Slashdot Mirror

But on the other hand, the real Gnome Foundation seems to be doing fine.

The article mentions Viso, and rational rose both of which are expensive windows programs. So does that mean cash strapped geeks are forced to use a windows box, download a crack and use that? No. There are good alternatives that are free and don't need windows. The first one that comes to mind is Gnome's DIA.

To quote Gnomes web site "DIA is a drawing program, designed to be much like the commercial Windows program 'Visio'. It can be used to draw various different kinds of diagrams. In this first version there is support for UML static structure diagrams (class diagrams), databases, circuit objects, flowcharts, network diagrams and more."

Another option is Argo UML which is also free and programmed in java Argo

Open/Star Office isn't doing the easy stuff yet its miles away from the hard stuff like OLE and Macros with VBA calls.

If you want OLE-stye operation, try gobeProductive. I presume you're under Windows, because you speak of OLE, which is good because the Linux port isn't really stable yet. gobeProductive is wetter than the wettest dreams of Microsoft's OLE development teams in terms of smooth integration.

As to the VB macros, no, thank you: I'll take the rusty spike in the ear instead. If you wanted to do that, you could hammer GnomeBASIC* into OOo and have a winner. I'd rather have Ruby, or failing that Python, and there are reprobates out there with a PERL fetish.

If you want Office macros to be useful elsewhere, I'd suggest throwing lots of money at Michael Kohn and asking him to write a OfficeBasic-to-ScriptingLingoOfYourChoice translator.

* I was a little miffed that they didn't call it something like Gnome Windowing BASIC so we could have a useful GeeWhizBASIC again.

Although I stubornly refuse to work with RedHat after another one of their famous progressive actions, I think this one is from a different nature.
Unfortunately, I just admit, John Doe wants a simular look and feel for all the machines he is working on. Just try to explain the concept of Window Managers, and the layered structure (OS/X/WM).
Most ppl work with a "computer" and start a browser and some office program, they really do not care what it is running (but the sysadmins do). With Mozilla and OpenOffice.org, GNU/Linux finally seems to have mature solutions for this (FS/OS). For the first time in years (ever since the demise of WP), a user has again a choice what software to use for his/her "productivity" tasks with these mature solutions.
The only confusing thing is the desktop which has so many looks and feels. Imagine a secretary, used to work with KDE, working on a replacement machine and needs to start Mozilla in windowmaker
We should not see this as an attack on KDE of Gnome, but as a move to a common interface, at least for the non expert users. For the rest of us, we will keep starting several X servers with multiple window managers and compiling and packaging them from CVS.
I guess it's a corporate geek reflex that we do not like meddling with our software, but is general and widespread use (albeit eclectic with the best of the best) not the best recognition?

Hehehe, some companies, though few and between, are already moving to other OS'es. Microsoft seems to be charging too much to middle sized and small companies for their upgrades to WinXP and licenses.

I'm happy to say that I've been charged with the task of looking for a viable desktop alternative to Microsofts infamous Windows, as long as some of the functionality remains available.

My first instinct was to grab my debian CD and start installing, but to be honest Mac OS X is a tad more userfriendly than Gnome or KDE is (IMHO).

The great thing about it all is that most of these companies want to migrate away from Microsoft products completely, including Outlook and Exchange. Most of the customers I've talked to are happy with the horde demonstration I give them (though it is still lacking certain features), but thanks to fink promoting Evolution shouldn't be too much of a problem, once the gnome tree is updated to 2.0.

My advice: let it kill itself. If the smaller companies decide that this is a good move, perhaps the larger ones will follow trend. Many people are mad about the outrageous licensing prices, and they're looking for alternatives with great intrest. Steering them in the right direction and continuing development on open source projects will eventually show them that there are very viable alternatives.

is why Linus is the man, and you people are just chumps.

Apple's Steve Jobs got last year's mightiest pay package, valued by FORTUNE at $381 million. (For the purposes of calculating his 2000 package, we have valued his monstrous options grant at one-third the exercise price of the shares optioned. And, of course, we've included the $90 million Gulfstream the Apple board gave him.) How big is that? The last time the public got furious over CEO pay was in 1992, when reports of huge numbers for 1991 sparked a flurry of reform efforts. Yet the 14 highest-paid CEOs then, including such legendary mega-earners as Coca-Cola's Roberto Goizueta, Philip Morris' Hamish Maxwell, GE's Welch, and ITT's Rand Araskog, together earned less than Steve Jobs did last year all by himself (even without the plane!). Yes, it's true that Jobs has paid himself only $1 a year since he returned to Apple as CEO in 1997. And, yes, he deserves to be rewarded--handsomely--for bringing Apple back from the dead. But still ...

Patient: Doctor... I seem to have a problem with my teeth.
Doctor: Yes, what is it?
Patient: I have his nagging pain here, is there anything you can do?
Doctor: Let me see... HOLY CRAP! (cough) Well uh... let me put it to you straight. You seem to have a Gnome stuck inbetween your teeth. I'd get the FLOSS out, but I don't think it'd help your problem. Perhaps we should knock your teeth out and replace them all with KDE bridges.

Have you tried out the latest Redhat Beta (Limbo 2)? It's visually amazing, and the fonts look great. I think that you'll be surprised when you take a look, a default setup looks so good that I didn't even feel the need to install the MS fonts.

The XFT rendering that you'll see in Gnome 2 is extremely nice. Download the beta, you'll be pleasantly surprised -- the installer will blow your mind too... Alternately, try installing Garnome (an easy way to get Gnome 2 running on your existing box).

I'm sure there are things which spreadsheets can't handle well. Off the type of my head I can think of derivatives, integration, and solving simultaneous equations.

The one thing that I have found lacking in most spreadsheets is an easy way to fit curves to data sets. This is pretty glaring omission, given that you have both the data sets and a graphing tool in most spreadsheets. But then, I suppose that curve fitting is an alien concept to most of the financial world (though, I would think, statisticians might have some use for it).

A quick browse, however, through the Gnumeric Manual indicates that it has a linear solver and a host of statistical tools, which should allow you build almost any other numerical analysis tool you want.

Now, if you want to get symbolic results from a spreadsheet, you are probably screwed. But there are other tools that are better suited to such tasks than spreadsheets.

I'm sure there are things which spreadsheets can't handle well. Off the type of my head I can think of derivatives, integration, and solving simultaneous equations.

The one thing that I have found lacking in most spreadsheets is an easy way to fit curves to data sets. This is pretty glaring omission, given that you have both the data sets and a graphing tool in most spreadsheets. But then, I suppose that curve fitting is an alien concept to most of the financial world (though, I would think, statisticians might have some use for it).

A quick browse, however, through the Gnumeric Manual indicates that it has a linear solver and a host of statistical tools, which should allow you build almost any other numerical analysis tool you want.

Now, if you want to get symbolic results from a spreadsheet, you are probably screwed. But there are other tools that are better suited to such tasks than spreadsheets.

I'm sure there are things which spreadsheets can't handle well. Off the type of my head I can think of derivatives, integration, and solving simultaneous equations.

The one thing that I have found lacking in most spreadsheets is an easy way to fit curves to data sets. This is pretty glaring omission, given that you have both the data sets and a graphing tool in most spreadsheets. But then, I suppose that curve fitting is an alien concept to most of the financial world (though, I would think, statisticians might have some use for it).

A quick browse, however, through the Gnumeric Manual indicates that it has a linear solver and a host of statistical tools, which should allow you build almost any other numerical analysis tool you want.

Now, if you want to get symbolic results from a spreadsheet, you are probably screwed. But there are other tools that are better suited to such tasks than spreadsheets.

at-poke can do this for gtk+-2.0 (maybe also for other libs using atk, not sure)
at-poke README
at-poke in GNOME CVS

at-poke can do this for gtk+-2.0 (maybe also for other libs using atk, not sure)
at-poke README
at-poke in GNOME CVS

If you want Open Source politics, you might want to look at organizations like the
Apache (www.apache.org/foundation),
Gnome (foundation.gnome.org), and
Python (www.python.org/psf) Foundations.
I worked on the Jabber Software Foundation
(http://www.jabber.org/jsf.html) for a while. We developed special interest groups and and an enhancement proposal system based on similar things at Gnome and Python. There is a Jabber Council for which elections are currently underway that form a main decision-making body for Jabber. I put together a piece based on my experience advocating establishing an Open Corporation for your efforts. Still, benevelent dicatorship still has a lot to be said for it, though.

pieces like XFree86 4.2.0 (out since January) failed to make this release, yet candy like Gnome 1.4 made it.

