[arch-general] [OT?] Which is most future-proof desktop environment?

[Maarten de Vries]

On 30 December 2015 at 14:47, Leonid 'Beef Marsala' Isaev <
leonid.isaev at jila.colorado.edu> wrote:

>
> Sorry, I meant stacking as well. And it's not about the looks (a good WM is
> anyway customizable), but the internals. For example, what do you mean by
> lightweigth? If it is something that uses system resources efficiently and
> alows you to disable unnecessary bloat, then we agree. But this also
> implies
> that you'd like to use graphics card to render windows, not CPU.
>
> AFAIU, jwm et al. can't do that w/o a standalone compositor. So, if you
> compare
> them to xfwm, bring xcompmgr or compton as well... otherwise the
> comparison is
> not fair.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Leonid Isaev
> GPG fingerprints: DA92 034D B4A8 EC51 7EA6  20DF 9291 EE8A 043C B8C4
>                   C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE  775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D
>

​Lack of compositing has nothing to do with rendering on CPU or GPU.
Applications can still get an opengl context and render things. Compositing
simply means that the applications wont be rendering to a directly visible
buffer but to a buffer that is used by the compositor. That way it can add
effects and eye candy.​ If anything, lack of compositing will increase
performance by cutting out the middleman and having applications render
directly to a visible buffer.

-- Maarten