Slashdot Mirror
Gnome 2.0 Beta 2 Released
plastercast writes: "Following the release of GTK2, the second beta of gnome 2.0 is available. There are also release notes here. From Gnotices: 'The GNOME 2.0 Desktop is a greatly improved user environment for existing GNOME applications. Enhancements include anti-aliased text and first class internationalisation support, new accessibility features for disabled users, and many improvements throughout GNOME's highly regarded user interface.'"
but at least we have gnome 2.0
Fact: Linux is not, and never will be, ready for the desktop. If you use Linux as your desktop choice, you are an anti-social nerd who will never get laid.
Myth: Open-source is a viable business strategy.
Fact: No it isn't.
Myth: Slashdot is a nice place to go for intelligent conversation about technology and political issues.
Fact: Slashdot is full of 14 year-old fanboys who toe the party line for the "approval" of people they will never meet and fascist Janitors who resort to low minded trickery and censorship to further their narrow world-view and agenda. If you want to read posts that are Insightful and Funny, read at -1.
Myth: Information wants to be free.
Fact: Musicians want to be paid.
Myth: Constantly putting down popular music and culture shows your uber-intelligence and good taste.
Fact: Constantly putting down popular music and culture shows you are a stuck-up fuckwit with no friends.
Myth: The government is taking away our rights. WAAAAH!!
Fact: While you're busy complaining and stuffing your fat face with pork rinds and cheese puffs, the government is busy keeping you, and the American way of life, safe from harm.
Myth: Libertarianism is a good solution to our problems.
Fact: Libertarianism would result in a worse country than the USSR, with political and economic instability, horrific human rights violations, and exploitation of workers of a scale not seen since slavery was outlawed.
Myth: Microsoft is an evil monopoly bent on world domination.
Fact: Microsoft is a software company based in Redmond, WA, that produces fine software and believes that programmers should get paid for their work.
Have I missed any?
Visit the new Troll site!
WHOSYERDADDY
I thought I read, "...new accessibility features for disabled users, and many improvements throughout GNOME's highly retarded user interface."
doh!
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
I have mirrored the files at my website here.
does anyone know if gnome2.0 beta can be installed via red-carpet?
For those of you who aren't too keen on manually downloading all the individual packages and their dependencies, you may wish to try garnome (http://www.gnome.org/~jdub/garnome/).
It behaves a bit like the BSD ports tree as it'll download and install all the necessary packages. Even better, it'll install them in an out-of-the-way place so you can keep running gnome1.2!
Cheers Koz
Gnome started for one reason and one reason only: RMS didn't agree with the KDE developers' interpretation of the GPL wrt the QT library. Gnome was set up with the intention of creating FUD to delay the uptake of the best thing to ever happen to desktop Linux and to bluff and bully the KDE crowd into getting the QT licencing changed.
Yes, you heard it right, Gnome was *deliberately* started to be "bickering, competing and incompatible" and to stop Linux having a single desktop standard if that standard was to be KDE.
The licence issue is *long* in the past. That out of the way, the Gnome crowd should have had to decency to either scrap Gnome completely (as did those working on the Harmony project, which was developing a GPL QT clone) so we could unite behind KDE or keep Gnome going as a low key longer-term hacker R&D project like Enlightenment. But no, we had to keep the ball rolling didn't we.
Why, given the adverse impact this has had on Linux and other target platforms?
NIH syndrome partly; a lot of big egos (many in the US) were beaten to the punch by a bunch of (mainly) German students.
And the fact that it relies on an existing library means that big egos who want to reinvent the universe can't develop their own object library; they have to do something useful.
But the main reason, irony of ironies, is that it is LGPL rather than KDE's GPL; yes folks, the desktop that began as *THE* GNU free desktop now boasts that it is more commercial-friendly. That's why Sun and HP are putting money into it. Guarantees success? Ah, look at CDE...
Gnome is an expensive, deliberately divisive vapourware project that should have been scrapped after the QT licence changes if the principals involved had any sense of decency or any *REAL* committment to free software. It continues because a bunch of pricks can't admit that they were wrong and continue to put their own giant egos ahead of the development of desktop Unix.
Meanwhile KDE continues to release in its usual methodical fashion while Gnome 2 stays as FUD. ("You may think KDE's kewl, but wait till you see Gnome 2!") Pardon me while I puke...
Gnome and the bastards who've hyped this piece of vapourware and tried to sabotage KDE for the last five years can go to Hell! Who needs Microsoft trying to pull the rug from under the free Unix's when you've got this lot! (Yes, that includes RMS, who is responsible for initiating and encouraging this debacle).
To paraphrase the end of RMS's infamous letter of "forgiveness" to the KDE developers: Go KDE!!!
I am into the copy and paste.
using gnome has been known to cause anal infections I highly recomend KDE for linux users or install windows instead.
the GNOME 2.0 Desktop is a greatly improved user environment for existing GNOME applications. Enhancements include anti-aliased text and first class internationalisation support, new accessibility features for disabled users, and many improvements throughout GNOME's highly regarded user interface.
:-)
Thanks for that info, it's not like we didn't read exactly that same blurb when beta 1 was released...