You are confused. Gnome 1.4 has been out since around April 2001. See this message to the gnome list

To describe interfaces make mockups of them using two very nice tools:

For GTK/Gnome GUIs

For QT/KDE

Mono has nothing to do with GNOME. If you'd do your research you'd realize that they are seperate projects and that the rumors that GNOME is going to be based on .NET are just that -- rumors. There are some people that are involved in both projects, however, the GNOME project has come out and said they currently have no plans to move to MONO or .NET any time soon. Maybe someday, who knows? But they are SEPERATE projects. Read Miguel de Icaza's own reply to this idea.

Besides, have you ever looked at the MONO project? They're doing some really impressive stuff. You probably shouldn't write it off just because you're afraid of M$. I'm a java programmer and an avid Linux user, however, there are some features of C# and the .NET framework that are really nice. What's more, unlike Sun, M$ has given their language and technology up to be standardized. In that sense, it's more free than Java.

Isn't that exactly what GConf does?

Easy - here

Confronting the KDE propaganda machine.

The KDE project is famous for its funded and organised trolling of weblogs and message board associated with Linux and Free software/open source. Outrageous newbie impressing claims are made for the software and huge quanities of FUD are spread to destroy competitors. If this sounds familiar, then you are correct, most of these tactics were lifted straight from Microsoft's arsenal of dirty tricks. The Windows look and feel is not the only thing the KDE project has copied! In this short article I will address some of the lies and FUD spread by the KDE trolling teams. It is my hope that this, in some small way, will redress the balance and re-introduce two things almost eradicated by the KDE project: Honesty and facts.

• Myth #1 - KDE is more integrated than GNOME

  The oft-heard cry of the noisiest KDE advocates. No explanation is given, the reader is expected to simply grok the wholesomeness of KDE and the lack of this mystical quality in GNOME. It is nonsense of course. Neither desktop is particularly "integrated" compared to Windows XP, and certainly not compared any version of the Apple Mac. Whatever "integrated" actually means.

• Myth #2 - KDE is easier to use

  Again, such nebulous arguments are never explained, and the reader is expected to simply understand the truth of the zealots statement. Both KDE and GNOME have user-interface irritations (all systems do), but "ease of use" is not a simple thing to measure. KDE has never been subjected to detailed user testing, unlike GNOME, and the claims of user-friendliness are from crazed supporters and not average users. Furthermore, the KDE faithful rarely look beyond simple-minded copying of Windows, and forget that administering a desktop system is just as important as having widgets in the correct place on the toolbar. For example: What about application installation and removal? GNOME has the excellent RedCarpet by Ximian, which makes the installation, removal and updating of applications trivial. KDE users are expected to fend for themselves with brutal command line driven systems. GNOME also has the excellent Ximian setup tools to handle various tricky cross-platform and potentially risky system configuration operations. KDE offers none of this, only a few small and lame Linux-only tools, which make no attempt at check-pointing to return to known working configurations.

• Myth #3 - KDE is more popular

  In what sense? Arguably more people use KDE, but it is a close run thing. Most KDE zealots use the results of online polls as proof of their superior userbase - which is, quite frankly, complete and utter nonsense. Online polls are the joke of the century; it doesn't even require a motivated script kiddie to render then worthless. A single post alerting the faithful on a zealot-ridden site can skew the result so much it makes American presidential elections look fair and well organised. Popularity is also difficult to measure when *both* GNOME and KDE are frequently installed on the same system. The systems can co-exist and even run at the same time, except for certain applications such as panels. Many KDE users actually run GNOME applications for their superior features and stability, not realising that by doing so they are barely running KDE at all.

  One of the few solid measures of popularity is commercial use of a desktop, and here, GNOME is far ahead with both Hewlett Packard and Sun committing to using GNOME as the desktop for their Unix systems. This also ties in with the previously mentioned ease of use. Sun's major contribution to the GNOME project is in the areas of user/developer documentation, testing, accessiblity and user-testing. Three of the less glamourous parts of desktop development. The arrival of the GNOME 2.x series will see these contributions reach fruitition and allow GNOME to make a quantum leap ahead of KDE in most of the basic computer/user issues.

• Myth #4 - Konqueror is the best Linux browser

  Oh for a penny every time this lie is told in any KDE story! Konqueror not a bad piece of software. It's authors deserve praise for the work done on it. However, the sheer amount of orgasmic gushing by the KDE faithful is completely out of proportion to its actual quality. It is quite unreliable and even simple standards compliant pages can crash it quite comprehensively. It is also lax in its support of basic web standards compared to either Mozilla or Opera. It is also extremely slow - much slower than the latest incarnations of the GNOME Nautilus filemanager/browser (a target of much KDE FUD during its development).

• Myth #5 - KDE applications are better/more advanced than GNOME ones due to the ease of developing in C++ using the Qt toolkit

  This is the most common wail heard by KDE developers, and yet it is easily disproved by looking at the actual applications for GNOME/GTK and KDE/Qt. KDE applications often have larger version numbers than GNOME ones... an old trick played by commerical software developers. Most KDE apps seem to jump for 1.x releases long before they are ready - KOffice being the best example. None of the components in Koffice are worthy of a 1.0 release, let alone 1.1 or 1.2.

  GNOME applications get a good deal more testing in their 0.x stages, and despite shorter development phases they mature and reach stable featureful release versions much more quickly. Some examples of this are: the superb Evolution (groupware/email), Gnumeric (spreadsheet), Pan (newsreader), The GIMP (image manipulation), Abiword (word processing), RedCarpet, X-Chat (IRC client), XMMS (media player), Galeon (web browser), and for developers: Glade and Anjuta. All of these packages ooze quality, and far outclass their KDE counterparts. It is no understatement to say that GNOME is at least 18 months ahead of KDE in applications, and pulling still further ahead.

  It's not just in the area of user applications that GNOME is vastly more advanced. With the forthcoming 2.x release, a number of impressive behind the scenes technologies will finally mature: component technology (bonobo), media (Gstreamer), internationalisation (pango). As a developement platform, GNOME 2.x is, conservatively, 2-3 years ahead of KDE. And what is more, because it is not tied to a lowest common denominator cross-platform bloat-fest like the Qt toolkit, the lead (as with applications) can only increase further.

  It is also worth noting that GNOME also develops code for use outside the project (see the XML libraries as one example) - the KDE project rarely (if ever) engages in this kind of work. KDE developers ensure that all software must link with Qt, and hence tie it closely with the Qt toolkit preventing re-use and enhancing the value of TrollTech intellectual property.

  
  Yet despite all this, we are still regularly fed the lie that Qt and C++ makes application and desktop development easier. Judge for yourself.

• Myth #6 - KDE is faster and takes less memory than GNOME

  KDE is written in C++. While this is not necessarily a problem, it can be when Visual Basic reject programmers (which the KDE project is overrun with) do not know enough to avoid important pitfalls that plague C++ software projects. Stupid use of autoincrementing operators and iteration with C++ objects; and masses of unnecessary allocations and deallocations of memory are two of the most common. KDE suffers badly from both problems.

  Perhaps the most cretinous of all problems is blaming the extremely slow startup times of KDE apps on GCC. The GNOME 1.x releases were hardly svelt (2.x fixes many of these issues - in fact, GNOME 2 is significantly faster with fewer resources than previous version, a feat quite beyond the KDE project), but GNOME is a fashion cat-walk superwaif when compared to KDE's 500lb fat-momma cheese-burger scoffing trailer trash. One need only look at the recent fuss over ugly KDE hacks (such as prelinking) used to bandage up the design and coding flaws in the decrepit KDE architecture to see the truth.

• Myth #7 - GNOME development is slower. KDE releases faster.

