Slashdot Mirror
The Multi-Pointer X server
worufu writes "Some weeks after releasing the MPX (Multi-Pointer X Server), the Linux world slowly seems to draw attention to the project which opens up the limits of simultaneous input devices of the current X server. The future possibities are unlimited and I cannot wait to see some nice applications supporting the advantages of multiple input devices.
From the project description: 'The Multi-Pointer X Server is an enhanced X server to support multiple mice. It provides users with one cursor per device. Each cursor can operate independently. A multicursor windowing system allows two-handed interaction with legacy applications, but also the creation of innovative applications and user interfaces.'"
From the project description: 'The Multi-Pointer X Server is an enhanced X server to support multiple mice. It provides users with one cursor per device. Each cursor can operate independently. A multicursor windowing system allows two-handed interaction with legacy applications, but also the creation of innovative applications and user interfaces.'"
another way i can be at the computer, and yet someone can come up and steal it away from --
... when Microsoft will "innovate" this.
Why, yes! I AM new here.
if they made X natively support more than 3 mouse buttons. Or if X could automatically detect usable refresh rates/screen resolutions for my monitor.
What an excellent way to make every toolkit vulnerable to thousands of race conditions ;)
You can probably crash 99% of all X11 applications using two pointers
Couldn't this cause problems with legacy apps that assume that there is only one mouse pointer? I don't know about you, but I usually that onMouseOut is called when there is no mouse pointer over an object. I usually do not keep track of the number of mouse pointers in that instance. Then again, mouse overs are tend to be used for minor things like highlighting buttons the mouse is over.
Centralization breaks the internet.
Well, I think you're on the right track here.
In user interfaces, we basically assume that the computer interacts with one person at a tim But real world scenarios, two or more people can work on the same thing at the same time, or on different parts of the same thing, or on different things in the same space then put them together. But it's not possible to do this naturally on a single computer.
The key I think will to be to find the right metaphor, without being excessively literal. In the Desktop metaphor, windows are really like sheets of paper that can be shuffled around. I remember seeing this for the first time, and there was a tremendous sense that this would liberate us from a lot of artificial limitations. But sheets of paper aren't resizable, and don't have scroll bars. Many times in the early years, attempts were made to make the metaphor literal, showing a representation of a desk with file drawers, papers on top, and desk accessories like clocks and calculators. These attempts at literalism turned out to be a waste of space and time, and the metaphor was pared down to its barest essential: a two dimensional surface on which things can be arranged.
The shared computer is an important evolutionary step, but there are going to be a lot of missteps created by excessive literalism, until the fundamental transformation takes place in peoples' heads.
Two trends are going to unite in the future: the continued reduction in size and cost of computing hardware, and the continued increase in ubiquity and affordability of wireless networking. I see the end result, some time in the next twenty-five to fifty years, as this: the computer as we know it will no longer be the primary interface of human beings to information processing technology. By this I mean your grand children won't routinely carry laptops and PDAs, any more than you carry a riding crop. Instead, we will have computer enhanced environments in which people work in a natural and shared way. Interfaces will be heterogenous, from large wall sized screens or interactive tabletops, goggles that computer enhance vision (e.g. overlaying an animation on top of the copy machine to show how to unjam it), and countless sensors.
Naturally these environments will be shared, otherwise they aren't really environments.
This Multi-Pointer technology doesn't get us there, but it enables some steps in the right direction.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Really? I've heard of computers that can be used by more than one person at a time; they're called servers. Also, CVS and other change management systems allow two people to be working on different parts of the same thing, or different things and then put them together.
This is right on the money, and it's insightful comments like these that convince me to put you on my friends list ;) That being said, I think the problem is that we have been held back by the desktop metaphor that was developed perhaps too early. I mean, a server with SSH does shared computing perfectly; a desktop with a GUI, not so much, mainly because when the desktop metaphor was designed, you could only have one mouse and one keyboard.
My ultimate point is, I'm glad to see this happening, and I'm not surprised to see it come from the OSS/UNIX world. We've had multi-user text shells mastered for a while now, it's only natural to move onto GUIs/desktops. Windows and Mac have always focused on the "mememe" single egotistical user, and their interfaces (not to mention security) have suffered because of it. Now, here we have true innovation, yet again from the open source world. To all those naysayers who say that open source merely copies Windows and Mac, I say "how many users can your desktop support?".
Nathan's blog