Slashdot Mirror


Gnome 2.10 Sneak Peek

spectre_be writes "Davyd Madeley wrote a Sneak Peek at Gnome 2.10, scheduled for release on the March 9, 2005. Looks like the new release-policy is starting to pay of, as several existing utilities get enhancements and a couple of new ones are added. Also (finally) a mozilla-stylee type-ahead find has been implemented in Gnome's Open/Save dialog. Together with OpenOffice.org 2.0's scheduled release and Novell's Mono coming up to speed, will 2005 prove to be the year of Gnome?" Update: 01/18 01:40 GMT by T : Oops - the "2-point" got chopped off in the headline; still a while until GNOME 10.

436 comments

  1. OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's gonna be a great year.

    1. Re:OMG! by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 0, Redundant

      It's gonna be a great year.

      Not just for Gnome, but for Linux.
      2005 is the year of Linux on the desktop.

    2. Re:OMG! by randallpowell · · Score: 1

      So was every year from 2001 to now. While Linux is great, it could use some better GUI tools for new Linux users and lazy bums like me.

    3. Re:OMG! by yahwotqa · · Score: 1

      Well, you can't say Gnome is not trying. :)

  2. Big difference.... by chipster · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...from the previous releases. Looks fantastic - and actually looks like the interface was *thought through*. Good job team.

    1. Re:Big difference.... by terrox · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I still don't care about Gnome. It has a silly name, I don't know what Gnome is and I don't really care because it has a silly name - Gnome, something small that I don't need.

    2. Re:Big difference.... by astebbin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yes, it does look much better than the previous release, but it still doesn't look as snazzy or as futuristic as XP, and unfortuanately for all of those Linux user out there, the common non-tech-savvy person often will choose a version of Windows over a distro of Linux simply because XP just looks nicer and easier to use. I won't get into an argument of which OS is better over the other since I don't want to get flamed to death, but I do think that how nice the GUI looks is (sadly) a big factor as to whether or not Joe User from Suburbia USA will pick one OS over the other for his day-to-day Net surfing, gaming, emailing, or whatever.

      Most people out there will end up judging a book by its cover if they can't figure out whats actually inside.

    3. Re:Big difference.... by mboverload · · Score: 0, Troll

      It wont matter, because you will still have to use the commandline for everything.

    4. Re:Big difference.... by I+Be+Hatin' · · Score: 5, Funny
      it still doesn't look as snazzy or as futuristic as XP

      Ummm... you misspelled "Fischer-Price".

      --
      I know god exists. I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
    5. Re:Big difference.... by Monkelectric · · Score: 1
      Unlike XP, gnome (GTK) is *fully* themeable. In windows you are restricted to themes with dark text on light backgrounds as many fonts colors are hard coded as dark colors -- thus cannot have dark backgrounds.

      For some reason I've always gravitated to *dark* colors on the screen, the white backgrounds hurt my eyes after awhile. I've only had a few problems with a couple linux programs, contrasted with many windows programs.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    6. Re:Big difference.... by hazah · · Score: 1

      Strange, I run both XP (for some games of cource) and gnome 2.8 (mind you, not the updated futuristic looking one), and XP still looks more premitive.

    7. Re:Big difference.... by hazah · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh no!!! not the.... god forbidden.... command line... aaaaaaah how do I get rid of this one gateway to all the functionality of my system... how indeed. What are you, on drugs? Please define everything.

    8. Re:Big difference.... by MrWim · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Personally I think it looks really smart, clear and uncluttered and of course it is easier to downlaod and apply your own themes than windows which should appeal to the average home user.

      I tend to change my theme every so often so as not to get bored, but on windows it was a case of blue, silver or classic and I would argue that all of them arn't as nice as industrial or gartoon in gnome

    9. Re:Big difference.... by I+Be+Hatin' · · Score: 2, Funny
      Ummm... you misspelled "Fischer-Price".

      Lol... I meant "Fisher Price".

      --
      I know god exists. I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
    10. Re:Big difference.... by FyRE666 · · Score: 2, Funny

      but it still doesn't look as snazzy or as futuristic as XP...

      Futuristic!?! You're saying that one day the teletubbies with invade and conquer Earth?

    11. Re:Big difference.... by astebbin · · Score: 1

      I myself use both Linux and Windows XP on a regular basis, and so speaking from experience I would agree that the Windows XP GUI is very childish looking and that the Linux GUI looks much smarter and handles much more efficiently.

      However, most people who look at XP see something new and visually appealing (at least at first), and the same people who look at Gnome or Fluxbox see something that looks similar to older/recent versions of MacOS (OSX is awesome but we wont go into that at this time). Also, I know that there are many different window managers out there with different graphical styles, and you all know that too, as evidenced by your posts, but the general consumer doesn't know what we know and Microsoft and others want to keep it that way.

      Again, I use both XP/Linux and IMHO Li ux is vastly preferreable to XP, but this is just my opinion and I'm not trying to force it upon anybody.

    12. Re:Big difference.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In windows you are restricted to themes with dark text on light backgrounds as many fonts colors are hard coded as dark colors -- thus cannot have dark backgrounds.

      What the fuck are you blathering about? Windows uses TrueType fonts, the same as everyone else, and they can be any colour you like (and several million you almost certainly hate).

    13. Re:Big difference.... by lack1uster · · Score: 0

      Actually I find when I'm on drugs I prefer the command line. Gives me that futuristic creepy feeling.

    14. Re:Big difference.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most terminal monitors were originally green/amber on black because of usability studies showing them to be of an optimal contrast for long periods of use.

      I have to agree; white backgrounds like on /. are like staring into the sun when you load them up late at night.

    15. Re:Big difference.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      He's saying a lot of apps have their fonts set manually to black instead of reading the color from the windows theme. Thus, when you change the system font color, the apps don't change.

      (Note that a few Linux apps are guilty of this too. I've wanted to stab Audacity a few times)

    16. Re:Big difference.... by stor · · Score: 2

      Yes, it does look much better than the previous release, but it still doesn't look as snazzy or as futuristic as XP

      That's subjective dude.

      My Linux Desktop looks *much* nicer than my XP one. I think XP is butt-fugly. Really, really horrible.

      I'm not saying you're wrong, just that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    17. Re:Big difference.... by stor · · Score: 1

      If it's from MS, isn't it fissure price?

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    18. Re:Big difference.... by zootm · · Score: 1

      As your post's parent pointed out, though, regardless of look, many previous releases of Linux managers (and GNOME is by far not the only one) have just not been thought through before they were implemented. Consistency, and consequently usability, suffer as a result. This is one of the major reasons that people find it harder to use Linux than Windows - there's just not the consistency, and still some (simple, but important) things need to be changed by playing with GConf and the like. It is getting better though, and this release looks to be a step forward. I worry that while many are focussing on appps, whether they should be attempting to critically analyse the existing layout, though.

      Another thing that both Windows and OSX have over existing Linux systems (and OSX significantly moreso) is "Bells and Whistles". The all-singing, all-dancing, all-animated taskbars in Windows or OSX reassure people that their computer is doing something, and above that, modern. This is something that Linux can't currently compete with, although it is catching up at a good rate.

    19. Re:Big difference.... by Dasch · · Score: 1

      I for one would welcome our teletubby overlords...

    20. Re:Big difference.... by Xabraxas · · Score: 1
      As your post's parent pointed out, though, regardless of look, many previous releases of Linux managers (and GNOME is by far not the only one) have just not been thought through before they were implemented. Consistency, and consequently usability, suffer as a result

      Please give an example because I find the opposite to be true. GNOME is very well thought through and happens to be ten times more consistent than XP. What exactly is so consistent with XP anyway?

      Another thing that both Windows and OSX have over existing Linux systems (and OSX significantly moreso) is "Bells and Whistles". The all-singing, all-dancing, all-animated taskbars in Windows or OSX reassure people that their computer is doing something, and above that, modern. This is something that Linux can't currently compete with, although it is catching up at a good rate.

      What does the taskbar do in Windows that can't be done in GNOME? In fact GNOME taskbars are more capable and versatile than XP taskbars.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    21. Re:Big difference.... by zootm · · Score: 1

      Please give an example because I find the opposite to be true. GNOME is very well thought through and happens to be ten times more consistent than XP. What exactly is so consistent with XP anyway? Best example I have at the moment is to add a launcher to a subfolder of the "applications" menu, one would assume a right-click of said subfolder would allow adding it. Instead, one has to go to an item in the subfolder, whose context menu has a menu branch for the folder containing it. It's just niggly bits like that - they build up.

      What does the taskbar do in Windows that can't be done in GNOME? In fact GNOME taskbars are more capable and versatile than XP taskbars. They're animated. Things "slide" back and forth and so on. Although it seems minor it is picked up on by the user. Obviously in OSX I'm referring to the dock menu.

      It's not lack of versatility that Linux is lacking - in fact, for mass acceptance, that may even be a disadvantage if it can't be hidden. Expert users are generally more than happy to customise their system with things that need to be "delved into", but a wealth of options and commands often serves only to confuse a naive user. GNOME is making good inroads with this, in particular.

  3. OpenOffice? by Dionysus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why would a release of OpenOffice make it the year of Gnome? Isn't OpenOffice independent of Gnome (I run it fine in KDE)?

    Also, the header is soo misleading (I thought I had done timejump or something)

    --
    Je ne parle pas francais.
    1. Re:OpenOffice? by KingPunk · · Score: 0

      you run it fine in kde, i run it nicely in fluxbox ;)

    2. Re:OpenOffice? by Pflipp · · Score: 1

      It is hardly considered good advise to check whether your time machine has worked by loading up Slashdot to see what Gnome is up to now.

      More seriously, I still miss the command-line style tab expansion from ye olde days. It's the only thing that *really* worked for my mp3 collection, at least given the current state of the iTunes clones.

      --
      "We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
    3. Re:OpenOffice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      OO.org was "adopted" by Gnome as its Office Suiote a while ago. Being that there is more work going on to fully integrate it with Gnome expect more people on the Linux side to refer to it as Gnome's Office suite in the future.

      I do find it amusing to read this page though
      http://www.gnome.org/gnome-office/

      Miguel himself said to abandon Gnumeric and put all efforts into OpenOffice years ago. Sorry I don't have the exact link but that is exactly what it said. Abiword, GNumeric willl obviously still be hanging around but as soon as its possibly expect OO to be fully integrated into Gnome releases and Abiword,Gnumeric to disapear from the above page. I don't know anyone in the community who doesn't think of OO.org as the future Gnome Office.

    4. Re:OpenOffice? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      There's this myth out there that OpenOffice is a GNOME app. I have no idea why. Maybe some GNOME developer submitted a bug fix to it once upon a time...

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    5. Re:OpenOffice? by wrenkin · · Score: 1

      Maybe because of the use of Gnome icons on a lot of distros?

      --
      -- "Is this death or is this Ohio?"
    6. Re:OpenOffice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Re:OpenOffice? by UnderScan · · Score: 1

      You are probably already aware but gnome icons in OOo does not make it a Gnome project. Suse already shipped 9.2 with KDE-ified OOo. See http://dot.kde.org/1101482981/ http://linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/5679/4/ screenshot3180/" http://www.openoffice.org/files/documents/159/1804 /NWF_icons_writer.jpg

    8. Re:OpenOffice? by Captain+Rotundo · · Score: 1

      Too bad abiword and gnumeric are MUCH nicer than the OpenOffice.org counterparts. I use gnome exclusively, and will continue to use gnumeric and abiword as long as they remain quicker, nicer, and easier to use than OpenOffice.org.

    9. Re:OpenOffice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *All* of the "native look" work was done by GNOME hackers -- but they made it so that Qt and KDE could tag along. The vast majority of integration work is being done by GNOME hackers, plus GNOME integration is actually part of the OO 2.0 roadmap.

      KDE is just a hanger-on in this -- as in so many things, it's only advntage is the loud and vociferous slashdot posters who keep making ridiculous claims for it.

    10. Re:OpenOffice? by mvdw · · Score: 1

      I use KDE exclusively, but still I use abiword, gnumeric, and until recently galeon was my web browser. I even just yesterday un-emerged openoffice because an "emerge world" was going to upgrade OOo and I didn't want to wait for the compile for something I don't use. But I still run kde as my desktop, go figure. I guess some people are just retarded.

    11. Re:OpenOffice? by micolous · · Score: 3, Informative

      Obviously you're using the standard version of OpenOffice. GNOME has their own GNOME-ized version, ximian-openoffice. I personally prefer it to standard OpenOffice, probably because I use GNOME and it all fits in well with the desktop.

      --
      SSdtIGFzIGJvcmVkIGFzIHlvdSBhcmUK
    12. Re:OpenOffice? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Silly me. I checked on the OpenOffice page to see if it was a GNOME application or not. Stupid me. I should have checked the Ximian page. Duh!

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

      There is also the funny myth that OpenOffice.org is a Java application (he - it's slow and asks for a Java path at installation, or?).

    14. Re:OpenOffice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Above should read "the vast majority of GNOME integration work is being done by GNOME hackers".

    15. Re:OpenOffice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GNOME has their own GNOME-ized version,...

      Which, just for the record, is also true for KDE, of course... :)

    16. Re:OpenOffice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Above should read "the vast majority of GNOME integration work is being done by GNOME hackers".

      Actually, it should read: the vast majority of Linux desktop integration work is being done by GNOME hackers.

      As it said eariler in the message -- the work done by GNOME hackers is being done in (purposefully) in such a way that KDE can tag along. With the GNOME hackers, there would be no KDE-look OO.

  4. Gnome '10' huh? by tpgp · · Score: 5, Funny

    You can see Suns influence on gnome here!

    --
    My pics.
    1. Re:Gnome '10' huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      So true.

      For those who are unfamiliar with Sun versioning:
      * Java 1.5 is the same thing as Java 5
      * Solaris 2.10 is the same thing as Solaris 10.

      Sun alternates between both these naming conventions, sometimes within the same document.

      I have no clue why that can't just stick to a single versioning scheme.

    2. Re:Gnome '10' huh? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      It's not even that simple... Java 5's full name is Java2 1.5. Here's the version history of Java from what I can make out:

      Java 1.0
      Java 1.1

      The following release was a significant upgrade, so Sun thought it should deserve a special designation. However, because Sun apparently doesn't know about the major version number, it was called...

      Java2 1.2 [No, not Java 2.0 or even Java2 1.0]
      Java2 1.3
      Java2 1.4

      Again, the next version was a major upgrade. However, instead of doing something sane, or even sane considering their previous pattern, they called it...

      Java 2 1.5 aka Java 5 [no, not Java 1.5, not Java 5.0, nor even Java5 1.5]

      The only thing that I can think of that is similarily warped is the Unix versions ("The different versions of the UN*X brand operating system are numbered in a logical sequence: 5, 6, 7, 2, 2.9, 3, 4.0, III, 4.1, V, 4.2, V.2, and 4.3"), but that's muddled somewhat because of many dialects of Unix...

    3. Re:Gnome '10' huh? by MagPulse · · Score: 4, Funny

      KDE has announced that the next release, KDE 3.4, will be known as KDE 400.

    4. Re:Gnome '10' huh? by moonbender · · Score: 1

      You can't blame the Gnome guys for this, though, nor the submitter - nowhere in the article does it refer to Gnome 10. It only turns up in the Slashdot headline. Seems like it was timothy's idea...

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    5. Re:Gnome '10' huh? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
      How about "DeathKDE 3000"

      Harvey Corman directs!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    6. Re:Gnome '10' huh? by contagious_d · · Score: 2, Funny

      At least they have not gone backwards yet.

      --
      - /home is where the food is.
  5. Gnome 10? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow what year is it? I haven't checked out Gnome for a while and I missed 7 versions already!

    1. Re:Gnome 10? by Nermal6693 · · Score: 1

      OK, it's just a typo.

    2. Re:Gnome 10? by spectre_be · · Score: 1

      It's a typo.
      Sorry.
      I'd fix it if only I had the means to do so.

    3. Re:Gnome 10? by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      It's no worse than 3.11 to 95 to 98 to ME, or 4.0 to 2000 to XP to 2003.

    4. Re:Gnome 10? by whoever57 · · Score: 1
      Gnome 10? But it's really 2.10? Is that like Java 1.2 is Really Java 2 and Java 1.5 is really Java 5?

      I guess anything that Sun touches has to have messed up version numbers -- just look at SunOS vs. Solaris version numbers.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re:Gnome 10? by Brandybuck · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So you're saying GNOME is as stupid as Windows? Is this really the GNOME policy that as long as Microsoft does it then it must be okay?

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    6. Re:Gnome 10? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gnome 10 =
      10 in binary = 2
      10 in decimal = 10

      --> 2.10

      sorry, I'm tired and that was the first thing that came to my mind :p

    7. Re:Gnome 10? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're mixing in product names with the days MS just used the version numbers. Product name != version number nowadays.
      95 = 4.0, 98 = 4.1, ME = 4.9, 2000 = 5.0, XP = 5.1, 2003 = 5.2, "Longhorn" = 6.0, ...

      But I guess you were just joking. :-P

    8. Re:Gnome 10? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Java 1.5 is actually Java 2 version 5. Just to confuse you further...

  6. wow by dolson · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm so behind the times using Debian here.. I only have 2.8, and here 10 is released? Wow. I thought all the "Debian is old" jokes were stupid, but now I know for sure that they were right all along.

    1. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm so behind the times using Debian here.. I only have 2.8, and here 10 is released?

      Not to mention all the money they are going to force you into spending to upgrade to the next version.

    2. Re:wow by pmjordan · · Score: 1

      Well, they recently switched to a 6-month release cycle if I remember correctly, and odd minor numbers are development versions. Having said that, my housemate is a GNOME hacker, and he's never mentioned 2.9 (or 2.7, or 2.5), only 2.8 and 2.10. (or 2.4, or 2.6) Not quite sure what's going on there.

      Oh what the hell: KDE rules! ;-)

      ~phil

    3. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      you luser, I have gentoo and we got gnome-2.11-beta5-pre2-alpha-sector-5.

      go use AOHell on your interweb!

      n00B!

      ____________

      Hackers unite!!!

    4. Re:wow by thephotoman · · Score: 2, Informative

      They may be on a 6-month release cycle, but they still use the Linux versioning system where x.odd releases are development (use Ubuntu Hoary or Gnoppix 0.9.3b2 if you want to see 2.9 in action) and x.even releases are stable, production releases (the latest of which is still 2.8). That said, most people aside from the Gnome developers aren't using 2.9 for a variety of very good reasons (the menuing system has massive bugs in it yet).

      --
      Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
    5. Re:wow by Kleedrac2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you check it out it's a classic case of the odd numbers being -dev and the even numbers being release. I'm running 2.9 right now because it's the -dev arm of 2.10 :)

      Kleedrac

      --
      Sure we wang, can.
    6. Re:wow by pmjordan · · Score: 1

      If you re-read my post, you will notice that I'm aware of this. I just have never seen/heard the development branch referred to by version number. All I seem to hear about is "pre-release 2.10" or so. Oh well.

