Slashdot Mirror
An Interview with Jeff Waugh
An anonymous reader writes "LinuxWorld has published a nice interview with Jeff Waugh, one of the core members of the GNOME community. In the interview Waugh talks about the upcoming GNOME 2.6, his views on software patents and on the involvement of the big vendors in the GNOME development process. Waugh is the current chair of the GNOME release team."
Wasn't it supposed to be released on the 2nd?
http://gtk.org/plan/2.4/
New file selector, yum.
After a few lackluster attempts at installing Gnome on my OSX box I have to say that a nice easy step by step instruction would be most helpful.
For many users, all the untarring, compiling and whatnot is a major headache -- akin to grasping the concept of depth of field in photography for me. Once I finally got it, it was super easy, but getting it in the first place was a big struggle.
I guess there's something about the whole process that I either just don't get, or maybe I think it's a lot harder than it really is.
So anyone know an easy way to get Gnome on an OSX box?
A fundamental API like you're describing would be the 'lowest common denominator' between the two systems. No KIOSlaves for KDE and no Nautilus integration & panel applets on GNOME. Kinda like AWT from old java, and we all know how much that sucked.
A much saner approach is to ensure that the basic stuff is compatible. Window manager hints, preferences etc. Let application authors write with their preferred toolkit, but ensure it doesn't affect users.
Almost all linux users have both toolkits installed anyway. Yes, I realise some KDE users won't have gnome (Gentoo hackophiles etc.) however if they want to use CoolGnomeApp1.0 they'll just install some librarys and they're away.
Cheers Koz
Software patents are important, that's why people talk about them. If software patents are granted universally it won't do much good to talk about the other things, software engineering breakthroughs, etc, because it will be *ILLEGAL* for us to make any such breakthroughs. But, and again I really do have to recommend reading articles before posting like this, the article was hardly an example of FOSS becoming a "one note wonder".
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
I think the thing that keeps me going back to Gnome is both its simplicity and its speed. KDE feels way too much like an overload of thrown-in features, although the 3.2 release really impressed me.
I often switch back and forth between the two as new releases come out--I will be using Gnome again when its new version is released.
Bah.
The problem you are complaining about is a problem with Xandros's distribution, not linux. If gnome doesn't run properly in Xandros that just means that they haven't bothered to properly package it. Many distributions have the ability to install GNOME and KDE on the same installation, and applications written for one DE have always run just fine in the other one in every distributions I have tested.
501 Not Implemented
Actually, I do the same thing myself. I find elements in each that I like, but GNOME seems to feel more polished and put together these days. I'm not saying that KDE doesn't, but... GNOME apps seem more flexible in terms of look and feel. I can't stress the importance of a really slick looking desktop when it comes to the usability of a computer from a non-techie perspective. It makes it much easier for me to introduce people to a new desktop when it looks more impressive than Windows XP.
I try to be fu
The problem is their *frameworks* are completely different. Because of this if you wanted to bring the two together you would have to scrap one DE's entire framework as "melting" them together would take so many man hours I don't even want to think about it. The closest your going to get is esthetic integration. KDE uses a lot of things that integrating into GNOME would be more work then it's worth. Kpart's(embedding applications in other applications aka konqueror), Kioslaves(doing ftp:// in kate and being able to remotely modify files directly), and many other things that make up KDE. I don't know much about GNOME's framework to tell you the truth.
There will never be true integration. Accept it.
75% of all statistics are made up!
this wasn't flamebait (no one is gonna bother flaming the first part of his post lmao), however, it may have been a bit redundant as this question comes up EVERY TIME an article like this rolls around...now i'm not karma whoring here, BUT there is only one answer:
USE BOTH... Whichever one you like better (and you will, its never a toss up!) use!
replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
KDE is whatever you want it to be. I've got mine set up like OS X --- menubar at top, panel at bottom, toolbars and menus simplified. Out of box, its pretty Windows-y, but I'd wager most KDE users don't use the desktop the way it comes out of box.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Qt and the STL are not at odds. They are two different approaches for two different problems. The STL is a general-purpose container library. Its not at all object-oriented, and aggressively static.
Meanwhile, Qt is specialized for GUI programming, and moc and the Qt container library fit that very well. Both allow for much more dynamic code, and in my experience, GUIs are extremely well-suited to dynamism in the language. After all, two of the best GUI languages ever (Smalltalk and Objective C) were of the dynamic/object-oriented variety.
I'm a C++ coder too, and also love the STL. However, I've spent a bit of time doing Qt programming, and really do agree that a more dynamic approach is better suited for GUIs.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...