Slashdot Mirror
Gnome 2.0 Alpha 1 Released
Dave H writes "The first pre-release of the GNOME 2 platform is now available!
Find it at you can grab it from FTP.gnome.org
It is of course a technology preview; note that it can't be installed alongside GNOME 1.x." There's some more information information posted on LinuxToday.
I always play Dwarves. They usually have a better constitution the gnomes or halflings.
users.
That could be put on half or more of the stuff on my box.
Best Slashdot Co
I know a couple of widgets from gtk1.2 is deprecated, CList is one of them. But will gnome 2 also include gtk1.2 or only gtk2.0.
And, does deprecated in the gtk2.0 case mean "not there" or "could disapear in the future"?
Ya know, you are trying to get "first post" so hard you cant spell, and if you are not clicking on the "download" link as fast as your finger can move, what in the heck are you doing on this post anyways? - Just a little rant against newbs who love to "post first"
No I didnt spell check this post...
Damn, KDE users are getting all sorts of new toys to play with, was hoping Gnome was gonna give me some too. :)
acm
I didn't think GNOME2 would ever see the light of day. It should be interesting race between KDE3 and GNOME2.
From what I can gather from reading the comments to the Linux Today article, the main things that have changed and the underlying libraries, nothing that would really change the look. So apparently a screenshot of this wouldn't really look any different from a screenshot of gnome 1.x.
And since when does KDE not have closed source, commercial code in it?
Guess again. :-)
http://www.gnome.org/mirrors/ftpmirrors.php3
ftp://ftp.twoguys.org/GNOMEg /pub/GNOME/s es/gnome-2.0-lib-alpha1/
ftp://ftp3.sourceforge.net/pub/mirrors/gnome
ftp://ftp.rpmfind.net/linux/gnome.org/
ftp://ftp.sourceforge.net/pub/mirrors/gnome/
ftp://ftp.cse.buffalo.edu/pub/Gnome
ftp://ftp.yggdrasil.com/mirrors/site/ftp.gnome.or
ftp://ftp.sunet.se/pub/X11/GNOME/pre-gnome2/relea
Go fish! :-)
Money for nothing, pix for free
Windows 2000 is okay, but I liked it better the first time.
When it was called MacOS!
I used to treat posts like this as trolls. I first used KDE back around 1997 (I think). I didn't like it at all. I didn't use it for years after that, sticking with WindowMaker and finally Gnome. Then, about 3-6 months ago, I tried KDE again. Wow. Screw Gnome. I doubt I'd ever go back.
KDE is very mature and quite quick when used on a modern machine. Gnome is so far behind. I'd love to see KDE become the de facto standard desktop.
All you need to get then is a mature OS gor your GUI.
It will come out on this friday:
- 2.2.2-release-plan.html
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:22:16 +0200
From: Dirk Mueller
I delay alpha1 release until Friday to give us more time to fix and verify the recent regressions in KIO and khtml.
Also, there will be a kde 2.2.2 release soon, check http://developer.kde.org/development-versions/kde
Yeah the MacOS ruled. All the crashes and reboots gave me so much free time for rest and relaxation!
And I was ever so fond of the Extension Conflicts. What fun!
I think it is cool when people make up words that are made up of the first letters of other words.
best reply in years..thank you!
I much prefer gtk+ only apps along with windowmaker or blackbox
If you MUST have a desktop environment, use KDE. It's bloated like GNOME, but has lots more features.
There are alternative GUIs out there, for Linux & Unix - Berlin for example - but they're either not compatiable with X applications and/or the X protocol, or they're not mature enough to be usable.
Most Unix manufacturers go the other way. The sample X implementation may be broken, in many ways, but it's still a good place to start. So they write their own version of X, either from scratch, or using the sample X tapes as a starting point. This certainly produces a faster implementation, but it still doesn't tackle the complexity issue, and none of these are Open Source or Free Software.
IMHO, what's needed is a GUI that'll do for X what RISC architectures did for processors. Produce a MUCH simpler underlying architecture, using layers to provide more and more complex functionality.
How does this relate to GNOME, since that's where I started? Easy. Either GNOME or KDE is in a key position to write this "layered X", since they are projects sufficiently wide in scope to understand where bottlenecks and bugs creep in. Nobody else really has that kind of breadth of information.