  Fundamental misunderstanding. The KDE project releases as one big lump of code due to its use of C++ and the many problems this causes with libraries. The project bumps the version number of the entire KDE system for the smallest modifications. GNOME, on the other hand is componentized and each component releases on a (almost) separate schedule, bumping it's own version number but not the main GNOME version (1.4, for example). Occasional releases of the entire GNOME system happen, and that's when the GNOME version number is bumped (currently it is at 1.4). To see this in action, use RedCarpet and you will regular updates to GNOME components. GNOME development is not slower, it is in fact faster and more advanced. Lamers and newbies, however, fail to understand the advantages of this method and just see KDE 1.1.1 followed a few weeks later by KDE 1.1.2. Wow! KDE roolz.
  
  Perhaps the greatest example of KDE release games occured with the recent KDE 3.0 release. In a desperate race to beat GNOME 2.0 to, the KDE team did not put back their schedule in the middle of a late release freeze when they suddenly added lots of new features - and, as expected, this has proved to be disasterous. KDE 3.0 is the worst KDE release yet in terms of reliablity - and is essentially early beta software put out as a stable release. Compare this with GNOME, which has had a number of betas and quality assurance procedures leading up to the eventual release of GNOME 2.0. The difference in approach is obviously due to the ultimate destinations of the systems and the vastly more experienced developers behind GNOME. GNOME is heading for commerical use on Sun and HP desktops, and hence requires commericial release quality. While KDE is destined for the porn and MP3 boxes of noisy advocates who don't mind huge numbers of crashes while waiting for KDE 3.0.0.4 to fix issues overlooked in the mindless rush to release. Quality control is an afterthought to the KDE project - the version number and releasing first are everything.

• Myth #8 - The Qt toolkit is cross-platform and yet takes advantage of each individual platform

  The Qt toolkit (the software at the heart of KDE) is supposedly a cross-platform toolkit allowing the lucky developer the opportunity to write Windows/Linux/Mac software all at once. And yet, among the magical mythical claims made, the most nonsensical is that it makes applications which take advantage of the distinct features of the different platforms. This is of course, nonsense. Qt is a bloated, slow layer that is slapped over a native system's APIs in an attempt to make all the systems look alike. It no more takes advantage of Linux/Windows/Mac than Java does - in fact it offers many of the disadvantages of Java with few of the advantages. If you have ever wondered why the KDE desktop looks so much like Windows... you need look no further than Qt. Qt is a lowest common denominator toolkit, and that LCD is Windows - Trolltech's, the creator of Qt, real market.

• Myth #9 - TrollTech is a friend of Free software

  To Be Written. Ideas: Qt started out as non-Free. KDE developers knew this violated the GPL, didn't care, stole others' GPL code by porting it to link (in violation of the license) with Qt and are therefore untrustworthy. KDE core developers work for TrollTech. Expensive per developer licensing for writing closed-source with Qt, and hence KDE. Trolltech only moved towards the GPL because of the success of GNOME. Labyrinthine licensing nightmare (3 licenses to deal with). Gradual migration of features belonging in KDE into Qt (and so into TrollTech's IP portfolio), allowing easy porting of apps to the revenue generating Windows world (see TheKompany for a perfect example), thereby making KDE an irrelevant launcher of Qt applications. Claims made that Qt is GPL, while true, hide the real truth. There cannot be a real fork of Qt for the KDE project: Core developers work for Trolltech; any fork would need to be full GPL and hence ban any closed-source apps from KDE altogether (all KDE apps must link with Qt); Any commerical licensees of Qt (non-GPL) would and could only follow TrollTech. KDE is stitched up good and proper.

• Myth #10 - KDE is more than attractive, but GNOME/GTK is ugly

  To be Written. Ideas: Mosfet liquid theme is an ugly and unstable hack. GNOME GTk icons are better thought-out and of a far higher quality than the poorly drawn and cartoonish and confusing KDE ones. Qt is basically a Windows-look on a Unix platform.

Confronting the KDE propaganda machine.

The KDE project is famous for its funded and organised trolling of weblogs and message board associated with Linux and Free software/open source. Outrageous newbie impressing claims are made for the software and huge quanities of FUD are spread to destroy competitors. If this sounds familiar, then you are correct, most of these tactics were lifted straight from Microsoft's arsenal of dirty tricks. The Windows look and feel is not the only thing the KDE project has copied! In this short article I will address some of the lies and FUD spread by the KDE trolling teams. It is my hope that this, in some small way, will redress the balance and re-introduce two things almost eradicated by the KDE project: Honesty and facts.

• Myth #1 - KDE is more integrated than GNOME

  The oft-heard cry of the noisiest KDE advocates. No explanation is given, the reader is expected to simply grok the wholesomeness of KDE and the lack of this mystical quality in GNOME. It is nonsense of course. Neither desktop is particularly "integrated" compared to Windows XP, and certainly not compared any version of the Apple Mac. Whatever "integrated" actually means.

• Myth #2 - KDE is easier to use

  Again, such nebulous arguments are never explained, and the reader is expected to simply understand the truth of the zealots statement. Both KDE and GNOME have user-interface irritations (all systems do), but "ease of use" is not a simple thing to measure. KDE has never been subjected to detailed user testing, unlike GNOME, and the claims of user-friendliness are from crazed supporters and not average users. Furthermore, the KDE faithful rarely look beyond simple-minded copying of Windows, and forget that administering a desktop system is just as important as having widgets in the correct place on the toolbar. For example: What about application installation and removal? GNOME has the excellent RedCarpet by Ximian, which makes the installation, removal and updating of applications trivial. KDE users are expected to fend for themselves with brutal command line driven systems. GNOME also has the excellent Ximian setup tools to handle various tricky cross-platform and potentially risky system configuration operations. KDE offers none of this, only a few small and lame Linux-only tools, which make no attempt at check-pointing to return to known working configurations.

• Myth #3 - KDE is more popular

  In what sense? Arguably more people use KDE, but it is a close run thing. Most KDE zealots use the results of online polls as proof of their superior userbase - which is, quite frankly, complete and utter nonsense. Online polls are the joke of the century; it doesn't even require a motivated script kiddie to render then worthless. A single post alerting the faithful on a zealot-ridden site can skew the result so much it makes American presidential elections look fair and well organised. Popularity is also difficult to measure when *both* GNOME and KDE are frequently installed on the same system. The systems can co-exist and even run at the same time, except for certain applications such as panels. Many KDE users actually run GNOME applications for their superior features and stability, not realising that by doing so they are barely running KDE at all.

  One of the few solid measures of popularity is commercial use of a desktop, and here, GNOME is far ahead with both Hewlett Packard and Sun committing to using GNOME as the desktop for their Unix systems. This also ties in with the previously mentioned ease of use. Sun's major contribution to the GNOME project is in the areas of user/developer documentation, testing, accessiblity and user-testing. Three of the less glamourous parts of desktop development. The arrival of the GNOME 2.x series will see these contributions reach fruitition and allow GNOME to make a quantum leap ahead of KDE in most of the basic computer/user issues.

• Myth #4 - Konqueror is the best Linux browser

  Oh for a penny every time this lie is told in any KDE story! Konqueror not a bad piece of software. It's authors deserve praise for the work done on it. However, the sheer amount of orgasmic gushing by the KDE faithful is completely out of proportion to its actual quality. It is quite unreliable and even simple standards compliant pages can crash it quite comprehensively. It is also lax in its support of basic web standards compared to either Mozilla or Opera. It is also extremely slow - much slower than the latest incarnations of the GNOME Nautilus filemanager/browser (a target of much KDE FUD during its development).

• Myth #5 - KDE applications are better/more advanced than GNOME ones due to the ease of developing in C++ using the Qt toolkit

  This is the most common wail heard by KDE developers, and yet it is easily disproved by looking at the actual applications for GNOME/GTK and KDE/Qt. KDE applications often have larger version numbers than GNOME ones... an old trick played by commerical software developers. Most KDE apps seem to jump for 1.x releases long before they are ready - KOffice being the best example. None of the components in Koffice are worthy of a 1.0 release, let alone 1.1 or 1.2.

  GNOME applications get a good deal more testing in their 0.x stages, and despite shorter development phases they mature and reach stable featureful release versions much more quickly. Some examples of this are: the superb Evolution (groupware/email), Gnumeric (spreadsheet), Pan (newsreader), The GIMP (image manipulation), Abiword (word processing), RedCarpet, X-Chat (IRC client), XMMS (media player), Galeon (web browser), and for developers: Glade and Anjuta. All of these packages ooze quality, and far outclass their KDE counterparts. It is no understatement to say that GNOME is at least 18 months ahead of KDE in applications, and pulling still further ahead.

