Slashdot Mirror
Gnome 1.1.4 Released
sheldie wrote to us to say that those wild and wacky Gnome guys have released Gnome-core/gnome-applets 1.1.4. As we've said before, they are currently in a feature-freeze, working towards 1.2. Of course, I do think that the best part of 1.1.4 is the name: "Ponies for Sale!" does a great job of drawing it all together. *grin*
I agree with you -- but that's what meta moderation is for.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
as of gnome 1.1.x, the panel has been resizeable,
and has looked much more polished in general.
i dunno, I kind of like the icons, but to each their own. You should try this release, I've been
using 1.1.3 for as long as it's been out, and i've
had zero problems as well as zero down time.
---- I like compilers
Your Milage May Vary.... be sure to grab a copy of gdk-pixbuf, too! Enjoy!
In summary, if you haven't already got October Gnome, get that. Then get gdk-pixbuf and install it. Then gnome-core and gnome-applets. It's easier with the rpms because rpm -e is a godsend if things go wrong.
I have been running the 1.1.x gnome-core/applets and haven't crashed them effectively yet. The old bugbear of the crashed panel is now gone, because it has started itself back up after I crashed it (I was trying to: I was curious) without that wretched "You already have a panel running" message.
There should be some reasonably up to date information in the FAQ: if it doesn't work, tell the FAQ folks so they can _fix_ it!
Finally, don't confuse "latest release" with CVS. The stable CVS stuff is stable. Parts of the HEAD branch, notoriously, are not, and this frequently includes gnome-libs, which is a fairly fundamental part :) If you just want to try the new bits, forget CVS and go for the 1.1.x releases, and throw in as many bugs as possible into the bug-tracker. I've had a lot of mine getting fixed very fast recently. (Thanks guys, I do notice it)
Democracy frequently yields more than two viable choices. It is only the US system of winner-take-all at the precinct level that caused the two party system. In many democratic nations, if party C gets 10% of the vote, they get 10% of the seats.
But that's neither here nor there.
"BSD and System-V" - trivial. They're just two variants of the same system.
"VI[M] and Emacs" - what about "classic" vi and elvis and vile? What about XEmacs? What about joe and jed? What about xedit, kwrite, and gnotepad?
"RedHat and Debian" - Hah! Redhat may be the current marketing winner, but no one has any clear title to number two. But this is a topic on Gnome, and Gnome runs on a lot more than Linux! So don't forget BSDs or the commercial unices...
"Gnome/GTK and KDE/Qt" - Okay, you got one. But it's only a temporary win. Considering how quickly these desktops came on the scene, it's very plausible that one or both could be shoved aside with next year's entry. Just think of the possibilities inherent in an "Enlightenment Widget Kit", or if GNUstep decides to suddenly take off!
The point is, when you try to divide up the world into halves, you're always going to fail.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Gnome dose some things differently than KDE. As to ease of interface that depends on the user. I know people who have been driving stick shift for years and can't drive an automatic.
It's the same with desktops. Some people find Gnome clunky and others can't figure out KDE. Ask a Mac user about Windows and you will learn just how "not easy" that is. So if some journalist doesn't get Gnome, too bad. The Gnome authors should read what he found wrong with it and ask for details if necessary then incorporate the best of his ideas.
That's the tough thing about end user apps. To develop them with quality you have to listen to a lot of people who really can't code draw or write decent documentation.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
make them yourself, it is as simple as
.debs.
$ rpm -ta gnome-core-1.1.4.tar.gz
then use alien if you want
It consistantly works perfectly for me.
The number one weakness of GNOME is its numbering sy system.
The numbers are all thrown about with nobody know which one to follow. Sometimes we see mentions of GNOME 1.1.0, then we have GNOME 1.1.2, and now GNOME 1.1.4, and GNOME 1.2.
But let us not forget about another slashdot article about the desktop environment for GNOME 2.0.
My only wish is that the GNOME people will once and for all stop throwing all those confusing numbers out because many users are having a lot of trouble keeping up which one is which.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I wonder what the G in GNOME stands for. Could it be? No it can't be. It is. GNU. Think about that. Also note that all original GNOME code is Copyright FSF.
But Marx couldn't foretell unions and welfare which has helped equalize the high and low classes that existed in the 19th century.
Well, all window managers are almost complete - as long as I can actually put files on the desktop, not just hard-coded links that I cannot move them about, I'd be happy.