Wouldn't it be better to pile effort into Berlin? There are too many problems with the approach taken. CORBA is known for horrible overheads, for example, and the CORBA implementation used is, AFAIK, not the same as the one used by either GNOME or KDE, which means a combined effort will require extensive rewriting.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Migual says as does the website that Gnome is wm independent. If Gnome was truely wm independant it would not have sawmill as a default manager nor the head of sawmill as the window steering chair.
I would offer the following alternative to this problem. Have or develop rpms that work specifically for the different wms. That way people have a valid alternatives to sawmill. What do you think?
We can have anti-aliased fonts in a buggy core as opposed to anti-aliased fonts in patches with integration problems...
Not to say that GNOME has bugs, of course.
Anyone know if there's intent to implement some kind of simplified IPC? Similar to DCOP? I'm a CORBA developer and even I think that CORBA presents a fair ammount of work to perform some relatively simple things.
BTW: Great Job on the multilingual!, as someone who likes to have his desktop in traditional chinese this is a big deal for me.
I'd really like to use it, but I've already got a mature GUI for my OS.
It's called KDE 2.2.1
KDE past the 2.0 mark quite some time ago. They have move well beyond gnome at this point and now are looking towards the 3.0 version. In fact I believe KDE 3.0 alphas have been out for a while now and betas should soon follow. Also KDE and QT both are all under either GPL or LGPL licensing for a while so that argument is gone as well. In other words all those people who ran around like idiots screaming "GNOME yeah GNOME power go go GNOME real GPL" really need to be quiet now. KDE also has a huge array of applications and front ends to various tools. The reason is many more developers want to write for KDE because it uses C++, it is completely object oreinted and has an extremely powerful yet easy to use API. Far superior for development in most areas then Gnome. Also KDE apps tend to be smaller and less resouces intensive than GNOME apps. Plus the fact that many GNOME apps require large numbers of external, add-on, optional and non-standard libraries that further add to the memory requirements of the application. It no wonder most new users flock to KDE rather than GNOME.
Really.
Best Slashdot Co
I just ran across a GNOME problem not just ten minutes ago. I want to build Dia because argouml is insufficient and Rose sucks.
Dia is under GNOME/stable. gdk-pixbuf is under GNOME/unstable. Anyone see the problem here? Who in their right mind can call Dia "stable" when it relies on an "unstable" library?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Yeah, before there were licensing problems with KDE, but since that has gone away, I think that having standardizing around one desktop environment would be good. As far as I can tell, KDE is a lot more mature than GNOME, so that'd probably become the standard desktop environment. Also, KDE development seems to go faster than GNOME anyways, so there really isn't a reason for GNOME to exist anymore.
There's some more information information posted on LinuxToday
/. grammar school!
Another graduate of the
"But hardware != software", I hear some cry. Well, sorry to break it to you, but software is simply a simulation of hardware. There is nothing that you can do in software that you can't do in hardware. Faster.
Picture this - a graphics card that has a pure hardware implementation of XFree86 4.1, Gnome 2, and (just for the hell of it) KDE 2.2 as well. Nothing on the computer, the graphics is done entirely in silicon. This would free up much of the computer's RAM, unload much of the heavier cycle devourers, and produce one of the fastest GUIs on the planet.
"It wouldn't be free, though!"
Free as in free beer? No, it wouldn't, but if you want free beer, you're probably in the wrong place, anyway. You want the beer tent.
Free as in free speech? Why not? The hardware would need to follow GNOME, X and optionally KDE. X is the only non-free component of that. By having a re-implementation of it, you could make the hardware version totally free and totally unencumbered.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I'm excited that GNOME 2.0 has finally debuted, but what else has debuted along with it?
Does/Will it have built in anti-aliasing? Is it considerably faster than 1.4? What is the main concern the GNOME development team is taking into consideration in regards to 2.0? Does anyone have any further information on it? The LinuxToday article doesn't really answer any of the questions alot of people are wanting to know.
void women (int money, time_t time);
Yeah, those damn newbies....
I totally agree on that.
Of course I admire the GNOME team, but I'd like that their brains joined the KDE team.
They aren't enemies. They code for the same reasons so you are not doing anything bad joining KDE.
You bring some good points, except for a pair of facts. GNOME tries to build an object architecture that would ideally be made using C++, but instead they went and used C, causing a real mess of cyclic library dependencies. And about Eazel, IMHO a total waste of money, 11 million to bring a half assed file manager? Come on!
