Slashdot Mirror
GNOME 1.2 - What's In It For You?
Ur@eus writes: "We have just posted an article at Linuxpower.org desribing what's new in the GNOME 1.2 release. Since the GNOME press release was kinda thin I think this will be of interest to many people. You'll find the article here. " A nice overview, for non-Gnomers especially. You'll find even more beautiful screenshots, as well as more general information, on the Helixcode site.
If you feel like it, you can port the Qt toolkit to MS-Win32 or to the Mac or to BeOS if you want; there is no license restriction that stops you.
How about this one ??
You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches.
So, you can port QT to win32, you simply have to do it in a way that the port is a patch that your END USERS will have to successfully apply to QT for linux and then successfully build. That requires your end user to know patch and have whatever compiler you used.
That makes the chances of any port actually happening pretty close to zero. Technically it can happen, but logistically it is impossible.
The only "rights" that are extended to Qt-applications are that the user of such an application is granted the right to the source code.
Also from the QT free license.
If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer if the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one.
This clause for applications that LINK to QT assure Trolltech that no one will ever write an in house program that requires some degree of privacy without buying QT Pro. If you want privacy in your applications that LINK to QT, you must pay the man. If you want to write programs that use QT and are not GPL, you must pay the man.
They're a CORPORATION. They survive by MAKING MONEY. Do you understand that? They are being nice by releasing their software under an OSI-approved Open Source license; nobody REQUIRES that they use such a license. Grow up.
They were ten very good programmers trying to make a buck. I don't fault them for being proprietary, or releasing their product under whatever license they choose. I fault people like you for compromising freedom in software. I fault Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens for not objecting to the license and granting it OSI certification. It fails on the basic, very basic, premise that an open source application should allow derivatives under the same license as the original. Since I could only release QT derivatives as patches on the original, I cannot effectively EVER release a derivative anyone but a hacker would use.
Now don't get me wrong Chris - I think KDE is fantastic. I simply don't like the licensing upon which it is based. And I think calling it open source is a farce. I would rather see software preserve my freedom to modify it and share my modifications with others. Right now, I lack those freedoms with QT.
The biggest issues are with the lack of a real right to distribute modifications. That blocks forking. Now, forking in itself is generally bad, but the threat of forking can inspire real competition. Usually that is plenty. It also blocks me from distributing a new patched QT library to Grandma. Since she doesn't do patch.
KDE-2.0 in BETA and Gnome 1.2 on it's way out soon. XF86-4.0 is out and the new Kernel has gone into the "Linus vacation stage". We should be seeing serious Linux desktop movements this christmas.
Never mind Wine heading to 1.0 ( eventually ). The big question isn't even "will you be using KDE or Gnome?". Most of us have already made that decision. The mystery is "what will the new users coming to Linux use?" RedHat and Debian don't install KDE as the default. All the other desktop wanabees do. RedHat is very strong with new users. Most people here of them as the #1 Linux.
What this split means is that for the next year or two ( at least ) KDE and Gnome will be pushing the technology and the usability as much as possible. This ongoing conflict continues to attract young developers with nifty apps. It's this competing against each other that let them beet the tar out of CDE ( At least the Sun and SCO implementations I have used ) and draw close to Mac and Win98 in some respects and even pass them in others.
Here is my top 5 list of neto things to add before releasing either of these desktops in the next version.
1. "Network Neighborhood" : It should feel like the MS version too.
2. "Drag to resize" : This on Taskbars.
3. "Stability, Stability and Stability" : So these people have a reputation to work on.
4. "File Format compatibility" : Frankly. I would want Koffice and Goffice apps to use the same file formats. It's bad enough when you need to keep tweaking a semi broken filter for MS bloatware but why shouldn't KO and GO use the exact same blend of XML and compression.
5. "On the fly resolution switching" : Yes this is really something XF86 doesn't do but I still want to gripe about it. ctrl alt - dose part of it. not all.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
The general tone of the comments here makes me want to weep - I can not believe the amount of bitching.
/. moderators would know not to moderate that kind of post up.
There are a few points of FUD always bandied about in these discussions.
1) GNOME is unstable.
This is wrong, plain and simple. 1.0 was released too early, and gave people a bad impression. Does the fact that GNOME was unstable make it unstable now? No!
2) GNOME is a hack.
People generally say this because they can not understand OO in C. If you like C++, fine, use it.
