Gnome 2.8 RC1 Released

FlipmodePlaya writes "Linux Today reports the first release candidate for Gnome 2.8 has been released. A look at the new stuff can be found here. Notably, the possible inclusion of Evolution, and some networking goodies. My opinion: the GUI changes look too much like Windows/Internet Explorer for my tastes; I guess it's not just KDE."

Comments

Site is slow, article text here

[Karma Troll]

GNOME 2.8 Release Candidate 1 Announced
Sep 1, 2004, 18 :00 UTC (1 Talkback[s]) (1740 reads)
(Other stories by Jeff Waugh)

Release Candidate 1 marks the start of our Hard Code Freeze, on the way towards the final GNOME 2.8 release in a couple of weeks. The final lap! Let's just hope we're not dragged off the track at the last minute by a strangely dressed Irishman. Even though it almost sounds like fun... At last, without further ado, THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING!

platform: http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/platform/2.7/2.7.92 /NEWS
tar.gz: 45M total
tar.bz2: 31M total

desktop: http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/desktop/2.7/2.7.92/ NEWS
tar.gz: 146M total
tar.bz2: 103M total

bindings: http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/bindings/2.7/2.7.92 /NEWS
tar.gz: 13M total
tar.bz2: 8.1M total
Notes about the new MIME system

As of GNOME 2.7.4, the old MIME system was replaced with a new shared specification found on freedesktop.org. There are a couple comments to go along with this:

* In order the to see any applications available, they must be registered with the MIME system. This can be done by getting the latest verion of desktop-file-utils and running:

update-desktop-database $PREFIX/applications

jhbuild in CVS has been modified to build this, and we expect applications to do this on install automatically in the future.
* The new user interface is modeled after the proposal at:

http://www.gnome.org/~jrb/files/mime/

The old File Types capplet has been removed in favor of a nautilus-only interface.

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

This release is a snapshot of development code. Although it is buildable and usable, it is primarily intended for testing and hacking purposes. Like the Linux kernel, GNOME uses odd minor version numbers to indicate development status. Please check the 2.7 start page for more information:

http://www.gnome.org/start/2.7/

Happy testing!

* The GNOME Release Team

Re:Site is slow, article text here

[ricotest]

The site isn't slow, and that 'breathing' troll has got to be the lamest thing in existence. By typing it, you'd have had to do the same.

Too much like MS?

[TheUnFounded]

I'll probably get blasted for this, but like it or leave it, MS is known for making an interface that's usable to the masses. Want Linux on the desktop? That's the way to do it.

Re:Too much like MS?

[OmniVector]

why copy the copy cat? I'd rather they copy apple, who's known for quality interfaces. luckily though, gnome has taken a page or two from them rather than microsoft. i'd say it's kde who's mimicing windows (konqueror is a file browser + web browser. in gnome these are different. gnome strives for simplicity. kde strives for features, etc).

Re:Too much like MS?

[MarcQuadra]

I disagree, I run WindowMaker, and most kids who come over and sit at my desk figure it out quickly enough, they really dig the dock, and they LOVE the 'start menu whenever I right-click the background'. Almost everyone figures out the multiple-desktop thing too, when they see the pager with eight screens that shows a mini-screen for each one.

It helps that my menu items are named after the FUNCTION rather than the application that provides it. When you see 'music' it runs juk, when you click 'web' it opens firefox, etc.

The Windows-style taskbar interface is pretty weak if you intend to keep your session running for days or weeks instead of hours.

Everyone remarks how 'clean' and 'simple' my layout is, and the geekier note that 'it takes a lot less mousing around to get stuff done'.

The trick is that every corporate desktop needs to be uniform and MANAGED by someone who does the stuff like rename menu items to functions and remove all the excess cruft that the heavier desktop environments populate interfaces with.

Re:Too much like MS?

[SnprBoB86]

Personally I have always found Apple's interfaces limiting. They put the most common options right out in front (as they should), but seem to totally forget the more advanced options. And the lack of an (accessable) context menu is also very weird to me.

Re:Too much like MS?

[AntiOrganic]

And the lack of an (accessable) context menu is also very weird to me.

No one's making you use a one-button mouse. You can plug in any regular two-button mouse and map the right-click to pop up a context menu.

Re:Too much like MS?

[crackshoe]

accesible? if you're using the provided one button mouse (and i know very few people who do), you just hold down one key, and you get your context menu. just because you don't understand how to do something doesn't mean its not accesible.

Re:Too much like MS?

[InfiniteWisdom]

I think button 1 does something, button 2 does something else is a lot more intuitive than button one does something if you press it for a short time and something else if you press it for a long time, and yet another thing if you move the mouse while you;re pressing it for a long time

Re:Too much like MS?

[10101001 10101001]

On that note, why should a click, two clicks, and a double click be treated differently? It's actually the third that's the issue, since with all the things that in Windows were made to require double clicking people double click on hyperlinks because they've come to understand a double click is what you use to activate a stand-alone widget (and MS stole this idea from Apple, clearly, who probably got it from PARC).

Fundamentally, a mouse is a pretty horrible tool to do a lot of things. Things like a second or third button and adding a scroll wheel all only attempt to overcome various limitations in control design inherent in trying to use a pointer in a 2D space. It's also a core reason why people are so attached to their keyboard, as it's often the case a lot quicker to just type a number into a spinbox or type in part of a url and arrow down to the right one (or finish it most often since your history has deep urls). Anyways, enough of that rant. :)

Re:Too much like MS?

[dtfinch]

No one's making you use a one-button mouse.

I just checked the Apple store to see if I'm still correct. In their store, I tried ordering a Mac. A couple different models actually to be certain. The only option was a one button mouse. The two button mice are in another section of their store, and must be bought seperately. So if you want a two button mouse, you essentially have to buy 2 mice, the one button mouse that came with it (which you'll either burn for heat or use to decorate your christmas tree), and the two button mouse you'll actually use with the Mac. And of course they only resell two button mice. They don't have their own. Same goes for the tiny vs full keyboards. If it's a teeny tiny keyboard or one button mouse, it's made by Apple, if it's a 2+ button mouse or full sized keyboard, it's it's not.

But it's not the mouse and keyboard that bothers me, it's that I can't find the reason for it.

Re:Too much like MS?

[prockcore]

accesible? if you're using the provided one button mouse (and i know very few people who do), you just hold down one key, and you get your context menu.

I'm not sure which context the parent poster was using when he said "accessible". When I read it, I thought of accessibility.

Which makes your response hilarious in the context of, say, people with one arm. Just hold down one key with your nose, then use your good hand to click the button, boom your context menu.

Re:Too much like MS?

[prockcore]

I think button 1 does something, button 2 does something else is a lot more intuitive than button one does something if you press it for a short time and something else if you press it for a long time

Pet peeve: the "hold button for context menu" only works in the dock. How inconsitant. Doesn't work in the finder, doesn't work in safari.. doesn't work anywhere but the dock.

Re:Too much like MS?

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing that has always peeved me about the right-click-on-the-desktop-to-do-stuff is that sometimes I have, yanno, windows open while I'm doing things. I don't want to interrupt my flow of work to get a menu open to launch another app.

Virtual desktops are somewhat overrated too. What happens if I want to be notified of an incoming IM, and I have sound disabled, while working in another desktop? I don't want to cost myself time flipping back and forth between the two in order to check.

That said, virtual desktops *are* nice for being able to switch between two tasks at your leisure with an odd arrangement of windows. But the PITA of my normal working conditions precludes it. Whether I like it or not, the Windows UI does wonders for my working style.

On the other hand, I've come to love the Mac OSX desktop in the last week and a half that I've been using it in a class. The way that everything is organized is absolutely wonderful, except for the fact that I lose windows if I don't minimize them and something else is on top. I think I'm going to buy an iBook sometime. Between OSX and the battery life of the 12" screen, I can't lose.

Re:Too much like MS?

[dbIII]

MS is known for making an interface that's usable to the masses

The interface was designed at Parc, and MS just Xeroxed it.

Re:Too much like MS?

[Errtu76]

Maybe Apple's interface is technically better, but (like the parent poster said) if you want to bring it to the masses, use something people are already used to. That way the switch to a linux desktop won't be such a big difference.

Re:Too much like MS?

[lewp]

Works in Firefox :).

(Which just proves your point, of course. My point is that Firefox rules!)

Re:Too much like MS?

[holderofthering]

Any screenshots of your layout?

Re:Too much like MS?

[10101001 10101001]

The funny thing is, it was probably done for a variety of reasons including making the explorer shell to be more web like (ignoring the previous problem with people double clicking hyperlinks; or should I say, they fixed it by ignoring double clicks most the time in IE) as well as a realization that most non-techies never do anything *but* activate (or possible context-menu click) icons. My point is that most web browsers behave differently than file managers because it's a different paradigm (one's about moving to data, the other to manipulating it & moving to it & all sorts of other things), yet no one bothered to teach people this and instead MS went the other way and just *assumed* people would figure out how web browsers work and tried to convert everyone to it. Of course, that mostly failed (active desktop being a failure and the whole one-click option is still off).. So, no one has fixed the whole consistency issue with a mouse which fundamentally is a problem with being a very finitely inputtable device*.

* Don't mistake this to mean I like the idea of sticking a whole slew of buttons on the mouse. I'm merely pointing out that the consistency issue with a mouse *could* be fixed with various function buttons. Seeing as how horrible an idea that really is, someone needs to come up with a better device than a mouse.

Re:Too much like MS?

[farnz]

What happens if I want to be notified of an incoming IM, and I have sound disabled, while working in another desktop?

Certainly with Kopete, and presumably with other multiple desktop aware IM programs, a new message notification can be made to appear briefly on all desktops; this can be configured on a per-contact basis.

Thus, when my close friends IM me, I get a prompt no matter what virtual desktop I'm on. When it's IM spam, or a stranger, I don't get prodded.

Re:Too much like MS?

[anynameleft]

The reason? That's easy: the person who designed the original Apple mouse thought that with a one-button mouse, the user couldn't be confused which button he had to press.

Later, he admitted that he could also have put a text label on both buttons, but back then he thought that were ugly.

Re:Too much like MS?

[wolfdvh]

On that note, why should a click, two clicks, and a double click be treated differently? It's actually the third that's the issue, since with all the things that in Windows were made to require double clicking people double click on hyperlinks because they've come to understand a double click is what you use to activate a stand-alone widget (and MS stole this idea from Apple, clearly, who probably got it from PARC).

I don't know anyone with Xerox Star experience, so I first saw this convention on the Mac. Like many conventions, the reason seems to have been lost somewhere along the way.

The double click is a shorthand way of doing a 'select' then 'open'. This first click selects what you want to interact with, (program, folder, etc.) and then in either Mac or Windows, you go to the pull down menu and choose open/new/run, or whatever the default action is. The second click is just a quick way to launch that default action.

Thank goodness MS does copy Mac now and then. Old guys like me who remember early versions Windows (I think up to v.3.0), will remember an odd system of cut copy and paste commands with the insert, delete, shift and control keys that few could keep straight. They got tired of the complaints and switched to the Mac system of X, C and V where C was copy and the V was like the editors markup to insert something where the 'arrow' was. It was of course arbitrary too, but most people with early GUI experience had used a Mac. Back then, the MS(PC) folks were mostly pretty militant command line (DOS) users until they started to be seduced by the GUI side around Windows 3.1

Re:Too much like MS?

[stor]

Later, he admitted that he could also have put a text label on both buttons, but back then he thought that were ugly.

Text label? In what language?

Perhaps a couple of icons would have been more suitable... *shrug*

Cheers
Stor

Re:Too much like MS?

[Dever]

it is PARC (acronym) and they're responsible for the gui thingy as a concept (mouse too i believe), not microsoft's shitty implementation of one.
oh, and microsoft was xeroxing the Apple Lisa. i think.

Re:Too much like MS?

[@madeus]

There are several relevent points:

(i.)Knowing how to design good GUI software and interfaces (both physical and graphical) means knowing what to leave out.

Software ought not to require users to use context sensitive menus to perfom an operation - if it does so then it is badly implimented because most users will simply not figure this out (and if and when they do, it won't be until after a significant of time wasted searching for the way to do it).

Context sensitive menus should assist 'power users' in accessing things or performing operations more quickly, but should never be the only way to perform a given operation. I would further say that developers ought to be striving as much as possible to remove the need for right clicking from their interfaces.

These tennets hold true even when an application is targeted at what are preceived as 'advanced' users. Sooner or later someone not as advanced as you think is going to end up using the software (or alternatively someone just having a bad day) and they are going to run in to problems because they can't find the way to perform the operation because they didn't realise they had to (or even could) right click to perform this operation.

(ii.)People who don't know that context menu's are avalible are the exact same people who are better off with a one button mouse in the first place.

The 'average joe' still replies to instructions of "click that icon" with "With what mouse button?" Most people are casual users of computers at best, and they are still daunted by having two butttons. The situation could be possibly be improved by having graphical (and possibly textual) representations of the behaviour on the mouse buttons themselves but that is not common.

When they are ready for added complexity it is there, just like the Unix command prompt is there for those who want it, but it's completely hidden from the majority of users.

(iii.) Dispite being a unix software developer I have come to prefer the design of Apple's own mouse over my 5 button scroll wheel mouse when using Mac OS X.

The primary reason being that I don't have to hold down a specific area of the mouse, just push down on it generally (the physical level of pressure required is adjustable). I have found this much better for my hand/wrist postioning (meaning I spend less time with my fingers crawled up in a ball).

I also find that on Mac OS (this applies to both classic too) software is generally designed in such as way as to be completely usable without the need to right click, largely thanks to things like more comprehensive drag and drop support.

It's not without sacrifices, I like scroll wheels for example, but when using OS X I don't find the lack of scroll wheel nearly as much of a problem as I do when using Gnome or Microsoft Windows, largely due to three factors relating to scrolling:

1). Window scrollbar indicators are always proportional (with a 'sensible' minimum size).

2). When I click on a scroll bar the visible area of the window jumps to exactly where I have clicked instantly (not just generally scrolls 'up' or 'down' a page).

3). Both Scoll Up AND Scoll Down arrows at the top AND bottom of each scollbar.

These of course are toggleable through the Preferences panel but I find with them I no longer miss having a scroll wheel enough to give up my 'no button' (push-to-click) Apple branded Bluetooth mouse when using OS X. Though it is something of a close call (mostly I miss having back/forward buttons and scroll wheels are still very useful with FPS games).

Re:Too much like MS?

[Coryoth]

Virtual desktops are somewhat overrated too. What happens if I want to be notified of an incoming IM, and I have sound disabled, while working in another desktop?

Oh - you mean badly implemented virtual desktops? Yes, those tend to suck. Interestingly that's mostly what you get for virtual desktops in windows (if you download the addon) - it does the basics, but has none of the finesse.

A sensible virtual desktop system allows sticky notificaton windows. Cunning systems manage to understand which notifications to put on the current desk, and which to leave with the window.

Jedidiah.

Re:Too much like MS?

[Anonymous Coward]

> No one's making you use a one-button mouse

Unless you have a laptop.

Re:Too much like MS?

[node 3]

No one's making you use a one-button mouse.

The two button mice are in another section of their store, and must be bought seperately.

Which is to say no one is making you use a one-button mouse. Besides, all Macs ship with a two-button mouse--the second button is on the keyboard (ctrl-click brings up the context menu).

Re:Too much like MS?

[golgotha007]

Virtual desktops are somewhat overrated too. What happens if I want to be notified of an incoming IM, and I have sound disabled, while working in another desktop? I don't want to cost myself time flipping back and forth between the two in order to check.

I am notified of a new IM message via my gnome taskbar (there is a notification applet). I have become so comfortable using virtual desktops that if I ever find myself on some windows machine somewhere, i feel claustrophobic.

Re:Too much like MS?

[AnyoneEB]

Old guys like me who remember early versions Windows (I think up to v.3.0), will remember an odd system of cut copy and paste commands with the insert, delete, shift and control keys that few could keep straight.

You mean [ctrl]+[insert] for copy, [ctrl]+[delete] for cut, and [shift]+[insert] for paste? They still work in Windows.

Re:Too much like MS?

[rdc_uk]

Later, he admitted that he could also have put a text label on both buttons, but back then he thought that were ugly.

Surely, what he should have admitted was that he was a dick, and should have credited the rest of the world with the ability to tell right from left?!?

After all, he's been proven SO wrong by... every other computer system in history. Way to go, bud.

Re:Too much like MS?

[Ford Prefect]

Later, he admitted that he could also have put a text label on both buttons, but back then he thought that were ugly.

'LEFT' and 'RIGHT'?

I can imagine the jokes about Mac users that would have ensued... ;-)

Re:Too much like MS?

[adamh526]

You're forgetting that Apple tries to sell you a simple but complete solution. Their idea of the simple PC solution includes a one button mouse and when you buy an Apple system thats what you get. You're free to alter their idea of the Apple solution, but they'd rather you do that once the computer is at your house, rather than changing their ideas while ordering. Thats probably why its easy to use a two-button mouse with an Apple system, but still harder to order one to ship instead of their standard one-button mouse.

Re:Too much like MS?

[MarcQuadra]

LOL! Maybe you didn't hear, I use WindowMaker. My screen looks like a background image and a VERY rudimentary 'dock' alongside the left, that's all.

When I right-click I get a menu with my apps and options.

I'm not sure how to get a screenie, but if I do I'll post a URL.

Re:Too much like MS?

[Tim C]

It helps that my menu items are named after the FUNCTION rather than the application that provides it. When you see 'music' it runs juk, when you click 'web' it opens firefox, etc.

That only works for the case where you have a single application that provides each function, though. For example, were I to rename the shortcut for Mozilla to "web", what would I call the ones to Opera, IE and firefox? Sure, I'm a special case, but everyone working in the web is (or should be) in terms of using multiple browsers.

The Windows-style taskbar interface is pretty weak if you intend to keep your session running for days or weeks instead of hours.