      ~phil

    7. Re:wow by Alan · · Score: 1

      Not released yet, sneak peak. They are on 2.9.4 developer release last I saw, you still have a bit before you're behind :)

    8. Re:wow by mennucc1 · · Score: 1

      indeed Debian had planned a time-back-port server (that would precompile the binary packages before the upstream authors had finished writing the software) but the project was canceled due to the lack of tachionic processors.

    9. Re:wow by SQLz · · Score: 1

      Hey, Gentoo user, thanks for helping to do all that alpha testing! The linux community needs more bleeding edge testers

    10. Re:wow by Homburg · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, I don't think the GNOME developers really publicise the devel versions until they're close to a release, at which point they call them 2.10 pre-release or whatever. But, for example, on the developers blogs at Planet GNOME, they refer to the work they're doing on 2.9 quite often.

  7. finding files! by a_karbon_devel_005 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One of the things I keep hoping GNOME will get better at is file handling. Konqueror is a great tool for splitting windows, drag'n'drop between ftp sites/websites/etc, and the FILE DIALOG in KDE is pretty decent too...

    Why can't the GNOME one get better? The 2.4 and pre series was a JOKE and this new one, even with all it's vaunted HIG stuff, is still horrible imho. Why can't I see thumbs? Previews? A decent file tree? Bleh.

    1. Re:finding files! by zsau · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you enjoy using KDE, use it. People who enjoy using Gnome will use it. They don't need to be identical; in fact, it would be pointless to have them both if they were. I congratulate both the Gnome and KDE teams for making different products (though I prefer ROX, which is different again from both!).

      --
      Look out!
  8. Open dialog still a monstrosity? by mkavanagh2 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    The open dialog is still that horrible atrocity. I'd really, really be glad if they reverted to the 1.4 open dialog. I hate KDE.

    1. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by Mprx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'd agree, and I hate GTK 1.x. The old file selector allowed you to filter file lists, so you could type "*.mp3" then hit tab so only mp3 files would be shown. This is not possible in the new file selector, and the Mozzila style searching is not an acceptable substitute.

      This regression is probably a result of the GNOME developers simplicity-at-all-costs attitude, and they probably want filtering to be done by the application, eg. the mp3 player shows only mp3s, and using the MIME type system instead of extension. This might seem a superior solution, but actually it is not. The old file selector allowed any combination of wildcards in the search, so you could do things like "*report*" or "Track??.mp3". I think it even allowed regular expressions. This is a much more powerful system, and it didn't confuse newbies because they didn't know it existed.

    2. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by dash2 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I think it even allowed regular expressions. This is a much more powerful system, and it didn't confuse newbies because they didn't know it existed.


      I think the new file dialog is fabulous, and as I didn't know about the old features, I didn't benefit from them. Whereas I benefit from the new simplicity without having even to think about it.

    3. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The wildcard thing sounds like something that could be added without affecting the masses. I mean, I think they have it so you can type the name now right? (it's not just multichoice for the open dialog).

      Anyway, it'd be careful about saying it's intentional because it doesn't look that way. Maybe it's something they've planned, or do you know for a fact that it's not going to be added?

    4. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by bterzic · · Score: 1
      I find the Open File Dialog to be one of the best features of Gnome (2.8) currently. I actually miss it when I'm on Windows.

      The buttons representing the current path are sheer genious. The shortcut list is convenient and it's easy to update with new locations.

      I gather from the 2.9 screenshots they're adding find-as-you-type; I'll reserve judgement until I've tried it but if they handle the focus issue well it should be a boon.

    5. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by martinoforum · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's pretty crap that it doesn't do the wildcard thing, considering that I remember file dialogs on the Amiga doing that as long ago as about 1993 or 1994 - even on the crappy system-supplied GUI library in Workbench 2.x And remember folks, that was a machine that could run the entire damn OS from a small ROM and a floppy disk. I agree, the file open/save dialogs are the worst parts of Gnome at the moment. You don't have a field where you can type/paste a file path, and half the time when you hit "Save" you actually have to click another control in order to be able to save it anywhere other than the current folder or a few fairly retarded locations like /home or / ... I mean seriously, I do a lot of work for a whole bunch of clients, why do I always have to go: Save -> Browse For Other Folders -> find my Folder -> Type a filename That second step is totally pointless and confusing, and there's no obvious or intuitive way to turn that bastard off the first time you see it, unlike most of the annoying GUI features of Windows. Teaching people to understand how file structures work in an intuitive manner is one of the functions of a file open/save dialog, and the Gnome one just muddies the waters by acting as if Saving Somewhere Else is some kind of advanced "super user" trick that needs a Special Super User Button to enable. Hopefully there's a way to turn that off, but it's not obvious enough to be user friendly if there is. And, also - this bugs me... why on earth does Gnome have a Windows-style registry? The registry is one of the worst, most annoying, dumbest features of Windows and a big reason that I like working in Linux. So why on earth would you want to copy it? Please tell me. Has Windows corrupted our minds so much that we think editing registry keys is COOL? Or are we just gearing up so that we can have nice programs like Registry First Aid as well?

    6. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by dont_think_twice · · Score: 1

      This regression is probably a result of the GNOME developers simplicity-at-all-costs attitude

      I agree, but I bet that they will add the filtering back in soon. From the way I understood it, the goal was to strip everything out of the file chooser, build it correctly from the ground up, and then add the advanced features back in so that they don't intefere with the simple behavior. As you say, it is possible to add the filter ability in without it confusing the noobs at all.

    7. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't agree more. I can't help but wonder why they are on this path. What are they trying to achieve? A window manager + integrated file manager give you a desktop environment. If an A500 could do it (well) you wonder why its so hard to get a sane gnome setup these days. I don't even code for gnome any more, just GTK+.

    8. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by noda132 · · Score: 1

      You don't have a field where you can type/paste a file path

      Ctrl-L.

      half the time when you hit "Save" you actually have to click another control in order to be able to save it anywhere other than the current folder or a few fairly retarded locations like /home or / ...

      Yeah, and the other half of the time it's marvellously fast. You're probably actually spending *less* time with the new dialogs (using Ctrl-L) than you were with the old ones -- even if you have to type in file paths -- because half of the time, you don't.

      And you can set yourself bookmarks, if you'd like. Just drag folders onto the left pane and they'll show up in the drop-down next time you want to save a file.

      Teaching people to understand how file structures work in an intuitive manner is one of the functions of a file open/save dialog

      No. Hiding the details of file structures from users is one of the functions of a file open/save dialog. Most users don't understand what a file hierarchy is... and don't want to.

      And, also - this bugs me... why on earth does Gnome have a Windows-style registry?

      I challenge you to name three significant architectural similarities between GConf and the WIndows registry. They are entirely different.

    9. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1
      And, also - this bugs me... why on earth does Gnome have a Windows-style registry? The registry is one of the worst, most annoying, dumbest features of Windows and a big reason that I like working in Linux. So why on earth would you want to copy it?

      I only skimmed your post (paragraph breaks are your friend), but I just hope the rest of it isn't as ill-informed as this.

      The Windows Registry most certainly *is* a monstrosity: Literally thousands of controls with names that mean nothing to a human being, all jammed into a single file that's prone to corruption. I don't think you'll find many people who will argue that it's not a horrible design.

      The thing you need to realize, however, is that GConf is *NOT* the Registry. At it's simplest, it's mearly taking the abundance of scattered, hidden dot files in a user's home directory, and putting them in a single, organized location and providing an XML framework to manage them. Instead of a single, massive file like the Registry, GConf is just taking files that *would be there ANYWAY* and putting them in a central location. Adding in the XML framework means you can now edit configs for any number of apps from a single application instead of first hunting down the config file and then editing it by hand.

      GConf keys are also human-readable, and have sane names. I can usually find anything I'm looking for in GConf relatively quickly, as opposed to the Registry where a random key will look like, oh.... HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Uninstall\{0008546E-DF6E-4CC1-AFD0-2CB8 E16C95A2}

      At any rate, OS News has a good write up on it here. I'd suggest you read it. GConf is nothing more than a framework for config files that would exist anyway, and allows developers to include options for advanced users without clogging up the preferences menu with 10,000 options (which is *HORRIBLE* design from a usability perspective).
    10. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by psi42 · · Score: 1

      I really never saw anything wrong with the gtk-1.x fileselector. It kicked the crap out of what shipped with windows.

      Now there's so much reference on pointy-clicking every little thing.

      Sure, you can Ctrl+L to get a manual text entry in the new fileselector, but why is this necessary at all? The text entry should be the central part of a fileselector, it should be selected by default...

      And with regard to GNOME, the interface is pretty much set in stone as far as users are concerned. Don't like the way it acts? Too bad. The "Actions" menu, for example, which should be set up through a plaintext config file, is a major pain in the ass to modify.

      --
      Defenestrate Windows...
    11. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ctrl-L.

      Why? Why on earth do I have to type ctrl-l? Why not just type the filename, as in every other half-decent file selection dialog?

      Just compare it to jEdits file selection dialog,
      which, btw, support cursor keys.

      Every person I have ever seen have understood the file hierarchy after just a few seconds explanation: "put this years text into folder '2005'". And how on earth do you suppose they understand bookmarks?

      The GConf, really, REALLY, (and I mean *REALLY*) should use subversion. This is one similarity.

    12. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by martinoforum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ctrl-L? Wow, that's... intuitive.. I'm sure everybody will figure that one out!

      And why the hell would you want to hide a hierarchy from the user? I had thought that was the whole point of a "spatial" desktop, to help the user envision the structure of their filesystem visually? I can understand hierarchies just fine and *I* find the Gnome dialogue confusing because it has no sense of position inside the filesystem when it opens - I have no idea if I'm looking at ~/www or /var/www, for a start.

      And if you're suggesting that all users just want to save every file into "My documents" or the desktop, you're woefully mistaken. Even my mum knows better than that, and she rings me up in a fluster because the computer said a program had performed an illegal operation! It's certainly a bad habit to teach, as it acts to suggest to the user that they make a total mess of their home directory. Way to go...

      As for the "Click here for more folders" button saving me time.. that's bollocks. If it defaults to the folder it saved in last time and I just want to save it, that's no time saved on having the other folders displayed to start with. If it defaults to a folder I don't want, then it's a total waste of time.

      Either way, no time saved, some time wasted. Useless.

      And what's with the use of space in that file save request anyway? If I resize it up to about half the height of my screen on a 1280x1024 display it still only shows a tiny number of folders I can save into after I hit that toggle, the rest of the box is taken up by stupidly huge controls at the top and large empty spaces. Maybe 1/8th of the window is actually doing something useful.

      As for the registry, I was talking more about the *user interface paradigm* than an architectural similarity. It's a crap idea for a UI, and not something anybody should be copying. One of the main reasons I like Linux is the absence of a goddamn registry, the last thing I want to see is a clone of the RegEdit GUI!

      You've not got me convinced, sorry.

    13. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by martinoforum · · Score: 1

      My main issue is the GUI. RegEdit is a horrid, horrid user interface for doing anything, and GConf is largely identical. Yes, the idea of structured key/value pairs isn't a bad one, and it's a nice idea to take all of that stuff out of dot files, I do agree. But the way of delivering it to the user sucks. That needs a total rethink.

    14. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by RenatoRam · · Score: 1

      first: you are talking about gconf-editor, ONE of the frontends to GConf.

      If you don't like it, just write another.

      second: the user will not need to use it AT ALL.

      I am a developer, power user, and general gnome geek, and I've not even launched the gconf-editor since the 2.2 days.

      Why the hell are you using gconf-editor???

      --
      Ciao, Renato
    15. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by martinoforum · · Score: 1

      First: I am. I installed Gnome, I thought - as a user will - "What can I do to configure this?". So I went to the configuration menu and selected "Configuration editor".

      If I don't like it, I quite understand that I'm free to use other things. However Gnome is a commercially supported project aiming at getting people to use it who DON'T want to rewrite it. Speaking as a user, I don't see the point in Gnome shipping a RegEdit clone so prominantly.

      Second: Then why put the damn thing there? If the user isn't going to need it, why is it there? There's certainly lots of things that would be a lot more useful missing, and that thing is an affront to common decency. At the moment it's just a waste of a menu item, because it's totally useless and downright horrible. I thought Gnome was about trying not to confuse the crap out of people - even Windows has the decency not to put RegEdit in the control panel!

    16. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by BenjyD · · Score: 1

      >Why the hell are you using gconf-editor???

      Two examples from my usage: to change the order of title bar buttons so close and maximize aren't right next to each other and to enable display of volume+computer icons on the desktop (Ubuntu had them off by default).

      I think GNOME is great, and I use it every day, but I do think sometimes they have avoided the "control center clutter" of KDE by just shoving all the inconvenient settings into gconf-editor rather than dialogs.

    17. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by RenatoRam · · Score: 1

      Uh?

      Did you read the note that pops up AUTOMATICALLY saying that you should NOT touch anything in gconf-editor unless you know what you are doing?

      The fact that gnome has a whole "preferences" first-level menu does not say anything to you?

      Everything that is in gconf-editor is configured through the NORMAL preferences, save for some obscure and very "tweaker user" settings you really should not touch if you do not know very well what you are doing.

      And in that case I doubt you'll be scared by gconf-editor, being a saner regedit, with live documentation about keys and readable names.

      Besides, gconf-editor sits in System Settings->Other Settings (or something like that, my system is in italian)... is that "prominent" to you?

      --
      Ciao, Renato
    18. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by McDutchie · · Score: 1
      Adding in the XML framework means you can now edit configs for any number of apps from a single application instead of first hunting down the config file and then editing it by hand.

      So, you have to hunt them down in the registry instead of in the file system -- how is this better? Plus, you lose the ability to edit the config with a text editor in a simple way. I prefer the traditional way, and this is one reason why I opt out of the entire GNOME/KDE bloatware culture.

    19. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1
      So, you have to hunt them down in the registry instead of in the file system -- how is this better?

      By virtue of the fact that you can easily search across all config files since you're interfacing them through a single app?
      Plus, you lose the ability to edit the config with a text editor in a simple way.

      The XML schema's set up in a way where it's clearly human readable, and the files are laid out in a logical directory hierarchy. How you're lose this ability is beyond me.
    20. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by martinoforum · · Score: 1

      Gnome's preferences are a bit of a mess. Desktop related stuff is all in one menu, but similarly graphical things like GDM are still in the other System Tools menu. I think a little more centralisation here would be useful, I would see Networking, GDM, Services config etc as being more at home with the other preferences than hidden away with the archiving tool and floppy formatting utility.

      I don't recall seeing any such message about not touching things - I just had a look now and it doesn't appear. So I remain bemused.

      It was mostly a bitterness thing, the amount of time I've had to spend pissing around with RegEdit on windows didn't make the re-appearance of the same GUI on a linux box very welcome. It's nice that OO.o has kept a lot of Excel GUI nonsense that I'm used to, but I don't see why we feel the need to keep the layout of Regedit in our new home away from the evils of Microsoft.

      And my Gconf-editor is in the System Tools menu, no submenu. Maybe that's a Gentoo "I wanna-be-a-geek" thing, but I do recall it being in basically the same place in Ubuntu as well.

      Please note that I do actually like Gnome a lot more than KDE, but I think it has some surreal omissions considering its maturity in both years, version numbers and features. There's simple features missing here that the Amiga had going years ago in 512kb of RAM, yet somebody has actually bothered to clone RegEdit rather than implement them? That was what set off my rant, rather than any opposition to a centralised configuration editor.

      I'm still more narked about the save dialog, it's been annoying me all evening - every time I've saved a file, I had to press that "Show more folders" thing. It doesn't make sense to hide a part of a GUI when you need it every time you do the operation!

      That's almost annoying enough to make me look at the source, find that goddamn button and see how easy it is to change the default state. ... almost ;)

    21. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by RenatoRam · · Score: 1

      Changing GDM is a system setting available only to the superuser, and applies to all users.

      So it is in "system settings" and will stay so.

      About the message: it pops up and has a "don't bother me anymore, I understood" checkbox you have to UNcheck. Maybe you unckecked it and clicked ok without much notice...

      Unfortunately the menu settings are different, and more sane on some distros than on others. Still, if you are on gentoo you have no right to rant about un-newbie-friendlieness ;-)

      About the open/save file dialog, I actually like it a lot. The presence/absence of the location bar AND the open/close state of the dropdown are a perfect example of settings that SHOULD reside only in gconf. Don't know if they are already there (I don't need them).

      --
      Ciao, Renato
    22. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by RenatoRam · · Score: 1

      Well, you realize that those two are exactly the kind of power-user settings that would be confusing to a normal user, don't you?

      In some cases the requests for such settings are so numerous that specific setting apps arise: gTweakUI comes to mind.

      --
      Ciao, Renato
    23. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, maybe some autogenerated buttons for filtering would be nice:

      [ Any ] [ mp3 ] [ m3u ] [ jpg ]

      or just a combobox with all mimetypes in that directory?

    24. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the idea of autogenerated buttons, but I have a feeling that they would slow down the pop-up menu. That would be unacceptable.

    25. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by Homburg · · Score: 1

      It doesn't make sense to hide a part of a GUI when you need it every time you do the operation!

      But you don't need it every time you do the operation, or most users don't. Most of the time, you're going to be saving to your home directory or a directory for a particular project you're working on, which you'll have set up a bookmark for. No need to waste time navigating through the filesystem to find either of them, just pick them from the drop-down list.

    26. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by TractorBarry · · Score: 1

      Hmmm...

      Well this is not intended to be a troll but no doubt will get modded as one :)

      But why the hell don't all the multitude "file open dialog" designers on Linux just get their shit together and see how the Windows common dialogue does it ?

      Honestly the default file open dialogue in 90% of Windows applications is so much better to use than the multitude of different Linux equivalents (A notable exception is the Office suite which has it's own, uterrly shite, clunky and useless file open dialogue)

      In my 'umble opinion the only way the Windows common dialogue could be improved is to add *NIX style tab completion for filenames and maybe give the user the option to preview files (with this option being rememberred between uses of the dialog. ALthough personally I'd never use I know some people like to see image previews etc.)

      Sorry but it's now 2005 and Gnome is STILL farting about trying to get a decent file open dialog. It's no wonder that Microsoft, despite all their myriad, well publicised faults, remains king of the desktop.

      And whilst I'm on... A top hint from me to the Gnome designers. If your application allows users to select multiple files (i.e. desktop wallpaper) let the user select more than one file at a time from the bloody dialog. There is absolutely nothing more irritating than having to make multiple bloody mouse clicks to add a file to a list then having to repeat the process for every single file you want to add to the list. This is click and drool computing a la WIndows 95 and I want no part of it. Your HIG be damned.

      note to mods: If I was really trolling I'd have mentioned Spatial Nautilus by now ;)

      --
      Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
    27. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The gconf homepage describes the gconf editor in the following way:

      GNOME has a prototype-quality unfinished program called gconf-editor which is sort of the GUI equivalent of gconftool. Try it out.