Use one of the GTK C++ bindings, eg gtk--.
The GTK+ object system is more flexible due to its dynamic nature, and it is (in my experience) easier to know what is going on - no pointer assignments doing copies remotely over CORBA, due to the fun of operator overloading.
3) Its all an RMS conspiracy against KDE.
This is the "Debian hates KDE!" type stuff.
The fact is that it is a breach of the licence to distribute KDE in binary form right now, as they still don't seem to have made up their minds on what to do (Artistic Licence, GPL exception).
This will be fixed I'm sure.
There are a lot of other stupid things people say,
but by now I would hope
you're forgetting one thing. much like microsoft installs it's own proprietary shit and basically forces it down people's throats, we're coming to this in the linux world now too. "You need the GNOME libs for this program" or that program, or whatever. Choice is rapidly becoming necessity :(
More and more programs are going to rely on GNOME to supply something and that's where it gets hairy. It comes down to either use GNOME because it's got a lot of shit writen for it, or use the CLI or blackbox or E and suffer the consequences for not using the window manager that everyone else is using, and more importantly, coding for.
Oh well, c'est la vie. I still have my guitar.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
First off, there is no war. There is no conflict. Hell, there isn't even competition for mindshare, since all of the great KDE apps get GNOMEified in short order and the great GNOME apps get QTified in short order. It's possible that in the future this will cease to be the case as GNOME and KDE focus on not-entirely-compatible technologies (GNOME uses CORBA, while KDE is moving to a more lightweight toolkit), but for right now it's the case.
:) Find me a benchmark which says KDE is slow and I'll find you one that says GNOME is slow.
1. SPEED AND RESOURCE USAGE.
Benchmarks are lovely things; there are so many results you can choose to get.
2. INTEGRATION BETWEEN APPS.
Oh, yes, we've seen in Windows 98 how integration between apps is always to the benefit of the end-user. (Note to KDE fans: I'm not comparing KDE's level of uniformity to Windows' sickening degree of the same. I'm just pointing out uniformity and integration are not the be-all of environments.)
There's a wise proverb about "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", or something to that effect. Consistency is good up until it becomes a foolish consistency, at which point it becomes horrible ("WTF does Microsoft mean, it's `intuitive' to view my hard drive as a freakin' webpage?!"). Does KDE have a more consistent look and feel? Yes, I'd agree that it does. Is this a selling point? Personal preference. To me, it's a nonissue.
3. APPLICATIONS AND DEVELOPER SUPPORT.
Both environments are breaking out all over with new applications and new developers. Last year I had to special-order Dallheimer's Using QT and Harlow's Developing Linux Applications with GTK+. This year there are far more books on the shelves relating to both environments. They're not on the bookshelves for their own sake--they're on the bookshelves because people have been asking for them, and because people are buying them. That shows more than anything else that both are alive and quite well.
4. KDE IS MORE FAMILIAR.
Only if you've got a lot of experience using KDE or Windows. Remember: a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin... If GNOME thinks they have a better GUI, then they should put that forward. If the GNUStep people think the OpenStep interface is the be-all end-all of GUIs, they should put that forward.
Horse-and-buggy transportation was much more familiar to people at the turn of the century. Should I take it they were all fools to abandon the system they knew to experiment with the newfangled, crochety, prone-to-breakdown Model T?
5. HONORABLE MENTION IN THE FUD CATEGORY
"[The GNOME developers] seem to think that putting the biggest, most memory hogging features into the DE will automatically make it better..."
If you didn't bother to read the press release, GNOME 1.2 takes up fewer system resources.
"Software size and quality seems to not be a very top priority, and software speed seems to be an even lower priority..."
Strange. Most of the GNOME apps I've seen are pretty modest in their memory footprint. Insofar as quality goes, I've never had any complaint.
"Features seems to head the list, and everyone knows what that mentality gets you... it gets you Windows 2000."
GNOME is not about features. Making that assertion shows that you really don't grok the free software movement at all.
GNOME is about choice. Don't want to use Gnome Terminal? Great, use Powershell. Don't want to use Powershell? Fine, use an xterm.
I mean dont get me wrong I like gnome alot but KDE has alot more going for it in terms of applications and install base so what gives? I mean I know the whole QPL shit was a problem for most of the Zealots but gnome is still really damn buggy and a fresking resource Hog, Hell compare to kde 1.9 I just dont see why slash has the bias it has.