So far, only KDE, GNOME and DFM do that, and DFM does not look half as good.
"Look, is it my fault if the UNIX guys can't get their act together?"
AFAIK, the "Unix guys" did get their act together, sort of. It's called Motif and CDE. Unfortunately, said Unix guys also made Motif and CDE proprietary, so they only became standard on proprietary Unices.
Actually, if Motif weren't proprietary, the GTK probably wouldn't exist, since (AFAIK) it was created to remove the GIMP's dependance on Motif. (The really early versions of the Gimp were Motif-based.) GNOME probably wouldn't have existed, either, certainly not in its current form.
WYSIWYG ... to a certain extent like WMakerConf's Theme Preview feature? I found that pretty stunning. My already religiously favorite Window Manager (You know, I've tried BlackBox, KDE, E, IceWM, AfterStep, etc, but NOTHING has convinced me to stray away from Window Maker... I've used it for over a year) has such a cool program (not WM-designed, seeing as wmakerconf is an external utility not made by the WM team AFAIK) designed for it.
the real at&t mix
I believe that Marx said that his philosophy would only be applicable after capitalism/industrialism had reached its peak (and it sure wansn't in Russia). Maybe in this little slice of a rapidly growing economy, that time may be near!
--
--
fat lenny's gonna lick your brain today.
I especially like the about popup from the panel; that picture is simply hillarous!n .jpg
http://www.gnome.org/screenshots/19991230-julia
lots of other examples in linux, as you said
--
I find that I'm hesitant to install things because I'm not sure of the "clean" way to remove them if I don't like them.
/
Eventually, my hard disk gets all trashed up and I don't really know the proper way to go about cleaning it up.
Is there a how-to that tells directories where certain things are located, the proper (or suggested) places to put things, a typical uninstall procedure, etc? If not, it would be really handy.
I realize that not all apps are the same, but there are surely some basic rules. There are only so many directories where things end up. I've found some of them by doing an install, finding out the new program wasn't in my path, and then:
cd
find -name "myprogram"
Not a good way to do it, but it works. I've never attempted to uninstall anything except VMWare, and I only tried it because I saw that it had an uninstall script.
--
Note: I did try out alien, I have used it before but didn't know how well dependencies translated, needless to say Im impressed.
For a while, the Gnome team had a bonobo fetish. While technically "bonobo" only refered to the set of CORBA interfaces, lots of other stuff got slapped with similarly inspired names -- hence "Tasty Yellow Banana".
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
im running gnome+sawmill and have xchat, gnapster, gnomeicu, gaim and lots of gnome-terminals and (ugh) netscape and it's taking 40 mbs of RAM. of course, what is the biggest RAM eater? Netscape! it takes up more RAM than X! according to ps aux | grep netscape its taking up 29% of my RAM. opening and closing netscape is a habit now every other hour. if you can, try to run apps that use the same graphical libraries, like all qt/kde or gtk/gnome apps.
i thought I had no sig?
"Make a Linux API...Adopt either Qt or GTK, (preferably GTK) and strip out all the widget stuff...so it can function as a full API for the system."
You're forgetting two big roadblocks for your scheme. First, where are the API Police going to get the authority to enforce your rule? If you remember, Redhat tried to standardize on Gnome and inadvertently spun off Mandrake in the process. Second, Open Source is more than just Linux (why do you guys keep forgetting this!). Both Gnome and KDE run on *every* Unix system, both free and proprietary. If you managed to get your way and mandated a standard Linux API, you would end up locking out non-Linux source code. An application that currently runs on every unix-like system would end up working only on Linux, or on every other unix but Linux.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
--Ben
I think I prefer evolutionary. Open Source/Free Software is Darwinism personified. Microsoft plays the part of social heathcare.
Microsoft represents all those people that should have been weeded out long ago, but for being crutched-up by the best marketting science man has developed have gone on to live a long, annoying life. "That which does not kill us makes us stronger."
I'm not quite sure where Gnome fits here, maybe as a speckle-breasted warbler, or something?
Please note I resisted the temptation to bring Keyesian economics into the discussion.:)
There's a spider on your shoulder.
You know, the whole idea of comparing software development methods and licenses to economic systems like Capitalism and Socialism, or political systems like Democracy or Fascism is retarded on a number of levels. It's like comparing apples to concrete. I think people jump at the "parallels" for the same reason they compare enemies to Hitler, or whoever. While they may amuse the writer for a little while, and annoy or rile up the reader for a little while, these kinds of comparisons contain no information.
