Slashdot Mirror
Project GoneME Fixes Perceived Gnome UI Errors
An anonymous reader writes "Project GoneME is the first attempt to try moving the GNOME Desktop into a new direction. The intention is to create a community of people, who are willing and interested to help fixing issues brought up by people for a very long time and make the vision of a usable Desktop in the means of good old Unix fashion become true. In case you are interested to help, please join the project. Plenty of people have shown interest and welcome this step and the IRC channel got filled up within a short time." Update: 07/26 02:33 GMT by T : A project mailing list has been set up for anyone interested in taking part in this endeavor.
kde, gnome, sun java desktop goneme, how many desktops will there be before one of them becomes truly useful.. or is the linux community not concerned with this?
Actually, I could care less about such wonderful things as GUI Errors for the moment. I would just love File Types to work properly. Then again... when I add a new File Association, it is kinda fun to keep adding it over and over until I get mad and go watch TV.
This is that oGalaxy guy, right?
He's been complaining about GNOME post 1.4 for a long while, mostly on OSNews. I have no idea if the fork will succeed, but at least he's putting his money (time, code, effort) where his mouth has been.
if "linux" is going to compete with Windows, the first thing it needs to do is standardize on one GUI and stick with it. Instead we have linux+ext2+QT+KDE+redhat stuff vs linux+reiser+gtk+gnome+suse stuff vs 5 million other permutations vs Windows.
Join Team Mozilla #38050 Folding@home
After reading this guy's site, he basically seems to want a cluttered interface. Lots of options, lots of what he's used to. GNOME is about simplicity and clean-ness, as well as trying out new UI paradigms. Spacial browsing is much better after you get used to it. But he wants it to be like Windows. GNOME is not a Windows clone.
Maybe he should try KDE instead? That does everything he wants, and has tons of configurable options. I think you can modify the Earth's rotation speed in the KDE Control Center.
That said, I'm sticking to GNOME. It's very simple and clean, and doesn't get in my way. I really love GNOME 2.6 (actually I'm an XFCE user but decided to try it out today... it's niiiice).
My other car is first.
Press Ctrl+L in the new file selector. Then you have a nice completion-line. Works in Spacial Nautilus, too.
:P
There is an expert mode. You just have to be an expert to use it
My other car is first.
Reverting the button order just because inferior systems do it differently is a very bad idea.
In GNOME 2.8 spatial nautilus will be the default, but there will be a visible nautilus preference to turn it off.
In GNOME 2.6, the option still exists in gconf, but not in the UI.
So, stop whining!
Gustavo J.A.M. Carneiro
Well, they are percieved errors. The GNOME developers had a good reason for puting the primary button on the right, and don't see it as an error, thus it is perceived by Ali Akcaagac.
Yet another signature that refers to itself. The irony and humor is dead.
I wouldn't say never. There are a heck of a lot more people working on Gnome and KDE than there are working on any commercial GUI interface. It might take a little longer. It's definitely not a task I'd look forward to with Aqua as the example of the near perfect GUI. I'd be more interested in seeing a UNIX desktop like Aqua. Windows really isn't going to grow much GUI-wise until they get rid of that horrendous START button tree/maze/jungle and come up with something more intelligent.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
Why are we competing with Windows? Windows sucks. Look at Apple. They are interested in being the best, not in getting the biggest share of the market. Linux should be the same. We have this terrible confomist mentality that if 95% of the people don't believe as we do then there is something wrong with us. Linux is great and does not need to try to be Microsoft to get ahead.
Choice is a _good_ thing.
"how much better might things be if the GNOME and KDE teams were working together instead of separately?"
Possibly much worse.
Without users leaving Gnome to use KDE instead, there would be no incentive for Gnome to fix any of their problems, or re-think any of their usability issues.
Without users leaving KDE to use Gnome instead, there would be no incentive for KDE to tidy up their user interface, or re-think any of their usability issues.
