Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Feature Preview of Gnome 2.8

Posted by michael on from the gnome-man's-land dept.

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."

28 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. System Tools? by Speare · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
    1. Re:System Tools? by zerblat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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).

      --
      Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
    2. Re:System Tools? by The+Kiloman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

      --
      You may disagree, but to be blunt, you're wrong. -tgd
    3. Re:System Tools? by GileadGreene · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  2. Oh no ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Oh no ! by Xpilot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
    2. Re:Oh no ! by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 5, Interesting
      You realise that most of the changes in 2.8 are about fixing bugs and polishing, right?

      The new MIME system is "fixing" the old one by totally replacing it, no other approach would work. The new system by the way is a lot easier to use for both users and developers, and is a freedesktop standard shared with KDE :)

      The rest of the desktop is not receiving any major new features really, just lots of bugfixing too small to go in these sort of "what's new" pages and various cleanups. Actually Gnome seems to have slowed down in this release as a lot of the Red Hat and Novell hackers are tied up with non-Gnome work as they round out the rest of the Linux desktop (so, hardware integration, management tools, backwards compatibility work etc).

    3. Re:Oh no ! by nuggetman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      ...and that's all there is to it.
    4. Re:Oh no ! by blixel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Oh no ! by Mornelithe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, you need to support new hardware and stuff but it's not sustainable to keep adding it into the core product.

      What do you base this on? Do you have any evidence?

      You can choose to compile drivers into the kernel or as modules or not at all. Some people use the Linux kernel in embedded devices. It isn't necessary to compile most things into the kernel.

      Third parties can also maintain drivers that are separate from the kernel and are loaded as modules. Do you think Windows shouldn't include drivers for hardware on its install CD?

      He was referring to MS Word

      Do you have any Linux examples?

      Printing doesn't happen immediately because it's necessary to convert the data into a format the printer understands. Printers don't understand Word files or PDFs or whatever. They can't magically see what's on you screen and begin printing immediately.

      Maybe back in the days of daisy wheel printers it was easy to generate stuff the printer would understand, but these days you need to produce postscript or something else. Unless you want to edit all your documents as postscript, it's going to take some processing beforehand.

      But you know, personally I think the output of modern printers actually looks good. You can have good looking printouts, you can have speedy printouts, and you can edit in whatever document format you want, but you can only choose two of the above.

      I know you were implying more generality, but I think you're wrong. Yes, you can't use brand new Gnome on old hardware. But that's because it's made to take advantage of new hardware. It does more stuff than old fast applications did.

      If you want a speedy desktop, you can use XFCE or Fluxbox. Or you could use bugfixed versions of older apps/Gnome/KDE if they exist. Gnome isn't designed to be super speedy.

      --

      I've come for the woman, and your head.

    6. Re:Oh no ! by AstroDrabb · · Score: 4, Informative
      How is this AC Insightful? You see, the thing with F/OSS is that you have a chioce. If you think Gnome is bloated, use an earlier version such as Gnome 1.4, or KDE, FluxBox, BlackBox, XFCE (pretty nice and fast too), etc, etc. You think the kernel is getting bloated? Um, go and download an older one, like 2.4, 2.2 or even 2.0. Hey, you can go out and grab an old distro like RH 7.x or 6.x or Debian unstable : ). Use what you want. Exactly how is GNU/Linux going to keep up with technology with out adding "bloat". How would the Linux kernel support new hardware without adding "bloat"?

      If you have written your own non-bloated kernel, OS tool chain, and desktop, please submit them to the OSS community so we can all enjoy your excellent, non-bloated work.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    7. Re:Oh no ! by ajs · · Score: 4, Informative

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

      Simple answer: because it's important and no.

      Complicated answer: because it's important and yes.

      I like to say (permuting an old saying about open source) that open source succedes because it scratches a niche. The more niches, the more success.

      "Gnome" is not a single application, it's a distribution of applications that meet a plethora of needs based on all of the niche audiences that use it.

      You can say that having an IRC client is just bloat, but if Gnome didn't have that some people wouldn't be using it, and they'd be using a desktop system that was inclusive of their needs.

      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.

      Actually, Gnome works pretty damned well circa late 2.6. It's been a long time coming. 2.4 was a big change (as the version numbering implied), and a lot of people had a lot of good and constructive feedback that shaped 2.6. 2.8 is clearly taking the next steps in becoming the desktop environment that we can all rely on, and I'm happy with that.