My machine at work goes down for power outages and office moves only, and so is up for weeks or months at a time. I run XP, and have noticed no weakness in the taskbar interface based on length of uptime; would you care to elaborate?

Re:Too much like MS?

[Gordonjcp]

You try telling that to the woefully non-technical old wifey in the back office of a supermarket, who just wants to know why the "telly thing" doesn't work, and can't give you a better fault description that "you press the thing and it doesn't work".

Re:Too much like MS?

[Tim C]

It's been a while since I installed WinXP, but I'm pretty sure that single-click activation (and underlining of names, like hyperlinks) is the default. I'm prepared to be proved wrong though :-)

Re:Too much like MS?

[Lumpy]

Which is shy we chce Gnome over KDE or any other here.

I can lock down and migrate changes to 400 user profiles in 10 seconds. something 100% impossible under windows and a PITA in KDE.

It's great, pushing a upgraded app to over 100 desktops or the extremely simple task of backing up a user's profile and migrating it to another machine takes no effort unlike windows... and with a thin-client setup like we have in the learning lab I set up at my church the kids can sit at ANY computer in the lab and their desktop and files magically appear when they log into any machine. (something else that is actually possible with windows and Citrix but it will cost you an extreme amount of money.)

i find the windows style taskbar to help the user transition to Linux and Gnome. to the point now that it's almost weekly that I am giving out Mandrake 10 Cd's to people that now WANT to run linux instead of windows at home. And yes they are aware that you can not buy software at the store for it, One Sales manager put it to me in an interesting way... "so it's like owning a Mac? you cent get mac software at most places."

I just hope that mandrake 10 Rpm's of 2.8 show up soon after it's release... .hell, i'd love some 2.6 rpm's for mandrake. I love Slackware's 2.6 gnome install over the 2.4 install that is default with Mandrake.

Re:Too much like MS?

[random_static]

The two button mice are in another section of their store, and must be bought seperately.

Which is to say no one is making you use a one-button mouse.

no, just that apple's forcing me to pay for one, whether i want it or not.

Besides, all Macs ship with a two-button mouse--the second button is on the keyboard

by that standard, why don't you praise apple for shipping with a 101-button mouse by default?

wasn't that long ago i heard some mac fanatic claim the one-button mouse was so that users wouldn't get confused about which mouse button to press. clearly pressing ctrl+mousebutton must not be confusing at all to them, nor can there be anything the least bit unintuitive about combining input actions from two separate devices simultaneously. apple users must be so smart, they don't need to use their brains to use their computers, i take it.

me? all i want is for apple to ship a pointing device with a scroll wheel as standard. i refuse to use one without such a thing; i've become hopelessly addicted. preferably a scroll wheel with side-scrolling tilt ability. why should i pay a dime for a mouse that doesn't have such a basic, essential feature? mice without wheels disappeared from the market (the sensible part of the market) years ago - do let apple know they're behind the times.

Re:Too much like MS?

[swv3752]

There is another school of thought that says: Design for the upper tier not the Lowest Common Denominator. Who wants something designed for fools and morons?

One must learn to drive a car, ride a bike, row a boat, swim, operate power tools, et cetera. Why should one not have to learn to use a computer?

Re:Too much like MS?

[dizzyduck]

One must learn to drive a car, ride a bike, row a boat, swim, operate power tools, et cetera. Why should one not have to learn to use a computer?

If the user interface of a computer could be designed so that it were not necessary to learn how to use a computer, why should that not be done? Why can there not be a DE for power users, and another DE for everybody else?

Let me rephrase your question: Why should one have to learn how to use a computer?

Re:Too much like MS?

[Trelane]

The GIMP can take screen or window shots. I suspect that some WMs/DEs will take a screenshot with PrintScrn. Yup. GNOME 2.6 does at least. :)

Re:Too much like MS?

[Xawen]

You forgetting patches? I can't imagine your machines stay up for 5 minutes, let alone months, if you're not rebooting every couple weeks for the montly releases...

Re:Too much like MS?

[Cochonou]

Why do almost all the cars in the US have an automatic transmission, then ?

Re:Too much like MS?

[kaiwai]

How is it limiting. I've worked with users both over the phone and standing behind them, the majority only use one mouse button - as strange as it sounds, the majority are quite happy to go up to format, fonts and change the type.

Now sure, they *could* use the right click and navigate via the context menu, but the fact remains, the vast majority of users never use the second mouse button.

The relivance to Apple? the fact is, Apple design their systems for simplicity and the end user in mind, and their biggest problem is this; making sure the end user KNOW that they can use their Microsoft Office documents from work on their Macintosh.

Here is a good example, I have a lady friend who just so happen to have bought a PC, great little machine, and started chatting. After chatting for a while I asked why she bought a PC, she said, "because I need Microsoft Office for work", I then went on and explained to her how she could have bought a Mac and Office 2004 - her reaction? there was a great disappointment put accross her face, her body language said it all - "you mean, I could have bought a Mac AND ran Microsoft Office? why didn't I know? if only I knew, I would have bought a Mac!".

Re:Too much like MS?

[Amiga Trombone]

Thank goodness MS does copy Mac now and then. Old guys like me who remember early versions Windows (I think up to v.3.0), will remember an odd system of cut copy and paste commands with the insert, delete, shift and control keys that few could keep straight. They got tired of the complaints and switched to the Mac system of X, C and V where C was copy and the V was like the editors markup to insert something where the 'arrow' was. It was of course arbitrary too, but most people with early GUI experience had used a Mac.

I think in at least a few cases, Apple should return the favor. It would help out a lot if Apple would make a concession to the fact that most people trying out their machines for the first time probably have Windows PC's as their frame of reference. A few small concessions, such as a multi-button mouse and conventional key placements on the keyboard would go a long way in making a Mac easier to use for potential Windows refugees, without really losing the flavor of the Mac experience.

It might be argued that the Mac method of doing things is easier and more intuitive, but that's a little like arguing that Esperanto is easier than English. It might be true, technically, but all the same, there would be little benefit for me to drop English in favor of Esperanto. English is what I'm familiar with, English is commonly spoken in the circles I hang out in, if I want to post something to Slashdot, English is the common language used to communicate here. There would be little use posting to Slashdot in Esperanto, "easier" or not. Likewise with a Mac - you can argue all day that human interface research proves that a one-button mouse is easier to use, but that's of little use to me when I'm confronted with a computer that doesn't interact with me in a manner in which I've become accustomed over the last 20 years or so. It wouldn't hurt Apple to recognize Windows is the lingua franca of interface design, and adopt some of it's more common conventions.

Mac's have a lot of cool features, a UNIX based OS with a friendly GUI, a RISC processor, and great hardware. But somehow the whole doesn't pan out to equal the some of it's parts. I still find Mac's awkward to use, mostly because Apple has chosen to ignore the conventions I've become accustomed to though years of using Windows and UNIX machines.

It may well be true that if you put an inexperienced user in front of a Mac, he'll find it easier to learn than a Windows box. The problem with that idea is that there aren't really that many inexperienced users anymore. Most people have at least rudimentery computer skills these days, and the convention they've usually learned is Windows. I like Apple's stuff, but I get the feeling they go out of their way to do things differently just for the sake of being different, and that can be really annoying.

Re:Too much like MS?

[DarkVader]

No one is making you use a one-button mouse with a laptop either.

Apple portables DON'T EVEN COME WITH MICE. You get your choice if you want to buy one - you can buy Apple's or you can buy a third-party one.

As for the trackpad, you get FAR fewer hand cramps by control-clicking than by trying to hit the right button on a non-Apple laptop.

I use a 5-button logitech mouse on my G4 - I'm very happy with the single button on my iBook trackpad.

Re:Too much like MS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh for christs sake ... get the hell over it. We're speaking a language that was "ripped off" from german with lots of ripoffs from french, and linguists are finding out that all that might be a "ripoff" of sanskrit.

NO. ONE. CARES. Who invented it first, that is. And besides, I'm looking at all these gnome screenshots and am just marvelling at how you can be so smug about ripping off -- at least MS and Apple create their own style of dialogs, whereas every last detail in GNOME appears to be ripped out of Windows, from the file association to freakin progress dialogs while copying files. I'm waiting for the flying folders next.

Really. I could go into the whole postmodernism rant about the uselessness of originality, but all you really need is statistical samples in terms of informal polling to realize that again, no one cares. Certainly the people doing actual work on desktop environments clearly realize that.

Re:Too much like MS?

[Couzin2000]

I think I agree that it's a good idea to get people interested in the change. Linux is the better choice, but people are afraid, fundamentally, of change. If they can't find their "My Documents" icon in the same spot every day, they panic. So to win them over, Gnome is doing something that they should do, while not actually copying the Windows layout. Good idea, but let's hope they don't go too far with it.

Re:Too much like MS?

[crackshoe]

talking about 'standard' key placement is kind of silly - SUN uses one layout, mac uses another, and windows a third. the mac and the windows keyboards are just off on the function keys - which is easily remapped if you want to whine, or easy to pick up if you don't -- i switch during the course of a given day from a standard mac keyboard on a mac (control keys in the right place), a pc keyboard on a mac (too lazy to remap, so the function buttons are switched), a sun keyboard on a ultra1 (not very often, though), and a mac keyboard on a set of windows and linux machines (unremapped). the first minute each time may be slightly slower, but its not like its devorak or anything.

Re:Too much like MS?

[Golthur]

The third school would say to design for the competent user - assume the person knows more or less how to get around, and make doing day to day tasks quick and effective, if you know how to use the interface.

Newbies can activate an "easy to find" tutorial more that walks them through where to find things, and advanced users can always find things like gconf-editor and bash.

Re:Too much like MS?

[midav]

konqueror is a file browser + web browser

Your opinion is marked as 'Interesting', so it can not be a troll. But comparing Konqueror to WE + IE is like comparing a Porsche with two kid's bicycles held together by a piece of duct tape.

You must have been never worked with files located on different computers. I have my local FS on Linux, I am using FTP client to login to a Solaris box and Smb4K to connect to my 'official' Win98 box. So ability of Konqueror to display all three in three panes of the same tab and allow me to move files around just draggin and dropping is a life saver.

Re:Too much like MS?

[OmniVector]

do you have to learn how to open a door with a nob? how about telling the difference between a pull open door and a push open door? do you need to learn how to use a light switch whenever you see a new style light switch? do you have to relearn how to talk when conversing with another person?

the ultimate goal of any interface is to be so intuitive that you look at it and say "duh." just because we haven't reached this level of design in cars, or boats, etc doesn't mean that we can't strive to achieve them. computers shouldn't be hard. what so many of the "computers should be hard" people fail to realize is that all the human factors studying we do, benefits the power users just the same. the goal of most all interface designers is to reduce complexity, increase memorability and learning, and make the system easier to use for everyone not just beginners.

Re:Too much like MS?

[@madeus]

There is another school of thought that says: Design for the upper tier not the Lowest Common Denominator.

Here is another school of thought (this happens the one applied in Mac OS X, and also in classic):

Design for people who *don't* know how to use a computer AND for those who do, at the same time. That is not exactly a huge relevation...

Mac OS follows this principle - Macintosh computers do not come with one button mice but why the operating system inherently supports context sensitive menus for multi button mice, throughout Apple's own applications too (this is true of classic Mac OS, not just Mac OS X).

Many Apple power users and developers like multibutton mice and context menus too, that's why they just plug them in and use them with Applications like the Finder, Mail and Safari. OS X even supports additional buttons like scrollwheels and backwords & forward buttons too. Just plug an appropriately equipped mouse in and they work with no need for additional drivers.

In my experience people who design software that they claim is aimed at 'advanced' users typically design software than even 'advanced' users bawk at, but they use the caveat to cover up their own lack of ability, and because they can't be bothered to find an intuative way to handle something non trivial they give up or don't even try and just do what's easiest for them (at the expense of the user base).

If a developer can't design a reasonably intuative interface then they are not up to the job. Making software easy to use is hard - especially with non trival software. It's not uncommon for people who write software for a living not to be able to design software that's very usable and some of those people fail to grasp the effort required and choose to belittle the effort of those who can and do develop powerful yet easy to use tools (to mask their own lack of ability).

Regarding your analogy, any home appliance (microwave, TV, DVD player, stereo, radio, cooker, washing machine, or powertool (physical safety precautions aside)) that you need to read a manual to use is badly designed. None of these sorts of things do anything especially complex that some manufacturers have not been able to design very elegant versions that are perfectly intuative (thus proving it's possible and clearly focusing the fault on those manufacturers who design unintuative goods).

Re:Too much like MS?

[be-fan]

Well, you're right in that GNOME copies Apple much more than MS. In fact, if they'd just bite the bullet and support putting the menubar at the top, they'd have MacOS Classic for x86.

On the other hand, it's a bit silly to say that KDE is copying MS. The Konqueror example is a poor one. Konqueror is a KPart host and nothing more. It's neither a web-browser or a file manager (or a PDF viewer or a .doc viewer or whatever), but is a generic document viewer that can use whatever document plug-ins it finds.

Re:Too much like MS?

[be-fan]

I think you're point II is stupid. Aside from grandma, most computer users I know use computers all the time. People use it hours a day for work (pretty much everyone with a desk job has a computer on it). Students use computers everyday to contact friends and do homework. Computer ownership is pretty much required at universities these days. So who is left? Not to many, I'd think. I'm convinced that in the near future, any usability recommendations that are predicated on peoples' unfamiliarity with computers will become obsolete and burdensome.

Re:Too much like MS?

[ceswiedler]

Explorer can do that. In fact, Konq copied it from Windows Explorer. Network places can be FTP sites or (obviously) Windows network shares.

Konq can do more than these three types (it has quite a few VFS backends) however.

Re:Too much like MS?

[jrockway]

Bullshit. Many people still don't know what button to press. "I clicked on it but it didn't open!!!11!!!"

I like the one button mouse on my Powerbook. Instead of right-clicking you click-and-hold. It's just different from PCs, not less functional. As for scrolling, I keep my hands on the keyboard, so Fn-Down or just Down is no problem for me.

I do like 15 button mice, too, mind you. I'm just saying I'm a power user and the 1 button doesn't bother me. I like Apple's thinking on this issue.

(And I like how I can plug in a $10 mouse and use 6 buttons if I like.)

Re:Too much like MS?

[crackshoe]

funny, i use a 2 button and scroll wheel optical mouse of my portable mac.

Re:Too much like MS?

[aled]

Yeah, he just designed the first comercially successful mouse in history and the fool couldn't foretell that people would want another button but are basically the same in every other aspect that those first. What a dick. BTW, what successful design did you popularized?

Re:Too much like MS?

[Matheus Villela]

what would I call the ones to Opera, IE and firefox?

You can create another folder, i do almost the same the guy you quoted... but i have something like: fav apps, and there i have: web->opera, music->xmms, video->gmplayer, IM->gaim, etc

I use E, the first apps that apears is the ones from the first folder, so it is quite convenient. Other "alternative" apps i put in other folders.

I've also shortcuts to launch my apps, control+alt+w for web, ..+i IM, ...+m Music, so i can open my apps with convenience, if i change my Browser or IM i'll have the same shortcuts and in the same place in the menu.

Sounds strange, but works nice, did you already tryied to do something like this?

Re:Too much like MS?

[firewrought]

Software ought not to require users to use context sensitive menus to perfom an operation - if it does so then it is badly implimented because most users will simply not figure this out (and if and when they do, it won't be until after a significant of time wasted searching for the way to do it). Context menus... should never be the only way to perform a given operation.

While we're carelessly slinging UI philosophy around, let me mention that context menus seem very much in line with the philosophy of "direct manipulation". When the user wants to know "what can I do with this object?" they can right-click and find out.

Now... let me ask: if you don't put the operation in the context menu, where are you going to put it? You could make (i) a gesture (as in drag-and-drop, delay-click, or text selection), (ii) put something underneath the main menu of the application that operates on that object , (iii) put some buttons in the toolbar, (iv) put buttons around/near the object, or (v) have the user click on the object and get a large dialog box offering all possible options.

These can all be good options in the right situation, but they involve tradeoffs. I would argue that ALL operations that can be meaningfully done on an object should be placed into the context menu (space permitting) and then optionally "hoisted" to one or more of the places I identified.

Things to think about...

The problem with (i) ["gestures"] is that it is even more "hidden" than putting something in the context menu. A gesture will work well when it's implemented system-wide and integrated with user training (such as in the examples I gave). Highly domain-specific gestures can be difficult to discover in a casual application. They are also costly to implement.

The problem with (ii) ["main menu"] is that it substantially more hidden than the context menu. It can be difficult to determine which operations in the main menu apply to which items on the screen, and it gets even more confusing because these items frequently look at pseudo-modes [like "which item is selected?"]... this is effective in a document-centric application (where there is only one global "selection") but difficult in a form-centric application (where each listbox/datagrid has a different selection).

The problem with (iii) ["toolbar buttons"] is similar to (ii) in that there's a context-determination problem (and you loose the benefict of direct manipulation). It is slightly more costly to implement and slightly less costly to use than (ii). A toolbar button is marginally less hidden that the context menu item. I say "marginally less" because the icon for the toolbar button does not convey a lot of information about that button. (Experiments prove that people can use text toolbar buttons better... if you can come up with the right text.)

The problem with (iv) ["adjacent buttons"] is that screen real-estate is scarce. In some situations, this option can be costly to implement.

The problem with (v) ["dialog box"] is that you obscure a large portion of the screen and interrupt the user in order to perform the same task that the context menu performs more succiently.

My point is that good UI must be a matter of practice and economics; theory is useful for proposing and exploring long-term UI possibilities, but theory must be handled carefully by UI-practicioners... it's easy to be too rigid and overapply a usability princple and lose site of what [from the vantage point of the user's cognitive experience] made that princple important in the first place.

Re:Too much like MS?

[@madeus]

I think you're point II is stupid. Aside from grandma, most computer users I know use computers all the time

That's most people you know that's quite distinct from the same thing as most people. Most people have a wide variety of demanding things going on in their life (children, work) and only barely grasp how to use their computer. Most people have trouble doing 'fairly simple' things like installing an operating system (because they find it daunting), even upgrading drivers in Microsoft Windows is a confusing process for most people.