Sincerely, Mike Bouma
GNOME is pretty darn good. They are tuning the ORB, and its ability to play well with IDL is a big plus. Love it or hate it, GNOME is here to stay. I happen to love it. No apologies.
lol, only 29 out of 72 comments are rated 1 are higher
looks like GNOME has lost favor among the community
Maybe by 3.0, they'll have caught up to KDE.
If you have a problem with my views, REPLY, don't moderate!
I'd just like to take this time to say I don't like GNOME one bit. I've used it a few times, but it's not my bag. I like KDE.
That's all.
Well, for the answer to your question look back earlier in your post. GNOME is better than KDE. Why would the GNOME workers want to start working on KDE? There would be catchup to do. Also, Qt isn't a as free as gtk. It is owned by Trolltech that sells more advanced versions of Qt. This means that if someone wanted to add new features to the free Qt, like for instance the ones included in the commercial versions, and Trolltech didn't like it, a new branch would need to be started. Then there would be two Qt's and that would be messy.
Find it at you can grab it
Get rid of the "Find it at" and the second "information". Fix those and I'll vote it +1,FP!
Best Slashdot Co
Uh... have you ever used X with anti-aliasing?
I tried it with KDE 2.x but had to turn it off. The fonts were messy to the point of being almost unreadable.
is definitly elegant compared with the man 'X' based varients.
Hmm... how about "Display SVG" - like DisplayPostscript...
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Think is, KDE just finished the stuff they promised for KDE 2.0 with the 2.2.1 release. Gnome is still a better overall envirenment, and with support from Sun, the Office applications will become better, even though Abiword is still better than anything for KDE. Do yourself a favor and take a look at all the applications you really need from KDE... I did and found 0. You are trying to infer than KDE 3.0 will be out sooner than Gnome 2.0... It won't be. :-)
It's no wonder you posted AC.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
By "most productive", did you mean "only"?
I promise you that those of us who refuse to use C++ do not do so out of ignorance. Quite the opposite, in fact: I don't use C++ precisely because I know more about it than you.
Sorry, hippy, it'll never happen. I'm not having any chinks or sand-niggers share my world. Already got too many damned niggers here in Amerika.
I don't mean to bitch, I really like gnome and look forward to switching back from KDE. The terminal is nicer, GIMP is cool, Galeon is the best web browser i've ever used, and Open Office looks promising (I know I can use these with KDE but I don't like having both GTK and QT loaded, I have better uses for my RAM). But right now KDE works, so that's what I'll use. But I'll give 2.0 alpha a shot... and when gnome works again, It'll be my primary desktop.
Good luck to those working on gnome... and expect some bug reports from me soon!
X has its flaws (see Chapter 7 of the Unix Hater's Handbook), but it was extremely important for the evolution of UNIX. Now, it's time for the next step.
Nooface
In Search of the Post-PC Interface
Mods, note the user numbers.
This is FUNNY, and only a very little bit offtopic. Mod this guy up, for god's sake.
Problem is software has bugs, and the tolerence for hardware bugs is exremely low. What happens when a bug screws over said video card? Reboot! How long does it take before that will get old? Oh about 3 times before it goes out the window. Also, implementing these large,complex programs on hardware would be a nightmare, which means it would be expensive due to engineering costs.
ftp://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/pre-gnome2/releases
the "GNOME" needs to be capital.
Unfortunately, too many people who are ignorant about the issues are jumping on the C++ bandwagon.
I've been using C++ since 1990! I helped port g++ v1.35 to the Atari Mega 4ST. I've followed the language evolution all the way till now. Many of my projects use C++.
Yet, many C++ projects that I see being done by other people are horribly misguided and doomed to failure. There are very good reasons to want to stick to C code!!!
Trolltech's QT lib is NOT one of them. For the most part, QT is ok.
--jeff
ipv6 is my vpn
Nice troll (bringing peoples branes into it indeed). The division between KDE and Gnome is also historical, and there is definitely mindshare between the two. But there is still the licensing issue -- Gnome is GPL. QT *is not*. (consider commercial implications as well). Also, why *not* have several projects with differing goals and differing attention to details? We like variety and competition, which both spurn invention.
You got lots of bites, you should be proud!
HAND
Since the first line of code was written?
Don't think that Eazel accomplished nothing. For one thing, they brought usability issues much closer to the forefront of the minds of the GNOME organization.
Also bear in mind that file managers like nautilus to an even greater extent the Windows XP version of Windows Explorer are becoming more and more like a document-centric operating environment in and of themselves (as opposed to the application-centric OS as a whole).