      As for bugs... well, I guess it's a matter of perspective. From where I stand, 2.6 is not bug-free (nothing ever is), but it's moving substantially in that direction (kaizen if you will). As for fast... I run a suite of applications on my desktop at home that do things my poor little 300MHz Pentium 4 years ago could only dream of, so I'm a bad judge. I'm quite happy with the current suite of Gnome video and 3D tools in terms of their response and bandwidth, though. I don't really use a file manager much, so that I can't speak to. The Web tools are slick and fast. The high-level object drag-and-drop seems like it could be faster, so there's a place for improvement.

      But seriously, do you think the addition of system configuration tools is going to slow down the desktop?

      Gnome (like the linux Kernal and loads of other stuff) is getting way t0o bloated to be useful

      Well, let's look at Gnome and the Linux kernel. Both are highly modular, allowing the user to strip away what he/she does not need.

      Both have many, large components that provide functionality so powerful that most users DON'T go without, at the expense of resources.

      Both address the needs of dozens of niche users (internationalization, accessibility for disabled users, strange hardware, etc).

      So... I guess I have to ask... what exactly is the bloat that you're not happy with, and how willing are you to configure your system so that that's not a problem?

      I've seen Gnome running on top of Linux on an iPaq, so I'm not really buying the "bloated" party line. I just think you're too lazy to configure it to your needs.

    8. Re:Oh no ! by Mornelithe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --

      I've come for the woman, and your head.

  3. It's a good idea by ninjadroid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Nice UI - better for Linvirgins? by grunt107 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The inclusion of system tasks in the UI graphic selection seems to be a good way to allow the Linux newbies to more easily understand and control their non-Win computers. Once they get acclimated to the commands, they may venture into the faster cmd-line that 'experts' like to use.

    This may even help faster corporate adoption, with the remote control software and other networking tools.

  5. I still have hope for gnome. by aussersterne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But here's what would have to change for me to use it:

    1. Jettison the whole gconf/registry thing in favor of a tree of plain text config files in .gnome or something

    2. Resurrect the old GNOME control center

    3. Give me a default window manager with the ability to select focus-follows-mouse mouse

    4. Construct a usable menu editor somewhere so that I can customize my menus

    5. Choose: either a) reincorporate gecko into Nautilus for Web browsing or b) go lightweight and jettison Nautilus for the old gmc

    6. Create a base distribution of official GNOME applications from a lot of the GTK stuff out there, based on which authors agree to follow a rigidly follow a GNOME style guide and use the GNOME API rather than just GTK, so that there is more desktop consistency

    7. Add compatibility with KDE themes to GTK, since they seem superior (ability to change colors, not just widget styles, etc.)

    8. Give me an "advanced mode" to turn on all kinds of extra GUI configuration bells and whistles like keybindings, autoraise, MIME types, etc.

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    1. Re:I still have hope for gnome. by JanneM · · Score: 5, Informative

      1. Jettison the whole gconf/registry thing in favor of a tree of plain text config files in .gnome or something

      gconf _is_ a tree of text config files in .gconf .

      2. Resurrect the old GNOME control center

      What did it do differently than the preferences view in nautilus?

      3. Give me a default window manager with the ability to select focus-follows-mouse mouse

      Settings->Windows, choose "Focus follows Mouse".

      4. Construct a usable menu editor somewhere so that I can customize my menus

      Not sure what you feel is wrong with the current method?

      8. Give me an "advanced mode" to turn on all kinds of extra GUI configuration bells and whistles like keybindings, autoraise, MIME types, etc.

      keybindings - in the preferences already. autoraise windows - you find that in the same preference dialog as focus-follows-mouse above. MIME type editor - already exists, improved for 2.8. For other things, gconf-editor _is_ your advanced mode.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    2. Re:I still have hope for gnome. by v01d · · Score: 3, Interesting

      gconf _is_ a tree of text config files in .gconf .

      gconfd-2 is also a broken database server. On my two systems using Gnome 2.6 (Solaris and RedHat), gconfd periodically goes rogue and eats all configuration. Gnome poorly implemented what was a bad idea in Windows.

      Consequentially I use either WindowMaker, WinXP or OS X.

      Not sure what you feel is wrong with the current method?

      So is there a menu editor? I've never spotted one anywhere.

    3. Re:I still have hope for gnome. by Jodrell · · Score: 5, Interesting
      1. Jettison the whole gconf/registry thing in favor of a tree of plain text config files in .gnome or something

      If you're a system administrator, gconf is a godsend. You can "lock down" certain preferences so your users can't break things or waste time playing with useless preferences. Another win from using GConf is that it's "process transparent." This means that if I change a setting from one application, it instantly updates in all other applications that are interested in that setting. This technology is vital for the snazzy "instant apply" UI of GNOME, and vital for writing applications made up of multiple out-of-process components.