Computer literacy will increase somewhat, but not infinately. Most people simply don't care about their computer. If something is too difficult to do, they don't do it. They have what they consider to be "real lives" to get on with and "time at the computer" does not factor in to that. They precieve computers explicitly as tools for things like email, buying things on ebay and 'helping with homework'.

A software developer writing applications for end users should have empathy for others and be able to grasp the 'Begginers Mind'. Without empathy for others, you'll just end up designing software that's horrible to use (and many people won't want to use it) because you won't be able to understand what it's like as user using the software for the first time.

People have more far more important things to do with their life than learn how to use badly designed software. You need to really understand that before you can write software most people will find easy and enjoyable to use.

The same actually applies to good code - it should be self documenting and clear in function as far as reasonably possible. I find the people who can't be bothered to design good interfaces are often the same people who can't be bothered to write good code (it's often poorly trapped, sparsely documented with many areas that are ambigous in function).

Re:Too much like MS?

[@madeus]

While we're carelessly slinging UI philosophy around

You might sling it around- I take designing good user interfaces for my software quite seriously.

, let me mention that context menus seem very much in line with the philosophy of "direct manipulation". When the user wants to know "what can I do with this object?" they can right-click and find out.

My preferred action is to provide access to the same options via a hierarchical menu selection from a main menu menu-item as well, though common options on an object (e.g. edit, delete) may naturally be present in the tool bar as well (in which case the context menu would contain a mixture of relevent items as it should - it's there to assist users, not a pemise to build an application design around).

I don't see any problem any problem with having operations on items available via a hierarchical menu that comes from a main menu menu-item (as I find that's usually the first place users who don't think to right-click look - they wander through the menus, that's why it's a good idea to put things there).

I've observed users doing this, they almost always look through the menu options first. Few right click because context clicking is so haphazardly supported, so it simply doesn't always occur to people to immedaitely right click on something. I suggest watching users in action on this one. They have never failed to wander through the main menubar options when I've observed them trying to perform actions on an object. The main menu is ever present and immediately visible, this is why it so often occurs to users to check it first.

You can easily have very many options availble easily this way (especially if you group options into sensible windows), you'll note this is exactly what most common complex applications do.

Another - under used - idea I favour for this is NeXT/Apple's 'Inspector' idea, where a floating context sensitive window appears giving access to all the properties for the object you are operating on (Omnigraffle being a good example of this). Then all you need to do is devote a single icon on the toolbar to launching the Inspector pane (or even launch it when the user clicks/double clicks the object - if appropriate).

If you can't think of anywhere EXCEPT a context sensitive menu to put something, it seems clear to me you haven't really thought about the design at all.

I'd just like to add that this is totally spurious:

(Experiments prove that people can use text toolbar buttons better... if you can come up with the right text.)

That's not true (and of course you could quite easily argue "if you came up wiith the right icons it would be easier"). It depends entirely on context. In a mail application a distinct icon of a trash can is a lot easy to pick out (and a lot easier to click on) than a text label on an identikit rectangular button.

Sometimes both text and icon are appropriate (I prefer this option in my mail client for example), some times just an icon is needed (e.g. in a web browser, due to the typically simple and easily understood nature of the operations of the buttons [Back, Forward, Home, Stop, Refresh]).

Re:Too much like MS?

[be-fan]

Most people have a wide variety of demanding things going on in their life (children, work) and only barely grasp how to use their computer.
I would say this is a baseless assertion. These days, pretty much every professional worker uses a computer quite often. Most school-age and college-age students use a computer quite often. For both these groups of people, computers are integral to their work and study. Thus, for them, learning how to use a computer efficiently can pay off greatly in increased productivity.

If something is too difficult to do, they don't do it. They have what they consider to be "real lives" to get on with and "time at the computer" does not factor in to that.
I would definitely consider "my boss wants this report on his desk in 2 hours" to be part of "real life." If not knowing how to use your computer wastes you an hour of time even a couple of times, that's going to have a very real impact on your "real life."

They precieve computers explicitly as tools for things like email, buying things on ebay and 'helping with homework'.
Yes, for the majority of people, a computer is a tool. However, tools are designed to be efficient and productive --- intuitiveness comes second. People would never hire a carpenter that didn't know the ins-and-outs of his saw, but we seem to have no problem with office workers who don't know how to use their computers.

I don't disagree entirely --- there will always be a place for easy, simple, intuitive tools that can cater to the occasional computer user. However, an enormous percentage of the workforce use their computers as a primary tool. For them, it's more productive for to have efficient tools in whose use they are properly trained.

Re:Too much like MS?

[sanityimp]

UHH... you still need to learn how to drive them, and still need to be liscenced(sp).

the point is computers are complex machines, unlike say, atms. you should have some sort of training, even if its self training.

Re:Too much like MS?

[damiam]

Really? A huge proportion of the computer users I know have no clue what the right mouse button is for, and many of those who do rarely use it.

I wish Apple at least offered a multi-button mouse as an option, but I can understand why they still stick with one button as the default.

Re:Too much like MS?

[antoy]

Nope. They dropped the single-click act along with Active Desktop. It's still in there, but no one uses it.

Re:Too much like MS?

[@madeus]

| Most people have a wide variety of demanding things going on
| in their life (children, work) and only barely grasp how to use
| their computer.

I would say this is a baseless assertion.

Not only do I think that's a very bizarre statement to make you apparently go on to contradict yourself later by bemoaning the tolerance in society for those who are less computer literate.

there will always be a place for easy, simple, intuitive tools that can cater to the occasional computer user. However, an enormous percentage of the workforce use their computers as a primary tool. For them, it's more productive for to have efficient tools in whose use they are properly trained.

And you know what's even more productive? Software that's been designed by someone who understands the things it's users will want to do and makes them so easy to do it's users don't need training.

Having an intuitive, easy/simple to use interface does not mean the software is only able to be simple in it's functionality.

Anyone who writes software that does complex things should be able to hide the underlying complexity from the end user and make the task easy to do. That's kind of the point of productivity software in my eyes (and also something that separates good software developers from mere code monkeys).

Re:Too much like MS?

[node 3]

no, just that apple's forcing me to pay for one, whether i want it or not.

No, Apple is not forcing you to pay for a mouse. But, if you buy a Mac it comes with one. Big deal. Almost everything I buy comes with something I'd rather have different. If that's a big enough issue for you, don't buy the thing.

I find it funny that you get worked up over a mouse on a computer purchase, especially since a mouse is easily replaceable.

by that standard, why don't you praise apple for shipping with a 101-button mouse by default?

That's the dumbest argument I've heard on Slashdot (and I've heard plenty). Using ctrl-click is a standard on the Mac. It's a mouse action. It's equivalent to right-click. It's universal across the entire Mac platform. There's no such thing as "w-click on a file" or whatever you're thinking.

wasn't that long ago i heard some mac fanatic claim the one-button mouse was so that users wouldn't get confused about which mouse button to press. clearly pressing ctrl+mousebutton must not be confusing at all to them, nor can there be anything the least bit unintuitive about combining input actions from two separate devices simultaneously. apple users must be so smart, they don't need to use their brains to use their computers, i take it.

You don't understand Apple one bit. It *is* easier to have only one mouse button. Few users need the right-click, and those that do can use it via a new mouse or the ctrl key. And a *very* limited number of apps actually make extensive use of multiple buttons (these are things like Maya, which even a "power user" will never use).

So what we have is a simple interface (Apple is *all*about* simple--if you don't understand that, you're not paying attention. Look at the iMac and iPod), that serves 80% of the users best. Then for the next 19.5%, they can use the ctrl key (very easy to do), or buy a new mouse. For the last .5% who run Maya or whatever, they can buy a new mouse. They already paid many thousands on hardware and software, what's $15 more?

all i want is for apple to ship a pointing device with a scroll wheel as standard.

You're not alone. Many people ask for this. Fortunately Apple has not listened. You can buy one when you buy your Mac. In fact, you're likely to already have more than one, or know someone who does--if you're such a person who is so worked up over it.

Do you realize how you sound? "I'd buy a Mac but for the inconvenience of having to buy an extra mouse."

Re:Too much like MS?

[dbIII]

Oh for christs sake ... get the hell over it

Explaining a joke to people that don't get it is pointless - but here we go.
Xerox had a R&D establishment called PARC (yes folks - I should have put it in capitals). Xerox invented the computer GUI there. Xerox make photocopiers. You should get the idea by now.

People making comments about postmodernism in refernence to this? Seriously - we need a joke html tag on slashdot.

Re:Too much like MS?

[be-fan]

Not only do I think that's a very bizarre statement to make you apparently go on to contradict
I don't think we're arguing the same point here. Your original statement was: "Most people are casual users of computers at best". This is what I am taking exception to. I don't think this is really true anymore, and you don't really have any evidence that it is.

And you know what's even more productive? Software that's been designed by someone who understands the things it's users will want to do and makes them so easy to do it's users don't need training.
Ideally, yes, software would be both highly efficient and have a shallow learning curve. Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work like that. There is often an engineering trade-off between learning curve and efficiency. Take, for example, proposal writing. Many people who work for government contractors spend most of their time writing proposals. A proper typesetting tool like LyX scales much better to the 100+ page, heavily cross-referenced documents than does a WYSIWYG tool like Word. This becomes especially true when there are multiple authors --- LyX removes the need to coordinate or post-process each person's submission to maintain consistant formatting. As efficient as it is, LyX definitely has a higher learning curve than Microsoft Word. Now, the efficiency gain is worth some additional training if you spend several hours every day for several years writing proposals, but few businesses seem to realize this.

Having an intuitive, easy/simple to use interface does not mean the software is only able to be simple in it's functionality.
Powerful, efficient interfaces are quite often not intuitive. Ask anybody who uses Softimage XSI. The tool is regarded for it's phenomenal efficiency of workflow, but it is not an "intuitive, easy/simple to use" tool at all.

Re:Too much like MS?

[gujo-odori]

In Windows, the web browser and file browser are different programs. Is it not, then, Gnome that more closesly mimics Windows? Not that I like the Konqueror approach; I'd much prefer it be just a web browser. It's a good web browser, a poor file manager.

Either way, that doesn't really matter, though. You can make both KDE and Gnome look as much or as little like Windows as you care for.

Moreover, who really cares which GUI they emulate, or if they take a bit from both (which is what they in fact do)? I have a laundry list of complaints about Windows, but only one of them is about the GUI: that is natively only has one desktop. On my notebook I run eight, and on my desktop 10. That really lets me compartmentalize my work. (Yes, I know there are some solutions to do that on Windows, and I've tried them; however, I found them sufficiently unsatisfactory that I removed them again; happily, I have now secured leave from IT to partition my disk and install Linux, so that will no longer be an issue soon.)

The Windows GUI is not bad, really. In at least one respect (doesn't stick the menu bar at the top of the screen), it 's even better than Apple's.

No, the big problems with Windows are security, stability, performance, and the behavior of the company that makes it. Whether the last item belongs last or first, you can discuss amongst yourselves :-)

Re:Too much like MS?

[OmniVector]

The Windows GUI is not bad, really. In at least one respect (doesn't stick the menu bar at the top of the screen), it 's even better than Apple's.

you just lost all credibility with that one statement sir. please read my article on this topic available here. If you still insist on being a menu bar at the top of the screen troll, i suggest you don't bother replying.

Re:Too much like MS?

[OmniVector]

who said we should try and switch people from windows? as linus said "destroying microsoft would be a completely unintentional side effect." we shouldn't strive to make something that makes people want to switch away from windows. we should strive to do the best thing possible. if we wanted to do the "good enough" method, people would just continue using windows because it already works the same.

Re:Too much like MS?

[OmniVector]

Well, you're right in that GNOME copies Apple much more than MS. In fact, if they'd just bite the bullet and support putting the menubar at the top, they'd have MacOS Classic for x86.

i was going to start developing a "menu server" project where both gtk and qt could talk to a small gnome or kde applet (i.e. the server would be portable, with a gtk and qt frontend) so we could put menu-at-the-top menubars in both gnome and kde, both with native menus. i scrapped the project idea due to lack of time but i still want to do this one day. it would really get rid of this nagging lack of a good cross desktop environment menu problem.

On the other hand, it's a bit silly to say that KDE is copying MS. The Konqueror example is a poor one. Konqueror is a KPart host and nothing more. It's neither a web-browser or a file manager (or a PDF viewer or a .doc viewer or whatever), but is a generic document viewer that can use whatever document plug-ins it finds.

i'm well aware that konqueror is a kpart host. however that doesn't change the fact that what it does, out of the box, is JUST like windows IE. i mean design wise it's a mirror image.

Re:Too much like MS?

[gujo-odori]

Ah, yes, I've read that tro^H^H^H, uh, I mean, article before. I'm not the one with the credibility gap here. Putting the menu bar at the top of the screen severely reduces the utility of an otherwise not-bad interface.

Need empirical evidence? Both Gnome and KDE can do that, but you have to look a long time to find anyone who actually sets it that way and likes it.

You suggest I don't bother replying? What are you gonna do, troll me some more until I'm properly cowed? Sorry, it doesn't work. Climb back into your ivory tower before it turns into a pumpkin at midnight.

Re:Too much like MS?

[OmniVector]

first off, you can't set gnome up like that. there's no option in gtk/gnome apps to have a menu bar at the top globally shared for applications. qt can do this, and there's an option to turn it on in kcontrol. however every kde user needs gtk apps (gimp, gaim, evolution, firefox) to name a few of the *killer* gtk based applications that many kde users use. when you do this you get a mix of applications with menu bars at the top, and menu bars attached which looks and functions like crap. so of course no sane person would do this in linux and like it.

i'm willing to bet you aren't a usability expert, and haven't a single clue what you're talking about. so quite frankly, just because you prefer it doesn't make you right. if you read my article and still think your high-and-mighty inferior way is better, then who am i to challenge a fool?

Re:Too much like MS?

[gujo-odori]

Usability expert? Why yes, I am. I know what actually works well, in the real world on a real desktop that I use for 12 hours or more a day. One of the things that most definitely doesn't work is something that forces me to put twice as much mileage on the mouse (not to mention having to take my eyes farther off of my work) as I would have to if the menu bars were more intelligently and intuitively placed. There's a reason why no one (AFAIK) but Apple does it that way, and I'll give you a hint: it's *not* because everyone else is wrong. If you can't see that, you're hardly in a position to criticize anyone else's expertise.

The real reason you're so worked up about this is because you are only trying to justify your own person preference and wrote the whole article with nothing but that goal, and now you're upset because someone sees right through it.

Is having the menu bar in the window better because it's my personal preference? Yes, absolutely. It makes it better for me, and that is the only thing that matters on my computer. No other thing and no other person matters on my computer.

Now, the fact that the great majority of people using Linux seem to prefer to have the menu bar in the window (or they wouldn't put it there) would tend to indicate that it's better for them, too. Now, if it's better for most people, then we could reasonably conclude that it's just plain better. I even know a number of Mac users who use and like Macs not because the menu bar is at the top, but in spite of that fact. That one big mistake isn't enough to take them away from an otherwise excellent platform.

I did learn a few things from your post(s) and article though. I learned that I not only know more about what actually works well in the real world than you do, and that I am most certainly politer and more well-adjusted than you, who are nothing but a troll dressing himself up in expert's clothing and trotting out the same stale article often enough that I recognized it on sight.

*plonk*

(You've probably heard that sound a lot before, but if not, get someone to explain it to you.)

Re:Too much like MS?

[random_static]

Many people ask for this. Fortunately Apple has not listened.

listen to yourself for just a moment. you actually think it's a good thing that apple doesn't listen to its (potential) customers.

i bet you wonder why people think mac fanatics are weird, too, don't you?

Re:Too much like MS?

[OmniVector]

the reason everyone uses it is because when microsoft copied the mac interface, they got sued by apple for putting the menu bar at they very top. that's right. even microsoft did this. so, because of the interface lawsuit, they put it in the window to skirt past this with a technicality.

i don't think you understand fitts law then if you think you have to put twice as much mileage on the mouse just to get to menu items. again it's not the distance of the target that matters. mac users can still get to the menu faster. isn't that all that really matters? despite the fact that you claim my examples aren't "real world" they are. they happen all the time. you act like you don't use any IM clients or you never minimize windows. i'm quite certain that that's a blatent lie and you do. quite frankly if microsoft had been able to 100% copy apple legally, you'd to this day be using apple style menus and never complain a bit because you wouldn't know any better. and funny enough, if someone came along and tried to introduce an inferior attached menu system you'd say that "the menu on the top is better for me and that's all that matters." the irony of the situation is funny.

Re:Too much like MS?

[Kethinov]

The real reason you're so worked up about this is because you are only trying to justify your own person preference and wrote the whole article with nothing but that goal, and now you're upset because someone sees right through it.

How the hell would you know what the "real reason" was for his writing of that article? Little presumptuous aren't you?

I did learn a few things from your post(s) and article though. I learned that I not only know more about what actually works well in the real world than you do, and that I am most certainly politer and more well-adjusted than you, who are nothing but a troll dressing himself up in expert's clothing and trotting out the same stale article often enough that I recognized it on sight.

*plonk*

(You've probably heard that sound a lot before, but if not, get someone to explain it to you.)

Do you not see the blatant hypocrisy of the quoted text here? It's not even out of context! First you accuse him of trolling, then you do so yourself. It's hard to make a convincing argument when your messages are composed of so much elitist flaming and reactionary trolling.

Is having the menu bar in the window better because it's my personal preference? Yes, absolutely. It makes it better for me, and that is the only thing that matters on my computer. No other thing and no other person matters on my computer.

After my previous two statements, you might be surprised when I tell you that I agree with you. But not entirely. I am a recent Mac switcher and I too struggled with the Menu Bar.

Let's look at the important facts here.

Advantages of the centralized menu bar:
1. Menu is always in the same place.
2. Can be accessed by flying your mouse at the top of the screen. Very fast and easy to learn.