  It's not just in the area of user applications that GNOME is vastly more advanced. With the forthcoming 2.x release, a number of impressive behind the scenes technologies will finally mature: component technology (bonobo), media (Gstreamer), internationalisation (pango). As a developement platform, GNOME 2.x is, conservatively, 2-3 years ahead of KDE. And what is more, because it is not tied to a lowest common denominator cross-platform bloat-fest like the Qt toolkit, the lead (as with applications) can only increase further.

  It is also worth noting that GNOME also develops code for use outside the project (see the XML libraries as one example) - the KDE project rarely (if ever) engages in this kind of work. KDE developers ensure that all software must link with Qt, and hence tie it closely with the Qt toolkit preventing re-use and enhancing the value of TrollTech intellectual property.

  
  Yet despite all this, we are still regularly fed the lie that Qt and C++ makes application and desktop development easier. Judge for yourself.

• Myth #6 - KDE is faster and takes less memory than GNOME

  KDE is written in C++. While this is not necessarily a problem, it can be when Visual Basic reject programmers (which the KDE project is overrun with) do not know enough to avoid important pitfalls that plague C++ software projects. Stupid use of autoincrementing operators and iteration with C++ objects; and masses of unnecessary allocations and deallocations of memory are two of the most common. KDE suffers badly from both problems.

  Perhaps the most cretinous of all problems is blaming the extremely slow startup times of KDE apps on GCC. The GNOME 1.x releases were hardly svelt (2.x fixes many of these issues - in fact, GNOME 2 is significantly faster with fewer resources than previous version, a feat quite beyond the KDE project), but GNOME is a fashion cat-walk superwaif when compared to KDE's 500lb fat-momma cheese-burger scoffing trailer trash. One need only look at the recent fuss over ugly KDE hacks (such as prelinking) used to bandage up the design and coding flaws in the decrepit KDE architecture to see the truth.

• Myth #7 - GNOME development is slower. KDE releases faster.

  Fundamental misunderstanding. The KDE project releases as one big lump of code due to its use of C++ and the many problems this causes with libraries. The project bumps the version number of the entire KDE system for the smallest modifications. GNOME, on the other hand is componentized and each component releases on a (almost) separate schedule, bumping it's own version number but not the main GNOME version (1.4, for example). Occasional releases of the entire GNOME system happen, and that's when the GNOME version number is bumped (currently it is at 1.4). To see this in action, use RedCarpet and you will regular updates to GNOME components. GNOME development is not slower, it is in fact faster and more advanced. Lamers and newbies, however, fail to understand the advantages of this method and just see KDE 1.1.1 followed a few weeks later by KDE 1.1.2. Wow! KDE roolz.
  
  Perhaps the greatest example of KDE release games occured with the recent KDE 3.0 release. In a desperate race to beat GNOME 2.0 to, the KDE team did not put back their schedule in the middle of a late release freeze when they suddenly added lots of new features - and, as expected, this has proved to be disasterous. KDE 3.0 is the worst KDE release yet in terms of reliablity - and is essentially early beta software put out as a stable release. Compare this with GNOME, which has had a number of betas and quality assurance procedures leading up to the eventual release of GNOME 2.0. The difference in approach is obviously due to the ultimate destinations of the systems and the vastly more experienced developers behind GNOME. GNOME is heading for commerical use on Sun and HP desktops, and hence requires commericial release quality. While KDE is destined for the porn and MP3 boxes of noisy advocates who don't mind huge numbers of crashes while waiting for KDE 3.0.0.4 to fix issues overlooked in the mindless rush to release. Quality control is an afterthought to the KDE project - the version number and releasing first are everything.

• Myth #8 - The Qt toolkit is cross-platform and yet takes advantage of each individual platform

  The Qt toolkit (the software at the heart of KDE) is supposedly a cross-platform toolkit allowing the lucky developer the opportunity to write Windows/Linux/Mac software all at once. And yet, among the magical mythical claims made, the most nonsensical is that it makes applications which take advantage of the distinct features of the different platforms. This is of course, nonsense. Qt is a bloated, slow layer that is slapped over a native system's APIs in an attempt to make all the systems look alike. It no more takes advantage of Linux/Windows/Mac than Java does - in fact it offers many of the disadvantages of Java with few of the advantages. If you have ever wondered why the KDE desktop looks so much like Windows... you need look no further than Qt. Qt is a lowest common denominator toolkit, and that LCD is Windows - Trolltech's, the creator of Qt, real market.

• Myth #9 - TrollTech is a friend of Free software

  To Be Written. Ideas: Qt started out as non-Free. KDE developers knew this violated the GPL, didn't care, stole others' GPL code by porting it to link (in violation of the license) with Qt and are therefore untrustworthy. KDE core developers work for TrollTech. Expensive per developer licensing for writing closed-source with Qt, and hence KDE. Trolltech only moved towards the GPL because of the success of GNOME. Labyrinthine licensing nightmare (3 licenses to deal with). Gradual migration of features belonging in KDE into Qt (and so into TrollTech's IP portfolio), allowing easy porting of apps to the revenue generating Windows world (see TheKompany for a perfect example), thereby making KDE an irrelevant launcher of Qt applications. Claims made that Qt is GPL, while true, hide the real truth. There cannot be a real fork of Qt for the KDE project: Core developers work for Trolltech; any fork would need to be full GPL and hence ban any closed-source apps from KDE altogether (all KDE apps must link with Qt); Any commerical licensees of Qt (non-GPL) would and could only follow TrollTech. KDE is stitched up good and proper.

• Myth #10 - KDE is more than attractive, but GNOME/GTK is ugly

  To be Written. Ideas: Mosfet liquid theme is an ugly and unstable hack. GNOME GTk icons are better thought-out and of a far higher quality than the poorly drawn and cartoonish and confusing KDE ones. Qt is basically a Windows-look on a Unix platform.

Confronting the KDE propaganda machine.

The KDE project is famous for its funded and organised trolling of weblogs and message board associated with Linux and Free software/open source. Outrageous newbie impressing claims are made for the software and huge quanities of FUD are spread to destroy competitors. If this sounds familiar, then you are correct, most of these tactics were lifted straight from Microsoft's arsenal of dirty tricks. The Windows look and feel is not the only thing the KDE project has copied! In this short article I will address some of the lies and FUD spread by the KDE trolling teams. It is my hope that this, in some small way, will redress the balance and re-introduce two things almost eradicated by the KDE project: Honesty and facts.

• Myth #1 - KDE is more integrated than GNOME

  The oft-heard cry of the noisiest KDE advocates. No explanation is given, the reader is expected to simply grok the wholesomeness of KDE and the lack of this mystical quality in GNOME. It is nonsense of course. Neither desktop is particularly "integrated" compared to Windows XP, and certainly not compared any version of the Apple Mac. Whatever "integrated" actually means.

• Myth #2 - KDE is easier to use

  Again, such nebulous arguments are never explained, and the reader is expected to simply understand the truth of the zealots statement. Both KDE and GNOME have user-interface irritations (all systems do), but "ease of use" is not a simple thing to measure. KDE has never been subjected to detailed user testing, unlike GNOME, and the claims of user-friendliness are from crazed supporters and not average users. Furthermore, the KDE faithful rarely look beyond simple-minded copying of Windows, and forget that administering a desktop system is just as important as having widgets in the correct place on the toolbar. For example: What about application installation and removal? GNOME has the excellent RedCarpet by Ximian, which makes the installation, removal and updating of applications trivial. KDE users are expected to fend for themselves with brutal command line driven systems. GNOME also has the excellent Ximian setup tools to handle various tricky cross-platform and potentially risky system configuration operations. KDE offers none of this, only a few small and lame Linux-only tools, which make no attempt at check-pointing to return to known working configurations.

