The GNOME Roadmap

glockenspieler writes "Recently on the the Gnome Foundation mailing list, Dave Camp posted a draft Gnome Roadmap for versions 2.8 and Beyond. Issues up for discussion are Mozilla/Epiphany, incorportation of peer to peer filesharing, blogging, addition of more media widgets, and many others. Time for Gnome users to weigh in on what improvements that you would like to see. If that's not enough, then there's always the the C# versus Java versus ? discussion."

Comments

They should stick with C

[JoeShmoe950]

Personally I use KDE, but I used to use gnome. Not as pretty, but its faster and lighter than KDE. Take out C/C++ (forget which they right it in), and use Java or C#, they just made it bulkier and much slower. That would be their main opinion IMO. Gnome doesn't look bad, but most people I've talked to think KDE looks better. Take away Gnome's advantage in this situation, and they don't have much going for them.

Re:They should stick with C

[Nasarius]

They use C, according to the article. I don't see why they're not considering C++. Unlike Java and C#, it's meant to be natively compiled, and it's a lot easier to write "clean" code with C++ rather than C, IMO. If nothing else, the STL is a beautiful thing when implemented properly.

Re:They should stick with C

[arkanes]

Because it's very easy to expose a C api to practically any language in existence but very difficult to expose a C++ one to anything except C++, and in fact it's generally done by flattening the API to a C one. I prefer C++ myself but for a library that is meant to be widely used and called having the base layer be in C makes oodles of sense.

Re:They should stick with C

[caseih]

I think both java and C# have a huge place in Gnome app development. As an example of an impressive app (that's pretty speedy) written for gtk in java, see Azureus. Eclipse is another app written in java that really rocks. Both are speedy, probably as fast as they would be if written in C or C++.

The few C# gtk/gnome apps I've seen look great too. Just like the transition to enterprise frameworks like j2ee is the only sustainable way to do large-scale web development, using C# or java or some other tool is the only way to sustain large-scale client application development in the long run. Sure you can do it in C or C++, but sooner or layer the maintenance issues will get really expensive.

Re:They should stick with C

[RichiP]

I have to agree that the language for development should change. In the same way that OSes aren't written in assembly language anymore, desktop applications should be written in languages that make sense for them.

I'm used to coding in C, Java, PHP, Perl, etc. I have to admit it would be much easier to write apps in higher level languages than C. Not to mention getting rid of nasty bugs which one could accidentally stumble on while programming in C (like memory management) that's inconvenient to work around with with macros and functions.

Instead, consider the high level language for ease-of-development, maintainability, flexibility and performance in implementation. As much as I love Java and abhor C#, it's beginning to look a lot like Mono might be the better route. Java VM is just too slow (I've used it from developing Hello World programs to embedded apps, commandline apps and full-blown desktops apps). Even the HelloWorld app is slow in all the JVMs I've tried (IBM, Sun, Blackdown) on the various platforms (Windows, linux).

Re:They should stick with C

[Euphonious Coward]

They don't need to "consider" C++. It's already fully supported, via Murray Cummings's gtkmm and gnomemm wrappers. He also has an application framework called "Bakery" to make it easier to churn out apps. All we need is to transcribe programs written in the proprietary languages into Free, standard C++, and make them faster, more robust, and easier to install at the same time.

Miguel and his cronies are oddly superstitious toward C++. They have probably never actually seen it in its modern (standard) form, probably having been exposed only to early MSVC++. You generally don't even know if you're running a C++ program; they are easy to install (no buggy JVM) and they don't tend to crash or leak, so they don't call attention to themselves. Apt-get is a C++ program; were you ever obliged to notice?

It's a shame that Ximian are planning to make Evolution 2 depend on Mono. Looks like it's time to fork. I'd be happy to stick with Evo 1.4.x, myself. Nothing they talk about adding for 2 is anything I want.