I bastun bor vi allihopa = we all live in the sauna (it's swedish)
Acts@core.mailboks.com Acrux@core.mailboks.com Adam@core.mailboks.com Adar@core.mailboks.com Ada@core.mailboks.com
More Bloat on the most Bloated desktop environment available!
And just when I thought that my computer was getting too fast, it's a good thing the GNOME project is here to waste my unneeded clock cycles!
I got bitchslapped by cmdrtaco and friends to -1 article posts...so now i just troll anonymously!
I am heartened to see someone else knows about the dangers of Libertarianism.
Ayn Rand and the perversion of libertarianism
The political controversy of the late 19th century was:
whether socialists (all those who believed in the individual's right to possess what he or she produced) should engage in the political process, seize control of the state, and use the state apparatus to achieve liberation;
or, whether a worker's state was inherently contradictory, counter revolutionary, and would only lead to the creation of a new ruling class whose interests would still clash with those of the ruled - that the state should be abolished allowing for no transitional stage of any kind during which power may have the chance to reconsolidate itself.
The situation has recreated itself with amazing similarity almost exactly a century later. Non-libertarian parties the world over (those who see authoritarian centralization as the bulwark of civilization) are bankrupt, economically and intellectually. The only viable intellectual current today falls under that ambiguous term - "libertarian."
Today there exist beneath this umbrella as many splinter groups as there were a hundred years ago under the umbrella of socialism. Two distinct trends, a right and a left if you will, are clearly discernible. One group, clearly the largest with a hierarchical organization modeled on the other political parties, believes, like most Marxists, in constitutional parliamentary republican democracy. They believe that the state is a necessary guarantor of individual safety and the product of the individual's labor, and in gradual progress toward a free society through participation in the political process. The other group, much smaller and far more splintered, rejects the state as necessarily a tool of class domination and exploitation. This group believes that what Bakunin said a hundred years ago is as true today, "If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Czar himself."
The first group is in all fairness a direct inheritor of the ideals of the American Revolution. In modern times, however, it has only two roots: (1) the Austrian school of economics represented by Ludwig Von Mises; (2) the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Von Mises never considered the libertarians. He answered the Marxists and the Keynesians and defended laissez-faire capitalism at a time when no one else would. His justification for capitalism was empirical - the greatest good for the greatest number. Ayn Rand, however, attempted to offer a moral justification of capitalism by substituting the word `capitalism' for the libertarian meaning of the word "socialism." She then attributed all of the ills of capitalism to government interference with the market and all of the world's wealth to the minds of the men whom the world considered the robber barons.
The contrast between Ayn Rand's "Objectivism" and libertarianism is deeper than mere substitution of terminology, however. Several of her propositions or axioms place her clearly outside of the libertarian tradition. Her justification of the state is derived from a Hobbesian state of nature theory:
... a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into chaos and gang warfare.... [The Virtue of Selfishness, 152; pb 112]
If a society provided no organized protection against force, it would compel every citizen to go about armed, to turn his home into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his door - or to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other gangs, formed for the same purpose, and thus bring about the degeneration of society into the chaos of gang rule, i.e., rule by brute force, into perpetual warfare of prehistoric savages. [Ibid., 146; pb 108]
Ayn Rand's belief in the inherent depravity of human nature which renders us forever incapable of living without rulers and not descending to the level of `savages', clearly places her outside of the libertarian tradition which views human nature as essentially good, capable of indefinite improvement through the experience of freedom and the exercise of reason. Her knowledge of anthropology is as embarrassing as her understanding of history. For example, in regards to her conception of who are the savages, she describes America as, "...a superlative material achievement in the midst of an untouched wilderness, against the resistance of savage tribes." [For The New Intellectual, 58; pb 50]
To Rand, the essential characteristic of the state is that it possesses a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. How does she justify this monopoly or national sovereignty? She accepts it as a given, something not requiring a justification, and demands that an-archy, the negation of the proposition, justify itself. Her concept of national sovereignty is then something transcendental, existing separate and apart from individuals, and beyond the right of the individual to accept or reject according to his or her own reason. These propositions clearly place Ayn Rand's philosophy closer to Hobbes, Hegel, and Marx, than to libertarianism.
The state, according to Miss Rand, must hold a monopoly on the enforcement of contracts and the settling of disputes between individuals, at least whenever this arbitration is not accepted by both sides voluntarily. She fails to consider that the enforcement of contracts by the state fundamentally alters the nature of free agreements. Agreements are made on terms which otherwise might not be, because they are justiciable.
The terms of "free agreements" under law are titled in favor of lenders over debtors, landlords over tenants, employers over employees, in a way which would not exist in a "free market." This leveraging of power is not `objective' at all. Depending purely on legal convention, creditors may have debtors imprisoned, tenants may be evicted without notice and their effects confiscated, one human being may own another or the land on which another lives and works, all to varying degrees.
To understand Ayn Rand's psychology it is helpful to know her background. She was born to a wealthy St. Petersburg family in 1905. The position of her family in Czarist society must have been considerable. At a time when the lives of most Russians had changed little since feudalism, her family was wealthy enough to afford a French Governess and take regular vacations to the Crimea.
It should be noted that wealth in Czarist society was almost wholly a measure of one's favor with the government. There were few if any Horatio Alger stories about individuals who lifted themselves out of serfdom without the patronage of the Czar.