      From these lines we must conclude that there are no finished frontends to the gconf ;-)

    28. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      "But why the hell don't all the multitude "file open dialog" designers on Linux just get their shit together and see how the Windows common dialogue does it ?"

      Because it's in the User Interface Hall of Shame.

      "Sorry but it's now 2005 and Gnome is STILL farting about trying to get a decent file open dialog. It's no wonder that Microsoft, despite all their myriad, well publicised faults, remains king of the desktop."

      Is the MacOS X file dialog decent? Of course it is, everybody on Slashdot praises MacOS X. The GNOME file dialog is 99% identical to the OS X file dialog!

    29. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      So, you have to hunt them down in the registry instead of in the file system -- how is this better?

      As a programmer, just put a command in your application that says "Edit advanced preferences" and which opens the Gnome Configuration editor in your apps folder. It's easy, consistent between applications, and you don't have to program a preferences dialog for each app.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    30. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      Why? Why on earth do I have to type ctrl-l?
      You can set a preference with gconf editor to have it always open.


      Every person I have ever seen have understood the file hierarchy after just a few seconds explanation: "put this years text into folder '2005'". And how on earth do you suppose they understand bookmarks?

      Those are not hierarchies, they are flat one-level folders. The recursive concept of "a folder inside a folder inside a folder" is a difficult one to grasp for non techies (this have been scientifically proved, if you want to hunt for it yourself). The spatial filesystem is a way to alleviate this problem by showing the folders as "real" objects instead of giving a cumbersome, not intuitive tree.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    31. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by martinoforum · · Score: 1

      I don't need it? Says who? And what thought did they put into that statement?

      I do a lot of work for a lot of clients, and I don't see why I have to create bookmarks every time I want to work on something - I have a sensibly organised filesystem structure that makes them nice and easy to get at from the home directory, thank you very much. I've already put the time into working out a sensible filesystem structure, but the patronising nannying of that goddamn save dialog is driving me up the wall.

      I don't see the need for a separate "bookmarks" system, effectively I'm now being asked to whitelist the directories as I make them and then remove them when I'm no longer working on that project. That's daft.

      Seriously, explain one thing to me: HOW does NOT HAVING the filesystem visible save anybody time? There's plenty of space in the save dialog to put it there, it's just wasted on overly huge controls - and the situation get gets worse as you make the window bigger. Try it, and tell me that's a sensible allocation of space.

      It's a waste of time, and it's not configurable in any humanly locatable way - why not a "Load/Save Dialog Preferences" control in the Desktop Preferences, if you want to make those kind of radical changes to the norm? I feel quite vindicated in saying it is crap. I saved maybe twenty files in different places using it last night, and I had to do that *every* time. What a stupid, stupid bit of UI design. People keep saying "Well, I like the ease of use!"

      What ease of use? The Ctrl-L ease of use? The clicking an extra control to save somewhere else ease of use? Just because it treats the user like a retard doesn't make it easy for the majority of people who, contrary to popular opinion amoung many developers it seems, are not retarded. A clear presentation of the file system allowing the user to choose where they put the file is all that is required here.

    32. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by martinoforum · · Score: 1

      But it still has many of the same problems described on that UI hall of shame page you linked to, including no easily-visible sense of context inside the directory structure on opening the window! Indeed, that's the first problem they point out with the W95 dialog, yet the Gnome one is actually significantly worse in this respect.

    33. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      But it's practically the same as MacOS X's file selector. And as long as people praise MacOS's file selector, GNOME's file selector is immune to criticism.

    34. Re:Open dialog still a monstrosity? by martinoforum · · Score: 1

      I don't praise it, because I don't use it. If I used it and it has the same annoying features as Gnome, I would likely get annoyed by it in the same way.

      I will experiment later, I'm off to a client who run their office on macs. If it's really as annoying, then I'll feel vindicated in saying it sucks too :)

  9. looks good, by dcstimm · · Score: 1

    I just dont like the Square scroll bars, they look kinda cheesy, but I think its just the theme they used. I cant wait until Gnome has the funtionality that Macosx has. Oh wait it does....

    1. Re:looks good, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get back to me when Gnome has anything like iLife.

    2. Re:looks good, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Oh wait it does...."

      What is sad is you probably really believe that...

  10. Gnome 10? by Matt+Perry · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Gnome 10? But it's really 2.10? Is that like Java 1.2 is Really Java 2 and Java 1.5 is really Java 5? Ow, my head! Please tell me this is just a typo.

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  11. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by QuantumG · · Score: 0, Redundant

    yeah, and off is spelt with 2 Fs, damn it!

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  12. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by PitaBred · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Which also reminds me that the Gnome folks have nothing to say when making fun of KDE app naming :)

  13. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Actually, it is pronounced, guh-nome and guh-nu.

    That being said, I pronounce GNOME as "gnome", and GNU as "guh-nu".

  14. The major flaw by dtfinch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The mime sniffing is still a pain. I have to drag and drop to open certain types of files, even occasionally plain text files like .cpp which on rare occasion it mistakes for a file I never heard of. Just double clicking the files or right clicking and selecting "open with" gives a security warning and it refuses to open, even when both both the sniffed filetype and the filetype matching the extension open with the same application. A fix for the problem involves changing about 4 lines of code in 1 function.

    1. Re:The major flaw by mrogers · · Score: 1

      I guess that means you'll be submitting a patch then. ;-)

    2. Re:The major flaw by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      That may be difficult. They've debated the issue before, and decided that it wasn't a problem.

    3. Re:The major flaw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may be difficult. They've debated the issue before, and decided that it wasn't a problem.

      Wow, those freedesktop.org guys are sure sneaky. And considering their shared mime information is now used in KDE too, it'll be a plague of bugs!

      Unless you made up that last comment, of course.

    4. Re:The major flaw by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      When that happens you should report a bug and attach the misdetected file to it, so the developers can figure out what went wrong. For cpp files there should probably be no MIME sniffing at all, as I can't think of a sensible way to figure out that something is C++ just by looking at it (short of trying to parse it).

    5. Re:The major flaw by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      That won't solve the big problem though. Sniffing has and will always be unreliable and shouldn't be relied on as the primary method of file type detection, overriding the file extension.

      Sometimes if I right click a file, go to the "open with" tab, tell it what program I want it to open files of that type with, and then double click the file, it'll still refuse to open it with the program I just told it to open it with, even if I chose the right click and select the program by name in the context menu.

      I think the C++ file problem was that it found a URL in the first comment, and decided that the file (actually every .cpp file in the project) was of a completely different type, refusing to open it in the text editor as a safety precaution, to protect my eyes from seeing a possibly different style of plain text than I was expecting.

    6. Re:The major flaw by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Actually it can be far more reliable than extension based detection (for binaries, etc) The reason it's done is to avoid Windows style Foobar.jpg.exe problems.

  15. One for the HIG-minded. by DeathAndTaxes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm all about the HIG-enabled stuff. I dig it a lot...In most cases. I think the HIG-powered windows are great when you're going through your ~/, but I think it stinks when you're going across to other parts of the FS, like /usr/lib/gettext. Plus, I think it'd be outstanding if I could simply get different desktop pics for my different workspaces. As it is now, you can't. Isn't part of the HIG to make it as intuitive as possible? However, we can't know what workspace we're looking at unless we look at the little applet on the taskbar. Having different images (like in *cough* KDE), would be fantastic.

    1. Re:One for the HIG-minded. by PoprocksCk · · Score: 1

      One of the features of the HIG is to keep things simple and to prevent bloat wherever possible. If this is a feature you truly want, you could file a bug.

      However, you can rest assured that the GNOME development team thought long and hard before they decided *not* to include this feature. It takes a lot of guts to say, "no, this isn't really necessary."

      The KDE team has had much more trouble doing that IMHO. Just take a look at Konqueror's settings dialog. Heck, just look at _Konqueror_.

    2. Re:One for the HIG-minded. by natrius · · Score: 1

      Spatial nautilus is perfect for everything in ~/. Getting used to it takes about a week or two, then you find yourself thinking "Hmm... I could move this directory and make it reside directly in ~/." Browsing for files ends up being way more efficient for me at least. When it comes to things like /usr/lib/gettext, I either press CTRL+L and type it in with tab completion, or I use my shortcut for "nautilus --browser --no-desktop" for a browser window. It's nice to have the browser as a backup, but for day to day file browsing, spatial nautilus rocks.

    3. Re:One for the HIG-minded. by Haeleth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      However, you can rest assured that the GNOME development team thought long and hard before they decided *not* to include [different backgrounds for different workspaces]. It takes a lot of guts to say, "no, this isn't really necessary."

      No, it doesn't. "I don't need this, therefore you don't either" is an incredibly easy line to take. It takes no guts to say it. Nor does it take guts - only time - to put in the effort, research the issue, and find out what your end users (both novices and experts) have to say.

      What does take guts is to back down and admit that you were wrong, if your research does not agree with your expectations. And what I see in the GNOME development team - and their detractors - is not guts but religion. The GNOME team worship simplicity. The question they ask of any proposed feature is not "will this be beneficial to our end users", but "does this fit in with our design aesthetic".

      I'm not criticising that. Simplicity is a valid goal, and it's one that KDE has not chosen, so it reduces the duplication of effort that so many people used to whine about.

      However, it seems somehow implausible that the GNOME team considered this particular feature long and hard; given that it seems like a logical extension of the spatial metaphor, it seems to me that its absence can only suggest that they barely considered it if at all. Can you point to the relevant messages on the appropriate mailing list? I'd be interested to see what research they actually did, and what were their other arguments against making different workspaces visually distinct.

    4. Re:One for the HIG-minded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really don't understand why anyone prefers spatial nautilus. Can someone please explain this to me?

    5. Re:One for the HIG-minded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. The only reason the feature isn't there is that nobody has considered it important enough to take the time to do it.

      http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-devel-list/ 20 04-December/msg00022.html

  16. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Informative
    It's pronounced "nome". Not "guh-nome"

    Not according to the Gnome website.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  17. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by Prowl · · Score: 5, Informative
    from gnu.org homepage:

    GNU is a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not UNIX"; it is pronounced "guh-noo."
    --
    That man tried to kill mah Daddy
  18. Year of Gnome? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    will 2005 prove to be the year of Gnome?

    Not if the Enlightenment guys manage to do a release. I'm switiching right back to it. The blandness of GTK/KDE is starting to get to me :)

    1. Re:Year of Gnome? by sp0rk173 · · Score: 1

      It's not blandness, it's usability!

      Right guys?!?! Right?! ...ok yeah, they're bland.

    2. Re:Year of Gnome? by noda132 · · Score: 1

      Not if the Enlightenment guys manage to do a release.

      The words "Hell" and "freezing over" come to mind. Isn't GNOME's 6-month release cycle great!

  19. Horrible colors in the text editor screenshot by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 2, Interesting


    I know it's not *that* important, and represents something that the user could (I hope) change, but the nasty garish colors used for syntax coloring in that text editor screenshot have got to go.

    A more muted palette would look more attractive. Drop the saturation a bit, use darker colors than hot pink and neon purple. Muted blues and greens like the ones in slashdot's Developers section and Main section. Those would look nice.
    Using the bright colors also makes it look primitive, like it's limited to using a Windows 16-color palette.

    You don't need to dress up the text editor like a $5 ho just to get the point across that it can do text in color. Pink text doesn't make the point any better than a muted blue would.

    --
    September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    1. Re:Horrible colors in the text editor screenshot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the syntax files are in /usr/share/gtksourceview/language-specs/

      I'm sure they will accept patches

    2. Re:Horrible colors in the text editor screenshot by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1

      It's not about patches. For all I know, the person who took the screenshot configured it that way because he thinks vast expanses of garish pink text look cool. Patches won't help that.

      It's about understanding that screenshots are about marketing and advertising.

      If you want to promote some new Linux software, make sure it looks *good*. It does you no good if the screenshots make your product look ugly and amateurish - in any way.

      Compare that text editor screenshot to this one from Apple showing XCode's editor.

      Whatever you think about Apple, they have a good design sense, and they make their products look good when they create marketing materials for them. Their screenshot makes Xcode look far more attractive than the screenshot of the gnome editor, which looks rather unpleasant to use, purely because of the painful text colors.

      The colors used in a text editor screenshot might seem like a minor issue, but if they look bad, I think to some degree they cast a shadow on the rest of the software. It's likely to raise doubts in some people's minds as to the design sense of the developers, or their attention to detail. It might be only a niggling doubt, but that might be all it takes to get someone to write off Gnome, for this version, or for good. (Obviously, a current Gnome user won't care, because they know the software and aren't going just by screenshots.)

      Little aesthetic details like this can make quite a disproportionate difference in acceptance.

      It's so easy to avoid such things, by giving a moment's thought and tweaking some settings. Why *not* take a few minutes to tune the appearance before you make the screenshots.

      Putting up unflattering screenshots of something you develop or just promote is like putting up an online personal ad, with a photo of your face where you have a big booger showing in your nostril. It would have taken just a moment to fix that, but that booger's going to make sure nobody bothers reading the rest of your ad.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    3. Re:Horrible colors in the text editor screenshot by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Actually I prefer garish colouring. The point of syntax highlighting is to let you tell different parts of the code apart easily, and as I'm partially colour blind I find striking bold colours easier to work with. I also find them aesthetically more attractive, but that is naturally a matter of pure taste.

    4. Re:Horrible colors in the text editor screenshot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know... screaming your opinion out on slashdot might not be the most effective way to address this issue.

      If you really think it's that bad of a problem, consider opening a bugzilla report with your comments.

    5. Re:Horrible colors in the text editor screenshot by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1


      I don't care *that* much. I'm a Mac user. Jes' trying to help.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
  20. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by xstonedogx · · Score: 1

    I blame Tony the Tiger.

  21. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by gimpimp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but RMS founded gnu, and he pronounces it guh-noo. Are you going to tell someone who invented the name that he pronounces it wrong?

    Oh, and the G in gnome stands for gnu, therefore is pronounced in the same way.

    of course, i dont actually care either way, but you were on a high horse...mine is higher.

    --
    i wish i was but oh well
  22. Looks great! by dioscaido · · Score: 3, Funny

    They'll catching up to win95/OS8 in no time flat!

    /I'm sorry... no 'wow' factor at all. Maybe they should get Enlightenment's people to build up a visually appealing gnome demo?

    1. Re:Looks great! by caseih · · Score: 1

      I think Gnome passed windows on the classy professional look some ago. I am really starting to love the UI of Mac OS X and Gnome is doing a great job of catching up to OS X in this area. If you want something more like windows, stick to KDE.

      I agree. No "wow" factor. Just incremental steady improvements. KDE 4 is looking pretty good too. No wows there either. But certainly there are precious few deficiencies in either desktop environment compared to Mac and Windows.

      Please. No enlightenment. It may look cool for a short while, but in the end most of us want a simple, elegant interface.

    2. Re:Looks great! by lewp · · Score: 1
      Maybe they should get Enlightenment's people to build up a visually appealing gnome demo?

      That's a great idea. If the Enlightenment folks started right away I'm sure they'd have something to really "wow" us by 2030.

      --
      Game... blouses.
    3. Re:Looks great! by FrankNFurter · · Score: 1

      They're actually working on it. e17 CVS is usable (I'm in fact using it right now) and constantly being worked on - a release within this year is very well possible.

      --
      "Slashdot - the one place on the internet where guys brag about how small it is." - that IT girl
  23. The problem with slashdot today is... by Prowl · · Score: 1

    ...we've had 30 comments already and nobody has pointed out the typo in the story summary.

    --
    That man tried to kill mah Daddy
    1. Re:The problem with slashdot today is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which one do you have in mind? I see an extra "e" in style, of for off, and an extraneous hyphen in release policy.

    2. Re:The problem with slashdot today is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, stylee is a perfectly cromulent word.

  24. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by pclminion · · Score: 1
    That's nice and all, except that the official pronunciations for both GNOME and GNU are "Guh-nome" and "Guh-new" respectively.

    So, in the sense that you are completely, utterly wrong, yes, that was an insightful post.

  25. To all the people asking about Gnome 10... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hello?! What's 2 in binary?

    1. Re:To all the people asking about Gnome 10... by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      What endianness are you using?

    2. Re:To all the people asking about Gnome 10... by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      Oh you mean this is really version II?

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    3. Re:To all the people asking about Gnome 10... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      0010

  26. GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE team by ShatteredDream · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The GNOME-Mozilla-Mono "alliance" makes sense when you look at Avalon. It's a good move that is sure to give Linux and other OSS users an option that doesn't involve going to Microsoft. Soooo where is the KDE team in all of this?

    Maybe it's just me, but it seems like the KDE guys have really missed the boat here. It seems like they are so caught up building a traditional desktop that they haven't realized that their competition is much more aggressive now.

    Not trying to be a troll, just noticing that GNOME and Xfce seem to be getting better and better whereas KDE just seems to be becoming more like Windows in the worst ways.

  27. GWeather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    GWeather...

    No thanks, I've already tried WeatherBug. Once burned, twice shy.

  28. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by frantzdb · · Score: 3, Informative

    I agree on the dorkyness count, but that said Miguel, Nat, and all the other Ximians say "guh-nome" in real life.

  29. Not until they lose that ugly color... by msimm · · Score: 1, Troll

    But seriously, Gnome and KDE are so close in functionality that I've honestly only chosen to use KDE because it looks nicer.

    They are both great desktops. KDE's latest offering (3.3) even added convenient single-file theme packages (*.kth) which strangely hasn't seemed to generate even a tiny bit of buzz. That means its fully themeable without any complicated packages! Just import your best friends theme and use it.

    Which all mean I don't understand the Linux communities relationship with their desktop at all. =)

    Maybe Gnome will add something like this and realise how popular theme support is (and push it). Who knows.

    --
    Quack, quack.
    1. Re:Not until they lose that ugly color... by PoprocksCk · · Score: 1

      GNOME has theme support already, and it comes with several *themes* in its base packages, whereas KDE does not. I am using the Glider theme as we speak.

    2. Re:Not until they lose that ugly color... by Rick+and+Roll · · Score: 1
      KDE does not

      Actually, KDE does. In fact, KDE has for years.

      Most Linux geeks just like to pick and choose their wallpaper, toolkit theme, and window decorations. I know I do.

    3. Re:Not until they lose that ugly color... by PoprocksCk · · Score: 1

      That's why I put emphasis on *themes*...

      Sure, KDE comes with lots of styles, window themes, etc. and you can pick and choose. But you can do that in GNOME too. KDE used to come with a few themes though, and they were completely unchanged from 1.x up to 3.1.x until they retired it for a while. Now that it's back, I have yet to see a single _theme_ installed on KDE by default.

    4. Re:Not until they lose that ugly color... by msimm · · Score: 1

      All the major desktops have theme support of some sort; but what I mean is real, user friendly theme support.

