There is no way to have fake transparency with compositing

[GoogleCodeExporter]

You are probably wondering why would I want such a thing, when tint2 auto 
detects compositing manager and enables true transparency if one is active. 
Well, when it comes to Openbox, using compositing means using xcompmgr, which 
is buggy to say the least. One way of using xcompmgr is by adding -a parameter 
to it, which enables compositing but disables all it's effects (and all it's 
bugs in the process). However, tint2 detects this as composite manager running, 
and enables true transparency which is not supported by xcompmgr in this mode - 
thus tint2 remains solid color.

One way to circumvent this is by commenting out the condition line which 
enables true transparency and leave only the fake transparency code, but this 
is not exactly handy. An option to override this (enable fake transparency with 
compositing) would be nice.

Thanks,

karabaja4

Original issue reported on code.google.com by karaba...@gmail.com on 29 Dec 2010 at 11:38

• Merged into: #439

[GoogleCodeExporter]

tint2 already have to much parameters for my taste. 
most users can't manage/understand all of them.

In your case, adding a new parameter isn't the good solution.
Did you try to post bugs report to xcompmgr ? 
Or try another composite manager (like cairo-compmgr) ...

Original comment by thilo...@gmail.com on 29 Dec 2010 at 12:09

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Unfortunately xcompmgr hasn't seen much development for quite some time, so 
posting (obvious) bugs isn't really a way to go...

The only reason I'm using compositing manager is to have compositing enabled on 
Openbox for improved (CPU wise) rendering, not for it's effects. As for 
cairo-compmgr, I'll have to take a closer look on how it performs.

About your dilemma about too many options, I think it's always better to have 
as much options as possible - that's the thing that makes open software great, 
the possibility of choice. As last resort, you can always have option 
un-documented, but that's not really a solution is it..

Anyway, it's up to you. I'm not really bothered by this as it's only a minor 
tweak to the source code. I just thought it would be a nice addon :)

Original comment by karaba...@gmail.com on 29 Dec 2010 at 12:27

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by thilo...@gmail.com on 6 Jan 2011 at 11:37

• Added labels: Type-Enhancement
• Removed labels: Type-Defect

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by mrovi9...@gmail.com on 21 Jan 2015 at 11:59

• Changed state: Duplicate