KDE is based on a proprietary library. A library that cannot be ported or forked except by its authors. A library that reserves some rights to everything that even links to it. A library that demands a copy of everything that links to it, even if it is private. A library that reserves the right to take your patches and roll them into its proprietary product, all the while NEVER allowing you to distribute anything except its product with your patch separate. You have to distinguish your code from their by separately distributing it - they do not have to distringuish your contributions to their code at all.
The QPL is about assuring a lifetime of riches for the authors of QT at the expense of the freedoms of its users. GNOME was started specifically to provide freedom to its users.
All that aside, there are two and only two key factors in the popularity of the desktops GNOME and KDE. Factor one is the preload factor. The more computers come with a desktop loaded, the more it will be used. Helixcode is a HUGE step in getting GNOME onto people's desktops more easily. Other factors are primarily OEM loads (Compaq, Dell, VA Linux...) Most US computers will come with GNOME, most in Europe with KDE.
Factor two is how easy it is for a non-hack. A successful desktop will make Grandma happy, and Grandma is not a hacker. Grandma wants to download digital photos, print them, send email, shop online... EASILY.
All this fussing over ORBs and libraries and bloat is worthless. It just doesn't matter in the long run, except for the pride of the programmers. Make it easy, and market it well by getting it preloaded everywhere - or at least making it dern easy to upgrade (witness Helixcode).
That is correct. GNOME is still not ready for the general public for consumption. Not just yet. But we do acknowledge this problem, and we are working towards addressing those issues: redoing the user interface elements that are not trivial to understand, using better wording, giving a better visual layout, redoing things so that they are conceptually cleaner, and easier to understand. But our work does not stop there. We are doing new applications, adding new features to the system (user-level for instance, historic configuration) that will provide the GNOME user with a better user experience. As any other technology, we are still on the early days of GNOME, and people using GNOME are still early-adopters of this technology: the GNOME team is working very hard to make GNOME ready for everyone, and bringing free software to everyone. With your help (providing good bug reports if you are not a programmer, documentation improvements, constructive comments, code, patches, contributions, enthusiasm) we will be able to achieve this goal sooner than later. Miguel.
One of my points was that it was all about the apps, and KDE has the good ones. Though the Gimp is probably irreplacable, KDE has the majority of the good apps. KDevelop alone is worth the price of admission (which of course is $0.) In addition KOffice is shaping up startingly quickly, and though the spreadsheet may never be as good as gnumeric (doubtfull, as the KDE guys seem to know their apps pretty well) the rest of KOffice will be a major factor. Also, KDE has a lot more developer support than GNOME does at the moment, and in general the KDE apps are far more mature than their GNOME counterparts. (Aside from a few exeptions like Gimp and Gnumeric.)
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Part of the services that Helix provide for the packages we ship is
the updating service: this is a service that lets people deploy
fixes, improvements, and new GNOME packages in their system with a
simple to use user interface.
Currently our updating service works with RPM and Debian packages
(In Debian we just use the great apt infrastructure to achieve
this), but other platforms do not have very sophisticated packaging
systems that support upgrading and that support vendor tagging.
Building software with RPM is very good, as we can keep the
original source packages plus all the patches required as well as
the detailed instruction list of how the package was build in a
single location (the Source RPM).
This is what we used to do the Solaris port of Helix GNOME. And
naturally, RPM produced RPM packages, which we could easily
integrate into our updating service.
Using Solaris packages would be an option, but by the time we were
done with the packages, it was too late on the release cycle to add
support for Solaris packages (not to mention that Solaris packages
are not as powerful as RPM packages).
Hence, we decided that it was in the best interest of end users to
use and distribute RPM packages for this release in Solaris. This
might change in the future though.
I think both GNOME and KDE have taken the beneficial parts of Microsoft's GUI and left out the parts that are either extraneous or just plain bloated. I can see why Slashdot has a bias towards GNOME as the screenshots released are pretty slick looking, although I will note that the last time a KDE article was posted, everyone bitched about how Slashdot had a KDE bias.
See how silly moderator rules are? I just mentioned all of the items you spoke about in a very respectful way that actually may have added a little to the discussion.