Disadvantages of the centralized menu bar:
1. Only can see one menu bar at a time.
2. Two clicks required instead of one to access the menu of an app uncovered but unfocused.

Advantages of the decentralized menu bar:
1. Multiple menu bars seen at any given time.
2. Only one click is required to access the menu of an app uncovered but unfocused. This click serves to focus the window and access it's menu all at once.

Disadvantages of the decentralized menu bar:
1. Unless used a certain way (aka training the user), tends to be statistically slower. This is generally not a good thing.
2. Facilitates more cluttered window interfaces.

And some final notes, KDE's menubar is not desirable because GTK apps don't integrate to it, as OmniVector said. In Mac, this very same thing happens with X11 apps. Luckily, very few apps use X11. Pray OpenOffice and and Gimp get native ports some day.

I conclude that a well trained user will find decentralized menu system more efficient and generally better. But I also conlcude that a new user will find the Mac system much more usable.

Example: Being a well trained Windows/Linux user myself, I often find the menu bar in Mac hindering my efficiency. I tend arrange my windows in such a way that nothing overlaps (especially since I use dual monitors) so that any menu bar on the window can be accessed from one click. This works well in Windows/Linux, but not in Mac. Mac's interface tends to assume you don't move Windows around a lot, or don't have a lot of monitor real estate. As such, expose and the menu bar system compliment each other nicely. It's a far more intuitive system, but difficult for a person such as you or I to start over with it after so many years doing the opposite.

So, please, stop flaming him. You're making yourself look like an ass. Yes, it is personal preference, but yes Mac's is also a better system. You just have to unlearn Windows GUI philosophy to appreciate it. I'm still in the process of doing that.

Re:Too much like MS?

[firewrought]

If you can't think of anywhere EXCEPT a context sensitive menu to put something, it seems clear to me you haven't really thought about the design at all.

The parent to my post was claiming that context menus should never be used. I'm not arguing that operations should be exclusively put in the context menu... by all means, communicate to the user through all feasible channels possible.

My comment about "text" on the toolbar being superior to icons was based on research experiments my professors have cited... I've got no reason to doubt them. The disadvantage to text is that it takes up more real estate, and sometimes wording is tricky.

Finally, UI is hard. I frequently see "brute-force" application of UI philosophy that misses the point. There is no magic way to do it. That's what I meant by "slinging around" words.

Re:Too much like MS?

[node 3]

listen to yourself for just a moment. you actually think it's a good thing that apple doesn't listen to its (potential) customers.

Exactly. I'm glad you are starting to understand. Apple knows more than the average customer about what makes a computer good. You missed a few words though: "it's a good thing Apple doesn't listen to all of its (potential) customers".

Some of the things potential customers ask for (OS X on intel PC hardware, multi-button mice, headless iMacs, etc) would make the Mac a lesser platform. MS unabashedly provides the customer with what they want, and you see what that gets you. Apple looks at customer requests and if they can't provide the request at a reasonable price in a way that meets a certain standard, they won't provide it.

You're asking for Apple to become more like MS. May you never get your wish.

Re:Too much like MS?

[haruchai]

And the purpose of Windows XP SP 1 and 2 were what exactly? And all of those Windows Update advisories and patches?

more like windows?

[dnotj]

Commentary in article submissions now...

Personally (as a long time KDE user) I don't find windows all that much like KDE. I sat down at an XP box the other day to try and accomplish some simple editing in a word document with embedded visio and felt lost. Perhaps Gnome is becoming more KDE like?

BTW: open office has trouble saving (via crashes) documents with a large number of embedded visio drawings. :(

.dn

Re:more like windows?

[ajs]

Yeah, I was a bit confused by the Windows comment. Certainly the Linux desktop (and by that I mean Gnome and KDE which are reasonably similar in many ways) has taken many concepts from Windows. The default layout of window controls, the look of a panel / task bar, and many more things are Windows-like by default, but I can't think of a single one that's not customizable.

Windows is the dominant desktop paradigm right now, so it makes sense to emulate it for the defaults. You have a different idea, go right ahead and choose a different theme and/or write your own.

Re:more like windows?

[Vann_v2]

Of course, the default layout of the controls is Gnome mimics OS X, not Windows. There's a very vocal minority who whine about the "backwards button order" all the time.

Re:more like windows?

[sp0rk173]

Start -> My Computer

Really that hard? As far as the rest of the complaints go, I agree 95.342%. Microsoft's decision to not show extensions, even though their system of file recognition relies on extentions was something i never understood...well...i can understand it...but i don't like it. They start with big folders because they want to show off their improved thumbnail view. They want you to say, "ooo...pretty..." I don't see that much resemblence between the spacial nautilus and explorer. Oh, if you want the "classic" explorer, go to run, then type explorer. You'll have tree view, list of files, etc.

Re:more like windows?

[satanami69]

Right click the start button, choose explore. I'd love to see that simplicity in KDE or Gnome.

cache?

[TCM]

since it even got its own story, why not use it?

try here.

Re:cache?

[MikeCapone]

Yeah, that's the thing.. I guess submitters can't all know about this, but the slashdot editors could re-write URLs to include the .nyud.net:8090 and that'd save quite a few people a slashdotting.

Re:cache?

[geeveees]

Anyone have a google cache of the freecache of the coral cache (which is suffering from the /. effect)?

Re:cache?

[g00set]

This man has a great solution.

Re:cache?

[lewp]

Thank goodness! I was very concerned I wasn't getting the 404 fast enough!

Re:cache?

[lewp]

But it's back now :).

For the slashdotted

[desmogod]

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:http://davyd. angrygoats.net/gnome-2-8/ There ya go!

Re:For the slashdotted

[Camel Pilot]

hmmm... Has anybody cached the cache?

It's not KDE

[steveha]

I looked at all the screenshots, and nothing on there jumped out and bit me and yelled "Windows! IE!" I have no idea what FlipmodePlaya is complaining about.

It looks to me like it's just the GNOME 2.x that I know and love, with subtle, very incremental bits of polish. FlipmodePlaya, perhaps you could be a bit more specific?

P.S. I'm really looking forward to some of the new features, specifically Volume Manager and the new MIME handlers. GNOME 2.8's MIME features won't just be easier to use than previous GNOME versions--they will actually be easier to use than Windows's application association system.

steveha

Re:It's not KDE

[jm91509]

I suspect its a border line troll.

It appears he links to his own site rather than to an offical ChangeLog. Perhaps its simply an effort to get hits.

Maybe someone could post a link to the changes on gnome.org or somewhere.

Re:It's not KDE

[MedHead]

http://www.gnomedesktop.org/article.php?sid=1938&m ode=thread&order=0&thold=1 Hopefully this site doesn't get Slashdotted!

Re:It's not KDE

[MedHead]

Click here.

Sorry, I forgot about the formatting requirements with Slashdot.

Re:It's not KDE

[theantix]

do you not see a striking resembalence to Windows/Internet Explorer, as I stated?

No. Hey, you asked -- I just answered. They *do* share a commonality with dialogs that are designed to be clear and consise -- some Windows dialogs meet this criteria but others certainly do not.

Re:It's not KDE

[Brandybuck]

I looked at all the screenshots, and nothing on there jumped out and bit me and yelled "Windows! IE!"

When ever people say similar things about KDE, I think the same thing you just did about GNOME: "WTF are they talking about!"

Re:It's not KDE

[RevAaron]

this is in response to a lot of people talking about this...

If you don't see any striking similarities between KDE and Windows, then you've been using Windows too long. GNOME has a lot of the same similarities that KDE has with Windows, though oftentimes they seem to steer away from the level of borrowing that KDE does. It could be independent thought on the part of the GNOME developers, or they may just be borrowing from other sources, which is fine by me.

A lot of folks don't really see many similarities. Why? They assume that all of these features that KDE or GNOME borrowed from Windows are just the way that any desktop would do them. They take for granted the way things look and feel, first on Windows where they got started, and then on Linux using KDE and/or GNOME. Not all desktops need to look like Windows, KDE or GNOME.

Most KDE developers grew up using Windows first, rather than the Amiga, NeXTSTEP, BeOS, Mac OS Classic or CDE. They associate the idea of a desktop environment with what Windows provides. The Windows desktop is the benchmark for a person who has been using Windows. That's fine, especially when they are targeting Windows converts, making the move from Microsoft Windows to Linux/Windowsish on the same x86 PC easy enough. It makes sense, but it shows. Most regular Windows users- and most regular KDE/GNOME users and a very high percentage of KDE/GNOME developers only have substantial experience using Windows. Most folks have used Mac, but it's Windows that is running in VMware while they try to put together analogous features *not* those other OSes/desktop environments.

P.S. Just out of curiousity, how will GNOME 2.8's MIME features be easier than the Winders way of doing things? From the screenshots in some of the replies to your post they really don't seem much different. IMHO, the GNOME version is ultimately better, as it depends on a MIME type rather than the extension.

Although with our current file systems, it is the file extension that tells the DE what MIME type it is- but down the line, when we are finally all using more flexible databases for data storage rather than random containers of unstructured binary and textual data that MIME type system will come in handy, I expect. Or on a file systems like BeFS or HFS+ where you can have metadata tagged on specifying the MIME type regardless of what goes after the past period in the filename.

But how easier? Both are pretty straight forward- you got a file type. You tell it what apps can deal with it and choose a default. When you double click the file, it opens the default, but when you right click you get the option to open the document up in any of the associated apps. The Windows version seems to add a little more power- that is, you can specify different actions (open, edit, print, analyze, whatever makes sense for that file type) that calls those different apps, etc etc. Perhaps GNOME 2.8's MIME system has that but isn't something I'm seeing in the screenshots, but if not, it's something they should add and I'd expect they would.

Re:It's not KDE

[grilo]

No noticeable resemblance, except they share good taste in some places.

Re:It's not KDE

[Guy Harris]

On GNOME, Mac and probably KDE, the file extension has little to do with the MIME type.

KDE, definitely (my KDE desktops have PDF files without ".pdf" at the end of the file name, and when I double-click on them the PDF reader starts up).

GNOME, possibly (I don't have a GNOME desktop I use much).

Mac OS pre-X, probably.

Mac OS X - not as far as I can tell. It's pretty much file extension-based.

Re:It's not KDE

[jrumney]

Mac OS X - not as far as I can tell. It's pretty much file extension-based.

Shows how long it is since I used a Mac. Resource forks were pretty kludgy, I'm not surprised they got rid of them. I am surprised that they took the step back towards relying completely on file extensions though.

Re:It's not KDE

[CaptnMArk]

Not using file extensions on today's file system is a bad idea. They are the easiest way for most people to identify a type of file. An icon is much worse most of the time and a separate column with file type is often less visible (and in some views not at all).

Most clueful windows people enable file extensions immediately. They are very useful between separating safe-to-click files and unsafe-to-click files. They are also a hint to the user about what will happen when they click on the file.

And if the above is not enough. I haven't seen anyone proposing elimination of .c and .h extensions yet.

Re:It's not KDE

[CaptnMArk]

In the above I forgot (edited out by mistake):

using magic files is an even worse idea because it breaks the predictability of the system.

Just look at how everyone is complaining about IE (and some other browsers) autodetecting HTML even on some files clearly marked as something else (text/plain).

Re:It's not KDE

[ajs]

Well, I would expect that file extension, among other things, would be the way you would determine the type of an object, but once you're past that stage, you really need to manage that more abstractly, and MIME type is as good a way to go as any.

For example, not all objects come from the filesystem. You might get an image object shunted to you by some sort of Web application. The "filename" (e.g. URL) might not have an extension, or the extension might be ".cgi". You have to be able to work with other modes of input.

Another example, Real Media files (some of them) end in ".rpm" as do RedHat Package Manager files. How do you distinguish these?

MIME isn't the only way to classify object types, but it's a reasonable way to go for a modern desktop.

Re:It's not KDE

[bicho]

They are usefull for the human eye only.

The system should not rely on file extensions, and properly inform the user of the file's true identity.

Re:It's not KDE

[v2]

There are problems with identifying files with their mime types.

A very problematic format is XML. Many programs use XML for storing data. At least in gnome 2.6 you can set a program X to open files with a suffix .Y, Gnome still tries to open the file with program Z which is marked as the XML handler. This is also a problem for programs which gzip their data.

Mime magic should be able to be overriden: "Open files .Y with program X even though the file would be of a mime type registered to another program"

Re:It's not KDE

[chez69]

shoudn't the computer also not make the user wait just because it is trying to be 'correct'?

Re:It's not KDE

[Calvinhood]

Another arguement for using file extensions is that they're much simpler to work with from a command line. It's much easier (and quicker) to enter "rm *.jpg" than "for i in `ls`; do if (file $i | grep JPG); then echo $i; fi; done;" when my girlfriend shows up unannounced.

Re:It's not KDE

[ticktockticktock]

Instead of shift right-clicking the file and choosing "Open With..." ?

Re:It's not KDE

[CaptnMArk]

>
But GNOME still uses extensions. It's just that if someone sends you a file like BritneySpears.jpg.exe, with a Trojan in it, GNOME will notice that the magic of the file matches a binary executable, not a JPG, and it will not treat it as a JPG. This is a good thing.

What I'd expect is the jpeg handling program reporting the JPEG as invalid. Or, ask/warn the user to rename the file. Obviously treating it as executable is wrong.

>The user is still free to use extensions! Good grief. But, for example, if you double-click on README it will open in a text editor (unlike Windows where it always asks you what program to use, every time you try to open a file with no extension).

This is one thing that OS/2 did right. If the file had no associated program it was treated as the text file. For unix this is also the only correct behavior.

>As far as breaking the predictability, there will never be a problem unless the extension is wrong. If you rename a JPG file to "file.txt", yes you will be surprised when it opens in GIMP instead of a text editor. But I don't think that's a bad thing; opening in the text editor, as gibberish, is not as good as just having the right thing happen automatically.

This is exactly the behavior I don't want.

Re:It's not KDE

[dcam]

The other issue with icons is that an icon can be associated with more than one extension when an application is associated with more than one extension. eg .log and .txt files on windows.

Re:It's not KDE

[RevAaron]

"The optional mod_mime_magic module uses hints from a file's contents and magic numbers to guess what the contents are. It then uses this information to set the file's media type if it is not apparent from the extension."

The MIME type isn't always obvious from content. Unless you have a proper metadata setup- perhaps with an attribute called MIME_type that has a string with the type, you're going to be falling back on file extensions quite a bit.

Re:It's not KDE

[RevAaron]

Umm, they didn't get rid of resource forks. Mac OS X's file system- HFS+- still supports them. And if you happen to choose the FFS as your FS for OS X, they're still there, although the Unix FS doesn't have native support for them in the same way that HFS and HFS+ do.

Apple didn't take a complete step back into the world of file extensions. There are still type/creator metadata and still resource forks. However, OS X apps follow the convention of putting on extensions- before, if you'd save an image in an app, there's a good chance it wouldn't throw on the .jpg unless you checked a box in the save dialog or in a prefs that said to append it- or if you added it manually. This can cause a lot of problems when exchanging files with Windows or Linux users, who traditionally rely mostly on the extension for knowing the file type. Although, there are some email apps that are smart enough to take the HFS type/creator and MIME type and add an extension on it. But there are a lot of Windows/Linux mail apps that get very confused if the extension isn't there- that is, even though a mac person sent out an email with an attachment with the proper JPG MIME/type, when they save the file, their emailed doesn't add a .jpg. That'd be the smart thing to do, since that is the local convention. Some clients are smart enough to do this though.

Re:It's not KDE

[Bob Uhl]

...with the button order still being the most stupid decision ever...

Never mind that it's based on some excellent human factors research. The Mac OS/GNOME button placement is much, much better for users: faster & safer.

Re:It's not KDE

[Guy Harris]

And if you happen to choose the FFS as your FS for OS X, they're still there, although the Unix FS doesn't have native support for them in the same way that HFS and HFS+ do.

That's what the ._ files are - they store resource forks and type/creator information for a file (the ._ file is in the format for AppleDouble).

They're also used for other file systems, such as NFS and SMB (although for AFP I think the native AFP calls are used, in which case, if the AFP server is using HFS+ you won't get ._ files).

Re:It's not KDE

[nutshell42]

It isn't much, much better it may be a little bit better (you can argue whether having the default in the lower right corner or having the buttons in the correct (for western audiences) left->right order is better and I'm not even talking about the fact that almost every new Linux user started on Windows/also uses Windows nowadays so left->right is the thing they're used to. But let's assume Apple is right because it makes no difference).

Now we have the situation that most users use applications with left->right (k3b would be one of the killer apps even the most rabid gnome fan uses when noone looks) *and* apps with right->left (gimp would be...kde fan...). Do you really think inconsistent button order is better than a consistently if slightly inferior left->right. Sorry that doesn't sound convincing.

Yeah

[dedazo]

My opinion: the GUI changes look too much like Windows/Internet Explorer for my tastes; I guess it's not just KDE

Honestly I'm getting a bit tired of this march towards boring copied GUIs that only half-work. I mean, KDE is becoming almost unusable with all the crap in the menu and little parts and whatnot. I mean, I suppose it's nice for new users but I really don't like it.

That's why I went with the little mouse.

No disrespect to the GNOME and KDE hackers, but it's good to have choices. The big desktops are becoming more difficult and time consuming to customize "just right*.

Re:Yeah

[latroM]

You don't have to use then GNOME/KDE window managers etc. to use their programs. I like GNOME mostly because the GNOME apps started without GNOME don't load the whole environment.

Re:Yeah

[Lisandro]

XFCE 4 has struck a very nice balance between usabilty and feautres in this release, and most things missing (session manager and desktop icons for the whiners) are scheduled for the next release and already available on CVS.

The last Gnome version i've really played with was 2.6; XFCE gives me all the nice things i liked about Gnome and removes the annoying ones. I'm not moving back anytime soon.

Re:Yeah

[Brandybuck]

The big desktops are becoming more difficult and time consuming to customize "just right*.