You said you had issues with Gnome's usability. Imagine how much worse it would be without a choice, or without PROOF that things can be done better. How would you ever get some of Gnome's "we-know-best" developers to acknowledge any of Gnome's weaknesses then ?
That's not to say every Gnome developer has a "we-know-best" attitude. But some seem determined to re-invent the wheel - and make it square this time (because some newbies just can't get used to wheels that insist on rolling around all over the place).
I've thought about this a lot, and I've decided that having both KDE and GNOME is A Good Thing(TM). What is not a good thing, is distros bending over backwards to support both. If you're building a product for end users to use, you need to make the choice of GUI for them. This way the distro can focus its resources on making sure that the one GUI is consistent and works.
Two perfect examples of this are SuSE and Java Desktop System. SuSE made the KDE decision and has made their desktop very powerful through this decision. Similarly, JDS has chosen the GNOME route, and has been building a "not quite Linux" OS experience on top of it.
Now, if someone would just fix the way software is installed on Linux...
(The Gentoo troll should be here in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I give him 2 months before the project dies. I think he is just a user ranting, and I saw nothing to convince me that anything useful will be done.
Well, first of all, Gnome is unusable junk. It's so slow (with "Nautilus") on my Linux machine that it's not even worth trying to use it. KDE is no better, so I continue to use fvwm 1.0 for the 11th consecutive year. Fast, stable, makes sense to my parents.
I'll probably get modded down for suggesting it, but the model for a usable desktop should be Mac OS X. Ignore Windows, KDE, and the current Gnome/Nautilus. OS X makes them all look shabby and thoughtlessly designed.
In some respects, the question of a usable desktop is pointless when someone un-technical, like my mom for example, can sit down at a Macintosh and figure out how to do everything she wants to do without reading any documentation--digital photos, movies, music, email. The desktop may be great, but the OS and its associated user-space programs *must* achieve this sort of ease-of-use if they're ever to be taken seriously by Joe Desktop.
How anyone figures open source is a curse due forking is only a result of failure to realise the mainstream proprietary systems have a ten year head start over open source.
And even when that gap shrinks due ten years becomming a smaller and smaller percentage over time, there is still the matter of proprietary taking from open source such ideas that it then focuses on to polish for sales.... where open source is a much larger force that does NOT deny possibilities...
About forking..... well guess what.... the good things that various forks expose can then later be reintegrated to come up with something even better than what proprietary would have been able to on its own..
Forking is just one part of a bigger picture... the other part is re-integration of good things...
Great! Start coding! Stop talking about how other people should innovate and take that responsibility upon yourself. Stop talking how people are apathetic and start doing something other than sitting around complaining about how people sit around and complain.
You seem to like making music, (your homepage, I assume it's yours?) so do that for an open-source project, or use that creativity that allows you to create music to help in an OSS project somewhere.
I touch computers in naughty places
Ali Akcaagac is well known for long rants and flames, but not much for contributions. Although it must be noted that he can develop and has contributed to GNOME. However, because he is very unhappy that GNOME does not go in the way he wants, he has unsubscribed from all GNOME mailing lists and now publishes long rants about how everything is wrong, and announces a fork. The "mission statement" itself is offensive, as most of his posts on mailing lists. Talk about community.
Just ignore them, save your time and mood.
They are very similar from the user's point of view, but in every other way (underlying architecture, overall goals, design philosophy), there are significant differences that make the idea of a merger of the projects rather silly. The freedesktop.org initiative is as close as you are going to get (and as close as you'd want to get, IMO).
This is all besides the point that you can't dictate to volunteer coders what they should work on. What are you going to do, email all of the [KDE|GNOME] devs and say, "It has been decided that having two desktops is unproductive. You are directed to start developing for [GNOME|KDE]. Thank you for your cooperation." ? Think that'll fly?