Re:They should stick with C

[abischof]

I can't put my finger on what it is, but there is something about KDE's interface that makes me angry. That may sound dumb, but I can only use KDE for a short while because it is emotionally exhausting to me and always leaves me feeling irritated.

It may be KDE's tight letter spacing in menus that's getting to you (screenshot). As the article puts it, menus "read like a sentence instead of being wisely spaced out". I couldn't put my finger on my KDE-anger either, but I'm now thinking that the menu spacing may have something to do with it ;).

Wow. Out of touch..

[stratjakt]

Can't people just install their own peer-to-peer and blogging apps?

Why not make an installation system that works as simply as clicking setuppackage.msi is in Windows and let the other problems solve themselves?

Why not just make a working desktop first?

Sheesh. Yeah, this year will be the year of linux-on-the-desktop now that we have integrated blogging. That was sure the barrier for entry to me.

When is too much

[vxvxvxvx]

Do we really want blogging software, p2p software, etc included with gnome? Is gnome so perfect in other respects to justify adding features that 0.01% of people are going to use? I think a better use of resources would be improving and debugging the current Gnome programs before adding this -- someone else can always program p2p apps and blogging software.

Re:When is too much

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sad when a valid criticism -- namely that Gnome should focus on providing an excellent desktop -- gets modded as "troll" because some moderator thinks built-in P2P and blogging apps are Gee-Whiz Nifty(tm).

Seriously, folks. It's the Gnome Desktop Environment, not the Gnome Application Library.

The future is BRIGHT

[Gilesx]

After reading this roadmap, I'm left with nothing but warm feelings of loveliness.

First off, working with Mozilla Firebird is a stroke of genius. There are a heck of a lot of man hours being put in on that project, we should utilise them rather than recovering ground already trod upon by the lizard.

Secondly, integrating both Ximian, Gnome-DB, calendering and address book tightly into Gnome could be a great leap towards a working Dashboard project. This alone looks like propelling Gnome into pole position - it's a genuinely innovative feature, not yet seen on any other desktop, and only hinted at by Microsoft so far. Beating Microsoft to the punch would certainly be a coup.

The other really encouraging thing is the following paragraph:

--
One area in which GNOME has lagged behind other desktop operating
systems like Windows and Mac OS X is tight integration with hardware.
GNOME is working with the freedesktop.org community to make
plug-and-play hardware management just work.
--

For me this highlights that Gnome has moved well into position as the premier Linux desktop, and rather than concentrating on what KDE are doing, they are focusing on bigger fish :) Looks like all those Sun corporate installations helped a little bit! Also, the close work the Gnome community is putting in alongside freedesktop.org is a *very* good thing. Integrating the desktop with the hardware is something Windows has been able to (alledgedly) do since '95, and it's about time we had that too! New users certainly need to be able to plug their digicam in and have it "just work", and if this can all be incorporated with Nautilus and the CD burner module, transferring pictures could be as easy as insert camera, insert blank CD and click Go. Gnome could fast be approaching Apple levels of usability!

I want my 2.8!

Re:The future is BRIGHT

[Telex4]

One area in which GNOME has lagged behind other desktop operating
systems like Windows and Mac OS X is tight integration with hardware.
GNOME is working with the freedesktop.org community to make
plug-and-play hardware management just work.

For me this highlights that Gnome has moved well into position as the premier Linux desktop, and rather than concentrating on what KDE are doing, they are focusing on bigger fish :)

Personally, as KDE user I hope GNOME does this too, because where GNOME makes big improvements in areas like that, KDE generally follows, and vice versa, especially when freedesktop.org is involved :-) I also hope that GNOME doesn't approach it as a "let's get one up on the other desktop environments" exercise, as some users seem to advocate (and yes, the same can be said for some users of all desktop environments).

Re:The future is BRIGHT

[VisorGuy]

I believe this is where D-BUS comes in... And that is already or will soon be supported in KDE.