• Myth #3 - KDE is more popular

  In what sense? Arguably more people use KDE, but it is a close run thing. Most KDE zealots use the results of online polls as proof of their superior userbase - which is, quite frankly, complete and utter nonsense. Online polls are the joke of the century; it doesn't even require a motivated script kiddie to render then worthless. A single post alerting the faithful on a zealot-ridden site can skew the result so much it makes American presidential elections look fair and well organised. Popularity is also difficult to measure when *both* GNOME and KDE are frequently installed on the same system. The systems can co-exist and even run at the same time, except for certain applications such as panels. Many KDE users actually run GNOME applications for their superior features and stability, not realising that by doing so they are barely running KDE at all.

  One of the few solid measures of popularity is commercial use of a desktop, and here, GNOME is far ahead with both Hewlett Packard and Sun committing to using GNOME as the desktop for their Unix systems. This also ties in with the previously mentioned ease of use. Sun's major contribution to the GNOME project is in the areas of user/developer documentation, testing, accessiblity and user-testing. Three of the less glamourous parts of desktop development. The arrival of the GNOME 2.x series will see these contributions reach fruitition and allow GNOME to make a quantum leap ahead of KDE in most of the basic computer/user issues.

• Myth #4 - Konqueror is the best Linux browser

  Oh for a penny every time this lie is told in any KDE story! Konqueror not a bad piece of software. It's authors deserve praise for the work done on it. However, the sheer amount of orgasmic gushing by the KDE faithful is completely out of proportion to its actual quality. It is quite unreliable and even simple standards compliant pages can crash it quite comprehensively. It is also lax in its support of basic web standards compared to either Mozilla or Opera. It is also extremely slow - much slower than the latest incarnations of the GNOME Nautilus filemanager/browser (a target of much KDE FUD during its development).

• Myth #5 - KDE applications are better/more advanced than GNOME ones due to the ease of developing in C++ using the Qt toolkit

  This is the most common wail heard by KDE developers, and yet it is easily disproved by looking at the actual applications for GNOME/GTK and KDE/Qt. KDE applications often have larger version numbers than GNOME ones... an old trick played by commerical software developers. Most KDE apps seem to jump for 1.x releases long before they are ready - KOffice being the best example. None of the components in Koffice are worthy of a 1.0 release, let alone 1.1 or 1.2.

  GNOME applications get a good deal more testing in their 0.x stages, and despite shorter development phases they mature and reach stable featureful release versions much more quickly. Some examples of this are: the superb Evolution (groupware/email), Gnumeric (spreadsheet), Pan (newsreader), The GIMP (image manipulation), Abiword (word processing), RedCarpet, X-Chat (IRC client), XMMS (media player), Galeon (web browser), and for developers: Glade and Anjuta. All of these packages ooze quality, and far outclass their KDE counterparts. It is no understatement to say that GNOME is at least 18 months ahead of KDE in applications, and pulling still further ahead.

  It's not just in the area of user applications that GNOME is vastly more advanced. With the forthcoming 2.x release, a number of impressive behind the scenes technologies will finally mature: component technology (bonobo), media (Gstreamer), internationalisation (pango). As a developement platform, GNOME 2.x is, conservatively, 2-3 years ahead of KDE. And what is more, because it is not tied to a lowest common denominator cross-platform bloat-fest like the Qt toolkit, the lead (as with applications) can only increase further.

  It is also worth noting that GNOME also develops code for use outside the project (see the XML libraries as one example) - the KDE project rarely (if ever) engages in this kind of work. KDE developers ensure that all software must link with Qt, and hence tie it closely with the Qt toolkit preventing re-use and enhancing the value of TrollTech intellectual property.

  
  Yet despite all this, we are still regularly fed the lie that Qt and C++ makes application and desktop development easier. Judge for yourself.

• Myth #6 - KDE is faster and takes less memory than GNOME

  KDE is written in C++. While this is not necessarily a problem, it can be when Visual Basic reject programmers (which the KDE project is overrun with) do not know enough to avoid important pitfalls that plague C++ software projects. Stupid use of autoincrementing operators and iteration with C++ objects; and masses of unnecessary allocations and deallocations of memory are two of the most common. KDE suffers badly from both problems.

  Perhaps the most cretinous of all problems is blaming the extremely slow startup times of KDE apps on GCC. The GNOME 1.x releases were hardly svelt (2.x fixes many of these issues - in fact, GNOME 2 is significantly faster with fewer resources than previous version, a feat quite beyond the KDE project), but GNOME is a fashion cat-walk superwaif when compared to KDE's 500lb fat-momma cheese-burger scoffing trailer trash. One need only look at the recent fuss over ugly KDE hacks (such as prelinking) used to bandage up the design and coding flaws in the decrepit KDE architecture to see the truth.

• Myth #7 - GNOME development is slower. KDE releases faster.

  Fundamental misunderstanding. The KDE project releases as one big lump of code due to its use of C++ and the many problems this causes with libraries. The project bumps the version number of the entire KDE system for the smallest modifications. GNOME, on the other hand is componentized and each component releases on a (almost) separate schedule, bumping it's own version number but not the main GNOME version (1.4, for example). Occasional releases of the entire GNOME system happen, and that's when the GNOME version number is bumped (currently it is at 1.4). To see this in action, use RedCarpet and you will regular updates to GNOME components. GNOME development is not slower, it is in fact faster and more advanced. Lamers and newbies, however, fail to understand the advantages of this method and just see KDE 1.1.1 followed a few weeks later by KDE 1.1.2. Wow! KDE roolz.
  
  Perhaps the greatest example of KDE release games occured with the recent KDE 3.0 release. In a desperate race to beat GNOME 2.0 to, the KDE team did not put back their schedule in the middle of a late release freeze when they suddenly added lots of new features - and, as expected, this has proved to be disasterous. KDE 3.0 is the worst KDE release yet in terms of reliablity - and is essentially early beta software put out as a stable release. Compare this with GNOME, which has had a number of betas and quality assurance procedures leading up to the eventual release of GNOME 2.0. The difference in approach is obviously due to the ultimate destinations of the systems and the vastly more experienced developers behind GNOME. GNOME is heading for commerical use on Sun and HP desktops, and hence requires commericial release quality. While KDE is destined for the porn and MP3 boxes of noisy advocates who don't mind huge numbers of crashes while waiting for KDE 3.0.0.4 to fix issues overlooked in the mindless rush to release. Quality control is an afterthought to the KDE project - the version number and releasing first are everything.

• Myth #8 - The Qt toolkit is cross-platform and yet takes advantage of each individual platform

  The Qt toolkit (the software at the heart of KDE) is supposedly a cross-platform toolkit allowing the lucky developer the opportunity to write Windows/Linux/Mac software all at once. And yet, among the magical mythical claims made, the most nonsensical is that it makes applications which take advantage of the distinct features of the different platforms. This is of course, nonsense. Qt is a bloated, slow layer that is slapped over a native system's APIs in an attempt to make all the systems look alike. It no more takes advantage of Linux/Windows/Mac than Java does - in fact it offers many of the disadvantages of Java with few of the advantages. If you have ever wondered why the KDE desktop looks so much like Windows... you need look no further than Qt. Qt is a lowest common denominator toolkit, and that LCD is Windows - Trolltech's, the creator of Qt, real market.

• Myth #9 - TrollTech is a friend of Free software

  To Be Written. Ideas: Qt started out as non-Free. KDE developers knew this violated the GPL, didn't care, stole others' GPL code by porting it to link (in violation of the license) with Qt and are therefore untrustworthy. KDE core developers work for TrollTech. Expensive per developer licensing for writing closed-source with Qt, and hence KDE. Trolltech only moved towards the GPL because of the success of GNOME. Labyrinthine licensing nightmare (3 licenses to deal with). Gradual migration of features belonging in KDE into Qt (and so into TrollTech's IP portfolio), allowing easy porting of apps to the revenue generating Windows world (see TheKompany for a perfect example), thereby making KDE an irrelevant launcher of Qt applications. Claims made that Qt is GPL, while true, hide the real truth. There cannot be a real fork of Qt for the KDE project: Core developers work for Trolltech; any fork would need to be full GPL and hence ban any closed-source apps from KDE altogether (all KDE apps must link with Qt); Any commerical licensees of Qt (non-GPL) would and could only follow TrollTech. KDE is stitched up good and proper.

