Talk:Mutter (software)

Performance

Why do I have to explain to some random noob (at least compared to me) that unfunded comments by Mark Shuttleworth are not of encyclopedic relevance? He is neither a benchmarking expert, nor did he consult any experts on that topic.

The sole reason for that comment is to advertise Unity with Compiz over GNOME Shell with Mutter and Wikipedia is not the place for such childish games. If the current version of Mutter has performance flaws, they should be mentioned with proper benchmarks as sources (and including proof that it's Mutter's fault, not the result of a buggy driver).

Oh, and Mr. Wildfox, don't lecture me on giving edit summaries. I did and the edit summary is still valid. The Shuttleworth comment as it stands has to go because it is in no way encyclopedic, especially considering that in your extended section's reference Compiz is shown to be hit by exactly the same performance hit. Both Mutter and Compiz performed very equally there (the Phoronix benchmark is 1 year old, btw). --KAMiKAZOW (User talk:KAMiKAZOW) 23:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The personal attack part of the comment above is answered at talk.

For the Unity desktop environment of Ubuntu, Mark Shuttleworth claimed Mutter simply couldn't deliver acceptable performance.

The Shuttleworth remark is encyclopaedic because (notably) Unity was ported from Mutter to Compiz, with the reason given being that remark. (more info is available at the "unreliable" source [1]). I have attempted to provide balance to that remark by providing independent benchmarking. So, according to WP:NPOV, "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. " Shuttleworth's is a significant view, published in a reliable source, and is in fact used in the Unity article. It seems to me that blanking this referenced material breaks NPOV. Comments from other editors? Widefox (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

References

What about moving this to "Mutter"?

Currently, Mutter is assigned to one of the albums of German band Rammstein. However, I think when people look for Mutter in WP, they will probably rather mean the recent (and not obsolete, mind you!) GNOME window manager. Just a thought. -andy 77.190.60.205 (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Rammstein is more relevant than a GNOME software component only us geeks even know by name (since GNOME Mutter is not publicly advertised by the GNOME project – it does not even have a proper website). --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Article structure

At the moment, (Special:Permalink/614334362) the article contains an ugly == Features == section, with the subsection === Mutter 3.14 === which contains noteworthy features added to the Mutter 3.13.x development version. Once 3.14 is out, the information (with the references) should be transformed into some nice prose text. It would also be nice, to take info from earlier releases and do the same. So DO NOT delete this, it serves as foundation to make this a good article. User:ScotXW^t@lk 08:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I renamed "Features" to "Development" and stripped "Mutter 3.14" heading. Having "Features" section is OK, and would be benefitial for this article. Still, such section should speak of features of stable releases, not development snapshots (which are odd-versioned releases of Mutter). I would also note that the whole section needs rewrite – it consists of disconnected statements, mostly [un]organized in one-sentence paragraphs. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)