Re:The future is BRIGHT

[theantix]

First off, working with Mozilla Firebird is a stroke of genius. There are a heck of a lot of man hours being put in on that project, we should utilise them rather than recovering ground already trod upon by the lizard.

I'm not so sure -- Epiphany and Firefox are very different projects. Certainly they have similar stated goals, but the execution shows that Epiphany is *serious* about them. When you see Epiphany you first notice all of the features that are missing. If you're like me, you'll quickly notice that you don't really miss any of those featues, which underscores their dedication to the goal of creating "the simplest interface possible for a browser." (more)

I use Firefox under windows at work and Epiphany at home, and so I have a lot of experience with both browsers. And they are both very good products, don't get me wrong. But Firefox is much more of a traditional browser, with the drop-down URL bar, the nested bookmarks, and the XUL theming. I can't really see them dropping those features as a Mozilla project so I'm not sure what they have in common with the Gnome desktop.

A solution that would be beneficial to everyone is to have a shared gecko engine betwen the Moz Suite, Firefox, and Epiphany, and a shared system for implementing plugins. Obviously only certain kinds of plugins would work on a non-XUL implementation like Epiphany or Camino, but other plugins like the flashblock or useragent-switcher should be possible to port.

With a common engine between the three you give users the option to choose how they would like to browse. Depending on their preferences some like the Moz suite, some like Firefox, and other like me prefer Epiphany. There is a lot of room for valid differences in preferences and I think all three browsers have a legitimate place.

Because of this I don't see how Firefox could become the default Gnome browser. They could HIG-ify the dialogs and create a Gnome theme, but like OSX the pinstripe theme is no replacement for actual integration. Collaboration is best left on the back-end of the project, let there be multiple different front-ends for different purposes.

how about

[Triumph The Insult C]

not implementing any of those? actually, how about taking it a step further and getting rid of a lot of stuff in there already?

i don't understand why windowmanagers need to do everything under the sun. the footprint of freebsd's gnome port is damn near 1GB. perhaps if the gnome and kde camps could focus on simplicity instead of features, things would be farther ahead than they are now. maybe we could all agree on a unified copy/paste for once for pete's sake.

Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. Dennis Ritchie said that ... if anyone knows why Unix should be simple, it's him

My Gnome Wish List

[Nuclear Elephant]

Basically gnome is great, but it lacks attention to detail IMO. I think future versions should focus more on detailed quality and not on expanding featureset.

1. The Menus should be much more customizable; treated like folders that you can click and drag into (I hate to say this, but "Like Windows").

2. Better Video control properties; take advantage of XFree's extended features and have options like TV switching and such.

3. Better preferences; the control panels are quite lacking.

4. Other aesthetic enhancements that will make gnome pretty enough to compete with other window environments (like win XP's or OSX's). Smooth scrolling, the zoom-on-hover icons in OSX are sweet, and _drop shadows on windows_ would be real nice.

5. Some kind of Linux-version-of-Active-Desktop would be real nice, so I could have an IRC session running as part of my wallpaper,anchor the weather channel radar map to the background, etcetera.

Re:My Gnome Wish List

[mcconk]

1. Easy-edit menus. This is a must for consumers and even us old timers. I'd like to see an "expert" version of gnome that brought back all the panel and window manager tweaks that you could do back in the day. 4. Yeah, eye candy ok now with fast CPU's and lots of RAM.

DBUS/HAL

[ImpTech]

Good to see D-BUS and HAL integration on the roadmap for 2.8. Just set them up on 2.6 last night, and they're quite fancy.

ATM, all they do (in conjunction with gnome-volume-manager) is automount/unmount/run removable media. Pretty much what you got with autorun for years on Windows, but more extensible in that you can tell the daemon what program to run, etc. Its also setup to detect/play dvds, and import photos from a digital camera automagically. Long overdue perhaps, but still very nice to have.

I suspect the best improvements are coming in the future once this is all integrated. Basically it gives the system a queryable, extensible device manager. In the future, I would expect all software that does hardware interaction will interface with this layer, for detection, hotplug, identification, and so forth. Long story short, its an absolutely critical piece of Linux on the desktop.