At the age of twelve, she must have been very upset when those nasty workers took over her father's business. Her family fled St. Petersburg for the Crimea and the protection of the White Army. This experience rendered her forever incapable of seeing land reform or any struggle of oppressed and exploited people as anything more than hatred for the good and lust for the unearned.
She shared with Marx the bourgeois ideology that only a few people were capable of running things. The masses ought to be happy to have a job working for bosses. Any suggestion that an enterprise could be run by the employees without having someone in charge was to her absurd.
She shared with Godwin and Kropotkin the belief that the individual is born tabula rasa - a blank slate, and all human knowledge is derived from sense experience. She then proceeded, however, to completely dismiss environment and socialization as the determining factor in the development of character.
People were to her good or evil, brilliant or indolent, depending solely on their volition. People should be judged by their actions with equal severity regardless of their condition. Though she insisted that the United States was not and never had been a completely free country, she granted no such thing as extenuating circumstances when judging an individual and had no qualms upholding the power of the state to inflict capital punishment.
A far more sinister legacy of Ayn Rand to libertarianism is that of a moralizing autocrat who gathered about her an inner circle which she ironically called, "The collective." Outwardly, this collective professed egoism and individuality. They were to be the vanguard of an intellectual renaissance. The price of admission to this group, however, was slavish conformity of one's life and professed philosophy to Ayn Rand's whims and eccentricities. For example, she did not like men who wore facial hair or listened to Mozart, and if you didn't give them up you were unfit for Rand's inner circle. This is particularly sinister if one considers that Karl Marx, believed by millions to be the very symbol of liberation, was also an autocrat who, though professed to be the ultimate champion of democracy, resorted to extraordinary means to maintain control of the International Workingmen's Association. He even moved its headquarters to New York to exclude the libertarian influence.
Today Ayn Rand is gone, but like Marx a century ago, hers is the primary influence on the largest libertarian organization existing. Even the pledge which all Libertarian Party members must sign is taken directly from her admonition, "I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals." In spite of their pledge to non-violence, many libertarians are frustrated with election laws and media censorship. An argument which circulates among libertarians of the right is that, if they were more threatening, the government may take steps to accommodate them as it did the black civil rights movement.
Ayn Rand's writings are not entirely consistent on the point of non-violence either. In The Fountainhead, Howard Roark resorts to the use of dynamite. In Atlas Shrugged, Ragnar Danneskjold engages in piracy on the high seas and even shells a factory which has been nationalized. In a clandestine rescue mission, Dagny Taggart shoots a guard who stood in the way of her desired end.
In the event of economic upheaval, ruined by unemployment and inflation, tenants and home owners may refuse to make rent and mortgage payments. The unemployed may seize vacant land and begin to farm, and factory workers may realize they can run things without stock holders. It would not be at all surprising if there were to emerge within the libertarian right, groups committed to direct action and counter revolutionary violence, even a coup d'etat.
Imagine a charismatic and autocratic personality at the center of such a group and you have the Objectivist Lenin. Like the Marxists and right libertarians, Lenin and the Objectivists are professed republican democrats. Lenin and the Bolsheviks promised that if given power, they would immediately convoke a constituent assembly. When they realized, however, they would not hold a majority in such an assembly they turned against the idea of such an assembly.
Can anyone doubt that the cultist mentality which characterizes most of Miss Rand's followers could lead to the creation of a group of self-appointed avengers of the capitalist class? That they would suppress strikes, demonstrations, and factory take overs? That they would not execute people for crimes against the libertarian state?
Ayn Rand believed in a republican form of government with a cleverly constructed constitution which would deny the majority of the power to infringe on the rights of a minority as she conceived them. If the majority supported a general strike against rents and mortgages and supported the factory takeovers, would not the clandestinely organized Objectivist libertarian party be tempted to dispense with democracy in order to enforce what they conceived of as the rights of the dispossessed bourgeoisie?
In all fairness it must be admitted that Ayn Rand herself would never sanction such actions, but the same argument is made everyday by western Marxists that Marx would probably not have sanctioned many of Lenin's actions and would certainly not take credit for the Soviet Union.
Lenin and the Bolsheviks won power by promising, "Land to the peasants!" "Factories to the workers!" When they took power, however, they immediately set about liquidating the factory committees and nationalizing the land. They crushed work place democracy by installing armed guards in the factories, and even returned former owners to their positions as employees of the worker's state. Leon Trotsky stopped the practice of soldiers electing their officers from their ranks and even restored former Czarist officers to their ranks in the Red Army.
When the Russian Revolution began few people clearly understood the gulf which separated the state socialists from the libertarians. Many dedicated libertarians like Alexander Berkman, rallied to the Bolshevik cause, willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in hopes that seizing state power would only be a transitional stage toward the development of the stateless/classless society.
Many sincere lovers of liberty now flock to the standard of the Libertarian Party, as they did the Bolsheviks, completely ignorant of the history of the last century. As Santayana said: "Those who forget the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them."
What should be done? It should be obvious that government enforcement of private contracts is not libertarian any more than is taking state power to set people free. Libertarianism is and always will mean socialism - the self-emancipation of working people.