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Less rantish, and I agree with everything he says here.
t ml
m l
http://www.whiprush.org/2004/07/ten_gnome_nitpi.h
Oh, he also talks about GoneME. He has a very low opinion of it.
http://www.whiprush.org/2004/07/its_not_a_joke.ht
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Here's what I posted a while back about this in my livejournal:
I think what all these UI efforts and all this discussion in the Linux community show is that people realize that with OSS, they can actually make a difference. And it also shows that there are many different preferences and needs when it comes to UI.
The biggest problem is the language people use to talk about these sorts of projects. Talking about "GoneME fixing perceived Gnome UI errors" is a good start. But the GoneME developers themselves should be aware that they are just developing something different for a different community, and that they aren't necessarily "fixing UI errors". I mean, the Gnome 2.6 developers aren't stupid, and they didn't set out to create a system with "UI errors" (personally, I think spatial Nautilus is a slight improvement).
With Windows or Macintosh, you get whatever Microsoft or Apple tell you is best: you can buy it or you can leave it. Complaining about usability problems with those systems is useless--the companies aren't going to listen anyway.
A house divided.
Good point, but there has been so much smoke and brimstone over his "issues" that an actual, measurable metric to see how many don't like the situation could be helpful. I can't see how a button order change could take more than a week to get over, but something must be upsetting them based on the number of ex-GNOMErs I see using KDE.
If a large number of people start using these patches, then perhaps the RedHat/Sun/Novell corporate types leading the GNOME project these days may rethink top-down "shut up, we know whats good for you" decision making. If GoneME vanishes without leaving a trace, we'll learn something about how much smoke a few arsonists can create out of trivialities.
The sooner people realize that there is no single "best" user interface and that all UIs still have lots of problems, the better for everybody. Furthermore, anything that you change about a UI is going to make some people unhappy. The good thing with Linux, X11, and its choice of UIs is that UIs really are in competition.
... and gnome's response?
Force everyone to beginner mode.
Not really. You still have the option of using expert mode.
Nobody is forcing you to use all of Gnome's tools. There are 'expert' configuration tools, you can use one of the many alternative file browsers out there, etc. You just need to be an expert to find them.
Personally, I like the new Gnome defaults.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
So why is there absolutely no indication whatsoever that this is available ?
All it would take is a short text label, or a mouse-over tooltip.
Seems like a strange concept of "usability" to me.
You are assuming that Gnome competes only with KDE. I do not think that that holds in all cases.
Gnome and KDE also get compared to the various Windows GUI's, and OS X. Therefore, thre is a degree of competition between Gnome and those interfaces. Granted, that's slightly different, given that neither runs on Linux, so that's not relevent to all the users of Gnome.
Still, those drive the Linux UI's forward, along with more obscure UI's. I accept I've not heard many comments that Windows does something better then Gnome (or KDE), but there are a fair few comments that OS X is superior in some aspect or another. That's not to be ignored.
Would UI usability be better served if there was only one free toolkit - dunno, can't say for certain (and probably not, in my opinion). I don't think it's obvous that it would be worse, however.
OK, sounds good so far. No bloat. That's why I want to get Windoze completely off my home network. But then I read on ...
WHOA, NELLY! You can't talk about simple and un-bloated software, then praise emacs as a "quality piece of software," and expect to be taken seriously.
-paul
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
I wrote a review for a now defunct publication way back when GNOME 1.0 was first released. Comparing it to KDE at the time, my review said that it would have been a toss-up if GNOME 1.0 hadn't been so unstable. Anyone who remembers GNOME 1.0 will remember just what a crash-happy bugger it was.
I liked it a lot at the time, however, and I faithfully stuck with it (over KDE) for several months.
If GNOME had stayed on essentially the same track, adding only polish, features, unity and stability, I'd still be using GNOME today.
Instead, each new release of GNOME has taken away or changed more of the things I used/liked about it (read any Slashdot story, including this one, for a users' lists of grievances) and sometime during KDE 2.x, I went back to KDE. I've continued to track GNOME releases (I've got a fresh Fedora Core 2 install right now, so I've had a chance to test the most recent distributed GNOME desktops) but GNOME continues to travel farther and farther away from where I want my desktop to be.