• Myth #10 - KDE is more than attractive, but GNOME/GTK is ugly

  To be Written. Ideas: Mosfet liquid theme is an ugly and unstable hack. GNOME GTk icons are better thought-out and of a far higher quality than the poorly drawn and cartoonish and confusing KDE ones. Qt is basically a Windows-look on a Unix platform.

KDE fucking sucks goat balls. Know why?

It's slow. GNOME rules. Death to all niggers and jews!

Apart from the obvious (can comment it out, yada, yada), most people already see enough advertising everywhere they look.

Anyway, this also goes against all the ideology associated with OSS (for me, at least.) I'd rather donate directly to the developers. At least you know were your money is going.

Actually, the GNOME donations page *did* launch now. See the announcement on foundation-list. It's not a new idea and you could send cheques to a postal address before, but the Friends of GNOME program page with PayPal donations is brand new.

Gnome and KDE don't disclose anything about their finances. They don't say where their money is going. They don't tell you how much they have collected or how much they have on hand.

I donated to K5 by sending Rusty some cash. It's the only way I would donate, because I am paranoid and I did not want to disclose my name. Normally, I would not send cash since someone could swipe it and I would never know. However, with K5, my account was updated so I know the cash ended up in the right hands.

If open source projects want more people to donate, they should:

• Prominantly link to the donation page from the home page.
• Put up a spreadsheet describing their financial situation in detail. That "c/o Ximian" line at Gnome has me putting my wallet away.
• That bar across the top of K5 was cool! You make a donation and The bar instantly moves. You may only contribute a few dollars, but you know you are making a difference. Open Source projects should provide up-to-the-minute feedback on how much money they have collected.
• If lots of open source projects start taking donations, it would be wise to set up a signing authority which audits their books, makes sure the project really exists, tells us the "Support Project Z" page is real, and not some scam artist swindling contributors. This isn't such a big deal for major projects like Gnome and KDE, but smaller projects won't get my money without proper authentication.
• Allow anonymous contributions, but let people confirm that their contribution was received. Some people want credit for their donation. Personally, I want to know that I am one of the X anonymous donors who have collectively contributed Y dollars. I know I could just make up a name and have it posted with the others, but I really just want to be listed as anonymous. To solve this problem, you could have a separate listing of anonymous contributions, each one with a transaction ID (or secret code) and dollar figure.

As a matter of fact, KDE does have Mono bindings already. It's based on their new infrastructure which dynamically generates bindings for different languages (such as C# and Java, for example). Search the dot for more information.

As for the relationship between GNOME and Mono, Miguel did express his wish that future versions of GNOME be based on Mono. He has since explained his position on the GNOME mailing lists.

Seriously though, many of these trolls are simply a result of ignorance of facts which are easily verified on the net. The average Slashdot discussion contains so much misinformation it's appalling. Support GNOME, support KDE, and stop wasting everyone's time with holy wars.

The GNOME FAQ says it should be pronounced guh-nome (that is you say the "G").

The GNOME FAQ says it should be pronounced guh-nome (that is you say the "G").

No, I simply realise that the address a cheque happens to be delivered to is not significant, who the cheque is made out to is.

They clearly say they will use the money to "provide development, education and promotion for GNOME worldwide". If you want to be a friend of GNOME and have something more specific you'd like your money to go towards then just tell them. As their charter states "The foundation will be in charge of disbursing these funds to the benefit of GNOME and, to the extent possible, in accordance with the wishes of the benefactor."

There is nothing hidden here. There is info on the foundation pages, the foundation mailing list is open for all to read. There might not be a vast amount of info on the friends page but that is because they aren't putting on a hard sell. It's there for you if you feel that you'd like to contribute, not trying to make you feel that you should.

No, I simply realise that the address a cheque happens to be delivered to is not significant, who the cheque is made out to is.

They clearly say they will use the money to "provide development, education and promotion for GNOME worldwide". If you want to be a friend of GNOME and have something more specific you'd like your money to go towards then just tell them. As their charter states "The foundation will be in charge of disbursing these funds to the benefit of GNOME and, to the extent possible, in accordance with the wishes of the benefactor."

There is nothing hidden here. There is info on the foundation pages, the foundation mailing list is open for all to read. There might not be a vast amount of info on the friends page but that is because they aren't putting on a hard sell. It's there for you if you feel that you'd like to contribute, not trying to make you feel that you should.

Checks are payable to the GNOME Foundation. The GNOME foundation is not Ximian.
Anyone who had the slightest interest in finding out what the GNOME foundation is could easily find out. Anyone just interested in trolling would simply jump to ludicrous conclusions and post them on Slashdot...

Otherwise, I'd recommend checking out the Garnome project. It's bleeding edge, but it does allow you to compile Gnome for yourself. If you consider yourself more than a newbie (or an aspiring l33t linuxer), then you can have Gnome2 running at the best speeds for *your* machine.

I suppose the thing to remember is that Ximian Desktop is NOT Gnome2, so if Ximian is what you're aiming for, then wait.

Why don't you just be patient, and wait for Ximian to do their own thing in their own time. Unlike the Gnome Foundation who offers their software 'as is', Ximian tests all of the software, to make sure that it runs as stated, and they also make sure that it is easy to install. This means they ship it with all required libraries, pre-compiled for your flavor of *nix.

If you are so impatient to try it out, why not try Garnome? Garnome is a relatively easy way to install the stock Gnome 2 distribution from the source files. Unfortunately, you do have to find some obscure libraries (sp? sgml-data? DocBook?) before it will install, and it will take several hours to compile.

If you want Ximian's version of Gnome, you are just going to have to be patient and wait for them to put their unique finishing touches on it. If 1.4 was any indication, we could be waiting a month or more. And if 1.2-->1.4 upgrade path was any indication, you will have to install fresh as red carpet will not be able to handle an upgrade of this sort.

Lots has been said about Eugenia's errors. I've found other ones, plus some omissions I don't want to go completely unnoticed. Some may repeat what others have said here but make me so angry I have to dissect them.

Eugenia says: The big question on any new release is 'Whats New?' or 'What does it do more?'. In the case of Gnome 2, it does less, not more

Well, if you omit the new stuff from the review, it's easy to present that conclusion. Here are the omissions, so numerous and noteworthy in what is supposed to be a review that I find it hard to not see intention. All of those and more stuff can be easily found in the press release and in the release notes. I'd expect that a reviewer reads those docs.

No mentioning of atk, the accessibility toolkit. atk makes gtk+ accessable to , e.g., screen readers and gives it full keyboard navigability. This is a major improvement, since it makes Gnome usable by users with certain disabilities, and it makes it possible to be used in certain organizations like governmental agencies that are required by law to only use software that has this feature. And keyboard nav is good for everybody

Only a brief mentioning of pango, the internalization library, in context of not finding a config option. This is unfortunate, but isn't doing justice to the importance of pango. It furthers internationalization, e.g., by giving gtk the ability to use right-to-left languages, languages with ligatures and those with reordering. You can now mix different languages and scripts in documents. This opens up Gnome to hosts of new users, e.g., in arabic speaking countries. I'm rather surprised that Eugenia, being Greek, presents herself ignorant to pango's importance like one has come to expect from lots of americans.

Then there's the factual errors and stuff I just found stupid. I'm too lazy to separate those here, I'll just list them as I go through the article:

The Gnome menu panel now resembles a bit of MacOS. It sits on the top of the desktop, and no matter what I tried, I can't change its position.

IIRC one can't change it's position in MacOs either (and neither could one in Gnome 1.4), so I fail to see how's that surprising. Moreover, on rightclick (known from Win) it's easy to see how to remove it, given that there is a very clean context menu. She can't figure it out even so, but still manages to complain earlier that the memu panel, merely includes 3 options.

Then she finds a reason to bash the default panels because they are rather empty and in the next paragraph says People will always argue that we are lucky that there is an option to do so [change the defaults] but the main point is, that the default configuration is what most people use. It is common knowledge that only a small percentage of users actually change (or have the right to change, in a business environment) their desktop. So, why then complain earlier that she can't change the menu panel's position? I thought nobody tries or wants to do that anyway?
I also wonder how long she played with Gnome 2 at all, for if she had actually opened some apps, she would have noticed that the bottom panel populates
quickly with buttons controlling the open windows, like in those other OSes people will supposedly return to because the G2 panel setup is so terrible: If the default configuration is not intuitive, most people will still live with it. Or they will switch to KDE. Or go back to Windows or MacOS. Hm, what exactly can be found on the Win task bar after a fresh install?