Libertarians must stop courting the Republican right and return to their intellectual roots. By standing outside of the political process we deny the state legitimacy, and like the state torturers in Atlas Shrugged, they will come and beg for libertarians to take over.
Remembering the experience of the Spanish libertarians, and heeding the advice of John Galt, libertarians must refuse state power even when begged. The state can never be a tool of liberation. Only its complete and utter collapse will allow for the emergence of non-statist institutions, libertarian co-ops, communes, and free markets, to flourish and displace the political state once and for all.
I am into the copy and paste.
Keep in mind that right now, building the GNOME 2.0 Desktop from CVS is NOT for the faint-hearted! However, if your idea of support is prompt integration of your patches, please consider testing, using and contributing to it.
Why take the chance? Is anti-aliased text and multilanguage support really worth it?
Does this mean a non-PhD student can install a Linux GUI now?!!?!?
If there was a way for me to grab one tarball and ./configure; make install, then I'd actually check it out this. I simply don't have the time (ok I have the time, but there's other things I should be doing) to do that to 20 different packages.
:/ Or is there a way to ./configure; make debs?
Oh and even if I did configure 20, ok now that I look at it again, 30+ packages, what's uninstallation like to clean up if I decide to go back to plain old wmaker? I've always how hated linux spreads it's files all over the place
I know, there this page which simplifies compiling a lot for stable sources, but I can't find a page like this for gnome 2 beta 2.
I just wish they'd work more on interoperability
Seriously, though, with De Icaza chasing MS tail lights on one side, and KDE creating monolitic frameworks -- kcalc has the biggest footprint I've ever seen for a calculator -- on the other, I fail to see anything appealing with the current linux desktop solutions.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
Then I am hosting the same page here: http://65.35.12.207:8080
Best on the left worst on the right
Windows 95, KDE, Windows 98, Mac OS X, BeOS, Mac os classic, Blackbox, Nextstep, Fvwm, mc, dos, vim, GNOME
Gnome needs full install RPMs. I'm on broadband and i refuse to download a file in 200 diffrent peices.
I want a 150meg RPM of Gnome2 and then i'll try it.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Following the release of ________, the ______(st,nd,rd) beta of _______ x.x is available. There are also release notes here. Enhancements include ________ and __________, along with plenty of _________ and many improvements throughout _________'s highly regarded user interface! Everyone should go download it now!
[insert lame editor comment]
Dear Troll,
We are sad to inform you that, after careful consideration , we have rejected your troll submission to the Troll Library.
You show a a poor skill at trolling. Please go read Troll Howto, and try again. Either that, or stick to adequacy.
I am into the copy and paste.
Seriously, it's too hot and crowded with all those packages. My plain Sawfish is working just fine, and a lot cooler.
--
The Cap is nigh. Time to get a fresh new account.
and we still have AC's getting First Post.
Another triumph for the AC.
REVOLT IN SAN CRISTOBAL DE LAS CASAS, CHIAPAS, MÉXICO ON EVENING OF 7TH
MARCH 2002
Large crowds repel police, set police vehicles on fire, and loot supermarket
and big shops.
A carnival atmosphere prevails as crowds control the streets for over 3
hours.
Later police enter area, fire tear gas and make a reported 50 arrests
The conflict occurred in the area around the public market, a poor area
where many indigenous people live and work, and followed a police operation
against sellers of pirated merchandise.
On the morning of 8 March police with riot gear cordon off an area around
the public market.
This is an incomplete report written a few hours after the events from eye
witness reports, and info in the local press and radio. More info hopefully
to follow. Feel free to circulate but please remove e mail address.
A major revolt with thousands on the streets engulfed the area around the
public market in San Cristobal de Las Casas on the evening of 7 March.
Large crowds broke into at least 3 big stores, including a supermarket and
department store. In a festive atmosphere men, women and children joyfully
carted off large amounts of food, drink, clothes and furniture over a period
of over 2 hours. Onlookers, including women with babies, elderly people and
children watched with interest, and some shouted advice to the looters about
the best route to take to avoid the police.
Two police vehicles were set on fire and burnt in the middle of the street.
The crowd repulsed an attempt by the police to enter the area, hurling
missiles. A shop was set alight and the fire was still burning at midnight.
From before 7pm till after 10pm thousands were on the streets, and the
police seemed to have little or no presence an no control over the
situation.
The conflict reportedly started at 6pm after a police operation to arrest
sellers of pirated CDs etc.. Local newspaper La Foja reports that a police
attempt to enter the area around this time was repulsed by the crowd
throwing missiles.
By 7pm a police vehicle was ablaze in the street by the public market,
hundreds, if not thousands were in the streets and police were not to be
seen. Around 8pm missiles were seen being hurled, and slightly later a line
of riot police were formed across the road behind Santo Domingo church.
Around 8pm the crowd began to break into large shops by the market, breaking
plate glass windows and tearing off iron grilles on the entrances. Tela de
Mexico, Alamanecenes Grandes, and then the supermarket which is opposite
the last named, on a side street by the market, were all sacked. Around the
same time another fire was burning in the street by the market, reportedly a
second police car ablaze.
