×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Enlightenment Returns To Bring Ubuntu To ARM

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the look-who's-back dept.

Enlightenment 198

mu22le writes "Enlightenment, the daring window manager that disappeared from our collective radar years ago, is back to bring Ubuntu to ARM. The bet that E developers made years ago to neglect 3D, compositing, and make a fast and versatile 2.5d engine may have finally paid off. The current popularity of ARM-based devices could be a niche that the Enlightenment Foundation Libraries can fill comfortably."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

198 comments

Fonts are too small (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31180932)

THE TEXT IS TOO SMALL. YOU CAN'T READ THIS ON A LUCID-BASED NETBOOK.

With the size of the screen, you'd think that a GUI that emphasized ease of use would have bigger text and icons.

Re:Fonts are too small (0, Flamebait)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31180968)

If it's too small for you maybe you should try, I don't know, increasing it's size?

Not exactly rocket science dude.

Re:Fonts are too small (4, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181018)

E17 doesn't give you the option to do that without going into the config files and manually editing them. It's not something that is any problem for more experienced Linux users but it is the kind of thing that may hurt adoption of E-17 Ubuntu.

Re:Fonts are too small (1, Insightful)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181170)

One would think that Ubuntu would package their distro with the defaults set to reasonable values. They do this for many other packages, so I don't see why the window manager would be any different.

Also, kudos to Enlightenment for sticking to their philosophy; I prefer a WM that helps me just get on with my work. I'm not a Mac user who likes staring at the shiny toolbar renderings and 3D compositing effects while watching billable hours go by. Eye candy is for time wasting. Computers are tools. Aesthetics has its place, but when more effort is spent on making a UI pretty as opposed to functional, then the whole point of the exercise has been lost.

I blame Apple, for turning computers into fashion accessories.

Re:Fonts are too small (2, Insightful)

dyefade (735994) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181436)

I'm not a Mac user who likes staring at the shiny toolbar renderings and 3D compositing effects while watching billable hours go by.

Nor am I, I'm a Mac user who gets on with his work. Congratulations on making wild generalisations based on the default animation style of a persons window manager...

Re:Fonts are too small (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31181460)

And it's hilarious that you say that while when you get down to it, OS X sports the most spartan of the major desktop environments, with the least eye candy. There's all of what, a metal/pinstripe finish, and a djini effect on minimizing windows? Possibly drop shadows here and there?

And you're playing the pretty vs. functional argument card on MacOS? It's possibly the most integrated and streamlined desktop UI as well. Either way, a little polish goes a long way, and providing a complete package (which includes a pleasant UI) isn't mutually exclusive with providing a functional environment. You need both, case in point stupidly small unreadable default font settings on this. You can provide all the functionality in the world, but it's useless if your UI is barely useable ass, a well designed UI provides functionality and usability. And anyone who uses the functionality vs. aesthetics argument to excuse neglecting the later, is neglecting the former in doing so.

Re:Fonts are too small (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 4 years ago | (#31182300)

No. The big icon bar at the bottom is a major waste of space. I read here on /. that even Apple's UI guru wanted to get rid of it, but they kept it because it looked so good in the store.

Anyhooo, I guess the issue is not only about default settings, but also about how easily you can change them. I can tweak stuff easily in Windows (but that's 'coz I'm used to it, and not afraid to look around). I haven't found MacOS easier to tweak than Windows, just different enough to be hard to grasp. And Linux is a bit to a lot harder... Linux devs need to get that 99.99% of users don't want to edit config files nor have to read the manual, and are too new to feel confident tinkering such an ominous OS.

Re:Fonts are too small (1)

c_forq (924234) | more than 4 years ago | (#31182554)

In case you didn't know you can move that bar to the side, set it to hide, and change the size.

Re:Fonts are too small (1)

Provocateur (133110) | more than 4 years ago | (#31182930)

Better yet, I not only shrink them, but convert those cartoony icons to their tasteful text equivalents (courtesy of Laurent Baumann). That way, Jack Bauer will ask *me* for the terrorist's IP address, with my why-so-serious desktop with hardly any eye-candy and plain gray wall, instead of asking the pretty hawt little co-worker with her waay too colorful fisher price icons and aquarium screensaver. BTW, Jack, it's 127.0.0.1. /me leans back in chair, convinced of a job well-done

That's funny (5, Insightful)

earnest murderer (888716) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181480)

Because at this point Apple's computers and OS are _by far_ the most conservative in appearance compared to other major players.