Not to mention that "political" and "economic" systems are not really seperable, nor do they ever really exist in "pure" forms, but these kinds of comparisons always assume that to be the case.
The whole thing is like dunking women in tubs of water to prove whether or not they are witches; it does not really matter if they are witches or not, and, the chosen method for proving the goodness or badness of the aledged witch does not actually indicate whether or not she is a witch. In short, it's just a pretext for drowning a woman people don't like.
The issue if "GPL == Socialism" is of the same nature.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Hehe, sucking someone's ass is the as "tossing their salad" Doesn't anyone listen to Chris Rock?
> "RedHat and Debian" - Hah! Redhat may be the current
> marketing winner, but no one has any clear title
> to number two.
There are at least three distributions which are based upon Debian. One of them, Corel Linux, has been aimed squarely at the desktop market, and has the marketing machinery of a fairly large software company behind it. Whilst I agree that there's no clear "number two" distribution, Debian is shaping up to be the biggest "metadistribution".
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
I believe that Marx said that his philosophy would only be applicable after capitalism/industrialism had reached its peak
Marx was a bit naive. He extrapolated how bad capitalism could get, and figured out that people couldn't live with that so there would/should be revolution. All sorts of doomsday people do the same thing.
What usually happens is that people see the problems before they get out of hand. Then policy changes - gradually. Trade unions took care of the "easily replaceable" workers. Others specialiced and became well-paid.
I'm really glad we have the choice between GNOME and KDE, and both interoperate *very* well with each other. I run GNOME at school and KDE at home, but I have no trouble switching between the two. My GNOME windows are themed differently than my KDE ones, but it's not a huge problem.
;)
Choice is good. That's why Windows sucks
æeee!
And plenty of minorities. You always have choice. And then you have major standards behind two. E.g.,:
They are the majority, with plenty of minorities. This may not be the best way, but the best way we know of.
Proprietary software is like socialism, with Microsoft the epitome as communism. One choice, and we punish you if you try to choose otherwise.
Me? I'm a Gnome wennie (then again, I'm a RedHat-baised wennie too ;-).
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
Independent Author, Consultant and Trainer
This made my day, kudos to the GNOME guys!.
;-)
I really can't wait until they release the stable 1.2 !!
GNOME is really better to use than e.g. the windows GUI, I especially love the large launchers on the panel.
but.... are the ponies open source
---
Now using XML we can automate the semi-weekly Gnome vs KDE flamefest....
<?xml version = "1.0">
<!DOCTYPE = GnomeversusKDE [
<!ELEMENT Flame (KDESucks | GNOMESucks)>
<!ENTITY KDESucks "KDE Sucks!, GNOME Rules">
<!ENTITY GNOMESucks "GNOME Sucks!, KDE Rules">
]>
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Dull-named stable releases:
1.0.0 GNOME
1.0.50 October GNOME
Cool-named unstable releases:
1.1.1 Beantown
1.1.2 Curse of the Bambino
1.1.3 Tasty Yellow Banana
1.1.4 Ponies for Sale
Let's just hope there's space for one more 1.1.x before 1.2 arrives!
Get up, get down...
You sound like James Brown.
HERE
The article explains that a bunch of old Apple/Mac programmers are more or less incharge of interface for GNOME 2.0 (as far as the file manager and back processes of the file manager) and that HelixCode is incharge of the internal "plumbing." It also said that HelixCode is really looking to put together a office suite.
Real men dump cores! Read my journal, I am neat.
Linux doesn't take itself too seriously. (As in the people who create for it.) I mean we have these hilarious codenames for GNOME releases, and there's other items like the "Most Doomed" List, which if I recall is a list of programmers whose programs have the most bugs. Fantastic sense of humor.
I guess this is a good example of the ethic behind Linux compared to Windows. While amusing codenames are entertaining, I think as an investor I'd find it hard to invest in a company that was offering. Microsoft Windows 2000: Large Unfriendly Bear or the like. (Though the codename I just mentioned would be a good codename for Microsoft.)
Of course ethically I couldn't invest in MS anyway, but that's another story...
Keep up the humor guys!