Large crowds of men, women and children carried off bags and boxes of food
and groceries, sacks of rice or beans, bottles of wine and spirits,
mattresses, sofas and much more. Eye witnesses reported a joyful and
excited atmosphere. There were few vehicles in the area, but taxis and cars
that strayed into the area were allowed to pass unhindered.
Around 10.15pm a large fire was seen burning near the market, reportedly a
shop. Around 10.- 10.30pm police, some armed and some with riot shields and
helmets, entered the area, charged the crowd and made arrests. According to
local radio 50 men, women and children were arrested. La Foca paper reports
the use of ?an excessive use of force? by the police when making arrests.
Police fired tear gas on more than one occasion, and tear gas swept down
nearby streets, causing discomfort to inhabitants of houses. Fire fighters
entered the area to combat the fires.
By 11.30 pm police appeared to have regained control of the situation,
though there were still crowds in the street, the shop continued to burn and
there were remnants of a fire in the street. Local radio reports 6 police
received hospital treatment. It is not known how many civilians were
injured by the police violence.
Reports in the media that some of the crowd applauded the entry of the
police into the area were not confirmed by eye witnesses who reported
instead mass participation in looting, and many onlookers observing without
any worries. The reactions observed to the arrival of the police were
either resistance or flight.
At 9am the next morning, 8 March, an area around the public market was
cordoned off by police with riot gear who were preventing entry by the
public.
More news may follow, and there may be reports on Indymedia Chiapas (this
report is not however from Indymedia Chiapas or any organization)
Note San Cristobal de Las Casas in Chiapas, southern Mexico has a
population of over 130,000, many of whom live in poverty, many lack basic
services such as electricity, piped water and drainage in their houses. A
large proportion of the population are indigenous people, the majority
Tzotziles, and suffer racist discrimination.
I am into the copy and paste.
At the end of the announcement, there is the phrase:
*bounce*bounce*bounce*
Apparently the GNOME developers are bouncing with joy. I hope that is what it is, at least.
Everything is mainstream now.
"I bastun bor vi allihopa = we all live in the sauna (it's swedish)"
Damn. You mean it's not "I'm cuckoo for cocoa puffs"?
All my hopes for this release are dashed.
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
%s/beta 1/early hacked code/g
%s/beta 2/test code/g
%s/final/early alpha 1 stage/g
That was NOT a troll! It was just a simple opinion of all the guis that i tried over the years, and yes i HATE GNOME! Windows 95 was the best desktop ever until micro$oft had to fuck it up!
This is the sort of thing that will make open source software broad and popular. You get a dedicated audience who (literally) depends on the product, and the social brownie points racked up by catering to the disabled improves the image of GNOME in broader tech and policy circles.
Goat sex free since 2001
How much space does GARNOME require to build?
On my x86 system, GARNOME 0.7.0 requires 1.1GB as build space, and 206MB once installed
206MB for a fucking window manager/desktop enviroment? Hell you can install win95 in less space and still have more apps and a consistent interface.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
but the new features just aren't doin' it for me. i'm not handicapped and i don't plan to be any time soon. i don't speak hungarian, and will probably only start once i'm handicapped. and i'm comfortable enough with gdkxft hack to stick with it until a new install. gnome has MUCH more it needs to work on before catering to hungarian handicaps. and i'm sick of seeing that blurb time and time again. why not just say, "Gnome 2.0 released: so who cares?"
Dear Troll,
We are plesed to inform you that, after careful consideration , we have accepted your troll into the Troll Library.
You show a masterful skill at trolling.
Thank you for your time and your contribution.
I am into the copy and paste.
Watch out, because they're the saviors of Linux on the desktop! (Whatever that means, I'm running X with Blackbox, and it seems to work just fine without KDE.)
The minions of KDE would have you foolishly believe that Linux can't be successful without them. The fact is, it won't be successful with them. People won't switch to Linux just because there's a desktop that looks like Windows.. Haven't we learned that? I didn't see people switching so they could use fvwm!
Why will people flock to Linux and KDE, when they can run more applications, and the applications they actually use, on Microsoft Windows?
This kind of pissing contest is probably why so many open source projects never get farther than a trash can. Look at Sourceforge sometime. Look at all the dead projects. What happens is someone has a nice idea somewhere, and then hordes of ignorant zealots come in, flaming and harassing them.
People who insist you have to use KDE and that it is the savior of Linux, and will end world hunger, are no better than those who insist Gnome will cure cancer and cause significant hair regrowth in balding men.
And neither of them are better than a company in Redmond who would also have you believe that the only way is their way.
I dont know about everyone else - but I find KDE, Gnome, wmaker, and all the others very slow compared to MS Windows....
Before I get replies about KDE and gnome being resource hogging, slow, bloated, too many features... that is what I want. I want to have a nice looking, easy to use desktop. With a nice file manager, good web browser, extensive control panel, something that rivals windows. I don't want the simplest windows manager available so I can get similar performace to XP running on the same hardware.
With KDE, Netscape takes a good 10 seconds to load. Konqueror isn't much better. Fair enough, gimp loads quicker than photoshop. But when I can load internet explorer in a blink on a win98 machine, I find this frustrating. When Mandrake control center takes 20 seconds to come up, and windows control panel on a second or two...