As it stands today, you can start Windows XP, maximize Windows Explorer, hide the taskbar, and still have a very functional OS. You can download pictures from a digital camera, edit them to a limited degree, burn CDs, browse the web, and do email all from within the file browser.
So don't discount the importance of a "half assed file manager". OS's are too set in stone to change the face of computing. Applications like the web browser (and now the file manager) grow from small incidental applications into robust environments that can change the way we use computers.
-Erik
If it still has Nautalus (sp?), it's useless. Nautalus is useless for those who still like to keep their file manager seperate from the desktop.
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
To the heavens!
Fuck up your ass!
Bitches had better be sucking upon my penises!
I always hear how C is better than C++, Blah, Blah....well please enlighten us all as to why? is there some feature that so out weights the OO properties that sticking with C is better though you need to work harder and can not reuse code as easy?
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
except that KDE did it with 0$
while eazel burned through millions, and produced a inferior, bloated product.
I don't mean to start a language war (too late, I guess!), but what exactly do you know that makes you hesitate to use C++? I can think of valid reasons not to use this-or-that feature, but to dump the whole language seems extreme.
I'm honestly curious to hear your opinions.
Actually, QT is GPL, Gtk+ *is not*.
As it stands today, you can start Windows XP, maximize Windows Explorer, hide the taskbar, and still have a very functional OS. You can download pictures from a digital camera, edit them to a limited degree, burn CDs, browse the web, and do email all from within the file browser.
I think that Konq is the best file manager/browser/document viewer/Media tool that Linux has, it is definatly on par with MS, though Konq was around about 1 year before Exploer XP.......all Konq needs is an IO_SLAVE to handle burning of CDs.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
in interviews, on web sites, etc., it seems like KDE and gnome developers constantly point out how they each admire the other's project, they get together, drink beer when geography allows, etc.
where do you see this so-called hate?
Are you sure it's between developers, or just people who latch onto one or the other and find defnding it / attacking the "other" (as if there aren't plenty of other ways to run a *nix box besides with one of those) necessary to their identity?
This is clearly false. Qt-free is very much GPL'd. I don't know what commercial implications you are talking about. There is absolutely nothing in the Qt license to prevent it from being ported to Windows. The only commercial implication I can think of is that the application compiled against it must be licensed under the GPL. But that doesn't seem to be a concern for you.
Please note that it is not a GNOME 2 Alpha, but GNOME 2 Platform Alpha!
Platform being the development platform, not the apps on top of it...
I don't know what the reasons of the original poster are, but mine are that C++ collects all the shortcomings of C, as the high-level assembler that it is, adds a few of its own, resulting in a nightmarish monster in which doing OOD (a philosophy complex and of dubious advantage) is an excruciating experience.
and the excruciating experience is why C++ is a ___LOT___ more popular than C in the world today?
Comeon, I agree that poorly written C++ apis really suck (like mfc, which made C++ _very_ popular in the first place).
Qt, on the other hand, is a joy to work with. A lot more so than the hackish-OO of gtk.
The features of C++ were added for a reason. I can't imagine not using templates and the STL these days.
The low-level nature of C/C++ is certainly a valid criticism in some domains. As always, one should use the right tool for the job.
Because when you don't use the crap shit in C++ you end up with C.
But what exactly don't you like about C++? I'm really interested to hear specific gripes, examples, etc.
TIGA Graphics card used to do this :) but they were not exactly cheap :)
A site?
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
Theyw ere talking about enhanced transparency support in GTK 2.0. Does anyone know if that got in there? I've got a great idea for a smoked glass GTK theme that was impossible to implement in GTK 1.2.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Question . .
So did they decided to continue including FreeBSD as a supported platform for Gnome . . . or did they get us yet another gnome release where all the parts wont build/run on all the supported systems . . (eg. Nautilus, Evolution, etc.)
"All that we see and seem is but a dream within a dream." --Edgar Allen Poe
I don't mean to start a language war (too late, I guess!), but what exactly do you know that makes you hesitate to use C++? I can think of valid reasons not to use this-or-that feature, but to dump the whole language seems extreme.