      3. Give me a default window manager with the ability to select focus-follows-mouse mouse


      GNOME Menu -> Preferences -> Windows, then select the "Select windows when the mouse moves over them".

      5. Choose: either a) reincorporate gecko into Nautilus for Web browsing or b) go lightweight and jettison Nautilus for the old gmc


      Nautilus isn't a web browser, use Epiphany for that. Nautilus's performance has come on leaps and bounds in the last couple of years, particular between 2.4 and 2.6.

      6. Create a base distribution of official GNOME applications from a lot of the GTK stuff out there, based on which authors agree to follow a rigidly follow a GNOME style guide and use the GNOME API rather than just GTK, so that there is more desktop consistency


      More and more of the GNOME API is moving into Gtk+ - the icon theme implementation, for example, and the new UI Manager system. But GNOME can't coerce other developers into following their guidelines, they can only encourage them.

      You may also find that things like the GNOME Fifth Toe has what you want.

      7. Add compatibility with KDE themes to GTK, since they seem superior (ability to change colors, not just widget styles, etc.)


      Check out this project for a Gtk-Qt unifying theme.

      8. Give me an "advanced mode" to turn on all kinds of extra GUI configuration bells and whistles like keybindings, autoraise, MIME types, etc.


      gconf-editor and GNOME Hacks are your friend :)
    4. Re:I still have hope for gnome. by Laur · · Score: 3, Informative
      I for one think haveing a tabed file manager would be just as usful as a tabed browser

      It is. Konqueror does this and it's quite nice.

      --
      When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
    5. Re:I still have hope for gnome. by ScRoNdO · · Score: 3, Informative
      So is there a menu editor? I've never spotted one anywhere.

      Well, it's disabled in fedora, but in a default Gnome install, like on slackware, you simply open Nautilus, go to Applications://, and edit it's subfolders. Really, it couldn't be simpler.

  6. it's all about xfce by TimODonnell · · Score: 4, Informative

    Anybody who still hasn't settled on a wm, take this advice: try xfce. It's fast, it's customizable, it's simple, but it still feels like a desktop environment, not just a window manager like fluxbox. It's the middle ground between the two huge desktop envirnments and the dozens of ultra-lightweight window managers.

    It's gnome without the bloat.

    --
    Tim ODonnell
    1. Re:it's all about xfce by cronot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I do use XFCE too, plus the Rox pinboard - makes the perfect combo, and still keeps the environment lean and fast.

      However, I beg to disagree with your last sentence. The "bloat" in gnome is something relative - it may be heavier on the system, but Gnome and its apps feels far more integrated than XFCE. XFCE is pretty much only the panel, an eye-candied window manager, and a taskbar, and while it comes with easy to use configuration tools, they are very limited in the sense that there aren't not much room for customizing - something that gnome surely wins. The taskbar, for instance, have no real meaningful configuration, and always lives separated from the panel - IMHO, it should be a plugin, so you could attach the taskbar to the panel, thus freeing desktop space.

      I can live with that tough. My main beef with the state of desktop on Linux is the fragmented situation of the GUI Tookits (mainly QT vs. GTK, though there are lesser ones). The problem is not having many toolkits per se, but the fact that this leaves the desktop with an unconsistent appearance. I'm all for having toolkit choices, but I wish they'd unite to create a standard themeing format, so a theme could be used on both toolkits, thus leaving a more or less consistent appearance to the desktop (there's still the GUI guidelines).

      Well, not gonna happen anytime soon, tough... :-(

    2. Re:it's all about xfce by ajs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  7. The media device manager... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    is the best upcoming feature of 2.8 IMO. I will finally be able to just plug in my various USB drives into the computer and have them mount (and unmount!) automatically.

    For me personally, this means that my non-ubergeek wife (who isn't aware of the root password or the commands mount -a and umount -f), and will be able to download pictures off of the camera without asking me to unmount the camera or to fix the multiple mount points that cropped up since she plugged in the camera multiple times.

    Thank you Gnome hackers!

  8. Please please please by djohnsto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.)

    --
    Dan
  9. Re:I know it's been discussed before by TheFlu · · Score: 3, Informative

    gconftool-2 --type bool --set /apps/nautilus/preferences/always_use_browser true

    --

    --It's Pimptastic!--

  10. Re:Did they kill "spatial" Nautilus yet? by jcupitt65 · · Score: 3, Informative
    From the interview:
    • There are some small features in CVS that might be interesting though:
      * Visible preference that allows you to disable spatial mode