Overall, Gnome 2 feels slower

A clear indication that something is seriously wrong with her installation. Nautilus is so much faster that it's not even funny anymore, and the rest is certainly not slower, except maybe for the slow initial loading of the main menu icons.

On Gnome 1.x if you needed some speed, you were just telling Nautilus to not draw the desktop and everything was fine. But if I turn off this option on the new Gnome, there are no icons drawing on the desktop anymore and I have no desktop context menu.

Please, did she even use Gnome 1.4 as she claims? This has been so forever. Or maybe she f****d up her gnome 1.4 install as much as she did this one and had both nautilus and gmc running, so that after killing nautilus she got the see the gmc icons on the desktop.

My only problem with Nautilus was the inclusion of GTKhtml 2 as the main HTML renderer. GTKHtml is still extremely buggy.

True in a way, but what were the options? Writing a non-sucking html widget for sure, but failing that, what? Another indication that she had no experience with Gnome 1.4, because the fully featured mozilla renderer used in the old nautilus was awfully slow. The compromise is ok as I see it: a quick loading basic html widget for the occasional *.html file on the HD with the option to launch the fully-featured one via context click or by the (painfully big and ugly) sidebar buttons that appear when a html file is viewed in nautilus.

And where are the system tools for networking

Applications->Preferences->Network contains some simple ones. Ximian Setup Tools, which were present in earlier Garnome releases seem to have been removed from the release. I think Ximians plans are rather unclear on what they plan with them. They realized that most distros have their own config apps (drake tools of mandrake, e.g.) and have some time ago announced that Debian is their new reference platform, since it is most in need of such tools. Maybe, when and if (they've been aleady a looong time in the making) they are ready, they will be added by the distros that need them by the time the distros ship with G2. Most probably won't because they will place their own tools in the Preferences menu. So again something of no concern to the users she supposedly writes for.

or maybe a universal media player

This seems to me to be an app and responsibility of the distro. BTW, Garnome includes the Gstreamer Media Player that's meant to be exactly this

Both her probs with the text editor, gedit, When I just place my cursor on the text, and then move my mouse away in order to type there, the program seems to think that I still have my button pressed and it keeps selecting my text. and scrolling this very document with Gedit is shamelessly slow I can't reproduce and IMO point again to a borked compile (remember, she used gcc 3.1.1-CVS) or install

All in all, she does have lots of valid points I won't repeat here, but intermingled with so much either ignorantly or maliciously false information and based on a seriously incompetent review procedure that the piece is IMO completely worthless as a basis for discussion or further work. If one wanted to be unfriendly one could maybe even call it a rather well constructed troll, and a rather successful one given the 503 responses on slashdot in this topic at the time of writing.

I just hope that it goes away soon and we can concentrate on the work and discussion needed to move G2 further and fulfill its, as I see it, big potential

Lots has been said about Eugenia's errors. I've found other ones, plus some omissions I don't want to go completely unnoticed. Some may repeat what others have said here but make me so angry I have to dissect them.

Eugenia says: The big question on any new release is 'Whats New?' or 'What does it do more?'. In the case of Gnome 2, it does less, not more

Well, if you omit the new stuff from the review, it's easy to present that conclusion. Here are the omissions, so numerous and noteworthy in what is supposed to be a review that I find it hard to not see intention. All of those and more stuff can be easily found in the press release and in the release notes. I'd expect that a reviewer reads those docs.

No mentioning of atk, the accessibility toolkit. atk makes gtk+ accessable to , e.g., screen readers and gives it full keyboard navigability. This is a major improvement, since it makes Gnome usable by users with certain disabilities, and it makes it possible to be used in certain organizations like governmental agencies that are required by law to only use software that has this feature. And keyboard nav is good for everybody

Only a brief mentioning of pango, the internalization library, in context of not finding a config option. This is unfortunate, but isn't doing justice to the importance of pango. It furthers internationalization, e.g., by giving gtk the ability to use right-to-left languages, languages with ligatures and those with reordering. You can now mix different languages and scripts in documents. This opens up Gnome to hosts of new users, e.g., in arabic speaking countries. I'm rather surprised that Eugenia, being Greek, presents herself ignorant to pango's importance like one has come to expect from lots of americans.

Then there's the factual errors and stuff I just found stupid. I'm too lazy to separate those here, I'll just list them as I go through the article:

The Gnome menu panel now resembles a bit of MacOS. It sits on the top of the desktop, and no matter what I tried, I can't change its position.

IIRC one can't change it's position in MacOs either (and neither could one in Gnome 1.4), so I fail to see how's that surprising. Moreover, on rightclick (known from Win) it's easy to see how to remove it, given that there is a very clean context menu. She can't figure it out even so, but still manages to complain earlier that the memu panel, merely includes 3 options.

Then she finds a reason to bash the default panels because they are rather empty and in the next paragraph says People will always argue that we are lucky that there is an option to do so [change the defaults] but the main point is, that the default configuration is what most people use. It is common knowledge that only a small percentage of users actually change (or have the right to change, in a business environment) their desktop. So, why then complain earlier that she can't change the menu panel's position? I thought nobody tries or wants to do that anyway?
I also wonder how long she played with Gnome 2 at all, for if she had actually opened some apps, she would have noticed that the bottom panel populates
quickly with buttons controlling the open windows, like in those other OSes people will supposedly return to because the G2 panel setup is so terrible: If the default configuration is not intuitive, most people will still live with it. Or they will switch to KDE. Or go back to Windows or MacOS. Hm, what exactly can be found on the Win task bar after a fresh install?

Overall, Gnome 2 feels slower

A clear indication that something is seriously wrong with her installation. Nautilus is so much faster that it's not even funny anymore, and the rest is certainly not slower, except maybe for the slow initial loading of the main menu icons.

On Gnome 1.x if you needed some speed, you were just telling Nautilus to not draw the desktop and everything was fine. But if I turn off this option on the new Gnome, there are no icons drawing on the desktop anymore and I have no desktop context menu.

Please, did she even use Gnome 1.4 as she claims? This has been so forever. Or maybe she f****d up her gnome 1.4 install as much as she did this one and had both nautilus and gmc running, so that after killing nautilus she got the see the gmc icons on the desktop.

My only problem with Nautilus was the inclusion of GTKhtml 2 as the main HTML renderer. GTKHtml is still extremely buggy.

True in a way, but what were the options? Writing a non-sucking html widget for sure, but failing that, what? Another indication that she had no experience with Gnome 1.4, because the fully featured mozilla renderer used in the old nautilus was awfully slow. The compromise is ok as I see it: a quick loading basic html widget for the occasional *.html file on the HD with the option to launch the fully-featured one via context click or by the (painfully big and ugly) sidebar buttons that appear when a html file is viewed in nautilus.

And where are the system tools for networking

Applications->Preferences->Network contains some simple ones. Ximian Setup Tools, which were present in earlier Garnome releases seem to have been removed from the release. I think Ximians plans are rather unclear on what they plan with them. They realized that most distros have their own config apps (drake tools of mandrake, e.g.) and have some time ago announced that Debian is their new reference platform, since it is most in need of such tools. Maybe, when and if (they've been aleady a looong time in the making) they are ready, they will be added by the distros that need them by the time the distros ship with G2. Most probably won't because they will place their own tools in the Preferences menu. So again something of no concern to the users she supposedly writes for.

or maybe a universal media player

This seems to me to be an app and responsibility of the distro. BTW, Garnome includes the Gstreamer Media Player that's meant to be exactly this

Both her probs with the text editor, gedit, When I just place my cursor on the text, and then move my mouse away in order to type there, the program seems to think that I still have my button pressed and it keeps selecting my text. and scrolling this very document with Gedit is shamelessly slow I can't reproduce and IMO point again to a borked compile (remember, she used gcc 3.1.1-CVS) or install

All in all, she does have lots of valid points I won't repeat here, but intermingled with so much either ignorantly or maliciously false information and based on a seriously incompetent review procedure that the piece is IMO completely worthless as a basis for discussion or further work. If one wanted to be unfriendly one could maybe even call it a rather well constructed troll, and a rather successful one given the 503 responses on slashdot in this topic at the time of writing.

