Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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.
After reading this roadmap, I'm left with nothing but warm feelings of loveliness.
:) 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!
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
I want my 2.8!
Sunday you're Thinking Different, Monday you're a huge tool, paying too much and waiting to think like everyone else.
I think they should really move on to use ?. It's the most superior language of the three, after all it's based on the earlier Jeopardy language where all statements are expressed as questions.
For example the familiar Hello, World! application is written in ? as follows:
what is the procedure the OS calls first?
{
what is the output of the most common small example program?
}
John.
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.
Gnome is NOT a windowmanager. Its a desktop environment. If all you want is a window manager, use IceWM, Blackbox, ION, or(heck, why not) rat poison. I would've suggested Enlightenment, but that is growing beyond a windowmanager if I understand thngs correctly.
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).
I feel just the opposite. I think Gnome's interface is elegant and KDE's inteface, while very colorful, it cluttered and knobby.
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.
KDE does many things right it my opinion (for example, their support for multiple keyboard layouts is excellent), but something about KDE is emotionally draining to me so I don't use it.
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.
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.
Ads? What ads?
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.
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.
What about the vector graphics plans?
Is a SVG based window manager so far away?
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.
[
Back in my day they had a bank of switches. You entered everything by flipping those switches. And we were greatful to have them.
Back in MY day we had to rewire the ENIAC and replace blown out vacuum tubes just to calculate 2+2!
(To which someone responds:)
Well, back in MY day, we had to rotate the proper component on our differential engine to calculate 2+2! And we LIKED IT that way!
(Which begets the response:)
OH YEAH?! Back in MY day, we had to slide beads on an Abacus to calculate 2+2! We liked it so much that we STILL do it! And WE could even calculate while walking uphill through the snow! Both ways!
(ad infinitum)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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.
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
You know what I'd like to see? Real virtual desktops. The current "virtual desktops" are really just virtual screens, not desktops. Full virtual desktops should act as completely separate desktops, with their own set of icons, etc. Obviously this would not be for everyone, but I would love to see it as a user-selectable option.
This is related to a problem I have with Gnome 2.4 (I don't know if it's been fixed in 2.6): when I double-click a desktop icon, I expect that program to launch on the desktop where I clicked the icon. But if I switch desktops before the program window shows up, it opens in that desktop instead. Maddening, especially on a slow computer such as mine! Also, dragging items between virtual desktops needs to be made easier (again, apologies if this has improved in 2.6).
I also have to second the idea of a sound server replacement, though I'm not thrilled that it's in the "Long Term" section of the roadmap. The current situation is frankly an embarrassment for a desktop environment of Gnome's stature.
In the pie-in-the-sky department, I would love to see options for a Mac-style menu bar, and Acorn-style file choosing via drag-and-drop rather than with a file selector dialog.
Mike
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).
How appropriate. You fight like a cow.
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).
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
The Free desktop that Just Works
gnome and kde are very much window managers
No they are not. They are environments. If you want to quibble about the term "desktop", be my guest, but a window manager is a much different thing than an environment.
KDE and GNOME come with file managers. They come with browsers. They come with email clients. They come with a lot of stuff that's unnecessary for window managers, but useful in working graphical environments.
They both also come with standard libraries and APIs. So they're also development environments. Write a KDE program and it integrates into the environment in a way a pure Qt program never could. Write a GNOME program and it integrates into the environment in a way no GTK+ program every could.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!