I like the control over memory structures. If I know I'm only going to need at most 500 instances of a particular object, I can statically malloc 500 structs and maintain freelists. If an attempt is made to go over 500 instances, I can easily return an error condition which could clean up some instances or do some other thing. Sure, this could be done in C++ classes, by using static variables and an init() function (in addition to the constructor), but then you have the overhead of new and delete constantly, and your memory gets fragmented. It's much more straightforward to use C in an object oriented manner, and then you have the ability to tweak your critical performance points. Once you know how to do it, it's just as easy as C++, maybe not as pretty and with more characters, but I spend most of my time in design, not typing, anyway.
Apparently, the GTK widgets won't blink anymore when a window gets resized. I think double buffering was implemented to achieve this but can someone confirm this?
There is a cool new looking control center and I wouldn't mind seeing what the new tree widget looks like if someone has a shot of that.
ayottesoftware.com
This is easily done with std-style allocators. You can even plug them into STL objects and use your custom allocator everywhere. There need be no overhead from new or delete. You can either override these operators for your classes or allocate using std-style allocators.
I find that extremely difficult to believe. C++ isn't all about OO, anyway. Generic programming plays a much larger role now, to the point that experts stress templates and specialization over inheritance.
Which one also has in C++ or any other language.
Even if C is just as easy (which I seriously doubt), doesn't it make more sense to use a tool designed for the job (C++) than learn how to shoehorn another tool in addition to actually doing the job?
there is an option to turn off nautilus's desktop drawing abilities, i'm using windowmaker + nautilus at this moment and have it configured to not draw the desktop
Photos.
yuo aer teh trool of trolls!!!1!!111
So if /. announces public preview releases of
/. announcement about it, too?
user environments which attempt to let you do
everything, does that mean that when the first
public beta of Emacs21 comes out, there will be
a
--
go emacs go!
Sigh... I just spent 10 minutes typing in my response and then slashdot/IE killed my post.
I'll do the short version.
#1 Most people who say they are C++ programmers actually are not properly educated in it, and have no or very little understanding of exception safety, const correctness, mutable, co-variant return types.
#2 Code re-use is a fallacy. Very often projects are factored way too much in the name of code reuse. What is important is GOOD DESIGN MEETING THE SPECIFICATIONS. Code re-use may or may not be part of that. When it is, it is a major thing. It does not come automatically because you typed 'class' instead of 'struct'.
#3 The C++ Fragile Base Class Problem. http://2f.ru/holy-wars/fbc.html
#4 C++ is a multi-paradigm language. Not only procedural, not only pseudo-OO, but generic programming too. Quite often the generic solution is the best solution under C++. I've never actually physically met more than two people who understood generic programming. sigh.
#5 Many C++ compilers just plain suck. You have to code for the lowest common denominator for the platforms that you are interested in.
#6 There is no (and can be no) standard binary API for C++ libraries. Other languages have a much harder time calling C++ libs than C libs.
--jeff
ipv6 is my vpn
He was talking about people. Do you really consider niggers to be people??
Now before you go on to say that Gnome and KDE are a divided effort please look at the architectures of both and point out where the effort is divided. Please don't just say that effort is divided "on that desktop thingy"
"It is owned by Trolltech that sells more advanced versions of Qt. "
You know nothing about Qt.
Free Qt containst EVERY module offered by TrollTech.
There is nothing missing there.
The article doesn't mention that GNOME is free. How could they miss that?
Judging by stability of Netscape on Unix you not only don't know C++ but C is not your strong side either.
Guys who use c++ are cocksuckers.
QED
You can try the new control center using ximian (I always do my updates from there), it's on the preview channel in red-carpet...
X is very simple, for a windowing system, it's not complex at all. Plus no one has to see that stuff,
it's always hidden behind toolkits.
I think the major flaw with X is not it's excessive resource usage, complexity or speed, but the fact that it has no standard toolkit.
While a lot of linux kids see the ability to use any toolkit (or even implement their own) as a good thing,
I see it as a huge hindrance to usability.
A user has to learn the different behaviours of GTK, Qt, Motif, Athena
and virtually countless others, all with their own looks, hotkeys and ways of doing things.
Aside from the "feel" the "look" of X will always be discordant, further slowing the already
confused or annoyed user down in a quagmire of gradients and chrome.
IMO, if linux (or any UNIX aside from OSX) is going to have any chance at the desktop market,
X either has to standardize and enforce a single toolkit, or be replaced by something more modern.
C-X C-S
Qt is really quite bad for a C++ project. It might be popular, simple to use, and acceptable for the masses, but it's a crufty design that shows that it's older than many features of modern C++.