Re:Fonts are too small (1)

siloko (1133863) | more than 4 years ago | (#31182412)

but when more effort is spent on making a UI pretty as opposed to functional, then the whole point of the exercise has been lost.

er you're missing the point with your trenchant views!! Quite often Pretty = Functional. When someone spends time on making a UI look nice they are often making it more usable too, either by design or by accident.

Re:Fonts are too small (1, Interesting)

pchan- (118053) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181390)

E17 doesn't give you the option to do that without going into the config files and manually editing them. It's not something that is any problem for more experienced Linux users but it is the kind of thing that may hurt adoption of E-17 Ubuntu.

I'm an experienced Linux user. I write device drivers for a living. But I get home, the last thing I want to do is edit configuration files to change settings in my GUI. This is why, after 10 years of using Linux on the desktop, my next computer will be a Mac.

Re:Fonts are too small (3, Insightful)

the_womble (580291) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181518)

You are an experienced Linux user and you think you need to edit config files to change setting in your GUI? It has not occurred to you to try using Gnome, KDE, LXDE, XFCE, ICE WM or numerous others that let you change settings from the GUI - have never edited a config file to change a KDE setting, and my desktop is very far from the defaults.

You are a liar - either an idiot, an astroturfer, or a troll.

Re:Fonts are too small (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181610)

Thanks, keep up the good work selling Linux.

Re:Fonts are too small (2, Informative)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181644)

He is right even if he is "selling" Linux. Gnome has far more gui options available in gui control panels than Windows even offers. The same goes for KDE and XFCE.

Re:Fonts are too small (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31183108)

Yes to the point where its sometimes faster to edit the config files than it is to try and find what you want in the GNOME UI.

Re:Fonts are too small (1, Informative)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181656)

E17 is what runs on this hardware. I'm sure that if Gnome or KDE could run on it they'd base the ARM customized Ubuntu distro to use one of them instead. Problem is that Gnome and KDE use more resources than E17 does and E17 just doesn't have a GUI for changing certain settings. E17 isn't aiming to compete in the same areas that Gnome and KDE are. E17 is primarily used where computer resources are limited while Gnome and KDE are generally used on systems where computer resources aren't the major problem. Now if you've been using Linux for 10+ years, you probably have run into hardware that is crap by today's standards and would not run well with larger D.E.s.

Re:Fonts are too small (3, Interesting)

micheas (231635) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181680)

Ironically, when I first tried Enlightenment (in the '90s) It was the heavy weight eye-candy desktop that was sort of the compiz of the day. (I think I had a 300mhz CPU and a Voodoo video card IIRC)

Re:Fonts are too small (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31182306)

The elephant in the room is that the only reason that anyone is considering E17 is that there are no proper drivers for the hardware. The current generation of ARM SoCs that are being used for this kind of application all come with a GPU that can handle OpenGL ES 2.0. That means that they have a fully programmable pipeline and are massively overpowered for running something like Compiz. With proper drivers, they could handle pretty much any effects that you wanted to throw at them, including things like ripple effects (which require pixel shaders).

E17 doesn't use 3D acceleration, so it suddenly has an advantage when you are on a platform with missing 3D drivers. Add 3D drivers, and suddenly E17 is using the CPU while everything else is using the GPU, and E17 will be dumped because it gives you less battery life.

Re:Fonts are too small (2, Informative)

dvlhrns (1681218) | more than 4 years ago | (#31182528)

"E17 just doesn't have a GUI for changing certain settings" ... Umm, what settings would those be ?? Have you even tried it lately ? There are gui configs for pretty much everything. Please, check the facts before posting misinformation

Re:Fonts are too small (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31182994)

"Umm, what settings would those be ??"

From the great great parent, it is changing font size. That shouldn't be too hard to fix anyway, if the devs are paying atention.

Re:Fonts are too small (1)

RMS Eats Toejam (1693864) | more than 4 years ago | (#31182726)

It has not occurred to you to try using Gnome, KDE, LXDE, XFCE, ICE WM or numerous others that let you change settings from the GUI...

You are a liar - either an idiot, an astroturfer, or a troll.

His comment was directed at Enlightenment (and software like it), not any of the ones you listed. Obviously, he can use a GUI to change settings in any of the desktop environments you list, and he probably has. He never stated he was using Enlightenment. He feels that ANY desktop environment that still requires the manual editing of configuration files to be unacceptable. Conceded assholes like you need to learn how to read.

Re:Fonts are too small (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31182814)

Conceded assholes like you need to learn how to read.

Right back at you.
The dude specifically said he was buying a Mac because he wanted to get away from editing config files, and in so doing one must presume he is ditching Linux. Suggesting other desktops is entirely logical.