And frankly, I'd like to see more mention about KDE when talking about GNOME, not less. The fact that these two are out there and somewhat competing against each other gives us a) choice and b) better features as they continually learn from each other and play off each other. The progress in both GNOME and KDE this year has been amazing and it's probably a direct result of each group's desire to make a better interface than their counterparts.
isolation wrote: "Why is /. so Gnome enthused? I mean dont get me wrong I like gnome alot but KDE has alot more going for it in terms of applications and install base so what gives? I mean I know the whole QPL shit was a problem for most of the Zealots but gnome is still really damn buggy and a fresking resource Hog, Hell compare to kde 1.9 I just dont see why slash has the bias it has."
:)
Since I posted this story, I guess I can offer at least a small bit of explanation, but can't speak for the other slashdot authors.
I use KDE most of the time, on a AMD K6 233 running Mandrake, and I recently installed RedHat 6.2 on a pentium 90 machine as well, with its default Gnome desktop.
I like KDE a lot -- Koffice is exciting to me (hey, I have a boring life), the KDE work is well integrated and thought out. Since I've never been all that much of a Windows users, I'm fairly neutral about / unmoved by KDE's similarity to the Win95/98 interface, though I've seen a lot of friends impressed by it.
Gnome 1.2, though, I admit I am excited by, just like I'm excited by Eazel. No accounting for taste, of course, but I think the aesthetics of Gnome outpace the Windows desktop by a good stretch, and the internationalization / userfriendliness that's gone into it is incredible. When I see what the installation shots look like, I know it is something that even computerphobic pals of mine would be happier with than Windows' install screen, sort of like Linux Mandrake's install is nicer than putting on Windows (in my experience).
And as leaders of both projects have been saying, while you may only be *running* one of these environments at a time, applications written for both can be used, so long as you have all the right libraries in place. (Please correct me if that is in error.)
My bias is toward improved interfaces, whatever they're called. A search for KDE on slashdot does pull up quite a few things -- "KDE 2.0" got 4 relevant stories on that as well, including the release of 1.90 -- and the sponsorship of new developers for KWord was mentioned in the recent Slashback. We're ("I'm" =)) definitely not trying to give KDE short shrift -- that would definitely not be in my interest, since I use it daily! It's just that Gnome has had a flurry of neat developments lately, and the release of 1.2 is probably the biggest one since October gnome, as far as releases go.
Sorry to rant so long. But really -- I use both, I'm happy to see both KDE and Gnome making giant strides, and glad that helixcode seems like a good focal point for those who complain that the various desktops available are too difuse in management / release info (a common complaint for people to whom freshmeat is still what the butcher hands over the counter).
That's all
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
KDE is based on a proprietary library.
Hope this clears something up for you:
If by "proprietary library" you mean Qt1.x, then you are incorrect; KDE is no longer based on Qt1.x. KDE is now based on Qt2.1; just as much as I'm sure you hate people spreading lies about GNOME, I can't stand to see it happen to KDE.
Your statement should read: KDE *WAS* based on a proprietary library.
A library that cannot be ported or forked except by its authors.
If you feel like it, you can port the Qt toolkit to MS-Win32 or to the Mac or to BeOS if you want; there is no license restriction that stops you. The only restrictions on it are that you can't close the source to your ported version, and you have to make notice that your version is not the official version. That's reasonable, is it not?
A library that reserves some rights to everything that even links to it.
The only "rights" that are extended to Qt-applications are that the user of such an application is granted the right to the source code. There is no right that is reserved for the library. Please, read the QPL thoroughly.
A library that reserves the right to take your patches and roll them into its proprietary product, all the while NEVER allowing you to distribute anything except its product with your patch separate. You have to distinguish your code from their by separately distributing it - they do not have to distringuish your contributions to their code at all.
They're a CORPORATION. They survive by MAKING MONEY. Do you understand that? They are being nice by releasing their software under an OSI-approved Open Source license; nobody REQUIRES that they use such a license. Grow up.
The QPL is about assuring a lifetime of riches for the authors of QT at the expense of the freedoms of its users.
Where did you glean this information from? I can find no evidence to support it. The QPL provides a means to preserve Free Software as Free Software. It also provides a means to make money when others don't want to be as nice as you and release their source code as well. Where does the QPL limit the freedom of the user?
How much hacking on an OS project have YOU done today?
I was impressed with Helix's work.