Meanwhile, KDE has continued to steadily improve and with each new KDE release, I find myself happier and happier with my desktop.
It's a shame, but at least for some audiences (myself being a part of them), the height of GNOME's usability and coolness was probably the crash-happy GNOME 1.0. Instead of fixing the stability and polish problems and making it a nice desktop, the developers have gradually turned it into a less and less usable environment, an environment that I always feel is talking down to me while it tries to keep me in a kind of straitjacket.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Sure, computers are tools. But I think that statement isn't really that revealing.
My desktop is not a fucking hammer. It's not simple. The things I do with it are not simple. I stare at it for 8 hours a day at work, and several more hours after I get home. I do a million disparate, discrete things with it.
So a better analogy for it would be my ENVIRONMENT. Much like my house and my room within my house, is an environment. Now, if someone were to come in and tell me that "yeah, your room should be a cube, because it's 'simple'. And oh yeah, you can't put a fan _there_, it doesn't make sense. And you have to put your CDs _there_, because that's the most aesthetically pleasing, and your monitor goes _here_ and your desk goes _here_", I would tell them to fuck off.
I'll use strong words to try to relate how emphatic I am about this point: FUCK THE AVERAGE USER. I'm the one that has to use my computer 12 hours a day, NOT the average user. And if a desktop environment is going to make it a pain in the ass for me to get it to work the way I want it, then I'll use something else. Simple as that.
I really don't give a shit what you, or the gnome developers, or the waitress at Wendys, thinks the 'average user' can handle, or what is 'aesthetically pleasing'.. as LONG as it doesn't interfere with MY ideas on what is appropriate. If it does, then I'll pack my bags and leave.
It's sheer arrogance for someone to suggest that I don't know how best to arrange my environment.. even worse for my aesthetic tastes to be usurped in the name of an almost-mythical "average user" that the GNOME developers claim to understand intimately.
-Laxitive
The point is that KDE and the early GNOME both offered more configurability without having to delve into things that resemble the Windows registry.
Here is the difference in our philosophies:
Current GNOME advocates:
- Configurability means learning curve
- Learning curve = bad
- Remove configurability, users be damned
This simply refuses to serve those who are not in your majority (and I should note that I don't at all buy that this homogenous "majority" of users exists; to be confused by too many options is one thing, but to suggest that all users therefore want the *same* desktop is a huge logical disconnect).
I simply believe that a better philosophy is:
- Configurability means learning curve
- Design intelligently to minimize learning curve
- While maintaining configurability
- Thereby *potentially* serving *all* users
What GNOME advocates of your ilk are saying is "if you don't like it, don't use it, even though we once provided what you like and it would be simple and unobtrusive to add it back." Now someone else tries to add it back, and GNOME advocates are freaking out.
With that attitude, the GNOME community shouldn't complain when all of the people you've told to get lost (including app developers and the sorts of Linux users who go to *help out* at installfests) abandon you in droves. It is, after all, what you wanted. We're the users you didn't want to serve.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
- the kde framework: every kde application benefits from network transparency, Visual RegExp builder, embedable apps, scriptability through DCOP, etc.
- konqueror: best file manager on the planet (acording to me, of course). Not perfect, but the number of features and the ability to customize it as you see fit makes it the best for me.
- Quanta: web programming on steroids
:) Really, for web programming, you don't want Dreamweaver, Quanta offers, for free, the best web development environment. Same as KDevelop, for apps.
Anybody else can post some killer features and apps on their Gnome or KDE desktop, that keeps them away from other desktops?I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
All you need is to enable True Type Fonts. I know in Slackware this was an option on install. The majority of foundries out there make True Type fonts...not only am I able to use the thousands of TTF that I accumulated over the years on my graphics production machine(windows), there were a couple of helpful perl scripts on kde-look.org which enabled me to grab several thousand more.
The hard part for me has not been finding fonts that work in linux and getting them to work...its been deciding ones I actually want to use! Seriously, takes a while to parse a few thousand fonts!