If XFCE is customized "just right" out of the box for you, then great. Someone must have been reading your mind. But for me and a lot of people, it is NOT customized just right out of the box for the way we like to use the desktop. Frankly, there's way too many people and way too few desktops to expect very many instances of people finding a desktop whose default settings perfectly match their preferred customizations.

Re:Yeah

[aldoman]

What, you mean the last released version?

Re:Yeah

[Lisandro]

Yeah - i need more caffeine late at night ;) I meant latest XFCE release.

Re:Yeah

[maskedbishounen]

I believe that it all comes down to the way the user interacts with the desktop. If they're only used it one way-- say, they're used to the start menu, then they'll likely be at home with KDE or Gnome, clicking a central drawer to pop out their list of applications.

If they're stuff-a-bunch-of-icons-on-the-desktop folks, they'll probably be better suited towards Gnome (can you create new panels in KDE? Never used it enough to try), KDE, Xfce (?), or perhaps other WM's.

If they're command-line people, they might be better suited towards something minimalistic. Say fluxbox, Enlightenment, sawfish, etc. where there's not a whole lot going on and you right click to find your apps.

I started out with Windows 3.1 and loved Program Manager. I actually quite hated the whole start menu idea when 95 came out. I became more of a "stuff important things on desktop, forget about the rest" user and went with it until switching to linux. Now I use Gnome and fluxbox, and each has their own strong point. Flux when I'm feeling productive, and Gnome when I'm not. Xfce has caught my interest, though, so I'm going to have to give it a spin later on.

I'm just glad that I've switched to an environment where I can happily run any number of WM's. I tried this on my XP box a few weeks ago, actually. Put Litestep on it, and it's great ... until you start using it. Then you realize just how difficult it is to tweak to your liking. The documentation is mostly old, and there's no good "one stop" resource online. The development is also sorely lacking, and many of the components that make up the "core" interface are several years old!

It's good to see almost all of the *NIX Window Managers are actively being developed, and all provide good alternatives to fit the unique style of individuals. To each his own, eh? :)

Re:Yeah

[syphax]

I recently tried Gnome 2.6 on Debian for the 1st time and found it rather clunky and kind of ugly. XFCE, on the other hand, is beautiful out of the box, is easy to configure, and is sleek.

Having said that, I think competition amongst desktop environments is good: the advantages (differentiated environments to suit different styles and needs) outweigh the disadvantages (redundancy, library bloat, poor interoperability [let's fix that!], confusion for the unsophisticated user).

By the way, did anyone else read this troll? This guy needs some educating!

Re:Yeah

[SQLz]

It has a menu editor. the first thing I do with a new KDE installtion is reorganize the menus. The start like menu and the toolbars. I don't know of a single person who actually uses the stock menu and toolbars actually.

Submissions

[entrigant]

My opinion: the GUI changes look too much like Windows/Internet Explorer for my tastes; I guess it's not just KDE."

You know it wouldn't kill the slashdot editors to EDIT submissions instead of just dumping them as is into the main site. Especially when one is as unprofessional as this. Flaming does NOT belong on the front page of slashdot. This is absolutely rediculous. First "four of parts", and now this bull? Why, Slashdot, do you feel like you can ask me for money when you pull crap like this?

Re:Submissions

[FlipmodePlaya]

Well, first of all, (as the article submitter) I went out of my way to make it clear I was expressing an opinion. In hindsight, I probably should have just posted that in a comment, but I don't think it was rediculous to have an opinion to discuss put in a news article. Secondly, I maintain that it was warranted. It certainly wasn't flaming. Look at dialogues such as this and tell me it doesn't look as if they went out of their way to make it look like the Explorer copy/download one. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it helps converts. I think they could have made it a little better, however. Maybe have this in the status bar, or show a directory tree, or something.

Re:Submissions

[stor]

I hate to agree with you but I do.

The snide and brain-dead remarks/trolls/flamebait should be left to the posters, rather than be in full view on the front page.

Otherwise you end up with patronising posts such as this one =)

Cheers
Stor

Re:Submissions

[optikSmoke]

Um, its a copy dialog. Really, it's ok. If they've decided to make it a dialog, there isn't much else to do with it. It looks like they put the progress bar at the top instead of the bottom........ but there isn't much else to put in there, so I don't see how it can be considered "copying" windows. If you take the simplest dialogs as an example, obviously there will be similarities.

Anyway, I don't understand people's outright negative reactions when things "look like" Windows. Some parts of most desktops look like some parts of others, it's just a matter of choosing which parts are best for inclusion, or building something better if that's possible. Windows may not be the best in all areas (I'll be the first to admit my annoyance with some of its behaviour), but in some areas it has good UIs -- and I don't see why making a similarly good UI is frowned upon. However, in no way do all of either KDE or GNOME resemble Windows or Apple, and both desktops have their own pluses over other systems.

Re:Submissions

[Anonymous Coward]

tell me it doesn't look as if they went out of their way to make it look like the Explorer copy/download one.

Okay: It doesn't look as if they went out of their way to make it look like the Explorer copy/download dialog.

It looks like a copy/download dialog from any web browser. Like, oh I don't know, Epiphany (the standard GNOME web browser).

It's a dialog with from, to, and progress bar; they added an estimated time until it's done, and you immediately think IE? Throw me a frickin bone here.

Re:Submissions

[prockcore]

Look at dialogues such as this and tell me it doesn't look as if they went out of their way to make it look like the Explorer copy/download one.

Looks exactly like the OSX copy/move dialog box. No reason to be different just for the sake of being different.

Re:Submissions

[Ed_Moyse]

It's only on slashdot that I've ever seen that weird spelling and I see it the whole time. Very odd. Glad it bugs someone else other than me though! ;-)

Re:Submissions

[eyeye]

psst its because they are americans, you will also see "could care less" regularly used.

Re:Submissions

[gl4ss]

so a progress bar is explorer like now? it's pretty barebones, to make it different they would have had to decide that "let's make this different just for the sake of being different, lets make the progress bar mobius strip or something".

Re:Submissions

[Ed_Moyse]

Well, "could care less" is fine actually. I'm not some sort of language nazi, only accepting that the way I speak it is correct. Language is supposed to evolve and change ... it's just that "rediculous" is a very strange spelling, and as far as I know, not accepted as correct anywhere. And yet you see it the whole time on slashdot.

Re:Submissions

[haluness]

If you consider the fact that the poster probably speaks the word as red-ic-ulous, then it is correct from th point of view of the speaker.

Abbreviations I can understand (though IM speak still pisses me off) - but these types of mistakes are a bit grating I have to admit

Re:Submissions

[Speare]

spelling "ridiculous" as "rediculous" is more ridiculous, by far

Re:Submissions

[Soul Brother #1]

Oh, you wouldn't believe some of the horrible explanations I've gotten.

Me: You "could care less?" So, you do care, then?

Her: No, see, it's like I *could* care less, but it's not even worth the effort! I care so little that I won't even *bother* to care less!

Me: What the -- that doesn't even make any *sense*!

Her: I like Jell-o.

Re:Submissions

[egarland]

No reason to be different just for the sake of being different.

EXACTLY! People seem to get all upset that their "alternative different" thing is becoming just like everything else. Gnome is growing up, get used to it. Gnome isn't trying to be different from Windows, it isn't trying to be the same as Windows, it's trying to do the best job it can at providing an interface. So is Windows, so is Mac OS. Reason dictates that when they all get it right, they'll look very similar.

This is like complaining that a Ford car looks just like a Chevy car. Sure, back in the day they had cool fins and stuff and before that there were all sorts of kooky car designs and I'm sure people bemoaned the loss of each of those interesting design elements. Today, cars all look the same. Why? Because the shapes we have work really well. Why are there no open air hillbilly pickup trucks anymore? Because they suck. Why are there no more giant fins? Because they suck. Why aren't there cars that steer from the back seet? Because it's a dumb idea. Why isn't there some unnecessary other crap in a simple copy dialog? Becuase there shouldn't be.

In every new industry there is a period of great change, of great innovation, immagination, discovery and creation. Then, at the end, the good designs become accepted best practices and comoditization of the industry follows. It happened in electricity, trains, cars, airplains, and telecommunication and it's happening in computers. Things are settling down. Get used to it.

Re:Submissions

[macz]

Except that the cars that have had the biggest impact are "retro" ie: The Dodge Prowler, PT Cruiser, and similar "advances"

When something has trule achieved a level of a commodity, the only thing left is branding. Look at toothpaste. If Crest didn't spend megabucks on advertising they would be up a creek.

OSS would not fare well if the only thing between a particular GUI and consumer acceptance is Microsoft's Marketing Machine. They only trump card OSS has is that it is free... but price does not always trump branding. Generic beer anyone?

Desktops have to have some "sexiness" that is a diferrentiating factor between them and all other desktops. Macs and their various OS incarnations have always been an example of this.

I conceed your point that the core widgets (buttons, windows, scroll bars) will tend towards commoditization when you are dealing with certain given's (like a keyboard, a 2d mouse interface and a monitor based presentation system). However, that doesn't change the fact that "fins" are important, even when they might suck and represent only an incremental change.

Re:Submissions

[egarland]

Except that the cars that have had the biggest impact are "retro" ie: The Dodge Prowler, PT Cruiser, and similar "advances"

Notice, the popular 'retro' cars have the same basic design as regular cars. The Prowler is just a standard min-suv with some cool design elements. The Beatle is just a compact car with a slightly modified shape. Most of the important structural design elements are nothing like real old cars, the are industry standard best practices of today. You don't steer them from the back seat, you don't lie down in them while driving, no gull wing doors, no rocket power, no other stupid ideas, just good solid standard cars. Likewise, while Windows, OSX, Gnome and KDE all have slightly different looks, they all look similar and none of them look stupid.

OSS would not fare well if the only thing between a particular GUI and consumer acceptance is Microsoft's Marketing Machine.

The difference between OSS software and everything that came before is that when it reaches commodity level it has $0 manufacturing costs. If you were a Crest user and the store had bins of Colgate for free, and would always have them for free, forever and ever, would you switch? It's not to hard to figure that one out. There will be plenty of forces to market Linux on the desktop. PC Manufacturers, "Lindows" type value added distributions, etc but also, this is OS's we're talking about here. Does Microsoft's advertising really have any effect on whether you run Windows or not?

While sometimes making a good product seems to have little to do with it's success, I think you'll find that there is such a thing as an informed consumer and more often than not, people concider factors other than marketing in their buying decisions.

Evolution does not belong !!

[Qwavel]

Evolution should not be part of Gnome - it should be added by the people who build the distro's.

If you start adding applications to Gnome, where do you stop? Are they going to add OpenOffice or AbiWord/Gnumeric to the next version of Gnome? After all, a word processor is pretty basic.

The Gnome people should focus on making it easy for distro builders and end-users to add (well integrated) apps. Don't build the apps into the desktop.

Re:Evolution does not belong !!

[theantix]

There is a good reason why Evo is being included -- having the contact information centralized and standard in every Gnome installation means that other Gnome applications can use that data. This has implications for IM clients, browsers, file managers, and the interesting new fringe projects like Storage and Beagle and Dashboard. Without Evo's datastore built into Gnome, they would have to build an independant contact manager, and to me it makes sense to use the perfectly good one that Evolution already has.

And I'm not even an Evo user, I just understand the logic behind one of the reasons to include it. I'm sure there are other reasons too.

Re:Evolution does not belong !!

[Eric Smith]

good reason why Evo is being included -- having the contact information centralized and standard in every Gnome installation means that other Gnome applications can use that data.

If having that data is valuable for other applications, then it would be reasonable to include a system component that provides the storage and APIs for that data. Then Evolution and other Gnome applications could use it. But that doesn't justify including the entire Evolution client as a standard part of Gnome.

Re:Evolution does not belong !!

[DAldredge]

You do know that you don't have to use it, don't you? I mean it's not like disk space is as major an issue as it used to be.

Re:Evolution does not belong !!

[JamesHenstridge]

The component of Evolution that handles storage of calendar and address book data has been split off into a separate evolution-data-server module. This is the module that other programs use for calendar and address book integration.

It would also be possible for other mail clients to make use of e-d-s for address book storage, in which case they would also benefit from the desktop integration.

Re:Evolution does not belong !!

[FlipmodePlaya]

I agree, it's important to have the features of you competitors, and this can be seen as a major one. Especially with all the hubub about PIM at the aKadamy. Browsers are starting to flock to PIM, look at the popularity of such plugins for IE.

Re:Evolution does not belong !!

[cubicledrone]

Evolution should not be part of Gnome - it should be added by the people who build the distro's.

Evolution is included because every single library in the entire Gnome install (about 784,197 of them at last count) has a hard dependency on some obscure 2K feature widget (usually the HTML library).

Gnome is the undisputed galactic champion of dependencies. Last time I tried to install Evolution from an RPM, I thought I was following a treasure map through the Saskatchewan tundra.

Re:Evolution does not belong !!

[Eric Smith]

You do know that you don't have to use it, don't you? I mean it's not like disk space is as major an issue as it used to be.

That's not a good reason for throwing more stuff into Gnome. You might as easily justifying including Helix Player and Quake in the Linux kernel tarball. Some people would use them, and those that don't could simply ignore or delete them.

Re:Evolution does not belong !!

[Eric Smith]

That being the case, it may well make sense to include evolution-data-server in Gnome. But it doesn't make sense to include all of Evolution.

Re:Evolution does not belong !!

[Dentharg]

I think the same. Adding Evo to Gnome smells like adding IE in Windows. Where is the choice?

Re:Evolution does not belong !!

[kidgenius]

Choose not to install it. Then, Gaim, and others, won't sync up with it. You just build it without a requirement for it. Choose whatever you want instaed.

Re:Evolution does not belong !!

[dbIII]

having the contact information centralized and standard in every Gnome installation

I'll probably get flamed for this, but I don't see why we can't use the mbox style for mail, just like mozilla and everything back to pine and some things prior uses. Address books should be human readable and easily parseable as well. Just because Microsoft has it's *.pst format doesn't mean we need an open source copy - Outlook is widely used because it comes bundled, not because of some of its nasty design flaws.

Don't integrate - import when required. Use the *nix philosopy of little programs that do little things well and talk when needed - don't go for one big monolithic database which handles all aspects of the machine and ultimately eats memory for thousands of rarely used settings.

Re:Evolution does not belong !!

[puddpunk]

There is a good reason why Evo is being included -- having the contact information centralized and standard in every Gnome installation means that other Gnome applications can use that data.

Hi, first off I am an enlightenment user but I use KDE apps quite a lot. Now that thats out of the way...

Instead of hardcoding these "information sharing interfaces" between concrete classes, why not create an interface, or a set of criteria that any program may implement, meaning you can include a very basic pim suite in gnome, but users can use evolution if they so wish. This means that people don't run into the "mosquito with nuclear missile" problem and not having to use a complicated application to suit their simple needs.

If this "interface" is standardized, people will have the choice to use whatever application (contacts, calander, im client) they wish but the intergration is still the same. KDE has started to do this with its PIM IM client intergration, as long as an IM client implements a certain interface (DCOP interface IIRC), the programs can intergrate together and share data. So you may use KDE Contacts with GAIM if you felt so inclined.

Lets face it, the Linux desktop is not going to magically unite, so programs must be written to be modular and compatible.

Re:Evolution does not belong !!

[JamesHenstridge]

On what basis do you think that a mail client should not be included in the Gnome desktop release?

A significant portion of users need a mail client, so it makes sense to include one (in the same way that a web browser, and other utilities are included).

Things are still modular, so you don't need to install Evolution. There isn't anything stopping you from integrating another mail client, and distributors can easily change the defaults if they want a different default mail client.

Also, what would be the benefit of included evolution-data-server without Evolution? A calendar and address book backend is not particularly useful without a way to manipulate them ...

Re:Evolution does not belong !!

[rdc_uk]

"having the contact information centralized and standard in every Gnome installation means that other Gnome applications can use that data"

Seriously now. Replace "contact information" with "browser engine" or "media player engine" and you have the EXACT line of thought that embedded IE and MediaPlayer into Windows.

And how great a feckin' idea was THAT?!?

Slippery slope, friends...

Re:Evolution does not belong !!

[shish]

I want a contacts database for gaim and others to sync up to, but I don't want evolution as a whole - would it really be so hard to separate them?

Re:Evolution does not belong !!

[master_p]

it would be reasonable to include a system component that provides the storage and APIs for that data

Slowly but steadily we move to the persistent object oriented data storage, don't we? well, more and more applications are gonna need such a system. So why doesn't the open source community adopt the idea? maybe because some infamous person like me is suggesting it?

What developers have done with Evolution should be done with the whole operating system. In fact, the persistent object-oriented storage mechanism should be the one mechanism that the operating system should be built around. The need to separate the data model of an application so as that it can be arbitrarily extended and reused surfaces more and more. Eventually, we will be driven to what I have been saying the last few years: to the persistent object-oriented data model. But maybe then its too late for Linux/open source operating systems.

The actual biggest problem of today's operating systems is that they don't define a mechanism for information management that is consistent for and available to all applications. Remember that people need to manage information, not binary data. The Evolution application is a very good example of where things should be headed.

Re:Evolution does not belong !!

[debian4life]

I wholeheartedly agree, and I would take it one step futher. Applications should be added by the user.

For example, I use Firefox. So let's say I want to use Gnome. In both Gentoo and Debian, you have to download Mozilla (including Mozilla Mail and News)if you want to use Gnome. I don't want Mozilla, I want Firefox. Let's say I don't want Evolution, and I want MUTT, or in my case, I just skip email clients altogether and go web based.

Well it will pull Evolution anyway.

I just wish you could get GNOME, and then add on what you want afterwards. KDE is a little different because it is Keverything, but still I wish the same there.

Let me decide what email client I want, what medial player I want, what IM client I want, etc.

I know I can go the way of Enlightenment, Openbox, etc and on occasion I do. But it sure it nice to not have to edit config files to change my wallpaper or menus. I prefer configuring a GUI through the GUI. Seems to make more sense

Re:Evolution does not belong !!

