Slashdot Mirror


GNOME 2.8 Released

damogar writes "The GNOME 2.8 Desktop and Platform release is the latest version of the popular, multi-platform free desktop environment, out today, with an awesome schedule time. Some pretty cool improvements have been made, specially the Nautilus file manager, the new MIME system and others. Release notes are already available, as well as screenshots and a variety of sources. Enjoy!" jimmy_dean adds a plug for the new GNOME Journal, which is meant to be a source of "good written material surrounding GNOME and the opinions of the community."

506 comments

  1. A screenshots mirror... by tcopeland · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...is right here.

    1. Re:A screenshots mirror... by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      Heh. I had forgotten that I had MaxClients set to 50, so this mirror wasn't much use. I've bumped it up to 500 now; that should let a few more folks in...

    2. Re:A screenshots mirror... by tcopeland · · Score: 2, Funny

      > its slashdotted.

      It's a 10 Mbit link, too. Whew, lots of clicking going on.

      > thanks for nothing

      You're welcome!

    3. Re:A screenshots mirror... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Actually, Thank you. Others of us do appreciate it.

      I suspect that even with 10M, that you are being hammered.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:A screenshots mirror... by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > Others of us do appreciate it.

      Thanks :-)

      > even with 10M, that you are being hammered

      Yup, the MRTG graphs show us filling up the whole pipe. Interesting how the CPU load is still essentially zero, though.

      FWIW, here's a page about a Slashdotting experience we had last year...

    5. Re:A screenshots mirror... by sp0tby · · Score: 2, Informative

      Woah! give the guys a break for trying to help! I for one appreciate the mirror quite a bit. Thanks!

    6. Re:A screenshots mirror... by avdp · · Score: 1

      Interesting how the CPU load is still essentially zero, though.

      Not really, this is a bunch of static content. I wouldn't expect your CPU load to be anything but zero. Your bottlenecks would be bandwidth and disk I/O.

    7. Re:A screenshots mirror... by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > Your bottlenecks would be bandwidth and disk I/O.

      And also the fact that httpd.h contains a #define that limits the number of clients to 256.

      Oddly, changing that to 1024 and recompiling didn't make a difference - ps -ax | grep -c httpd still shows only 256 child processes. Maybe a kernel file descriptor limit?

    8. Re:A screenshots mirror... by morten+poulsen · · Score: 2, Informative

      You should take a look at thttpd. I have never seen any web server performe so good. It is perfect for this kind of thing.

    9. Re:A screenshots mirror... by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > take a look at thttpd

      Cool, thanks for the pointer!

    10. Re:A screenshots mirror... by avdp · · Score: 1

      also check httpd.conf - there is a MaxClients directive in there. I was not aware there was a hardcoded limit of 256 in apache itself, that seems a little bit odd.

    11. Re:A screenshots mirror... by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was surprised too, but there it is (256 for Unixy systems, 1024 for Windows). Odd... I guess I thought it'd be a bit higher.

    12. Re:A screenshots mirror... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, if it's good enough for porn sites... it must be a good thing!

  2. BSD/GNOME! by Negatyfus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let me be the first to say: what the hell does this have to do with BSD, specifically?

    1. Re:BSD/GNOME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do you understand what you've just done? Now we need to deal with a bunch of "They're both dying!" jokes.

      Thanks. Thanks a lot.

    2. Re:BSD/GNOME! by Seehund · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Let me guess; the story submitter is on the KDE side in the zealot wars, and he thinks Netcraft has something to confirm about GNOME's future?

      ;)

      --
      Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market
    3. Re:BSD/GNOME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Because KDE is winning; face it, GNOME is dying.

    4. Re:BSD/GNOME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      If it's a choice between the red BSD colour scheme and the beige IT colour scheme I'm glad it's been stuck in BSD.

    5. Re:BSD/GNOME! by damogar · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not really, I submitted into Linux section, but it was magically edited to BSD.

    6. Re:BSD/GNOME! by mlg9000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because Gnome runs on BSD as well as Linux. They left out Solaris, HP-UX, and Darwin though.

    7. Re:BSD/GNOME! by platinum · · Score: 1

      Guess someone should start a 'Gnome is dying' thread right about now.

    8. Re:BSD/GNOME! by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I was just about to ask that very same question.

      While I do, in fact, run Gnome on my BSD machine, it's not specifically a BSD project.

      Heck, wasn't gnome slated to become part of Solaris' new standardized desktop? Or has that moved to be entirely Java based?

      Maybe it got posted in the BSD section so that they'll know most people won't have seen it when they start re-posting it in other sections? =)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    9. Re:BSD/GNOME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Sorry, but I'm not going by your say so. I want confirmation from Netcraft!

    10. Re:BSD/GNOME! by CGP314 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No idea, but this is the first time I've seen the red hell BSD colors. Glad I've always passed on the BSD stories.


      -Colin

    11. Re:BSD/GNOME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wtf is a lephor?

    12. Re:BSD/GNOME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool! Your joke offended both zealot camps! Now there are two kinds of humorless twats fighting over giving you negative scores first. Congrats!

    13. Re:BSD/GNOME! by cpghost · · Score: 1

      FreeBSD is nearing 5.3-RELEASE, and GNOME 2.8 won't be part of it. Awesome timing...

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    14. Re:BSD/GNOME! by BESTouff · · Score: 1
      Not really, I submitted into Linux section, but it was magically edited to BSD.

      Then this "mistake" made me discover something today: there exist a color scheme uglier than the one from http://it.slashdot.org ...

    15. Re:BSD/GNOME! by menkhaura · · Score: 1

      I don't know if it is uglier, but it surely is more readable than it.slashdot.org

      --
      Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
      Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
    16. Re:BSD/GNOME! by Curtman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thats all fine. But Gnome is released mostly under the GPL license. What's BSD about that?

    17. Re:BSD/GNOME! by fymidos · · Score: 1

      ah, he just did it to piss off stalman ..

      --
      Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
    18. Re:BSD/GNOME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The next big thing on slashdot: color zealotry.

    19. Re:BSD/GNOME! by magefile · · Score: 1

      There are times when I thank $DIETY my color perception is bad (I'm color blind, too, but color blindness & poor color perception are two different things).

    20. Re:BSD/GNOME! by cyclopropene · · Score: 2, Funny

      %thank $DIETY
      DIETY: Undefined variable.
      %thank $DEITY
      You're welcome. ;)
      %

      --
      Shouldn't you be doing something useful?
    21. Re:BSD/GNOME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really, I submitted into Linux section, but it was magically edited to BSD.

      Well it belongs in the BSD section just as much as it does in the Linux section.

    22. Re:BSD/GNOME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering this statement "I submitted into Linux section" the other question would be "What the hell does GNOME have to do with Linux, Specifically"?

      What is YOUR objection to a multi-platform window manager and programs listed under BSD, one of the platforms it runs on?

      As long as Slashdot staff is adding sections, why not a 'Open Sourced Unix programs' section. With an icon of a daemon and a flightless bird under a shining Sun. Or a cloud over the Sun 'till Sun opensources Solaris 10.

    23. Re:BSD/GNOME! by Seehund · · Score: 1

      I suspected something like that.

      And yes, I was just kidding in the post you replied to. I hope it's just one person (who at the time happened to have moderator points to abuse) who was unable to detect that.

      --
      Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market
    24. Re:BSD/GNOME! by essdodson · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perhaps because it's already readilly available to anyone following the marcuscom ports tree? Mine finished building sometime last night after about 10pm.

      --
      scott
    25. Re:BSD/GNOME! by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Slashdot confirms it, Gnome is dying.

      Yet another crippling bombshow when Rob Malda of www.slashdot posted the latest gnome 2.8 release under the BSD section ........

    26. Re:BSD/GNOME! by adam+mcmaster · · Score: 2

      I don't know if you noticed, but it's categorised as both BSD and Linux (as well as GNOME and GNU). Slash probably just chose BSD as the main one automatically.

    27. Re:BSD/GNOME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good one, homestone. Keep 'em coming.

    28. Re:BSD/GNOME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I turn off sigs for a reason, jerk-off. So go pedle yer prissy little site in the sig section, burn-boy.

    29. Re:BSD/GNOME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... piss on Staleman? Brrr...

    30. Re:BSD/GNOME! by JCholewa · · Score: 1

      > > what the hell does this have to do with BSD
      > Because Gnome runs on BSD as well as Linux.

      Bah. I've been running KDE 3.1.4 on Windows 2000 (courtesy of Cygwin). Does that mean that we should see a Microsoft logo the next time KDE is updated?

      For what it's worth, I run FreeBSD and any one of several flavours of Linux, so I'm all interested and stuff about installing GNOME 2.8. :)

      --
      -JC
      http://www.jc-news.com/coding/freedom/
      http://www.jc-news.com/parse.cgi?coding/main

    31. Re:BSD/GNOME! by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Actually it's in the BSD *AND* Linux sections.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    32. Re:BSD/GNOME! by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 1
      I'm color blind, too, but color blindness & poor color perception are two different things

      Can you explain the difference?
      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    33. Re:BSD/GNOME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Send patches or shut the fuck up.

      Glass

    34. Re:BSD/GNOME! by Mithrandir_The_Wise · · Score: 0

      Maybe it was just to shut up those whiny BSD folk who keep complaining "why was this under Linux when it runs under BSD too?"

  3. OH MAN! by justkarl · · Score: 4, Funny

    Check it out! Scalable Nibbles! I'm in.

    1. Re:OH MAN! by Ianoo · · Score: 1

      Pity about your (non-)scalable server ;)

    2. Re:OH MAN! by havoc- · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're welcome! :)

      (I developed that patch)

    3. Re:OH MAN! by Lispy · · Score: 1

      The future IS now. ;-)

      PS: Will we get a new Gnome Icon when 3.0 ships please? I gave up on the 2.x series...

  4. cool by Chuck+Bucket · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm still happy with the progress Gnome/KDE keep making even though I've moved on to Openbox and/or XFCE4. We need Gnome/KDE for new adopters, truthfully perhaps very few of them will ever want to move to something simplier (or more complicated in their eyes). WIth the HIG ideas of Gnome I think they're leading the way with a consistant and (somewhat) easy to learn desktop.

    When I get my mom on Linux, she'll be in Gnome, as I think it'll be the shortest step from WinXP(ee).

    Also, first "BSD?" post? LIkely not.

    CVBalkjsfdj$#@$#@

    1. Re:cool by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      We need Gnome/KDE for new adopters, truthfully perhaps very few of them will ever want to move to something simplier (or more complicated in their eyes).

      I've been using Unix pretty much exclusively since 1997, and I love KDE because of its configurability. I'm glad that you like Openbox and XFCE4, but don't assume that only newbies are using Gnome and KDE.

      I liked WindowMaker 0.5 and Enlightenment 14 even back when you had to edit their config files for pretty much anything complicated, but now I dislike the relative lack of functionality in non-KDE/Gnome systems today. Some of us honestly happen to like full-blown desktop environments; it has nothing to do with our lack of ability to use the other available options.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    2. Re:cool by Lussarn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gnome and KDE are frameworks for building applications. It has nothing to do with early adopters or how long you have used a computer. What you probably mean is the gnomepanel and metacity are for early adopters. The underlying libraries which is the bigest part of gnome is for everyone who don't want to reinvent the wheel over and over again.

    3. Re:cool by Enahs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ditto. Using UNIX-style systems since late 1996, and I use KDE. I get so sick of the gits on Slashdot assuming that only drooling morons use KDE and GNOME.

      --
      Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
    4. Re:cool by fymidos · · Score: 1

      indeed, i actually find kde better to use that windowmaker now, but that's propably because wmaker,is stuck in 0.80.2 for like years...

      --
      Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
    5. Re:cool by entrigant · · Score: 1

      We need Gnome/KDE for new adopters

      Not to be mean but this is very short sighted. I'm not so much sure about gnome as I do not use it, but KDE is quite advanced and just as useful for power users who care to learn it well enough. There are many linux power users who run kde/gnome desktops, and they are not using anything inferior to the other, lighter, options out there.

    6. Re:cool by eSavior · · Score: 1

      When I got my little brother(12) a linux box, I put XFCE on it. I had to, the machine has really low ram and I tried running gnome/kde and it would take atleast 30 seconds to start anything (10 seconds for xterm). Once I moved to XFCE4 it sped up ALOT. He seems to be doing fine on it too, I had to show him how to set wallpapers but he figured everything else out on his own.

    7. Re:cool by afd8856 · · Score: 1

      You're still using Gnome/KDE. They're much more than a window manager, which you just replaced. When you're using konqueror or konsole, the open file dialog in quanta, kmail or evolution, gaim or kopete, k3b or gthumb, gimp or koffice you're using still using gnome/kde. So, unless you tell me that you're not using either of this applications that are part of the Linux desktop experience, you haven't moved that far. You've just replaced your window manager.

      --
      I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
    8. Re:cool by LilMikey · · Score: 4, Funny

      I get so sick of the gits on Slashdot assuming that only drooling morons use KDE and GNOME.

      In all fairness, I think the assumption is that only drooling morons read Slashdot. Some just happen to use Gnome as well.

      --
      LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
    9. Re:cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New adopters only? I've used Unix & Linux since 96, using Solaris and Linux daily at work & home. I work as Software designer engineer, one thing I *don't* want as my environment is a over-simply environment which doesnt let you configure however you want it. Or does not have features. Or good usability. Nice that you like Openbox. Speaking as Software designer, I find that one implementing every single design flaw ever invented ;-) There's sort of a reason why "mainstream" operating systems (Windows, OS X) don't behave like that. Its illogical.

    10. Re:cool by sp0rk173 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I used to think i was ub3r l337 by using fluxbox or ion, then I got sucked in my things like...thubmails...and a unified look and feel, and started playing around with different screen layouts/pannel locations in Gnome. Got one that's elegant and non-intrusive, now Gnome is pretty much all I use.

    11. Re:cool by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A UI are more than just graphical effects.

      If we wanted those Enlightment would be it.

      KDE/GNOME have a nice configurable taskbar, great applications, and an integrated programing model where you can include objects and parts of other applications into yours.

      Also KDE and I think gnome is totally scriptable to make things better.

      Its also nice that the newer beta's of KDE have a preview option of a closed app like MacOSX when you scroll the mouse botton over the icons in the task bar.

      Previews in Nautalous or Kfilemanager are nice too.
      KDE/GNOME really offer alot in terms of productivity that simple windowmanagers lack. It never was about eye candy.

      The only way I could ever use WindowMaker again is if I am stuck on an older system like my pentium133 laptop which runs netbsd.

    12. Re:cool by God_Retired · · Score: 1

      Perhaps off topic, but I honestly (and I've asked this before here) don't understand what a "desktop environment" means. I try KDE every once in awhile. As I try Gnome every once in awhile. Then I always go back to something simpler, use apps from both camps and keymap shortcuts. I do have a slowish box, but I honestly don't get what is gained by a "full-blown desktop environment". I dont' even know what it means.

      This is not a troll. I don't care what people use. I am honestly interested because it seems like I'm missing something in these arguements/discussions about desktop environments.

    13. Re:cool by Feztaa · · Score: 3, Informative

      A Desktop Environment is a comprehensive set of applications that provide a full suite of tools that allow the user to get work done.

      For example, lets say you use blackbox. Does blackbox have it's own calculator, PDF viewer, web browser, file manager, image viewer, card game, etc? No, it does not have any of these things. That's because blackbox is just a window manager -- ALL it does is sits there and draws a window border around your window and provides you with a way to move windows around the screen.

      Gnome is a desktop environment because it has all the things I mentioned and much, much more. Ideally, the term "environment" means that it is completely immersive, eg, if you were using gnome you would never need to launch a non-GNOME app to get your work done, but the real world doesn't work like that... for example, I use GNOME but I swapped out metacity for xfwm4 because I like it more (3 reasons: window focus policies, window snapping, and independant horizontal/vertical maximization by clicking on the maximize button with right/middle mouse buttons). Then I also use k3b for burning CDs as it is more flexible than nautilus's cd burner, and I also use firefox, thunderbird, etc. But still, most of the simple apps (file manager, calculator, etc) are provided by gnome and I use them, that makes gnome a desktop environment.

    14. Re:cool by wolftone · · Score: 1

      I'm glad that you like Openbox and XFCE4, but don't assume that only newbies are using Gnome and KDE.

      I showed a (marginally computer-illiterate) friend of mine KDE, Gnome, and UDE, and the only one that didn't confuse him was UDE. MS Windows and OSX confuse him. So when it gets time for me to set up a computer for him, I doubt he'll want another MS box, and I know he won't want to spend for an Apple.

      Gnome and KDE won't be on his computer, they won't be used. But the UI most different from the MS/Apple paradigms (UDE) will.

    15. Re:cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The correct name for "Kfilemanager" is Konqueror.

    16. Re:cool by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Informative
      What Feztaa said. The biggest draw is the integration between components. For example, KDE supplies "IO-Slaves" to client programs that they can use to load and save data instead of using the open() syscall. This means that any KDE program that takes advantages of this functionality (which is the wide majority of them) can access remote data as easily as information on a local filesystem.

      I've started using KMyMoney (personal accounting program) at home recently. When I was at work yesterday, I wanted to check my bank balance. I ran the app here at the office and opened a file requester to load a data file. In the "location" area, I entered "sftp://homeserver/" and then browsed my filesystem at home to locate the appropriate file. KMyMoney then used SFTP to load the data. When I added a new entry and clicked the "Save" icon, it used SFTP to save the data back to the file at home.

      I do web development on a Zope server for a living. I use Kate (the KDE programmer's editor) to read and write files to the server via WebDav. Kate has its own set of bookmarks in the file requester, so I maintain a list of webdav://, sftp:// and fish:// pointers to various locations where I need to edit files.

      Kopete (multi-protocol instant messenger) can link entries in its "buddy lists" to KAddressBook. When I'm in KAddressBook, those people have a little icon next to their name showing their current messaging status.

      Konqueror uses IO-Slaves extensively. Want to view your POP3 account as a file folder? Browse to "pop3://myusername@mailserver/".

      There's a standard encrypted information store called "KWallet". Most KDE apps have migrated to using that to store passwords, form data from websites, or other personal information. I type one password at login to unlock my "wallet", and every app I use has access to its working information. If I lock my wallet, then my information is off-limits.

      Want to burn the contents of a directory to a CD? Right-click that directory in Konqueror, select Actions -> Create Data CD With K3b.

      It's the million-and-one details like these that define a "desktop environment". In a nutshell, no program stands alone - they all work together to make life more convenient. Mac OS X is the only other OS I've used with this level of integration.

      A lot of people dismiss this all as "bloat", and I just don't understand that line of thinking. To me, it seems incredibly efficient to make all of these services available to every application that wants to use them. It would be bloat to add an HTML viewer to every application. It is not bloat to provide an HTML viewing object that any application can use. If KMyMoney natively supported network-transparent IO, then I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. But since the environment provides it, I get a lot of extra functionality "for free" without any extra work by the KMyMoney programmers. Isn't this what Unix is supposed to be about?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    17. Re:cool by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I tried switching to Gnome just for shits and giggles. Couldn't beleive how much of a PITA I had trying to edit the program menus and whatnot. The editor showed my addition, but not the menu, even after restarts. After a few hours, I went back to Fluxbox. Ain't regretted it yet.

  5. screenshots now mirrorred by Chuck+Bucket · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ah, the screenshots always kill a webserver don't they ;) Here's a mirror of just the screenies for Gnome 2.8: screenshots. Firefox users remember; center-click is yr friend! ;)

    CB_)(^%#

    1. Re:screenshots now mirrorred by Chaotic+Evil+Cleric · · Score: 2, Funny

      Kirk: Mirror... Destroyed... Must Warn Others!
      Spock: Strangely, the mirror appears to have been demolished.
      Scotty: I can't do miracles, dammit! She's crackin' up! I'm gettin' 404s!
      Bones: She's gone, Jim.

    2. Re:screenshots now mirrorred by fymidos · · Score: 1

      >the screenshots always kill a webserver don't they ;) Here's a mirror

      apparently they can kill a couple of webserver just as easily :)

      --
      Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
    3. Re:screenshots now mirrorred by skiman1979 · · Score: 1
      Firefox users remember; center-click is yr friend! ;)

      I use a 2-button mouse you insensitive clod!

      --
      Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
    4. Re:screenshots now mirrorred by Chuck+Bucket · · Score: 1

      I use a 2-button mouse you insensitive clod!
      then 3-mouse button emulation is yr friend! ;)

      CBSDFF

    5. Re:screenshots now mirrorred by skiman1979 · · Score: 1
      3-mouse button emulation is yr friend!

      I'm still waiting for the 3-mouse button emulation patch for Windows 2000

      Disclaimer: I only use Windows at work. My home system is Gentoo

      --
      Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
    6. Re:screenshots now mirrorred by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Firefox users remember; center-click is yr friend! ;)

      After all, it's not like any other browser can do this...

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  6. xorg by barcodez · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know xorg 6.8 has only just been released but does this new version of gnome support any of the new features like transparency, damage or shadow?

    Either way it's an outstanding feat the gnome team have achieve - will in installing it tonight!

    --

    ----
    1. Re:xorg by Nadir · · Score: 4, Informative

      metacity (the Gnome window manager) can be a compositing manager, but it is disabled by default (a configure switch) so that only users who know what they are doing enable it.

      --
      --
      The world is divided in two categories:
      those with a loaded gun and those who dig. You dig.
    2. Re:xorg by Sunspire · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Getting all the new cool stuff like compositioning working will be a major focus of GNOME 2.10, to be released in March 2005.

      That's one of the benefits of GNOME's rapid 6 month release cycles. At the beginning of this year nobody could have seriously expected all of this cool development happening with X.org or predicted the demise of XFree86. Already we have compositioning in CVS, but 6 months from now GNOME will be ready to take full advantage of it as we now make it a priority for the next release. The extension itself will also have some time to stabilize in X.org.

      We're also seeing some very nice timetable coordination between X.org, GNOME, and Fedora Core as all projects move to shorter mutually supporting cycles, resulting in new cool stuff getting to end users faster than previously.

      --
      It's like deja vu all over again.
    3. Re:xorg by polyp2000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can get these effects with any desktop running on Xorg6.8

      just run
      xcompmgr -c

      (in an xterm) and that will give you proper dropshadows and compositing (no-more window trails)

      and the
      transset
      (in an xterm)
      command will give you a point-and click crosshair to make any window have real transparency.

      Here's a screenie of my desktop demonstrating it.

      You should be able to get similar results using any WM from TWM upwards, just make sure you have a enough beef to enjoy it fully.

      Nick...

      --
      Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
    4. Re:xorg by urmensch · · Score: 4, Informative

      Watch out - metacity 2.84 has problems with the new stuff, use 2.83

    5. Re:xorg by sgant · · Score: 1

      And I take it you're not one of those users that know what they're doing or else you would have mentioned where to find this configure switch.

      I don't use Gnome, so I don't know what I'm doing.

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    6. Re:xorg by RichiP · · Score: 1

      Vino makes use of XDamage (reducing network updates) and Metacity makes use of XComposite. If you try dragging a window (and your config has it set to display window contents on drag), the window will turn transparent. Pretty cool.

      That, most likely, isn't everything.

    7. Re:xorg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I know xorg 6.8 has only just been released but does this new version of gnome support any of the new features like transparency, damage or shadow?

      I'm sure it will. Gnome is always the first to implement exciting new technological features such as :

      1.Reversing the order of the "OK" and "Cancel" buttons.

      2.GConf - Note: It's NOT like the Windows registry. It might act like it and look like it but it's just NOT alright?

      3.The ever popular spatial Nautilus (if you don't like it you must be stupid, so we won't tell you how to turn it off).