I'm not sure how the font management in flux box is because i've never tried tweaking it much. However in KDE its fantastic...in fact, its better then Windows. It was something similar to Adobe Type Manager light built-in, whereas in Windows once just has to find the fonts directory and paste everything in by hand.
once you go slack, you never go back
Doesn't come with automatic instalation of "free apps".
Seriously, the only advantages over Mozilla that Internet Explorer has, out of the box, are Java and Flash plugins included - but that doesn't count, as they're both outdated.
I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
Gnome has been going downhill ever since the switch from Sawfish to Metacity. I know that sawfish has certain 'issues', but this is hardly an excuse to switch to an alternative that is missing most of the features.
Somewhere the Gnome people got the idea that usability and configurability was a negative and their best bet was to make an unconfigurable unusable interface.
Pathetic.
Choice is something that the experience user wants.
This is precisely why Linux on Desktop sucks.
Look at Apple as a good example. What is Apple? - It is just cover company for ideas of Jobs. Why is Mac consistent? Because there is Steven Jobs - and there is no choice. People at Apple do not waste their time arguing on mailing lists about better desktop. Jobs has vision - and he drives company according to this vision.
KDE? KDE is made of people who enjoy desktop. Probably they are not greatest GUI programmers - but they like what they do. They are enthusiasts of what they do. Not consistent, Not polished - but with load of features. Great utility from people who have enjoyed doing KDE.
GNOME? GNOME is made up from pollitically correct corporate sponsored full time developers (RedHat, Sun, FSF). They are more to politics and to deliver on corporate business plan, than to listen to their users. It was absolutely funny how Havoc Pennington (of RedHat brainwashing fame) was arguing on list against end-users that he has statistics from end-users at hand, and every-one on the list is wrong, because some has given him statistics and - well - he doesn't care, he has a road map ha has to adhere since RedHat is planning release of next RedHat, etc, etc, etc.
IOW, Democracy - like one found in GNOME - is no substitute to leadership (Apple, Enlightenment). Republican structure of KDE performs here better too.
Linux will not get good Desktop until someone will step forward as a leader. And I see more chances for this to happend in KDE, rather than in GNOME project. Only if someone really disgusted will decide to fork off GNOME, what is IMHO not worth doing.
P.S. Best Linux desktop to date is Enlightenment (E). It is shiny and brilliant. It is finished, polished and complete. Why? Because guy who did it - Rasterman - really cares. And he is driving his project forward. Not fast, but GNOME as was two years behind of E - it is now the same two years behind of E in usability & eye candy.
P.P.S. Forking off GNOME. Well it might be not the worst idea. After all even XFree86 was sucessfully forked, pushing development of both - X.Org & XFree86 - ahead on new wave of competition. If someone will fork GNOME, providing good desktop - it might attract some independent developers working on GNOME, potentially making viable alternative to old fans of good old GNOME.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
*flame mode* ...
Oh, I don't like it, and I don't like it, oh, and it is broken because of Spatial mode which I can't get to
*/flame mode*
Ok, first of all, about fork - I don't get a news. This guy gets too much attention, it is not worth that for even himself. If he will get anything done, then we can welcome him as proven his point. Until then, he is simply... a flamer.
BUT let's look at the problem from other side - fact one, there are many (however, we can't count how much percent of GNOME user base) people who doesn't like the way GNOME drives away from childishly old UNIX style of thinking (in GUI case, not in overall) and thinks that all this HIG thinky is stupid and so on and so on. fact two, many people simply dislike GNOME because of serious companies backing it - and guess what, again it is partly of HIG and simpliness/coolness GNOME provides. It's all against everything geeky, in their opinion.
So there is very practical solution - write a Control Center-like superb GNOME tweaking program for expert mode!