      Here is an example of a KDE 3.3 theme using the new theme manager. Its a single-click job, to install, to create your own package, whatever. And its not just basic themes, it'll package your icons, background, styles, system sounds, everything.

      http://iglu.org.il/pub/Hebrew/diego/kthememanager- themes-0.3.tar.gz

      Take a look at that package and your'll see what I mean. There are 6 complete themes in there:

      BeOS.kth
      Keramik.kth
      Nostalgia2.kth
      Plastik.kth
      Solaris.kth
      Windows9X.kth

      Themes even contain previews. Thats skin support and as much time as I spend looking at this computer I really really really appreciate the ability to browse a few themes and freshen up my desktop quickly and easily.

      --
      Quack, quack.
    5. Re:Not until they lose that ugly color... by Rick+and+Roll · · Score: 1
      Oh, I knew everything except the retiring.

      I guess the point of including themes would be to make it easy to get rid of the fugly default look (Keramik plus those tacky roundrect window borders). That actually doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.

      And yes I agree that the themes kinda sucked. But I think maybe few were using them so they got very few submissions, if any.

  30. Spelling for youse guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Writing pronounciation in front of people that you're trying to convince to use your (deviant!) pronunciation makes you look illiterate, and it hurts your argument in trying to convince them!

  31. x.org transparencies? by xjerky · · Score: 2, Informative

    I couldn't quite tell from the article, but are true transparencies going to be supported in, say, gnome-terminal, using the Composite module?

    --
    A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
    1. Re:x.org transparencies? by kidgenius · · Score: 1

      They actually were supported in Gnome 2.8. I remember enabling transparency on my roomate's computer. We had to specifically use Metacity 2.8.5 (IIRC) and change some settings in xorg.conf to get it all to work. There are tons of howto's on that running around the web.

    2. Re:x.org transparencies? by xjerky · · Score: 1

      I know - Ive used it myself. But as far as I know it only made entire windows transparent, not sections like just the console area. I thought the app has to have explicit support to be that specific.

      --
      A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
    3. Re:x.org transparencies? by rhennigan · · Score: 1

      Judging from the drop shadows in the screenshots, I'm going to assume xcompmgr is going to be built in. Hopefully there will be an option to turn it off so I can still run it on my 233mhz pII laptop.

  32. Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Also (finally) a mozilla-stylee type-ahead find has been implemented in Gnome's Open/Save dialog.

    Here I was, thinking the problem with the gnome file selector was that it is unusable, but they've set me straight, what it really needs is to be left exactly the same except for an extra bloatware feature which compensates partially for something (a text box to type the name of the file, with tab completion) that every other file selector dialog has but which they inexplicably removed. When will they figure out that most GUI file selector dialogs look the same for a reason, and if they just make theirs look like that users will stop whining about it? (no, they don't need to go back to their old unusable design, and they don't need another "innovative out of the box" idea; they just need to look at Windows or KDE or Mozilla or any other successful GUI, copy that, and leave it that way)

    1. Re:Uhm... by BenjyD · · Score: 3, Informative

      A whole bunch of file dialogs from different OS are here. Panther's looks kind of similar to the current GNOME one - the old GTK dialog looks like the older MacOS style.

    2. Re:Uhm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A whole bunch of file dialogs from different OS are here. Panther's looks kind of similar to the current GNOME one - the old GTK dialog looks like the older MacOS style.

      So I guess the problem is not that gnome sucks, but that MacOS sucks and gnome copies it.

      Surely it's not like people criticize everything different than the windows' way, unless it's made by Apple. Riiiight? :)

    3. Re:Uhm... by anagama · · Score: 1

      • A whole bunch of file dialogs from different OS are here [link omitted]. Panther's looks kind of similar to the current GNOME one - the old GTK dialog looks like the older MacOS style.

      That was more interesting than I might have expected. I like the dialogs that put me in context - above and below - in a single window. I hated the Mac OS-9 system of having to click in a separate area to go up a directory. Windows 3.1 version and the Red Hat 9 version were ones I liked because with a quick little click, you could go up a level: ..

      Having to select a lower level from a drop down box takes so freakin' long - I've never liked it that way.
      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    4. Re:Uhm... by anagama · · Score: 1

      Correction - I never used OS-9, I realize now it was Mac OS 8 (honestly hated it on a beige Power PC that crashed more often than windows 3.1)

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    5. Re:Uhm... by sirReal.83. · · Score: 1

      a text box to type the name of the file, with tab completion

      Press Control-L. No, I don't know why it's hidden.

    6. Re:Uhm... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      In GTK+ 2.6 you can just start typing. It'll search in the treeview like Mozilla does typeahead find.

      No, for people who shove a million files in the same directory and then use regular expressions as a replacement for, you know, folders - for them I guess it's not as good. Guess what? Those people are by no means the majority. Meanwhile real users do wacky stuff like put question marks in file names, so you really don't want to overload metacharacters with special meanings if you can avoid it.

    7. Re:Uhm... by sirReal.83. · · Score: 1

      You did a great job of missing the real point. Remote URIs don't have treeviews in the GTK+ file chooser.

      Note that I'm not complaining about the filechooser itself, but the fact that they hid the location bar to save 10 pixels. And yes, I have spoken to some of the design cabal about it - we just disagree, I think.

  33. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by Prowl · · Score: 2, Funny

    might i also thank the grandparent post for giving me this opportunity to boost my karma.

    --
    That man tried to kill mah Daddy
  34. maybe... by siskbc · · Score: 1

    ...it's binary?

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  35. GNOME cruft has a bullseye on it by Zenikase · · Score: 1, Interesting

    A couple months ago, Anders Carlsson quickly touched upon deprecating age-old library cruft from GNOME and thus making the environment leaner and easier to understand. Unfortunately, he says that such a thing wouldn't be able to happen at least until GNOME 3.0 rolls out. This can't come soon enough.

    1. Re:GNOME cruft has a bullseye on it by ScriptGuru · · Score: 1

      I think what was meant was that the crufty libraries can't be purged without breaking API/ABI. While this won't be possible 'til 3.0, what I've gathered from the topic was that gnome programs are going to be migrated away from libgnome and libgnomeui until it's no longer neccessary, at which point it will be marked as depreciated. The library won't die, but will fall into disuse.

      --
      Yet another signature that refers to itself. The irony and humor is dead.
  36. finding files!-Storage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Why can't the GNOME one get better? The 2.4 and pre series was a JOKE and this new one, even with all it's vaunted HIG stuff, is still horrible imho. Why can't I see thumbs? Previews? A decent file tree? Bleh."

    How about combined with Gnome Storage? Works well with a spatial metaphor.

    1. Re:finding files!-Storage. by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      The question is whether the spatial metaphor is always useful. I usually know where my files are, I just need to get to them. I'm not searching for random crap I might have around somewhere. Gnome's interface gets in the way of that.

    2. Re:finding files!-Storage. by a_karbon_devel_005 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps this makes sense to the casual user. Perhaps not. I certainly am too much of a geek to pretend that I know what the casual user wants/needs.

      Certainly the GNOME storage idea is much like that of Google.. I'd rather type something in Google than look for a bookmark much of the time. But if I can't really remember the name, that's when things like bookmarks and hierarchical structures become usefull. Indeed most of the time, looking at the site favicon in my bookmarks dropdown is what triggers my memory most... that and the categorizing. So I guess, imho, spacial is not a complete replacement for hierarchical, but hierarchical can be a complete replacement for spacial.

      Also, for people that manipulate files and collections of files a LOT - possibly from multiple locations on the disk - I'm not sure that spacial makes much sense. My mom and family sure don't like it. (At least their experience from Mac OSX... and lets not pretend GNOME's system is that much different. KDE rips Windows quite often but the same can be said of OSX and GNOME). I guess it depends on your perspective... but right now, the KDE file dialog works, but the GNOME storage stuff is not distributed. =P

    3. Re:finding files!-Storage. by Curtman · · Score: 1

      The question is whether the spatial metaphor is always useful.

      I'm convinced the spacial thing only came about because they didn't feel like fixing the tree view sidebar.. There's just no other reasonable explanation.

    4. Re:finding files!-Storage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Certainly the GNOME storage idea is much like that of Google.. I'd rather type something in Google than look for a bookmark much of the time. But if I can't really remember the name, that's when things like bookmarks and hierarchical structures become usefull. "

      And this is where tag-based systems, which can pretend to be both flat and heirarchical make an enormous amount of sense:
      del.icio.us

    5. Re:finding files!-Storage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      other than it is far easier to use / concept to grasp. the folder is the window, the window is the folder. most computer users have problems with the concept of double clicking, tree views are a usability nightmare.

    6. Re:finding files!-Storage. by Curtman · · Score: 1

      tree views are a usability nightmare

      So in what way does completely removing the menubar, toolbar, and sidebar help anyone? The content pane is the same either way, its just more difficult to navigate.

    7. Re:finding files!-Storage. by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      But if I can't really remember the name, that's when things like bookmarks and hierarchical structures become usefull. Indeed most of the time, looking at the site favicon in my bookmarks dropdown is what triggers my memory most... that and the categorizing. So I guess, imho, spacial is not a complete replacement for hierarchical, but hierarchical can be a complete replacement for spacial.

      You have your names wrong. Spacial is not exclusive with hierarchical, they're ortogonal (i.e. a hierarchical filesystem interface can be spacial, or not). Indeed, in the case of searching for a file in which you remember its position but not its name, spacial only helps and completes the tree-like filesystem by placing each folder in the same place that you remember it.

      Surely you should have said "navigational" vs "spacial", which are mutually exclusive.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
  37. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    from gnu.org homepage: GNU is a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not UNIX"; it is pronounced "guh-noo."

    So is GNOME a recursive acronym for "GNOME's NOt windows-ME", pronounced "guh-nah-mee"?

  38. Re:GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey look! Something new and shiny! Why aren't you posting comments about that!

  39. Actually the year of the gnome was.. by HvitRavn · · Score: 1

    .. 2004

  40. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

    Could be worse...I have a friend that pronounces it "gee-nome"

  41. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by big_groo · · Score: 1

    'Guh-noo-nome' it is. Beat that KDE.

  42. Oh. My. God. by _Hellfire_ · · Score: 1

    Those screenshots look HOT!

    It also looks like they've fixed a long standing gripe of mine - namely the fact that creating Samba shares under Gnome is (was(?)) a pain in the neck.

    I cannot wait to get my hands on 2.10. Does anyone know if Ubuntu Hoary is going to use it?

    If this preview is anything to go by, the UI offered by Gnome as it matures and its feature set becomes complete will be a serious contender gainst the other major GUI's (namely KDE, Windows and Aqua).

    Kudos to the Gnome team and keep up the great work.

    --
    "And then I visited Wikipedia ...and the next 8 hours are a blur..."
    1. Re:Oh. My. God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes Hoary will be using it, if you are tracking Hoary you will already have 2.9.3/4

    2. Re:Oh. My. God. by Plug · · Score: 1

      I cannot wait to get my hands on 2.10. Does anyone know if Ubuntu Hoary is going to use it?

      Without a doubt. The Hoary beta is scheduled to come out on the day of the GNOME 2.10 release, made easy by the fact that GNOME's release manager, Jeff Waugh, works for Canonical. The full release should be a few weeks afterwards.

    3. Re:Oh. My. God. by technolalia · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yup, Ubuntu 5.04 (The Hoary hedgehog) will ship with 2.10 - Gnome is the default desktop and it's policy to synchronise releases.
      If you can't wait till April, then you can get preview isos and preview live cds from the ubuntu site: http://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/GettingUbuntu
      Gnoppix is shipping a live cd beta based on Hoary, with 2.9.3: http://www.gnoppix.org/ available for *three* - count 'em - platforms: x86, AMD64 and PPC.

      John

    4. Re:Oh. My. God. by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
      "if you are tracking Hoary you will already have 2.9.3/4"

      And your life will be better...

    5. Re:Oh. My. God. by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Not trying to start a distro war here. But yea Gnome 2.10 looks real sweet and if you want an OS with it integrated really nicely, try out Fedora. The only reason I'm saying this is because the Fedora devs do nearly all (or at least alot) of the Gnome coding and so everything fits in nicely.
      Regards,
      Steve

    6. Re:Oh. My. God. by MmmmAqua · · Score: 1

      Those screenshots look HOT!

      Wow. You really need to spend more time away from your computer. ;)

      --
      Arr! The laws of physics be a harsh mistress!
    7. Re:Oh. My. God. by netdur · · Score: 0

      I believe that screenshots made on "Ubuntu Hoary", the auther of that page is known as Ubuntu user, and yes... you install Ubuntu and upgrade to "Hoary" to have exactly gnome you saw in article!

      --
      "Steve Jobs invented the world" -- Bill W. GATES
  43. Get a new phrase! by mehu · · Score: 5, Funny

    With years of slashdot stories asking "Will XXXX finally be the year of Y?", will 2005 finally be the year of slashdot retiring that stupid phrase?

    1. Re:Get a new phrase! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will 2005 finally be the year of the Beowulf Cluster of Natalie Portman Hot Grits in Soviet Russia.

  44. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by sp0rk173 · · Score: 2, Funny

    See, I totally agree with the grandparent poster. If you want everyone to pronounce GNU - GUH-NEW, you spell it accordingly. I have, and always will, say GNU - GEE-EN-EWE, why? BECAUSE IT'S A FUCKING ACRONYM! I pronounce it in the most sensical, straight forward way, because acronyms are meant (in theory) to simplify things. I don't give a fuck what RMS thinks. If he wants us to pronounce it Guh-new, maybe he should have named GNU something that, when acronym-ated, sounds more like Guh-New. GNU is three letters, G, N, and U. I pronounce it accordingly. RMS started a great thing, and seems to be an...eh...interesting guy...but i'm pretty fed up with Geeks, engineers, et al forcing their God complexes on us and dictating the RIGHT WAY to do things. Free software is about Freedom, right? Well i reserve the right to be free in my choice of acronym pronunciation. Thank you, and Goodnight.

  45. Re:Logical dissonance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, umm, KDE is bad because it is more like Windows, and the solution to this is to...be more like the next version of Windows (Avalon)?

    The really remarkable thing is that in spite of having only a fraction of the corporate support KDE is far more usable. Yes, a few things are clumsier than I would like, but they seem to have avoided the completely idiotic design decisions that GNOME has made (the spatial browser, the hideous file selector, eliminating user-visible preferences to an extreme).

  46. Wow... by niteice · · Score: 1

    This looks really nice. Makes a wonderful impression on someone who last used GNOME at 2.0. Loads better than KDE, especially with Keramik for the default scheme.


    Damn.

    --
    ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
    1. Re:Wow... by SirTalon42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Keramik isn't KDE's default color/style/window decoration any more.

      The default theme is now Plastic, and its really nice to use the Plastic style/window decorations with the Atlas Green color scheme.

  47. HERE HERE! by sp0rk173 · · Score: 0

    I totally fucking agree. Good Show. And to all you mods - this guy is NOT a troll. He's bringing up a valid point.

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

      he is a troll because he doesn't have a clue what the hell he is talking about.

  48. Oh Cmon! by trezor · · Score: 2, Informative

    Windows XP looks like a Fisher-Price toy unless you alter it to something better.

    The default WinXP gui freaks me out like few other interfaces. I'll rather have the CDE-gui than the deafult WinXP-gui. No flamewar intended, but the WinXP gui really, really looks like it was designed for a 2 year old to play with, not for people to work with.

    "A new exiting interface" my ass...
    /oldschool

    --
    Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    1. Re:Oh Cmon! by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      You mean there are technically competent users who don't switch XP to the Classic theme the second they get their hands on it? That, and reconfiguring explorer to not suck horse dong are the first things I do whenever I sit down to a Windows XP machine. And if it's somebody else's machine, tough titties to them.

    2. Re:Oh Cmon! by EvanED · · Score: 1

      I use the default theme, just with the color scheme set to silver. I think it looks decent, much better than the XP version of the classic look.

      The recently used programs list that I think only shows in the new Start Menu though is a killer feature of the new theme, so even if I wanted to switch I wouldn't.

    3. Re:Oh Cmon! by Hooded+One · · Score: 1

      Not true. Start Menu style is configured in Taskbar Properties, and is independent of whether you have Visual Styles on or not.

      That said, both the Luna and Classic styles are pretty bad (Luna would be ok if everything weren't so goddamned huge), but now I only have to deal with them when I'm doing stuff with my sister's computer. It's not worth the trouble to patch uxtheme.dll for her.

    4. Re:Oh Cmon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woo... Windows lamers talking about the default theme... *amusing*

    5. Re:Oh Cmon! by Netsensei · · Score: 0
      Windows XP looks like a Fisher-Price toy unless you alter it to something better.
      By something better: you mean playmobil?
      Why is it, that certain developers assiociate the concept of an intuïtive GUI with a tool that has the complexity of bashing two rocks together? Don't get me wrong here, usability is an issue. But I'd rather use a complex yet logical tool that get's the job done then a mindnumbing tool that's plain insulting for Man's intelligence.
    6. Re:Oh Cmon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "XP look" is simply really badly designed. It's not even the concept, it's the implementation.

      And in case anyone would accuse me of just being too stuck to old-style interfaces; check out the KDE 3.3 theme "Plastic". It's kind of similar in concept to the default XP theme, but it actually looks decent (the gradients are subtle, buttons aren't too big).

    7. Re:Oh Cmon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isnt a comment on the structure of the user interface, rather it is a comment on the theme used.

    8. Re:Oh Cmon! by aminorex · · Score: 1

      When I'm forced to use XP for testing clients,
      I disable the theme engine entirely, so it doesn't
      suck so much memory and slow things down.

      Once you've turned off all the useless crap, XP
      runs nicely in 80MB of RAM.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  49. Only if they...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Theyll only be the sensation of 2005 if they get rid of the stupid windows 95 like navigation in their file system browser.

  50. Thank you gnome for not adding the "XP look" by JPriest · · Score: 1, Interesting
    I hate the pixels used to round off corners to give the candy coated look of XP and KDE. I also hate the stupid bubbled beveled effect of minimized windows taking up space in the task bar. Gnome looks much more "professional" and those stupid GUI features are an embarrassment to anyone that understands the true nature of UNIX.

    Why not embrace Linux for what it is (UNIX), and not try to make it something it is not (fisher price).
    Well done Gnome.

    --
    Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    1. Re:Thank you gnome for not adding the "XP look" by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Uhhh the "true nature of Unix"?

      Do you mean "|" ?

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:Thank you gnome for not adding the "XP look" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate the pixels used to round off corners to give the candy coated look of XP and KDE.
      . . .
      Why not embrace Linux for what it is (UNIX)


      Funny how the only UNIX that anyone thinks is stylish is MacOS X - and how MacOS X has buttons that are even rounder and jucier than anything Microsoft or KDE have dreamt of drawing.

      I guess your understanding of "the true nature of UNIX" differs slightly from most people's.

    3. Re:Thank you gnome for not adding the "XP look" by 0siris · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't this what themes are for though? I know you're probably talking about the default theme, but that's the whole point - if you don't like it, change it. Isn't that what Linux is about now?

      And who says Linux=KDE anyway, just don't use it if you don't like it.

    4. Re:Thank you gnome for not adding the "XP look" by Digi-John · · Score: 1

      Funny how the only UNIX that anyone thinks is stylish is MacOS X - and how MacOS X has buttons that are even rounder and jucier than anything Microsoft or KDE have dreamt of drawing.