      4.Not letting you change colours (it's for your own good - if we gave you that level of control you'd just change them all to white or something).

      5.Whatever Eugenia from OSNews has a hardon for this week (sorry for that mental image).

      6.Mono - innovation at its finest.

      7.The Gnome HIG - which consists of points 1,3,4 & 5 above.

      You can mod me down but it's still true.

    8. Re:xorg by mrcparker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is what I love about the new GNOME release schedule - it is results-oriented. They work out what they want in 6 months, create a list of things they need to do to get there, and then work towards the result that they want. At the end of 6 months the developers can look back and really judge how close they got to the result they wanted.

      Then they can plan the next six months based on what worked the last 6 months. Wonderful way to schedule a major project.

    9. Re:xorg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Users who know what they are doing aren't running GNOME anyways, so it doesn't matter.

    10. Re:xorg by Bloater · · Score: 1

      I haven't compiled metacity, but I bet ./configure --help will tell you.

      And knowing what you are doing probably only means watching the appropriate mailinglists for bug reports on using those features.

    11. Re:xorg by damiam · · Score: 1
      Reversing the order of the "OK" and "Cancel" buttons.

      Makes perfect sense, look in the GNOME or Apple HIG for explanantion.

      GConf - Note: It's NOT like the Windows registry. It might act like it and look like it but it's just NOT alright?

      Very true. It's easier to program for and more robust (stores data in plain XML, you can edit it with vi if you feel the urge), yet still retains all the advantages the registry has over text files.

      if you don't like it you must be stupid, so we won't tell you how to turn it off

      You must be stupid if you can't find the hundreds of pages telling you how to turn it off.

      Mono - innovation at its finest.

      Not part of GNOME, but still an exciting new technology - it's one of the finest programming environments for Linux.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    12. Re:xorg by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Getting all the new cool stuff like compositioning working will be a major focus of GNOME 2.10

      Why is it the major focus? I can see it being a minor focus, but way make it major? It's not like you have to redo every application, just some stuff in GTK+, write a few themes to utilize it, and you're done!

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    13. Re:xorg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes perfect sense, look in the GNOME or Apple HIG for explanantion.

      I'm looking it up now... oh here it is: "Because Havoc saw a webpage somewhere that said so."

    14. Re:xorg by sewagemaster · · Score: 1

      very nice. too bad debian doesnt have x.org packages available yet. what's the icon theme you are using in your screenshot?

    15. Re:xorg by NivenHuH · · Score: 1

      *cough* xcompmgr and transset are very barebones, proof of concept type programs.. Use them at your own risk.. If you really want to get the most out of translucency, etc.. write your own proggy that makes use of the new X extensions.. (.. kinda like what these two proof of concept apps do..)

      --
      Just when you make it idiotproof, some idiot builds a better idiot.
    16. Re:xorg by IncohereD · · Score: 1

      Why is it the major focus? I can see it being a minor focus, but way make it major? It's not like you have to redo every application, just some stuff in GTK+, write a few themes to utilize it, and you're done!

      Ha...have you ever done any programming? Or more specifically, programming for something that had to be tested and stabilized across multiple hardware/software platforms, and even totally different architectures?

  7. Re:Thats nice by Marcus+Green · · Score: 1

    Could you explain why you have come to the conclusion that Gnome has lost the desktop war to KDE.

  8. Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This isn't flamebait, as I appreciate the work the GNOME team is doing, but when are they going to concentrate on performance and memory usage? Right now it's _terrible_ - just as bad as Windows XP. And if we want to convert Windows users over to Linux, we need to provide incentives. There's no use telling a newcomer to run Lynx and Blackbox to get a fast desktop; they want the integration, the flexibility and the features.

    This seems to be a problem afflicting many open source projects now. OpenOffice.org is slower and heavier than MS Office. Firefox is slower and heaver than IE (not by a great deal, and it's still a superb browser). GNOME/KDE are slower and heavier than WinXP. I mean, I can run Office, IE and Outlook together SMOOTHLY on a WinXP box with 128M RAM.

    Try running OpenOffice.org, Firefox, Evolution and GNOME on the same system - it slows to a crawl. There are LOADS of people with 64 and 128M boxes out there who can't run a modern, desktop Linux effectively because it's getting so large and sluggish, and there are endless posts around the Net from newcomers who're puzzled as to why Linux is 'so slow'.

    This really needs to be sorted out. It makes Linux look half-baked, when we know how powerful it is. I supposed we have to look at open source in another way: it may lead to secure code, and it may lead to bugfixed code, but it doesn't lead to efficient, clean and elegantly-written code. Otherwise we'd have the speed advantage, and Linux's flagship products wouldn't be heavier and slower than Microsoft's.

    Just a thought. Good luck to the GNOMErs, but if Linux is going to really take off, it needs to offer some kind of speed advantage over Windows. Fewer users will switch if they just have to follow the upgrade treadmill.

    1. Re:Memory usage? by polyp2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I sort of agree with what you are saying, and the problem of memory usage / speed on lower specified machines is a key issue. The problem is not wholly with bloat or crap code but more with the fact that the common linux desktops (gnome/kde) on newer distro's are getting heavier on the eye candy. This eats up memory increases dependancy on swap-space and starts to eat up CPU.

      Its no secret however that Linux can be configured to run beautifully on lower spec machines. Dont expect to be getting great performance with KDE 3.3 on X-Org (with composite manager installed) fancy icons/fonts and the rest of it - on an old P2 , thats asking for trouble.

      What is really needed is a better distinction between your flashy prosumer desktop linux distro's and the linux distro's aimed at "giving that old PC a new life" . We shouldnt stop advancing the progress of linux and the desktop just because the newer distro's are running slower on those older boxes.

      Secondly ... I've been meaning to try Yoper linux on that box thats too slow to compile gentoo...

      --
      Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
    2. Re:Memory usage? by j0217995 · · Score: 1

      First to admit I am a linux newbie, I also am the first to admit that I am not using the latest and greatest PC to try and learn it. But there is no frustration like not being able to use gnome or kde on any of the my "spare" machines to try and learn or even test out how these look. I can run Windows on these boxes, a bit slow, but only Command Line in linux. I know most say its the only way to learn linux in the first place, but I would love to be able to use Gnome or KDE on an older box.

    3. Re:Memory usage? by AsnFkr · · Score: 1

      Dude, I totally feel what you are saying. Gnome is beautiful, but freaking bloated. I fluxbox on my desktop, but on my girlfriends laptop she has Gnome because it's pretty. The laptop is a 2.6gig P4 with 768meg 0' ram. It runs "ok" when plugged in, but when its unplugged and puts itself into speedstep mode it becomes unusable. I think it would almost be awesome if Gnome/KDE developers created a lightweight version of their software, so people in this situation or people with just slow boxes could keep the functionality of the software at perhaps a hit on eye candy. Just a thought.

    4. Re:Memory usage? by borwells · · Score: 1

      Of course, I know my PIII-500 w/64MB runs like a racehorse when I load Word, Internet Explorer and Outlook at the same time.

      --
      "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
    5. Re:Memory usage? by krisp · · Score: 1

      Strange. I run KDE on my P2 366mhz with 192MB ram laptop and it runs great, plugged in or not. Sure, it uses up 75% of the availible ram, but I can run kismet, firefox and thunderbird at the same time with out much trouble.

    6. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree somewhat, but the number one thing that needs to be fixed is the filesystem.
      If I just hit the power button, I shouldn't get tons of errors and corruption, come on! Reiser4 may fix this, but I havn't gotten a chance to test it yet. ext3 died pretty quickly for me though after turning the computer one and off a couple times while doing things. Just unacceptable.

    7. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. I'm finally glad someone shares the same view as me. I have a Celery 333 with 128 MB of ram. Yeah, it's old, but I'll tell you what, it runs Windows XP like a charm. As the matter of fact, I've made it through high school and college with it and haven't batted an eyelash and don't plan to upgrade anytime soon. I even run Apache+PHP & MySQL from it without a hitch. I have Winamp running constantly, I keep Internet Explorer (I would use Firefox, but it's too damn slow) running almost all the time, I have two copies of mIRC running 24/7, have a VNC server and Remotely Anywhere kicking in the background, and I use Thunderbird (I would use Outlook since it's a ton faster, but it lacks spam filtering and doesn't manage multiple accounts at the same time as easily as Thunderbird does). On top of that sometimes I'll use Photoshop 7 (aye, Photoshop 7 works extremely well with 128 MB of ram) and Microsoft Word or Excel to make charts, all while running most of the above stuff at the same time.

      Now, I tried to install Linux quite a few times. I've tried Debian, Mandrake, Red Hat, and I even tried FreeBSD (yes, I know BSD != Linux). However, I switched back to Windows within a day. I couldn't run anything. Just running Gnome and XMMS would drag my computer to a screaming halt. Yes, I know there are wm's out there like FVVM and whatnot, but why am I thought Linux was better and more powerful?

      Anywho, just thought I would share my fun times with Linux.

    8. Re:Memory usage? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I supposed we have to look at open source in another way: it may lead to secure code, and it may lead to bugfixed code, but it doesn't lead to efficient, clean and elegantly-written code. Otherwise we'd have the speed advantage, and Linux's flagship products wouldn't be heavier and slower than Microsoft's.

      No, not neccisarily. Clean and elegant code is usually not the fastest or lightest weight. Linux's code is probley more elegant and cleaner than microsofts, simply because it doesn't have so many workarounds for bugs in other third party applications. But I agree with you completely, on the surface you appear to be correct.

      However, openoffice desends from star office, a propitary project that was always slow. Open office has been getting better. I find firefox to be faster than ie, at least on windows. I'm more of a kde guy so I can't speak of experince for Gnome or Evolution. Linux, the kernel, is probely the best argument against your view. Its fast, lean, mean, and clean.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    9. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try running that without a window manager, it's not GNOME, all that stuff with 128mb will make your pc want to suicide.
      Btw, XP needs at least 256mb to run decently, so don't blame GNOME people.

    10. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -why am

      Smert. I need coffee.

    11. Re:Memory usage? by Lispy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I mean, I can run Office, IE and Outlook together SMOOTHLY on a WinXP box with 128M RAM."

      No, you cant. Stop spreading FUD. If you have a slow CPU it might be usable if you have at least 256MB, but SMOOTHLY is something entirely different.

      "Try running OpenOffice.org, Firefox, Evolution and GNOME on the same system - it slows to a crawl. There are LOADS of people with 64 and 128M boxes out there who can't run a modern, desktop Linux effectively because it's getting so large and sluggish, and there are endless posts around the Net from newcomers who're puzzled as to why Linux is 'so slow'."

      You are right. But you wouldnt be able to use WinXP on the same machine either. I just pointed this out. Whats more: Gnome 2.8 and KDE 3 is about the latest and greatest as it gets on Linux. Please consider this. It is not a slick environment. It is a complete up-to-date Desktop environment up on par with OS X and WinXP (SP2). If you try a few offroad distros you might still get a performance boost. Gentoo and Slackware ARE in fact significantly faster than SusE or Fedora.

      I agree, OpenOffices startup time could be faster but on a decent system (eg. an Athlon 1400 with 512MB and a 7200rpm HD) it takes about 12 seconds for startup. I cant even guess what you mean with Firefox slowing to a crawl though.

      "Fewer users will switch if they just have to follow the upgrade treadmill."
      Agreed. But its a trap: Look, if we dont have the latest and greatest they wont even consider it. Dont underestimate the amount of GNOME ready desktops out there. We really shouldnt try to strip down on features and looks just to get all those crappy 128MB/p200Mhz boxes. We have them already. Noone uses them for real work though. What we want is their main machine. The multimedia/websurfing/office PC. We cant get that with Fluxbox (no pun, i like it) and lynx.

    12. Re:Memory usage? by tonyhill · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what distribution you're using to evaluate GNOME's performance, but I have no performance problems with Debian on my P3 600 laptop (256MB RAM). In my experience, I have found that for some reason RedHat's GNOME crawls on older hardware, while Debian's performs nicely.

      If you haven't yet, I suggest you give Debian a try.

    13. Re:Memory usage? by BenjyD · · Score: 1

      Odd. I run GNOME 2.6 on my P3-600 laptop with 192Mb and it runs fine.

    14. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, isn't that the point, the larger systems can do kde. The smaller systems can run blackbox, or iceWM..and still get a great speed. The problem is most users think KDE/Gnome is the desktop. Its not, its just one of many. There are many small lightweight desktops with the same functionality as windows.

    15. Re:Memory usage? by mrm677 · · Score: 0

      "I mean, I can run Office, IE and Outlook together SMOOTHLY on a WinXP box with 128M RAM."

      No, you cant. Stop spreading FUD. If you have a slow CPU it might be usable if you have at least 256MB, but SMOOTHLY is something entirely different.


      Yes you can. Microsoft devotes a ton of resources to tweaking the UI down to the x86 assembly level. Plus they run the windowing system in kernel-mode. It is unfair, but Windows wins for running a full-featured UI on a small-memory machine.

    16. Re:Memory usage? by Maffy · · Score: 1

      Try checking out some window managers other than KDE and Gnome. I recently installed a very old laptop (P133 with 48MB RAM) with IceWM (http://www.icewm.org/) and it runs fine.

    17. Re:Memory usage? by blastwave · · Score: 1

      I think that you need to question your motives. If your focus is to entice people to move away from Microsoft software to Linux then you are being a bit close minded, for an open source advocate that must cause internal problems. I should think that giving the user choice and freedom is far more valuable. The user can choose to run Microsoft Windows if they want and still run OpenOffice. They can run Solaris for x86 or Opteron or Sparc or IBM Power ( Open Source Solaris ) and still get GNOME and KDE and Open Office and everything else. See www.blastwave.org for the Open Source Software project for Solaris users in a Debian like delivery system. The user should have freedom of choice regardless of where they go to. That, I think, should be the objective.

      Dennis Clarke
      Admin and Director
      Blastwave - Open Source Software for Solaris

    18. Re:Memory usage? by Progman3K · · Score: 1

      >This really needs to be sorted out. [...] when we know how powerful [Linux] is. [...] open source [...] doesn't lead to efficient, clean and elegantly-written code. Otherwise we'd have the speed advantage, and Linux's flagship products wouldn't be heavier and slower than Microsoft's.

      Not trying to troll here, but is that possible?

      Windows (95, 98, ME) were coded specifically for the low-end x86 PC architecture, and consequently use a bunch of tricks to streamline their performance.

      Windows (NT, 2000, XP) were an attempt to go and get the *nix market by using sound architectural design, and consequently a lot of old apps wouldn't work anymore, Windows would require more CPU power, etc... But that doesn't seemed to have precluded MS still using some tricks to optimize performance.

      I agree with your statements; the result is that Windows is a very buggy, unsecure operating system, of course.

      Whereas Linux seems a lot less compromising, because being cheap is not allowable.

      So how are we going to get Linux optimized if we don't cheat a bit?

      Pre-linking seems like one good possibility, but there must be others.

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    19. Re:Memory usage? by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Its no secret however that Linux can be configured to run beautifully on lower spec machines. Dont expect to be getting great performance with KDE 3.3 on X-Org (with composite manager installed) fancy icons/fonts and the rest of it - on an old P2 , thats asking for trouble.

      If you turn every thing on, yeah it will be as slow as GNOME. But if on start-up, you decide to turn off all goodies, or even a number of the goodies, then it runs great

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    20. Re:Memory usage? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      A P2 366 doesnt cut to half speed to save on energy/heat

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    21. Re:Memory usage? by Dirk+van+der+Broek · · Score: 1

      There are many options for linux on the desktop, you're not stuck with Gnome or KDE.

      Try looking here: http://xwinman.org/

    22. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait a minute... I agree with you but 2.6 IS better at the above compared to 2.4 and I am sure 2.8 also follows the trend.

      Examples? sure. Mandrake 10.0 default install.. Sucked horribly, really slow in KDE and Gnome on my GF's book pc.

      so I reinstalled with Slackware 10, and everything was snappy in Gnome 2.6... Curious I found and installed a gnome 2.4 on a similar machine without gnome installed but running slack10 and it was dog slow.

      2.6 is better and faster, and I expect that 2.8 will be at least as fast as 2.6 Most distros right now have the crappy 2.4 release with the uber-crappy nautilus. the new nautilus with 2.6+ is better and much MUCH faster.

    23. Re:Memory usage? by DarkSarin · · Score: 1

      erm...
      this happens in windows too: you should NEVER just "hit the power button".

      I would think even the AC's here would know that!

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    24. Re:Memory usage? by Val314 · · Score: 1

      > Firefox is slower and heaver than IE

      if you have Norton antivirus, it causes a huge delay in FF (and every Mozilla App) Startup time, because it scans every .jar and .js File in the FF/TB/Mozilla directory.

      if you exclude the FF directory from being scanned it starts faster

    25. Re:Memory usage? by Elbows · · Score: 1

      I'm having a similar experience with KDE on P2 Laptop (only 266, I think), with maybe 96MB ram. This system used to crawl with win98 on it, and was horribly unstable to boot.
      Now it runs reasonably well -- admittedly it takes ~10 minutes to boot up/log in, but after that I don't really notice the slowness.

    26. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      System memory usage is somewhere around 50mb directly after startup. Currently 200mb with a bunch of apps running(firefox/thunderbird/gdb/dozen xterms/xmms).
      Not too bad IMHO.

    27. Re:Memory usage? by LordK2002 · · Score: 2, Informative
      OpenOffice.org is slower and heavier than MS Office. Firefox is slower and heaver than IE (not by a great deal, and it's still a superb browser).
      Comparing the launch of Firefox on Linux with Explorer on Windows is not fair, since most of the functionality of IE is loaded when Windows starts up.

      Office tends to work similarly, with a lot of the code being loaded at startup. This increases the Windows start time but decreases the time taken to start an Office application.

    28. Re:Memory usage? by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Give XFCE4 a go. It's Gnome sans the bloat, and it's getting desktop icons and a session manager in the next version (already available on CVS). I have 512mb and it keeps memory usage well below half of that most of the time. I like Gnome, but the damn bloat is the same reason that drove me away from KDE in the first place.

    29. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know what you mean. I threw my computr off my roof while it was compiling a new kernel the other day and afterwards it wouldn't even POST. I mean come on, compiling a new kernel shouldn't mean your computer stops working!

    30. Re:Memory usage? by AstroDrabb · · Score: 0, Troll
      This isn't flamebait
      OK troll.
      Firefox is slower and heaver than IE
      Huh? Firefox has always been faster then IE for me, I an recall reading a lot of similar /. post. Firefox is Heavier? Not really. Look at this screenshot of IE and Firefox 1.0pre both open to /.. About 1MB of difference.
      I can run Office, IE and Outlook together SMOOTHLY on a WinXP box with 128M RAM
      I call BS. I had two family members that I upgraded to MS Win XP and they both only had 128MB. WinXP was dog slow. It took ages for windows to popup and move around. Even trying to bring up the explorer.exe file manager was a pain. Once both systems were upgraded to 256MB, it was much more usable. This is the same for a modern Linux distro. A little sluggish with 128MB for KDE/Gnome, but very usable with 256MB. I do agree with OOo.org. It is still a little slow and a bit of a memory hog. Though it does run on many platforms wich MS never needed to worry about with MS Office. My brother-in-law has an older laptop with a slow hard drive, 256 MB and Fedor Core 1. He has no problems with running Firefox, Thunderbird/Evolution, Photoshop (Cross-over office), Azureus (Java bitttorrent client) and a music app open all at the same time. Linux has a much better VM systems then WinXP for systems with low memory. Once WinXP starts to swap, your dead.
      Otherwise we'd have the speed advantage, and Linux's flagship products wouldn't be heavier and slower than Microsoft's.
      Oh, stop trolling. Where are your benchmarks? For every MS benchmark out there showing MS Widnows to be "faster" then Linux, there is a Linux benchmark showing Linux to be "faster" then MS Windows. From my experience Linux is faster for many server tasks then MS Windows, however the MS WinXP desktop overall is a little faster then an average full-featured Linux desktop because MS tied many thing down into the kernel.

      With WinXP, you are limited to one crappy desktop (explorer.exe) that locks just about every file it touches (requiring you to kill and restart it in task manager) and crashes on me about 5 times a week (WinXP does not crash on me, but explorer.exe certainly does). With Linux, I can use full-featured desktops like KDE/Gnome or a ligher desktop like XFCE4 which still has greate features. For a system with 128MB or less memory, there are desktops like fluxbox, blackbox, wiamea and others.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    31. Re:Memory usage? by sgant · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, this isn't true. You can NOT run all those apps...especially Office AND IE AND Outlook with just 128 of RAM smoothly.

      Smoothly is the key point here. Yes, you can run them, but not smoothly...go tell that to someone else but don't try to spread that around here as you'll get laughed out of the forums.

      It's not even funny as a troll either. I mean, come on, try a little harder.

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    32. Re:Memory usage? by Captain+Rotundo · · Score: 1

      I am posting this from a Pentium II 233, with 128 MB of RAM, and I've been running GNOME exclusively since 2.0 was released. works fine...

      oh and the systen next to me is a Celeron 466 with 128MB of RAM, I like that one just fine as well.

    33. Re:Memory usage? by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      Right now it's _terrible_ - just as bad as Windows XP.

      GNOME/KDE are slower and heavier than WinXP.

      Which is it? Either it's bad or it's not :)

    34. Re:Memory usage? by sgant · · Score: 1

      I agree with you.

      But sheesh, why why WHY do these kinds of stories always always ALWAYS degenerate into these types of battles?

      Why do people spread so much FUD around to where people like you have to step up and clear the air? Then how many trolls will come along and try to shoot you down etc etc.

      Where does this get us? And I'm certainly guilty of it also. And it get's me no where other than pissed-off over nothing.

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    35. Re:Memory usage? by Taladar · · Score: 1

      You should try XFCE. It is a full Desktop Environment but has not the amounts of Eyecandy-Bloat KDE or Gnome have. I installed it (with Gentoo) on a PII 300 MHz Laptop with 64 MB recently and while naturally some Apps take some time to open on that machine it is perfectly useable.

    36. Re:Memory usage? by kosmosik · · Score: 1

      I'have P2 266Mhz, 196MB RAM. Right now running: Inkscape, GIMP, Scribus, Opera, GNOME and some Eterms... Also some services (Samba, LAMP, lprNG) and my FC1 works like charm. Oh and memory usage (-buffers) is 109MB.

    37. Re:Memory usage? by g00set · · Score: 1

      "Try running OpenOffice.org, Firefox, Evolution and GNOME on the same system - it slows to a crawl. There are LOADS of people with 64 and 128M boxes out there who can't run a modern, desktop Linux effectively because it's getting so large and sluggish, and there are endless posts around the Net from newcomers who're puzzled as to why Linux is 'so slow'."

      My friends computer was a 4 year old or so e-Machine, 500 Mhz Celeron/96 MB, and some small on board video running w2k. I would not consider it snappy running Micorsoft Office, IE, Outlook and destkop manager as you suggested.

      I went to BestBuy and purchased another 128 MB of memory, an nvidia video card, and a new fancy/simple USB optical mouse/mouse-pad to replace the old ball-style one she had since college. I think it cost me about $170 bucks for everything. In my particular situation turn around time (2 days) was more important than cost.

      I installed Slackware 9.1 with Gnome 2.6 and it seems to run well. The purdy anti-aliased fonts do seem to take up some resources but it does make it look fluffy (which in this case was a good thing). It is fast enough for her but here the speed in which you need to click/scroll things is well different for each person. I have PII and choose to forgo a *desktop enviornment* for speed, etc. and I am happy.