It's funny because you're such a 0x7a69 C++ d00d that you think their signal/slot system and rtti system and such are "good." Requiring moc? Wtf?
GTK-- is much, much nicer overall than Qt, from a C++ engineering standpoint.
ROFL
Qt requires the use of MOC, and you're calling another project hackish? Good job.
It's easy to use, but it's dirty.
GTK-- is just as easy, plus it's designed much better.
The project you're thinking of is Rasterman's own Evas canvas project and the E17 that sits on top of it. http://www.enlightenment.org Yes, it will come back. :)
Why bother.
And if someone wanted to add features to GTK which the project maintainers (or are they ruled by the GNOME steering committee now ?) didn't like, a new branch would need to be started.
I got trained on XP today at my company, (I do Tech support for an ISP)...they were showing us the new "luna" interface. I acidentally asked what window managers you can choose from, and if there were more than one desktop environment you could run..... DUH, this is MS, it's thier way or the highway.
go ahead an try and put windows into different layers on MS (Always on top?) Anyone who says that MS is easy to use just doesn't understand what's missing.
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
Yes, that is why there are hoards of gtk-- programs out there.
Oh yeah, the fucked with the api so much that no one wants to use it, and one of their core developers left to work on kde instead!
More advanced forms of Qt on X11 (Professional or Enterprise) have more features than Qt/X11? Nope. The difference is that with Professional or Enterprise, you get support from TT (and you are not bound to the GPL).
This actually is quite similiar to Linux distro distribution. You can chose to download redhat freely, for example. Or you can chose to buy the boxed redhat product. When buying, you get service and support from RH.
Also, since Qt/X11 IS gpld, you are free to make and distribute changes to Qt as much as you want.
Also, are you worried that TT will discontinue Qt/X11? Well, this is never happen because 1). It's not in their best interests 2). A few KDE developers are Trolltech employees (and high up ones at that) 3). Because of the Free QT foundation, which states that Qt would automatically would be BSD licensed if it were ever to happen.
As for Qt not being as free as gtk. Qt is using the FSF's preferred license (the GPL). GTK+, meanwhile, is using the FSF's non-preferred license (the LGPL). Also, KDE itself is a __lot__ less corporate controlled than GNOME is. Ximian, (Eazel, R.I.P), Sun, RH, etc..
Qt is not as bad as most GUI frameworks. Gtk-- is better, but 'inti' ( http://sources.redhat.com/inti ) whenever it is done would be even better still (Anyone know what's happening with that?)
One of the unfortunate requirements with Qt is the ability to be compiled with VC++ 6. This alone causes problems with wanting a good design. I myself have found cygwin/mingw32 to finally be usable for all my win32 projects, so maybe now we can drop the 'lame compiler compatibility' requirements.
I think that the presence of the signal/slot preprocessor for Qt shows a fundamental problem with practical C++. I didn't say Qt was 'GOOD' I said for the most part it is OK. Better than Microsoft's MFC and Borland's VCL. Better than wxWindows. A real option for multiplatform apps.
--jeff
ipv6 is my vpn
- How many cool toys you have
- How slick the thing looks
- What language you use (those OO C is a pain in the ass to code in)
- How many graphics buzzwords like AA or DRI you support
- How little memory you use
- How technically elegant you make it
Real progress can be defined as whether the secretary, farmer, mechanic, CEO, or whoever else who isn't a card-carrying geek was able to be more productive and feel better about using than computer than they were with the last version. Anyone,GNOME, KDE, or otherwise, who does not understand this does not understand the desktop. If you do not understand the desktop, you will at best produce a successful user-hostile abomination such as Microsoft did and survive entirely by the politics of corporate IT or at worst get your butt slammed across the entire computing industry.it should be called GNU/GNOME....it was built using rms' "free" compiler, so it *must* be branded as such.
so Nautilus is effectively dead as well right? I mean who's gonna develop and update it now. Where is the Nautilus web site. The Eazel site just basically says (stupid also voice) "you've got .bomb"
I have often wondered if it would be technically feasible for a gnome->kde or kde->gnome translator in the source of the respective apps.
For instance I LOVE some gnome apps (such as gnumeric, evolution, galeon), however KDE is by far my desktop of choice.
How tough would it be to move a gnome app over to kde? I know there are some substantial differences (qt vs gtk, dcop vs cobra, etc) however could a translator be build to translate the source of one desktop app's use of an API to another dektop's API?