But I agree with other posters that the post in question was a troll.

Re:Fonts are too small (3, Insightful)

boxwood (1742976) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181626)

Good luck with that. I'm an experienced Linux user and I got a mac. Used MacOS for three months exclusively... never could get used to it. The thing is MacOS is designed to be intuitive, but not user friendly.

The thing is you don't have to tinker with configuration files in linux. Yes its there, but you don't have to do it. Have you actually tried just using the default Ubuntu install and not messing around with GUI settings? It's actually quite nice. The problem is you've gotten used to doing things a different way over the years and you know you can make things work the way you want it to if you find the right configuration file.

All MacOS does is remove the configuration options. So it forces you to get used it. Unfortunately, I never could. I usually have several things opened at once and switch between them. Under MacOS I have to push the F9, watch the pretty expose animation look around the screen, and then click on the app I want. Every time I push F9 apps are in a different spot. Under Ubuntu I just click on the item in the taskbar which is always on the screen and the task is always in the same spot (unless I reorder it by dragging it to a different spot in the taskbar). In MacOS I can cut and paste files to move them to a new folder. I can't set keyboard shortcuts to change songs in iTunes, I have to use the little remote control (which I've lost). etc, etc.

Under MacOS you are forced to do things the way Steve Jobs wants you to do them. With Linux you can do things whatever way you want to do them.

I can save you some money if you do the following: Instead of forcing yourself into doing things the way Steve Jobs wants you to do them, why not force yourself into doing things the way Mark Shuttleworth wants you to them? Install Ubuntu and keep the default GUI settings. Just resist the urge to tinker. I've found Ubuntu to have a better thought out user interface than MacOS.

Typing this from a MacBook Pro with Ubuntu. Just wish it had a pgdown, pgup, home, end, a second mouse button, more USB ports, a working audio in port, and especially DELETE key. I guess Steve Jobs never has to delete stuff that comes after the cursor so the Macbook Pro doesn't need it.

Re:Fonts are too small (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31182078)

I'm an experienced Linux user and I got a mac. Used MacOS for three months exclusively... never could get used to it.

It doesn't appear that you put any effort into it.

All MacOS does is remove the configuration options. So it forces you to get used it.

On the contrary, it lets you get straight to work, and when you run into specific Many of them, yes. None of your examples captures this notion. There are certain brick walls that you do have to get used to, but there are many layers of customization possible in almost everything. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single thing that I absolutely can't do from the OS X desktop that I can on Ubuntu.

The difference is that there are far, far fewer necessary configuration options to get started, which is a huge timesaver.

Every time I push F9 apps are in a different spot.

Only if you move them. The Exposé sequence is based on the position of the windows on your desktop. It's not random. If none of your windows move, the order won't change.

Under Ubuntu I just click on the item in the taskbar which is always on the screen and the task is always in the same spot

You could always try clicking on the application's icon in the Dock, which is always on the screen (unless you move it). Those icons don't move, either, unless you move them. Just like Exposé windows.

In MacOS I can cut and paste files to move them to a new folder.

I assume you mean can't. With good reason: it breaks the metaphor. When you cut text and fail to paste it, it disappears. That behavior is undesirable for files, so they just get put back where they were (unlike cut text). Finder is meant to be used with a mouse and multiple windows. There's always Terminal or third-party file managers that can be more Windows Explorer-like (Ubuntu's model) if that's your preference.

Moving isn't exactly difficult: just open up adjacent Finder windows and drag. Keyboard users can use mv in Terminal. If you really want to enable this functionality, it's trivial to implement in AppleScript, which you can assign to a keyboard shortcut. There's also Filecutter if you really just want the functionality restored.

I can't set keyboard shortcuts to change songs in iTunes, I have to use the little remote control (which I've lost)

This is the craziest one. There are about 19,000 different ways to set global keyboard shortcuts to switch back/forward in playlists in iTunes.

Just wish it had a pgdown, pgup, home, end,

Fn+left, right, up, down

a second mouse button

Oh come on. Two finger tap, control-click, buy a multi-button mouse.

a working audio in port

Care to elaborate?

and especially DELETE key.

Fn+delete is forward delete.

This is all pretty basic stuff that my kids managed. Certainly, no sophisticated Linux user could actually go three months without figuring all of those things out.

As a long-time Debian and Ubuntu user myself, I find it particularly comical that you think Ubuntu is well-thought-out. Configuration options are scattered about, the menubar has a truly bizarre default arrangement, and the application menu is far from complete. It's much more likely the case that "well thought out" means "the one I'm more familiar with".