      End result it works/runs well for the user (good for me as computer suppport friend) and well...It runs Linux. ;)

      --
      ... and furthermore ... I don't like your trousers.
    38. Re:Memory usage? by Cereal+Box · · Score: 1

      Not true. In Windows, as long as you have a computer running on an ATX motherboard (that should be everyone by now, I would hope), hitting the power button causes Windows to initiate its normal shutdown procedure, as if you had selected it from the Start menu.

    39. Re:Memory usage? by joib · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem here is resource allocation. As GNOME and KDE (or any other project, for that matter) have finite resources (i.e. volunteer time), if they spend some time on improving performance, it's less time spent on something else (such as the features that attract people to kde/gnome in the first place).

      IMHO, KDE and GNOME have their priorities pretty well laid out as it is. The nice thing with FOSS is that KDE and GNOME doesn't have to be everything for everyone as MS trie with windows. E.g. if you want features and eye candy, use KDE or GNOME. If you want speed, lack of bloat etc. for that old P133, there's plenty of choice in lightweight WM:s such as openbox.

      And if you feel KDE or GNOME is slow, it's not like a new computer is exactly expensive. Say, an athlon xp 2600 with 0.5-1 Gb RAM that runs both desktops more than well costs what, EUR 500-1000?

    40. Re:Memory usage? by starnix · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? I just rebuilt my work PC with WinXP and it uses 256mb of memory and is dog slow... My work PC also has a 2.2ghz processor. Running just firefox, and office made it dog slow. Menus take forever to appear AND populate. Window redraws are slow as hell.

      At home I run Gnome 2.6 with only a 1.4ghz processor and the desktop is MUCH more responsive.

      Currently I have:
      firefox
      evolution
      gnumeric
      gnome calculator
      beep media player
      firestarter firewall
      gnome system monitor
      k3b burning a DVD
      and 3 gnome terminals running and the desktop remains completely responsive. Oh yeah, I am also ripping a DVD on my other dvd drive, running software raid, sshd and apache2. I also run 3ddesktop with 12 virtual desktops.

      No slowdown at all. WinXP would choke on HALF of that load. Sure the load times may be quicker for some MS software, but as far as 'Smooth' multitasking goes, WinXP cant compete.

      Currently with all that running I am using 222mb of memory and no swap.

      I dont know what kinda setup you have but its obviously configured wrong.

    41. Re:Memory usage? by SuperficialRhyme · · Score: 2, Informative

      My girlfriend's mother's computer has 128 megs of ram. I have tried to get it working at a speed that I can tolerate when I visit their house. Thus far I haven't gotten it to work. It's running win2k pro and even right after it boots, its already using swap. Opening anything takes a good 20-30 seconds and that's just *one* other program. I can't imagine trying to open all 3 (Office/IE/Outlook). I've run spybot/adaware. I've shutdown all the unnecessary services. I really don't know what more I can do to get an acceptable speed out of it.

      If you know how to get better speed I would love to hear it, but my personal experience shows that things drag with 128MB of ram in win2k pro.

      For anyone keeping track its a standard dell machine. It's got a P4 1.6ghz processor. Not a wonderful machine by any means, but really, it should be able to run win2k. My P3 laptop with similar stats ran kde acceptably (before I switched to fluxbox). I can't speak to gnome. I tried it once on my laptop and spacial nautilius drove me away.

    42. Re:Memory usage? by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      The slow performance has to do with the widgets that are loaded for each program. Firefox/Mozilla loads one, while GTK is another, OpenOffice loads still another, and these all take lots of memory. More programs are supporting both GTK and KDE. However, distros have to start making choices and shipping "enhanced" versions of these programs with KDE or GNOME.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    43. Re:Memory usage? by Abjifyicious · · Score: 1
      My suspicion is that a lot of the fault may actually be with gcc. From what I've gathered, the current version of gcc isn't very advanced in the optimization department. For example, there are threads sometimes on the blender message boards where people post unofficial builds created with Intel's compiler. They can generally render images at more than twice the speed of a gcc compiled version.

      So if "things are just as bad as Windows XP", then the gnome people must be doing some really great optimization work to overcome the penalties of using gcc for compilation.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they shouldn't be using gcc - from what I've heard, the next version will have some huge improvements - I'm just saying maybe the Gnome people don't deserve all the blame they've been getting.

    44. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      A P2 366 doesnt cut to half speed to save on energy/heat

      I wasn't aware that a 366 MHz P2 with 192 MB of ram was faster than a 1.3 GHz P4 with 798 MB of ram.

    45. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Please consider this. It is not a slick environment. It is a complete up-to-date Desktop environment up on par with OS X and WinXP (SP2).



      Harharharharhhohohohohoh HEHEEHEHEHEHE hooooo....

      Apparently you're not a Mac user. I have a Powermac G5 here in front of me, sided by a Linux box with Gnome on it. I have used both as primary desktops for a good while now. But OSX simply blows Gnome away. I think Gnome has a great future ( much prefer it to KDE ), but it is most *certainly not* on par with OSX.... yet.

      If you don't believe me, you need to spend a few weeks in front of a Mac.

    46. Re:Memory usage? by Allen+Zadr · · Score: 1
      Erm, RedHat Fedora has been following ATX power shutdown since at least RedHat 9. Slackware could e configured to do so, but not by default.

      I don't know about other distributions though.

      --
      Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
    47. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "No, you cant. Stop spreading FUD. If you have a slow CPU it might be usable if you have at least 256MB, but SMOOTHLY is something entirely different."

      Actually, I have tested load times for a AMD K2-400MHz with 128MB and 256MB RAM. WinXP gave better load times of 'intergrated' apps than 'RedHat FC2' with like apps. So I do believe that the parent that you have quoted is correct in the sense that many apps that rely on features already loaded by Windows' OS are faster.

      Personally, I believe that the so called bloat and/or speed issue is that OO.org, Firefox, GNOME (apps quoted)... All depend on different base libraries. Whereas, Windows apps depend on one common framework. Each project brings with them their own portability framework, X interface API, parse features (though most are starting to move to libxml for this), and socket API.

      You may try, for example, GNOME with AbiWord, and Epiphany (all which use the same CORBA framework, and graphics library) This yields much better loading times that are equal or surpass loading times of like apps on Windows XP.

      Also, you should consider the base operations that are being carried out by your distro's mix of programs. In FC2, on the AMD box described above, I found slower load times of applications as compared to Slackware. Firefox loads slower on FC2 than Slack using like versions of the application using default (out of box) configuration.

      This is, most likely, due to things turned on by your distro provider that are there to enhance your use of the system. However, those come with a price.

      Honestly, I believe that all of the cross-API frameworks that are being developed should at least agree with some sort of common lightweight API that they can base there applications on. A good example of this is the (slow) adoption of D-BUS for Window managers versus using DCOP and ORBit. I should hope to see this being used more and more. Let us not stop only at communications but also in Graphic rendering, Cross platform API/ABI, and more adoption of libxml parse features (And I could continue with a slew of features repeated by different base API/libs).

      As for those with light/older systems. One should inspect their system for performance enhancements if they wish to run an OS without meeting the system requirements. Even Windows users understand that if they wish to use WinXP and only have 64MB, they will either take a performance hit or have to change their default configuration to allow them to have a better experience. Likewise, the user may consider an older version of Windows (Win98...) in order to have a stable system. Why should we expect no difference from Linux users?

      Finally, I believe that as RAM cost becomes less and less, that application developers will come to capitalize on this and thus force end users to keep with pace. However, I do believe that there is a very firm argument that someone should also provide a distro that capitalizes on the aging desktop, ala provides old KDE 2 and 3 or GNOME 1.4 and 2 packages so that older systems can migrate into a Linux fold. But to ask the developers to strip functionality from their base to support older machines is not a valid request. Software must advance and likewise hardware must advance, and reversing that statement, should always be true in order to provide a useful platform to end users that continues to keep pace with demand. It is the end-user that must adapt the software to it's final form, for it is the end-user that knows their system the best (not the developer).

      Also in your post you stated that no one will use "those crappy 128MB/p200Mhz boxes." Not so true. Indeed home users are tended to have newer systems and usually make the mistake of binding hardware and software as one (aka When my software is out of date then my hardware is too. And the converse) product because their system is usually OEM. Therefore, they look to OEMs for upgrade paths (in turn new hardwa

    48. Re:Memory usage? by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      The systems I use regularly at school have PIIs @ 300mhz, 128MB of PC100, piss-slow graphics, and awful 4800rpm Quantum drives. They run Windows XP, and while I wouldn't call it "smooth", Word 2003 starts in under 5 seconds. OpenOffice.org takes at least 10 seconds on my Athlon XP 3200+/1GB DDR/WD Raptor/Fedora Core 2 system. Firefox also takes 5+ seconds to start, compared to 2 seconds for the same app on the same system under Windows.

      I'm not alone - others I know who use both Windows and Linux/GNOME keep asking me why Windows feels so much faster.

      Perhaps, according to you, I should tell them that their experience is simply a fallacy. It's not. Don't "fix" the problem by telling me that Windows "cheats" by precaching recently used binaries, aggressively swapping unused code, sharing system libraries, having a faster GDI (X is fine but GTK2 is rather slow), and leveraging the speed of today's GPUs. Fix the problem by making Linux do the same.

    49. Re:Memory usage? by Rahga · · Score: 1

      Try running OpenOffice.org, Firefox, Evolution and GNOME on the same system - it slows to a crawl. There are LOADS of people with 64 and 128M boxes out there who can't run a modern, desktop Linux effectively because it's getting so large and sluggish, and there are endless posts around the Net from newcomers who're puzzled as to why Linux is 'so slow'.

      SuSE won't even install on 64MB systems, last I tried.

    50. Re:Memory usage? by geekboy642 · · Score: 0

      Interestingly enough, the same build of Firefox(0.8) on Linux(LFS5.1) runs vastly better than it does on Windows(XP Home) when downloading many different files simultaneously.

      Personally, I think it's a conspiracy. You're supposed to download your files with Internut Exploiter so that you can get pwned by threehotchicks.jpg.

      --
      Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
    51. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, come on lets cut the FUD here for a moment. If you do a fresh as in blank hardisk install of XP, on a 128 meg box, the harddisk will run nearly constantly swaping even when the system is mostly idle. Yes, you can turn off all the eyecandy, ie stop the theme service and cut out all sort of other stuff you don't need and then you can get back reasonably close to win2k performance. That is not how XP shipps though and I also know from experience, if you don't load and parts of gnome you don't need and use a theme where the imagemaps are of a sane size it gets pretty quick too.

    52. Re:Memory usage? by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      heh.

      If you have many network drives mapped, your IE startup time will be killed. At least, mine is. I swear it establishes a connection with each folder before the window appears.

      FireFox, OTOH, starts up fairly quickly.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    53. Re:Memory usage? by mpcooke3 · · Score: 1

      Application startup times are quite poor though. I run Fedora Core 2 and Win 2K on the same 512Meg 2.4Ghz Pentium 4 machine.

      After some use in both systems IE, Dos and Word appear to snap open in windows. In FC2 Firefox, gnome-shell and OpenOffice are much slower starting up.

      In fact after disk caching it takes longer to open Gedit on FC2 than it does to open Office on Win2k. That can't be good! Open Office in contrast is just taking the piss. The only window that opens in a similar time frame to windows apps is the nautilus viewer (without the left hand side browser).

      I'm trying to help an organisation that ships recycled machines abroad to charities and schools (mainly in africa). Trying to get a linux distro that is as useable as windows is very difficult. Standard machine specs are Pentium II or above with 64meg ram. This spec machine will run windows and MS Office ALOT better than I can configure a linux box to run KDE/GNOME and Openoffce. And yes I do need to install openoffice for compatibility reasons.

      Matt.

    54. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try running Firefox, OpenOffice, Xchat, XMMS and a couple of console windows at the same time using 128 MB of ram unser Linux. Let me know how well that works out for you.

    55. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...functionality of IE is loaded when Windows starts up. Office tends to work similarly..."

      Actually, Office loads very, very little on Windows startup. But here's the main flaw in your argument:

      Office apps start faster UNDER WINE than OpenOffice. So they're STILL faster in a non-native environment.

      Doesn't that say anything to you?

    56. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lots of patience, huh?

    57. Re:Memory usage? by Cereal+Box · · Score: 1

      I bet they do. I was never contesting that. I was just taking issue with the claim that you shouldn't "just hit the power button" in Windows.

      since at least RedHat 9

      Wow, it took them that long to make it work?

    58. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FUD? WTF? That guy/gal's post reflected my experiences very accurately. And obviously this reader too:

      http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=121919 &c id=10257601

      Note where he says "I'm not alone - others I know who use both Windows and Linux/GNOME keep asking me why Windows feels so much faster."

      I've tried various Linux distros. I've made some tweaks that people have recommended, with little success. And ATEOTD people just keep telling me to run bloody IceWM and Lynx; well guess what, why SHOULD I have to use these bizarre, non-integrated programs just to get a desktop as fast as XP?

      My experience is the same as the poster - 128MB of memory, WinXP classic theme, and things move along very nicely. Fedora, Mandrake, SUSE are all very sluggish.

      Anyway, it's clear that you don't want to believe this problem, so keep your fingers in your ears. However, I'd suggest you browse around some newcomer forums when you have time, and you'll see the growing number of posts expressing dissatisfaction for how much slower desktop Linux is than WinXP.

      And if you don't think that'll affect Linux's desktop update in homes and businesses... well, keep the rose-tinted specs on.

    59. Re:Memory usage? by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      "This increases the Windows start time but decreases the time taken to start an Office application."

      Then why does Windows XP boot twice as fast as most Linux distros?

    60. Re:Memory usage? by afd8856 · · Score: 1

      Run your xp for a year and you'll see how well it behaves after that.

      --
      I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
    61. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IceWM et al are OK for geeks, but they're not things you can suggest to a newcomer. They'll be upset because of the lack of integration.

      And more importantly, this poses a big question: why should users have to run a very minimalist and basic desktop just to match XP's speed?

      That's a very worrying thought!

    62. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      compile for 50 thousand hours with gentoo and you'll feel the power!

    63. Re:Memory usage? by mrm677 · · Score: 1

      For anyone keeping track its a standard dell machine. It's got a P4 1.6ghz processor. Not a wonderful machine by any means, but really, it should be able to run win2k. My P3 laptop with similar stats ran kde acceptably (before I switched to fluxbox). I can't speak to gnome. I tried it once on my laptop and spacial nautilius drove me away.

      Come on. You know Dell is not going to sell a machine that can't run the shipped operating system adequately. Different people have different standards...

    64. Re:Memory usage? by steveha · · Score: 1

      when are they going to concentrate on performance and memory usage? Right now it's _terrible_ - just as bad as Windows XP.

      Old rule of thumb: first you make it work, then you make it faster.

      GNOME has been following that rule. Nautilus used to be slow, but in recent versions it has become quite snappy.

      GNOME has also done their homework; their architecture is pretty much sound. They don't add bloat just because it would make their life easier in some way. For example, GNOME doesn't have its own file open/file save dialogs; it just uses the GTK ones. And DBUS will let them do all sorts of cool stuff (like knowing when a CD is inserted into a drive) without polling the hardware.

      OpenOffice.org is slower and heavier than MS Office.

      I can't argue with that. But what does that have to do with GNOME? OOo has nothing to do with GNOME. The "GNOME Office" would be AbiWord, Gnumeric, and other GNOME native apps, not OOo.

      OOo started out huge and slow. The OOo guys are doing good work on it (compare OOo with StarOffice 5.x sometime!). But the GNOME apps are faster and lighter than OOo.

      I mean, I can run Office, IE and Outlook together SMOOTHLY on a WinXP box with 128M RAM.

      This does not match my experience. I helped a friend who was running XP on a 128MB computer and it wasn't smooth. Maybe, once everything was started up, and the system had settled down, maybe then. Maybe. (But then run something and the disk thrashes. 128MB isn't enough for XP.)

      One thing to realize, however: the people here like to ridicule MS, but they have some good software, and in particular their compilers are good. Their compilers make tighter, faster code than GCC does, and this is a huge advantage when trying to hit a target like "run a bunch of software in 128MB".

      There are LOADS of people with 64 and 128M boxes out there who can't run a modern, desktop Linux effectively

      Are there really? Last time I checked, RAM was cheaper than Windows XP. I would encourage those people to buy a 256MB stick of RAM and speed up their systems.

      GNOME is working on cool new features. They do work on speed and size to some extent, and GCC keeps getting better, and RAM is still cheap. All the new computers, with 2 GHz processors and tons of RAM, will run GNOME very well. In short, I think the GNOME guys are doing a fine job and they do not need to change their priorities at all.

      steveha

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    65. Re:Memory usage? by afd8856 · · Score: 1

      Did you look at the source? How do you know, jus tby looking at the API documentation, that something has been implemented in assembly? From what I've heard, very few things are in windows, the rest is just C.

      --
      I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
    66. Re:Memory usage? by Lispy · · Score: 3, Informative

      As you put more work into a reply than I got ever before on slashdot I will respond. You have a valid point that those older systems are sometimes put to use. I agree with you that there should be a way to run them with Linux, and run them safely. This is not the same as continue using Windows98 and connect to the internet wich is frankly not a very smart thing to do.

      I think that's what older or specialized distros, Fluxbox and remote Xservers are for. But NOT the Gnome Desktop in it's latest incarnation.

      My quote "We have them already" was driven by my experience that I keep installing Linux on older machines all over the place. Friends want to try it on their obsolete hardware but that means that they won't get the full performance and often turn it down in favour of their shiny, new XP box. Still, dualboxes sometimes show the behaviour you described. Even OpenOffice or Firefox seem to run faster on Windows. I don't think that this is Gnomes mistake, though. The examples were given by the grandparent and clearly show the library issue as it was pointed out.

      Gnome itself is not bloatware, it is just a complete, cutting-edge desktop with a lot of bells and whistles and this comes at a cost. Most of the time it is just a RAM issue that can be solved easily without a big investment. This is all I was trying to make clear. I am just tired of this: "Gnome is bloated because it doesn't run on a 128MB machine." talk. It is simply not what it was designed for. Same with Doom3. ;-)

    67. Re:Memory usage? by Deslack · · Score: 0

      In Debian, an 'apt-get install acpid' will get you instant 'shutdown -h now' via the power button.

      --
      .sigs are useless; it doesn't protect you from imposters.
    68. Re:Memory usage? by c_spencer100 · · Score: 1

      You consider the possibility of your performance problem being distro specific ? For example, SuSE has, in my opinion, the most eyecandy and prettiest set of config tools. However, it is noticibly slower, and if you merely read the System Requirements, they are noticibly more than say Slackware Linux. As far as your expierences with WinXP, well you must be using DDR7 for memory, because I've had problems with it using 256mb, so how did you get such performance with only 128 ?

    69. Re:Memory usage? by Lispy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Windows doesn't do any of this by the way. There is no relevant Office caching going on. Mind that, whatever the zealots will tell you. IE is partially loaded at startup because it is part of the OS. That's it.

      What you might consider is that StarOffice had a designflaw wich still is part of OpenOffice.org at the time but will be fixed at 2.0 (i think). It loads not only the Writer, it loads the whole officesuite. Imagine Word, Excel, Powerpoint, etc. starting altogether. That is why OO.org is such a beast to launch.

    70. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://200.32.4.39/xp/modules/news/ I'm not sure if it runs KDE 3.2 or 3.3, but it can run it in a pentium (not 2, not 3, not 4, an original pentium), I saw it and it ran without a problem. Neat stuff.

    71. Re:Memory usage? by Lispy · · Score: 1

      RAM is the keypoint. Give her 256MB and she might have a quiet harddrive. I am a linux advocate as you can tell from my postings, but I was stunned when a friend brought his XP box (I know my sig *sigh*) and he had a K6 with 300Mhz that ran XP in a usable matter. But when I checked I saw a fully equipped ramslot wich added up to 512MB. I am confident that he would have had a funtime with something like SuSE 8.2 or Slackware 9 as well.

    72. Re:Memory usage? by Carewolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually that _is_ the Dell philosofy, the default configurations have to little memory to be usefull, and any Dell salesman will tell you so truthfully. They make up for low base prices with overpriced memory-upgrades, since few of their customers have the guts to upgrade the memory themselves, even if it can save them 100-200$

    73. Re:Memory usage? by omicronish · · Score: 1

      This seems to be a problem afflicting many open source projects now. OpenOffice.org is slower and heavier than MS Office. Firefox is slower and heaver than IE (not by a great deal, and it's still a superb browser). GNOME/KDE are slower and heavier than WinXP. I mean, I can run Office, IE and Outlook together SMOOTHLY on a WinXP box with 128M RAM.

      I know people are going to post saying Firefox runs smoothly on such hardware, or that both IE and Firefox have comparable performance, but I happen to have hardware with performance right in the range where there are noticeable differences between the two. For high end machines the difference is only in the startup time, which is understandable considering that the IE web browser component is probably already in memory, but on my siblings' computers the startup time difference is magnified and very noticeable. There's also enough of a performance difference in plain web browsing that I opt for IE whenever using those computers.

      So yeah, don't underestimate the existence of usage of old hardware, and test on such hardware when possible. And above all, do not ignore people who complain about performance, especially if they're normal non-technical users. It doesn't matter if the competition is technically faster; if it feels slow, it is slow to the end user.

    74. Re:Memory usage? by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      Not true. In Windows, as long as you have a computer running on an ATX motherboard (that should be everyone by now, I would hope), hitting the power button causes Windows to initiate its normal shutdown procedure, as if you had selected it from the Start menu.

      Err.. Not on any machine I have ever used. Perhaps that's an option that can be enabled. It's definitly not a standard feature

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    75. Re:Memory usage? by The_Sock · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Speaking of old hardware, I'm in desperate need of an older Maxtor drive. 30GB, 5400 RPM drive (I believe) came out of an older HP. The model is 33073H3.

      See, I have this drive, but a little power surge from a shitty PSU decided to fry the board on it (it was actually kinda neat... the CD burner popped open part way and then smoked when it happened.. it was kinda wild. Every component in PC became very dead.. NIC, MB, drives, everything).

      Now I'm sure the data on the platters is fine, but the board has to be replaced.. And there's some data on there that my gf would really like back (some pics of her little brother who was killed in a car accident last year being the most important).

      The only place I could find the drive online was charging $90 USD.. a little bit pricey, so I figured before going that route, I would see here if anyone has such a beast they would like to donate or sell for relatively cheap. Anyone have this drive sitting in a closet anywhere?

      --
      For a good time call www.sawkie.com
    76. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eye candy? Come on! Really, what is the eye candy difference between gnome 2.6 and gnome 1.0? I still run both and I can safely say gnome 1.0 on a K6-2 destroys 2.6 on my FX-53/gentoo. They look almost the same, except 2.6 takes many times the RAM and is, honestly, a bloated pig, and much harder to configure. (To get rid of metacity I had to kill -9 it and launch sawfish twice because I couldn't stop it from respawning in gnome's configuration tools. And don't ask how I got rid of nautilus by getting a miscompiled version to segfault and get out of my profile. I never need nautilus anyway!)

      Moreover, it shouldn't *take* more RAM/CPU to do transparency and drop shadows and all that stuff. Ideally, it would just be sent to the graphics card. (But that assumes alot from X11...)

      The real problem is purely bad code from Linux's true archenemy: the thousand-cook-spoiling-the-broth syndrome of libraries and dependencies. When I installed gnome on redhat 6.2 there were a number of dependencies, but it pales next to the 132 I had for gnome on gentoo. And *each* dependency gets slower over time because everyone assumes they can allocate more RAM and write ever higher-level C++ code or whatever.

      If everyone in Microsoft assumed he could allocate 1 MB RAM, think how many gigs Windows would require? But there is no such limit when you have independent projects like gtk, gnome, nautilus, metacity, X11, glade, etc. Everyone assumes they can do what they please. Clients/servers here, more RAM there, object-oriented stuff there.