Um...Python?

[Jameth]

Java and C# have been proposed as alternatives. The community is currently discussing the technical, political, and legal ramifications of adopting these languages into the desktop.s

I would like to point out that Python has been proposed ABOUT A HUNDRED TIMES. Guess what: It's easy to use, it's high level, it has no legal ramifications, it's open source. Python solves every problem they have with its alternatives.

Also, using Python paves the way for universally integrated scripting, somewhat like the VB script possibilities in MS-Windows (and, despite waht MicroSoft did, that is a good thing).

Re:Um...Python?

[tempest303]

I think you stumbled onto something very important here, though you're missing the big picture.

Python should not be used for core libraries or core apps like Nautilus. As completely excellent as Python is, it's just a fact that it just doesn't run as fast as C (or even Java or Mono) for nearly any operation. Also, using Nautilus as an example again, while Nautilus is finally fast enough as of 2.6, it still needs work in terms of memory footprint. Going to Java or Mono wouldn't help this, but going with Python for something like Nautilus would probably make it Much Much Worse(TM). Finally, while PyChecker is a beautiful complement to Python, it's simply not a complete replacement for static type checking.

What you did hit on, though, was that Python (IMHO) ought to be pushed as the Linux equivlant role as VB does for MS - with hooks for it into everything, wherever possible. I don't see any reason why Python shouldn't be A) used like VB is for making quick custom desktop apps, but B) (and I know I'll get flamed for this), like VB, Python makes for a great system *and* web scripting language (ie: why push PHP when Python could do a much better job and offer familiarity between web scripting and system scripting)

If Python could get the approximately the same speed, memory footprint, and built-in sanity checking as Java or Mono, then it could be a contender for core app/library programming. Sadly, this isn't likely, and even if a concerted effort were launched to this effect immediately, it still wouldn't materialize for a couple years. Java and Mono, however, are here now.

Re:Um...Python?

[tempest303]

Well, for basic scripting, PHP might be fine - that's probably personal preference.

For the kinds of GUI tasks that VB gets used for though, OO is really nice, and why wait for PHP to catch up when Python has great OO right now?

Re:Integration is "good" now?

[Gilesx]

Integration is good when there is a reason to do it, and that reason is not to achieve a monopoly illegaly.

Re:Go OS X route a finally ditch X11

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what would you have them replace X with, exactly?

P.S. Your answer must include 3-d accel support from at least two vendors.

x.org integration

[FLoWCTRL]

With regard to the plans for new media and networking features in GNOME, I hope that the GNOME team leverages efforts from the x.org project to work towards a common implementation of those features. In particular, I think that the Media Application Server looks very promising. Since future versions of GNOME will likely be running on x.org anyways, the wheel should not be re-invented with respect to advanced media features.

GNOME is becoming more like KDE every day...

[Rupan]

It seems to me that with this roadmap, Gnome is planning on becoming the swiss army knife that KDE is. That is the exact reason why I do *not* use KDE. Gnome in its current incarnation (2.6) as well as the last several versions have appealed to me because they provide just the right amount of eye candy.

I am not particularly an X fan. I don't go for the shiny point and click thing because its just another layer separating the user from the system. Hence, I often have maybe a dozen terminal windows upen spanned across my 4 desktops.

That's not to say that X doesn't have its virtues. I wouldn't want to use Lynx as my sole browser, for the Web really does have some neat interactive and graphical content. However, things like IRC, News, and even P2P filesharing really don't need a GUI. Oh sure, I use X-Chat, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate Epic. And I actually really like Pine.

How would you like it if you could do realtime management of email on your computer from anywhere? And I mean anywhere. Run the email client you use at home from school, work, your mobile phone, etc? To do that, you need a client that can run in a terminal. This includes Mutt and Pine (amongst others). Hell, I even use (http://www.idokorro.com) idokorro mobile ssh to access my box from my car!