[Glytch]

Amen to that. I started using KDE for the sole reason that installing Gnome from source is a collosal nightmare, often involving a chase through archive.org for obscure libraries.

Would it be too much of a bother for the ftp.gnome.org maintainers to keep a directory with source tarballs for all the required dependencies? The developers must have them somewhere, otherwise how could they compile in the first place?

Also, an updated list of the exact order of compilation would be a big help; I get really tired of looking for such a list each time I try out a new Gnome release, only to end up with links to the 1.4 release notes.

Re:Evolution does not belong !!

[theantix]

Seriously now. Replace "contact information" with "browser engine" or "media player engine" and you have the EXACT line of thought that embedded IE and MediaPlayer into Windows

Actually, they have already included a browser with Gnome -- Epiphany -- and it wouldn't surprise me to see the media player Totem included in a future release. Mozilla is available as a widget to 3rd party Gnome apps just as embedded IE is available to Win32 apps -- try it in Glade and see.

And how great a feckin' idea was THAT?!?

Slippery slope, friends...

The tradeoff is between having more dependencies and using more disk space vs increased interoperability -- not about what MS has done or not done. Like it or not we're already heading down that slipperly slope, dude.

Re:Evolution does not belong !!

[Eric Smith]

A significant portion of users need a mail client, so it makes sense to include one

Just because a lot of users need (or want) something, doesn't make Gnome the right place to put it. Your same argument would just as easily suggest that a driver for an Ethernet card should come with a mail client. After all, most people that use Ethernet need a mail client.

I have nothing against mail clients. In fact, I like Evolution reasonably well. But making it a standard part of Gnome doesn't offer any advantage I can see. Distributions already install Gnome either by default or when the user requests it.

Re:Evolution does not belong !!

[Eric Smith]

Feeling like having a totally pointless discussion, huh?

No.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we believed that all users should get the vi editor by default. If so, it would be reasonable for a distribution to automatically install vi. But would that mean that vi should become part of Gnome? Or part of the kernel? Or part of any other particular package?

The decisions about what packages to include in a Linux distribution, and what which packages that distribution should install by default, are independent of the decisions about what components should be in a particular package.

I don't see any reason why it is desirable for an email client to be an official part of Gnome, any more than an accounts payable package, first person shooter, or nuclear reactor design program should be official parts of Gnome. Gnome shouldn't be the dumping ground for any random program that we decide users might like.

(I actually hate vi, but that's not the point.)

Explorer Easy to use?

[Luineancaion]

I don't think that microsoft have done a good job of making computers easy to use at all, for a complete beginner it's completely confusing, when my father first tried to use a windows box he didn't know at all what to do with it to get the stuff he wanted done. Since using Gnome he hasn't asked me a single question and has found it incredibly easy to use. Keep it simple stupid.

Re:Explorer Easy to use?

[ciroknight]

Important question: Had he used Windows before GNOME?

I only ask because the skills learned in Windows are easily portable to any current GUI, and visa versa. I personally believe that I could sit down at any computer and figure out the GUI, but then again I was like this when I first started using computers with Windows 3.1 on them. So it's really important to look and see how GUIs are alike and how they are different.

Today, the main functionality of a GUI is virtually the same in any operating system, under any Windows Manager (minus a few frenge ones...); we are getting to the point that we are "desktop-agnostic". The only thing that remains in Linux is to get video accelleration up to Windows/MacOS X levels, and once there, start sprucing everything up with a bit of eye candy (drop shadows rock eye-candy wise, fast window transforms like in Mac OS X, etc). But I do have to admit that Linux, at current, is far more themeable than either Windows XP or Mac OS X, and I believe it will probably remain that way for a long time... (bad for new users, good for established users).

Re:Explorer Easy to use?

[master_p]

Here is an idea for a simple user interface for beginners: instead of providing the user with a desktop, why not provide a simple menu with the following options?

1) write a document
2) connect to internet
3) play a game
4) ...
5) shut the system down

Then no one would be confused.

Re:Explorer Easy to use?

[Luineancaion]

Yes I would have to save the same about windows, and I myself used it for years, now going back and using it, I find that doing a simple task in it takes much more effort than something in Gnu/Linux. One small example is downloading a program, in windows I'd have to go to google and search for it, click maybe 2-3 links to find the right page, click through 2 or 3 pages, one which would be nothing but a big ad, then I'd have to sit in a download que for half an hour before I could even start my download. With Gentoo Gnu/Linux I just type emerge . While I use fluxbox, I found that compared to windows gnome 2.6 really let me get on with what I wanted to do with my computer and seemed out of the way, where as using windows feels like the whole interface is in my face.

Re:Explorer Easy to use?

[bob65]

Here is an idea for a simple user interface for beginners: instead of providing the user with a desktop, why not provide a simple menu with the following options?

That'll work for the first 3 days or so for the beginner, and many OEMs (IBM personal systems comes to mind) used to do just that - on startup, display a custom menu with a list, or selection of tasks. However all that seems to break down when you start installing applications, and it doesn't provide an easy transition to a "normal" desktop.

Not necessarily bad...

[FiReaNGeL]

Ressemblance to Windows / IE goes a long way toward new users migration for Microsoft, keep that in mind.

Re:Not necessarily bad...

[dbIII]

Ressemblance to Windows / IE goes a long way toward new users migration

They are not new users - they are users trained to use Microsoft products. With new users you show them how to do things, with users from other platforms you show them the differences and the ways to acheive what they did on the other platform. The applications are the important things to aim for consistancy, which is where gnome sits, but eventually someone is going to say "where is the C: drive?" or "why can't I run Bonzai Buddy?" and you'll have to explain the differences.

Putting in a fake "C:" drive is pointless, you need to point out the differences and the advantages of them.

Re:Not necessarily bad...

[DrXym]

Strangely though, I've never thought GNOME resembled MS Windows, or IE. Certainly it has influences of MS and some of them you can see (e.g. property panes, start menu etc.), but it has as many influences from classic Mac OS, (e.g. Mac like menu at the top in some configs, rounded corners, spatial desktop etc.). With that said, Evolution (GNOME candidate) is as blatant a ripoff of MS Outlook that you'd ever see.

So to me GNOME sits somewhere between the two.

To me KDE looks like 'flattened' MS Windows - the same behaviour, but with all basic and advanced functionality all shoved in your face at once. The control center is a usability disaster zone. Even the most polished KDE doesn't hold a candle to GNOME. I have Linspire 4.5 running in VMWare and even their best efforts can't make it as easy to use or administer as XP, let alone the Mac.

Re:Not necessarily bad...

[node 3]

Ressemblance to Windows / IE goes a long way toward new users migration for Microsoft, keep that in mind.

At the expense of new users sticking around to become old users. If they are too similar, why stay with Linux?

Linux needs to be unique. I don't mean uniqueness for unique's sake, but true innovation. Fortunately this isn't much of an issue. KDE is like a super-powered Windows and GNOME is like a Unixy Mac (mmm... irony). So there really is uniqueness and innovation all around.

I see these +0.1 releases discussed often, but..

[SpookyFish]

I use linux and 'doze both daily, but spend ~70% of my time hacking code on linux. The WM doesn't matter that much to me, because it just needs to be a good way between 4 desktops full worth of bash shells and vi windows.. but both gnome and kde feel weak when it comes to the 'everyday' stuff I usually do on windows .. email, browsing, office apps, etc.
-
the real BUT, though, is this thought - Would it help the (big) open source groups to start being more feature focused?

Look at many dot releases from M$ or Apple.. 90% is NEWNEWNEW and a little is 'does xyz better, zyx works now'

The geek stuff needs to be available, sure, but "higher level" messages might go far to boost adoption.

My thinking is, Average Joe just dipping a toe into 'non-conformist' ways, and sees a big new announcement.. he looks in and sees a ton of stuff he doesn't understand, and a long list of bugs fixed that makes him think 'ugh, this still has too many problems.'

If he looks in and sees mostly "Now imports Word 2006 docs with perfect formatting! .... New graphics engine leverages 3d hardware to be 80% faster! .." he is going to have a very different view.

$.02

Re:Slashdotted

[davydmadeley]

http://www.gnome.org/~davyd/gnome-2-8/

Mirror!

[cham31e0n]

The screenshot link in the original post has been Slashdotted. Here's a mirror:

http://tuggy.home.sapo.pt/gnome/

(Here's hoping this doesn't get Slashdotted too quickly!)

Re:Mirror!

[aussie_a]

For when the mirror is slashdotted

Re:Mirror!

[eddy]

No pause button on file transfers?

Weak.

Official Mirror

[davydmadeley]

I'm not going to make the mistake of getting in trouble for getting /.ed again. The maxclients on that server has been set down quite low, I've added a redirect to offload to offload to GNOME's webserver.

If someone could update the story URL, that would be great ;)

Re:Official Mirror

[advocate_one]

your redirect doesn't work... I get the following error

"Not Found

The requested URL /~davyd/gnome-2-8/ was not found on this server."

Re:Official Mirror

[davydmadeley]

It was working, and now has stopped... this is most concerning, the files are still there.

Re:Official Mirror

[davydmadeley]

It would seem that LDAP broke for a while.

Re:Official Mirror

[ricotest]

If someone could update the story URL, that would be great ;)

Are you kidding? This is Slashdot!

Gnome's UI is a little of everything

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux all in that UI. I don't know why the poster chose to mention Windows only except to troll.

Human Interface Guidelines

[phreakv6]

GNOME 2.4 used to be slower than KDE 3.1... atleast on my configuration... but GNOME 2.8 seems to have improved hell-a-lot in terms of speed.. looks like am back to GNOME again..
It is also very interesting to see how Gnome is developing Human Interface Guidelines. I wish programmers would stick to them.

Re:Human Interface Guidelines

[Brandybuck]

Not so fast! KDE 3.1 is old. So is GNOME 2.4. They're not terribly old, but still not current. If you going to make a decision for today, make it based on today's desktops.

Re:Human Interface Guidelines

[a-z0-9]

I can attest to the slowness/instability of Gnome 2.4 on Fedora Core 1 running on a 2.4ghz computer. Task switching is almost impossible and screen refresh for some strange reason takes ages. Rebooting the machine and testing it exhibits the same behaviour (after leaving it up for about 1 day). Switching to KDE 3.1 has magically solved all these issues.

Re:Human Interface Guidelines

[dbIII]

It is also very interesting to see how Gnome is developing Human Interface Guidelines.

I would be interested to see if it is now possible to migrate the gnome panel settings from one user to another, or even import the settings for the same user from a previous version of the panel. It would be nice to set up a companies standard operating environment with gnome, but previous versions of gconf made it impractical.

Man pages for gnome applications would also be nice - or if there is some wierd political opposition to man pages at least provide docs in info, README files, something readable that actually comes with the docs and not moved out from under dead links on a website. If I have a finished program on a machine I expect docs for it on the machine - even if it's just a couple of lines of text.

Re:Human Interface Guidelines

[stor]

It is also very interesting to see how Gnome is developing Human Interface Guidelines. I wish programmers would stick to them.

The most amazing thing is a lot of Gnome developers are doing just that...

That may be partly due to the fact that if you're developing a new app people will resist including it in Gnome if it doesn't follow the HIG. It may also be a simple matter of "Give the developer a spec and they'll try to follow it" whereas before this aspect of the design was undefined so people invented their own interfaces.

The HIG is one of the best things to happen to Gnome. It's a vital step in making the "Linux on the Desktop" dream possible.

Cheers
Stor

Re:Slashdotted

[TCM]

Thanks. Now this also works and hopefully reduces the load a bit.

Re:Slashdotted

[TCM]

Argh. It ate my link :(

This I meant. Yes, I preview from now on :(

Can I just say...

[rppp01]

Why do they have to make it look so windows-y? First, thanks for the screenies (mods, help him out, here).

Why do they cram all the buttons to the top right corner? Why not spread them out? Ah! Frustrating.

Re:Can I just say...

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably make it windows-y because the GUI is easy to interact with and also makes moving away from MS that little bit easier.

Of course

[aussie_a]

To do otherwise would be stupid

Too much like Windows!?!? Oh, Heaven Forbid!!!!!!

[ZuperDee]

My opinion: the GUI changes look too much like Windows/Internet Explorer for my tastes; I guess it's not just KDE.

Since when does "looking too much like Product X" automatically make something bad? Are you really that much of a zealot that you concern yourself more with how much it "looks like Windows/IE" than with how USEFUL GNOME IS AS A PRODUCT IN ITS OWN RIGHT?

Good grief, man!!! I'd hate to break it to you, but I hate Microsoft just as much as anyone here, if not MORE so... They *ARE* an evil company, no two ways about it. HOWEVER, having said that: it IS possible for even the most evil of people/corporations to have a good idea once in a while. (Need I point out that Hitler, for all his evil, was the one who started work on things like the Autobahn and the Volkswagen.)

If I were to take your argument to an extreme, I would have to say: Ogg Vorbis is no good--after all, the concepts behind it sound too much like MP3 or AAC.

Heh. No wonder Slashdot has so little credibility with some people.

I need some karma

[md17]

So that you all can avoid those google searches here are the links:

Storage Beagle
Dashboard

Re:I see these +0.1 releases discussed often, but.

[OmniVector]

you have to consider that open source is far more trickle-down release centric. i'm sure the amount of new stuff between 1.0 and 2.0 is pretty significant. however, it's all those updates inbetween that lead up to a major change that you normally may not see with big software packages.

open source is much more evoluationary, than revolutionary. just because it doesn't have a wizz bang release cycle doesn't make it any less productive for getting major features done over time.

Evolution 2.0 release date?

[Doc Ruby]

Novell says Evolution 2.0 will be released in 2004Q3. That's 7-9/2004, only 29 days left (in North America). When do you think it will be apt-get'able?

Re:Evolution 2.0 release date?

[wan-fu]

I doubt it. I am guessing their 2004Q3 refers to the fiscal calendar, which seems both possible and more likely than in the next 29 days.

Re:Evolution 2.0 release date?

[Knuckles]

evolution-1.5 (the dev version) has been in unstable for a long time and works ok

Re:Evolution 2.0 release date?

[davydmadeley]

It will release with GNOME 2.8 on the 15th of September. It's now a GNOME module.

Re:Evolution 2.0 release date?

[AlXtreme]

You do mean experimental?

But indeed, evo 1.5 is pretty good, save for the occasional segfault. Only problem I still have with it are the teletubby-tasklists, but besides that I like the direction Ximian/Novell is moving evo to.

Re:Evolution 2.0 release date?

[Knuckles]

You are right, my bad. Seems my sources.list gets too crowded.

3-tiers for Evolution!

[Doc Ruby]

EDS is a great move for Linux apps - separating the presentation (GUI) from the data. I'm waiting to see the final EDS, to see how close it comes to split the data from the logic. I'd love to be able to install the Evolution schema on any DB I want, from local MySQL to a datacenter's WAN-replicated Oracle cluster, with my own rules embeddable in the engine as they appear, and a GUI on each of my devices, from desktop to 'phone to airline seatback. Evolution has long favored niche specialization and division of labor - technology recapitulates ontogeny!

Re:I see these +0.1 releases discussed often, but.

[_Sprocket_]

but both gnome and kde feel weak when it comes to the 'everyday' stuff I usually do on windows .. email, browsing, office apps, etc.

I suppose this isn't the focus of this post. But since you tossed this in... I'm curious as to what apps you're specifically referring to. I was going to refute your statements until I realized my examples weren't GNOME or KDE specific. For browsing, I use Firefox - on both Windows and Linux. For office apps I use Open Office - on both Linux and Windows (although sometimes I do use MS Office since it's already on my work machine). About the closest to a GNOME or KDE application that fits your list is Evolution. And I really wish there was a Windows port for it.

To each their own, I guess. Now on to the focus...

the real BUT, though, is this thought - Would it help the (big) open source groups to start being more feature focused?

Look at many dot releases from M$ or Apple.. 90% is NEWNEWNEW and a little is 'does xyz better, zyx works now'

How many Average Joes hear +0.1 announcements for GNOME, KDE, etc. ? Sure - they hear that ReadHat 8.x is now out with a shoppinglist of features. But they don't hear that GNOME 2.x has improved file dialogs or Open Office 1.1.x now has better filters. Even if their new copy of RedHat is based on these improvements.

Re:Forgot the almost

[Bastian]

I think what you meant to say is that MS is known for making an interface that's almost usable to the masses.

I agree that Windows is more usable than Linux, but next-to-worst can still be pretty bad. And Windows is Bad. And there are several better examples out there. There are even a few Good examples out there.

Assuming the goal is to be good (or even mediocre) and not bad, trying to copy Windows (here I'm talking about how it acts, not how it looks.) is totally the wrong way to go about it.

Outsider's Take

[cjsnell]

I haven't looked at GNOME since the very early versions. I've always been a waimea/blackbox fan. The look and feel is very impressive--and nothing like MS Windows in my opinion. It looks crisp and business-like. This is attractive enough to get me to try it out. I wonder how long it would take to build on my P3 FreeBSD box...

Re:Outsider's Take

[grilo]

Be careful with the GNOME experience on FreeBSD. There's stuff that still doesn't work/isn't ported, like HAL (the thing that powers D-BUS, which in turn makes stuff like Gnome-Volume-Manager work).

Re:Outsider's Take

[JamesKPolk]

So are you suggesting it's unfair to criticize GNOME for having components that don't work portably?

Re:Outsider's Take

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? HAL and DBUS are so new they squeak. They aren't 100% done even on Linux. Are you suggesting that the GNOME guys should concentrate on porting their stuff to BSD while their stuff is still half-finished?

HAL and DBUS are freedesktop.org standards, not specific to Linux. There is no reason why they shouldn't run just fine on BSD when they are done. They aren't done even on Linux yet.

So if you wanted to slam GNOME for not being portable, well, forget it.

Re:Outsider's Take

[JamesKPolk]

Idiot. It was the person I was replying to who suggested it wasn't portable.