I submit to you that we do have a choice of compilers. Yes, you are correct, GCC is all that is out there, however, why reinvent the wheel? The reason there is only one compiler is because no one wants to waste their time and energy rewriting all the core stuff gcc does. Plus the fact that gcc is such a great product in terms of reliabilty, portability and speed that I doubt a new, completly from scratch compiler could do any better. Instead what has happened with gcc is that it has branched and forked somewhat. You've got good ol' gcc 2.7.x churnin out reliable code albeit not to well optimized. Then you have gcc 2.9.x (formerly known as egcs, soon to be gcc 3.0). It's getting there in terms of reliabilty and makes a lot more optimized binaries (most of the problem right now is bad code, not the compiler). You've also got pgcc for those times you want to squeeze every ounce of speed out of your Pentium, Pentium Pro, or K6 processor. No one has bothered to start a new compiler because its just not worth the effort, where as Window Managers and Environments (yes, I know the difference) are a dime a dozen because everyone likes there desktop a little (or a lot) different. You still have choice.
I hear a lot of people on one side say that Linux should have a standard window manager, and a lot of people on the other side saying that choice is good. There is a perfectly good compromise between the two, but it cannot be achieved because the GNOME and KDE developers are, to put it nicely, brain-dead. Both KDE and GNOME have very nice widget sets, Qt and GTK, respectivly. The problem is that they provide an API, not just widgets, so you have to utterly unrelated libraries tied together. The reason people are pushing for a standard interface in mainly app compatibility. Choice is fine, but when one desktop does not nativly run the apps of another desktop, then its not the same OS anymore. They are adopting the emacs train of thought, thinking that they ARE the OS. Sorry, but there is no reason that a widget set should have printing services. The best thing to do would be this. Make a Linux API. It has Posix, but something to access the higher level system would be nice. Yes, X has this to an extent, but it is a pain in the ass to program to all these different layers. Adopt either Qt or GTK, (preferably GTK) and strip out all the widget stuff, and flesh out the rest of it so it can function as a full API for the system. Then make a strict API for the system API to talk to the window manager, and move all the widget stuff into there. Thus what you end up with is a system that is almost as customizable as the current system, but without the hassles of having to deal with so many APIs. Policy should be seperate of implementation. Thus an app could ask for a window, do operations to the window, etc, all through the system API, but the look and feel would be governed by whatever window manager one had installed.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
On the "Getting Gnome" page on the Gnome website, http://www.gnome.org , you can select which type of files you want to install with (RPM, tarballs, etc), and then the following page will list all the files you need to run that version of Gnome. Since this deals with stable releases, it may not include all files needed to run unstable releases like 1.1.4 (such as GdkPixbuf), but most of it will be relevant.
must we always compare microsoft to the fascist dictator because a fascist dictator is in charge? microsoft is big, it makes software called windows, we as /. posters hate this. Now get over it, get to work, analysis of our situation is wonderful just not at every pass. rest of the comment cool. venting.... rob
If you want a really good looking and customizable desktop, run enlightenment by itself. Much nicer IMHO.
/. I develop an inverted comb of icons. such as:
E is customizable in the way that emacs is. You know there's a way to do it, but damned if you know where/how to change it.
E is quick, but it's lacking in some serious respects. Namely in the themes arena. I'm not talking about the lack of themes (good lord! there's a lot), but the way themes are managed. If I want to change the color of my titlebar, I don't want to have open up some huge theme hunt around for the one line and change it from "SlateBlue" to "Salmon" or whatever. What E (and all themeable WMs in general) is a WYSIWYG theme editor, on the level of Windows's Contol_Panel|Display. Just a nice place where I can click on a title bar and say "make this putrid green" and WHALLA! It's done.
I also would like to have looks and feels seperated like how they are in Afterstep. (Which has config files that are pretty easy to understand). (In all honesty I haven't divulged down into the depths of E themes, just far enough to say, "This is too involved for such a trivial task. Fuck it.", so this may actually be the case in E, but if it is, it's not as obvious as it is in AS.)