They are the reasons I stay with windows....
never mind my friend i recently switched from linux/gnome to windows 2000 and i think it was a good decission, things simply work and if something fuck up completely you can reinstall it within 1-2 hours instead wasting 2-3 days for gnome.
if (gnome_article & some_one_mentions_kde)
,qt and gtk+. just scrap one program and improve the other!
{
moderate(-1)
}
else if (kde_article & some_one_mentions_gnome)
{
moderate(-1)
}
That no language in particular code is how the moderators act on slashdot!
Stop this fucking flame war, its the same thing, people flame each oither over which is better! Other examples include emacs and vim, linux and windows
Will you explain
to an intelligent
but uninformed user
who uses macs
and sometimes windows
what is GNOME
what is KDE
which to use
or maybe both
are they friends?
are they enemies?
Don't they do
pretty similar things?
Aren't desktop separatists
hurting the cause?
Or did they finally release an anti-alias process for fonts that doesn't make them look fugly? :)
-f-
Don't you think that is their internationalization was so good, it would have changed that 's' into a 'z' for those of us in the US.
since i am a man i gonna shit it out - but hey. didn't all mexicans come to world like this ?
If you're not willing to go to any effort, why should the Gnome project worry about you?
Perhaps if you dowloaded all the rpms yourself and formed them into 1, then setup a ftp server for other like-minded people, you'd be more help.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Ever done a gnome up the butt? Theyre not just good for lawn ornaments you know.
Note, the correct moderation score for this is score 5, informative! Anything else is a LIE!
I have tried both KDE and Gnome and here is my opinion! Feel free to flame me if you want but im not a troll and i like linux a lot!. Gnome is bloated shit and is very BUGGY! it is also out of date and UGLY! Its is the slowest thing EVER MADE! Ever tried to run nautilus? You better press ctrl alt F1 instead for a REAL file manager because this is slow crap and there are many better alternatives!
KDE is smaller in terms of packages (about 80 mbs in rpms compared to about 200 for gnome). It takes slightly longer to start up but it IS MUCH FASTER aferterwards. Konqueror is a kick ASS FILE MANAGER and its freaking fast as well as an excellent web browser. KDE is ultra sexy or you can configure it to be plain too. Gnome is just plain ugly like motif and win 3.1 yuck *(!
Conclusion
KDE 85%
Gnome 20 %
Only speed could make kde better although its quite fast now, gnome requires you to have a SUPERCOMPUTER to get nautilus running fast enough!
"Q. How do I use anti-aliased fonts?
A. Set the GDK_USE_XFT environment variable. eg.: export GDK_USE_XFT=1"
and in windows I just click this button here...
Slipping Away...
Even if you consider gnome to be worthless as a desktop UI, without it KDE and therefore QT would have had a monopoly on integrated opensource desktops. Without the threat of the gnome project (and the considerable industry backing it has) TrollTech (creators of QT) would not have released QT under the GPL. Gnome has helped KDE to be free more than you can imagine.
Hi mum!
Here's a question I don't know the answer to - what happens when Internet Explorer crashes? Does it get completely unloaded from memory, like any crashes program should, or does partially remain?
Explorer.exe and IExplore.exe are just regular processes. Why would they "partially remain" after they crash? Here's a Windows experiment. CTRL+SHIFT+ESC to open your Windows Task Manager and kill Explorer.exe. Your computer does not crash, but your shell just disappeared. From the Windows Task Manager, File \ New Task Run explorer.exe and your shell just came back.
cpeterso
GNOME 1 AND GNOME 2 does not work together. now let me explain why.
let us asume you have a gnome 1 setup floating around somewhere on your system and now install gnome 2 (well yes you can install them together without harming (at least it is said)) but things does not work. now after i started up gnome 2 the first time i was presented with the old windowmanager and old gnome 1 preferences stuff. the reason for this is that the new gnome binaries and resources do not understand what resources are meant for gnome 1 and what for gnome 2 so they share things. your gnome 1 desktop will get gnome 2 components and your gnome 2 desktop uses gnome 1 components or simply use old core programs. the result is a totally messed up system.
they claim that things work perfectly but the sad truth is it does not. so beware before trying a gnome 2 installation on your system that still has gnome 1. or do you want to use a old windowmanager that does not know the new wm_hints with a new gnome 2 ? or do you want to use the old control center crap on your new gnome 2 ? theoretcally using them is possible but practically it fuck your entire system up. however if you trust me or not - please keep these lines in mind when trying gnome 2. another line for you. it is not worth the time messing with gnome 2. it is still too unstable to use. i wonder how they plan to release gnome 2 on end of march, this is a dream.
You have just received the Amish Virus!
Since we do not have electricity or computers,
you are on the HONOR SYSTEM!
Please delete ALL of your files....
Thank Thee.
Alan Thicke's Journal
My Slashdot ads say "
If you want to run Gnome, it runs even better
on BSD.
Gnome and KDE are just too much for older hardware. If you want a good, fast windowmanager, I'd recommend WindowMaker. It's not as feature-full as a desktop, but it's speedy and pretty good.
As for Gnome programmes, install and use some of the gtk-engines, like gtk-flat (my personal fave) and gtk-xenophillia. They'll speed up the UI of your gtk apps considerably compared to most standard gtk-pixmap-based themes.