      All of these libraries are ostensibly to avoid "reinventing the wheel" but I'm beginning to see sometimes it's better to reinvent the wheel than to maintain and debug hundreds of them and then force distros/end users to compile and install them. I insist that if gnome's codebase and dependencies were flattened and statically included in one giant codebase they would *have* to trim it down to be maintainable! And that would make it fast again.

    77. Re:Memory usage? by Cereal+Box · · Score: 1

      Well, you know what they say about individual experiences...

      I have four machines, two with XP and one with 2000. All of them allow for the power button to turn off the computer. I would venture to say that it IS a standard feature given that I can reproduce the behavior on multiple machines without ever changing an option that affects the behavior of the power button. Perhaps other people can confirm this, but I'm afraid you're wrong about it not being a standard feature.

      Do you have APM support enabled in your BIOS?

    78. Re:Memory usage? by mike_sucks · · Score: 1

      I think you're blowing stuff right out of proportion.

      First, if you have such a contrained machine (64Mb), you need to accept that it doesn't have the resources to run a bunch of heavyweight applications concurrently. You can still run these apps, but either not at the same time or you need to put up with the swap thrashing.

      Second, right now I'm running all those apps you state and more: OOo, Epiphany (effectively the same as Firefox), Evo, Emacs and a bunch of Gnome terminals. This is on my workstation where I have Apache and a bunch of other developer-oriented daemons running and my memory usage is clocking in at 231Mb physical, 1.1Mb swap. This machine is an aging P3 700 and everything running feels positively snappy.

      Adding up the resident memory sizes of OOo, Epiphany and Evo, I get 142Mb (which admittedly *is* a lot) but on a 128Mb machine shouldn't be too much of a strain. I don't know where you get your "XP + blah is snappy on 128Mb" metric, I've seen XP thrash on such a machine with no apps running at all.

      Lastly, I'd like to make the standard observation that if half of the above was running at ring 0 like it does in Windows, it would probably be a lot snappier and a lot crashier, just like Windows.

      --
      -- "So, what's the deal with Auntie Gerschwitz et all?"
    79. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> "I mean, I can run Office, IE and Outlook together SMOOTHLY on a WinXP box with 128M RAM."

      >No, you cant. Stop spreading FUD. If you have a
      >slow CPU it might be usable if you have at least
      >256MB, but SMOOTHLY is something entirely different.

      Hello McFly! Of *course* you can have IE, Office, and Outlook running smoothly in 128 MB RAM! I had all of that running on Win2K at work for *years* without a hitch, and only the occasional reboot (maybe once a month) when windows found a memory leak. P2/400 with 128 MB RAM was ample for Windows otherwise. Can you say the same about Linux anymore? I sure can't. Not when I do a "free" before and after calling "startx" and see a delta of 90 MB!

    80. Re:Memory usage? by DarkSarin · · Score: 1

      Okay, I'll grant you that, but I think that absent that feature (which now that you mention it is common, even under linux), my statement stands that just flicking the switch is bad.

      I think you would agree that pulling the power cord is bad (and that's the kind of thing i was considering).

      q

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    81. Re:Memory usage? by slycer · · Score: 1

      This is actually typically caused by the "history"..
      If you do a lot of start->run-> \\network\path\here check your $PROFILE\Recent

      The stuff in your start menu\recent documents points here but is not a reflection of everything in the directory, cleaning it from the start menu does no good.

      On other possible cause of this is printers, yes really, if you have a lot of printers mapped, *especially* if one of the servers is slow and/or the server no longer exists, try and unmap the printers and see what happens.

      This particular problem is a very frusturating one for some users, "their" machine slows down, so they login to another one - carrying their profile with them if the network is configured that way - and everything is super slow. Meanwhile, support person comes out, logs in, everything is great..

    82. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > No, you cant. Stop spreading FUD.

      Actually I agree with him. I'm not some sort of Windows fan - I hate it and all my (5) home systems run Linux; one dual boots into XP.

      But Windows _does_ seem to run better on low and midrange hardware. The dual boot system is 128 Mb. It grinds painfully under Linux just running a Firefox, bash window, and Evolution, but runs just fine in XP running Firefox, a bash window, and OE.

      As much as I like Linux, it does seem "heavier" than XP in normal use.

    83. Re:Memory usage? by Bloater · · Score: 1

      I think it is the gnome-libraries (at least GTK+). Resizing in firefox on Linux is fairly jumpy (for page layout updates) and uses max CPU, while resizing in firefox on Windows is smooth as silk. Resizing in epiphany on Linux is *horrible*.

      Epiphany uses GTK for the whole UI and the resizing is no faster when the the html width has reached the value of min-width, firefox on Linux uses GTK for (I think) providing drawables and double buffering - so with less GTK code running for layout of widgets it is faster. firefox on windows is dreamy, but I don't know if it bothers to double buffer there - so it could be partially down to double buffering, but I think the GTK+ toolkit is just plain inefficient.

    84. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XP won't boot with 48MB ram. With Gnome/KDE, turn down all the eye candy, the same you have to do with XP on an older machine, and they'll run just as well.

      There's even little slide bars to do it for you!

    85. Re:Memory usage? by Bloater · · Score: 1

      mostly because it is asyncronous, while most Linux distro's have synchronous bootup.

      Notice how when you start Windows Server 2003, it takes ages for some services to come up, but the log -in screen is there quite quickly.

      And once you've logged in, starting certain programs is very slow as it becomes serialised waiting for the services to start. It is really only the presentation of a log in screen that is done sooner in the sequence on Windows, rather than time to boot being shorter.

      I have seen efforts to create asynchronous init systems for Linux, and it will be interesting to see the results, even if it is not particularly useful.

    86. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only problem I have with Xfce is that, no offense intended to the devs, its file manager is crude and poorly thought out. Xftree 3.x was usable if primitive, but xffm4 is a nightmare. With half a dozen toolbars and obtuse configuration options, it really seems as if it was "tacked on" as an afterthought.

      Rox makes a much better file manager to go with it, but Xfce's and Rox's goals are quite different, and the integration between the two isn't quite seamless.

    87. Re:Memory usage? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      I mean, I can run Office, IE and Outlook together SMOOTHLY on a WinXP box with 128M RAM.

      What's your secret? My office workstation has a gig of ram, and and it's the sluggish laggingest P.O.S. I've ever used. And I even have Luna turned off! The exact same machine dual boots, and I can run OpenOffice, Konqeror and KMail simultaneous and have utterly smooth performance.

      Now before you go telling me my WinXP problems are due to a misconfiguration, let me warn you that I'll merely respond that you've got GNOME, OpenOffice and Firefox similarly misconfigured...

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    88. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, OOo is now a major component of a modern, powerful Linux desktop, so it should be taken into account. And I'm not sure I agree on StarOffice 5.2 -- I used to run that on a 200 MHz 32M box quite happily (took about 20 secs to start). Now, on this 1 GHz 256M box it OOo 1.1 takes about 8 seconds to start, so do the math ;) I don't think the 32M box would handle it. Yeah, OOo 1.1 is better than 1.0, but it's still horribly slow -- moreso than _any_ other app I have!

      Re: WinXP, yes, out of the box it's a pig. But just defaulting to classic theme, turning off system restore, disabling the theming and file-cataloging background processors and it's very fast. Even just about usable in 64M!

    89. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i want wath your smokeing i can barley get xp to runs smothley with 512mb ram on my xp1500+ laptop

    90. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well I am using a laptop with 64mb of ram and gentoo.
      it is pos-it-ively snappy!
      optimizing -O3 helps
      so does using a 2.6.7 kernel

    91. Re:Memory usage? by SuperficialRhyme · · Score: 2, Informative

      Come on. You know Dell is not going to sell a machine that can't run the shipped operating system adequately. Different people have different standards...

      I wouldn't think they would either, but win2k pro was the shipped OS and it *doesn't* run it acceptably. It's not something only I notice. Even her and and her mother comment about how much longer it takes than the machines at the office (which have 256-512 megs of ram). Anyway, I finally got her to pick up 2 128mb sticks of ram (it uses RDRAM, thankfully they were 23$ each since she has to buy matched) so hopefully that will aleviate the problem.

    92. Re:Memory usage? by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      The only problem I have with Xfce is that, no offense intended to the devs, its file manager is crude and poorly thought out. Xftree 3.x was usable if primitive, but xffm4 is a nightmare. With half a dozen toolbars and obtuse configuration options, it really seems as if it was "tacked on" as an afterthought.

      Ahhh, yes, Xfmm. It always seemed to me that they tried to mix the best out of dual-panel file managers and "explorer" ones, but failed to make it intuitve for users of either. To be honest, it's not *that* bad once you get a hang of it, but still, i also think it could be much better.

      Like you said, Rox it's an excellent filemanager if you like the "explorer" style. I preffer dual panels myself, and right now i'm using XNC (http://xnc.dubna.su/), which has it's issues but handles virtual directories for archives flawlessly. I'd switch to GnomeCommander in a heartbeat if they implemented those.

    93. Re:Memory usage? by maeka · · Score: 1

      BS - I'm doing it right now on a P-III 400 w/ 128 megs RAM.
      Runs SMOOTHLY!

    94. Re:Memory usage? by maeka · · Score: 1

      I can run win 2k on a P-133 with 96 megs of ram better than you are describing. I run it everyday on multiple sub 500mhz machines, most of them with 256 megs or less. If a modern machine isn't running Win2k properly - 128 megs of ram or not - there is an issue with the machine.

    95. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Right now the loss-leaders at Dell have 256MB, which is certainly enough to run XP/IE/Office comfortably.

    96. Re:Memory usage? by value_added · · Score: 1

      You think because you can see your desktop XP is finished loading?

    97. Re:Memory usage? by Roguelazer · · Score: 1

      Then you have a magic system, because I can't run Windows XP (without apps) on a 128MB system. I can't run XP with less than a 512MB system, actually. 256MB and it still is using the virtual memory. This is on a stock, factory install on about a dozen Dells and Compaqs. 64MB is below the XP minimum, so that's an impossible conjecture. 128MB is unusable. 256MB works fine in Linux and with a little fiddling works alright in XP. But you really need 512MB to run Windows XP...

      And Firefox is lighter than IE, but it doesn't have the "pre-loaded from startup" advantage.

    98. Re:Memory usage? by steveha · · Score: 1

      Well, OOo is now a major component of a modern, powerful Linux desktop, so it should be taken into account.

      My point is that it does no good to complain to the GNOME developers that OOo is slow. The GNOME developers do not develop OOo.

      Re: WinXP, yes, out of the box it's a pig. But just defaulting to classic theme, turning off system restore, disabling the theming and file-cataloging background processors and it's very fast. Even just about usable in 64M!

      Well, if you run IceWM, and use Rox Filer for your file manager, and run AbiWord and Gnumeric instead of OOo, I'll bet you could be happy in 64M. You would still be "using GNOME" (the libraries anyway) to run your GNOME apps.

      Or you could just buy some more RAM and run full throttle GNOME, which is my choice.

      steveha

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    99. Re:Memory usage? by binary+paladin · · Score: 1

      I remember when I was first trying to get into Linux on the desktop. I had my Win2k machine which had all my newest hardware, my big monitor, my favorite keyboard, etc. It was a Duron 750 with 256M of RAM.

      I had Slackware running Gnome 1.4 on the other machine because I was really interested in Ximian Evolution. I used it for my email but, for the most part, was unimpressed. "This is slow!" Blah, blah, blah...

      It was such an amazing experience when I finally just set up a dual booting system and everything was so much faster and nicer to work with. I brought that up because I was amused reading about your friends putting Linux on older boxes because it reminded me of my frustration that was really dumb on my part.

      I finally "went commando" (the day my machine stopped dual booting) and have been happy with my setup ever since.

      Anyway, these memory debates are usually silly and flawed because apples usually aren't compared to apples.

    100. Re:Memory usage? by Abjifyicious · · Score: 1
      The only problem I have with Xfce is that, no offense intended to the devs, its file manager is crude and poorly thought out.

      I dislike xffm4 as well, but I've found you can replace it quite seamlessly with nautilus if you're willing to tweak some configuration files so that it starts up on login. It used to be a rather weighty file manager, but it's been getting some nice optimizations lately, and with spatial mode it compliments the unbloated philosophy of Xfce quite nicely.

    101. Re:Memory usage? by SuperficialRhyme · · Score: 1

      Is there anything you can think to check? I checked temp - which checked out fine. I disabled all the services I could disable to have it still function. That helped a bit but not a whole lot. I don't know what else to do to get things running better - or what diagnostics to run? It's always using 180 megs of ram - 30 megs are optional programs (her mom has sattelite internet access, and they're required for that). Still that's coming in at 150 megs of ram which seems really heavy to me - but I don't know what else I can turn off to have it use less ram.

    102. Re:Memory usage? by tyrantnine · · Score: 1

      What strikes me as more than a little amusing is post like this, complaining about resource hungry software, gains many head nods when any heavyweight application comes out.

      Yet if you flip over to the replies to whatever language is better than X thread, you will find just as many people (more?) casually claiming suffering a 1.25x slowdown and 15% more memory usage is nothing because computers are ultra fast, memory is cheap, etc.

      The latest and greatest heavyweight feature packed software has always found a way to expand it's needs to meet it's income, so to speak. Writing efficient code, both in terms of speed in memory, is not going out of vogue anytime soon, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise!

    103. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be the chipset. BX motherboards outperformed later ones manufactured for some time if I remember correctly.

      You've probably already done this but install intel's latest chipset (bus mastering) drivers. After installing the inf update I needed to make my board stable (some bug they are quiet about I think) and intel's application accelerator (replaces the bus mastering drivers xp uses by default) and then setting the accoustic management to max performance I noticed a large perceived gain in speed.

      Only other things I can think of is to disable all effects, set to optimize for foreground applications, and maybe not use IE but some other browser. What does task manager say is taking all the ram?

    104. Re:Memory usage? by wolftone · · Score: 1
      "I mean, I can run Office, IE and Outlook together SMOOTHLY on a WinXP box with 128M RAM." No, you cant. Stop spreading FUD.

      FUD? Where's the fear? Uncertainty, perhaps, doubt, well, I doubt it, too, but this is closer to propaganda.

      For that matter, my gf's 600mhz 128M ram computer running Gnome 2.6 with OpenOffice, Mozilla 1.6, with another WM running in the background with Emacs and ghostviewer runs smoothly. Quick and snappy? Well, no. But smoothly. Most of the time.

    105. Re:Memory usage? by Lispy · · Score: 1

      No big deal. I remember running Slackware 7 on my main machine wich was a dualboot box and it c-r-a-w-l-e-d compared to Win2k. I hated it until the day I learned to compile my kernel and I activated the onboard promise-controller. ;-)

    106. Re:Memory usage? by mrm677 · · Score: 1

      Running at 256 colors will save a lot of memory.

    107. Re:Memory usage? by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

      I mean, I can run Office, IE and Outlook together SMOOTHLY on a WinXP box with 128M RAM."

      No, you cant. Stop spreading FUD. If you have a slow CPU it might be usable if you have at least 256MB, but SMOOTHLY is something entirely different.


      People always get amazed when i say this, but i managed to run winxp on my compaq presario 1600, which is a laptop with a k6-333 processor and 64mb of ram. I just disabled the themes and all the eye candy and services, and could run outlook xp, IE and word at the same, with "decent" performance.

      The only thing i couldn't do is trying to use mozilla. Mozilla chews on ram like it was candy, and i even tried firefox (phoenix at the time) and it still swapped everything.

      When i used linux in the same laptop, i had to use vector linux with icevm, and the old but fast netscape 4.x browser. For email i had to use sylpheed

    108. Re:Memory usage? by mrm677 · · Score: 1

      Because I have friends who work at Microsoft.

      Even if you look at Carmack's open-source Quake2 engine, certain routines are hand-coded in assembly to get tweaked performance.

    109. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, those apps run just fine here on nearly the same specs on XP. :S, watch the FUD there, Tux-fan.

    110. Re:Memory usage? by chefren · · Score: 1

      FUD? How the hell are positive comments FUD?

    111. Re:Memory usage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OpenOffice.org is slower and heavier than MS Office.

      If you want something faster and lighter, it's not hard to find. Abiword and Gnumeric -- the word processor and spreadsheet of Gnome Office -- are typically just as easy to install on any distro.

      On my (4 year old) system Openoffice Writer takes about 22 seconds to start up. Abiword takes about 4 seconds to start up. Guess which I'd recommend to people on slow systems.

      Sure, you can always find Linux programs that are slower than similar Windows programs. The trick is to find Linux programs that are *faster* than similar Windows programs.

  9. Re:GJ by moonbender · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I don't get it. I'm not a native speaker, maybe that's why. Care to explain?

    --
    Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
  10. hope they finally got rid of some annoyances ... by drmancini · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... like:

    - gui option to switch off spatial nautilus
    - improved gdm which doesn't cause random system hangs on logout (with a dual display GeForce setup)
    - faster nautilus
    - fixed constantly non-functional (without necessary tweaking) file preview (audio and video)
    - more keyboard mapping options (I mean only having a gui option to toggle Alt click or Ctrl click to move windows sucks ... even an option to turn it off would help)

    ... i know that you can cope with most of these with enough forum hunting, GConf editing and XML hacking ... I did ... but come on gnome, you're soon gonna be 3.x ... these things should work out-of-the-box

    and I hope the new MIME implementation will finally be usable ...

    all in all ... can't wait to get home and ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" emerge gnome ... ebuild anyone? :-P

    --

    Never underestimate the power of idiots in large groups
  11. why do you use gnome? by techefnet · · Score: 0, Redundant

    i should try gnome sometimes. i have always stuck to KDE, but now i want to switch windowmanager. thats why im asking, why do you use gnome?

    1. Re:why do you use gnome? by Seli · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you really want to switch just a window manager, and aren't confusing window managers and desktops, you can do that in KDE too.

    2. Re:why do you use gnome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Personally, I used Gnome because the interface was clean and fairly simple. With the 2.8 release, a few of my major concerns have been addressed. Namely, the ability to automatically mount USB and other removable devices, improved file browser/mime support, and so forth (here's a link to the particular page of release notes of interest to me.) The auto-mount removable storage devices feature is more important to my girlfriend than to me.

      I never really got into KDE too much because it seemed too cluttered. Granted, it can be reconfigured to remove the clutter, but my first impression with it has been a lasting one.

      Unfortunately, for gnome anyway, my desire for unclutter has brought me back to fluxbox, but I will still pick up gnome 2.8, if nothing else, just so I can support any of my gf's questions.

    3. Re:why do you use gnome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't bother. If you know what KDE is really capable of, beneath the sometimes toyish looks, you'll shudder when you see how undeveloped gnome is :/ I actually prefer gnome in principle, but in terms of usability, it sucks by comparison :/

      Having said that... as soon as one bothers to implement ACLs and EAs, I'll switch straight away. I mean... come on, it's been years now. What's going on??

    4. Re:why do you use gnome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One reason I've begun using Gnome exclusively in the past year and a half (from Windows) is the six month release cycle. The periodic cycle has been responsible in striking a really nice balance between consistent, stable releases and new features. BTW, I wish more Open Source projects would adopt periodic releases. Imagine if most projects adopted a Spring and Fall release mentality. For end users, it would be like Christmas twice a year with everything from the Kernel to KDE and Gnome and all of the applications released new versions within weeks of each other. Hey, I can dream can't I? ;-)

      Another reason for me using Gnome was the adoption of the Human Interface Guide. While I may or may not agree with every chapter and verse of the document, the fact that it exists at all has improved and standardized the apperance of many different Gnome and GTK applications that I use daily (e.g., Inkscape, Gnumeric, Gaim, Evolution). A single standard for consistent interfaces has been the savior of Gnome IMO.

      More specifically, with the release of 2.8 (for me, via FC3), I'm hoping to finally plug in USB devices and reliably be able to unplug them. At that point, the only significant gap in my desktop experience will be reliably playing multimedia. Again, with the periodic release cycle, I can look forward to Gnome's first official stabs at multimedia by next Spring in Gnome 2.10.

      HTH,
      Jonathan

    5. Re:why do you use gnome? by debian4life · · Score: 1

      I personally switched because I found that most of the apps I liked were GTK based apps. But I had always gone against GNOME because I liked KDE better just because it is more configurable.

      But I always thought that all of those GTK apps looked like crap and did not integrate as well as I wanted them too.

      So I switched to GNOME and really like it now. Everything is more easily integrated and looks better for things like PAN, GAIM, Evolution, the new RealPlayer, etc.

      If it were just the desktop, I like KDE better. But I prefer the Gnome apps.

      That is my take.

    6. Re:why do you use gnome? by ChaoticCoyote · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I use both KDE and Gnome (and XFCE from time to time on older boxes). As a developer, I need to see how my programs will operate on both environments, hence my schizophrenic selection of desktop environments.

      Gnome applications work and look just fine under KDE; I use Gnumeric as my spreadsheet, but Kword as my word processor. Since the programs run the same way under both desktops, my preference is largely determined by the set-up of the graphical environment. Gnome feels simpler and less "flashy" -- but on higher-end hardware, I like having my KDE eye candy. After all, why have a powerful machine if you don't use it's capabilities?

      I recommend Gnome to general users (my wife), while I run KDE most of the time. Like many matters in life, the choice of desktop environment is very personal, and should be base don what works best for you, and not on emotional rants by zealots.

    7. Re:why do you use gnome? by elFarto+the+2nd · · Score: 1

      The auto-mount removable storage devices feature is more important to my girlfriend than to me.

      Your just asking for jokes aren't you?

      Regards
      elFarto
    8. Re:why do you use gnome? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > If it were just the desktop, I like KDE better. But I prefer the Gnome apps.

      I prefer some Gnome apps (most notably, gnome-terminal and Gimp), some KDE
      apps (e.g., the calculator -- the Gnome calculator sucks), some independent
      apps (Emacs/Gnus, Mozilla, OpenOffice, Inkscape).

      As far as the actual desktops, the last time I tried KDE it *still* didn't
      have panel drawers, which makes it unusable for me. Actually, for the panels,
      Gnome 1.4 is still the best and most configurable.

      For the window manager, I use sawfish. Metacity is even less configurable
      than the Microsoft window management stuff, if that's possible.

      The worst thing about Gnome, though, is that it virtually insists on running
      Nautilus 24/7. You kill it, and it comes back. You killall -9 it, and it
      comes back. It took me nearly an hour to figure out how to remove Nautilus
      from my Gnome session. (By the end, my family could hear me muttering, "Die,
      already, die, Nautilus, die, die, die".) The worst part about this is,
      Nautilus serves no useful purpose, other than to set the desktop background
      color and/or wallpaper once at the beginning of the session (which is largely
      irrelevant for me, since I almost never *see* the desktop, burried as it
      always is behind umpteen windows that I never bother to minimize (much less
      close)). I suppose some people use Nautilus for copying and moving files,
      but I've done my file management from the commandline since DOS 3.3, because
      it was faster and more flexible (think wildcards) than drag-and-drop file
      management and the tab completion in *nix shells makes that even *more*
      efficient, to say nothing of what you can do with a little Perl one-liner.
      Stuff that would take *hours* with Nautilus or the equivalent can be done
      in seconds.

      Add to this that Nautilus is a system-resource hog. I'm not normally very
      critical of resource consumption. I run OpenOffice and six Mozilla windows
      (each with 20-30 tabs), several Emacsen, half a dozen terminals... leave
      MySQL and Apache running in the background all the time on my desktop even
      though I go days without using them, because it's handy to have them there
      when I want to test something... I have a lot of RAM and don't mind using
      it, because that's what it's there for. But Nautilus uses *way* more of
      the system's resources than is anywhere near reasonable for an app that
      doesn't actually *do* much. Performance is MUCH better with it removed from
      my session.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  12. Must be a bug by 3terrabyte · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wish they'd test their releases first!
    I'm having trouble installing it. XP keeps telling me it doesn't know what to do with a .tar file.