There are some things that are just not customizable in OS X, it's true. But so much more of it is than you seem to realize, both internally and with third-party extensions. Additional features can always be added to suit users, as adding is easy, but you can't ever get less than the minimum. Just look at the Firefox disputes that erupt between the "I want a lean, clean browser...you can clutter it with add-ons and pages of configuration sheets if you like" crowd and the "where's my box that allows me to define the pixel-width of the address bar?" crowd.

Start simple and let users add what they personally like is a recipe that works. How about asking the question, "how can I do what I want?" One would think Steve Jobs is sitting in your den slapping your wrists. You knew the OS X aesthetic when you bought it. Expecting it to be something it has deliberately been designed not to be was a pretty foolish notion.

Re:Fonts are too small (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31182798)

Only if you move them. The Exposé sequence is based on the position of the windows on your desktop. It's not random. If none of your windows move, the order won't change.

Unless a window has opened or closed. If you now have an odd number of windows, then there is a significant chance that all of your windows have moved. If you now have an even number of windows, then at least the apps on the last line have moved.

You could always try clicking on the application's icon in the Dock, which is always on the screen (unless you move it). Those icons don't move, either, unless you move them.

Uh, the Dock is a gigantic failure in UI because it expands and contracts as new icons appear, representing new windows. Only if all the apps you use are pinned will the dock begin to work as you suggest, but every time you connect a removable device, insert a CD, or experience a popup window from the OS, everything in the Dock moves. So you are lying...

Just like Exposé windows.

Yes, just like you lied about those.

In MacOS I can cut and paste files to move them to a new folder.

I assume you mean can't. With good reason: it breaks the metaphor. When you cut text and fail to paste it, it disappears.

So what? Windows solves this fine by fading icons you've cut. Or maybe that's patented? Snicker.

Moving isn't exactly difficult: just open up adjacent Finder windows and drag.

Harder for some people with trouble using the mouse.

Keyboard users can use mv in Terminal.

Enjoy the lengthy Apple paths. Also, using mv breaks the metaphor (snicker #2) of directories-as-Apps-with-a-single-icon.

Linux with Compiz presents a superior interface to OSX because it does all the stuff OSX does but better and more configurable. I disabled my gnome-panel and use avant-window-navigator from the AWN testing team PPA, and I use compiz' hot corners to give me a live mipmapped view of my four virtual desktops in one corner, and to line up all my windows (again, mipmapped and nice and smooth) when I mouse to the other corner. And I get to retain all the keyboard-controlled goodness at the same time. OSX has somewhat smoother animations since Xgl was canned, and while we wait for a replacement to not suck, but I don't need the magic lamp effect to my dock. It is kind of nice, though, and I miss it a little. So I'll give OSX one consolation point.

Don't pretend that OSX's lack of configurability is an asset. It is not. Having one default behavior is valuable, but preventing choice is not a benefit to the user. It is a benefit to the company. And when people see my Compiz desktop, they start throwing rocks at actual macs. Of course, to be fair, when people see iLife, they start throwing rocks at Linux... but that's not because of the OS GUI.

Re:Fonts are too small (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31183166)

With good reason: it breaks the metaphor. When you cut text and fail to paste it, it disappears. That behavior is undesirable for files, so they just get put back where they were (unlike cut text).

In fact, shouldn't even the text cut function work just like the Windows "cut-and-paste-files"? The cut function should require a destination to be meaningful operation, otherwise the existence of the delete function would be meaningless.

Re:Fonts are too small (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31182702)

Uhm, command-tab switches between apps and command-tilde (~) switches between different windows in the same app. Depending on the revision of MBP F7 through F9 should control switching/pausing of music. Oh, fn+arrow keys will get you your home/end pgup/pgn too.

While I think your call on the delete/insert key is valid, the rest is just BS and/or FUD. You (apparently) spent a tidy sum on a macbook pro. Try actually using the OS provided. Steve Jobs/Mark Shuttleworth got nothing to do with it, a startling lack of adaptability, or lack of manual reading is more to blame.

Re:Fonts are too small (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31182786)

Under Ubuntu I just click on the item in the taskbar which is always on the screen and the task is always in the same spot

or, you could use wmjump:
http://freshmeat.net/projects/wmjump

or just Alt-tab, or any one of many other things

Re:Fonts are too small (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31182870)

"...and especially DELETE key."

The joy of linux is that you can edit a configuration file to easily repurpose the second superfluous enter key (the one for the number pad) to be delete, works marvellously for me.