That said, everything has its place. But making Gnome into KDE is not the right way to go. If this happens, I will probably keep a backup of version 2.6 on CD somewhere and downgrade any new version from that my distro ships.

Re:Wow. Out of touch..

[Cereal Box]

You conveniently forgot to take into account...

• Distributions that don't have apt-get. Or yum. Or emerge. Or the other 23 different, incompatible package managers.
• The possibility that what you're looking for isn't packaged.
• That you know offhand what the package name is.
• The need to point your installer at different repositories if what you're looking for isn't at the default one.

If you don't get all the criteria right, well, it's back to compiling the software, or searching for the package you want (just like with Windows), huh? Personally, I prefer the Windows route.

Re:Wow. Out of touch..

[Nasarius]

Of course, the reality of the situation is that it's a crapshoot as to whether or not a package will work with whichever one of the 10,000 Linux distributions you happen to be running (chances are it won't), but hey.

Exactly. Package management is a distro issue, *not* a desktop problem. Of course, it's nice if you can just click an ebuild/RPM/DEB/whatever and it's installed automatically.

Re:Wow. Out of touch..

[Lumpy]

Why not just make a working desktop first?


because for some reason today programmers can not understand the ideas of.....

Smaller.
Faster.
Better.

I really hope that someone will come in from the sidelines with a nice fast and easy to use desktop manager that has NONE of the added crud that is going into KDE and Gnome. I want all the added "features" to be add-on programs. if I want a battery meter, I'll download and install it.

If I want a blogger I'll download and install one.

I just wish that someone would either rip out the Gnome desktop functions, and Both KDE and Gnome copy paste and drag functions and strap them onto xfce after removing the bloat. (Oh and add a decent menuing system so programs can self-install launch icons easily by dropping a symlink in a directory location!)

I want the speed and TINY footprint of XFCE with the decent desktop managebility of Gnome and cross app cut paste.

that is it. no video editor built in, no mp3 ripper built in, no web browser integration, no launch feedback, no nothing but the job it is designed for.

coule we PLEASE get some genius programmers working on a fork of Gnome and remove 70% of the cruft? or they can do KDE... I dont care...

the rest of us simply want small fast and capable.

please?

Don't SCREW the EXPERT

[Speare]

Disorganized series of thoughts follow.

Make everything as simple as possible, and no simpler.

It seems the Gnome architects often forget the important second part of that goal. Or they are, frankly, deluded into thinking that there is no limit to how simple and appliance-like they can make the computer. There is a limit, and that's when I can no longer adjust it to fit me.

In contrast, this is Microsoft's lofty goal, which is good enough as it stands, but they too still forget the nuances in that goal.

Make the easy things effortless, and the hard things possible.

Desktop designers can't just cherry-pick a few simple problems and write a few lines to make it easy. While it's noble to strip out the rarely used options, or the options that "confuse" the newcomer, it is NOT ACCEPTABLE to bury the familiar power interface behind a gconf/registry setting, or to make the familiar power interface unreachable. (You hear me, Nautilus?)

Allow configurability. Allow personalization beyond just the stupid passive things like wallpaper and skins. Let a user choose their favorite way of presenting information, and be smart about it.

Commit to finishing the features you start. How long has a Gnome-Menu editor been promised, but neglected? Ever since Gnome 2.0, they've said, "well, real soon now." We thought it just barely missed the deadlines for the first distros with Gnome 2.0, but I still can't edit my launcher menu. If obvious features aren't usable, then don't go announcing major X.0 version releases.

Re:Wow. Out of touch..

[Anonymous Coward]

# Distributions that don't have apt-get. Or yum. Or emerge. Or the other 23 different, incompatible package managers.

I use Debian. All my boxen and all my lusers use Debian. What isn't available for Debian?

# The possibility that what you're looking for isn't packaged.

Improbable. When you want to make software available for windoblows, you make an EXE and an MSI and a DLL. When you want to make it available for Linux, you make a DEB and maybe an RPB. And you release the source as a TARball.