    --

    Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    1. Re:Must be a bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gnome is for Linux only, not Windows. Try installing Fedora instead of XP.

    2. Re:Must be a bug by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1

      Yea, I've had a hard time installing Linux on XP too! I had hoped SP2 would have fixed it, but that actually just caused more problems.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    3. Re:Must be a bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I double-clicked on thr Fedora ISO, but XP doesn't know how to open it!

    4. Re:Must be a bug by aurb · · Score: 1

      Well, actually it is not for "Linux only". GNOME runs on any unix-like system with X.

    5. Re:Must be a bug by Stevyn · · Score: 1

      I think you have to copy the CD off the internet and download it to your RAM (or ROM). Make sure you have enough memory on your hard disc.

      I was thinking about installing linux 10.0 on my computer, but I'm not sure it's compatible with dells. I think I need an IBM/PC.

    6. Re:Must be a bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to install Cygwin first.

    7. Re:Must be a bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Friend of mine told me I need to replace a chip in my computer first to make it work. Now I've had this 'puter for quite a while so if that chip's anything like Pringles, it must be kind of stale. I can see a Gnome not wanting it.

    8. Re:Must be a bug by MP3Chuck · · Score: 1

      I know this was probably in jest, but what would it take to have KDE/Gnome ported to a Windows shell replacelemt? Or is something like that even possible?

    9. Re:Must be a bug by WWWWolf · · Score: 1

      I don't think it can replace the whole Windows shell (at least without a severe feel of a bubblegum hack). Unless, of course, Cygwin has had some great breakthroughs in terms of X packaging over the last 6 months or something =)

      Yet, I think that with proper persuasion and tons of hackery and magic with Cygwin (or even with less of that), it could be possible to run (at least some) GNOME applications in Windows. You still need X though.

      It might even be theoretically possible to compile the code as native win32 GUI apps - I know GTK+ 2.x has been ported. I'm not so sure about the GNOME libraries.

    10. Re:Must be a bug by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1

      A shame this posted at a negative 1...
      Very nice.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    11. Re:Must be a bug by krewemaynard · · Score: 1

      I'm having trouble installing it. XP keeps telling me it doesn't know what to do with a .tar file.

      try 'fdisk c:\' first...that should clear the way

      --
      I saw it on Slashdot, it must be true!
    12. Re:Must be a bug by russint · · Score: 1
      --
      ^^
  13. Re:BSD? by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

    Because people feel that they should always have to make a point and try to be clever.

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
  14. Here is some info, too by yakobusan · · Score: 3, Informative

    GNOME 2.8 Desktop and Developer Platform Unveiled

    Just click here: http://www.mysan.de/article19429.html

    Greetings, Jakob

    --
    yakobusan
  15. Re:GJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Good written" is grammatically incorrect. It should be "well written".

    That's some good writin's you have dere.

  16. Re:hope they finally got rid of some annoyances .. by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Informative
    - gui option to switch off spatial nautilus

    Yes

    - improved gdm which doesn't cause random system hangs on logout (with a dual display GeForce setup)

    Never heard of that before. Check bugzilla

    - faster nautilus

    If you use spatial nautilus it's extremely fast. If you don't, then it's not so fast. Pick your poison.

    - fixed constantly non-functional (without necessary tweaking) file preview (audio and video)

    It always worked for me out of the box on Fedora, though you may have to enable it in the preferences for remote mounts.

  17. Inofficial Mandrakelinux packages by G�tz · · Score: 4, Informative

    GNOME2.8 came too late for Mandrakelinux 10.1 (just as KDE 3.3), that's why I've created my own packages. You can get them from a urpmi repository. Remember to add the Mandrake Cooker (soon to become 10.1) and Contrib repositories as well for some of the dependancies.

    1. Re:Inofficial Mandrakelinux packages by ReinoutS · · Score: 1

      I've already urpmi'd them -- thanks a lot! Nautilus 2.8.0 solves the only crasher bug that was left for me (when closing a list view window).

    2. Re:Inofficial Mandrakelinux packages by Mad_Rain · · Score: 1

      Inofficial packages? That's Unpossible! ;)

      (I will be downloading them shortly, thanks)

      --
      "What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
    3. Re:Inofficial Mandrakelinux packages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks mate,
      I'll buy you beer :-)

      The 2.6 rpms were great too!

      Cheers
      --
      Vic

  18. Re:GJ by menkhaura · · Score: 1

    Doesn't "good" here refers to "material"? As in "good material that is written"? INANES (I'm not a native English speaker), though.

    --
    Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
    Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
  19. Re:GJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Good" applies to nouns. "Good written material" means "written material where the material good". If the writing was good, you'd say "well written material" (i.e. material that was written well.)

  20. Re:GJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Good written material" is grammatically correct, actually; it simply has a different meaning from what's probably intended. It means the material is good, and the material is written.

  21. Re:GJ by sethadam1 · · Score: 1

    I don't get it. I'm not a native speaker, maybe that's why. Care to explain?

    a collection of good [written material] is okay.

    but a collection of [good written] material is not only gramatically incorrect, it's also ironic, since anyone who would call something "good written" obviously didn't know that the proper phrase would be "well written."

  22. Re:hope they finally got rid of some annoyances .. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I personally have experienced the problems with gdm. I would have to ssh into the machine and manually kill gdm and restart it before it would work again. And, I was not using a geforce, dual or no. I don't think it was an nvidia-related problem...

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  23. Too slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm a GNOME user at heart, but I've found modern versions of GNOME way too slow on my Duron 900. GNOME 1.4 was lightning fast, and 2.0 and 2.2 were reasonably fast. 2.4, 2.6, and 2.8 seem to have regressions in speed.

    PLEASE focus on speed rather than new features. Comparable modern desktops like Windows XP and KDE 3.3 are very fast on this box. I'm running xfce4, which isn't really comparable to GNOME in features, but is very fast, so I use it.

    1. Re:Too slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You must be doing something very wrong if 2.8 seems slower than 2.2 and 2.0. It was _horrible_ at the time. Right now it's almost back to 1.4 speeds. Ok maybe not really but definitly feels faster than 2.0.

    2. Re:Too slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't say that you haven't experienced this, but I think most people (myself included) perceive no regressions in speed from GNOME 2.2 -> 2.8. If anything, I think it got a bit faster (on the same hardware).

      Maybe there's an issue with your distribution's upgrade policy?

      In any case, you might want to try removing the gnome system directories to get everything back to defaults:

      rm -rf ~/.gnome* ~/.nautilus ~/.metacity ~/.gconf*

      Note, this will reset your settings back to their default state.

    3. Re:Too slow by Roguelazer · · Score: 1

      Actually, everything's been faster than 1.4. 2.0 might not have been a great release, but it was much speedier (except for Nautilus, which didn't get fast until 2.6). Anyhow, I've been using all the 2.7.x release and it's mighty fast on my TBird 950.

    4. Re:Too slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is that that everyone doesn't use windowmaker, again?

  24. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  25. time base release by mr.+marbles · · Score: 1

    It seems time based releases aren't always a bad thing, the Gnome project has not really missed a projected date by a long range. But is the con to all this that time based releases make only incremental improvements possible and major overhauls impossible? Now that I say it out loud it actually sounds like a good thing that major changes are impossible, or we would end up with a 3-4 year rewrite like mozilla was.

    What are the pros and cons?

    1. Re:time base release by squisher · · Score: 1

      The development of Mozilla is really not a good comparison. You need to keep in mind that Netscape opened up a closed source code that had only been developed in one company so far. And also that it was technically a lot behind what IE had to offer at the time. So the overhaul of course took longer because there was a lot more catch up work to be done.
      I don't know at all how the development process works at Gnome but short releases don't have to stop major overhauls because you can work off different code bases. Let's say, they might be working already on the overhaul for 3.0 parallel to 2.10 . So short release cycles don't say anything about the underlying development process.

      ~Squisher

    2. Re:time base release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But time-based releases also allow better longer term planning. If the long-term plan is to bring in features like dbus and cairo, developers can start working on that now - maybe their work will go into the next release, maybe not. And with a well designed architecture, you'd be surprised at how much you can change without major impact.

      If you're thinking of major API-breaking changes, that's a bit different, but that's something to avoid where possible anyway. The preference, where possible, is to bring in new APIs in parallel, and deprecate and remove the older ones once people have switched. E.g if they start using DBUS for IPC, new code can use it directly, while the older APIs can be modified to use it internally so as not to break existing code.

  26. ARRRRGGGGHHHHHH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I knew it, crap like this will always, inevitably be modded insightful by the /. ubermodder crowd, of course ignoring that parent's whole rant is simply trolling as linux and windows handle memory very differently.

    And yes, we all know how much fun it is to run Office, IE and Outlook together on a 128M box running WinXP. Smooth is really the word coming to mind there.

    And IE being lighter then firefox. Sure and don't forget that Firefox is allready integrated in the OS whereas IE is a seperat app, oh wait...

    So congrats mod for modding parent insightful.

    Impressed as always,
    AC

    1. Re:ARRRRGGGGHHHHHH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't give a sh*t if Linux & Windows handle memory differently. Its very very hard to convince people that an OS is superior if they percieve it as sluggish and quirky. Try selling an older iMac with OsX on it: same thing....superior OS, crappy performance....

    2. Re:ARRRRGGGGHHHHHH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh, if you still don't get it, the rant about memory usage is totally pointless, as the amount of ram used is in no way in indicator of how sluggish or fast the system will feel. On the contrary, the more ram is used the better, as applications are cashed and when they are started will be there instantaniously. So the rant of the original poster is simply uninformed and pointless.

      He is simply trolling, as is evident if you care to look at the other points he makes. All of them are at least seriously uninformed and flawed.

  27. Re:GJ by moonbender · · Score: 1

    Ah, I see. Ha ha. ;) Thanks for clearing that up.

    --
    Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
  28. My Foto's Manual of Style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I noticed a common grammatical error on this screenshot --- assuming whatever language this is has the same conventions as English for plurals and the possessive case. Did GNOME create this "My Foto's" directory by default, and does it have the apostrophe in all localizations?
    BTW, it looks beautiful.

    1. Re:My Foto's Manual of Style by AVee · · Score: 1

      The screenshot is in dutch. Foto's is the only correct spelling here.

    2. Re:My Foto's Manual of Style by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      even with the apostrophe?
      Windows and nibbles on the same screenshot don't have apostrophes - but then again, they're English words....

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
  29. Memory usage?-Dinosaur's complain. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Right now it's _terrible_ - just as bad as Windows XP. And if we want to convert Windows users over to Linux, we need to provide incentives."

    And XP has what percentage of the market? Talk about a backhanded compliment. "Try Linux, it's as good as XP."

  30. Re:hope they finally got rid of some annoyances .. by BenjyD · · Score: 1

    I've had plenty of freezes with GDM on logging out - mostly fixable with a ctrl-alt-backspace, but it means session saving rarely works.

  31. Q: sandbox playtime? by 4of12 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can I use garnome to automagically build, install and test drive this latest Gnome without impacting my default installation or corrupting my ~/.g* files? As a non-root user, too?

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
    1. Re:Q: sandbox playtime? by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      OK, just jumped into an almost gentoo-scale buildasm after getting garnome 2.8.0.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
  32. Re:GJ by sethadam1 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but most of the asshats here wouldn't get that.

    After all, this is teh ./, home of 1337 haXX0rz who can bearly spel.

  33. Re:Dual booting is from hell by hexxeh · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    not yet - "soon" is the official release, at the moment, for doom3 under linux.

    hope you have an nvidia card...

    oh, and go into your bios & force it to use LBA to access your hard disks rather than Auto, that should fix grub dual-boot problems with windows.

  34. FC3 Test 2 may include this by jaylee7877 · · Score: 1

    There's talk on the Fedora-devel list of getting Gnome 2.8 final into the already slightly delayed FC3 T2... Here's to hoping....

  35. Installed programs? by DogDude · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm not sure if Gnome handles this or not, but I was curious if the newest Gnome handles shortcuts properly. In the latest incarnations of Mandrake and SUSE, when you install a program, it simply disappears, with no shortcut anywhere to be found to the newly installed program, making both distributions that I tried completely useless in my opinion. Hell, even when I installed Firefox (what I thought was one of the better known, better made open source apps), I couldn't start the goddamned program after I installed it! But then again, this could be a distribution-level problem that Gnome doesn't have anything to do with... I have no idea.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Installed programs? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2, Informative
      Well, that problem is a combination of things. Firstly if you used the official Firefox installer, then this offers no integration into the host system at all. None. Not even menu items.

      If you install packages from your distro then you will *probably* get menu items. This is assuming that there is an up-to-date and correct package for your distro of course. If you install software from source, you may need to set the prefix to be /usr to get menu items, or change the configuration of your system (if you do it's a bug in the distro but a very common one).

      It's not really a GNOME issue. It's a generic Linux issue, which will take some years to solve correctly I'm afraid ...

    2. Re:Installed programs? by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Well, that problem is a combination of things. Firstly if you used the official Firefox installer, then this offers no integration into the host system at all. None. Not even menu items.

      That seems like a pretty serious problem. I'm not a novice computer user, so I did a search for say, "Firefox", and couldn't even find an executable to click on! From a user standpoint, I don't really care whose fault it is, I just want it to work. I was hoping that a new version of Gnome would fix this...

      If you install packages from your distro then you will *probably* get menu items.

      I noticed that in one of the two (I don't remember), if I installed the app from the distribution's CD, then it would occasionally work. But then you're dealing with outdated software, which is obviously no good.

      Whatever the problem is, it'd seem like "installing programs and running them" would be a fairly basic aspect of OS development in 2004, and I was surprised as hell to see that it didn't work. Nasty problem, definitely. Sounds like I'm just gonna have to wait a few more years before trying various flavors of Linux again. Bummer.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    3. Re:Installed programs? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yes, it is a nasty problem. I won't go into the gory details but the core of the problem is this.

      A basic unit of currency in the Linux world is the distribution, as you have discovered. A distribution is essentially just a collection of packages which are, in turn, just compiled versions of (mostly) upstream sources. The thing that makes a distro what it is are the customizations made to the package sources and occasionally packages unique to the distro. All the big distros (ie the ones that matter) are fully open source though so technology which shows up in one pretty quickly migrates upstream somewhere, and then back down again to the other distributions.

      That leaves the customizations made, and what exact packages are included by default. This is where problems start to appear.

      The traditional solution taken to things that don't really fit into any obvious upstream project is for each distribution to roll their own code. In the past this has happened with menus, hardware detection/pluggability, GUI configuration tools, bootup scripts, and installers. There are others I probably forgot.

      In the case of menus, KDE and GNOME used different systems so distributions, not wanting to do a million different files in each package for each individual desktop and window manager each came up with their own solution. Debian has some custom system that Mandrake then adopted as well, SuSE only really supported KDE anyway, Red Hat 8 introduced this thing called "vFolders" which was an aborted attempt at a desktop-neutral standard and was one of the first things specced out at freedesktop.org. Later vFolders was shown to have serious problems and was abandoned but not before being integrated upstream into GNOME (but not KDE!). Red Hat abandoned vFolders in Fedora Core 2 but upstream GNOME did not do the same. So now we're still at this point where while everybody has agreed on a standard, it's not actually implemented uniformly at all.

      D'oh. What a mess. This sort of thing has been repeated over and over, whenever something didn't really fit into any upstream project. As time goes by more and more is being sucked upstream into projects like freedesktop.org ... hardware detection is now being handled by HAL (though there is some internal resistance from SuSE who have a .... surprise .... custom solution called suseplugger), network config scripts are destined for replacement by NetworkManager if Red Hat have their way, etc etc.

      So ... the random hacks different distros use to tie these disparate pieces of code together are gradually disappearing. This is good. It does, however, leave the second problem:

      What packages are included? This is a bigger issue than you may think. There really is no such thing as the "Linux platform". There are small, mostly stable subsets like GNOME and KDE but this is the exception rather than the norm. Specialised libraries like pcre, OpenSSL, libpng and so on which aren't affiliated with any central project policies tend to break backwards compatibility all the time - often it could have been avoided. Each time this happens, you need a new parallel installable package that other packages can depend upon.

      Typically, distributions are recompiled entirely on each new revision. So let's say that libfoo breaks backwards compatibility. The new version is included in the new distribution version, all the packages are recompiled or patched to use it, and now the old version isn't included any more.

      This has the unfortunate side effect that you cannot make any assumptions about what features are available on any given Linux system beyond some really basic base libraries like libc, Xlibs etc.

      Worse, even projects like GNOME and GTK+ often refuse to avoid breaking applications if they deem them "buggy" or "broken", which tends to have a very wide definition. So, the net result

    4. Re:Installed programs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to be using Debian.

    5. Re:Installed programs? by lorien420 · · Score: 1

      What's happening here is that the unofficial packages don't support the menu format that your distrobution is using. You install these new unofficial packages, and, when that happens, the old packages are removed. The old official packages contained the menu links, and the new unofficial packages don't. If you want to not have to manage the menu items yourself, then you need to only install Mandrake or SuSE packages.

      --
      "[We'll be] really getting inside your head and making it an unpleasant place to be" -- Trent Reznor
    6. Re:Installed programs? by fred3666 · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure if Gnome handles this or not, but I was curious if the newest Gnome handles shortcuts properly. In the latest incarnations of Mandrake and SUSE, when you install a program, it simply disappears

      Yes, that's a distro thing. If you install Firefox through the installer you get nothing. I gather that the Firefox installer is not smart enough to figure out what your default desktop environment is.

      What I can tell you, however, is that Debian's apt-get does an excellent job of creating menus for all applications that you install via apt-get. Sometimes the applications appear in the 'normal' Gnome menus but they seem to always appear under the Debian submenu (in KDE, Gnome, Fluxbox, whatever). It won't build icons for XFce, however.
    7. Re:Installed programs? by DogDude · · Score: 1

      What I can tell you, however, is that Debian's apt-get does an excellent job of creating menus for all applications that you install via apt-get. Sometimes the applications appear in the 'normal' Gnome menus but they seem to always appear under the Debian submenu (in KDE, Gnome, Fluxbox, whatever).

      So then, even in Debian, you have to do an "apt-get" via the command line? You can't just go to a web site, download software, and install it? You have to type in "apt-get", then whatever the code for the program you're trying to install?

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    8. Re:Installed programs? by fred3666 · · Score: 1
      So then, even in Debian, you have to do an "apt-get" via the command line? You can't just go to a web site, download software, and install it? You have to type in "apt-get", then whatever the code for the program you're trying to install?
      Well no, I don't have the patience to open a shell and type apt-get -t unstable packname. That's why a like Synaptic Package Manager. I can search for packages, install packages, upgrade packages, downgrade packages, remove packages and all the good stuff with the click of a mouse. It's kind of like Windows Update on steroids. Although invoking the name of a Microsoft product will probably leave a bad taste in your mouth. Sorry.
    9. Re:Installed programs? by DogDude · · Score: 1

      No, Windows Update is great. I've got it running on all of our machines here in my business. I saw that I think (Mandrake?) has something similar. I was just looking for an easy way to install stuff, not necessarily do updates. So then this "Synaptic Package Manager"... does it come with Debian, or is it something else I have to install. And if I have to install it, how do I install it and still be able to run it again (back to the same problem)?

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    10. Re:Installed programs? by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I feel your pain. I run gentoo, and it doesn't properly create menu shortcuts for new applications either. I usually have to create launchers manually, then stick them in the menu.

      For what it's worth, most user applications get a binary put into /usr/bin or /usr/sbin. You can usually create a launcher to the executable in those directories. Like the other responders, this is really just sloppy coding of the package creators. If it's a distro that has strict rules (Debian), you probably won't have a problem. If it is a distro like Gentoo, and you're installing ~x86 stuff, it's more than likely that you'll have to do some stuff on your own.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    11. Re:Installed programs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      huh? You should file a bug in gentoo's bugzilla then. Pretty much all the graphical programs I install with gentoo create GNOME menu entries.

      Of course command line applications don't, but I think that makes sense...

    12. Re:Installed programs? by kidgenius · · Score: 1
      With debian, you will need to use a command line to at least get everything running. You will have to do an "apt-get gnome" initially, as well as an "apt-get synaptic". After that, you can use synaptic, but you will need to use a CLI at least in the beginning stages. It's really not hard, but nowhere as simple as say, Fedora, where the install does everything for you, and even sets up Gnome or KDE by default.

      Note: I'm just using my own personal experience w/ Debian as of a year ago, and so things may have changed a little.

    13. Re:Installed programs? by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      All you're arguing for is a borg-like compliance among distributions simply to make your own life easier - or perhaps just because the idea of fifty different distributions with fifty different solutions to problems assaults your insistence that everything be neatly confined to clear definable boxes. And that all the boxes be compatible.

      If you want this sort of compatibility, use Windows. Incompatibilities, competing systems, even flamewars - they all encourage competition and innovation. This is a good thing. It may not be something that Joe User wants to deal with it, but *we're under no obligation to provide for Joe User*. Joe User can go get a copy of WinXP if he isn't up to doing a little thinking.

      I'm not one of those freakoid zealots whose sole goal in life is to commander Linux to destroy the Evil Empire. *I don't care* if Linux has 5% of the market share or 50% of the market share; either way 95% of the people who work on Linux will continue to plug away, and the product I choose will get better and better. And it will do so BECAUSE of competition and incompatibilities and flamewars, and not because of a lack of these things.

      For doubleplusgood groupthink there's Microsoft. For those who like variety in all of its forms, there's Linux.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    14. Re:Installed programs? by fred3666 · · Score: 1
      So then this "Synaptic Package Manager"... does it come with Debian, or is it something else I have to install. And if I have to install it, how do I install it and still be able to run it again (back to the same problem)?
      You will probably need to install Synaptic via another package manager like kpackage or through the command line in Debian:
      apt-get -t unstable synaptic

      Once that is complete then you can install whatever packages you like through the Synaptic GUI interface. Yes, you can use Synaptic with other distros but only apt-get has 14,000 packages.

      If you are a home user then I suggest you configure Synaptic to use the unstable binaries as that is the fastest way to get Gnome 2.8

      For those that require more stabilty but somewhat new applications then they can set Synaptic to default to the testing binaries.

      For those that are ultra conservative and don't mind running Gnome 2.2 or something they can use the stable binaries.
    15. Re:Installed programs? by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about the unstable packages, not the stable ones. If your unstable packages create menu items, that's great. The ones I've installed haven't. Most notably MonoDevelop and newer versions of Eclipse.

      In fact, Gentoo's stable mono package is still stuck around 0.28, when mono has already had a 1.0 release.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    16. Re:Installed programs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Later vFolders was shown to have serious problems and was abandoned but not before being integrated upstream into GNOME (but not KDE!). Red Hat abandoned vFolders in Fedora Core 2 but upstream GNOME did not do the same. So now we're still at this point where while everybody has agreed on a standard, it's not actually implemented uniformly at all.

      Correction - both Gnome (as of either 2.4 or 2.6) and KDE are currently following the freedesktop.org spec. Although there are some disagreements as to things like naming conventions for menu items.

    17. Re:Installed programs? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      Sorry dude. Things that are different merely through being apart don't encourage competition, they encourage lockin. That's why we have standards in the first place. Taking your attitude we shouldn't have any web standards because that would mean "borg-like compliance between web sites" and "if you want consistency you should use AOL". The world decided that was a bad approach a long time ago.

      By the way, putting trite slogans at the end of a post doesn't make it any more valid or insightful.