It would be so cool to have gnome apps use qt (and thus have all apps look and feel the same). . .
I'm not a high-lever programmer at all (device drivers are my suit) thus I do not know much on the subject of GUI programming.
BTW I have a feeling that gnome will be making some big strides after Sun gets the ball rolling
(hopefully HP will follow Tru64's pursuit in this also -- however I think HP may still try to milk CDE otherwise known as Dashboard for those who remember the failed Windows 3.1 program manager
It's cool to see this starting to come to fruition, but there are problems that we need to keep in mind.
Most things in linux have an incredibly short product cycle. While this means good things get to the public faster, it also discourages some developers. When you have a different libc, different toolkit API coming out every six months, it's hard to convince some people it is worth it to develop for. If you developed against Windows 95, for example, it still runs even without recompilation. Where were Linux systems back then? Everything about typical Linux systems has changed since then, from standard GUI toolkits (GTK and QT, don't think so..), desktop environments (Probably best you could do was CDE), to such fundamentals as the standard C library. Change is good, but in the world of Linux, the change is often done with little to no regard for running the programs of five minutes ago. Binary compatibility is flaky, and even the APIs have changed so drastically. These large projects need to give more thought to compatibility, rather than forcing people with GTK 1.2 apps to do rewrites for 2.0 rather than be left behind..
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
From the page linked to in the above post: "Children are inserted into containers...." Outrageous!!
Why don't you take your arrogant ass to some other site and get a clue before you come back here.
thank-you, finaly, I am glad some one has give reasons. to often people just spout off crap because it is the party line. I realy would have liked to see your long post......to bad you were using windows ;-)
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Niggers have soul(s); unlike their white "cousins". Over to you, cracker.
>> too bad you were using windows
Yes, i'm sorry. I'm on linux-ppc with mozilla now!
feel free to email me though
--jeff
ipv6 is my vpn
Yet sitting down to a windows box is proof positive that X is slow.
Repeat after me:
X is not slow!
X is not slow!
X is not slow!
It is the toolkits that are built on top of X that are not tremendously fast, and in particular GTK+ and Qt (GTK+ seems somewhat worse than Qt in this respect but neither are examplary).
Proof:
Open up an application that uses one of the older, simpler toolkits such as Xt. A simple xterm perhaps, or xman, or xpaint. Enlightenment is also blazing fast. Play. See that X is in fact very, very fast indeed.
Now why is this? Why do the modern GUI toolkits appear to be slow?
Well, I think it comes down to optimization and architectural work. Both Qt and GTK+ are big libraries that attempt to do a great deal of work. But, for instance, neither of them use threads by default. Both use a technique known as an event loop to simulate threaded behaviour, but this is not ideal in terms of speed or efficiency.
Why do they not use threads? Because of cross-platform compatibility issues. Until very recently, FreeBSD's pthread implementation was thoroughly broken, and FreeBSD is a major target for both GTK+ and Qt. So, although Qt, for instance, has had its own thread API and the option of being threaded internally for some time (since qt 2), this has been switched off by default on all *nix platforms until FreeBSD got their act together.
Threading of the toolkits and the desktops and apps built around them will probably be the most significant single optimization to come, but there is other optimization work to be done too. Give it a little time, it will happen.
I'm sure I need not point out that the toolkits that sit atop the Windows GDI are, for the most part, pervasively multi-threaded, and this is where much of their perceived speed comes from.
But please do not blame X for the failings of the toolkits built on top of it. My (admittedly subjective) impression is that when blasting pure Xlib at X, it is at least as fast as raw GDI calls in Windows (see Xscreensaver vs. Windows screensavers for evidence of this).
t is owned by Trolltech that sells more advanced versions of Qt. This means that if someone wanted to add new features to the free Qt, like for instance the ones included in the commercial versions, and Trolltech didn't like it, a new branch would need to be started.
Just to set the record straight:
Qt Free edition (licensed under either the GPL or the QPL, according to your taste) is identical in every way to the full Qt Enterprise edition that is Trolltech's premier commercial product.
Let me reiterate that: Qt Free edition is not cut down in any way whatsoever!
After all, why should it be? It is licensed only for Free software development, so it does not and cannot interfere with Trolltech's sales to commercial developers.
Thus your scenario of a Qt Free edition fork occurring due to people reimplementing features present in QT Enterprise edition will not happen - because there are no features to reimplement!
kde.version = gnome.version * 1.5
:)
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
I think the major flaw with UNIX is not it's command line, complexity or speed, but the fact that it has no standard shell.