      Actually, I really like the way FVWM and some of the other WM's look; somehow FVWM is indescribably cool. So not everybody thinks OS X is the only stylish UNIX.

      --
      Klingon programs don't timeshare, they battle for supremacy.
    5. Re:Thank you gnome for not adding the "XP look" by black+mariah · · Score: 0

      The true nature of UNIX? You mean you want it to look like some smelly fatass hippy sitting in his parents basement with a 12 sided die in one hand, his wang in the other, and the latest Linus interview on his monitor?

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    6. Re:Thank you gnome for not adding the "XP look" by JPriest · · Score: 1

      I do believe you mean () instead :P

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    7. Re:Thank you gnome for not adding the "XP look" by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Only twm is cool. The rest is fluff.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    8. Re:Thank you gnome for not adding the "XP look" by JPriest · · Score: 1
      Isn't this what themes are for though?

      Yeah, and Windows is secure, isn't that what patches are for?

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    9. Re:Thank you gnome for not adding the "XP look" by nite_warrior · · Score: 1

      that's why I use fluxbox or e16 in all my boxes

    10. Re:Thank you gnome for not adding the "XP look" by 0siris · · Score: 1

      Point taken, but it's a little different. Once you've applied a theme you can keep it. You can customise the appearence of things and they never have to be updated, if you're happy you can stay happy. With security patches you play the game at the mercy of the people writing them. New vulnerabilities can be found.

  51. Goobox? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

    Dey took ahr jawbs!

  52. Gpdf anyone? by jayavarman · · Score: 2

    Yep, all this seems great, but still there's one thing: I'd like to see a _real_ PDF reader in GNOME (with type ahead find if possible :). KDE is going to have one in 3.4

    Anyone knows if, say, Evince is going the way kpdf is?

    1. Re:Gpdf anyone? by davydmadeley · · Score: 1

      GPDF is included in Desktop, as is GGV, they work, but they are nothing to write home about IMHO.

      Trying out Evince the other week, and I was quite impressed. It's very, very alpha so lots of stuff you would want in a document viewer just isn't there yet, BUT IT VIEWED DOCUMENTS!

      It managed to deal with any PDF I threw at it. It will also deal (or so I am told) with PostScript, DeVice Independant files and I'm sure eventually many other document formats.

    2. Re:Gpdf anyone? by noda132 · · Score: 1

      Anyone knows if, say, Evince is going the way kpdf is?

      I don't know how kpdf is, but I know that Evince is already awesome. It thumbnails pages in the left pane; has a Fullscreen mode (copied from Epiphany, I think -- Marco is working on Evince); supports hyperlinks and indexes; has a Firefox-esque Find bar which actually works; and it loads really, really, REALLY fast. (But it's only available in CVS for now, I think.)

    3. Re:Gpdf anyone? by netdur · · Score: 0

      Adobe Acrobat Reader 7, moved away QT to GTK+

      --
      "Steve Jobs invented the world" -- Bill W. GATES
  53. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by legirons · · Score: 1

    It's pronounced "nome". Not "guh-nome"

    As in,

    "nome": small crockery chap who sits in your garden pretending to fish

    "guh-nome": an operating system, recognisable as a GNU project by the hard "G" in the name

  54. Year of the... by Mystic0 · · Score: 1

    While I agree that saying "Year of the..." has definatly become a cliche, perhaps there is some logic behind it? Maybe it is simply because things are always improving. Gnome today is better than it was last year, and it was better last year than it was the year before that.

    However, the poster saying that "this could be the year of the Gnome" sounds pretty biased, as if KDE or XFCE or whatever will be inferior.

  55. woah! the features! by timerider · · Score: 0, Troll

    look at these features!

    honestly, at least in that preview there's nothing marked as new that hasn't been in KDE for ages.

  56. all I care about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... is freedom. Linux provides me with that,
    at a cost mind you, but still I have complete freedom.
    Microsoft and Apple are the extreme opposite of being free.
    Suck on it.

  57. Edit the Menu by hey · · Score: 1

    I sure hope there will be a graphical way to edit the menu. With Windows you right click on the menu with Gnome you -er- I donno.

    1. Re:Edit the Menu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sure hope there will be a graphical way to edit the menu. With Windows you right click on the menu with Gnome you -er- I donno.

      If you want to edit categories, open a nautilus window. control+l -> type applications://

      It isn't encouraged since the current categories should fit most apps, and it's based on freedesktop's menu standards.

      To edit a single item in the menu... just right click on it.

    2. Re:Edit the Menu by thenextpresident · · Score: 1

      With Gnome you also right-click on the menu item you want to edit.

      --
      Jason Lotito
    3. Re:Edit the Menu by mgkimsal2 · · Score: 1

      He might be meaning the entire 'foot' menu (or 'star' or 'red hat' or whatever the button is in your theme). The primary menu button that would be similar to the 'start' button in windows. Right clicking on that under gnome 2.6 gives me 'lock', 'move' and 'remove from panel'. Oh, and 'help'

    4. Re:Edit the Menu by Sark666 · · Score: 1

      Yes he means the equiv of the start menu in windows. Kde does not have an automatic ability to edit this either, you have to launch a seperate menu editor. You should be able to drag-n-drop to and from the menu, move things about, go to properties and heaven forbid actually see the name of the application that's being run. This is something my gf tried to do because she couldn't drag a menu shortcut to her desktop because she didn't know the exact name to make her own shortcut. And there is no way she was going to find it herself in usr/bin, so in the end she had to ask me the name of the app.

      AFAIK, no linux DE has this functionality. This is something win95 had. Maybe way back then when kde/gnome were being developed they should have looked at goals of what windows did right. Embrace and expand.

      And don't get me started on hotkeys in gtk apps.

      I love using alt uparrow enter to quickly quit an app. So lets see in gtk. No quick alt toggle to get in the menu, ok fair enough I have to press alt F, but alt f won't get you back out of the menu thats escape of course, and once in the menu alt e will not bring you to edit, you have to use the arrow keys once you are in the menu.

      This is klunky to say the least. Businesses that use custom apps really stress having smooth functioning hotkeys for users to use them efficiently.

    5. Re:Edit the Menu by arose · · Score: 1

      Try going to "applications:///" in nautilus.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  58. GNOME 10? by exigentsky · · Score: 1

    Can we do without the misleading and sensational headlines please. You might get me to read the story, but my respect for Slashdot will only dwindle.

  59. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by Vaevictis666 · · Score: 1
    GNU is pronounced "new"

    While the animal gnu (also called the wildabeast) is pronounced with a silent G, as is the mythical creature gnome, when you start getting into acronyms (that's what all those capital letters mean) then you're allowed some leeway.

  60. 2.82.10? by big+daddy+kane · · Score: 1

    isn't 2.10 the same as 2.1, so that would mean that 2.8 is larger than 2.1 so how is this new release not the same numerically as gnome 2.1?

    1. Re:2.82.10? by gimpimp · · Score: 1

      does 10 not come after 8?
      it's 2.10, not 2.010 or 2.01

      --
      i wish i was but oh well
    2. Re:2.82.10? by SlightOverdose · · Score: 1

      it's "two point ten", not "two point one-oh". Slightly confusing as it's not really a decimal number.

    3. Re:2.82.10? by Justin205 · · Score: 1

      2.10 is two point ten.

      2.10 in your context (two point one zero) would be written as 2.1.0.

      --
      "Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."
    4. Re:2.82.10? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why are there so many idiots like you who think version numbers are decimal? 2.1 was not 2.1, it was 2.1.0 2.10 is not 2.10, but 2.10.0

      please turn in your /. id on your way out.

  61. Re:GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE t by JabberWokky · · Score: 5, Informative
    Soooo where is the KDE team in all of this?

    With Novell (who also owns Ximian) via SUSE and other large companies like IBM. The default desktop for *all* of the commercially successful desktop distros (commercially successful, since you're talking about commercial alliances). Connected to state contracts with national governments like Germany's Kolab project.

    KDE does have plenty of connections, as does Gnome. I'd hardly say that either is ignoring that aspect of their projects. Both have excellent people working toward commercial advocacy.

    --
    Evan

    --
    "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  62. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Just because the GNU guys don't own a dictionary with a pronouciation guide doesn't mean everyone else has to sound like a poorly educated hick when talking about GNU. For the record, dictionary.com has the following to say:

    gnu Audio pronunciation of "gnu" ( P )
    Pronunciation Key (noo, nyoo)

    The "g" is silent, just like in gnome.

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
  63. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because it's official doesn't mean it isn't retarded.

  64. Gnome 10...10 years after win95 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The subject says Gnome 10. I finally got it !

    Wow. great to see that Gnome is finally catching up on win95, which was released 10 years ago.

    If I look at the shots (totem mediaplayer, etc...) windows had it 10 years ago.

  65. Internationalization and IME by Wolfier · · Score: 1

    There was Gnome 1. Then it was Pango. I thought different Gnome-native IME would be implemented (some already have been) but to this date a lot of people still are waiting for the CJK IME...especially since other input modules don't have good integration and sometimes just don't work well at all.

    Can anyone shine some light on it?

    1. Re:Internationalization and IME by haoto · · Score: 2, Informative

      I find SCIM a pretty feature complete solution for me. It has a GTK config module, which can be accessed from the GNOME menu, and shows its status in the notification area. It also (probably most importantly) has a good input methods for each CJK language.

    2. Re:Internationalization and IME by NotoriousQ · · Score: 1

      All GTK2 apps use pango for rendering. This means that they can output multiple languages in the same line.

      As for the IME: both SCIM and UIM are quite advanced. UIM IMO integrates much better with gnome (through applets and such...), SCIM has a slightly better keyboard shortcut system, and a few more features that are more apparent.

      The GNOME native IME is pretty much dead, except as a system through which SCIM and UIM can interface with GTK.

      From the view of my windows using chinese officemate, both SCIM and UIM are just as good or better than Windows IME (for chinese at least).

      --
      badness 10000
  66. Re:GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The way I see it, Gnome is standing still and KDE is moving forward at such a slow pace that I'd hope Gnome COULD catch up, but it can't, which is an embarrassment.

    Gnome makes bad UI decisions (button-order, spatial layout) and not only doesn't correct them, but doesn't even make all of them optional. Instead they chant the Apple mantra: "Change the way you think, and it'll make sense. Still doesn't make sense? You're beholden to Windows. Wait...you're NOT a Windows user?...ummm...I'm out of ways to say our UI design flaws are your fault and not ours then, sorry!"*

    * Not an exact quote of the Apple mantra, but close.

  67. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They pick the name, they get to pick how it's pronounced. Period. If you call GNU "nu", you're wrong.

  68. Re:Rhetorical Questions ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to burst your bubble, but I think you'll find Linux marketshare well beyond that of Macos ;)

  69. Re:GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Novell linux defaults to gnome afaik

  70. Re:Logical dissonance by Ogerman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The really remarkable thing is that in spite of having only a fraction of the corporate support KDE is far more usable. Yes, a few things are clumsier than I would like, but they seem to have avoided the completely idiotic design decisions that GNOME has made (the spatial browser, the hideous file selector, eliminating user-visible preferences to an extreme).

    The really pathetic thing is that GNOME and KDE today are pretty much duplicate efforts. This situation has become a terrible waste of community resources. From a technical perspective, there is no significant advantage to either platform. From a user perspective, most people are more comfortable with KDE because it is closer to Windows, which they are used to. GNOME is idealistic; KDE is practical. Guess which more people actually use.

    That being said, KDE needs some serious improvement in few performance areas and the stability of apps under its umbrella. Kmail and Konqueror come to mind first..

  71. Stupid Question: release policy by Internet+Ninja · · Score: 1


    I've been asleep. Can someone point me to the release policy mentioned or precis it for me?

  72. Re:GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SUSE 9.2 defaulted to KDE when I tried it over the weekend. It's easy to click on the GNOME button instead though.

  73. Is this GNOME or WinXP with a skin? by Xyde · · Score: 0, Troll

    Seriously. Yes, the interface is now cleaner but only because the layout of every screenshot bar the open/save dialogs looks like a complete and utter copy of Windows.

    I mean besides all the controls and general window layout being identical to windows, the help browser looks exactly like windows, the volume control is what I'd expect to appear if I double clicked on the speaker icon on a windows box and when I first saw totem I thought it was WMP 6.1 running in WINE.

    Is MS's interface design really that great that you want a free bona fide copy of it? Or are you just trying to make your project appeal to the lowest common denominator. (Windows users)

    Do you really need Bookmarks and Go in a help browser? Don't you think a dotted line around the currently selected tab is kinda ugly? Why do the supported features dots in the drives section look like checkboxes? (which you can change by very nature)

    The whole UI has the potential to be very clean but instead it looks cluttered. Yeah, this post is a lot of whining about 2 products I don't even use (linux & windows) but it's just sad to see the former become more and more like the latter. But I guess that's why we have different projects.

    KDE & Gnome for people who like windows and uhh, maybe windowmaker for those who want something a bit different.

    1. Re:Is this GNOME or WinXP with a skin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Seriously. Yes, the interface is now cleaner but only because the layout of every screenshot bar the open/save dialogs looks like a complete and utter copy of Windows.

      You mean like the main desktop menus on top, the different button naming and order, the spatial file manager or the background chooser?

      Yeah, this post is a lot of whining about 2 products I don't even use (linux & windows)

      That's what I thought...

    2. Re:Is this GNOME or WinXP with a skin? by aled · · Score: 1

      Do you really need Bookmarks and Go in a help browser?

      I know I need Bookmarks for help items I need to read periodically. It saves me to repeat a search.

      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
    3. Re:Is this GNOME or WinXP with a skin? by catwh0re · · Score: 1
      He's right though, if they had a broader history in OS design, and what OSes look like, they'd begin to notice that their UI is looking very windows like. It's not some evolutionary 'this _is_ the best way', it's just utter rip off, they're just emulating what they are most likely used to instead of creating a new solution that serves the purpose best in their own unique way, while reflecting their culture.

      Like with everything, why copy what you proclaim to be better than.

    4. Re:Is this GNOME or WinXP with a skin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's right though, if they had a broader history in OS design, and what OSes look like, they'd begin to notice that their UI is looking very windows like.

      Take what is good. Use it. No matter if it's windows, mac or OS/2. I like the results.

      It's not some evolutionary 'this _is_ the best way', it's just utter rip off

      I'm sure you can provide real evolutionary ideas that haven't been already done in previous GUIs.

      If not the case, tough luck. You'll have to keep on living in a computer world where graphical windows are square, menus are used all around and everyone and their cat copies Apple.

      But as long as the only cons you can provide is "it was done before", it's fine with me.

    5. Re:Is this GNOME or WinXP with a skin? by catwh0re · · Score: 1
      Although you'll never get to see this because you're using anon coward.
      I can't make it clear enough how important it is for the product to reflect it's own unique culture in it's UI design.. and not say the culture of Netscape on Windows 3.1 with just a few more gradients.

      Congratulations for something that looks consistent, but zero points for them trying to be the better alternative that they claim to be.

      Disregarding any 'con' has been the plight of some open source projects for quite a long time. It's not aggressive, it's constructive, take them on board remember them for next time, evolve, and today it's 'don't rip off windows we all know it's lame'.

    6. Re:Is this GNOME or WinXP with a skin? by Xyde · · Score: 1

      Look at the difference between the interfaces in 99% of other UI's.

      Look at a screenshot of NeXT, a screenshot of BeOS, a screenshot of IRIX, a screenshot of MacOS, a screenshot of Amiga Workbench, a screenshot of Windows and a screenshot of KDE/GNOME. Which two look most alike to you? Which two act mostly the same. Which one do we constantly bitch about? Innovate for fucks sake or you'll forever be playing catch up.

    7. Re:Is this GNOME or WinXP with a skin? by catwh0re · · Score: 1
      There seems to be confusion that Windows market share and MS's endless $$$ means their product is good. When it's just a monopoly, they can release garbage and people have to, and do, use it.

      Yes we know gnome et al aren't entirely original and have to copy -something- here and there, it's inevitable that they'll endup copying something that was used sometime in history.
      However their direction(i.e what to copy) is best served by looking at which products still exist today despite the overwealming MS market, if you're going to copy something, copy these products as they clearly have something which MS can't quench.

    8. Re:Is this GNOME or WinXP with a skin? by dont_think_twice · · Score: 1

      KDE & Gnome for people who like windows and uhh, maybe windowmaker for those who want something a bit different.

      Thats funny - I use windowmaker on my work computer, and Gnome on my home computer. I use them both essentially the same (one app per desktop, ctrl-alt-right/left to switch desktops (and hence apps)). I use gnome at home since I am usually not worried about conserving processor power there, and it is nice to have some added functionality, like the ability to drag applications from one desktop to another in the pager.

      Sometimes I use windows too - and I use it almost the same way. I keep all apps maximized, and use alt-tab to switch between them. For all practical purposes, all three desktop environments work the same way for me. Yet windowmaker is supposedly the "different" one.

      In windowmaker, I use gnome-volume-control as my volume mixer. It behaves in an intintive way. I don't want anything different. Just because windows did something, doesn't mean that it should be forbidden for any other DE to also use it.

    9. Re:Is this GNOME or WinXP with a skin? by DarthWiggle · · Score: 1

      What I'd like to know (and I could probably figure it out if I wanted to spend 15 minutes hunting the answer) is whether Gnome and its HIG are based on solid research into human interface methods, whether they piggyback on others' research, or whether they're just good guesses. I - personally - like Gnome better than KDE (KDE looks to me like the markdown stripmall it's-all-on-sale suburban desktop, i.e., shallow, garish, and overwhelming), but things like using the checkbox for the drive capabilities is perplexing.

      Why not just have two lists "Your drive is designed to" and "Your drive is not designed to" and then list the relevant items underneath each? My first thought when my gaze swept across the image was "Oh look, there's a way to activate and deactivate certain attributes." Oops. Exactly the errors that Windows used to make but makes less and less because of the millions of dollars MS spends on interface design. The Fisher-Price theme may not be attractive, but it's mostly consistent (3rd party apps are another matter entirely).

      Anyway, nobody will ever see this comment since it's all buried down here in Purgatory.. :)

    10. Re:Is this GNOME or WinXP with a skin? by martinoforum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Windowmaker for something a bit different?

      Different from what? The 957,000 other UNIX window managers that all have the perplexing misconception that right-click-and-you'll-get-a-big-nested-menu is good UI design? About the first thing I read about UI design was "BIG NESTED MENUS SUCK BALLS!" or words to that effect.

      They do, too.

      Seriously, I can't stand it. Why is it that on Linux we have to choose between slow, Windows or Mac-alike desktops (Gnome, KDE) and an incessant, constant stream of Just-click-the-right-mouse-button-and-you'll-get-a -menu window managers like fluxbox etc. Surely somebody in the open source community can come up with a clever, minimal solution to what we do with a desktop environment/window manager? I mean seriously, what do we do? Configure a few things, move some files around, launch applications? Even just some improvements on the second function would be welcome rather than that interminal right-mouse menu nonsense. That stuff works great for context-sensitive stuff in applications, but only with small menus. Huge, monolithic RMB menus are the tool of satan!