    18. Re:Installed programs? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      No, GNOME in Fedora Core 2 is, upstream is still stuck on the old vFolders spec.

  36. hope they finally got rid of [MY] annoyances .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "... i know that you can cope with most of these with enough forum hunting, GConf editing and XML hacking ... I did ... but come on gnome, you're soon gonna be 3.x ... these things should work out-of-the-box "

    And who's "box" is going to be the metric? Slackware, Mandrake, Gentoo, S.U.S.E? Yours, mine, the guy across the street. Everyone wants to bitch when things don't conform to the way they feel it should be. Gee you'd think this was proprietary land instead of OSS.

  37. Re:Thats nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GNOME is the default desktop on one major distro: RedHat.

  38. Right on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yup, OS X hands down is the best *nix desktop.

  39. Re:hope they finally got rid of some annoyances .. by Seehund · · Score: 1

    For me it's not "random", in contrast to what drmancini describes.

    After having done a su, stopped any daemon with "service SERVICENAME stop", and ctrl-D'd back to my account, then the desktop will mysteriously freeze if I choose Log Off (or whatever it is in the English locale) from the GNOME menu.

    It works when I first choose Log Off from the menu, but hit Cancel instead, and then stop the daemon and choose Log Off again.

    This doesn't seem to be dependent on what daemon I'm stopping, nor on how long time it's been between me stopping a service and trying to log off.

    --
    Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market
  40. It's OK by n0dez · · Score: 1

    Well, you can install and run GNOME on most Linux distroes and *BSD flavors...

  41. Re:Dual booting is from hell by FictionPimp · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What problems are you having? It could be distro related. I have no problems using grub to boot windows or linux. Most distros even take care of setting that up for you. I Have 200gig drive with a 30 gig windows partition (for those games that wont run in winex yet). You just have to make sure the windows partition is the first partition on the drive.

    My drives are usuually setup as Windows, swap, root, home. I started using fat32 for the windows partition because i found ntfs to be a bit of a pain to use from linux. (mainly write support). Other then that, I've noticed no problems.

  42. Re:Thats nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only confirmation I need is the fact that this was posted to the *BSD section. BSD^H^H^HGNOME is dying! It must be, because Netcraft says so.

  43. Re:hope they finally got rid of some annoyances .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gdm-2.6.0.0-3, fully updated Fedora Core 2, BTW.


    Slow Down Cowboy!

    Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

    It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment

    Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.

  44. because by paranode · · Score: 0, Troll

    it finally has some new features that kde has had for several revisions, so that makes it worth checking out i guess.

    1. Re:because by nempo · · Score: 1

      What feature are you referring to ?

      --
      --- No, english is not my mother tongue.
  45. Re:Thats nice by abigor · · Score: 2, Informative

    According to Distrowatch, here are the top-ranked distributions. I've added in their default desktops. "Either" means there is no clear preference.

    Your assertion that Gnome is the "default desktop on every major distro" is clearly incorrect.

    1. Mandrakelinux - KDE

    2. Fedora - Gnome

    3. Knoppix - KDE

    4. SUSE - KDE

    5. Debian - either

    6. Slackware - either

    7. Gentoo - either

    8. MEPIS - KDE

    9. PCLinuxOS - KDE

    10. Damn Small - Fluxbox

  46. Re:Thats nice by AntiOrganic · · Score: 1

    Novell has expressed extreme interest in making Ximian Desktop the default desktop environment in their "unified desktop platform." Whether this will affect SuSE or become a separate Novell Linux distribution remains to be seen, but GNOME's hardly stagnant in this regard.

  47. 'Recycle Computers - Install Linux' by maddog2o_2o · · Score: 1
    "I mean, I can run Office, IE and Outlook together SMOOTHLY on a WinXP box with 128M RAM."

    No, you cant. Stop spreading FUD. If you have a slow CPU it might be usable if you have at least 256MB, but SMOOTHLY is something entirely different.

    Hell, that combo runs just fine on my friends machine too. So don't be such a jackass and allow people to have their own opinions ok? Win XP and 2000 both run fine on this machine, but Mandrake is draggy as hell. I've been half-looking for a 'Recycle Computers - Install Linux' distro for a bit now ... but I think Linux's years of being something you could turn to to get more service out of an old box might be over. Now, this is where one of you guys helps me out by telling me I'm wrong and there *is* such a distro out there and I should've just Googled for it :-P

    Kevin

    1. Re:'Recycle Computers - Install Linux' by ravingsanity · · Score: 1

      I tried out Mandrake and I found it to be rather slow even on a 2.4 GHz P4. Having gone to Mandrake straight from FreeBSD, I thought maybe it was just that Linux in general was slower, but then I found Gentoo which had none of the speed problems of Mandrake. I've heard from others that Mandrake is just slow in general so I don't think it was just me.

      --
      I tried to dial REALITY once and I was informed that it had been disconnected.
    2. Re:'Recycle Computers - Install Linux' by joestar · · Score: 1

      > I've heard from others that Mandrake is just slow
      > in general so I don't think it was just me.

      I think you goal here is to provide false informations about Mandrake. They have been providing one of the fasted version of Linux since 1998! They always used optimization in compilation, which means that you get speed improvement, but on the other hand, you won't install a Mandrake on a 486 for install.

      Anyway, performances depend on many factors, including hardware, number of services running and so on. And Gentoo is a pure geek-OS, not really Mandrake!

    3. Re:'Recycle Computers - Install Linux' by ravingsanity · · Score: 1

      I don't think that Gentoo is a "pure geek-OS" at all however I will admit that there are a lot of "geeks" who use Gentoo. That is neither here nor there, though, as everyone has a right to their own opinion.

      It was not my intention to provide false information about Mandrake at all, I was simply relating my experience with it and since it was my direct experience, I fail to see how what I said was false in any way. I tried Mandrake, Suse, Fedora and finally Gentoo (which I stuck with) and found Mandrake to be the slowest of them all. Perhaps I should have said "YMMV"?

      I highly doubt that Mandrake has been the fastest since 1998...perhaps the fastest of the rpm based distros? Or maybe there is some other voodoo that makes it so in your world that I am unaware of...?

      --
      I tried to dial REALITY once and I was informed that it had been disconnected.
    4. Re:'Recycle Computers - Install Linux' by binary+paladin · · Score: 1

      Vector Linux. It's based off Slackware and I've had a fair amount of luck with it on slower machines. That's also its aim.

      Gentoo works well too in certain circumstances. I have a powerful machine that compiles generic packages and I install over the network on my slower machines. When I say "slower" I mean old PIIs. There's not much of a reason (for me) to keep anything older around. The performance in those cases is also acceptable. This is a really poor option for someone who *only* has a slow computer though.

      These memory debates get old pretty fast. WindowsXP doesn't run that great with less than 256M of RAM. It runs okay with 128, but then again so does my laptop running KDE 3.3. Not great, but acceptable. (OpenOffice is ass slow to start up on pretty much any platform.) The reality is that hardware is getting faster and memory is getting fatter. I want Gnome and KDE devs to design around modern systems... not dinosaurs.

      Anyway, the days of Linux on older machines aren't over. Vector with XFce4 run wonderfully. Start up times can be slow, but once things are running performance is pretty good. It's not great, but if you're expecting "great" on old machines... stop. It's silly.

      When all else fails there's FVWM or console apps.

  48. Try KDE by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    No, its not an anti-gnome post.. But i run kde on a low-end laptop and it does just fine with opening several applications, including Koffice..

    Sure its not a speed demon, but it 'feels' faster then the same machine with win98 + MSO on it..

    As a disclaimer this is on FBSD, i have noticed that its a bit faster then Linux ( debian ) on the SAME hardware..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  49. Scrollwheel desktop switching? by CharAznable · · Score: 1

    Anybody know if thispatch made it in? I just recently switched from KDE to GNOME and switching desktops with the scrollwheel is what I miss the most.

    --
    The perfect sig is a lot like silence, only louder
    1. Re:Scrollwheel desktop switching? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty obvious from the bug report it's not in GNOME 2.8 (otherwise it would be marked closed/resolved).

      It doesn't seem like Havoc is convinced it should be put in either. Of course any distribution is welcome to include it themselves...

    2. Re:Scrollwheel desktop switching? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use sawfish with gnome and have it configured to switch desktops with the scroll wheel. Works great. And I have it set so clicking the mouse side buttons on a title bar sends the window to the next/previous desktop too.

  50. Re:hope they finally got rid of some annoyances .. by Gnulix · · Score: 1

    If you use spatial nautilus it's extremely fast. If you don't, then it's not so fast. Pick your poison.

    Why on earth would it be faster using spatial? If that is the case it must be seriously broken!!!
  51. Re:Unix to the Desktop by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

    Not only that, but my four-year-old G4/400 runs 10.3.5 splendidly, unlike a four-year-old PC with XP or, from what I've heard, Gnome.

    --
    I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
  52. Yah.. by T-Ranger · · Score: 1
    But is the load/save dialog still horriable?

    I should be able to type in a filename, tab compleation.. If I have a directory, on enter, list the files in that directory. I mean, isnt that how load/save works everywhere else?

    1. Re:Yah.. by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      Actualy, it's perfect.

      It's you what makes the problem here. Press Ctrl + L and there's everything.

      All that's missing in Open/Save is just application type based bookmarks. Graphics, Internet etc.

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    2. Re:Yah.. by grumbel · · Score: 3, Informative

      ### Actualy, it's perfect.

      Not really, far far away from 'perfect' actually. The Ctrl-L hack is really horrible, the window is to small, it easily loses focus, its slow as hell compared to the former dialog, it doesn't provide a view into the current directory, etc. Ctrl-L hack is really not something that should have ever entered into a production release.

      The dialog also suffers from the lack of different views onto the files, in Gimp and Co. it would be nice to have a nautilus like thumbnail-preview, in other situations a small-icon view would be better then detail view. There doesn't seem to be a way to rename files either.

      That said, if you are just 'mousing around', its better then the former one, but far from perfect, I would prefer the Windows one (for mousing) or the old Gnome one (for keyboarding) any day.

  53. Re:Dual booting is from hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have Windows on anything other than the first hard disk (hd0 in grub), it refuses to boot (in my experience anyway). You may need to remap your drives in grub.

    The Windows section should look something like this if windows is on hd1:

    title=Windows
    rootnoverify (hd0,0)
    map (hd1) (hd0)
    map (hd0) (hd1)
    chainloader +1
  54. The Infamous "Lightweight" argument by debian4life · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let me begin by saying that I switch back and forth between Enlightenment and Gnome/KDE, so I am familiar with both sides of the argument. For the record, this takes place on a PIII 800 laptop with 256MB of RAM so I am in the middle of the curve. But I never have performance complaints with any of these. They all run better than Windows.

    That being said.......

    I see the point of wanting something lightweight on underpowered hardware. That is where the the Openbox's and XFCE's of the world come in. But what about those who have a big machine. If it can handle it, why not have something that can take advantage of it. It would seem to me that there should be a niche for that. Hardware specs will keeping increasing, not decreasing. So therefore, why wouldn't a GNOME or KDE take advantage of that.

    I see more variance from distro to distro than I do from window manager to window manager. For instance, Gnome on Fedora to me is much slower than Gnome on Gentoo or Debian. But that is just me.

    You can drive a Hyundai because it gets you where you want to go and gets great gas mileage, but that Corvette sure is good looking and fun to drive. And quite fast I might add.

    1. Re:The Infamous "Lightweight" argument by Hinhule · · Score: 1

      Well. As I see it a fast OS is nice even on fast machines.. That is more of the Corvette I imagine. The slower OSes would be heavier cars such as SUVs. Personally I would prefer an OS that is more about performance and less about "ooh I'm so pretty".

  55. very fast screenshot mirror by morten+poulsen · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... available here

    1. Re:very fast screenshot mirror by p.rican · · Score: 1

      not any more

      --

      /. --"Demented and sad....but social" -Judd Nelson

  56. Re:Thats nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just yet more evidence of the delusions suffered by Gnome hackers. It's sad really.

  57. Menu Editor? by X_Bones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm extremely happy because it looks like file type handler has finally been fixed, but I read through the release notes and didn't see a word on my single biggest problem with GNOME 2.6: the damn menu editor. Specifically the fact that there wasn't one, and that adding or removing items was confusing at best.

    Not that weather forecasting applets and new themes aren't nice, and not that I have a right to tell people what to work on, but shouldn't the GNOME guys worry more about basic functionality instead of minor things?

    1. Re:Menu Editor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Gnome 2 has a good menu editor. Just
      go to "applications:///". You can also edit the menu directly (right click on a menu item).
      You must have FAM (http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/fam/) installed to see the changes without a restart.

    2. Re:Menu Editor? by Dirk+van+der+Broek · · Score: 1

      open nautilus, hit ctrl-l, enter applications:///, click the open button , right click and select 'create folder', voila you've just created a new entry in your base menu. If you want to create a launcher, just select 'create launcher' from the menu.

    3. Re:Menu Editor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that there are still big problems in GNOME, but the menus are up to your distro. Debian handles menus automatically, and has done for years.

    4. Re:Menu Editor? by Abjifyicious · · Score: 3, Informative
      Here's how to edit the Gnome menu;

      Adding items;
      Open the menu you want to add an item to.
      Right click.
      Choose "Entire menu->Add new item to this menu".

      Editing items;
      Right click on the item you want to edit.
      Choose "Properties".

      Deleting items;
      Right click on the item you want to delete.
      Choose "Remove this item".

      Gnome doesn't have a menu editor application because it doesn't need one.

    5. Re:Menu Editor? by damiam · · Score: 1

      Basic functionality? Do you see a menu editor in XP? What about OS X? Oops.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    6. Re:Menu Editor? by X_Bones · · Score: 1

      It's not that I don't know how to edit menus, it's that the current process for doing so is not intuitive. Why do I have to right-click on an entry in a given menu to see the properties of the menu itself? Shouldn't I be able to right-click the menu whose attributes I want to change instead? Who, when asked to add a new folder to the Applications menu, would think to open a Nautilus window and type in a funny URI scheme unless they've read through the user docs (and we all know how often that happens)? Sure, if you know what you're doing then these are minor issues, but what about people who are completely new to GNOME or Linux in general?

    7. Re:Menu Editor? by Abjifyicious · · Score: 1
      It's not that I don't know how to edit menus, it's that the current process for doing so is not intuitive.

      Sorry, when you mentioned "basic functionality" I assumed that you weren't aware you could edit the menu at all.

      Shouldn't I be able to right-click the menu whose attributes I want to change instead?

      Yeah, that's a good point, and something that's bothered me slightly in the past. I've gotten used to it, so I had forgotten that it had ever been confusing, but that's very true.

      So I guess you're right, the menu system needs to be polished up a little, but I still don't agree it needs a menu editor app, it's just a little rough around the edges.

    8. Re:Menu Editor? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > shouldn't the GNOME guys worry more about basic functionality

      That would violate the fundamental "no features" principle that has governed
      Gnome development since 2.0.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    9. Re:Menu Editor? by twener · · Score: 1

      > Gnome doesn't have a menu editor application because it doesn't need one.

      How do you change the menu for another user or all users on your system?

    10. Re:Menu Editor? by Anime_Fan · · Score: 1

      How do you change the menu for another user or all users on your system?

      You simply add a new .desktop file in /usr/share/applications (if that's where your .desktop files are saved).

  58. Once you beat the bottlenecks, it's very snappy. by AntiOrganic · · Score: 4, Informative
    Right now, there are a two main reasons that GNOME feels so slow in comparison to lighter-weight desktop environments like IceWM and Fluxbox.
    • Many users on nVidia graphics cards install the proprietary nVidia drivers without setting
      Option "RenderAccel" "true"
      to enable Render acceleration, which greatly speeds up font rendering, alpha blending, and other tasks by offloading them to the graphics card; GTK+ depends upon this ability greatly. Additionally, the support for this is fairly flaky in nVidia's proprietary drivers and doesn't seem to work without working AGP and AGP Fast Writes. Try opening a large menu without and then with Render acceleration enabled. Go ahead.
    • Pango, the GTK+ font layout library, has much better Unicode support than Windows' GUI libraries. The downside to this is that it's not optimized for a Latin code path (yet), and the generic code path is somewhat slow. However, on a fast system (2 GHz+), you escape the bottleneck and GNOME is much snappier than Windows XP. I'm not saying "look, it's awesome on fast machines so it's really better and you should just upgrade," but it's important to note that GNOME currently has one single bottleneck killing its performance, and once that's optimized, it will be much better. It's not like the whole environment is much too weighty and slow.
  59. Re:hope they finally got rid of some annoyances .. by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2, Informative
    Because the GUI is simpler, and because it's the default it's more heavily optimized.

    Constructing and rendering a GUI is surprisingly intensive, especially with modern toolkits that support complex layout and text internationalization.

  60. Re:Dual booting is from hell by JohnnyCannuk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Funny I was able to install Suse 9.1 Pro on my Anthon 3000+XP box without a problem. YaST even shrank my XP partition to 50 Gigs for me so I didn't have to get Partition Magic or anything....

    I had it up and running in about 1/2 hour.

    Perhaps its your distro?

    --
    Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
  61. Re:GJ by AVee · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Good catch.

  62. Re:Thats nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of all those distros, only Fedora, SuSE and Debian are of significance and drivers of the Linux desktop, the rest can be classed as fringe interests at best. Among the big three the KDE/GNOME split is pretty even. However SuSE is the black horse at the moment, we'll know more about their desktop stance with the release of the Novell Desktop later this year.

  63. Once again, I must complain about fonts by rd_syringe · · Score: 1

    Again and again, I'm told Linux's fonts are better than Windows. Again and again, when I look at screenshots I see clear and obvious rendering errors that make the whole thing look horribly ugly. I only assume that people purposely ignore these flaws because they don't want to admit them.

    For instance, look at the "Xtns" menu in http://support.cougaar.org/gnome28/3.png. The X is wider than the other character. Compare to the characters in the "File" menu, which are for some reason extremely thin!

    Over and over, I'm told Linux font rendering is great, and over and over, all I have to do is look at how numerical characters are rendered, or pretty much any capital letter with diagonals and/or curves in it. They always look thicker than the other letters beside them.

    1. Re:Once again, I must complain about fonts by rgmoore · · Score: 2, Informative
      The X is wider than the other character. Compare to the characters in the "File" menu, which are for some reason extremely thin!

      Shock! Horror! They're using a proportional width font that makes characters like 'i' and 'l' look narrower than 'X' or 'W'! You might also want to double check that you're looking at the picture at full resolution. If you open it in a Gecko-based browser like Mozilla or Firefox, the image will default to being scaled to your browser window, and scaling a picture of a font tends to make it look awful. I think that the fonts look fine when looking at the image at full scale, though others are obviously free to disagree.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    2. Re:Once again, I must complain about fonts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it's because you're a person who likes to bitch and moan about stuff when there isn't a problem? Or (more likely) you're just a karma whore and troll who craves attention?

    3. Re:Once again, I must complain about fonts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YHBT. YHL. HAND.

      Love,
      rd_syringe (aka Overly Critical Guy aka bonch)

    4. Re:Once again, I must complain about fonts by mjm1231 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Oh, yeah, that's so much worse than the start button on my WinXP machine at work. The letters in the word "start" look like a rat chewed on them.

      (Apologies for the crappy geocities link.)

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    5. Re:Once again, I must complain about fonts by wolftone · · Score: 1

      Shock! Horror! They're using a proportional width font that makes characters like 'i' and 'l' look narrower than 'X' or 'W'!

      If you look carefully at the screenshot, you might notice that the diagonal lines in the capital letters 'M', 'N', 'A' are thicker than the vertical lines around them. The letters 'B' and 'D' are too thick in the curves for the vertical spine.

      There's no reason to get defensive about bad font rendering, really. It's bad, and until we either get over it or fix it, it will continue being bad. (If we get over it, at least it won't matter any more.)

  64. Re:Unix to the Desktop by ReinoutS · · Score: 1

    You should try it for yourself instead of reiterating hearsay. My four year old PC (Athlon 600 w/256MB) runs snappier than ever before with Mandrakelinux 10.1+GNOME 2.8.

  65. VNC support? by deragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Have you seen the VNC support description? Is this feasable now? Usually, you could not remotely see the desktop of a remote user. You could start a VNC server with no window to a CRT, and have multiple users share it with VNC clients, but to look at the actual X desktop that shows up on the console, this is a feature that never existed before.

    Anybody care to comment this? This is a neat feature if it works as described. However, how does this work when I run an accelerated Xorg server?

    --
    Remember the year 2000? They promised us flying cars. They delivered the PT Cruiser...
    1. Re:VNC support? by jhh09 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how this works in the new version of Gnome, but KDE 3.x has the slickest integration of vnc I've seen in any desktop environment. There's a feature called Remote Desktop Sharing that lets you create temporary (1 hour) invitations for people to log into your pc and view your x desktop. You can also configure it to accept connections at any time with the correct password. This feature makes remote tech support a breeze. AFAIK it is compatible with the various vnc clients out there.

    2. Re:VNC support? by sremick · · Score: 1

      Hmm... I do it right now on Gnome 2.6 w/ Vino. Works fine. I've got a VNC session tunnelled over SSH viewing screen 0 as we speak.

    3. Re:VNC support? by Technonotice_Dom · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that - I didn't know about Vino :-)

      I'm now typing this from my wifi laptop which is VNCed into my desktop PC! I think it's the polling from Vino causing it, but the CPU usage for XFree86 is going through the roof, causing my P3 450MHz desktop PC to struggle.

      Useful anyway, thanks!

    4. Re:VNC support? by David+McBride · · Score: 1

      VNC version 4 has been released at realvnc.com.

      It provides a module which can be loaded into an X server to allow efficient export of the local X display.

      There is also a slower tool in the new version which is less intrusive. It operates by polling the local X display periodically and exports the changes.

      (It also has a number of other improvements compared with the 3.x series, on Linux and Windows both.)

    5. Re:VNC support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes the polling will incur the speedhit you described. If you run X.org server with the damage extension enabled its a smooth as a baby's butt.

  66. Re:GJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am more and more convinced every day that the English language needs to utilize parenthses.

  67. Re:hope they finally got rid of some annoyances .. by sqlrob · · Score: 1

    Why SSH in?

    Just flip to another text terminal, log in, kill it from there.

  68. Netcraft confirms it... GNOME is dying! by CaptainPinko · · Score: 4, Funny

    Netcraft confirms it... GNOME is dying! I couldn't find a single server or otherwise headless machine running it. These are dark days in indeed. In fact the recent release of GNOME 2.8 and the upcoming release of FreeBSD 5 are only more nails in the proverbial coffin.

    --
    Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
  69. Identity Crisis by sEEKz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is it just me or is gnome having identity problems?

    When I view the screenshot 3.png I see an Apple logo in the bottom left corner.
    Why advertise for other OS'es if you think you've got the best?

    1. Re:Identity Crisis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the fucking summary. GNOME is a "multi-platform free desktop environment". It is not an OS.

      Michael

    2. Re:Identity Crisis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're just user submitted screenshots, maybe that particular user has an Apple fetish?

      Heck, there's a screenshot with a Kill Bill background, does that mean Quentin Tarantino is a GNOME developer?

  70. Re:Once you beat the bottlenecks, it's very snappy by Stevyn · · Score: 1

    I just tried that a few minutes ago and X froze up on startup requiring a cold boot. I could probably spend a few hours tweaking my xorg.conf file, but this is a clear example of how tweaking in linux to get a little more performance is a pain. It also shows that when someone offers a suggestion for a setting tweak, it won't always work on someone else's computer.

    Well, I got back to the console after rapid firing of the ctrl-alt-backspace and I changed the settings back.