Lastly, console is always your friend. :)
i, for one, am excited about the evolution of GNOME, not so much as a desktop platform but as a pleasantly competitive basis for designing GUI apps on *nix. i think the desktop thing should be a matter of preference, and while some interoperability between GNOME and KDE would be swell, they're two very different project right now. as far as people wanting a quick-fix easy desktop on linux, well.. *nix has never been friendly, but i think the people who can get by with a few terminal windows, a couple GTK/QT apps, their gkrellm, and their window manager of choice are right at home. why be all-or-nothing about this stuff? choice is a wonderful thing.
I have to agree with a couple of posts here. One, yes I personally can't stand the slower speed of GNOME, but as of right now, that's the only thing keeping me on KDE. KDE is faster, but GNOME has the programming tools to make more exciting programs on it. Speed up GNOME, and KDE has a worthy challenger.
Either way, keep the competition going, choice is a great thing, hell, lets get a third project started here!
And to imagine M$ actually releases propaganda that says having a choice of desktops is a bad thing... heh.
-Archan
Blah to the skins and Blah to the punks and Blah to the world and everybody sucks.
Gnome and KDE are embarrassing sloths. High cpu, memory and disk usage.
/w two 4MB scsi drives. Started with 48mb, then 64, 80 and 96. 80MB got it over 'the hump' of constantly being slow. Instead, there were just 'dead spots' where gnome or kde were pegging both cpus(disk io was nill).
/w two scsi drives, that had w95 already on it. The
/w w95 shouldn't be faster than the more capable box /w linux.
My example:
I installed redhat 7.2 on a dual Pentium 133, 96MB,
So I've also aquired a single cpu p133, 64mb,
single p133 with less memory is faster in w95 than the dual p133 with 96mb. Fast enough that I almost don't notice that it's a p133.
Sooo, what happend? The less capable box
so to say gnome or kde will never be ready for the consumer is ridiculous.
kde has been around for only 4 years I believe.
I also believe if I am not mistaken that people do get paid for developing php web sites or jboss and tomcat. I also believe that a company like hancom sells quite a few linux word processing programs in asia.
On the server front, mysql (despite my reservations about its iodotic ideas about foreign keys) just kicked sql servers ass on PC mags benchmarks.
Youre just a microsoft fan boy that is afraid of the inevitable. Microsoft can't kill kde or gnome like it did to the vastly superior Beos, since it does not play by the rules of marketshare.
I also believe that pure libertarianism would allow a monopoly like microsoft to stand.
I think the biggest myth you forgot to mention is that youre intelligent and have any insight at all.
GARNOME has not been updated for the beta 2 release, but you can download the latest GARNOME (0.7.5) for the 20020225 snapshot and manually change the version info for the latest packages and their checksums, and then it will work just as normal :)
HTH,
Michel Salim
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
The reason i switched from KDE is because Gnome hogs less memory than KDE does.
I atually find Gnome to be faster than KDE. I guess it depends on what settings you choose to enable/disable (themes etc) and how your window manager is set up. The only slow Gnome thing is the new Nautilus filemanager/porn-viewer
I'm looking forward to Gnome2 so I can get some AA fonts...
well not with this handy little gadget.
/ gnome-2.0-desktop-beta2/*bz2
wget -c --retr-symlinks ftp://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/pre-gnome2/releases
Good point. Is it a coincidence that Linus the Great is a native speaker of Swedish (although a Finnish national)? Methinks not.
--
The Cap is nigh. Time to get a fresh new account.
Dude, you're not the Only one. XFree is the bloat.
Did you read my post. I agree with that, but Gnome should have stepped down and dissolved after the licensing issue was resolved regarding QT.
I am into the copy and paste.
Yeah, appealing to the minority is the way to win popularity. Because, if you get the smallest group possible to like you, the majority will follow... wouldn't they? Yeah, I think so. Y'see, it's all about marketing. And if you market yourself for the smallest group possible, then you'll be more likely to succeed.
Aside from all that, Windows accessibility features are what make Windows popular. That's why I use windows - GIANT icons, HUGE cursor, and the Narrator (oh how I find that useful!). Yes, so by making Gnome available to disabled people, it'll surge in popularity. And just because it has such features, I'm ditching KDE. Those brownie points are too difficult to resist.
Congrats to the Gnome developers, this feature was sooo worth it. Now there'll be 3 more Linux users. That's right, THREE!!! Totally worth it.
Windows 2K Server takes about an hour to install. However, it comes with a paucity of useful software...c'mon...Wordpad? Pinball? IE? LookOut Express? Paint? Also there's the time it takes to patch. That takes MUCH longer than the install.
I installed Red Hat 7.2 today. Again, it took me an hour. But I now have tons of useful software and even some of my favorite timesink games. Yeah, I know there's patching to do here too. But most of the patches don't require rebooting.
Don't get me wrong...I like Windows 2000. It's way better than 9x and arguably better than XP. And unlike Win2K I still have a lot to learn about Linux. But as far as tweak factors, installing Linux and installing 2K are about even. And Linux just plain gives you more good stuff to play with.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
I've heard that Nautilus is slow, but I've never installed it on my computer, and I assure you that GNOME is a lot faster than KDE on my box.
