
says you don't need 3D acceleration. This can be taken a few ways:

1) You need OpenGL, but you don't need hardware acceleration. This
makes sense, but the use of the term 'OpenGL acceleration' was
confusing. If OpenGL is being used as a drawing API, it's not
accelerating anything. Or, rather, it's not accelerating anything in
the commonly-accepted usage of the term in the given context.

2) You need OpenGL to be accelerated, but you don't need hardware
acceleration. This doesn't make sense in any practical sense, but
would be the most likely reading.

3) You need OpenGL to be hardware-accelerated, but only for non-3D
operations. This is a use case and operating scenario for OpenGL which
I haven't previously and knowingly encountered, so it's certainly not
the first which comes to mind.

Which is why I asked for the clarification.

-- 
:wq

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.