I just hope that it goes away soon and we can concentrate on the work and discussion needed to move G2 further and fulfill its, as I see it, big potential

THERE ARE NO MENU EDITING CAPABILITIES

How in the *blue fuck* do you release a window manager without the ability to change the menus! That's AWFUL, and there is absolutely no excuse for this. Gnome 2.0 should not have been released.

Yeah yeah, the speed is great and Nautilus is now usable. But expect a lot of shaking-up for Gnome in the next 6 months, becuase the UI blows and the configs are impossible and you've seen all of the other [correct] posts about how the devolopers need a REAL ui expert.

THERE ARE NO MENU EDITING CAPABILITIES

How in the *blue fuck* do you release a window manager without the ability to change the menus! That's AWFUL, and there is absolutely no excuse for this. Gnome 2.0 should not have been released.

Yeah yeah, the speed is great and Nautilus is now usable. But expect a lot of shaking-up for Gnome in the next 6 months, becuase the UI blows and the configs are impossible and you've seen all of the other [correct] posts about how the devolopers need a REAL ui expert.

Only 15?!

I've tried garnome (http://www.gnome.org/~jdub/garnome/), and its worked really well for me. (I don't know if its been fixed now, but you may have to copy a glade-convert script - although probably not exactly that name - to a bin directory at some point.)

Checket out, it makes installing/testing Gnome 2.0 very easy and will not affect your Gnome 1.4 installation (it installs to ~/garnome/)

Look here.

Tomorrow (Jun/27) Miguel de Icaza itself will present Gnome 2.0 in a event promoted by the "Free Software Project", a local state-sponsored initiative in Free Software, here in the south of Brazil (Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil)

For those near by, here are some pointers:

Roadshow calendar:
http://www.gnome.org/resources/calendar/roadshow/G NOMEenelSur.html

The local announcement and invitation:
http://www.softwarelivre.rs.gov.br/index.php?menu= mais_noticias2&cod=1024761626&tab=1
(Portuguese only!)

Way to go guys!

GNOME FTP Sites This site is mirrored at:

• United States and Canada

  ftp://ftp.cse.buffalo.edu/pub/Gnome
  ftp://ftp.rpmfind.net/linux/gnome.org/
  ftp://ftp.sourceforge.net/pub/mirrors/gnome/
  ftp://ftp.twoguys.org/GNOME
  ftp://ftp.yggdrasil.com/mirrors/site/ftp.gnome.org / ub/GNOME/
  ftp://ftp3.sourceforge.net/pub/mirrors/gnome
  ftp://archive.progeny.com/GNOME/

• Australia

  ftp://planetmirror.com/pub/gnome

• Europe

  ftp://ftp.easynet.nl/mirror/GNOME/
  ftp://ftp.unina.it/pub/linux/GNOME
  ftp://fr.rpmfind.net/linux/gnome.org
  ftp://fr2.rpmfind.net/pub/GNOME/
  ftp://ftp.acc.umu.se/pub/GNOME/
  ftp://ftp.belnet.be/mirror/ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME
  ftp://ftp.codefactory.se/pub/GNOME/
  ftp://ftp.dataplus.se/pub/GNOME/
  ftp://ftp.dit.upm.es/pub/GNOME/
  ftp://ftp.no.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/
  ftp://ftp.sunet.se/pub/X11/GNOME/
  ftp://ftp.tr.gnome.org/pub/GNOME

• South America

  ftp://linux.cem.itesm.mx/pub/mirrors/gnome.org

GNOME FTP Sites This site is mirrored at:

• United States and Canada

  ftp://ftp.cse.buffalo.edu/pub/Gnome
  ftp://ftp.rpmfind.net/linux/gnome.org/
  ftp://ftp.sourceforge.net/pub/mirrors/gnome/
  ftp://ftp.twoguys.org/GNOME
  ftp://ftp.yggdrasil.com/mirrors/site/ftp.gnome.org / ub/GNOME/
  ftp://ftp3.sourceforge.net/pub/mirrors/gnome
  ftp://archive.progeny.com/GNOME/

• Australia

  ftp://planetmirror.com/pub/gnome

• Europe

  ftp://ftp.easynet.nl/mirror/GNOME/
  ftp://ftp.unina.it/pub/linux/GNOME
  ftp://fr.rpmfind.net/linux/gnome.org
  ftp://fr2.rpmfind.net/pub/GNOME/
  ftp://ftp.acc.umu.se/pub/GNOME/
  ftp://ftp.belnet.be/mirror/ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME
  ftp://ftp.codefactory.se/pub/GNOME/
  ftp://ftp.dataplus.se/pub/GNOME/
  ftp://ftp.dit.upm.es/pub/GNOME/
  ftp://ftp.no.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/
  ftp://ftp.sunet.se/pub/X11/GNOME/
  ftp://ftp.tr.gnome.org/pub/GNOME

• South America

  ftp://linux.cem.itesm.mx/pub/mirrors/gnome.org

Off the top of my head:

1) You can switch windows managers in Applications -> Preferences -> Advanced -> Window Manager

2) The alternative clock applets were not ported to GNOME 2 because it was decided that there should be only one clock applet that is flexible. Having many clock applets was a significant source of confusion for users in Sun's usability test.

3) Where responsibility for saving windows states lies is still a topic of debate. There is a discussion of this that began this weekend on the desktop-devel-list. There was also a more technical discussion of this last month on the wm-spec-list.

Erik

Off the top of my head:

1) You can switch windows managers in Applications -> Preferences -> Advanced -> Window Manager

2) The alternative clock applets were not ported to GNOME 2 because it was decided that there should be only one clock applet that is flexible. Having many clock applets was a significant source of confusion for users in Sun's usability test.

3) Where responsibility for saving windows states lies is still a topic of debate. There is a discussion of this that began this weekend on the desktop-devel-list. There was also a more technical discussion of this last month on the wm-spec-list.

Erik

This question will always be a matter of personal preference, and the ultimate answer is, "Install them both and see which one you like best!"

But you've heard that already, and it's not what you were looking for. ;-)

What you really wanted was Gnome's advantages over KDE. For me, it comes down to a few things...

1) Seems speedier on my 400mhz workstation. This is subjective, but I think it's pretty apparent. YMMV! On faster machines, this is less of an issue, but I don't have a faster machine, so it is a big deal to me. :-)

2) Application "consistency": I personally find Galeon, Evo, and Gnumeric superior to Konquoror, KMail, and Koffice's spreadsheet, so having those former apps match my desktop is nice. While you can run Gnome/GTK apps in KDE, and vice-versa, having your themes between your desktop and Galeon, Evolution, Gnumeric, etc, is really cool.

3) This is the real kicker for me: Gnome 2 is, IMHO, much easier to configure and work with, and is far more intuitive. One of the Gnome 2 philosophies is that things should "just work", and use intelligent default settings wherever possible, instead of offering "6 equally broken ways to do it, and let[ing] the user pick one."* This means that while Gnome is still configurable, you don't have to wade through a nearly endless sea of preference options just to find that one button you were looking for. *cough*Kontrol center*cough* ;-) The tradeoff is that you might not like the default that's been picked, but I've really found that I haven't missed anything so far. There are a few features I'd like to see (re)added, like the system tray, but that's coming very soon in a future release.

* thanks to Havoc Pennington for the great quote.

Once again, though, the only way to decide is to try for yourself.

Happy GNOMEing!

http://www.se.gnome.org/conspiracy/

Isn't Evolution a Linux-based open-source e-mail program? And doesn't it have the same general look-and-feel of the Windows desktop?

No, it has the same look and feel of Outlook, an office application for the Windows desktop.

In case you require clarification, this is what a Windows desktop looks like. (note: this is a "random" screenshot - the contents are are not implied to be ironic, it's just the first one I got off of Google. ;)

This is what Evolution looks like.

One is a desktop environment, and the other is part of an office suite. It's not the same thing.

Like my thread with Reality Master 101, the author isn't making direct factual errors, but is unintentionally misleading and confusing, especially to outsiders to the industry.