The great thing about GNOME is that it isn't one giant inseparable blob -- you can use just what you want to use.
I know one person that uses KDE, and over thirty that use GNOME. GNOME has way more support and more developers. I wouldn't worry about being "forced to switch".
> And Linux just plain gives you more good stuff to play with.
... and this is the important point. i want to use my system not play with it. there is no need to run into excuses or something. i was using linux for over 10 years now and i for sure get back onto linux as soon as i am allowed to but for my current TASK i'd better use windows.
i fully agree to this.
Libertarianism, the general philosophy, is based on the idea that you own yourself and the fruits of your labor, and that you have the right to decide what is best for yourself. A libertarian government would be very small and do very little: it would enforce the laws against fraud and force, and it would enforce contracts, and it would handle national defense. "Victimless" crimes (such as using drugs, or paying for sex) would not be crimes. If you had cancer and wanted to take an experimental drug, there would be no FDA to forbid you to do it. It would still be illegal to hurt people or steal their stuff, or fool people into giving their money to you. Pollution would still be regulated but the mechanisms used might be different from what you see today.
Sadly, while most people would love to live in a libertarian society, almost everyone has some pet feature of government that they like, or else they don't want other people to be fully free, or both. (For example, some people who disapprove of drugs want drugs to be illegal.) Take the union of all the things people want government to do, and you have a large, complex government.
As this is off the main topic, I won't make this much longer, but will close with two final points:
0) libertarians don't, as a rule, want poor people to suffer and die; rather they think private charities would do a better job of helping the poor.
1) Not only do libertarians want to end things like welfare, but they also want tax burdens to be remarkably lower. Right now charities get lots of donations, even though the tax rate is over 50% for most people (add up state and federal income tax, sales and restaurant taxes, car and gas tax, etc. etc. and include things like Social Security "contributions" and you will go over 50% quickly). If the overall tax rate for people went down to 10% or less, charitable contributions would increase.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Does this mean that now I can finally get Chinese/Japanese input methods (*Wnn) working without having to change my entire frickin' GUI (including menus, calendar, etc) over to the target language? ...ie: the way it's supposed to work? ...eg: the way it works in that other OS?
The way it is now (Gnome 1.4, stock RH7.2 install), I had to set up a separate user account, with the LANG variable set to zh_TW, and run a separate X session (all in Chinese) just to get the ability to key-in some text. Wnn won't work without the LANG variable set, but setting it changes the global Gnome environment too. If there's a way around this, nobody I know has been able to figure it out yet...
--jrd
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Hmm, is it me or are INSTALL and README missing from all of the archives of garnome.
Nice anecdotal evidence. Can you produce any more logical fallacies that 'prove' GNOME is better?
I am into the copy and paste.
"Either way, keep the competition going, choice is a great thing, hell, lets get a third project started here!"
s /shots.html
Like Enlightenment.
http://www.enlightenment.org/page
Or GnuStep.
http://www.gnustep.org/
gnome 2 final 'the i want to fuck anal cocks wife into her other eye so she walks around without seeing the light of her life because i am so fucking dumb gay and a homo fag nigger anus nigger arse then i make a cum festival with anal cocks, richard m. stallman and miguel the toiletcleaner icaza in a dark house with cool bukkake release' released today 29 march 2002.
There already is one. It's called Enlightenment. That's the new one I'm waitin' for.
This is a really odd argument. You seem to be implying that software must get more bloated and slow as new hardware gets faster.
Wouldn't it make more sense to use new hardware capabilities for actually doing work, rather than doing what the old software did, only slower?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Also one can't forget XFce, which is a pretty nice (and damned light-weight) desktop.
Then there's one of those BeOS projects (I can never keep them straight) that's putting the BeOS API on X (and eventually on DirectFB I believe).
And if Wine ever matures, you could actually start using Microsoft Windows as your desktop system on X. It'll be a scary day when I actually start seeing native Linux ELF binaries written in the Win32 API.
I run GNOME and KDE on a Pentium 166 with 48 MB RAM, and they almost don't use ANY CPU power at all!
They just use a lot of memory, but ALL modern software use a lot of memory so that doesn't surprise me.
And about Win95 vs GNOME: the Win95 desktop environment isn't nearly as advanced and modular as GNOME (or KDE). More features = more RAM usage (have you used Win98 on that same system yet?).
But minimal environments like IceWM are just as fast as Win95.
No it's not. Ever tried standalone IceWM/WindowMaker/Xfce/Fvwm yet? They run fast as hell.
GTK+ has been pretty good with speed (as far as Linux goes). Does the 2.0 release make it worse or better? I just upgraded to a Athlon 1700+ and KDE-2 finally runs as fast as Win2K did on my PII-300. Some things, like resizing the web browser, are even a bit faster. Not as much as I was expecting for 5X the clock speed, but at least the Konqueror prefs panel opens about as fast as Word used to...
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
you spend too much time searching for porn my friend....
I installed RedHat 7.2 in under 8 minutes on my new computer. It has a Pentium 4 1.7GHz processor and 512 MB RAM. I'm downloading Gnome2 Pre-2 right now using garnome. I'll post back here once I get it all downloaded and running.