    11. Re:Is this GNOME or WinXP with a skin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although you'll never get to see this because you're using anon coward.

      That doesn't make my opinion less valid than yours (you wish) ;D

      I can't make it clear enough how important it is for the product to reflect it's own unique culture in it's UI design.. and not say the culture of Netscape on Windows 3.1 with just a few more gradients.

      Well, gnome has its own culture in UI design, but you seem too concentrated on the similarities to other GUIs.

      http://actsofvolition.com/archives/2004/february /g ettingtoknow

      There, see.

      Congratulations for something that looks consistent, but zero points for them trying to be the better alternative that they claim to be.

      And it's worse how? If you insist on it being a copycat, it should be at least equal. :)

      Disregarding any 'con' has been the plight of some open source projects for quite a long time. It's not aggressive, it's constructive, take them on board remember them for next time, evolve, and today it's 'don't rip off windows we all know it's lame'.

      You still fail at providing any real point further than "I've seen these things before, so it sucks".

      Boy, if you had to work on the automotive industry you'd be crying your heart out. I heard they still use wheeldrives and 4 wheels systems.

    12. Re:Is this GNOME or WinXP with a skin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at a screenshot of NeXT, a screenshot of BeOS, a screenshot of IRIX, a screenshot of MacOS, a screenshot of Amiga Workbench, a screenshot of Windows and a screenshot of KDE/GNOME. Which two look most alike to you?

      Hell if I can make an objective comparison of that and find stunning similarities that distinguish two of them from the rest. Perhaps you could be as gentle as to statistically note the similarities among them all to find the two sinners?

      I'm pretty sure we can discard windows being square.

      Which two act mostly the same.

      You mean that gnome/kde acts like windows? In what way that makes it strikingly similar to it instead of, let's say, macos?

      I guess we could start with the spatial file manager... no, wrong. Perhaps the template system... damn, that neither. Wait, I got it: the window buttons are the same! And apart from that, hmmm...

    13. Re:Is this GNOME or WinXP with a skin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However their direction(i.e what to copy) is best served by looking at which products still exist today despite the overwealming MS market, if you're going to copy something, copy these products as they clearly have something which MS can't quench.

      Hello?

      File Open/Save dialogs inspired by Mac OS X, desktop panel with apps menu on the top (where have I seen this before...), templates system similar to OS/2's, epiphany (internet browser) has (*gasp*) tabs, popup blocking and integrated download manager, the file manager is spatial, the button naming and ordering is as Apple's, they wrote an HIG that is enforced if a developer wants its app to be part of the official desktop, etc. etc. etc.

      What did you want to suggest them again?

    14. Re:Is this GNOME or WinXP with a skin? by vertigo · · Score: 1

      Every graphical program these days is designed around the same paradigms of icons, toolbars and windows, regardless the platform. Only implementation details differ. There are also many things the Windows user interface got right in its various iterations. Not learning from those things just because they look like something windows did before would be silly.

      That said, both KDE and Gnome are application frameworks. You suggest using Windowmaker instead. Fine, but Windowmaker is just a plain window manager which offers you no functionality apart from drawing a neat border around your windows and prodiding a couple of application launchers in the form of docks. What applications that are not based on Qt or GTK are you going to use to actually get work done?

      Having windowmaker running with a couple of xterms and doing your wordprocessing, image editing and other tasks on the commandline or in textmode surely will provide you with an aura of being different in a 1980's retro-unix kind of way and may gain you respect in some obscure subcultures of the computing world, but if its terribly productive is an entirely different question. Even windowmaker was originally developed to be the windowmanager for the GNUStep environment, and as such a component of a larger application framework environment.

    15. Re:Is this GNOME or WinXP with a skin? by Xyde · · Score: 1
      UI controls in the top right and in the same order and icons as the Windows

      titles justified to the left (I'm aware this can be changed, I'm mainly talking about defaults here)

      window managment icon on the left

      task bar on the bottom

      launching icon bottom left ala start button in KDE with show desktop to the right of it

      application menus in each window

      scroll bars on right

      buttons in dialog boxes say things like "OK" and "Cancel" instead of say, "Save" and "Don't save"

      My computer type icon top left hand of desktop

      trash on desktop

      clock at left of taskbar

      toolbars funtionally and usually aesthetically identical to windows

      single click icons implemented exactly like active desktop

      tree view in things like KDE control centre and konquer bit for bit copy of explorer.exe tree view

      This is all just from glancing at a couple of screenshots, suffice to say if you can't see the similarity to windows go and get your glasses replaced. A simple look at the bottom 1/4 of http://static.kdenews.org/mirrors/kde-cygwin-shots /kde-cygwin-normal.png proves my point.

    16. Re:Is this GNOME or WinXP with a skin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      titles justified to the left (I'm aware this can be changed, I'm mainly talking about defaults here)

      Default of gnome: window titles centered

      launching icon bottom left ala start button in KDE with show desktop to the right of it

      Gnome: launching icon at top left. Show dektop bottom left in taskbar.

      application menus in each window

      Like BeOS, IRIX, fvwm, fluxbox... not like MacOS for sure.

      scroll bars on right

      Unlike BeOS, macos, irix... right. NeXT is the exception.

      buttons in dialog boxes say things like "OK" and "Cancel" instead of say, "Save" and "Don't save"

      I was pretty sure it is a gnome news. And you know its buttons aren't like that... or it's a bug.

      clock at left of taskbar

      Gnome default: top panel, to the right.

      single click icons implemented exactly like active desktop

      Double click icons in gnome by default, except launchers.

      This is all just from glancing at a couple of screenshots, suffice to say if you can't see the similarity to windows go and get your glasses replaced. A simple look at the bottom 1/4 of http://static.kdenews.org/mirrors/kde-cygwin-shots /kde-cygwin-normal.png proves my point.

      I'll admit it's my fault for mentioning KDE (wonder why, I don't even like it). But if you can't notice the logo in this article is gnome's, you should go and get your glasses replaced.

      Nice try, though. Pity that you have to resort to that to attempt to prove your wrong reasoning.

    17. Re:Is this GNOME or WinXP with a skin? by Xyde · · Score: 1

      Next time you read a slashdot post where someone says "...and windows was giving grandma so many issues that I put linux on there, changed the theme and she can't tell the difference (except she's annoyed because she can't find solitaire hahaha)" go and reassure yourself that KDE & GNOME haven't taken 90% of their design cues from Windows. No really.

    18. Re:Is this GNOME or WinXP with a skin? by shaunm · · Score: 3, Insightful
      the help browser looks exactly like windows

      Really? I mean, really? Here's Davyd's screenshot of the Gnome help browser:

      http://www.gnome.org/~davyd/gnome-2-10/images/yelp -full.png

      Here's some XP help browser screenshots, courtesy of Google image search:

      http://www.winona.edu/its/techsupport/images/helpa ndsupport.jpg
      http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/security/bulletin /images/hcp.jpg

      Hmm, so they both have Back buttons. Oh, and scrollbars. And look, they both display formatted text! Those Gnome developers are just a bunch of copycats.

      For the record, I blatently copied the OS X help browser, not the XP help browser.

      Do you really need Bookmarks and Go in a help browser?

      Regarding Go: Do you know what's under that menu? It has Back and Forward, and it has Previous Section and Next Section. I really doubt the menu itself is used that often, but the actions in the menu are very commonly used, either by toolbar buttons or by keyboard shortcuts.

      Regarding Bookmarks: For most simple application help, it really isn't necessary. You see some dialog, you think "What the heck is this option?", and you pull up the help. You don't want to spend time in the help browser. You want to get back to your work.

      But then there are people who look up function references for Gnumeric. And systems administrators who have to refer to certain bits of system documentation often. There are people for whom bookmarks are incredibly useful. The interface is still very simple, and the addition of bookmarks doesn't really hurt those who don't need them.

      I get the impression that you just wanted something, anything, to complain about.

    19. Re:Is this GNOME or WinXP with a skin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next time you read a slashdot post where someone says "...and windows was giving grandma so many issues that I put linux on there, changed the theme and she can't tell the difference (except she's annoyed because she can't find solitaire hahaha)" go and reassure yourself that KDE & GNOME haven't taken 90% of their design cues from Windows. No really.

      Is that all you have to add?

      Well, my counterpoint: most free desktops, specially kde and gnome, have enough settings to mimick the main design of most commercial desktops. For example, changing double click to single click to open apps or changing the window button order in metacity to mimick mac os'. So to take people saying that they tweaked it to mimick windows as a proof for design plagiarism is a moot point.

      And really, if you're gonna go "when someone says..." we'd might better discuss about if angels have gender.

      So I answered just another empty response from a misguided guy. *sigh*

    20. Re:Is this GNOME or WinXP with a skin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pfft loser

  74. Gnome's weakness is not its looks by iamnotacrook · · Score: 0
    Gnome looks great - no argument there. It's weakness is that it runs on X.

    Almost every complaint I see about Gnome, (speed, flickering, hangs, etc) is almost always traced back to an issue with the underlying graphics system, X. I understand that the developers are kind of hamstrung by having to use X because its to much effort to code a replacement but it is a shame.

    Its been a while since I looked at the Gnome codebase but I wonder if it could be easily ported to another lowlevel architecture if gtk and gdk were. Anyone care to inform ?

    1. Re:Gnome's weakness is not its looks by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Or, we could just fix X instead, like Freedesktop.org and X.org are doing. Would that be okay with you?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:Gnome's weakness is not its looks by vandan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here we go again.

      You're that same guy I replied to last time, right? The one with the 300 Mhz Celeron and Trident video card, and who absolutely insists that the only test that should be applied to a graphics system is how well your POS hardware can render a Mozilla window being dragged around like crazy on your desktop.

      I'm not surprised it flickers. Upgrade your hardware. It doesn't flicker on mine, and even if it did, I wouldn't care, because I don't sit there dragging around windows, watching the speed they redraw at, and tossing off over the fastest system I can find. There are more important things to do ... like leaving your windows in one place and doing some programming in one of them. Maybe you could even improve X?

    3. Re:Gnome's weakness is not its looks by iamnotacrook · · Score: 0

      They aren't fixing it. They are changing it, within its already fixed parameters.

    4. Re:Gnome's weakness is not its looks by iamnotacrook · · Score: 0
      No, I must be a different guy. You are the one in the minority.

      Are you going to tell me that X can display windows across the network? Windows XP does that better already.

      Oh and by the way, I've never met you, but I'll bet I've contributed more to the open source code base than you have. I dont need to brag about it by asking people to "code it themselves" when a problem comes up.

    5. Re:Gnome's weakness is not its looks by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that the X Damage and Compositing extensions would fix the flicker and speed problems....

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    6. Re:Gnome's weakness is not its looks by minus9 · · Score: 0, Flamebait


      "Ask me about freelance Java consulting."

      Perhaps you could re-implement X in Java. That would speed it up.

    7. Re:Gnome's weakness is not its looks by iamnotacrook · · Score: 0

      Not fix. Hide. You'll just see them less often.

    8. Re:Gnome's weakness is not its looks by iamnotacrook · · Score: 0
      Must have hit a sore spot, since you have basically resorted to name calling.

      I'm guessing you know nothing about either Java or X. So stay out of the thread.

    9. Re:Gnome's weakness is not its looks by minus9 · · Score: 1


      "Must have hit a sore spot, since you have basically resorted to name calling."

      The only possible name calling I can see in my post is "Java Developer" and that's taken directly from the sig so I don't think it's terribly offensive.

      Cheer up!

    10. Re:Gnome's weakness is not its looks by afd8856 · · Score: 1

      Qt is a bit faster than GTK. KDE feels faster on X terminals than Gnome.

      --
      I'll do the stupid thing first and then you shy people follow...
    11. Re:Gnome's weakness is not its looks by vandan · · Score: 1
      Oh and by the way, I've never met you, but I'll bet I've contributed more to the open source code base than you have.


      Sure you have. I believe it because you said it.\

      And as for that trash about Win XP doing network transparancy, I believe you're talking about the VNC-like remote desktop thing they have. That's not network transparancy. And I'd be surprised if it were secure, but I don't use Windows XP, so I've never bothered to check.
  75. And I sent in a correction! by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    Sent in the correction while it was still "in the future", redly ... sometimes they pay attention, sometimes not.

  76. Re:GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The default desktop for *all* of the commercially successful desktop distros (commercially successful, since you're talking about commercial alliances).

    Yeah, like Redhat! Err...

  77. Horse before Cart by iamnotacrook · · Score: 0
    People will decide to switch systems on the basis of the available productivity tools. I challenge anyone to want to stick with MSOffice bloatware after a little experience with the latest OpenOffice- slick, fast, and a lot cheaper!

    Once people realize that OpenOffice is there, they will want a good desktop system to go with it - and thats where Gnome will step up to the plate.

    1. Re:Horse before Cart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I wanted to switch to Linux, I downloaded both Knoppix and Gnoppix. Only Knoppix started and worked; so I used KDE. Simple. KDE "just works".

  78. Re:Logical dissonance by clem · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The really pathetic thing is that GNOME and KDE today are pretty much duplicate efforts. This situation has become a terrible waste of community resources.

    I'm certain these developers that volunteer their time are eagerly awaiting your consent as to what projects they may work on.

    --
    Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
  79. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by mvdw · · Score: 1
    Well, actually, if you pronounce it GEE-EN-EWE, then it's not really an acronym, is it? It's an initialisation.

    But I agree with you; I always pull people up when they talk about SCUBA diving. I prefer to pronounce it as ESS-SEE-EWE-BEE-AY diving, as any sane person would. Same goes for when I use a ELL-AY-ESS-EEE-ARR. Or the other day, when the police pulled me over for speeding. I had to correct the officer when he insisted I had been detected with a radar, when in fact it was an ARR-AY-DEE-AY-ARR. Join the fight brother; together we can de-acronise the world!

  80. Distro? by beerdo · · Score: 1

    Any idea on which distros will be shipping with 2.10? I'm guessing Fedora will be one of the first.

    --
    Everytime I turn around I'm going in a different direction
  81. Amusing Linux Choice-ability by adolfojp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I love Gnome/Ximian for Mono and GTK, for Evolution and Gimp, for AbiWord and Gnumeric, for Gaim and Rhythmbox.

    Yet, somehow, I use them all on my KDE desktop.

    No flamewar is necesary. I guess thats part of the beauty of linux. Maybe we can all get along after all.

    Cheers,
    Adolfo

    1. Re:Amusing Linux Choice-ability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to be a KDE user, but whenever I needed to run a GTK application like The Gimp, I had to log out from KDE and run it from within Gnome or I would not get any work done, instead I'd just stare at the horrible inconsistency.

      If all applications had random colors and widget layouts I would simply ignore it, since there is no pattern.

      Likewise, if I'd sit in a room full of musicians all playing random notes I wouldn't mind at all, since there is no pattern to follow.
      However, if half of the musicians played one song together, and the other half another song, with both groups playing at the same time, both songs overlapping eachother, It would be extremely uncomfortable.
      I'd follow both patterns, it would not be possible to ignore one and follow the other.

      Perhaps not a very good analogy, but a consistent interface makes you more productive.
      If all the colors, menu and button layouts follow the same pattern, the interface becomes very predictable, you repeat the same procedure in every application without thinking about it.

      However, if you have an application wich brakes that consistency you have to pause and think before taking action, disrupting your workflow.

    2. Re:Amusing Linux Choice-ability by Pecisk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of coarse, we can. The whole world is about many choices, not the holy one. :)

      And in exchange, I still use K3b and Kbabel at my GNOME desktop :) They both rock, dude.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    3. Re:Amusing Linux Choice-ability by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it sure would be nice if we didn't have to have redundant sets of libs to do that, and if they could all use the same theme and settings...

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:Amusing Linux Choice-ability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget to give amaroK a try!

    5. Re:Amusing Linux Choice-ability by arose · · Score: 1

      Yes, get rid of Qt... or GTK... or Qt... or GTK... or...

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    6. Re:Amusing Linux Choice-ability by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      QT, because it's not completely Free (e.g., on Windows)... but that's just my vote.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:Amusing Linux Choice-ability by aminorex · · Score: 1

      The QT-Win32 project has ported the GPL QT to Windows.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  82. Mac OS X open/save dialog by ibentmywookie · · Score: 1

    Hmm, it seems that GNOME has copied the Mac OS X open/save dialog. I use OS X regularly, and haven't felt limited by the open/save dialog yet. I don't suppose I would feel limited by the GNOME one.

    I like KDE's open/save dialog as well. But to be honest, I never type the name of the file in and use the tab completion. The most I'll ever do is manually change the filter.

    I can't imagine Apple putting that functionality in their open/save dialogs. The average Apple user probably wouldn't know what to do with them (what's a wildcard?).

    Interesting, I just opened the open dialog in safari, and while it shows all the files in a directory, any files that aren't registered to be handled by this program are greyed out. There is no way to change the filter either.

    --
    -- The doctor said I wouldn't get so many nose bleeds if I just kept my finger out of there!
    1. Re:Mac OS X open/save dialog by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I agree, it does look a lot like OS X's open/save dialog. The only real difference (other than the type-ahead find) is that the GNOME one is missing drag-and-drop for the folder list on the left (it's got add and remove buttons instead).

      I use OS X regularly too, and I've got only one issue with the dialogs: Where's the "Up one level" button?! If I'm in ~/Documents/foo/bar/baz/quux/, and I want to get to ~/Documents/foo/bar, why do I have to select "Documents" from the left column and start over from there?

      Although, now that I think about it, a selectable file-type filter or pattern-matching text box would be nice....

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  83. Re:GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE t by thenextpresident · · Score: 1

    All? Mandrake is pretty successful. In fact, the first two most popular distro's according to distrowatch are Gnomeish desktops:

    http://distrowatch.com/

    --
    Jason Lotito
  84. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by magefile · · Score: 1

    By that argument, why not G-Nome, as in "genome"? Sounds cool, and it makes sense.

  85. Errata Sheet by ari_j · · Score: 2, Informative

    This isn't off-topic - it's on-topic for a metatopic. At least read the entire thing (particularly the end) before modding me in any direction, be it up, down, or along the imaginary axis.

    First off, this is Slashdot. For software announcements, see Freshmeat. It's not like the two are in competition with each other. Next, the title of the article contains an error in the version number of Gnome being announced. But we'll let that slide, since it got caught within a few hours and an update was posted.

    Now, into the meat...

    spectre_be writes "Davyd Madeley wrote a Sneak Peek at Gnome 2.10, scheduled for release on the March 9, 2005.

    This is incorrect in one way or another. Either Mr. Madeley wrote an article entitled "A Sneak Peak at Gnome 2.10" and the submitter failed to capitalize the A, he wrote an article entitled "Sneak Peek at Gnome 2.10" and the submitter added an extraneous A, or he wrote a generic sneak peek at Gnome 2.10 and the submitter erroneously capitalized "Sneak Peak." Additionally, is the article scheduled for release on March 9, 2005, or is Gnome 2.10 scheduled to be released that day? Finally, I didn't have to be told that it's the March 9, 2005, as only one such date exists and rules of usage insist that you not tell me which one even if you are ambiguous as to year.