# That you know offhand what the package name is. ...or you use aptitude, which lets you find appropriate packages.

# The need to point your installer at different repositories if what you're looking for isn't at the default one.

Debian's repositories have over 89,000 packages available, including the one you want.

Better Menu Management

[artios]

One of the highlights of KDE as far as making it usable for grandma is being able to search through the installation and find applications that aren't in the menu that could be incorporated into the menu.

If gnome is truly about usability, putting programs into the menu should be a piece of cake. I'm not sure if KDE has the end-all solution on menu management, but it could be improved in gnome.

On the other hand, gnome has done a nice job at being able to modify the menu directly from the menu (where it makes sense).

Some drag and drop capabilities in the menu would also be nice.

Make it a better development platform

[jared_hanson]

Here is my take. Linux will succeed on the desktop when more developers and ISVs jump on board. This won't happen until GNOME is a better development platform. How can you make it better? Well, I'll share my opinion (even if you didn't ask.)

Developers want to quickly build applications. Right now, a lot of the development focus for GNOME apps is using C. That's a generalization, but a fairly accurate one. They have bindings for many other languages, but they usually don't get the spotlight. Fold the bindings projects into the main project. For example, fold Gtkmm (C++ bindings) into the bigger GTK effort. Likewise for other language bindings and other libraries. Make sure these bindings are as identical as possible accross target languages, so the learning curve from one language to the next isn't so great. Right now its easy for a newcoming developer to find the main project (ie Gtk), but no so easy to find information on how to use it with his/her preferred language.

Once that has happened, stress the fact that using GNOME you can develop apps in a wide variety of languages. Lay the whole Java/C# thing to rest and support both. Linux has an opportunity to become the premier development platform (which should rest nicely with geek and open source ideals). Everyone says choice is key, but then they try to rope you into a development methodology. This isn't necessary. Build incredible libraries (likely in C) and then bind them to as many higher languages as possible, and always keep these bindings current with the mainline. Developmers will come in droves, and make great applications, if they can pick and choose the most appropriate technology rather than having it dictated to them.

Gnome Wishlist

[Sweetshark]

What Gnome needs most IMHO is:

• more stability.
• Good, complete and easy to navigate configuration tools.
• less integration, more modularisation (it should be easier to use another wm for example)

Gnome aims to be a complete DE and thus to also be an option for beginners - it has to takes care that is is not squeezed between a clean small DE like xfce on one side and an fully bloated KDE in all its might on the other. Advanced users also tend sometimes to go for the leaner wm-only solutions like *box, fvwm and the like.
I think this comptition explains the above list. The first point is essential for beginners and advanced users alike. The second a result of gnomes obscure usage of gconf and essential for beginners, while the third was always the unique selling point of gnome over KDE.

Complete bullshit

[Overly Critical Guy]

Exactly. Package management is a distro issue, *not* a desktop problem.

Absolutely, 100% wrong. Your abitrary mindset is the primary problem. "I've randomly decided that application installation should be handled by the distro!" No reason or proof or logic is given.

How will you ever have a seamless, professional, sane desktop environment that doesn't even have an installation/uninstallation API? The very idea is so backwards and laughable, I fully expect Linux to take another 10 years to reach the level XP and OS X are at now.

Since Linux crunchies are absolutely dead-set on never replacing the interface failures that are taskbars and start menus, I want to at least be able to have applications install their links on the menu and give me shortcuts to their uninstallers automatically.

I want to be able to just download an installer for an app onto my desktop and double-click it. A desktop environment should keep track of the desktop applications it has installed. Forgive me, but I want my desktop to be self-aware of what the hell it has installed and how to uninstall them. We're trying to compete with OS X and Windows here!

You have two options:

Do it in "bundles" like OS X, where applications install to folders in an Applications directory, and you can remove the program just by dragging the folder to the trash.