While a lot of linux kids see the ability to use any shell (or even implement their own) as a good thing, I see it as a huge hindrance to usability. A user has to learn the different behaviours of bash, csh, ksh, tcsh and virtually countless others, all with their own prompts, line editors and ways of doing things. Aside from the "look" the "feel" of UNIX will always be discordant, further slowing the already confused or annoyed user down in a quagmire of quotes and pipes.
IMO, if linux (or any UNIX aside from OSX) is going to have any chance at the desktop market, it either has to standardize and enforce a single shell, or be replaced by something more modern.
No, wait! make that no standard text editor. I mean, no standard window manager. I mean, no standard programming language. I mean...
Point is, you can standardize on a toolkit for X if you want to, but that doesn't mean everyone should.
If all you're concerned about is free software, both are quite OK to use (from a legal and pro-free-software perspective). This was not always the case, but it is now.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Enlighten me - why shouldn't the X crowd standardize on a single widget toolkit? What are the developer and user drawbacks of this?
War is one of the most horrible things a human can be exposed to. And one of the worlds largest industries.
(I don't know why I'm replying to this drivel, but anyways...)
Point is, you can standardize on a toolkit for X if you want to, but that doesn't mean everyone should.
If the designers of X-Windows built cars, there would be no fewer than five
steering wheels hidden about the cockpit, none of which followed the same principles --
but you'd be able to shift gears with your car stereo.
Useful feature, that.
- Marus J. Ranum, Digital Equipment Corporation
If the Linux Jihad wants to continue disregarding constructive criticism[1] on it's Path To Righteousness(tm),
fine - I don't really care - but don't expect to see average Joe using linux on the desktop anytime soon.
C-X C-S
[1]And really, the only criticism I have of linux (and UNIX in general) is X.
In virtually all other ways, UNIX is a superior OS archetype.
As for generic programming, having implemented a largish project using template metaprogramming I can only look back wondering what the hell I was thinking. The resulting templates took hundreds of lines to express simple concepts. To top that you couldn't port the code to another C++ compiler without battling for days with the deficiencies in the template implementation of the target compiler, with no guarantee of eventual success.
Common Lisp is the only language I've seen that handles abstract compile-time code generation halfway reasonably, and even that is nowhere near perfect.
Niggers have for example considerably smaller frontal lobes than humans. This causes them to behave in a way that often is excused with comments like yours.
> Qt is really quite bad for a C++ project.
No, it's the best C++ toolkit currently available.
> but it's a crufty design that shows that it's older than many features of modern C++.
Basically none of these features are widely portable, so for all practical purposes, you'll be quite happy with what Qt provides. And Qt's design is actually extremely good.
> you think their signal/slot system and rtti system and such are "good."
The slot/signal system is very easy to use and very readable. As for their RTTI, you don't have to use it.
> Requiring moc? Wtf?
moc is hardly seen by the developper. I've done Qt development both at work and at home for two years now, it has practically never been a problem, except when dealing with MSVC project files.
> GTK-- is much, much nicer overall than Qt, from a C++ engineering standpoint.
Have you tried programming a large application with both ? I have. Do so, and see how quickly and how far each one gets you.
And I've read some pretty clueless uninformed crap on /.
You live in Grand Forks..?
Poor guy... I never did like anything about that town, save the pizza place just before the bridge while heading east.
You have a valid point, but i think you are forgetting something very important.
If I, as a card carrying geek find that a new version increases my productivity or enjoyment when using the system, then it can be marked down as positive progress.
Creating a desktop environment which computer-illiterate people can use is a wonderful thing to do, and I am sure that most people here would rejoice. But it's not the only measure of success.
There are many reasons for developing Open Source Software, but non-UNIX-user satisfaction doesn't rate all that highly for me. Current user satisfaction and developer satisfaction seem at least as important.
Something that many people seem to forget is that stealing users from other OSs (any other OS) isn't - or at least shouldn't be - the goal.
tim
LOL!!!
No, I am an escapee!!!
I'm in Vancouver now. (whew!)
sorry this is off topic
--jeff
ipv6 is my vpn
Kmail? Who said anything about evolution, mozilla is more than just a browser.
Konqueror? I must admit they have come quite far scince the origional kfm, but it still lags behind Mozilla.
KFM is really quite above Nautilus, but Nautilus doesn't look like Windows 95.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14