  71. Hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For one thing, it could be running on Apple hardware.

  72. Epiphany Extensions by noda132 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just thought I'd add a quick plug for Epiphany Extensions. We worked on a couple (Page Info and Select Stylesheet) right before the deadline, so now we've got a somewhat reasonable bunch.

    Epiphany is still a browser centred around simplicity. But the extensions can give you those features you wish you had from other browsers.

    The full list: SSL certificate viewer, dashboard connection, HTML/Javascript error viewer and link checker, mouse gestures, page info dialog, stylesheet selection, "smart bookmarks" (right-click on selection -> search the web), tab grouping (open new tabs directly next to the current one), tabs menu entries.

    However, it's not until GNOME 2.10 that there'll be a UI to select extensions.

    1. Re:Epiphany Extensions by sremick · · Score: 1

      My #1 most important extension is AdBlock. Is there something like that out there for Epiphany yet? Last I looked (recently) there wasn't. I really like Firefox so it'd take more than JUST that to pull me away, but the lack of any sort of ad-blocking in Epiphany is a show-stopper that prevents me from pursuing it further.

    2. Re:Epiphany Extensions by noda132 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We're very keen on an adblock extension. Personally, I wouldn't write it unless I could think up a MUCH less sucky user interface.

      Anyway, expect adblock in an upcoming epiphany-extensions release... probably before GNOME 2.10.

  73. Re:Thats nice by daemonc · · Score: 1

    "1. Mandrakelinux - KDE"
    I forgot they were still around, thought they went bankrupt?

    "4. SUSE - KDE"
    Bought by Novell, KDE will likely be replaced by Ximian Gnome in the next release

    "5. Debian - either"
    I don't use Debian much myself, but Gnome has been the default desktop on every Debian installation I've ever seen.

    6-10: These are major distros?

    Where is Sun's Java Desktop system on their list?

    --
    All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
  74. Re:hope they finally got rid of some annoyances .. by ispeters · · Score: 1
    but come on gnome, you're soon gonna be 3.x

    Says who? They could easily go 2.10, 2.12, ..., 2.98, 2.100, etc. I'm not advocating it, but it's not like 3.0 is neccessarily right around the corner.

    Ian

  75. Re:Thats nice by joeljkp · · Score: 1

    Sun JDS uses Gnome. They've made some big deals, so I'd put them in the 5-7 range somewhere.

    --
    WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
  76. Question by MasTRE · · Score: 0, Troll

    I like GNOME. I like KDE. They're great. That said, is it a rule that we must post here every time a new revision of each comes out? Is it that critical? Are all releases of GNOME and KDE exceptional? Every single one of them? I mean, there's a place for freshmeat, and there's a place for /. Let's not confuse the two.

    --
    Must-not-watch TV!
  77. Use 1995 sw on 1995 hw by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 1

    Agree with you, and for people who are running 1995 hardware, they will find that 1995 software like fvwm is already written and debugged, just waiting for their download. I don't want to see today's coders coding against the platform of some welfare case who can't afford a $400 computer.

  78. Re:Thats nice by abigor · · Score: 1

    Mandrake is still one of the biggest Linux desktops. Just because you forgot about them doesn't change this fact.

    Debian has no desktop preference.

    Novell had a presence at Akademy (KDE conference), and stated they will support KDE.

    As for the others, it's Distrowatch - those are the numbers.

    Sun's Java Desktop system clearly doesn't register. Sorry.

  79. Maybe I'm missing it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looked OK to me (remember--the "i" and "l" characters are narrower than "t" and "n", so a good proportional font renderer will give them different widths). So I zoomed by a factor of ten and looked at the individual pixels. I don't see any rendering errors at that level either. Are you sure your issue is with the renderer and not the font itself?

  80. Is this a troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you trolling? 1.4 sucked, 1.4 was the slowest release gnome has ever made, 1.2 was beautiful with the lightning fast GMC instead of the clunky nautilus. When 1.4 came around, easel's crappy half-finished nautilus was integrated and the system ground down to a near halt.
    Every release since then the system has become slightly less slow. 2.6 was the first release of gnome since 1.2 that has actually been faster than windows, since then it has continued to get faster.
    Why someone modded that crap up as "informative" is beyond me (that said I have modded some real crap up in this thread as well, that's why I am posting as AC).

    1. Re:Is this a troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      When 1.4 came around, easel's crappy half-finished nautilus was integrated and the system ground down to a near halt.

      That's incorrect - all of the 1.x series used gmc by default. Eazel's Nautilus could be installed as an alternative, but was never part of Gnome. 2.0 was the first version in which Nautilus (heavily rewritten) was the default file manager.

      But you're right about the performance since then - 2.0 wasn't all that great either, but each subsequent release has been better. I happily run 2.6 (via Fedora 2) on my work desktop, a 700MHz Celeron - it could be snappier, but is perfectly adequate.

  81. CoralCache? by suwain_2 · · Score: 1

    What ever happened to the Coral P2P cache? The site makes it look like it's still up and running. It doesn't seem to be working for any links I try, however.

    Are others seeing the same thing? I'm guessing they are, because no one's included Coral mirrors of the sites, and they're feeling awfully slow.

    --
    ________________________________________________
    suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
  82. 2.10??? by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    why ever not 3.0??? If you're going to have all the nice X.org compositing in it, then it will require X.org not xfree86 and anyway, in all probality, will break a lot of older apps. 2.10 will only serve to confuse the general public... make a fresh start... dump a lot of the old baggage... go on, you know it'll make sense.

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    1. Re:2.10??? by juhaz · · Score: 1

      If you're going to have all the nice X.org compositing in it, then it will require X.org not xfree86 and anyway, in all probality, will break a lot of older apps

      Supporting the new X stuff doesn't mean requiring it, which they wouldn't do anyway since it would break all older Unix platforms that don't yet have newest flashy multimedia toys from Linux.

      Breaking old apps is the main criteria for major version jump, and it probably won't do that.

    2. Re:2.10??? by Sunspire · · Score: 1

      Adding desktop compositioning won't break existing X servers or introduce a X.org dependency. Because the new stuff is all implemented as X server extensions the availability of Xdamage, Composite, etc. can be (and is) checked at runtime. If found, great, metacity will function as the compositioning manager. If not, it's business as usual.

      However, the next version number has not yet been decided upon. Some argue that 3.0 is reserved for when the API needs to be broken. I personally think a 3.0 is waranted if there's significant new features and that API versioning is not so important, i.e. version numbers are for end users not developers.

      --
      It's like deja vu all over again.
  83. Re:GJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't you think that is what was meant? I'd rather have written material that is good than material than is just well-written.

  84. Fedora 3 test 2 and Gnome 2.8? by Goyuix · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this is why they delayed test 2 a week (the 20th is when it is scheduled to be available in ISO goodness). They said that the freeze would allow GNOME 2.8 in.... now if I could just find out if xorg6.8 as well as KDE 3.3 will be included.

    http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/schedule/

  85. No icons in dialog buttons! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I have always wanted to do with Gnome is to get rid off the images in buttons of dialog boxes. I'd just like my buttons text only not like http://support.cougaar.org/gnome28/new-printer-dia log.png/. That's why I always go back to KDE!

  86. Everyone has lost their minds by Proc6 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    or fired all their user interface designers.

    I always thought the whole CONCEPT of a Windowing system / GUI was to provide a single, stable, cohesive "standard" to which all applications adhere. By doing so you've obligated the end user to learn the functions of a widget and application only once. Each new application learning cycle builds on the knowledge of the previous ones.

    Think back to Windows NT 4.0, as it's *maybe* _one of_ the best examples. During that time, most every application used the same look at feel (as in, identically), even Windows Media Player. The launch mechanism for most every application found its home in the Start Menu -> Program Files folder, and so on. OSX, (though my time spent with OSX is limited so far) seems to also build on this paradigm. Clean, but most importantly cohesive.

    But as the years have gone by, instead of refining this basic concept, subjecting users to minimal UI enhancements, but rather continually refining the model, the development cycles have gone completely the other way. Its a [geek] feature war and a designer war. Applications (like Media Player on Windows) deviate horrifically from the solid foundation of UI standards with a glowing trainwreck of 3D buttons and glass bevels plastered all over custom window framing. (I love the insanity that ensues when you move between full mode and windowed mode, that spawns another window with just an icon in it, someone get me a revolver.) While a "Media Player" can possibly (barely) be argued for a "custom experience", its spilling over into everything else. DVD ripping software, the entire Office suite, even Macromedia Flash uses a zillion windows with their own fucked up grips and icons.

    But now, it's moving into the desktop. The actual UI. Everyone (again, except maybe OSX so far, and based only on what I've seen) is to blame. Windows and Linux both. Longhorn is a god awful nightmare of confusing combinations of task and event driven models. Checkboxes by each filename in Windows Explorer? Redundant clocks and taskbars? Wizards and dummy-versions of everything like the (currently in XP) Control Panel that can be in classic mode or the new re-organized gay-mode. The implications are exponential learning curves and nightmare support models "Click Start -> Control Panel -> Network Settings... you dont have that? Hmm, oh wait you're in gay-mode for the Control Panel, okay well first click Classic Mode on the sidebar, THEN start over." . Linux distros have their craptasic methodology of installing every useless thing they can (X-Eyes anyone?) by default and the "Start Menu" clones of KDE and Gnome are a maze of "Start -> Settings -> System, Start -> System -> Preferences, Start -> Control Panel -> System -> Settings." with redundancy and gray deliniations of whats where.

    I dont know, when I see applications putting icons to launch them in

    • Start -> Programs -> MyApplication
    • Start Menu's commonly used bubbling app list
    • Start Menu's Pin-to list
    • Icons on the desktop
    • Quicklaunch icons on the quicklaunch toolbar
    • Mini-icons in the tray
    • Icons on taskbars of other apps (like editing a webpage with Word icon inside of IEs toolbar)
    • And being able to launch fucking Age of Empires from MSN Messenger (at least you used to be able to, I dont know if you still can, I stopped running it.)
    It makes me want to hang everyone thats in charge of this bullshit. Windows needs to quit providing more wizards, carnival buttons, redundant ways to do the same task and per-application custom UIs and Linux needs to stop ripping off everything every other OS does and sticking it all together into a disorganized mess.

    * Prediction: As soon as Longhorn comes out with its secondary taskbar littered with useless widgets like picture slideshows and analog clocks (like OSX is doing now I believe too), no matter how bad of an idea it is to start with, all major window managers in Linux will have one too. It's the, "What! They have something we don't have?! Who cares if it sucks, IMPLEMENT IT!" mentality.

    --

    I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!

    1. Re:Everyone has lost their minds by P-Nuts · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The parent post makes some very good points. I've used Windows, Linux and OSX quite a bit, one of the things I really don't like is the way the Desktop is used. I always feel I'm fighting against the computer to persuade it to use the Desktop as what it should be - a temporary working area.

      I don't want to launch programs from it, even commonly used ones. That's what a programs menu is for [skip to the last paragraph now if you're skimming], though it is convenient to have a shorter route to the commonly used ones, so it's a good idea to have a toolbar next to the complete menu. Gnome does quite well in this regard, in the default setup you get a programs menu next to launch bars, Windows is close to getting it right, but you have the Quicklaunch bar, the recently used start menu bit, the Internet/Email bit, the top level of the Programs bit, which is overload. If you drag Applications to the Dock in OSX, then you get a launch menu too.

      Then I remove all the icons from the desktop that shouldn't be there. By hard disks, home folder and any applications have no place there - I'll launch a Explorer/Nautilus/Finder to navigate them. As directory/folder navigation is important, I might like to be able to have several special places to start off in set up, as subitems of the file navigator icon. XFCE allows for this quite neatly.

      Then, clearly separate (oposite sides of the screen in Gnome and XFCE) I like to have some way of navigating open windows (and multiple desktops). OSX gets this a bit confused, as the Dock launches and resorts, on top of that Expose performs this function.

      Anyway, I like the Desktop to be a sort of in-basket. If it doesn't have anything on it except a pretty background, I have achieved a sense of calm. Stuff on it is awaiting filing somewhere else in my home folder, or deleting. I don't want anything else to be in my face. This is the computer analogue of my real world desk (well, the half of it not occupied by equipment).

    2. Re:Everyone has lost their minds by user32.ExitWindowsEx · · Score: 1
      Amen. I think *exactly* the same way. I always have a clean desktop...besides, I always have pictures I want to see as the background, so that provides an incentive to keeep it clean

      p.s. I have 6 gmail invites and only need 3 people to complete an offer.

      --
      "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
    3. Re:Everyone has lost their minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice rant!

    4. Re:Everyone has lost their minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      The Windows Control Panel has a gay mode??

    5. Re:Everyone has lost their minds by JCholewa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > Prediction: As soon as Longhorn comes out with its secondary taskbar littered with useless widgets like
      > picture slideshows and analog clocks (like OSX is doing now I believe too), no matter how bad of an
      > idea it is to start with, all major window managers in Linux will have one too. It's the, "What! They have
      > something we don't have?! Who cares if it sucks, IMPLEMENT IT!" mentality.

      You can already have a secondary panel (what you above call a "taskbar") in both GNOME and KDE. Heck, you can probably have more than that. Both environments are built around the idea of having multiple panels which contain the taskbar, pager, notification area ("system tray" in winspeak) and multipurpose applets. I run KDE with a top and bottom panel -- the top has a news ticker, a dictionary field, the apps menu and a list of currently mounted media (CD-ROM discs and so forth), while the bottom has my taskbar and notification area, as well as a digital clock, a binary clock, the show desktop button, a weather applet and some system monitoring stuff.

      Yep, that's right: KDE and GNOME were *first* with the idea of a "secondary taskbar littered with useless widgets". Heck, I didn't even tell you about the "fuzzy" clock. "Half past ten" indeed!

      We like having the best of all worlds. That's why you can change between applications using any or all of the windows way (task bar), the Apple way (Kompose, which acts like OS X's Expose) or the Unix way (multiple desktops plus focus-follows-mouse. The beauty of it is that any of these features that you don't like can simply be deactivated so that you never have to see them again.

      --
      -JC
      http://www.jc-news.com/coding/freedom/
      http://www.jc-news.com/parse.cgi?coding/main

    6. Re:Everyone has lost their minds by rocketfairy · · Score: 0, Troll
      Wizards and dummy-versions of everything like the (currently in XP) Control Panel that can be in classic mode or the new re-organized gay-mode.
      So, now gay guys get crap for ... bad design? I mean, I know we're godless sodomites, and I know everyone thinks we molest kids routinely, but have you been in a store lately? Breeders fucking suck at design.
    7. Re:Everyone has lost their minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heh

    8. Re:Everyone has lost their minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, that's right: KDE and GNOME were *first* with the idea of a "secondary taskbar littered with useless widgets". Heck, I didn't even tell you about the "fuzzy" clock. "Half past ten" indeed!

      No they were not. OpenWindows and CDE had this crap, and I'm not sure they were the first either.

      Even Windows 3.1 had a bunch of 3rd party "tool box" extensions.

    9. Re:Everyone has lost their minds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on now, even gay people know the difference between someone being gay as in "polesmoker" and something being gay as in "completely gay".

      Lighten up.

  87. GNOME/Debian? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    GNOME 2.8 will be fabulous running on top of Debian Sarge. We've got the desktop now, when will we get the OS itself? Or is the latest daily build of the RC1 good enough? Maybe we should wait until Sarge has been fully released, by which time GNOME will likely have released a patch to 2.8.1, and the relative haste/prudence of the two releases will be synchronized?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:GNOME/Debian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      At the moment GNOME 2.8 is in experimental. Hopefully the Debian developers will ignore GNOME 2.8 until the release of Sarge.

      BTW: Here are instructions for installing GNOME 2.8 on sid
      http://www.gnomejournal.org/gnome_debian.php

  88. Re:BSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hey mang, no bashing of the BSD, okay?

  89. Has Nicholas Petrelli Already Said He Hates It? by syntap · · Score: 1

    Looking for the editorial preview rather than waiting ofr it in the mail...

  90. Why not bother? by Allen+Zadr · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This post is a reply to a (currently rated -1) comment that said (about Gnome):
    WHY BOTHER?

    I can't be the only geek left that's used Linux for more than 5 years that actually prefers Gnome. But sometimes I feel like it.

    That said, for quite a while, I ran KDE on my work desktop and Gnome on my home desktop. I like Gnome's interface. I find the spacial nautilus quite useful. (Less so for directory structures that I don't often use). The only thing I miss is the lack of shading options for desktop backgrounds. [So, I have to open up Gimp and do it myself.]

    Frankly, I was always a little annoyed by konquerer, and all the little buttons that I didn't use.

    That said... why not Gnome? Even if KDE was the absolute best in _every_ way. What makes Gnome a waste of time? Who said it's a war? If Gnome moves forward in a technology, chances are it will urge the KDE developers to move forward as well (like the expansion of KDE availability onto more non-Linux UNIX systems). There are certainly a number of features that KDE has put out that have effected Gnome. So what?

    Basically, choice is an important factor to me. I prefer having a choice over having no choice. Choice is the very thing that got me to install Linux for the first time.

    --
    Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
    1. Re:Why not bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're definately not the only "old school" GNOME user left.

      I've been using it since "October" GNOME (1.0.53) and I find the 2.x series to be even better than the 1.x. I'm looking forward to further improvements involving dbus/hal and also xorg/cairo.

    2. Re:Why not bother? by madmaxx · · Score: 1

      You're not the only one, but I suspect that the people who love it don't waste their time answering whiners here at slashdot. I usually refuse to jump into the pointless "$project sucks" conversations, as they're pointless and poorly argued ..

      That said, I've loved the direction Gnome has taken in the last few years. It runs well on my slow machines (600mhz/256/nv), and even better on my desktop machines (2Ghz+). It looks good, it's simple, and the simplicity is well placed. They're doing all the right things, and they know it. Even spacial nautilus is A GOOD DAMNED thing, even for old hacks like myself. Every single release has been better than the last, and I'm productive and enjoy every moment.

      For those who don't like Gnome 2.x or any other project: help fix it, fork it, or shut it up and use something else.

      --
      mx
    3. Re:Why not bother? by JCholewa · · Score: 1

      > Frankly, I was always a little annoyed by konquerer, and all the little buttons that I didn't use.

      For what it's worth, you can completely get rid of any KDE button that you don't like. And you can remove every single one of those side-tabs. Konqueror is insanely configurable (after all, KDE's mantra is one of anal retentiveness...). You just get rid of unnecessary stuff from the toolbars, then save the current profile (which can be done under Settings menu).

      No attack on GNOME intended, mind you. It's not what I prefer, but they're doing a lot of interesting things there (stuff with hal and dashboard).

      --
      -JC
      http://www.jc-news.com/coding/freedom/

    4. Re:Why not bother? by Stephen+Chadfield · · Score: 1

      You Are Not Alone. I just prefer the look and feel of Gnome. Slackware is my distro of choice - it runs happily without libqt installed at all.

    5. Re:Why not bother? by nathanh · · Score: 1
      I can't be the only geek left that's used Linux for more than 5 years that actually prefers Gnome. But sometimes I feel like it.

      Linux user since 1992 (and UNIX user since well before that) and using GNOME 2.6 here on an Apple PowerBook. Absolutely adore it. Sometimes find it hard to believe that the free desktops have gotten so good, so quickly.

  91. Re:GJ by flamingnight · · Score: 1

    >INANES (I'm not a native English speaker), though.

    Which is why you're more likely to correctly understand it. I've found that non-native speakers tend to speak better English than native speakers.

  92. Debian by Allen+Zadr · · Score: 1
    Actually - I think Debian does have a preference towards KDE - simply because the bulk of documentation says:
    Log in
    Run % startx
    And startx, out of the box, runs KDE.

    As far a 'supporting' KDE, every distribution supports KDE. a good 30% of default apps require qt/kde widget libraries to run. I actively try to avoid applications that have KDE dependancies, and I can't do it. (The opposite is also true of Gnome, I might add).

    --
    Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
    1. Re:Debian by abigor · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the correction. I actually run Debian - you'd think I'd know that...

  93. File Selector? by xjerky · · Score: 1

    Have they finally improved the crappy file selector that was supposed to be fixed in 2.6?

    --
    A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
  94. Themes and Icons by potmos · · Score: 0

    Does anyone know what icon set that first screenshot is using? For me, one of the coolest things about gnome is cutomizing the windows and icons.

  95. I can't work out ... by tjwhaynes · · Score: 1
    ... whether this is a troll, an attempt to get a "funny" moderation (oh look - "X" is wider than "i" - maybe we need a "funny peculiar" mod) or a lack of understanding about proportional fonts.

    Either way, the "Xtns" looks just fine to me. It's not a font I would choose to use myself, being a convert to the extremely readable Vera Bitstream series but that's a personal choice.

    Cheers,
    Toby Haynes

    --
    Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
    1. Re:I can't work out ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YHBT. YHL. HAND.

      Love,
      rd_syringe (aka Overly Critical Guy aka bonch)

    2. Re:I can't work out ... by wolftone · · Score: 1

      I may be mistaken, but I believe that is Bitstream Vera.

  96. spatial != good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as long as they keep this spatial thing, I will refuse to use gnome and stick with kde.

  97. Re:hope they finally got rid of some annoyances .. by kidgenius · · Score: 2, Informative

    On my old P3 850 I went back to using Nautilus. I was using Rox for the longest time because nautilus was too slow. Then came Nautilus 2.6. I'm back using it because it is significantly faster than it used to be, and on par w/ my experiences with Rox (which was a pretty cool file manager btw). So, I will attest to the fact that spatial is way fast.

  98. Re:hope they finally got rid of some annoyances .. by Jagasian · · Score: 1

    Yeah, CTRL-F1 is all you needed.

  99. Re:hope they finally got rid of some annoyances .. by Jagasian · · Score: 1

    I agree. Hopefully people that do not use spatial Nautilus will not be second class citizens with a slower file browser.

  100. Re:hope they finally got rid of some annoyances .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CTRL+ALT+F1

  101. Re:Dual booting is from hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how is this insightful but 4 other attepts at helpful to this parent are offtopic.

    Gotta love the slashdot consistancy.

  102. My Gnome 2.8.0 experience by dpw2atox · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well ive been running the 2.7.x devel series and I gotta say gnome keeps getting faster and better in my opinion. HAL is amazing and I think that it really will make a nice environment for new linux users to take advantage of. I for one though am very pleased with this release. Instead of trying to do a ton of new features they instead only made a few new features and spent a lot of time on fixing bugs and doing little touches. Even during the code freeze I saw several bug fixes get pushed for outstanding issues in nautilus and eel2 which will make a better user experience. There were a few things I wish that they did do such as work on the menu code, and also to switch over to firefox as the default browser but mayde this will happen for 2.10. On a seperate note one thing that really disapointed me is that gtk2.6.0 isn't released yet. They did a few nice performance improvements in the 2.5.x devel series, specifically with screen window resizing, so as soon as its released I recomend giving it a shot with gnome 2.8 and then post your comments on the performance of gnome.

    1. Re:My Gnome 2.8.0 experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gtk 2.6 was never supposed to be released with GNOME 2.8. You can see that as far back as April:

      http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/20 04 -April/msg00130.html

  103. Re:Memory usage? I call bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bullshit on this.

    WinXP does not run smoothly at all on 64-128 megs of ram. Never did, never will.

    pointing out differences and avantages between WinXP and Linux is all fine and good, but exagerating the differences in some Windows fantasy world is crap.

    WinXP needs at least 256 to run well.

  104. Re:Once you beat the bottlenecks, it's very snappy by swimmar132 · · Score: 1

    Why'd it freeze? Check the logs.