Riding off of a stock RH6.1, it installed like a dream. I chose [INSTALL ALL PACKAGES]. Installation was maybe 30 minutes off of a T1, bombed out once... I restarted the script, it picked up what was already downloaded, and continued without a hitch.
The UI polish is exceptional. The new Sawfish windowmanager default is a godsend from the clunky old Enlightement. The MacOS-style menu up top is actually usful. The width and breadth of applications it comes bunded with is incredible.
I got:
Development Tools
15-odd games
A word processor
An extremely competent spreadsheet
A flowcharter
Themes for everything
Multimedia applications (xmms et al)
A dozen and five text editors, and mini-word-processors
Hex editors, calculators, basic address books, index tools, palmpilot tools, calendars...
The panel/applet system which is extremely pleasurable to use coming off of Win9x
A goddamn online dictionary reference
A much improved control panel
Endless tools and monitors and just tons of other things...
Cost:
Economic price of $0.00
Time price of 30 minutes
Effort price of Zero
This is a significantly better value proposition for me than paying 100 dollars or more for a near-useless-by-default Windows 9x, several hundred dollars for a flakey and inflexible WinNT, lots for a MacOS-capable hardware setup, or anything else...
Helix gives gnome polish, like Corel and SUSE did for KDE... It's nice.
DontBlow.com is an absolute good.
Please describe what is functionally different between:
struct widget_s {
void(*open)(struct widget_s*);
void(*close)(struct widget_s*);
};
and:
class widget {
void open(void);
void close(void);
};
This "you can't do OO in plain C" attitude is silly and immature. Anyone who has done any work on a large (>100,000 line) C project has probably run into OO methodologies employed within the program. Heck, you can do OO in assembly if you have a good design and structure your code properly.
On the other hand, I've seen plenty of C++ code that was far from object-oriented--inelegant, over-classed, and buggy C++ code. No matter what language you use, you can program it wisely or poorly, elegantly or hacked together.
> The problem is, every version of GNOME was supposed to be the stable one. GNOME was released early, oh well, it's a 1.0 release, what do you expect. 1.01 is stable. Oops, it's not, oh well, 1.02 is stable, oops it's not...
Sorry, but you are misrepresenting our claims. I have never said that GNOME 1.0 was stable. I even complained about it to the developers. On the other hand, I have always said that GNOME 1.0.53 is stable. I'm still using it. It's stable. I run it at home. It's stable. I run it at work. It's stable. It won't go unstable when I get around to upgrading to 1.2. It won't go unstable when I upgrade to 9.0.
If you don't like GNOME, that's fine. I'm not aware of anyone who is going to make you use it. But there's no reason to misrepresent the facts about it. Or about those of us who actually use it.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
First, I am not attempting to come down on either side in the "you can't do OO in C" war. Fact is I think you can, but for a lot of reasons I prefer C++ for OO.
:)
Functionally, OO in C requires you to construct each object manually. This, by itself, is a major pain in the hind end. You wind up having to write code to initialize each new object (big deal--you have to write it in C++, too), and you have to remember to call each initializer.
Destruction is identical but in reverse. Unless your object is pretty trivial, you've got to remember to free those valuable system resources.
It's also difficult to do data hiding in C. In C++, you can declare things to be safely inside the black box, away from the grungy hands of the hackers who don't understand your code and whom you don't want futzing around with your code (and sometimes that grungy hacker is you, six months later, doing something hare-brained and stupid because you've forgotten some small detail). In C++, we've got lovely words like "private" and "protected" to help keep us from shooting ourselves in the foot.
There's foo, bar, baz and quux as well as construction, destruction and data hiding. The fact of the matter is that OO in C is definitely possible, and does not need to be an ugly hatchet job. You can have beautiful, elegant OO code in C.
Remember that the first C++ "compilers" were really preprocessors (anyone remembet AT&T's cfront ?), which took a C++ source file and mangled it down into OO C.
OO in C is gruelingly difficult; I always forget to explicitly call my destructor functions, for instance. C++ has better support in the language for OO code, which is why I'm a C++ hacker more than I am a C hacker nowadays.
Sawfish (was sawmill), the new default WM for GNOME, has preliminary mini-icon support.
-- adraken
Although this sounds stupid, you must admit that the purple flower that is shown when GNOME loads is the coolest looking thing ever! The shades of purple on it are very deep and satisfying, and it is like the doorway to a very pleasant looking system.
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net) -GAIM: MicroBerto
Berto