Do it like Windows does, where applications register their locations, tell Windows how to uninstall itself, and adds appropriate shortcuts and entries in the start menu and "Add/Remove Programs" dialog.

High school Linux zealot: "B-but we have a hundred possible external package managers to run all that!" Yeah, good luck remaining 15 years behind everyone in the GUI department just because nobody can be arsed to stop working on new sidebar buttons and integrated blogging functions in order to create a sane API in the vein of Cocoa and .NET for people to develop for. Until then, GNOME and KDE are exactly what they were when they first came out--hacky desktop emulators stuck on top of X to make it look like Linux is in the same league as Apple and Microsoft in the desktop market. "Look, we have an integrated browser too! Look, a taskbar! 7 second app startup time? Ignore that, here are more screenshots!"

You want a litmus test? The day someone can buy a printer that comes with a CD, stick the CD into the drive, a menu comes up to install the binary driver, and afterward the printer works. All done in a Linux desktop. Then it would truly be the "year of the Linux desktop (tm)". At the current pace, that is definitely not going to ever happen with either KDE or GNOME. They both are horrible desktops, and people overlook it because they don't want to admit that Microsoft still gets this part right. To Linux guys, it's a penis length test of shoving in as much pointless crap as possible to compensate for the lack of very basic functionality.

Re:Complete bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Familiar with the concept of shared memory? I mean, if you run only about four largescale GNOME apps and add up all the RSS values, you'll probably be up to three times the amount of memory you have in your system, yet for some bizarre reason, swap is entirely unused. (YMMV, but this is typical)

Re:Complete bullshit

[FooBarWidget]

"Since Linux crunchies are absolutely dead-set on never replacing the interface failures that are taskbars and start menus,"

*cough* Window Maker? XFCE? ROX? Enlightenment? There are tons of window managers and desktops that don't use a taskbar+start menu interface.

"You want a litmus test? The day someone can buy a printer that comes with a CD, stick the CD into the drive, a menu comes up to install the binary driver, and afterward the printer works."

I bought an Epson printer. I stick in the driver CD, and the install program pops up. I click Next, Next, Next, and after a while I get an error. The printer didn't work.

No dude, Windows is highly overrated. Things don't always work smoothly. Things go wrong more often than you zealots want to admit.

On Fedora Core 1: Applications->System->Printers. Click Add Printer, Next, Next, Next, done.

"At the current pace, that is definitely not going to ever happen with either KDE or GNOME. They both are horrible desktops"

Yeah let's make grand statements without any evidence to back up. What makes GNOME and KDE so horrible? Do you have any usability tests that say GNOME and KDE are totally unusable?

Firefox is OK, but...

[bcs_metacon.ca]

I like Firefox just fine but it has one gigantic mis-feature that keeps me using Epiphany: profiles. I hate 'em. They really don't make much sense on a mutli-user OS anyway (individual user preferences are handled at that level, where they belong). Most of the time when you open up another instance of Mozilla/Firefox, all you *really* want is another window. It's high time they killed profiles!

I really hope GNOME sticks with Epiphany, or fixes Firefox's wart(s).

Re:Wow. Out of touch..

[dpw2atox]

Well it appears that you haven't ever heard of the Linux Standard Base project which can be found at http://www.linuxbase.org/ The goal of this project is to set a standard base for linux distros. Several of the major linux distros are members of this and try to adhear to its standards. There is also http://www.freedesktop.org which is working on standards for the desktop to make it easier to write programs for linux. Before you go on a rant and rave you should definantly do your research.

Re:Wow. Out of touch..

[Laxitive]

One additional point.

Linux _has_ standardization. Choose a distribution, and stick with it.

For example, Mandrake Linux + kde:

One method of installing software - CHECK
One interface and widget set - CHECK
One set of 'canonical' programs - CHECK

Well, looks like it has everything you want right there. Perhaps you'd like to use the Mandrake Linux standard?