  105. Four years old? by poptones · · Score: 1

    I have a 600MHz PIII/320mb stinkpad running gnome 2.4 (mdk10 default) and a friend - whom I setup with a similar thinkpad (only a 366mhz system w/256mb) just used the mdk10.1 install to "upgrade" hers to 2.6 and even there the improvement in responsiveness could be seen.

  106. Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, what features were *removed* in this release?

  107. Gnome by DashEvil · · Score: 1

    Have they fixed Gnome-terminal yet?

    It was, as of 2.6, absolutely unusable. Gnome has some really nice features. But I always hear of how nice it is compared to KDE because KDE is bloated.

    Why is it then that KDE 3.3 out performs Gnome 2.6? ESPECIALLY when you are in their respective terminals.

    --
    -If God wanted people to be better than me, he would have made them that way.
    1. Re:Gnome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because pango text rendering is slow. Now you know. There's some work being done to improve it, but it's not in 2.8.

    2. Re:Gnome by Deusy · · Score: 1

      Have they fixed Gnome-terminal yet?

      It was, as of 2.6, absolutely unusable.


      Just because of this comment, I am posting this message using Lynx in a Gnome Terminal.

      Actually, no, I'm not. But I can shed light on the problem; I believe Gnome Terminal makes use of the XRender extension (that or another recent X gadget) which is currently not yet hardware accelerated. They're just a bit too far ahead of the game, and are waiting for play to catch up.

      --

      Free Gamer - Free games list and commentary

    3. Re:Gnome by Roguelazer · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is hardware accelerated on NVIDIA cards if you have RenderAccel set to "True". The RENDER extension is also used in conjunction with the new COMPOSITE extension in xorg-x11 for translucency.

    4. Re:Gnome by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Xft uses XRender to draw fonts, and GTK+ uses Xft. But so does Qt, and it's hardware-accelerated in several drivers.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  108. So when will Ximian... by PeelBoy · · Score: 1

    release an updated version of their distro?

    1. Re:So when will Ximian... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will be no more Ximian desktop releases. Their work is being integrated as the Novell Desktop (it's a whole distro) to be released this fall and as a component of SuSE late this year.

  109. How do you install this on a debian system ? by kiljoy001 · · Score: 1

    I have no idea how to install this when it's not in a debian package, anyone care to tell me how to do it ?

    1. Re:How do you install this on a debian system ? by ptr2void · · Score: 1

      The same way you would install it on any other linux distro (other than waiting for binaries). RTFM.

    2. Re:How do you install this on a debian system ? by kiljoy001 · · Score: 1

      Sorry I did, doesn't work right.

    3. Re:How do you install this on a debian system ? by damiam · · Score: 1

      The 2.7 series has been tracked in Debian experimental for a while, so 2.8 packages should be along shortly. I'd wait for that, it saves a lot of trouble. Alternately, you could try jhbuild.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    4. Re:How do you install this on a debian system ? by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      Go to www.gnomejournal.org, there is actually an article on how to get GNOME 2.8 on Debian.

      sri

    5. Re:How do you install this on a debian system ? by ptr2void · · Score: 1

      Anyway, from what I've heard, packages for sid are already uploaded and waiting in "incoming".

  110. Startup vs Shutdown by tjwhaynes · · Score: 1
    Then why does Windows XP boot twice as fast as most Linux distros?

    Because XP writes much of the system settings to disk at shutdown to speed up subsequent boots. If you add the XP close down and start up times together and compare them to the equivalents for a Linux box, I think you'll find that Linux wins. The slow shutdown times on XP drive me crazy when I'm in a hurry - you can't leave until it's fully powered down in case it doesn't complete.

    That said, my laptop (1.5Ghz) boots in under 45 seconds on FC2. Hardly a massive amount of time. And I've not bothered to streamline it - I could probably knock another 10 seconds off that with a little fiddling and delayed startups.

    Cheers,
    Toby Haynes

    --
    Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
  111. Gnome ui style is TOO BIG by ultrabot · · Score: 0

    Taking a look at those screenshot, one quickly sees that not much (if anything) has changed, at least visually.

    What's with the Gnome people and making everything BIG. All the icons and toolbars SCREAM AT YOU, to the extent that they divert the attention away from what you are actually working with towards themselves, and use up a lot of the space that could be used for productive work.

    Would it be so wrong to throw us poor people with 1024x768 resolution a bone and make at least the toolbars smaller. Firefox/KDE toolbar size is just right.

    I understand that the big (and pretty, I admit) graphics create a nice first impression and give the ui some glitz, but it's just less efficient. Even the Windows ui designers realized this.

    --
    Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
    1. Re:Gnome ui style is TOO BIG by milkman_matt · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree with you about big being clumbsy, annoying, and just plain clutter. However, Gnome does make it easy enough to change the size of your toolbars, hell, mine are TINY. In fact, I think that's the size option that I use in the preferences, 'tiny'. I'm at 1280x1024 and my taskbar, I believe is about 24 pixels... and I love it that way :)

      -matt

    2. Re:Gnome ui style is TOO BIG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The Windows UI is looking kinda cluttered these days -- the typical app has more than one dozen options across the toolbar. MacOS9 looked cluttered too.

      I think of it like future-proofing. I mean, in ten years we'll have more pixels in each icons than we do now (either SVG, or larger bitmaps) -- it's a natural process. So it's a question of statistics about when it's ready to move to the new scheme. If Gnome came out with 1 pixel bigger icons every release I'd like it (and it'd weed out the bad applications that have such things hardcoded).

      OSX and Gnome (less so, KDE) have big icons, but then if you need the space with smaller icons it may be a sign that your interface is too complex (I know some apps might need more, but we're talking in general here). I can fit more than 10 icons in my word processing toolbar across my screen. The desktop uses bigger icons, but then who wants more than 30 desktop icons at once?

      Maybe the default theme should be more subdued.

    3. Re:Gnome ui style is TOO BIG by ultrabot · · Score: 1

      However, Gnome does make it easy enough to change the size of your toolbars, hell, mine are TINY.

      How? I mean, for example, how to change the toolbar size of Nautilus in browse mode? I didn't find the option, so it probably ain't that easy...

      --
      Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
  112. Less is more - Gnome, KDE and the Unixdesktop war. by JQuick · · Score: 1

    A number of posters have commented on the large memory footprint of Gnome (and of KDE). Others have made comments regarding code bloat, configurability, or more sophisticated graphical features such as transparency. Several readers have suggested that Macos X provides a wonderful user experience, one stating that FreeBSD or Linux on the server and Macos X on the desktop is the best approach. (That was moderated as flame bait BTW, which I find unjustified. I considered it merely off-topic since the poster did not elaborate).

    KDE and gnome both have Macos X and Windows GUIs in their sights. They are looking for ease of use, and short ramp up time for new users. They are also looking to provide horizontal infrastructure to provide more functionality for developers of applications targeted to their environment. In short, they want to provide more power to developers by enabling them to write less code and provide more functionality. They want to provide more power to end users by providing a more familiar experience (familiar to what they are already used to). They also want to provide more general functionality in ways that are configurable. To do so they have expanded the functionality and scope of their systems dramatically in the past few years. However, to be more useful and valuable to the majority of users in the long run they need to reverse this trend in certain ways. They need to limit developers and users in consistent ways, and provide less flexibility not more in particular aspects.

    KDE and Gnome have both improvement dramatically over the past several years. Both the depth and breath of their supporting libraries and the basic graphical expressiveness of their core frameworks have advanced. This has resulted in increasing the potential value of these systems for users and developers. However, the potential value, the potential utility of the software which relies on the framework in the context of how difficult it was to write, is essentially independent of the tangible value accruing to end users through use of applications.

    Value is an inherently subjective measure. It is not intrinsic. It is measured person by person in the context of use. I believe that the biggest problem with most open source efforts is the failure to recognize that value is context dependent. The designers and developers fail to account for the inherently subjective nature of their judgments, and thus assess cost and value in ways that differ substantially from their users.

    Complaints that memory footprint and CPU utilization are increasing, result mostly from developers' desire to increase the depth and breadth of the graphical toolset. They also result from attempts to broaden the support libraries which application developers can call from their code to provide general services (file system browsing, color choosers, etc.). These both serve to increase the potential power of the system for developers, by increasing the functionality which they may provide to users without writing it from scratch. However, developers tend to have more powerful systems with more memory, thus tend to underestimate the cost of this functionality as measured by more typical users. No wonder many complain of bloat, their experience of the system is qualitatively different.

    This broader, deeper core functionality decreases the effort expended by application developers and makes development more enjoyable to them. This is of direct and tangible value to a developer measured in time, and enjoyment. Value as measured by developers or highly technical users, derives both through direct use of the resulting software and their interaction with the source code, other internal features of the software, and the supporting frameworks on which it rests. This often causes them to judge cost and value in significantly different ways than other users. Thus technical users are inherently prone to judgments which different significantly, even diametrically to those other users. After all a user derives no direct

  113. Menu Editor?-Pain of being different. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But, but. That's not like KDE or Windows. It must be BROKEN!! :)

    Seriously does anyone ever think before complaining, or is this an automatic thing?

  114. New menu? by eldacan · · Score: 1

    How can I make a new menu? (Just like the "Applications" one, but with my own icon, submenus...)

  115. Re:Once you beat the bottlenecks, it's very snappy by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    GTK+ depends upon this ability greatly.

    GTK+ depends on the proprietary nvidia driver? That's news to me!

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  116. Re:Thats nice by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    Every non-commercial BSD system is an "either" as well.

    I'm not bashing GNOME with this, just stating the facts. Personally I don't think ANY non-newbie system should have a default. People who think an enterprise distro needs a default desktop because enterprise sysadmins are can't handle choice are clearly off their rocker.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  117. Re:Gnome - transparency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    make sure transparency is turned off in your terminal preferences

  118. Re:xorg and gnome development... by Saem · · Score: 1

    Or if they dropped their akward development cycle, the gnomes could rejoice as various Gnome modules could be upgraded such that the simple stuff could be brought out in a few days or weeks. Mind you it took forever for Linux to realise that the even/odd stable/unstable was a bad way to go, I would imagine it would take Gnome developers a fair while as well. Sorry, waiting 6 months for better utilizing X.org is just plain silly.

  119. Re:GJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    proper grammar actually requires:

    "well-written material"

    Use a hyphen when your adjective modifies the next adjective rather than the noun.

  120. Ugly Screenshots by Space_Soldier · · Score: 1

    The screenshots suck. The bloody thing looks uglier than Windows 95. They need to find some gpraphics artists. In visuals, it does not even comare to the latest KDE.

  121. Re:Once you beat the bottlenecks, it's very snappy by damiam · · Score: 1

    No, it depends on RenderAccel, which is also supported by the open-source ATI drivers, the binary ATI drivers, the open-source NVidia drivers, and a good deal of other drivers.

    --
    It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  122. Re:Thats nice by nempo · · Score: 1

    This is pretty much what I say about KDE, to me, It's UNUSABLE. Sure it may look nice and pretty but that's it. Personally, I don't know why people would want to use KDE, Gnome just seems more leaner and more clean.

    Sure, I may not understand KDE but I do admit that KDE has its own niche...somewhere.

    --
    --- No, english is not my mother tongue.
  123. Re:GJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If "good" is what's meant, I don't see the point of adding "written". If "well" is what's meant, I do. That's why I figured "well" was what's meant.

  124. Re:Unix to the Desktop by MrHanky · · Score: 1

    Good for you. This PowerBook G3 266 runs with Debian and GNOME, but OS X doesn't even boot. It did before, though, and ran Panther (installed with XPostFacto) surprisingly well with 192 MB RAM, as long as I didn't use too many apps at the same time.

    Then one of my RAM modules stopped working, and OS X would just grind to a halt before I could even log in. Now I use Debian and WindowMaker most of the time, and it runs better than OS X did, with only 64 MB RAM -- as long as I use even fewer apps. I can't run both Thunderbird and Firefox efficiently at the same time. One of them + Emacs seems to work well, though. Or just OpenOffice.org.

    Just face it, OS X is far more demanding than all other popular desktops when it comes to memory usage. And maybe that's why it works so well on old equipment in your fantasy world -- because you've made sure you have enough RAM. But that will help about equally well on all OSes.

    (Yes, this message is posted from 'Mozilla /5.0 (X11; U; Linux ppc; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040914 Firefox/0.9.3' under GNOME 2.6, Debian Sid PPC)

  125. Re:Once you beat the bottlenecks, it's very snappy by AntiOrganic · · Score: 1

    No, it's really more of a clear example of hardware makers not testing or developing their hardware enough on Linux. Render acceleration on their drivers really should be both stable and enabled by default, like it is with pretty much every other video driver ever.

  126. Re:Once you beat the bottlenecks, it's very snappy by kragwad · · Score: 1
    Yep, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who had problems trying to get this to work.

    Seem's it still experimental:

    "Option "RenderAccel" "boolean" Enable or disable hardware acceleration of the RENDER extension. THIS OPTION IS EXPERIMENTAL. ENABLE IT AT YOUR OWN RISK. There is no correctness test suite for the RENDER extension so NVIDIA can not verify that RENDER acceleration works correctly. Default: hardware acceleration of the RENDER extension is disabled."

    ftp://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86/1.0-61 11/README.txt

  127. Re:Once you beat the bottlenecks, it's very snappy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However, on a fast system (2 GHz+), you escape the bottleneck and GNOME is much snappier than Windows XP.

    Sorry but that's pathetic. If you need a 2GHz computer to use a desktop something's extremely wrong with that software.

  128. Re:Once you beat the bottlenecks, it's very snappy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about the 6 million stat64 calls on the launch of every program thanks to theming?

    That's another bottleneck that massively slows down program launch times. And there are who knows how many others. Saying there's one bottleneck is just silly.

  129. Go with KDE instead, it is better by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 0, Troll

    KDE is technically superior and has a much more professional feel. Gnome is slow, locks up and crashes a lot. That is why I switched to and stayed with KDE, a proven solution.

    Gnome only exists because of a licensing spat over the Qt Toolkit. Qt wasn't "free" enough. Yeah, RMS and company, it is called the "real world" come live in it for a while. Companies need to make money, people need to get paid. Want to debate that with me? Pay for a place for me to live, food for me to eat, and gas for my car comrade and then we'll talk.

    Trolltech did the right thing, now it is (well past) time for the Gnome people to do the right thing and fold their work into KDE instead of dividing the community.

    --
    Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    1. Re:Go with KDE instead, it is better by snakeplissken · · Score: 0, Troll

      christianity only exists because of a licensing spat over 'being holy', judaism denied the existence of the 'messiah' on earth, yeah jesus and company, it is called 'the real world' come live in it for while, want to debate that with me? pay for a place for me to live, food for me to eat and then we'll talk

      the jews were right, now it is (well past) time for christians to do the right thing and convert to judaism instead of dividing the community

  130. how to set the global panel by mcdade · · Score: 1

    Ok.. maybe some gnome expert can answer this, i have been going crazy for a few days. I have figured out that if you use the applications-all-users:/// you can set the menu items. But now I need to configure that top panel for gnome on solaris so that people get a standard set of apps..

    anyone got an answer on this?

    thanks

    -b

    1. Re:how to set the global panel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  131. Re:hope they finally got rid of some annoyances .. by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    Because the GUI is simpler...

    Huh? The GUI is actually more complex with spatial. When you click on a folder icon you end up creating a new window. With non-spatial you're reusing the existing window. That means fewer resources. It also means you don't have to look up where the user last left that window so you can position it spatially.

    Constructing and rendering a GUI is surprisingly intensive

    Precisely. Which is why spatial should be more intensive than non-spatial, simply because it's constructing more windows. Unless it's doing something really goofy in the non-spatial case then spatial should be slower. Maybe not slow enough to affect the user, but still slower than the simpler case of non-spatial.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  132. Use xcompmgr -cfF for extra nice effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    xcompmgr -cfF Gives drop shadows and fading on show/hide/changes in transparency

  133. Re:Thats nice by arose · · Score: 1

    Mandrakelinux is more in the "either" category.

    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  134. It's a desktop duh by timmarhy · · Score: 1

    to all the morons out there saying concerntrate on features rather then speed - ITS A DESKTOP ITS SUPPOSED TO HAVE NICE FEATURES TO MAKE LIFE EASIER if i want the ultimate in speed i'll use pine for email and lynx for web, but i dont' want that speed i want nice menus and easy to navigate stuff. THATS why i've been using KDE rather then gnome, it makes my life easier. I'm going to check out gnome 2.8 but it's looks like they might finally be on a par with kde in useablity.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  135. Re:Less is more - Gnome, KDE and the Unixdesktop w by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What you wrote sounds like you are still stuck in pre-GNOME 2.0 and pre-KDE 3.2 days.

  136. Slackware by Allen+Zadr · · Score: 1
    Fedora is more my speed. I used to use Slackware until the slackware-10 release when udev became the default device management, etc. Long story short (too late), my USB camera would no longer connect to the system (while I was on friggin vacation).

    Anyway, I started using Slackware because at the time, it was the easiest to upgrade to Gnome 2.6.

    My only complaint now... Just as I'm getting used to 2.6, 2.8 comes out, and now I want to upgrade again!

    Besides that... Swaret doesn't track dependancies as well as up2date (in my personal experience, most slacker's experiences vary from mine).

    --
    Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
  137. Re:xorg and gnome development... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing awkward about it - having a well-defined and predicatable release cycle is what's driving progress. By coordinating the release of the different components, they can ensure everything fits together properly, instead of having one released package depending on unreleased features in another, e.g things like dbus/hal support.

  138. Re:xorg and gnome development... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These GNOME releases just don't magically happen, there's a lot of work behind the scenes by the accessibility and translation teams.

    If you look at the release plan you'll see there's distinct periods where certain things happen (module proposals, code freezes, string translations, etc...):
    http://www.gnome.org/start/2.7/

    The end release wouldn't be nearly as well coordinated if everyone just released whenever they felt like it. You'd also end up in situations where programs couldn't depend a certain version of another program. As it stands, something like nautilus 2.8 can depend on a feature being present in another 2.8 application since they're released concurrently.

  139. time to look at gnome? by zxflash · · Score: 1

    kde has long been my oe of choice... could however be time to give g a peek again...

    --

    All the torrents you could want.
  140. Better X Window System Support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, well, this is nice and all but GNOME uses
    Gtk. Gtk (and Qt) are toolkits which run on X.
    They are *not* X toolkits. To this end, Gtk
    (GNOME) doesn't co-exist well with native X
    apps. My question is when is Gtk going to start
    honoring X appearance specifications (via the X
    resource mechanism)? I'm not suggesting Gtk
    abandon it's mechanism for setting widget colors,
    etc., but rather enhance it by taking *advantage*
    of native mechanisms to make it work *better*
    (smater?) with the native windowing system it
    happens to be running under (in this case, X).
    Similary arguments could be made concerning X cut
    and paste semantics versus Gtk semantics.

  141. Re:Once you beat the bottlenecks, it's very snappy by AntiOrganic · · Score: 1

    Did you manage to somehow completely miss the next sentence or what?

  142. confusion by CoolMoDee · · Score: 1

    You are confused, the file selector belongs to GTK, not Gnome (which is made with GTK).

    --
    Jisho - A Japanese English German Russian French Dictionary for the rest of us.
  143. Does pango work on Mac OS X now? by Stanza · · Score: 1


    I hope what this really means is that someone will fix fink enough so that when I try `fink install gnome` (or anything requiring gnome) I don't get errors compiling pango.

  144. Does it have the Gnome 1.4 features? by jonadab · · Score: 1

    I want my always-on-top clock panel that apps don't avoid on maximize back.

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  145. Prevolution? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    According to the GNOME 2.8 release notes, it includes Evolution 2.0. But Novell hasn't released Evolution 2.0 (though we're in its promised "2004Q3" delivery window). Is the Evolution 2.0 included with GNOME 2.8 a stable version? Is there any reason to wait for Novell to release it on their own?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  146. Mono's BSD licensed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mono's license change -- Makes it easier for Novell to sell an "Enterprise" edition ..... As more and more apps developed by "commercial" FreeSoftware companies go BSD licensed ... there's a shaky future somewhere around there.

  147. Gnome is being watered down for morons by Gopal.V · · Score: 1

    I used to run gnome, but a couple of years back nautilus came out. It was a memory hog and cpu hog - that's when I realized that I don't really use a desktop anymore. What I use is a set of apps , almost all of them I know by name , from the commandline . gaim, xchat, galeon, etc..

    All this got worse as soon as I started working with remote-X, I finally gave up gnome and kde as a desktop. I still use gnome apps and kde apps (kppp's still my dialer, gimp has no equal) , but not the desktop or their wms.

    People define "Ease of use" differently - I just don't happen to like the way gnome is going ... it's being watered down for morons - a larger market of morons are there than my kind . It does make sense , but I have my own fluxbox :)

  148. Re:Give it time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL. So true.

  149. Re:hope they finally got rid of some annoyances .. by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

    Windows != more resources. Constructing a window in X is a lightweight, fast operation. Yes it uses some resources but constructing and laying out a complex toolbar with embedded edit boxes, a tree view, a spinner, a zoom control etc etc *does* take time. A spatial window just has the icon view, a menu bar and a status bar. Much simpler.

  150. Nitpicking time... by wolftone · · Score: 1

    XFCE is not a full Desktop Environment. It is a nice compromise between a full DE and a Window Manager. A full DE has a browser, an office suite (though I still don't see what is promising in KDE's office suite, they have one), and a lot of configuration and administration apps which provide a consistent look and feel. XFCE (which I'm using right now) doesn't have this. It has a control panel, yes; a couple applets which are fairly well integrated.

    I do find XFCE to be a nice alternative to the Bloated DE's now and again, but I tend to go through phases between UDE, XFCE, and KDE/Gnome depending on how much integration I want. Most of my time is spent in UDE.

  151. Re:hope they finally got rid of some annoyances .. by Gnulix · · Score: 1

    Because the GUI is simpler, and because it's the default it's more heavily optimized.

    Either you're full of it or else something is wrong with Gnome. The GUI isn't simpler, it's the same friggin GUI! How do one optimize especially for spatial support, especially since the browser support both modes?
  152. Re:hope they finally got rid of some annoyances .. by Gnulix · · Score: 1

    Windows != more resources.

    You're not a developer are you? That was so stupid that only the most pointy haired salesperson could have said it! Then again you contradict yourself in the next sentence, which only goes to show...
  153. Bang on the money by Sits · · Score: 1

    If you are a MandrakeClub member then there has been access to a well packaged version of firefox throughout the 10.0 (the good news is that there is a recent version of firefox in Mandrake 10.1 contribs now). Feodra also had a well packaged version for it over at Fedora Extras. The moral is that if you break away from your distro specific packaging, expect problems...

  154. Re:Less is more - Gnome, KDE and the Unixdesktop w by jamarsa · · Score: 1

    Just one word - modularity. This way you achieve features, while still being allowed performance. Only you need to be wise in choosing what to include in what module, so you don't need to load them all to get a functional desktop. I know this is being tried right now, but we really need to improve in this area.

  155. Re:hope they finally got rid of some annoyances .. by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

    Dunno if that was meant to be a joke, but if not then you seriously missed what I was talking about. And yes, I am a developer ...

  156. Re:hope they finally got rid of some annoyances .. by Gnulix · · Score: 1

    And yes, I am a developer ...

    The horror, the horror!!!
  157. Nautilus and Enlightenment by SlipJig · · Score: 1

    Is there any practical reason why, when I run Nautilus, it stomps all over my Enlightenment desktop? I'd love to be able to use Nautilus, but it replaces my background and displays Gnome's desktop icons and task bar without asking me. Pretty obnoxious IMHO... this is why, until E17 comes out, when I want a graphical file manager, I will continue to run Konqueror.

    --
    Read my keyboard review.