Re:Fonts are too small (1)

Provocateur (133110) | more than 4 years ago | (#31183038)

...and the joy of E17 is you can have windows shade Left and shade right. Conkys and gkrellms can shade in the direction of the edge that they are close to. Also bound to a key.

The 2.5D does wonders on old hardware, but it came at a price: I miss E16's hi-quality snapshot pager. I tried going back, but the themes seem dated now. =(

Re:Fonts are too small (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 4 years ago | (#31183230)

It took me more than 3 years to really start warming up to linux. The command line isn't as powerful as it could be until you realize how you can string things together in shell scripts and really start taking advantage of it.

Under MacOS I have to push the F9, watch the pretty expose animation look around the screen, and then click on the app I want. Every time I push F9 apps are in a different spot. Under Ubuntu I just click on the item in the taskbar which is always on the screen and the task is always in the same spot (unless I reorder it by dragging it to a different spot in the taskbar). In MacOS I can cut and paste files to move them to a new folder. I can't set keyboard shortcuts to change songs in iTunes, I have to use the little remote control (which I've lost). etc, etc.

Yes, there was life before expose appeared on the Mac. I never use expose on Macs because there are other options that I have grown familiar with that work better for me because I am more organized. When you discover option-click, your life changes. Option click outside of an application window to hide it. Option click in the doc to hide current application as you go to the next one. It works insanely well, but most people like to exclusively rely on expose, or quibble about how they don't like expose.

People complain about a lock of options on Mac OS X when they haven't even explored the options they currently have. Many times options that Windows and Linux don't have.

Re:Fonts are too small (2, Interesting)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181670)

Editing text config files is common for fluxbox and E17 but Gnome, XFCE and KDE rarely if ever require config file editing to change settings. I would imagine that is a large part of why they are far far more popular than E17 and Fluxbox. People could dig into the config files if they have to but I agree that it's just a "frak it! no more fiddling!" moment for most people.

Re:Fonts are too small (2, Informative)

PeterKraus (1244558) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181878)

Where did you get this information from? GTK/Qt apps are guided by GTK/Qt DPI settings (there should be something for that - E has a DPI control, but I'm not sure what it does), but E has pretty good font-size management (for stuff like menus, titlebars etc), right in the System Settings -> Appearance -> Font tab. You just need to use a snapshot which is not ancient.

Re:Fonts are too small (1)

mathfeel (937008) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181932)

I'd imagine near-future ARMS device would be like somewhere from smart phone to netbook for which the manufacture/carrier/vendor would just change it to some sensible default setting.

TFA says they are doing this mostly because of ARMs video licensing problem. Still, kudo's to Ubuntu for recognizing that on a netbook a good 2D experience is more important than a full fetched 3D experiment . My Atom netbook, while runs compiz smoothly, currently uses awesome. On a small screen, you are probably going to have all your windows maximized anyway. Translucent windows only makes stuff very confusing.

Re:Fonts are too small (2, Informative)

dvlhrns (1681218) | more than 4 years ago | (#31182500)

That's just totally not true anymore. There are gui config dialogs for pretty much everything now.

Re:Fonts are too small (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#31182674)

I use E17 (on i386 and amd64). Settings -> Settings Panel -> Look -> Fonts. I can change font size.

Did they take that out for the Ubuntu/ARM release?

Re:Fonts are too small (2, Informative)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#31182828)

I've been running the E17 DR since ~2005 and that hasn't been true for quite some time. You do not need to edit config files, and in fact when you install E17 the first time it even has an option for a GUI specifically designed for Netbooks. Maybe the Ubuntu version is just broken.

Re:Fonts are too small (3, Informative)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#31180980)

There is no GUI option to change the font size in Enlightenment but there is a way to change the font size; it involves editing config files [soft32.com]. Although I should point out that Enlightenment puts a higher focus on having a light footprint than usability, it just doesn't seem to take it as far as Fluxbox does.

Re:Fonts are too small (5, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31180994)

What is this? A config file for ants? How can we expect to increase the font size if we can't event read the words?

Re:Fonts are too small (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181038)

I take it that you've never really used terminal commands much. Alt-Ctrl-Insert launches Eterm which you can then edit the relevant text files using nano, vi or whatever editor is your preference. If you do it right, it is possible to do all of this without the monitor even functioning let alone some small text. But yes it is somewhat of a pain in the arse for users not accustomed to working in a terminal by text commands alone.

Re:Fonts are too small (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181048)

it is possible to do all of this without the monitor even functioning

Who am I? Anne freaking Frank?