Re:Outsider's Take

[grilo]

I'm suggesting that the whole GNOME hasn't been fully ported to FreeBSD. As you should know, platforms have their own quirks, and FreeBSD is no exception in that regard. There's lots of software that doensn't work out of the box (grab the source and compile), not just GNOME, and it's nobody's fault.

That said, GNOME 2.6 works fully. In 2.7.x (2.8), HAL is non-operative, the rest is being taken care of (as far as I know, I'm not part of the FreeBSD-GNOME team). They do a spectacular effort, managing to get stuff right on time.

Re:Outsider's Take

[ajs]

Look and feel are uninteresting except where they are expressions of unique features. Gnome, KDE, WindowMaker and dozens of minor desktops I've probably never heard of are all themeable.

The real test is how FUNCTIONAL your desktop is. Does it have modern internationalization and accessibility featurs. Does it provide a framework for application cooperation? Does it provide a framework for user management of desktop features that is consistent, even for external elements?

Pretty baubles are easy and relatively universal. Functionality is hard.

Re:Outsider's Take

[JamesKPolk]

I hope they are. I WANT GNOME to work on FreeBSD, but it wouldn't compile outside of ports (with many patches) in 2.6, in my experience.

Re:Outsider's Take

[Trelane]

Actually, D-Bus is merely a message-passing system. HAL builds on it to do hardware notifications, IIUC (u = understand).

You can make D-BUS enabled apps that have nothing to do with HAL or G-V-M.

Re:Outsider's Take

[sp0rk173]

In my experience, Gnome works find from ports in FreeBSD. I really haven't noticed any major differences between my Gentoo portage gnome install and my freebsd gnome install since 2.4.

Brave New GNOME

[Doc Ruby]

The inclusion in GNOME of the improved MIME lookup engine, with configurable renderers, is a tremendous step. Apps should use IPC to exchange data, each handling only their own processing specialty. Transport apps that merely retrieve data per specified protocol (eg. FTP, HTTP, torrent), and presentation apps that merely render data per type, and accept user interaction, with standard APIs among them, make the entire system more stable. And easier to expand. Sometime soon we'll have apps which include layered, overlapping window panes each rendering and accepting user events, calling across to mixed logic components, and down into any data source, whether local storage, network, or sensors. Compilable flowcharts, anyone?

Re:I see these +0.1 releases discussed often, but.

[Brandybuck]

Phffft! Aaack! Horrible idea!

I have to deal with think like that at work too much, to tolerate it at home on my desktop. I don't want new features, I want a desktop that WORKS!

Commercial software does this because it has to persuade people to fork over more money for another release. But GNOME (and KDE) are free. As in free beer. There is no compelling need to force people to upgrade. If they upgrade they upgrade, if they don't they don't. Considering the price, most people will upgrade anyway.

Re:Slashdotted

[krumms]

Hey, it's not so bad:

1. Don't preview, post without link.
2. Get complaint.
3. Post with link.
4. KARMA!

Looks more like OSX

[aristotle-dude]

This might have window dressing of windows but it's layout and some of the ideas they have seem more like OSX than Windows.

Re:Looks more like OSX

[arose]

I'd say it looks a lot like GNOME...

Re:Looks more like OSX

[aristotle-dude]

How the hell is that insightful? Of course it looks like GNOME since it is GNOME. Are you trying to say that the look and feel of GNOME is completely original?

If you did not notice, I was paying this new version of GNOME a compliment on the improvements in usability. What I don't like about older versions of GNOME and all versions of KDE is how they try to emulate windows so closely. It is good to see them borrowing some ideas from Apple for a change and coming up with a few ideas of their own.

Re:Looks more like OSX

[arose]

It's a WIMP interface, none of them is "completely original".

Re:I see these +0.1 releases discussed often, but.

[SpookyFish]

As to the specific applications you ask about, well, I use Firefox too.. MS office is still better, sorry - though, if I were paying for it, justifying MS as truly more productive would be difficult. I was mostly addressing the window system -- if I can between a few key things quickly, good key combos, configurability, etc wonderfully for the dev stuff on linux.. for the random, "never know what you're gonna run" kind of work or surfing, bouncing around between lots of different stuff, the consistency & cohesiveness of most UIs in windows is superior (to KDE&G, not that it's good)

As to the rest, well, I don't disagree with you, though how many Joes hear a mention of slashdot between geeks at work, articles, etc.. especially the psuedo-geeks who can be *very* influential.

I really just wonder how much the marketing spin means -- don't get me wrong, /. is a great place to discuss the little differences -- in some ways.

I'm hit by the irony of the question.. how much has /.'s wide exposure changed how effective/understood/absorbed/impacted the headline stories are -- i.e., which would have the better long-term influence.

Not truly answerable, I know, just thinking 'out loud', well, just for the hell of it.

Re:I see these +0.1 releases discussed often, but.

[Dirk van der Broek]

My thinking is, Average Joe just dipping a toe into 'non-conformist' ways, and sees a big new announcement.. he looks in and sees a ton of stuff he doesn't understand, and a long list of bugs fixed that makes him think 'ugh, this still has too many problems.'

If he looks in and sees mostly "Now imports Word 2006 docs with perfect formatting! .... New graphics engine leverages 3d hardware to be 80% faster! .." he is going to have a very different view.

I'm not sure I understand what your suggesting, that the bugs that are fixed should not be listed? That a minor digit release should not be advertised? or that open source projects should market their releases better?

Re:I see these +0.1 releases discussed often, but.

[SpookyFish]

Sure, the cost is a good point -- but the open source movement generally doesn't have the monopoly to think only about upgraders.. the breakthrough comes from the new people, the current fans' will be happy with all the fixes.

And I'm not advocating features over solid function by any means.. just considering the marketing / exposure level of what IS done.

Re:I see these +0.1 releases discussed often, but.

[SpookyFish]

Sorry for the ambiguity. I think "Good" bug fixes should be promoted, like: Bug: too #%@ slow, and promotion 'Now 220% faster!' Stuff such as 'crashed, corrupted' should be summarized and not prioritized.. link the gut-level details.

Market better, absolutely. Maybe part of that means advertise less, get more impact for the real stuff. Don't have a real justifiable opinon on that one.

I agree...

[carlmenezes]

Let's look at things from a Windows user's point of view :

1) Things work.
2) They look good.
3) Few options available, but most are hidden in the registry. Those few options seem more than sufficient for the teeming masses.

Now take someone from that environment and put them on Gnome. What does he/she experience?

1) Stuff works.
2) It looks good.
3) Few options available, but most are hidden in the registry. Those few options seem more than sufficient for the teeming masses.

Now, let's take a windows power user :
1) Things work, but always looking for ways to make them work faster.
2) It looks good, but always looking for ways to customize it.
3) Few options available, so the user always has some program Xteq XSetup Pro to tweak hidden settings all over the place.

Take THAT user and put him/her on KDE:
1) Things work and work fast. User is quite happy.
2) It may or may not look good, but hey, it's VERY customizable, so it WILL look good after a week.
3) Tons of options available all over the place - the former windows power user is in heaven.

So to sum it up, KDE and Gnome in my opinion, both serve a VERY good purpose - they cater to the needs to both ends of the spectrum of Windows users - and they're both getting better/faster with each new version.

Now since we're celebrating Gnome 2.8 RC1 here, kudos go out to the Gome devs out there for capturing the essence of Windows' ease of use and porting it to Linux. You guys are doing a great job.

It would be nice to have a unified Desktop one day, but hey, I'm not complaining right now, even tho I'm a KDE fan - GREAT WORK GNOME! - I'm seriously thinking of setting up Gnome 2.8 as my mum's default Linux account and see how she likes it - she currently uses KDE 3.3 :)

Re:I agree...

[Deusy]

"Now take someone from that environment and put them on Gnome. What does he/she experience?

1) Stuff works.
2) It looks good.
3) Few options available, but most are hidden in the registry. Those few options seem more than sufficient for the teeming masses."

And for the power user...

`4) They find Gnome registry actually isn't a registry, but a nicely organised set of XML files that are easy to navigate and edit, and not swamped with the crap you get in, say, the Windows registry.'

I don't know why people think power users can't like Gnome. It's pretty much as customisable as you want it to be. I genuinely don't understand why so many "power users" bemoan GConf. Does it keep things too clean for them? Do some power users like the clutter that comes with keeping this stuff all over the show ala KDE stylee?

Not that I'm intending to diss KDE, as that's also a cool desktop. But I don't understand the people who diss Gnome because the obscure checkbox they want happens to be a little toggle in GConf rather than on of a zillion preferences in their apps.

Re:I agree...

[snol]

As a former Windows "power user" who ditched the Explorer desktop altogether for Litestep before getting the hang of linux, neither Gnome nor KDE is really all that customizable. They're both based on an Explorer-style desktop background and bars that you can add various modules to - and if you're not OK with that basic paradigm you're screwed. Many options simply aren't there, particularly in Gnome: There's no way to turn off the minimize "trails" in Metacity, for instance. Gnome doesn't even come with a quick launch; you have to get quick-lounge-applet specifically. Editing the menus in both KDE and gnome is a distro-dependent and, in all distros i've tried, highly broken process. Though I hardly use the menu anyway given the choice between that, quicklounge, and command prompt. (To its credit, KDE comes with KMenuEdit which theoretically would do that if most distros didn't break it for KDE/gnome unification.) But basically these are small complaints - I use Gnome pretty happily these days. It feels faster than KDE and I just tend to like GTK widget themes better than QT ones for some reason. Some little things make a big difference, like a working QuickLounge so all your buttons don't have to be huge, some small buttons for xmms -r, -t, -s, -f, a cpu monitor, and a notification area that some apps are starting to actually make use of. It's not litestep; in a few areas it's even behind Explorer, but it's generally very tolerable even for a so-called power user.

Re:I agree...

[arose]

Gnome doesn't even come with a quick launch

But you can put your .desktop files anywhere on the panel.

Re:I agree...

[snol]

quicklounge is a much better solution for me.

I like to have a two-layer taskbar, which makes any icons I put directly onto the panel reeeally big; I don't know how people manage that way if they run more than two or three programs. For anyone who uses a computer for a variety of tasks and doesn't have vision problems, small icons are a must.

Re:I agree...

[xtinct]

resize the panel then, silly...

1) right-click on panel
2) select 'properties'
3) change 'size' to xx-small

done.

Re:I agree...

[arose]

You have multiple desktops, use them. Make use of the Window Selector in the corner.

Re:I agree...

[snol]

ok silly people, it's all a matter of preference, and I like quicklounge, k? I said I like a two layer taskbar implying not an xx-small one, and I also don't particularly like multiple desktops. Don't know why, just doesn't feel good. And what does multiple desktops have to do with quicklounge vs launchers? It's ok, my small (and solvable) annoyances with gnome don't have to be annoying to everyone, just letting them be known.

Re:Fixed the File Selector yet?

[what the dumple is]

Let me quote Homestar, "Seriously, you guys."

Re:I see these +0.1 releases discussed often, but.

[Brandybuck]

the breakthrough comes from the new people

And to the new people, it's ALL features! There's no need to add new features to entice them in, because as a new desktop, it's all new features to them.

I just bought a new car last month. Compared to the old car, the only new feature it had was a CD player. Let me assure you that the reason I spent $15,000 was *not* to get a CD player! Honda didn't need to add a superflous feature in order to get me to buy a new car. All they needed to do was to make it good and new.

But just in case your new user wants to know what he will be getting out his new desktop, remember that both GNOME and KDE are chock full of stuff that a stock out-of-the-box Windows simply doesn't have. To them it's all good and new.

Re:I see these +0.1 releases discussed often, but.

[Malor]

Basically, what you're saying is 'open source should be marketed better'. But keep in mind... that is explicitly not what open source projects are about; almost all of them are technology-, not marketing-driven. Most open source coders aren't writing code to extract cash from people's wallets, they're doing it because they love doing it, or because they're solving an issue.

And these point releases aren't meant for Average Joe anyway; they're bleeding-edge and unstable. Joe doesn't want this stuff.

This is where the distros step in; they take the results of the technically-driven development, and THEY market it.

The very last thing you want is for open source groups to 'start being more feature-focused'. We've seen what happens with that approach; bloated, unstable, unreliable software that costs a fortune.

The purpose of most of these groups is to write great software, and I submit to you that, by and large, they're doing a fantastic job. Let the distros do the marketing.

Is gnome-pim/gnomecal maintained?

[gnalle]

Is the gnome-calendar gnomecal still actively maintained?

gnomecal is a small tool that only does one thing, and it allows you to use the mail client of your choice. At the moment I am using the gnome-1.3 version (with great pleasure), but I would love to have an updated version :)

Re:Too much like MS?-"Think"-alike.

[Errtu76]

You're wrong. It can be better if:

- it looks the same and works the same, but:
- doesn't crash nearly as often as windows
- it is (almost) free!
- it (almost) doesn't have virii

And Apple has the guts to be different. Good for them, but it still costs alot (software/hardware), while you have to agree that Linux is free (i'm not talking about the commercial apps).

And we will call it .. Windows: Reloaded :P

OpenOffice Crash (offtopic)

[Sits]

If it's reproducable (which it sounds like it is) and you can provide the document then please let the OOo folks know over on their issue tracker.

Re:OpenOffice Crash (offtopic)

[dnotj]

Unfortunately the document is an internal document. I'll have to see about using visio and word (with codeweavers wine) to make an equally annoying document to see if I can crash OOO.

Re:Too much like Windows!?!? Oh, Heaven Forbid!!!!

[blibloblu]

C'mon! Don't compare Microsoft with Hitler. You know, Microsoft employee are not like us, they have queer habits, eat strange food, use a different OS and -- which is worse -- don't release their code under the GPL. In a nutshell, they are very strage people. But as far as I know, they don't eat chldren, and don't organize satanic masses.

Re:Something like TortoiseCVS

[dmp123]

You mean like the Cervisia plugin for Konqueror?

That's a fair match for what you want- I use it now and again and find it pretty usable.

David

Re:Too much like Windows!?!? Oh, Heaven Forbid!!!!

[teslafreak]

No, seeing posts where someone chews someone else out for something that was clearly stated to be an opinion, is why Slashdot has so little credibility. Heaven forbid someone form an opinion! "If I were to take your argument to an extreme", you haven't already done this? Uh oh.

Re:Fixed the File Selector yet?

[AntiOrganic]

You're using an old version of GTK+. The issues you're talking about have been fixed for some time. Showing hidden files and folders is available via a right-click context menu, and type-ahead find eliminates the need for tab completion.

Re:Most notably:

[AntiOrganic]

Yeah, seriously, compared to ClearType on Windows it's really terrible. :rolleyes:

Genome 2.8 RC1 Released

[RedLaggedTeut]

Well, we are not releasing new versions of the patched human genome yet :-)

But I sure hope it will be under the GePL(tm) :-)

Re:Most notably:

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's not the anti-aliasing that's bad, it's just the fonts. You can get better ones from LucasFonts: http://www.lucasfonts.com (TheSansMono Office is what you're after)

if you dont have that much money, you can just steal the fonts from a windows or OSX system.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't

[Alioth]

Well, from the screenshots, I don't think it looks anything like Windows (other than having the features that all GUIs have, so there will always be some similarity).

But part of the problem with Free desktop critics is you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you make your interface look like Windows, these critics will have a go because it looks like Windows. If you make it look unlike Windows, they will criticise you because it's "unfamiliar".

Why not?

[Chuck Chunder]

If you start adding applications to Gnome, where do you stop?

What a bullshit argument. There is no 'slippery slope'. You continue to make individual decisions about individual apps just as it has always been done. Apps have always been part of GNOME whether it's file managers or web browsers etc etc etc.

Apps are included when it makes sense to include them. There are plenty of good reasons to include Evolution.

If the only reason you are offering to support not including Evolution is some general 'principal' that isn't demonstrably useful to anyone then you don't have much of an argument

Not for me

[jandersen]

No, I don't like the look of things either. For me the main reasons to start using Linux were:

1. It wasn't Windows
2. It was free

- in that order. The only thing in Windows that was good was the fact that the printer interface was reasonably standardised, but fortunately CUPS is getting OK now. Everything else in Windows was bad, the dumbing down, the instability, the sleazy ways of Microsoft, the oh, so 'cool' style of hype etc etc.

So to see that GNOME is going that way really isn't any joy. But there may be hope:

http://www.goneme.org/

- these people are forking GNOME to get away from the current sucking up to Windows.

Re:Not for me

[Stevyn]

"1. It wasn't Windows"

This is like those celebrities that go on tv and when asked why they're voting for John Kerry reply with "because he's not Bush." Use linux because you like it, not because you dislike windows. I don't use KDE because it's not like GNOME, I like it because it's easy to use and easy on the eyes.

Re:Too much like Windows?

[node 3]

Windows looks too much like OSX!

Windows looks too much like NeXT. You'll have to wait for 2006 for it to look too much like OS X (I have no idea what XP looks like... A Fischer-Price toy?).

New MIME system?

[WWWWolf]

Good grief, this is good news. File associations and MIME stuff was always the least working part of GNOME for me. I have no idea what they've changed, but any change is probably good. I hope custom filetype icons and icon themes actually work from now on =)

And tons of SVG stuff? Yay.

Re:Most notably:

[Zapdos]

The font rendering in gnome has been above great for some time now. IMHO the font rendering is actually better than in windows XP SP2. I use both daily.

Your Opinion Not Newsworthy; Editors at Slashdot?

[reallocate]

>> I don't think it was rediculous to have an opinion to discuss put in a news article.

Sorry, but your opinion isn't newsworthy. Neither is mine. That's why it's in this comment. You just felt like taking a gratuitous shot at Gnome.

As for "editors" at Slashdot: Story pickers might be the better description. Slashdot plays a game of disavowing responsibility for what's on the site ("it's not us talking, it's our users") while at the same time welcoming (undeserved) praise as a news site and touting its brand of "journalism". No journalism here.

Too much like Windows?