    Looks like the new release-policy is starting to pay of, as several existing utilities get enhancements and a couple of new ones are added.

    The grammatical error of leaving out any subject for the verb looks notwithstanding, there are a few errors here. "Gnome's new release policy" would have been correct - note the omission of the extraneous hyphen and specification of whose release policy is being mentioned. Also, the word sought here is "off," not "of." I'll let "couple of" slide because it's a part of the vernacular.

    Also (finally) a mozilla-stylee type-ahead find has been implemented in Gnome's Open/Save dialog.

    Stylistically, "finally" should have been set off by commas, not parentheses; but it's not technically incorrect. However, "Mozilla" should have been capitalized and "style" has only one E. Also, the last time I checked, the "open" and "save" dialogs of most programs are separate, even in those cases where the "save as" dialog is just called "save."

    Together with OpenOffice.org 2.0's scheduled release and Novell's Mono coming up to speed, will 2005 prove to be the year of Gnome?"

    Unbelievably, the submitter completed an entire sentence without any real errors. It's irrelevant to the story at hand, which is itself outside the scope of this site, but, as far as the English language goes, it's correct! Good work!

    Revised, this reads:

    spectre_be writes "Davyd Madeley wrote a sneak peek at Gnome 2.10, which is scheduled for release on the March 9, 2005. It looks like Gnome's new release policy is starting to pay off, as several existing utilities get enhancements and a couple new ones are added. Also, a Mozilla-style type-ahead find feature has finally been implemented in Gnome's open and save dialogs. Together with OpenOffice.org 2.0's scheduled release and Novell's Mono coming up to speed, will 2005 prove to be the year of Gnome?"

    That didn't take me all that long to do. If submitters would do the same, there would be a lower rate of submission and each submission would be higher quality. If the editors would also do this, there would be fewer duplicate stories, fewer already-dispelled urban legends posted as fact, and higher-quality content, all of which would lead to higher subscription rates and greater income. That's how real newspapers make money: they produce a quality product that's worth the price they charge.

    1. Re:Errata Sheet by knightbg · · Score: 2, Funny

      ACK if you're going to deride the editors, at least make sure you properly proof your own post. Two things right off the bat:

      - You neglected to remove the word "the" from the first sentence of the revised article.
      - "... each submission would be higher quality" should probably read "each submission would be of higher quality."

      While your general point (that the story's grammar and spelling are abysmal) is correct, all you have done is proven that editing is harder than it looks.

      I am sure there are mistakes in this post too. Please don't bother trying to find them.

    2. Re:Errata Sheet by lakcaj · · Score: 2, Funny

      Revised, this reads:

      spectre_be writes "Davyd Madeley wrote a sneak peek at Gnome 2.10, which is scheduled for release on the March 9, 2005. It looks like Gnome's new release policy is starting to pay off, as several existing utilities get enhancements and a couple new ones are added. Also, a Mozilla-style type-ahead find feature has finally been implemented in Gnome's open and save dialogs. Together with OpenOffice.org 2.0's scheduled release and Novell's Mono coming up to speed, will 2005 prove to be the year of Gnome?"

      Why don't you try proof reading some of your own shit before YOU submit it!

      And before you correct any mistakes in my post, including the fact that I started this sentence with the word "And", let me save you the trouble and let you know that I don't give a shit.

    3. Re:Errata Sheet by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I didn't say that I was error-free, or that I would hold the editors or any submittor to that standard. I just pointed out how easy it is to greatly improve the quality of front-page articles.

    4. Re:Errata Sheet by dumdeedum · · Score: 1

      Christ, you could be in the Grammar SS.

      Maybe even have your own elite squadron, y'know, one comprised solely of girls with tight leather... bound dictionaries.

    5. Re:Errata Sheet by davids-world.com · · Score: 1

      So, what do we learn from your post? I conclude, the original post was an authentic Slashdot(TM) submission. Just like we know it.

    6. Re:Errata Sheet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how easy it is to greatly improve the quality...
      ...and boldly split infinitives where none have been split before.

    7. Re:Errata Sheet by willpall · · Score: 1

      You must be a blast at parties!

      --
      Libertarian: label used by embarrassed Republicans, longing to be open about their greed, drug use and porn collections.
    8. Re:Errata Sheet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite the fact that everyone else seemed to give you crap for it, your post was very accurate.

      I'm sure there are plenty of worthwhile editors (that are slashdot readers themselves) out there that would gladly volunteer for slashdot (me not being one of them).

    9. Re:Errata Sheet by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I agree. However, in fact, I believe that the editors Slashdot already has are perfectly capable of it, but simply do not take the time to do their job. They aren't called "editors" for the sole talent of button-pushing. Also, if they did take the time to actually edit submissions, possibly with a usage manual and dictionary by their side, the editors would grow in their jobs and, as a result, grow as people. It's not like I'm asking them to give up posting quality content - quite the contrary, and that's a request that should never have to be made of a journalist.

    10. Re:Errata Sheet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That didn't take me all that long to do. If submitters would do the same

      Submitters? What, exactly, are the editors for, if not editing?

    11. Re:Errata Sheet by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Splitting infinitives, like ending sentences with prepositions, is an acceptable practice that has fallen into disfavor through superstition, not by rule of grammar. Be honest, which of the following more clearly makes the point: "...to improve greatly...", "...greatly to improve...", or "to greatly improve..."? I submit that the latter is the most clear.

    12. Re:Errata Sheet by ari_j · · Score: 1

      I was only trying to be charitable. :)

    13. Re:Errata Sheet by syrinx · · Score: 1

      If the author or source is known for writing articles known as "Sneak Peeks", and this article is one of them, then one could reasonably write "Davyd Madeley wrote a Sneak Peek at Gnome 2.10". It's still not the most well-worded phrase I've ever seen, but it could be understandable.

      However, I have no idea if that's the case or not; I just found this post while meta-modding.

      Excellent post, though. :)

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    14. Re:Errata Sheet by ari_j · · Score: 1

      People actually Meta-Moderate? ;) Thanks for the good point, and the compliment - I wish it had been flawless, as that would be cut the number of replies in half, but I do think there is a direct relationship between quality and accuracy of content and how seriously a medium is taken. Slashdot is low on both counts.

    15. Re:Errata Sheet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bloody hell. I just loaded the front page. "we our thinking of implementing a Google like policy". Where are the editors for that?

      Then I scroll down. "Atom Clusters Have Interesting Properties". Didn't I read this on Slashdot yesterday as well?

      Then I scroll down some more. "If you've already installed this thing and know have a broken PSP..."

      I swear to God, if I read Slashdot any longer, I'll turn illiterate and have no long-term memory.

    16. Re:Errata Sheet by syrinx · · Score: 1

      People actually Meta-Moderate?

      If I'm overly bored, I do. :)

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    17. Re:Errata Sheet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bloody hell. I bet you have a fantastic personality and get laid, like, all the time...

  86. Getting very close to OSX by JPyObjC+Dude · · Score: 1

    That's pretty damn close to apple's finder window. Can they do that without issues from Apple?

    Not that I don't like it. Looking at this, I may consider going Linux someday...

    1. Re:Getting very close to OSX by xenocide2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure. Its not nearly as Apple-like as you would imagine. Whoops, I just moved my start bar to the top of the screen in XP. Hope apple doesn't sue. Seriously, though, the visual appearance of GNOME is very malleable. Hell, I don't think the basic theme does the group justice. But even with a very pretty theme, buttonset, icons and wallpaper, its still a far cry from the intricacies of Apple's GUI. You don't see 90% of the menus dissapear when you click on the background, and the applications themselves dont set the upper panel content. Its really more like the Windows setup with the start bar on top rather than bottom. Unfortunately, I haven't used gnome since like 2.4 or 2.6.

      Not to mention, Apple petitioning GNOME would be a really fast way to build ill will towards their beleaguered stance in the market. And lets not forget old Xerox ;).

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

  87. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gnu Audio pronunciation of "gnu" ( P )
    Pronunciation Key (noo, nyoo)


    That is the pronunciation of "gnu", a noun referring to a type of animal.

    In other words, it has absolutely fuck all to do with the pronunciation of "GNU", an acronym referring to the operating system produced by the Free Software Foundation.

  88. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have, and always will, say GNU - GEE-EN-EWE, why? BECAUSE IT'S A FUCKING ACRONYM!

    Tell me, do you also say "are ay dee ay are" and "ell ay ess ee are"? No? Then you must be an idiot, because "radar" and "laser" are FUCKING ACRONYMS!

  89. Illiteracy. Way to go, Timothy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "starting to pay OF"

    'pay of'?
    *nordic illiterate alert*

  90. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by martinoforum · · Score: 1

    Because it sounds like something that Snoop Doggy Dog would have on his goddamn lawn, that's why.

  91. Still just lipstick on a pig! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's still just lipstick on a pig. The second something goes wrong/doesn't work, the first thing someone will be told to do is drop to a command prompt and SU to root to type in some obscure nonsenseical command to change something.

    Linux won't be ready for the desktop, until it's a pure GUI OS.

    1. Re:Still just lipstick on a pig! by Grant_Watson · · Score: 1

      Linux won't be ready for the desktop, until it's a pure GUI OS.

      So, OS X isn't ready for the desktop? What does it mean to be a pure GUI OS other than to lack a command line?

      If you mean that Linux GUIs needs to cover a broader range of system functions, then I agree with you -- but that is not mutually exclusive with a powerful command line.

  92. Ubuntu by jonasj · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ubuntu 5.4 Preview will ship with Gnome 2.10 on the day of its release, and Ubunbu 5.4 Final a week later.

    --
    You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
  93. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by Hentai · · Score: 1

    Which would be true, except that it's an acronym, and takes the 'G' pronunciation mode from the pronunciation mode of the first word of the acronym.

    --
    -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
  94. Just the default theme by noda132 · · Score: 1

    the common non-tech-savvy person often will choose a version of Windows over a distro of Linux simply because XP just looks nicer and easier to use.

    GTK+ is fully themeable, but the default GNOME theme has many restrictions -- basically, it has to look good for everybody. And as others have mentioned here, the GNOME theme is actually more "useful" -- less space taken up by big blue curvy things.

    For reference: the default theme actually did change in GNOME 2.8 (and my, was the older theme ever outdated). For an overview of the design issues, check out this mailing list thread.

  95. Re: Gnome Still Needs More Minor Features by jcole · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I use Gnome on my Debian machine and KDE on my Suse machine. Both are b-apt-ized with the sources.

    But honestly, I am more productive with KDE than with Gnome. Gnome can be a pain in the arse. I've listed a few of my quirks below.

    Nautilus:
    In the folder tree (left window), try moving or renaming a folder. You can't. You have click on it's parent folder and scroll down in the right window and find it to move/rename it.
    Konquerer in KDE works fine.

    Gnome Clipboard Manager (I know, it's not part of the Gnome project...):
    Copy and pasting between GTK1/2 and Qt apps while GCM is enabled total screws up your "highlighted" and "copied" clipboards.
    Klipper in KDE has never screwed up my clipboard.

    Gedit:
    In this Gnome 2.10 screenshot example (http://www.gnome.org/~davyd/gnome-2-10/images/ged it-hilite-full.png) gedit is syntax hightlighting an html file. Gedit can even do Java and Perl files. But, It can't syntax highlight simple sh/bash files? I don't understand that.
    Kate/Krite in KDE syntax highlights just fine and cleverly adds an expand/collapse icon to your for/while loops.

    (I have lots more, but I'll stop there before I piss someone off ;) I don't want to start a KDE/Gnome flame war... And, yes, I am aware of the whole GTK vs Qt licensing problem...)

    One excuse I've been told is that Gnome is designed to be a more minimal Desktop. Then why not just use XFCE? It the best (and fastest) minimal GTK based Desktop I've ever used:
    http://www.xfce.org/index.php?page=users_screensho ts&lang=en

    Sometimes I think that the Gnome development team is trying so hard not to be like KDE (or even like Windows) it's development is being hindered.

    Am I being rude or too honest?

    -Joe

    7*8*9*19*5783
    http://www.thehumorarchives.com/attachment_files/w arning.jpg

  96. Re:finding files!-Beagle by noda132 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, GNOME Storage is a pretty dead project. What people probably want to see screenshots for these days is Beagle. Beagle gathers metadata and indexes content instead of replacing the filesystem. And it Just Works. Has done so for months.

  97. looks a lot like.. by Thundersnatch · · Score: 1

    ...Windows 3.1 or NT 3.5.

    I think Gnome/KDE and distro maintainers should stay as far away as possible from bland blue+white+grey themes and Arial lookalike fonts. Leave that crap to MS, and come up with something at least a little original and distinctive. Like Unbutu Linux has done, for example.

    In fact, I always encourage the graphic designers I know to contribute to my favorite OSS projects, although none have so far. I'll try again, but everyone else out there, please do the same... engineers and programmers are generally not good at user interface design.

    1. Re:looks a lot like.. by 808140 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      In fact, I always encourage the graphic designers I know to contribute to my favorite OSS projects, although none have so far. I'll try again, but everyone else out there, please do the same... engineers and programmers are generally not good at user interface design.

      Nor, for that matter, are graphic designers.

      You probably meant to say that engineers and progammers aren't particularly good, on average, at generating nice looking interfaces, but that's not at all the same as what you actually said (although what you actually said, FWIW, is also true -- it's just that you implied that graphic designers might be good at UI design, which is demonstratably false).

      GNOME's default theme is boring looking, but it is also extremely easy to use -- so far, I haven't met a single person, no matter how computer illeterate, that can't use my Debian laptop's gnome-enabled guest user (I personally don't use GNOME).

      Similarly, the early MacOS (I'm talking pre system 7 here) was very easy to use, but not at all good looking, either -- it just seemed that way at the time because the alternative, for most of us, was DOS. But go back and take a look at it now.

      MacOS X, on the other hand, is beautiful -- but nowhere near as consistant and easy to use as early MacOS was. In general, stuff like per-application skinning, the co-existance of multiple GUI widget sets with different stated priorities, etc, produce an unpredictable user experience. It may be a pretty one, but it is nonetheless unpredictable, as the user is forced to learn different visual cues and modes of operation to perform basic tasks.

      This is the most evident on modern Linux desktops, which mix KDE, GNOME, Lesstif, Athena, and countless other "non-standard kits" (like the one used by OOo). But stuff like the "brushed metal" theme on Mac OS X is more of the same. Winamp, XMMS and the Beep Media Player, great apps all of them, are just more examples of what happens when you let a graphic designer do UI work. Hell, pretty much any media player (xine comes to mind, as well as most Windows DVD players) forgo the desktop widget set and instead waste their time drawing dvd player or stereo look alikes on the screen.

      Now, you may like how this looks -- no accounting for taste -- but to take that a step further and take it to be good UI design is another thing. I use xterms, emacs and pwm for my daily hacking -- I wouldn't have it any other way, in fact. But I wouldn't suggest that any of these programs represent good or intuitive UI design. I'm just used to them.

      GNOME is simple, straightforward, and customizable enough that you can make it look like pretty much whatever you want. But out of the box, it has a very intuitive, standard UI, and it's only getting better. I wouldn't use it, but my mom or girlfriend could.

    2. Re:looks a lot like.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think Gnome/KDE and distro maintainers should stay as far away as possible from bland blue+white+grey themes and Arial lookalike fonts. Leave that crap to MS, and come up with something at least a little original and distinctive. Like Unbutu Linux has done, for example.

      Yeah, just like this. No, seriously, Ubuntu uses Gnome, and it just looks like any other generic Gnome installation, apart from the fact that, in a shocking display of individuality, the highlight colour is brown, not blue.

    3. Re:looks a lot like.. by Thundersnatch · · Score: 1
      it's just that you implied that graphic designers might be good at UI design, which is demonstratably false

      Point taken. User interface design is indeed a different (if somewhat related) skillset from graphic design.

      However, most of the graphic designers I know currently work on the presentation aspects of websites, and most are fairly good. Far better, in fact, than any programmer I've seen. Most of these people have an education background in news-oriented graphic design or infographics. They specialize in producing logical, informative layouts where color, shape, and white space are used to guide the reader visually to the bits of information sought.

      I have never actually met someone (in business or in real life) who had an educational background in software UI design, even though I know at least a few universities offer such programs. That being the case, I choose to lean on the most qualified people I know (graphic designers) for help with UI stuff.

  98. Epiphany has better extensions support by noda132 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Unmentioned on that page: Epiphany extensions can now be loaded/unloaded on-the-fly. The epiphany-extensions package comes with an extension which lets you do this. And the adblock extension is coming, dammit!

    And there's also "pyphany" in CVS. It lets you make extensions using Python. Included in the CVS module: a Python Console extension, which is probably the best way to prototype extensions (you can, say, connect a signal to change the zoom, with just a couple of lines of code).

  99. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by sirReal.83. · · Score: 1

    It's a Network Object Model Environment, you insensitive clod! ;)

  100. Re:GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE t by JabberWokky · · Score: 1
    Mandrake uses KDE as their default desktop, and Fedora Core is not commercial (which was the focus of the grandparent comment - *commercial* activities by the desktops).

    In fact, Mandrake started out as a clone of Red Hat with KDE instead of Gnome. It's come a long way since.

    --
    Evan

    --
    "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  101. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by pNutz · · Score: 1
    ...the animal gnu (also called the wildabeast) is pronounced with a silent G...

    Yes, but the Gnu (or wildebeest -- the Afrikaans name) is GNU's mascot, as seen on their site. This makes the arguement for the pronunciation a little more difficult.

    Wikipedia has a writeup on the wildebeest that may be a source of the mispronunciaiton:
    The erroneous (but common) pronunciation 'g-noo' is largely due to the comic song 'A G-nu' by Michael Flanders and Donald Swann, in which all words starting with n have a g prepended: 'I'm a g-nu, I'm a g-nu, the g-nicest work of g-nature in the zoo.'
    (Link)

    And for some quick facts about the Gnu (if you're feeling desparately metaphorical):
    Behavior: The gnu is active both day and night, constantly moving. It generally lives in herds numbering several thousand. In periods of drought the herd moves toward watering holes during dry weather, but when the rains arrive the herds tend to scatter. It feeds mainly on grass, showing distinct preferences for certain kinds of grass. In the breeding period the males strive to isolate harems of females. After a few hours or days they rejoin the main herd. The gnu is a major prey species for many of the large predators, including lions, cheetahs, and wild dogs.
    (Link)
    --
    Death and danger are my various breads and various butters.
  102. Re:finding files!-Beagle by Sark666 · · Score: 1

    I've wanted to check this out for awhile, unfortunately most of the requirements are not met by debian unstable. Looks like it would take a fair bit of system hacking to get it in there.