The other feature I'd like to see introduced is more control over icons in E. 1. I'd like to be able to have icons uniconify to where they were iconified from, not always the active screen. 2. I wish the icons wouldn't constantly resort themselves. It gets damn confusing. (I icononify and uniconify alot. I can keep track of what's what if the icons would just stay put.) Finally I'd like to beable to turn that damn icon box off. I REALLY don't like icon boxes; they're too confining (which is coincifently why I don't like taskbars/lists and CDE style button-based pagers). I websurf in a VERY atypical fashion. As I read a page I open interesting links in a new window and continue to read the original page. I then group relavent icons together. For instance when I read
SSS
CCC
11
2
(where S = story, C = comments, # = newslink)
I can only work this way if icons go to the root window and can be moved anywhere I want. (forcing icons to stay in an icon corral on the root window is not acceptable. Infact it's just wierd.)
Because of these short commings I'm going to start playing with sawmill.
Was he a member when GNOME (the original not the KDE clone) started? It's no wonder he's a member. He even has the RMS trait of taking offense when a member of the media calls Gnome Open Source software.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Standards are good for short-term goals, because they allow to reach them without dispersing resources.
But the OSS world cannot operate like a company : it is too wide and too diverse. I like to think that is is operating like a brain, where different clusters of neurons develop different thoughts, often alternative and in competition.
On the long run, it's all for the best (I hope).
Anyway, I read that GNOME and KDE are working on a common Window Manager interface. This is a start. Next thing, a common MIME library (pleeese)?
Ciao
----
FB
I'll agree that there isn't a choice between different free compilers, and I'll agree that it is a *massive* effort to write a brand new compiler....
I'd really like answered: why do you want more compilers? Or, in other words: what do you hope to find that's different?
`cc' commands aren't really like `desktop' software, where you can completely change the UI, and be able to say, `I like this better because it has a friendlier UI'--mainly because it breaks compatibility with every other compiler and makefile and configure script in a big way.
Hm. If a different set of command-line arguments is all you want, it shouldn't be too hard to write a front end (just for when the user is manually using gcc) that converts from user-specific command-line-style to a native gcc command-line.
Having that said, the only other aspects of compilers that I can think of are the languages that they support, the platforms that they compile to and the quality of the output that they produce; in the first and second cases, it's really not so necessary to write an entirely new compiler-system, because you can write a front-end `compiler' for the C-compiler, or a back-end, or even just the assembler component. Hm.
I'm assuming that the AC was referring to the whole compilation system--the preprocessor, the compiler, the assembler, the linker..., rather than just the compiler....
Anyway, to the last point: performance:
Wanting a better-performing compiler is valid, regardless of how good GCC is (always try to make things better, eh?), but that really doesn't seem like a reason for maintaining two compilers--is the justification `some people want a low-quality compiler and some want a high-quality compiler'?
Actually..., that may be a good point (I rather like having a slow system to test things on, just because it makes differences in the qualities of algorithms so evident), but still not one that warrants two different compilers, because the compiler takes optimisation switches.
There might be specific types of algorithms or code-segments that one compiler is better at compiling, and so one could say `I use X when compiling type-x code, and I use Y when compiler type-y code', but, since we have the ability to do so, I'd still argue that it's better to fold all of the goodness into something like GCC.
Then, there are, of course... rewrites of GCC (ie: 1, 2).
-rozzin.
this was labeled as a "Troll", No the poster provided information that is "Informative" and should be marked up accordingly.
Proprietary software is like socialism, with Microsoft the epitome as communism.
Au contraire... mon frere. I would call Microsloth more of a facist dictator, forcing everyone to adopt their corrupt regime - or else (drag finger across neck). Socialism/Capitalism are economic systems, democracy is a governing system. Sweden implements both, and does a fairly decent job of it.
Open source is more like socialism. In a co-operative system, everyone is equal, contributes labor to an organized cause, and everyone is entitled to equal benefits. Sound familiar? There is nothing inherently wrong with socialism - the problem with the large, failed implementations that we were facing during the cold war, were the tactics they used strong-arm tactics to keep their members in line. One drawback to co-operation is the lack of competition - which is the redeeming quality to capitalism.
Where in the capitalist framework do you fit code-reuse? At least in the open source movement, there is a mix of competition with co-operation so that those guiding the path don't get complacent and sloppy. It also helps to be working under the shadow of Microsoft, so that there are constantly critics questioning the quality open source software. This pushes the community to refine until it's bullet-proof... almost.
Programmers unite!