[10Ghz]

Answer me this: Why is anything that even remotely resembles Windows automatically a bad thing? Is this just a case of "Windows? It's made by Microsoft. And since Microsoft sucks, Windows suck as well. And since Windows and Microsoft sucks, the Windows UI sucks as well!".

I don't think Gnome looks like Windows. Well, of course it (and KDE as well) shares some common things with Windows. They all have windows. they have a taskbar. They have a start-menu or equivalent. And they all offer integrated system with similar look 'n feel between apps and tools. Are ANY of those things bad things? Why? Just because Windows has them as well?

Why don't you whiners start your own GUI-project. Call it UTIADFWAP, or "UI That Is As Different From Windows As Possible". Make sure that it doesn't look anything like Windows. Maybe then you will be happy. Who cares about usability or consistensy, at least it would be different from Windows! And it seems that many people think that being different from Windows is the primary feature of a Linux/Unix-UI these days!

Some "anything but Windows!"-zealots usually whine about KDE that "it looks too much like Windows". I use KDE at work (occasionally I boot to W2K for a game or two) and XP at work. I don't think KDE and Windows'es look that much alike. Well, the file-dialog is a bit similar, but that's it. And that's not really a bad thing, since I think the Windows file-dialog serves me well. The one in KDE looks somewhat similar, but it's alot better.

Yes, I dislike Microsoft as well. And Windows the OS has it's share of problems. But it's UI is OK on the basic level. Yes, the UI does have problems as well, but luckily KDE (and Gnome I think) fixes those issues.

repeat after me: just because something can be found in Windows does not automatically mean that it's a bad thing.

If God had wanted us to use one button mice

[Epeeist]

He would have given us prehensile noses.

I can't believe everybody fell for it

[afd8856]

So, the parent poster (the author of the article) says something about "looking too much like windows" and everybody is either trolling about microsoft or defending it, saying "well, there's a finite number of ways of doing it". Let me add this: when somebody says "I don't like Gnome, it looks too much like windows, I like KDE better" and when everybody knows that KDE is the one that resembles Windows the most (no top menu bar per default, browser integrated in file manager, etc - don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of KDE...) don't you feel the fishy smell?

Beagle? Evolution vs. Thunderbird?

[otisg]

How come Beagle is not in this release? Too alpha (0.02)?

Also, does anyone from 'the inside' know why Evolution was chosen over Thunderbird? I understand Evolution integrates well with Exchange and its calendaring service, but Thunderbird seems to be more popular.

I may have to take another look at Gnome

[StressGuy]

I recently tried Gnome and KDE together and came out of it liking KDE better. That's not to say that I didn't like Gnome. In fact, I think Nautilus is a great design. It just boiled down to KDE having features that better suited my needs. Specifically, thier in-file-manager FTP was easier to use and just worked better. Also where Epiphany and Galeon are based on the Mozilla enginer, Koqueror is a good compliment to Mozilla. If a web page has trouble rendering on one, it'll almost certainly render on the other. A lot of it I just chalked up to KDE being more mature.

Then again, if maturity matters, Evolution will probably be a better program than Kontact. I'd be real curious to see how they've cleaned up thier FTP. This is important to me because I regularly connect to the server where I work.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm neither a KDE or Gnome zealot. KDE just happens to suit my needs better right now, but I'd be more than willing to take another look at Gnome.

Re:I may have to take another look at Gnome

[kundor]

KDE's universal mouse gestures, kioslaves, and kparts are just too danged cool for me to use gnome. ;-)

Xcomposite

[FrostedWheat]

Does anyone know if this new version of Gnome will take advantage of the eye-candy features of the new X.org server?

in both cases, it's a contextual menu ...

[GreenEggsAndHam]

mouse click + keypress or clicking an alternate mouse button ? It's six and two threes.

I'd tend to say that having two mouse buttons helps to get to lots of things faster than requiring two hands (one on the mouse, one on the keyboard) to get there.

At the end of the day, both require a conceptual leap to mentally take on board. The newbie user will simply have been less confused by the single button on the mouse (except if it's the puck horror, in which case all bets are off) in the run-up to the concept of contextual menus.

As a "power user" (herm), I'd rather have my two buttons.

Signal Strength

[hey]

I didn't know you could measure signal strength for and ethernet connection. Oh I suppose its wireless.
Just wondering is there such a thing for a wired connection?

http://www.gnome.org/~davyd/gnome-2-8/images/gno me -netstatus.png

Re:Beagle? Evolution vs. Thunderbird?

[arose]

Evolution also integrates well with Gnome, wich is what all of this is about.

BritneySpears.jpg.exe

[Speare]

From my Linux Newcomer Pages: http://halley.cc/ed/linux/newcomer/britney.jpg

Hidden extensions are bad news.

Re:BritneySpears.jpg.exe

[RevAaron]

I agree- hidden extensions are very bad. When I'm using a Windows machine for a period of time I always turn that little feature off- it can cause oodles of problems. But- what is your point?

Re:Beagle? Evolution vs. Thunderbird?

[otisg]

That sounds right from the user point of view. Do you know, from a technical point of view, what it means to integrate better with Gnome? Is it the use of certain libraries? Just skins? Something else?
Thanks.

Re:Beagle? Evolution vs. Thunderbird?

[arose]

It uses the default Gnome browser, what esle do I need? :-D

Shadows on window edges

[DJayC]

Is the author using X.org with that shadow hack or something? I noticed all his screenshots have shadows under the window edges. Anyone know how he's doing this?

Re:Shadows on window edges

[LordK2002]

The shadows are on the images, not the windows. That can be done in the GIMP (or any other image editor) very easily.

K

Re:Shadows on window edges

[DJayC]

That's what I thought at first, but look at this, but on some of the screen shots (overlapping windows) the shadow is faithful to the edges. Do you think the author edited all the screenshots and added in the shadows?

Re:Too much like Windows!?!? Oh, Heaven Forbid!!!!

[Lispy]

I hate Hitler as much as the next guy here, if not *MORE*, since I am german. But afaik he never ate children or organized satanic masses. He might have attended some, though. ;-)

What's All This Hoopla About Copying?

[RichiP]

I mean, who cares if they copied this feature from MS or Apple? Or this design looks similar to Windoze or OSX? What does copying have to do with the technical aspects of a design or feature? Practically everything in man's history is about building off of the works of others.

<futile post>Please, PLEASE stop it with the "It looks too much like so-and-so" posts! Instead, just quote the things you dislike about the system you're talking about. When you want to say you dislike something because it is too similar to another product, it would make no sense to people who actually LIKE the product you're comparing it to. </futile post>

I hate to break it to you, but ...

[juggy]

make it STABLE first, pleeeease! I don't know how some people can work with either GNOME or KDE, but each time there's a new release, I try it out. Then, after a few days/weeks I go back to icewm simply because I am sick of GUI freezing, infighting sound servers, ugly font settings that cannot be changed (hello GNOME! Why don't you accept that there is more than ONE font on my system??).

I have more than 1GB of RAM and my cpu is fast enough as well, I don't care about "bloat" and other disadvantages often cited by others. But give me stability - and not just a nice crash manager! (KDE!)

Re:Unpatched GNOME is a myth!

[JamesKPolk]

I know that's one of GNOME's weaknesses. KDE's unified packages are nice and I wish GNOME had followed that example.

But I think KDE is losing its way, so in the last few months I've started to take a keen interest in GNOME. My hope is that I'll be able to start using it with 2.8. The new mime-type system (catching up with KDE 2.0) should help a lot.

SVG

[wormbin]

I was really surprised to see this:

a selection of traditional games sporting a new cleaner Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) look.

I had no idea that Gnome supported both vector graphics (via the open standard SVG) and alpha blending. (Libart) I guess I haven't been paying attention.

I hope...

[Cinquero]

...they will make it installable under alternative locations like '/opt'. Gnome 2.6.x always tries to write files to /etc although using the /opt prefix... do they ever test their distributions before going public??

KDE is MUCH better in that respect. Their konstruct tool is just great and installs by default into a directory under the user's home. I'm running it on an old distribution like redhat 9 where no KDE 3.2.x RPMs are available.

Inconsistent Buttons

[PSC]

The screen shots do look cool indeed, but...

Anyone else noticed that the "Abort" button changes place, from the right to the middle to the left, where it is most often and which is - the reference being Windows - the most unexpected place.

The point is, "Abort" is the safe choice. You maneuvered yourself into some arcane dialog and don't understand nothin' - you hit "Abort" a.k.a. get me the hell out of here. This emergency button (as in, "Oh shit I'm gonna wreck by document") should always be in the same place.

Now when you align the buttons to the lower right (which the Gnome dialogs do), then this place is of course just there, in the lower right corner. Unlike Gnome, Windows got this right.

My favorite is the property screenshot. Instant inconsistency. (Shakes head and leaves.)

Re:Inconsistent Buttons

[Homburg]

You're misreading those screenshots - GNOME apps almost universally apply changes immediately, so 'close' doesn't mean 'abort', it means 'continue'. So it's quite consistent for 'OK', 'add' and 'close' buttons to be in the same location - they all mean 'continue with this action'. Meanwhile, the 'abort' button is second from the right in all those screenshots (except for the first, where 'abort' doesn't make sense, so there is no 'abort' button).

The consistent, well thought out, placement of the buttons in GNOME is one of those little things which make it's UI such a pleasure to use - check out the Human Interface Guidlines for more details.

A WASTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES

[Austin Milbarge]

This whole GNOME thing is a total waste of human resources. All this system is trying to do is to catch up with QT/KDE and it won't. But why?? Why duplicate when you can build on top of whats already been done.

Seems to me the "real" enemy to the open source movement is Microsoft and this movement will never beat Microsoft if the wheel just keeps getting reinvented every time a group of open source developers decides unix needs another GUI library on top of the dozens already available. Thats the major problem with open source. Total lack of direction and inability to harness resources.

Besides, the most powerful and complete GUI for unix has already been invented. Its called Aqua and Apple owns it. Just goes to show what a little financial incentive can do for an open source operating system. Yes, Apple's Darwin kernel is open source. It's GUI however isn't.

Someone needs to just decide already on an "offical" GUI for unix. Just like Linus decides on the "official" Linux kernel. If that can happen, then the kernel and GUI can be more intergrated, developers can focus on better docs because they only have to work with one library and applications will play nicer and "see" each other. All of which will make the unix system much more useful to the end user. End of story!

Re:A WASTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES

[saintlupus]

Someone needs to just decide already on an "offical" GUI for unix.

Okay. From now on, everyone else has to use Windowmaker, just like me.

--saint

Re:A WASTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES

[Austin Milbarge]

> You're clearly a troll, but what the heck

No need to get nasty. Anyone who takes all this as seriously to invoke name calling (such as yourself) needs some pysch help and fast.

> There is no "official" linux/unix/bsd/gnu GUI
> because the biggest reason to use one of these systems is a thing called freedom.

How about freedom from complexity? Most people could care less about your stupid source code nor could they care about the freedom of choosing from 25 GUIs. People want consistency and ease of use. Something even present day unix GUIs still, to this date, do not provide.

> They don't work for you and they don't owe you anything

Fine, so then don't complain about Microsoft. Seems to me as much of a ruthless company they are, they always seem to have the right ingredients to make their system successful. Now I'm not saying their system is so great, BUT you have to admire what they've done. The open source world needs to learn from that by coding less and integrating their systems more so instead of having a usless free-for-all competetion, the overall system can push ahead in some useful direction that can offer a "REAL" alternative to Windows.

> Get off your ass and do your own work.

I do everyday. Im a developer who develops apps in Linux and Windows. I certainly am qualified to say that developing GUI apps for Windows is miles ahead of anything in unix. As much as developers complain about Visual Studio and MSDN, they are still much more complete then anything you'll find in unix, especially vi, gdb and man pages.

Re:A WASTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES

[Austin Milbarge]

> I didn't write one word about Microsoft.

I know you didn't, but trust me when I say, people like you ALWAYS complain about Microsoft. It's in your rhetoric. And no, I don't love Microsoft, but the current open source minds of the day seems to dictate that everything Microsoft is bad and I just don't understand the logic. Their GUI and development tools are the most functional in computing today. Thats not catering to anyone's preferences, thats an undeniable fact my friend.

I know it's hard, but think about usability...

[wmeyer]

Like ot or not, it would be hard to argue that any single company has invested more heavily in usability than Microsoft.

Now for the really bitter pill: On the Linux side of the street, there is no comparable pool of experience, or research data. If mimicry is the sincerest form of compliment, then has finallt recognized what the KDE developers have long known: all comparisons to Windows appearance and operation accrue to their favor.

Re:I know it's hard, but think about usability...

[idlemachine]

Like ot or not, it would be hard to argue that any single company has invested more heavily in usability than Microsoft.
Hard? Not at all. Apple have clearly devoted more resources to usability than Microsoft. It's really, really obvious to anyone who's actually used one.

Re:Forgot the almost

[arkanes]

Maybe if they just copied from MS to replace the parts of Gnome that totally fucking suck. Like the file selector. And the color selector (to a lesser degreee). And the file browser. Other than those things, I pretty much like Gnome. I prefer to have my OK/Cancel buttons in the opposite order, cause I have years of muscle memory pushing me in that direction, but I manage. But the file selector is so the worst thing I've ever seen (and HOW many fucking years has it been bad?), and nautilus is the crappiest file browser around. I'm not just talking about the stupid "spatial metaphor", either.

Any *significant* differences between KDE and MS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent isn't thinking very deeply about desktop environments - as if placing the menubar at the top of the screen is the defining characteristic of the MacOS desktop!

Spatial Nautilus today and the sawfish window manager in it's day are examples of ways GNOME has, from time to time, been significantly less MS Windows-like than KDE.

Re:Beagle? Evolution vs. Thunderbird?

[ubernostrum]

Also, does anyone from 'the inside' know why Evolution was chosen over Thunderbird? I understand Evolution integrates well with Exchange and its calendaring service, but Thunderbird seems to be more popular.

I would guess that it's because...

1. Thunderbird is still waaaaaaaaaaay too early in beta to be considered a major component of a mature desktop system.
2. Evolution does much more than email.
3. Evolution is built on the same core libraries as the rest of GNOME and can access the same shared subsystems as all other GNOME apps, making it ludicrously easy to share data and features among applications.

Also, if you think Thunderbird is "more popular", you have an awfully strange sample of users...

Replacing .C and .H

[einhverfr]

I have a great idea. Lets abolish all file extensions including .c and .h. Therefore linux.h will be renamed linux_cpp_header and SDL.h willl be renamed sdl_cpp_header.

Also we have the issue with .tar's and .gz's. All tar'z will begin with tape_archive. So if I type in tar -cvf myfolder myfolder, I will get a new file entitled tape_archive_myfolder. If I compress it using:
gzip tape_archive_myfolder, the resulting file will be named tape_archive_myfolder--compressed-with-gzip. This last bit is important so that I know whether to uncompress the file with gunzip of bunzip2....

Now, if I encrypt the file with gpg, I will get:
tape_archive_myfolder--compressed-with-gzip- -encry pted-with-gpg

This is a whole lot more readible than myfolder.tar.gz.gpg or is it?

Perhaps anyone who really thinks extnesions are outdated needs to seriously consider naming schemes which can be good alternatives....

I think you both are actually missing the point.

[einhverfr]

I migrated my parents from Windows 95 to Red Hat 6.1.... With Windows 95, they were calling me for help every 2 weeks. Immediately after the migration these calls went down to once very two months, and steadily decreased after that. I have been searching for why this is. In the end, I don't think that it is that one is objectively easier to use than the other, but that one is easier to learn and for reasons which seem somewhat off-topic here.

One thing I have noticed for many of my customers and for my parents is how *intimidating* a computer really is. Windows makes this problem substantially worse because it is unstable. In my parents case, I think it was registry bloat in a 5-year-old system. With many of my customers today, it is spyware and adware. Either way, if your computer does not work predictibly, and if this makes it intimidating, how can one be expected to learn it?

As a technician and programmer, sometimes I find myself feeling out of my depth. Sometimes I realize that I don't fully understand what I am trying to do. My reaction, like that of many end-users is for my brain to shut off and for it to become impossible for me to logically approach the problem. I can only imagine being in the position of someone who is afraid of Windows...

My point is that if the underlying system is stable and does what it needs to in a predictible way, that people can learn it more easily than if they have a spyware-laden Windows system which doesn't really do what they expect and with which they don't have a good working relationship.

UTIADFWAP

[jswalter9]

aka ratpoison

I still prefer KDE

[ki4bbo]

The GUI is better, I like the overall look of it, but not quite as much as I like KDE, Gnome lacks the professional look of KDE, and is slightly harder to use in some aspects.

I guess the main thing I dislike about Gnome, is the lack of "3d-ness" in the graphics, everything looks very flat, almost exactly like the old MacOS gui!

And certianly eye-candy isn't everything, functionality is important too. That is also one thing that Gnome is minorly lacking, its overall fairly good, but I have run into a few programs that refuse to work in anything aside from KDE.

Re:Any *significant* differences between KDE and M

[nutshell42]

Spatial Nautilus today

A concept so bad even Apple dumped it despite being a corp that often likes to be different for the sake of being different.
Sorry spatial as example is like saying Gnome is not Windows-like because it gets segfaults twice as often

sawfish window manager

What exactly was different about sawfish? I'm really interested because I know a lot of people who loved it but I never really used it (I used it mostly as an app collection for enlightenment =). That said, Kwin is getting more and more powerful too.

Parent isn't thinking very deeply about desktop environments - as if placing the menubar at the top of the screen is the defining characteristic of the MacOS desktop!

The goal of MacOS is to present a well integrated simple interface. Now you can reduce the complexity of KDE with relative ease (kiosk) but bonobo (IIRC it was the counterpart of kparts) never took off and it lacks the framework. Most of the Gnome HIG talk about placing a button three pixels to the left and two down and every app has to be hand-coded to adhere to that standard while all of that can be changed once in KDE. Similar the button order, for half a year some gtk apps had the new some the old some something else.