Or maybe not.. maybe you'd prefer the RedHat Fedora Core standard:

One method of installing software - CHECK
One interface and widget set - CHECK
One set of 'canonical' programs - CHECK

Or maybe you would like to choose the Debian standard? Or perhaps the S.u.S.E standard?

"But wait!", you say, "There are too many standards! There should be only one!".

Perhaps.. maybe there should be a Linux standard. But then, how are you going to choose between the Linux standard and the Windows standard and the Apple standard? How are you going to handle that choice?

We should roll that in to one standard too. The OS standard. But shit.. we're not home free yet. How are you going to choose between all the different competing hardware on which the OS standard runs? Honestly, why should you be expected to invest time and effort finding the one that's right for you when you could make one that FITS ALL SIZES?

But hey, no chance of that ever happening. So I guess for now, the world remains complicated.. and we remain forced to make choices.

What a travesty!

-Laxitive

Re:Wow. Out of touch..

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not make an installation system that works as simply as clicking setuppackage.msi is in Windows and let the other problems solve themselves?

Oh man, you just opened the floodgates with this one. Prepare to be lectured on why the 37 different packaging standards make software installations easier than with Windows.

Yes, but I can't get RPMs to install on Windows, now can I? (which is about as stupid a statement as calling it a "crapshoot" when RedHat RPMs don't install on Debian.)

Why not just make a working desktop first?

That would require setting aside this childish "Linux has to do every single thing that every single person on the planet could want it to do, and then some" attitude that plagues the community.

Or we could just point out that GNOME is a working desktop. Oh, that's right, Linux has to be just exactly like Windows in every way before it replaces Windows. Just being a good desktop isn't enough. Got it.

Yeah, this year will be the year of linux-on-the-desktop

You must have missed how the zealots are spinning this one now.

Is that what is says in the article? Oh, wait, the article doesn't say anything about "year of the desktop".

Oh, I get it, this is how the Windows zealots are spinning it now...

Re:Wow. Out of touch..

[Cereal Box]

Because hundreds of developers will never agree on the focus of one, focused project.

And yet, somehow it happens in the commercial software world: Windows and OS X, Microsoft Office, etc. Any way you slice it, in the free software world there's thousands of man hours spent doing the same things, over and over again, when that time would be better spent concentrating on making the "superior" piece of software even better.

That'd be pretty awesome. About as awesome as it would be if the entire wold all held hands, hugged, and promised to be nice to each to each other from now on.

Your sarcastic hand waving does nothing to back up your point. It is entirely possible to focus software development efforts into making "the best solution" instead of aimlessly pouring effort into "100 different, equally crappy solutions". You just want to shake your head and pretend like it can't happen, simply because it doesn't happen in the world of Linux and OSS.

Mozilla Firefox

[abertoll]

I know everyone seems to like Firefox, but I still like the old Mozilla project. While I like the fact that Firefox is standalone, with the old Mozilla, I can middle-click a link in my mail client and have it open up a new tab in my browser. Whereas if I prefer, I can regular click the link, and have it open in a new window or the old window.

I posted these observations to a mozilla help group, and the best they could come up with is something that forces the browser to automatically load new links into a new tab (which was a pain to set up on linux anyway).

Oh, and one other thing for both old Mozilla and Firefox (that someone mentioned before): please get rid of the profiles. It's insanely redundant to have each user with multiple profiles. This is a hold over from the Windows 95/98 days, and certainly isn't necessary anymore.

Re:Wow. Out of touch..

[irix]

Distributions that don't have apt-get. Or yum. Or emerge.

Go ahead and name a distro in common use that doesn't have a package manager.

The possibility that what you're looking for isn't packaged.

I can release a source tarball for a Win32 app too. Whose fault would this be exactly?

That you know offhand what the package name is.

As opposed to Windows, where clairivoyance is built into the operating system...

Re:Wow. Out of touch..

[MenTaLguY]

Smaller.
Faster.
Better.

Pick two.