Re:Fonts are too small (1)

quixos (780763) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181074)

helen keller

Re:Fonts are too small (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31181114)

no, the light from the monitor alerts the nazis, he meant anne frank

Re:Fonts are too small (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181106)

No but my point is that editing a text file without being able to read the font used in the menus isn't the impossible task you seem to think it is. Everything you need to do the job has a shortcut for it. Opening a terminal, launching Nano, editing and saving said config files all can be done with text commands and keyboard shortcuts.

Re:Fonts are too small (2, Insightful)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181426)

The catch is that you need to KNOW these commands. I spend a lot of time in terminal personally, but I can think that someone who does not know will struggle.

Re:Fonts are too small (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31181822)

Super duper whoosh. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Re:Fonts are too small (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31181888)

Get off my lawn.

Re:Fonts are too small (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31183010)

Zoolander joke, dude.

Re:Fonts are too small (2, Interesting)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181316)

I should point out that Enlightenment puts a higher focus on having a light footprint than usability...

Funny you should say that - back in ~'97 or so I used to use Enlightenment as a WM with Gnome. In those days we all thought of it as a big badass resource-hungry monster. I never did get the hang of using Enlightenment as a full desktop environment, however. I have no problem with editing config files, but I never bothered spending the time learning how to get applications launched. Sort of defeats the object if you have to fire them up from an xterm... ;-)

Hopefully it's come along a bit since then.

Re:Fonts are too small (2, Informative)

the_womble (580291) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181538)

[quote]Hopefully it's come along a bit since then.[/quote]

The decided to rewrite it. They lost the cool overlapping desktops feature, and it i unusably immature.

It was always lightweight used as a DE. I never tried it with Gnome.

Re:Fonts are too small (1)

PeterKraus (1244558) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181906)

It works quite well, and in the last 3 years it's very stable - much more than KDE 4 series (or whatdyacallitnow) - and due to a clever exception management, most of the time it crashes, it keeps your apps open, and just restarts the window manager under them.

It works quite well with any app you throw at it, but i find the best alternative to be properly configured qtcurve themes - which are incredibly good at making gtk2 and qt3 / qt4 apps look the same.

Re:Fonts are too small (1)

PeterKraus (1244558) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181896)

Article from 2004? SERIOUSLY? The whole thing was rewritten twice ever since then... I don't think I've edited a single config file in the 3 years I'm using E17 day-to-day.

Re:Fonts are too small (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 4 years ago | (#31182126)

The fonts should be perfectly readable so long as your screen informs X of its physical dimensions, so X can work out the appropriate DPI setting...
Infact, the text should then be the same physical size regardless of resolution or screen size. The problem is that some laptop panels don't do this, so X cannot work out the DPI and uses a default, a default which is usable but not ideal for typical size CRT screens but unsuitable for very small netbook screens.

What is this, Fight club of Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31181088)

What is this, Fight club of Linux?

Your ARM is too short on resources, put you in standby mode before the battery dies.
*goes back in house*

I told you to shutdown, and yet you are still on with a message "prepairing for standby mode." It's not happening, you're not going to save your state-data before I shut you off to save my battery.
*goes back in house*

Your font-rendering engine is taking too much power! Shut off god damnit! Shut off, don't save my data to resume all nice and neat 10 minutes later from my bumping the power-on button! Shut-off!
*hits ARM pda with hand*

Replacement Warranty, check. Cites to the Warranty on conditions of replacement, check. Broken ARM pda to be covered by warranty for specific damages, check.
*breaks ARM*

Blame Ubuntu, not Enlightenment ! (4, Informative)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181444)

It's Ubuntu that package the whole thing and decide on the default font size.

E only plays the part of supplying the critically needed libraries.

It helps that... (1)

norpy (1277318) | more than 4 years ago | (#31180942)

It helps that they have some big corporate backing form the likes of Samsung

Re: Samsung isn't going to help them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31181076)

For all the rumbling about Ubuntu being visionary and unique, they are too late in this market. They may have an operating system that works well, but what big name brands really want is one of two things. They wont a drop in system that is universally accepted and useful; windows is a good example of this. Or they want an easily customizable base from which to make their own unique interface; Lenovo's skylight is a good example of this (based on Linux), so are all the 3rd party mods of Android.

Anyways, Ubuntu on it's own is just boring to device makers. Consumers don't know about it, and companies see that it gives them no edge: they would rather start from the ground up and market their product as a unique leap forward. In the era of the cloud, does binary compatibility really matter any more?

Grammar Fail (2, Informative)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | more than 4 years ago | (#31180964)

...for ARM based devices everybody that is so hot right now...

Yeah.. um... huh?

