Slashdot Mirror
GNOME 2.0 Desktop Beta 3 Released
damiam writes "GNOME 2.0 Desktop Beta 3 has been released. Changes include new versions of Nautilus, Yelp, and the control center, as well as bugfixes all around. Download it from gnome.org or one of the mirrors." Jeff Waugh adds: "The possibility of a complete beer freeze at GUADEC has inspired another kickarse release of the GNOME 2.0 Desktop. It's awesome stuff, definitely worth trying out. You should find GARNOME handy if there are no packages available for your distro."
This release is codenamed "La lluvia en Sevilla es una maravilla", which babelfish translates to "Rain in Seville is a wonder". Any spanish speakers here that can tell us, what it really means? :-)
You should make them - if you have the brains to compile software, you have the brains to package it. As well as not breaking your system, and ensuring a uninform install, uninstall / query process for all your software, your work is repeatable for other users and generally other distributions.
GARNOME seems like a pretty sweet deal, should give people running less mainstream versions of linux or other *n*x's a chance to run Gnome. Has anyone tried this, i'm interested in the results, very interested.
Dick Laurent is dead.
Wow, I'm impressed nobody has posted links to screenshots yet!
Here you go: http://developer.gnome.org/dotplan/images/
I'm pretty new to Linux (I've ran it since January as a primary OS.. before I had it installed but only dicked around with it once and awhile) and I've been trying to figure this out for awhile.
What are the main differences between Gnome and KDE?
I use KDE because it seems a lot more natural for me, with a lot more tools to change stuff around with. I go over to Gnome sometimes, and I wonder what difference there is between KDE and Gnome. They look the same, they have a similar 'feel'.. I personally don't see the difference.
(note; this is not a troll, this is something I am legitimately wondering about)
Anyone know if there are any themes allready ported to gtk2? the default theme does not look very .... impressive. Now if someone would have ported the xeno* theme engine to gtk2 ... hmmm ;)
:)
:) very cool !
Btw, what you can't see on the screenshots that some screen updates have been undergone a major overhaul in gtk2. For example take gtop, the process monitor. With gtk1.x it would flicker so much you can't use it. (Basicly the whole screen is redrawn each refresh, and u can watch the redraw
With gtk2 this is MUCH better, i guess due to double buffering. you only see the numbers change
Yeah, the fonts pretty much suck, I use fonts from Windows, but better hinting in the fonts wont help much for most people's default freetype installations, as the proper bytecode interpreter by default is disabled, and the crappy auto-hinter is enabled by default. But don't blame the freetype people for this, blame Apple's patent. I would think by merely shipping freetype with the bytecode interpreter, enabled or not, is a big risk. Anyway, enabling proper hinting takes a recompile, the include file include/freetype/config/ftoption.h has the option specified on line 435 or thereabouts..
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Funny, I'm looking at it from my Titanium PowerBook G4 as well, and I see nothing wrong with most of the fonts in the screenshots. Some people picked what I would consider ugly fonts in some screenshots, but that's their right. OSX, in comparison, for better or worse, gives people very little choice.
I see plenty wrong with your attitude, however. Apple has only been able to spend that much time and money on graphic design because they got much of the nitty-gritty work done for them by open source folks. If it weren't for open source, OSX wouldn't be here and Apple would likely be out of business soon.
And maybe Apple should spend some time on their own font rendering as well, because, frankly, Apple's anti-aliasing on PowerBooks sucks.
I just have trouble believing that in the year 2002 you guys still don't have nice hinted fonts shipping and in-use by default with X.
In part, that's Apple's fault, actually. Their software patents on the particular hinting methods used in TrueType have held back the development of open source renderers for TrueType.
And X11 actually has had good hinting technology for years, but because Apple and Microsoft managed to push their own, new, proprietary font standards, the X11 folks had to start from scratch.
So, be nice. Apple has plenty of bad history to make up for with the open source community, and they need all the help they can get.
Amazingly it looks just like gnome 1.4. This isn't flamebait but i still think gnome lacks the smoothness and grace of kde. This is coming from a former gnome user, one who after playing with mac os switched to kde, because at least its functional and looks good.
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
Nautilus? Isn't it a bit bloated? Not only is it slow, but doesn't it require Mozilla? And I have no problems with Konqueror. It doesn't crash when I use it.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
The GNOME 2 version of Nautilus is a lot faster than the GNOME 1 version. The difference in speed is amazing, even on my Athlon 1,4 Ghz with 128 MB RAM.
Nautilus's is now almost as fast as Windows Explorer.
I expect more optimizations in the upcoming releases.
And no, Nautilus doesn't require Mozilla.
Only the Mozilla Bonobo component requires Mozilla, but you are not required to install that component and can use GtkHTML instead.
Mozilla has also become a lot faster the last few months, speed is more than acceptable on my computer, so I don't see what's the problem about depending on Mozilla.
a "rip of mankind" ? WTF ? Is that where you get the human race to fit into 700MB ?
graspee
Take a look at this screenshot and compare it to your Aqua desktop again :)
+5 Informative for anyone who can either point out links to
1) Precompiled binaries made from a Garnome (if it's not too giant)
2) RPMs that will coexist nicely with Gnome 1.4
3) Instructions on how to get Gnome 2 from the Mandrake cooker (yes, it's there) but avoiding the conflicts with gnome 1.4 (and without removing Gnome 1.4)
Asking the user to require 1.1Gbs of build space seems rather excessive! Even the "206Mbs once installed" seems large
Amazingly it looks just like gnome 1.4.