Or there is second, emotional solution - prove your point maybe with providing details and all info for another Usability Guide. Prove your point that buttons should be in that order you have used to use, not how current HIG suggests. HIG doesn't have to be perfect, so if you have something really to add, then do it. Don't rant.
p.s. While I wrote this post I read that someone compared Windows Registry with GConf. Sights, if they have EVER used it, then they won't be talkin bullshit. GConf rocks, I would really love that many programms of GNOME would use it. It is easy to hack, easy to use, easy to change from ssh session for client, easy to make lot of kickstart options for bunch of users. It's all very simple and useful XML conf structure, nothing of big fat one file Windows registry.
p.s.s. rembember, there are ranters and flamers in all kind of camps - GNOME, KDE, Linux, BSD, Windows, Apple, whatever. I don't hate those people, however, I hate the whole process. It's all useless.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
When I first read the /. post, I was excited, because this is exactly what I wanted to do with GNOME as well. But after reading the introduction, I am a bit taken back by some of the phrases the author used, such as:
It's totally regardless for them what the opinion of users are, what only matters is that they must be right because they say so.
and:
I on the otherhand think that some decisions have upset quite a lot of people including me and there was no possibility to bring these problems up on the GNOME Mailinglists or the IRC channel without getting yourself trapped into ugly discussions, slandering, defaming, mobbing or even stalking.
and this:
It would be nice if they could do their own little thing in their own world without convincing everyone else that they must change their stuff the way they like because they said so.
While I agree with the project goal in general, the use of such spiteful language may drive some developers away, especially if there are some GNOME developers who want to participate in both projects. Even for me, now I am afraid that I would be signing up for a war against the GNOME project.
I know the feeling you have, being ignored and even mistreated, but the introduction of your project home page is no place to amplify these complaints.
Be positive, I believe that will win you more community support.
(referring to spatial Nautilus:) "it was a step backwards."
I disagree. The navigational Nautilus found in versions 1.4 - 2.4 looked too much like a web browser. It was confusing for both Windows users, and KDE users. When a program has a navigational toolbar along with a location field, I for one would not think it would be unreasonable to assume that it has web-browsing capabilities.
Xfce4 is really the best desktop environment out there.
Although I switched away to GNOME this morning (just to try it out), I've used Xfce forever. It's fast, it's clean, it's complete. It has much better Xinerama support than GNOME or KDE (KDE == nonexistant, GNOME == so-so).
I don't really like the file manager, but it's fine I guess. I use xterm for file management anyway.
So yeah, try out Xfce if you're looking for something less bloated than KDE or Gnome (but is still pretty). Icewm is pretty nice, too.
My other car is first.
Yes, but at the same time, a guitar with only one string or only ten frets (much, much simpler and easy to use!) would not be nearly as useful, even though the learning curve would be exponentially reduced.
I would argue that oversimplicity actually adds to complexity. For example, doing your corporate taxes on an abacus is not simple just because an abacus is perfectly simple. Or (to use a real world example), because GNOME has removed in the name of "simplicity" a lot of configuration options, any user wanting to change them (and I imagine that this number is larger than most GNOME coders want to admit) must use gconf and the GNOME registry. That is decidedly not more simple than just checking a checkbox with your mouse.
Simplicity is a valiant goal, but oversimplicity, loss of important functionality, and simple stupidity... aren't.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Part of growing up is realizing two things: One, yours opinions do matter and you should be willing to do something about them, and two, that the opinions of the other six billion people on the planet also matter and sometimes things won't go your way.
Some people only figure out one or the other (yes, there are people who only figure out the second one; you don't hear about them as much as the first), but both are important. This guy seems to have only gotten the first one.
Another example of such a person is a person who whines about how their vote is useless. What they really mean is that they aren't always casting the deciding vote, and you usually only hear about this when they are on the loosing side. Your vote isn't useless at all, it's just equally weighted with a lot of other votes. Part of growing up is accepting that the votes of other people matter too, and while your vote may individually only make a small contribution, you can't have an election where every vote is the "deciding" vote, and "one" is much, much better than the "none" a lot of people in the world get.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
XFCE. Seriously, if he's all anti-bloat and whatnot and is all up in arms about GCONF and lauguages other than C, then he should go use XFCE.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Frankly, it drives me nuts at times, the way that, say, Windows 95 did.