Re:Grammar Fail (1)

Fneb (1181615) | more than 4 years ago | (#31180984)

A grammatical issue left uncorrected in a /. post? How unexpected! :p

Re:Grammar Fail (2, Funny)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181842)

I'm willing to bet the error won't be in the dupe of this article, but it will be reentered in the dupe of that one.

No Compositing??? (1)

kWahab (1305699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31180970)

Who cares for inner beauty?

Re:No Compositing??? (5, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181066)

The problem with inner beauty is that it's usually hidden under several layers of outer ugly.

Re:No Compositing??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31182928)

Thank you for your contributions to transform the /. into :). I trust you will be here all week?

payed (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31180998)

"payed off"
"payed"

Go back to elementary school before you disgrace the English language further, kiddo.

Re:payed (3, Insightful)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181246)

well actually it's "paid off"...

one of my pet peeves is seeing "payed" instead of "paid" and "loose" instead of "lose.

Just because the spellchucker doesn't pick it up doesn't mean it's correct...

Re:payed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31182808)

Insightful?

Wasn't this exactly the GP's point? The editors fixed the grammatical error pointed out by the first post, but this glaring spelling error is still in the summary.

2.5d? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31181002)

Don't todays ARM devices come with an implementation of OpenGL 2.0 ES?

Re:2.5d? (3, Informative)

freedumb2000 (966222) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181176)

RTFA

For the lazy here is the relevant quote:

So what can we do about the 3D graphics licensing issue? Legally not very much. The companies that own the IP (Intellectual Property) rights to these drivers often want large licensing fees for their technology. This is a model for single product lines (take the Nokia N900 for instance) but for Ubuntu where we are targeting a more broad approach, this isn't ideal.

Well that's good news (3, Insightful)

Interoperable (1651953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181020)

I'm happy to see Enlightenment getting some more exposure. I may have to dust it off and take the latest version out for a spin again. I've been using XFCE for a year now and it's high time for an arbitrary switch to a new DE.

Re:Well that's good news (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181248)

I am running Illume (a version of Enlightenment) on my openmoko and developing applications [glitch.tl] for it. It took me a while to get going because many of the example applications are out of date and the APIs change quite fast. It doesn't help that documentation is either hard to find or non-existent. The toolkits are vulnerable to buffer overflows as well. Sometimes it is best just to stay off the heap while Elementary is starting up.

But once I got a few applications working I found enlightenment quite conducive to rapid application development.

Re:Well that's good news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31182002)

eheh... I've been using xfce for quite some time now as well but yesterday I switched to lxde+openbox. so far, so good ;)

Hot ARM netbook market? (0)

Nutria (679911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181044)

Really? Honestly? Or is it just media hype?

After all, most people want their Windows (and I want a 17" 4:3 monitor).

Re:Hot ARM netbook market? (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181100)

Really? Honestly? Or is it just media hype?

I think it's just a slashdot hype, as Linux runs on ARM and Windows doesn't so... I use Linux but honestly the competition is moving at about the same pace as Linux, the gap isn't closing much.

Re:Hot ARM netbook market? (1)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 4 years ago | (#31182176)

Windows CE runs on ARM. Developing for the two is very similar, they even have a .Net framework for it.

Re:Hot ARM netbook market? (1)

Rennt (582550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181178)

Where did you get netbook from? They were not mentioned in the summary nor in the article (NBR is mentioned - but that is device agnostic).

Pretty much everything smaller then a netbook runs ARM, and yes, many of them are considered "hot" items by real consumers, who don't seem to care about Windows in the slightest.

Re:Hot ARM netbook market? (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181402)

I dunno, I think if they start rolling out decently equipped ARM netbooks / laptops with around 15 hour real world battery life, anyone who's not a gamer would say "Screw Windows" real quick.

Re:Hot ARM netbook market? (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 4 years ago | (#31182108)

After all, most people want their Windows (and I want a 17" 4:3 monitor).

A 17" 4:3 monitor on a netbook or mobile-phone?

I like the way you think!

Re-check (2, Interesting)

BlackHawk-666 (560896) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181196)

I always liked Enlightenment, though found it impractical for getting things done. Might be time to take another look at it if it's seeing development work again.

not for long (2, Insightful)

smash (1351) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181276)

Given that even portable devices like the iphone and N95 onwards support openGL these days, I suspect that the "bet paying off" will be for an extremely limited time only.

Hardware will catch up in due course.

Re:not for long (4, Insightful)

tftp (111690) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181362)

Hardware will catch up in due course.

For each and every hardware that catches up and gives you $n hours of battery life there will always be hardware that chooses to not catch up, and as result gives you 2*$n hours of battery life.