And we all know a windowing environment isn't "good" unless the look and feel changes with every release, right?
The point is that they could smooth it out alittle bit. Gnome always looked too clunky for me. Maybe blend the taskbar alittle. Try not to be so angular... then again now i'm just arguing for it to look more like kde and any other nice wm out there.
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
That's an absolutely ridiculous statement. There were hinted outline fonts available before TrueType even came along; we didn't need Apple or Microsoft to create the TrueType format. And TrueType fonts are a huge pain to create in the first place.
Some standard would have come along no matter what. This particular standard happens to come with patent strings attached, and that's not particularly nice.
Wonder if the group Pink Martini could be commissioned to whip out a quick and dirty GNOME2 Beta3 theme song. The title seems right up their alley.
RFC2119
I see plenty wrong with your attitude, however. Apple has only been able to spend that much time and money on graphic design because they got much of the nitty-gritty work done for them by open source folks. If it weren't for open source, OSX wouldn't be here and Apple would likely be out of business soon.
I agree with you about his attitude, and of course agree that Apple got a huge free head start from FreeBSD. But I disagree that Apple would be sunk without Open Source. Without BSD and thus NeXT Step, Apple would have continued talks with Be, Inc. and Mac users would be running a next generation Be OS. Sure, Apple would have had to pay $400 million because they wouldn't have had an alternative. But $400 mil wouldn't have sunk Apple. BSD wasn't their only option.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
huh? i dont see any gtkhtml programs on that screenshot.. the fonts are nicely anti-aliased and about half the people that use gtk+X hate it and the other half like it. just setting a variable turns it on/off.
And as far as printing goes, I installed CUPS on my laptop running Debian Unstable at work 2 days ago and it was the easier setup ive came across. good quality printing to the hp laserjet on a Windows 98 computer. no wonder Apple has licensed to use CUPS for printing.
"I keep looking in the want-ads under 'revolutionary' but there don't seem to be any listings.. "
Are the packages in debian/unstable yet? Which bits do you need to install (and remove) to upgrade to gnome2?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Well, as I said, there are some desktops that are misconfigured. This particular problem is, ironically, the same problem that many OSX fonts have (although not quite as pronounced).
The main mistake there is to turn on anti-aliasing for small fonts. Anything smaller than 12 pixels should probably not be anti-aliased.
If linux is to really move ahead on the desktop, it needs a standard set of high quality fonts and a standard printing system that all linux distros use and support.
Maybe you want that, but why the hell would I want that? X11 has excellent, hand-designed bitmapped fonts that display more nicely than anything on Windows or MacOS. Since I use TeX, it makes no difference to me that those fonts don't print out nicely. Similarly, there is not single printing system that works everywhere. Microsoft and Apple have tried, and they have failed.
I hate this "eveybody must work just the way I like it" attitude. There are Linux distributions that use scalable, anti-aliased fonts by default and have picked a "standard" printing system. And there are other Linux distributions that have other priorities. If you can't deal with the choice, go use Windows.
When last I tried Gnome, it was slow and
featureless in comparison to KDE3rc3. I'm
quite willing to switch over to Gnome, if
it becomes a better productivity environment,
and consumes less resources, but I'm concerned
that until someone who is willing and able to
leave their dull axes in the closet for a while
can make a comprehensive feature and performance
comparison, both Gnome and KDE users alike will
have little practical choice but to continue in
their current environment.
Therefore, I ask: Can anyone recommend a
reasonably thorough and objective comparison of
Gnome 2 and KDE 3?
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
BeOS may be a nicely engineered system, but it wouldn't have attracted a lot of new people to the platform. OSX's full UNIX support has made it a viable choice again in academia and research, and it gives Apple a huge developer base and software base to draw on. I think any choice other than OSX would have doomed Apple.
Give me something wicked fast and utterly reliable. I run K on two low end PCs and frankly it kind of sucks from a usability perspective given its sluggishness.
http://www.gnome.org/~jamin/screenshots/beta3/
Celebrate the finer things in life
Wow, nothing but trolls in response to this. I think it looks great. Get a life people.
Why would I want to package software?
Ahem...
"As well as not breaking your system, and ensuring a uninform install, uninstall / query process for all your software, your work is repeatable for other users and generally other distributions."
Who am I distributing it to?
Besides the abovementioned benefits, if you were a social, community minded sort of fellow (which I suggest from the subject line of your post you are not) then you might wish to help other users of your OS / distribution by distributing source / binary packages.
I don't really believe that.
Fair enough - at least you've been a whole lot more civil than most of the replies.
With configure scripts, compiling is really easy. I am very incompetent, but I can compile GNOME from sources (not from GARNOME). Still, I've never managed to create binary packages for any distro (even though I've tried).
Keep trying - I'm not that skilled myself but creating packages is well within my reach. RPM (the standard Linux packaging system) has macros to handle any GNU autoconf/automake application, so most of what you have to do will be filling in specfiles.
I reckon there's a good chance you might not have found the right docs (because there's a lot of poor ones out there). Try freshrpms.net or IBM Developerworks for good packaging tutorials.
However, I agree with you that this is the time to be nice, and I honestly am greatful that Gnome is taking its first steps towards good anti-aliasing and nice-looking fonts.