Feature Preview of Gnome 2.8

Leonardo writes "The GNOME foundation should release the new version of this desktop environment on the 15th of September. While we waiting for version 2.8, Foot Notes has a link that explains what's new in this release. Improvements include both core parts (like VFS and Nautilus) and UI modules, like a new applet manager, an improved gconf editor and a new theme. In addition there are some proposed modules like new system tools and a new VNC server. Take a look at Davyd Madeley' site (mirror) if you want to view some sweet screenshots."

Comments

System Tools?

[Speare]

I haven't RTFA, but it seems to me that GNOME isn't the right project for system tools. It's nice when gui-oriented system configuration features are made available in a GNOME style, but does it make sense for GNOME itself to have system-specific features?

The GNOME project and all its core features should be independent of what OS is running underneath, relying on a minimum of required components like suitable graphics, sound, pointer and keyboard services.

Re:System Tools?

[zerblat]

The Gnome System Tools are separated in frontends and backends. The backends are system specific, but the frontends are supposed to basically be the same on all system. Also, this separation means that it would be possible to create a non-Gnome interface (although I don't think one exists).

Re:System Tools?

[The Kiloman]

It's great that you didn't RTFA, but you obviously haven't read anything about GST either.

As another poster mentioned, the frontends are all Gnome and C, will look the same on all platforms. The C frontend calls into a standard library of Perl functions to do the distro-specific backend bits, the whole idea being that regardless of whose distribution you're using, the config tool will look the exact same and do the same things.

Pontificating is wonderful and all, but when you haven't RTFA and have no clue what you're talking about, what's the point? Just karma whoring I guess...

Re:System Tools?

[GileadGreene]

I think that what the parent was getting at is that GNOME should be independent of Linux, not just independent of a given distribution. There are other OSes out there than Linux you know. Some of 'em even use GNOME.

Oh no !

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do they keep bolting more and more stuff on ? Isn't it big enough already ?

I really wish projects would deal with getting stuff actually working and working well (bug-free and fast) before they start adding even more functionality.

There must be a million and one OS projects out there... ...but how many of them are actually usable ? Mose (like Gnome - and I'm not just picking on Gnome here) are buggy, increasing bloated, slow and memory hungry. ...not that many. And yes, I don't doubt someone will come up with a couple of examples that ARE quite good, but they are the exceptions.

Gnome (like the linux Kernal and loads of other stuff) is getting way t0o bloated to be useful - instead of adding more stuff, they should be slimming it down to core functionaly and the other stuff should be seperate projects.

OK, rant over

Re:Oh no !

[Xpilot]

Why do they keep bolting more and more stuff on ? Isn't it big enough already ?

And some say Gnome doesn't have *enough* features. Man, you just can't win. Maybe it's just fashionable to bash Gnome.

Re:Oh no !

[nuggetman]

Why in $diety's name is this modded insightful? Telling someone to fork the project themselves when they complain about something is equivalent to the "I'd like to see you do better!" defense when you say someone can't sing/act/dance/play an instrument/etc.

Not everyone is a programmer, and not everyone has the know how (or the time/desire to gain the knowhow) to work on GNOME/any other OSS project themselves.

The idea is the developers take input from those who CAN'T develop, but DO use the software, and make adjustments accordingly.

Re:Oh no !

[blixel]

The linux kernel has grown enourmously over the years.

Yes, you need to support new hardware and stuff but it's not sustainable to keep adding it into the core product. If you do, you end up with something like MS Office - how many gigabytes is Office now ?

There's a world of difference between hiding a 3D maze inside of Excel and the Linux kernel having *optional* support for hardware that you dont' own. The kernel source code may contain - what you unjustifiably call bloat - but that "bloat" isn't being used by your system at runtime if you don't have a need for that particular part of the kernel.

And it's not fair to call it bloat just because you don't have a particular piece of hardware. The Linux kernel would be completely useless if it only supported 1 network card and 1 motherboard chipset. Sure it would be tiny, but it would be useless to 99.99% of the population.

Re:Oh no !

[Mornelithe]

Then why's it written in C?

I don't have any definitive answer to that question. But there are reasons besides speed to write in C.

For example, it's easier to make language bindings for other languages from a C API. If you write GTK+ in OCaml, how easy is it to make Python and Ruby bindings? You'd need to use an OCaml -> C bridge and then use the Ruby -> C bridge to interface. Most languages have a C interoperability API, but the same can't necessarily be said of Lisp or ML. How easy is it to bridge between Perl and Python?

Or, maybe the people who wrote GTK just like C better. Personally, I like C better than C++, although I like Lisps and so on better.

Also, C is more widely known than ML and Lisp.

Also, perhaps GTK (which came about before Gnome, b the way) was once designed to be speedy. That doesn't mean that everything built with it needs to be speedy, or that it can't go off in another direction. Gnome was a lot more lightweight in the 1.x days, but it's changed. That doesn't mean it makes sense to rewrite all the libraries in a different language and make all old applications port to a new language.

I'm not saying that the Gnome people don't want to be as speedy as possible, but their primary objective is to build a comprehensive desktop. If you want lightweight stuff, go use lightweight stuff. Saying "Gnome uses C so it therefore is trying to be speedy" is not really logical.

It's a good idea

[ninjadroid]

It does make sense. Providing a uniform interface through which common configuration tasks can be performed is an excellent idea. If gnome can configure network devices, and you know how to use it's configurator, then you also know that wherever you go, if gnome is installed, you can setup the network. This is superior to having every individual distribution provide it's own custom interface, at least from the perspective of consistency (which is a valuable quality in UIs).

Even though different distros may have different internal solutions to configuration, I see no good reason why a consistent front end can't (or shouldn't) be provided. Furthermore, I'd rather have many hands working together to achieve the best interface once, rather than divering talent toward reinventing a boring wheel to mediocre effect.

Please please please

[djohnsto]

Fix gnome-terminal. Any terminal that uses more cpu to display the text from compiling software than is needed for the actual compile is just broken. Miguel complained (and stopped using gnome-terminal) about this more than 2 years ago! This is one of the few reasons that I have stuck with KDE.

(Yes, I know I can run konsole within gnome, but aside from the inconsistent themes, it sucks up a lot of memory to load both the gnome and kde libs at the same time.)

Re:it's all about xfce

[ajs]

No offense, but that's spoken exactly like someone who has no idea what a desktop environment is.

Gnome is 90% the application libraries that manage inter-process data, configuration, internationalization, accessibility, theming, common invocation semantics, error reporting, etc, etc.

That 10% that you're thinking of (window management, applet baubles, desktop layout, file management, changing the root background, etc.) is nice, but if you still have to have all of Gnome around for the important parts (the applications that integrate with the desktop), what exactly is the point.

If xfce is a Gnome- (and implicityly ICCCM-) compliant window manager, it will work just fine in the Gnome desktop, but that doesn't make it a Gnome-replacement.

What people love to refer to as bloat in Gnome (and KDE for that matter, I'm not playing favorites here) stop seeming like bloat the moment you a) want to know how to configure 20 different applications at once b) want to change all of your applications to use LCD-friendly font-smoothing c) speak a language that isn't the default (and perhaps has strange rules like being written backwards) d) can't see / hear / type / use a mouse / etc. ; or any other sort of desktop-level strangeness.... then you actually want a suite of tools and libraries that support your needs.