Personally, I disable animations on every computer I use just because they are wasting my time. 3D effects are nice for a few minutes, but become irrelevant after that. The important part of a window is not its decorations, it's the client area.

Re:not for long (1)

Civil_Disobedient (261825) | more than 4 years ago | (#31182596)

Animation can add another level of context to the user interface. For instance, status messages with fading background colors (made popular by 37Signals with their Yellow-Fade Technique [37signals.com])--that's animation, but it's used subtly, sparingly and appropriately, so it gets a pass.

The places where it is simply unforgivable to use animation is in scroll effects, form fields or menu items. I always end up using nLite [nliteos.com] when I reinstall an operating system because it lets you create new installs that have all that CRAP turned off. It's astonishing how much snappier your computer feels.

Re:not for long (2, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181482)

On Linux I think it'll be a bit longer, because 3d drivers, especially free ones that can be shipped out of the box, continue to lag behind actual hardware support.

Re:not for long (4, Informative)

xcomputer_man (513295) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181508)

Your comment would make sense if EFL/E17 did not already support OpenGL ES on embedded devices. Illume, the E17 variant designed for mobile/embedded devices, already runs quite well with hardware/OpenGL acceleration on platforms like Maemo, and I already have built and successfully run EFL-based OpenGL apps on the Palm Pre (available in the WebOS Internals WIDK tree [webos-internals.org]).

Evas was designed from the ground up to be modular and support every graphics platform known to man. Windows GDI, DirectX, iPhone OS, X11, WebOS, native Linux Framebuffer, SDL, OpenGL, OpenGL ES - you name it, EFL runs on it. Evas will take advantage of hardware acceleration when it is available, but benchmarks actually show that in many instances, when it comes to regular UI graphics operations, OpenGL/hardware accelerated interfaces don't necessarily perform better than Evas' own software engine and in several cases are actually worse -- on the Palm Pre, for example, GLES is actually much slower at doing things like alpha blending. So in that respect, yes, hardware does have some catching up to do.

cant wait.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31181344)

to try this on my zipit! lol

back in 1995 (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31181734)

i remeber it for having the ugliest theme ever.

Re:back in 1995 (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#31182598)

And it had some of the best - including the ones Rob Malda did before he started Slashdot.
A lot of the people here on day one came here via his ePlus and themes page.

Option for the N900? (2, Interesting)

misterduffy (1541019) | more than 4 years ago | (#31182158)

It's no secret that Maemo isn't exactly allowing the N900 to spread it's wings - perhaps having other OS options such as Ubuntu would let more developers in the door. I know Maemo's Debian base isn't exactly an alienating factor for developers but, given Ubuntu's current prevalence, it opens a few more doors competition-wise.

Would be somewhat indicting of Nokia's choice of OS should an alternative, indepdent platform take off though!

Brushed Metal FTW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31182240)

Back in the days E was cool beyond imagination because of its cool effects. Would it stand up against modern desktop environments, since cool animations and such are passé?

I also remember Gooseman demoing some sort of übercanvas for E, that never really took off...

And finally, Brushed Metal, the enlightenment theme that was copied absolutely all over the place, FTW!

Englightenment on my Acer 3694 (1)

ed (79221) | more than 4 years ago | (#31182246)

I bought a second hand Acer Aspire 3694, shoved a bigger HDD in it and installed MacPup, a Puppy Linux Puplet that has Englightenment as its Window Manager

It is smooth, pretty and fast.
i'd licke to see it actively continue, it is a great way to get decent eye candy on older machines

Holy smokes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31182698)

Too much of this already. For the love of sweet Lordy Lord, it's "paid", not "payed". Hell, while we're at it, it's "no one", never "noone".

I still use e16 on my primary machine (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 4 years ago | (#31182984)

I've tried several times to "move on" to the next WM, be it compiz or e17, or maybe even lxde, but I keep coming back to e16 because, well, it works. It's the only compositing WM I know that updates the pager with the actual contents of the screen using, well, compositing (compiz doesn't really have a pager, and awn, gnome-panel, etc. use polling instead of compositing). Compiz is nice, but still crashes often and unexpectedly, and still runs noticeably slower even when I have most of the plugins turned off.

The only other WMs I fall back to on occasion are WindowMaker, which is beautifully simple, functional, but old with respect to features like compositing (gotta have truly transparent gnome-terminals :P ) and I miss not having a nice pager or sane panel or fullscreen handling. The other is icewm, which works great for VNC sessions from small devices, though I suppose lxde might be a good replacement for it eventually.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...