I know what you mean, but I don't think that it's just a problem with Gnome. Linux is now overrun with pretty-looking facilities that only help marginally with our ability to do useful work, and in some cases they actually decrease our overall ability by making the system more obscure.
Linux and the BSDs are primarily tools for power users, because that's what their remote ancestor and inspiration was, namely Unix. Anything that dumbs down these extremely powerful tools just so that they can appeal to Windows users or to granny is completely wrong. Any dumbing-down interface needs to be entirely additive and optional, and not given pride of place as if it were a leading-edge goal.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
> There can be a really nice framework within KDE but as a user I could not care less.
But the user (me, for example) does care about the feature-richness and consistence this framework made possible.
> As for Quanta -- this is just an 'extended' copy of tons of other apps, e.g. HomeSite.
I don't think you can use Homesite or Dreamweaver to write and debug PHP apps.
If you're still saying it's just an extended copy I'd say they extended it into an interesting direction.
Use xcdroast for a month and then use k3b for more than 5 minutes. Then say to yourself, which would I rather use? I'm not going into the KDE vs. Gnome debate but K3B rocks.
Yes, GConf and Windows Registry aren't the same at low level.
But when i want to change an advanced option on say GEdit, i need to go and open GConf, search the right key and change it. It really feels like hacking the windows registry to get things done.
Is not about the underlaying technology, is about the user feeling, isn't gnome philosopy that simple is better? that less is more?, then why do they what me to open another program just to configure the program i'm currently using?, this just causes more confusion.
A better idea should be to embed the gconf editor (using only the keys of the program) into and advanced section.
Really, i don't think that opening a separate programs to change some key on something that seems like windows registry editor is any better than having 10 tabs filled with options.
C-x C-c
The now venerable window manager enlightenment had a vast spread of possible configurations - download them in a tar archive and put it where the window manager can find it and you have a GUI that behaves like a mac, irix box, minimal fast interface or big shiny eyecandy thing with more graphics than your machine can handle. A major focus was on configuration. Gnome appears to be aimed at the opposite extreme, focused on producing the one true desktop - which is the whole reason when projects like GoneME are spawned. Flexability adds it's own problems, but if you have a default theme that comes with gnome that you can switch to without losing the current configuration, that gets around the usability problems of support coming in to work on someones oddly configured desktop.
The possiblility of designing something flexable like that into gnome is left up to someone that understands the weirdness that is the backend of the gconf system.
Personally, I think it should be a trivial exercise for the user to change their desktop GUI behaviour - we should stop playing KDE/MSWindows catchup and allow a wider range of people to show us what is possible. It's really only the window manager, the panel, and gtk themes we are talking about here, so it SHOULD be trivial, and ironicly if gconf used some flat file system or easily alterable database it would be.
Are you saying that the "major" apps not conforming to either KDE or GNOME is a usability problem? An application should not care about what GUI environment it is executed in. I use Fvwm2, and I don't ever want to use KDE or GNOME, nor should I have to. The application developers should not have to force a user to use a specific GUI in order to run a program. Linux is all about choice and limiting it's choice in this manner will just turn into into a windows clone.
Let the administrators care about what a user uses for a GUI, not the application developers
Everyone seems to be waltzing around the dead moose in the middle of the ballroom, so I'll perform a faux pas and point directly at it: who do we imitate when Windows is no longer a monopoly?
Imagine that Microsoft loses its market dominance (it's easy if you try) and we end up with a consumer desktop OS market of 45% Windows and 45% OSX. Imagine a bit further and envision a world with three or four competing desktops. Who do we imitate then?
If your premise is that new users will not switch to GNOME/KDE/Whatever without "substantial re-learning", then you have to imitate something in order to succeed.
Wouldn't it be much better in the long run to innovate first? I would much rather have an innovative, fresh and original desktop then another milktoast clone of whatever the computer illiterati use.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!