- passion
i think about "ponies for sale" and the first image that comes to mind is some long-haired bearded guy on acid, in a pool of his own vomit, pupils dilated, screaming "look at all the pretty horses!!!!".. anyone else have this reaction?
seriously, i think we need to put some of the important UI designers (rasterman, miguel, etc) on large amounts of lsd and other psychadelic drugs in order to increase their creativity. this should be looked upon as something that _has_ to be done in order to compete in terms of UI with the marijuana-soaked haze in cupertino that produced everything that makes the mac os (and mac os x) good to use.
Of course the downside is we'll probably wind up with enlightemnent 0.18's source code just being the words "NUMBER FOUR. NUMBER FOUR. NUMBER FOUR." over and over.. so maybe we should only let them have it during the design phase or something. i dunno.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Does anyone know anywhere unstable gnome debs can be found. I just want to give unstable a lookover and not have to deal with the source cleanup. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
And so he says to me you wanna be a bad guy? And I say yeah baby I wanna be bad! I says surf's up space ponies I'm making gravy without the lumps!
"Gnome was Miguel's answer to KDE, and later was adopted by the FSF....but that is a story in itself, since I thought WindowMaker was initially adopted as the 'official' environment of the FSF."
Hmmm, why is it that no one ever joins GNU, but everyone keeps getting declared a part of it? I remember the day when WindowMaker was adopted. The WindowMaker page had a statement similar to "Apparently, we are now the official window manager of the GNU Project..."
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
What is up with all the people calling Microsoft facist? They are a business. Their sole purpose in life is to make money. Thats what businesses do, thats what they've been doing since they were invented. Any fair way for them to make money is fine. Thats the whole concept of capitalism. Now, you can argue capitalism vs. the world all you want, but thats pointless. True, some of Microsoft's actions are unfair, and yes their software is pretty bad, but consider this, what are their intentions? Their tactic of "embracing" and extending is a beautiful business plan. It has made them a ton of money. If you don't like the fact that it put wennie companies out of business, then thats your problem. If you want and alternative, then write it yourself! And thats what the open source community has done. They don't bitch about MS, they shut up and code. But there are still those jackasses who think there is something ethically wrong with Microsoft. Granted, their practice or not giving discouts to those OEMs who did not abide by their wishes is unfair, but thats the only real fault I can find with them. Many of you also forget that the companies that MS put out of business are better gone than here. Its called evolution. The good companies, EA, Inuit, Adobe, etc, are still going strong, mainly because their products kick ass! MS hasn't been able to beat them. However, Netscape et al, have been beaten. Mainly because their products weren't good enough. Have you used communicator lately? A web browser should not take longer than Office to start up! Also, enough bitching about Windows and its problems. It can't be made more stable than it is now. Win9x is based on DOS, and they can't get rid of DOS support even if they want to. People would be in an uproar. NT is new, and if you've ever used it, its a damn good OS. On my computer, 300MHz 192 meg RAM, NT 4 is faster than win98 and just as fast as Linux. (I use Photoshop, 3D studio and VC++) It still has the best OpenGL support of any OS available on x86. But I digress. You have the ardant NT users pointing to the Linux users calling them commies. You have the ardant Linux users pointing to MS and calling it facist. But in truth the only facist commies are the guys who think their way is the "One True Way"(TM)
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Mr. would you please help my pony... he's over there looking at me... he can't talk b/c he's a pony... i think it's his lung.
blah blah blah
Mr. would you please help my pony... He coughed up snot in the driveway... and his lung's fucked up. dooby doo doo.
go WEEN!
...never have. I like the apps that are developed for each, but I just don't like the "look and feel" of either desktop. It feels too much like I'm in windows. Then, there is the problem of my memory getting eaten up very quickly in either of them.
I'm a window maker guy all the way. It looks cool, and it's nice and fast.
Right now though, I'm at work, on NT.
--
The editorial in Linux Magazine in the latest issue argues for settling of either kde or gnome and abandoning everthing else in favour of pushing one to being finished and creating a "standard". Well, ideas like that would have left Linux in the dark ages. I couldn't believe that the editor of a Linux mag could miss the point of the OSS revolution so completely. Go get a copy and tell him how it is.
I've been playing with blackbox window manager lately and I think it's great! Very clean, nice menus, and runs kde or gnome apps without breaking a sweat. My problem with gnome and kde is that they are customizable to a point, but no matter what you do, it always looks like gnome. If you want a really good looking and customizable desktop, run enlightenment by itself. Much nicer IMHO. Anyway, I think that there's a lot of great reasons to have multiple window managers, multiple GUI environments etc.