  103. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by 808140 · · Score: 1

    Just FYI, an acronym is, by definition, a shortened form of a longer phrase meant to be pronounced as a single word.. Examples include SCUBA, LASER, RADAR, and GROSS (the Get Rid Of Slimy girlS club). So you are actually suggesting that GNU is not an acronym, but rather an initialism.

    Initialisms include the NSA, CIA, WTO, WHO, and many other three letter organisations.

    This distinction, of course, is only maintained by pedants, but I thought maybe you'd like to know anyway.

    That said, I pronounce GNU as RMS does.

  104. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by supermonkeyball · · Score: 1
    what do you get when you cross a canadian and the GNU?

    Guh-eh!

    --
    My sig can beat up your sig
  105. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by GeneralTao · · Score: 1


    ROTFLMAO!

    Thank you!!!

    --
    --- Tao
  106. Re:finding files!-Beagle by Pecisk · · Score: 1

    I like to point out that that is fine example how open source works - someone has very good idea, but wrong implentation. Project goes down. Someone re-evaluates idea, extract functionality and get it done differently, but more effiecently. Job is done, we, users, get functionality, which idea is best is proven by real world, not by marketing crap.

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
  107. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And, of course, it's pronunciation, not pronounciation. Geesh.

  108. KDE has many looks by japsu · · Score: 0

    There isn't just one unified KDE look. Instead, as with Gnome, there are many unique themes from which to choose from. Granted, IMNHO the default Keramik theme sucks badly but the Plastik theme is the best one around.

    --
    from foo import signature
  109. Re:finding files!-Beagle by noda132 · · Score: 1

    we, users, get functionality, which idea is best is proven by real world, not by marketing crap

    No, that's not really true. Storage could have been great, but had only one person working on it. For free. And thus not all that much. As for Beagle: look through its AUTHORS file and you'll see an awful lot of @ximian.org's and @novell.com's. These guys are getting paid to hack.

    In this instance, the end result seems to be good. In fact, there actually is a pretty nice "look how cool open-source is" story. Before Beagle, there was Dashboard (an always-open window which is supposed to give you links based on what you're doing -- e.g., who you're talking to in Gaim). Dashboard simply never took off. Then somebody came up with the idea of turning it into a search tool.

    As an Epiphany fan, though, I simply can't agree with that comment about open-source not being affected by "marketing crap". Ubuntu's choice of Firefox as default browser was because of its brand name recognition. (Yes, I can back that up.)

    Anyway, my point is: "open source" isn't really a panacea for great software. Free Software isn't free from the real world. The open source world isn't perfect; it's just better than the proprietary one.

  110. Re:GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE t by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

    Well, the list goes like this:

    1 Mandrakelinux
    2 Fedora
    3 SUSE
    4 MEPIS
    5 Debian
    6 KNOPPIX
    7 Ubuntu
    8 Gentoo
    9 Slackware

    Of those, 1, 3, 4, 6 are KDE-distros (Slackware has excellent KDE-support, so you might want to add it there), while 2 and 7 are Gnome-focused. Rest (Gentoo, Debian and Slackware (unless you put it in KDE-camp)) are desktop-agnostic.

    So, what were you saying again?

    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  111. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

    The first word is gnu, (GNU's not Unix) so it is right.

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
  112. Re:Logical dissonance by 10Ghz · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The really pathetic thing is that GNOME and KDE today are pretty much duplicate efforts. This situation has become a terrible waste of community resources.


    Not really. Gnome is written in C, KDE is written in C++. Gnome uses GTK+, KDE uses Qt. What makes you think that Gnome-hackers would be good KDE-hackers, or vice versa? I mean, the two are technologically quite different. And what makes you think that Gnome-hackers would even want to work on KDE, or KDE hackers on Gnome? Each group has created a desktop according to their vision of what the desktop should be like. And they apparently have quite different visions. How exactly would you merge those two? And if you did, large part of the developers would spin off and start their own desktop-project, and you would be right back where you started!

    Right now Gnome and KDE provide each other some good competition. having one big project with no competition is not necessarily a good thing. Just look at what happened with Xfree! it stagnated for years. and users had no real alternative to it. If Gnome-guys start to rest on their laurels, KDE-guys would annihilate them. And if KDE-guys started doing the same, Gnome-guys would wipe the floor with them. So they can't afford to be lazy.

    That being said, KDE needs some serious improvement in few performance areas and the stability of apps under its umbrella. Kmail and Konqueror come to mind first.


    "serious" improvement? I haven't seen any problems with KDE's performance or stability. I did a comparison to Gnome few months ago (I believe it was Gnome 2.6 back then), and the performance was more or less comparable. Gnome started up few seconds faster (which doesn't really matter in the end, since you only start it up once), but it was a bit slower on some other things. All in all, the two were more or less comparable.

    On my computer, Konqueror and Kontact appear more or less instantly after I start them. Well, Kontact shows the splash-screen for a second or two, and then it's up 'n running. And I haven't been able to make it crash yet. And, as far as performance is concerned, 3.4 should (Again) be quite a bit faster than the previous version was. And 3.3 was faster than 3.2 was. I like that trend quite a bit.

    Seriously, it seems to be fashinable to whine how "KDE is slow! It hogs memory!" with very little facts to back those claims up. On my computer, RAM-consumtion seems to be about 140-150MB, and that's with fully functional KDE-session running with several apps (Konqueror and Kontact notably) and services (Kwallet, Kopete etc.). I really think that's not too bad, and this is a 64bit machine, where the memory-consumption is a bit higher than on 32bit machines.

    I have seen the RAM-consumption climb to something like 270MB. But that was after prolonged use of the desktop, with several apps and several KDE-sessions running in the background. Again: more than reasonable.
    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  113. Re:GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrong, Novell Linux Desktop has no default desktop.

  114. the looks by ufox · · Score: 1

    looks the same as 3 years ago.. just the plain and simple old look.

  115. Composite Extension? by xNstAble · · Score: 1

    Is there any plan to support fd.o composite extension for transparencies? I know the support in current xorg implementation is rather slow and not completely backward compatible, but up till now I've seen very little activity on this subject: metacity support is almost unexistant (in fact, if you want to use a composition manager, you'd better recompile metacity without composite support or switch to xfwm4). The two features I'm looking forward more shadows and transparencies and something like expose (currently there are only a couple of unmantained hacks.. see expocity and Skippy)

  116. Galago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see no mention of the . Galago (Presense management). Will this stuff ship with gnome 2.10?

  117. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, and I guess the pictures of the gnu on their sites are a figment of our collective imagination.

  118. Offer opening any file as text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would really like gnome to offer me to open any file as text. So far I have made separate mime types for sources.list and modules.conf. Why do I have to do that?

    1. Re:Offer opening any file as text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Create a file in .gnome2/nautilus-scripts called:

      Open_As_Text

      Make it executable:

      chmod u+x Open_As_Text

      It contains the line:

      gedit "$@"

      Now when you right click a file, you will have a "Scripts" menu and in it is a "Open_As_Text" option. Of course you can call it whatever you like, and use whatever text editor you like. Adjust the instructions as appropriate.

  119. Re: Gnome Still Needs More Minor Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    In the folder tree (left window), try moving or renaming a folder. You can't. You have click on it's parent folder and scroll down in the right window and find it to move/rename it.

    I have this problem too, but I believe that I could solve it by using spatial browsing, but I don't want to :)

  120. Re:Logical dissonance by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
    GNOME is idealistic; KDE is practical. Guess which more people actually use.

    I don't know, I can't guess. Please show me hard statistics on which is more popular. And no I don't mean bogus distro comparisons which conveniently ignore Fedora (how many times have I seen that now?). I mean hard, solid statistics.

    I think you can't give me any because there are none. Now, anecdotal evidence we can chuck around all day. I know more people using GNOME than KDE. Not a lot more, but it's definitely more. I'm sure the reverse is true for you

  121. Re:Logical dissonance by Carewolf · · Score: 1

    The only real statistics I've seen was done by SuSE and RedHat. They had both asked their customers what desktops they were using. Despite GNOME being default between 30% and 40% of RedHat users used KDE. The SuSE numbers were more consistent and 80% used the default KDE.

  122. Will evolution have this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Will the upcoming evolution have the following

    I would like to import the calendar of my local lug into evolution, but I wish to ignore their weekly thursday meeting

    I wish to make a note to give 30$ to my sister whenever I meet her.

    I would like the calendar in the clock applet in to color dates according to which ical file it was taken from. (This way i can distinguish between important meetings and unimportant messages about my local football club)

  123. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be me. Gee-nome! Gee-nome! I drive you nuts don't I?

  124. Re: Gnome Still Needs More Minor Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    In Galeon you can middle click on the icons "next","back", and "up" to open in a new window. I would like to do the same in Nautilus.

  125. tab complete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Is it possible to do tab-complete in the open file dialog? Can I use gconf to make this "browse"-dialog to start open as default?

    I really like gnome, but I would like to have an alternative to the open file dialog.

  126. Re:GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Not trying to be a troll
    Correct, you aren't TRYING - you ARE a troll.
  127. Re:finding files!-Beagle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you configure gnome to use Beagle instead of the gtk open file dialog?

  128. Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also (finally) a mozilla-stylee type-ahead find has been implemented in Gnome's Open/Save dialog.

    Correction. This is a Windows 2000-style feature. It is present on the Open/Save dialog in Windows 2000 and subsequent operating systems.

  129. Re:That's some old school shit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what difference does it make? >emacs -nw looks the same everwhere, which is exactly what I'm talking about. go, emacs!

  130. Re:Logical dissonance by zdzichu · · Score: 1

    eliminating user-visible preferences to an extreme)

    Not quite right. It is about eliminating *useless* preferences, for things which should be autodetected or depending on current state. See this insightful piece why and how eliminate obsolete preferences.

    --
    :wq
  131. Re:Logical dissonance by arose · · Score: 1

    Now ask Ubuntu users... :-P

    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  132. Re:GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE t by arose · · Score: 1

    Mandrake is pretty much neutral.

    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  133. Re:GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE t by redtux1 · · Score: 1

    Last time I used Mandrake, it was pretty much dsktop neutral (and used gtk for the system tools)

  134. Re:GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE t by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

    Well, Mandrake offers Gnome as well, but defaults to KDE. If you consider Mandrake to be neutral, then you should also consider Fedora to be neutral as well (they default to Gnome, but offer KDE as well). So we are left with just one Gnome-focused distro (Ubuntu).

    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  135. Re:Logical dissonance by gurumeditationerror · · Score: 1

    I have to agree, KDE 3.3 is quite nippy.

    I usually get about 400MB ram consumption but that's at least 40 windows open at a time (konqueror sessions end up running for weeks hidden in the fray) I'm running 64bit too so perhaps 400MB isn't typical.

  136. Re:GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE t by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

    they default to KDE. If Mandrake is neutral, the Fedora is neutral as well.

    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  137. Re:GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE t by arose · · Score: 1

    I don't know anything about Fedora but I don't think that defaulting to foo does make the whole distro a foo-distro. Mandrake ships a very nice Gnome and you can choose not to install KDE at all, Mandrake will even default to Gnome in this case. There's even the little thing about Mandrake's GUI config tools using GTK. I don't see how Mandrake is a KDE-disro, it's just a default.

    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  138. Re:GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE t by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

    Mandrake started as a fork of Red Hat with KDE added. And KDE seems to be their preferred desktop. But hey, if we wollow your logic in determining what is the preferred desktop of the distro, then we are left with just one Gnome-distro in the top-9, since fedora offers KDE as well.

    And what does Mandrakes use of GTK have to do with their desktop of choice? Or do you think that GTK == Gnome?

    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  139. enlightenment 0.17 by kardar · · Score: 1

    Just yesterday, I was messing around and I installed what there is so far of Enlightenment 0.17 on an older (Celeron 667) machine running Linux.

    It's really not quite there yet, it's really not quite stable yet, and it really has quite some way to go yet. But what is there is just incredible. I am extremely impressed.

    I have been stuck on the current Enlightenment, 0.16, for quite some time now, and I use it on all of my personal computers, but on this older computer I have Gnome 2.8, KDE 3.3, I tried ion yesterday as well, but out of curiousity I had to try E 0.17.

    I imagine that Gnome, as well as KDE, will have much greater commercial success, but the smoothness of E 0.17, even on this 667 Celeron, is just out of sight. It's smooth - it's fast, and it's incredibly beautiful without being over the top. Of course, not all of the components work, many things are still being worked on, and it's probably a long way off before it's going to be ready for prime time. The login manager (entrance) is incredible, although, again, I am having issues getting it to start up automatically upon boot. Things like this are to be expected.

    Maybe it's just me, but I've cycled through all the desktop environments on this machine - Gnome, KDE, etc... but I can honestly say that I've never been quite as impressed with any of them as I am with this E 0.17. Even though this computer is just sort of a testbed for different things, and a computer I use to demonstrate to friends and family what Linux looks like (I use KDE for that) - I can't stop going over to it and turning it on and being impressed. E 0.17, whenever it's going to get done, is going to be well worth the wait. It's way, way different - the previews of Gnome don't even come close. I'm just so impressed I can't stop thinking about it. Still has a long way to go though.

  140. Re:GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE t by TractorBarry · · Score: 1

    Surely that should read "KDE does have plenty of Konnections"

    Or am I missing something ?

    --
    Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
  141. Re:GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE t by arose · · Score: 1
    I don't see what Mandrake starting as a Red Hat fork has to do with this? They have been a distro on their own for a long time. It may also be that the developers of Mandrake like KDE, but that does not make it a KDE-distro. Yes, that does leave us with one Gnome-distro in the top 9 (all hail Ubuntu, who would need more than that :-D), 3 KDE-distros (one of them beeing a live-cd) and 5 desktop neutral distros. Love and peace win.
    And what does Mandrakes use of GTK have to do with their desktop of choice?
    A KDE-distro would ship with with KDE configuration tools.
    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  142. Feature I'd like to see - menu at TOS by wowbagger · · Score: 1
    A feature I'd like to see the Gnome and KDE guys look at would be to implement the "Program menu is at top of screen and changes based upon input focus" model that Apple and GEM (and IIRC Amiga) used.

    This allows the use of Fitt's law that screen edges are "infinitely tall/wide" - you can move the mouse up with abandon, knowing that you will stop when you hit the edge (virtual desktops being discussed below). This makes it easier to select menus for the app.

    There are difficulties with this approach:
    • You have to have a "Menu Manager" function to arbritrate what shows on the menu between all the programs, but since both Gnome and KDE already have the idea of "Panels" this would be an extension of that approach.
    • You have the inertia of old users (and Windows users) who 'like the "old" way' (which was actually introduced LATER in history) - so you make it a preference (Gnome guys: a preference WHICH HAS AN EASILY ACCESSIBLE SETTING IN THE UI - not some obscure RegEdit^W GConf setting).
    • You have the problem of legacy/non-Gnome/KDE apps which would still put their menus at top of window.
    • If the user is using a panning virtual desktop (e.g. Virtual "2048x2048" in X) the menu may be off the visible screen - however when using a panning virtual desktop that happens with other UI elements - so this obviously isn't as much of a problem for the people who choose to use virtual desktop resolutions.
    • Likewise, when dealing with multiple desktop where you can change the desktop by scrolling the mouse over the edge (like good old Sawmill under earlier Gnome *sniff* (/me wipes tear from my eye)) you have to prevent a desktop switch. However, you can use the approach Sawmill used - you don't change screens unless you are dragging a window.

  143. Re:GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE t by JabberWokky · · Score: 1
    Nope. "Connections" in German is "Anschlüsse".

    This contrasts with "console", which is "konsole", and all the other names of apps in KDE that people think are "cute spellings" because they don't realize that other countries have developers.

    --
    Evan

    --
    "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  144. I like what I see by jasoncc · · Score: 1

    I like Gnome's development tempo. They seem to make improvements gradually. It makes it easy for users to adapt and respond to each new release.

    I love the clean efficient look of the default Gnome desktop. Most other desktops try to "wow" users with eye-candy. That "wow" effect wears off pretty quickly for anyone who spends a lot of time using the system.

    I like the sound of the developer improvements for gedit and the samba/nfs share setup. They made great improvements to the file dialogs and panel applets in 2.8. I'm looking forward to trying out 2.10.

  145. Re:GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE t by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
    I don't see what Mandrake starting as a Red Hat fork has to do with this?


    it just shows that from the start, their purpose was to bring KDE to the desktop, since Red Hat was not delivering. It has been commonly accepted that Mandrake is a KDE-centric distro, and the fact that they also happen to offer Gnome does not, IMO, change that fact.

    A KDE-distro would ship with with KDE configuration tools.


    Mandrake doesn't ship with "Gnome configuration-tools", they ship with GTK configuration-tools. GTK does not equal Gnome. Why do they ship with GTK-tools and not Qt (for example)? Go ask them. Maybe their tools are closed-source (I honestly don't know), and if they wanted to use Qt for them, they would have had to buy a commercial license. But that doesn't IMO reduce their focus on KDE.
    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  146. Re:Logical dissonance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have seen the RAM-consumption climb to something like 270MB. But that was after prolonged use of the desktop, with several apps and several KDE-sessions running in the background. Again: more than reasonable.

    I wholeheartedly agree: 270MB RAM for a desktop is certainly a lot more more than reasonable.

  147. Re:GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE t by arose · · Score: 1

    Mandrake hasn't been Rad Hat with KDE for a long time. There is nothing KDE centric in Mandrake with the exeption that KDE is the default desktop if installed. I did not say that GTK equaled Gnome, their tools are quite desktop neutral. They are also under the GPL, so no legal reason not to use Qt.

    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  148. Re:Logical dissonance by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
    From a user perspective, most people are more comfortable with KDE because it is closer to Windows, which they are used to.

    If you convince yourself that KDE is "Unix for Windows users", then you'll do yourself a grave disservice. I last used Windows on a regular basis in '97 (and only used it then because I worked tech support at a small ISP), but switched from Gnome to KDE a couple of years ago because I liked the extra control it gave me and loved the Unix-like way applications are built from discrete parts.

    Gnome's still OK - I certainly wouldn't make fun of someone for using it - but understand that quite a few advanced users prefer KDE for reasons that have nothing to do with Windows.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  149. Re:Logical dissonance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The SuSE numbers were more consistent and 80% used the default KDE.

    This is not surprising. I have been using SuSE for 9 years (before there was any desktop) and they are very biased towards KDE.

    Starting around SuSE 7.2 and continuing with 8.x and 9.x, they made it almost impossible to install the system without Qt and at least some parts of KDE. Several tools that should be desktop-agnostic (e.g., XMMS) have dependencies on KDE or Qt because of modifications done by SuSE (or additional plug-ins, in the case of XMMS).

    Besides, the GNOME applications included in SuSE are about 4 to 6 months behind the equivalent KDE tools, so it is not surprising that the version of KDE offered by SuSE is often preferred over their crippled version of GNOME.

  150. GNOME and OpenOffice by Ur@eus · · Score: 1

    Any GNOME application would run fine in KDE, so that is not a very valid comment :)

    OpenOffice do correctly not have its root in the GNOME community. The plan however is to integrate it more and more into GNOME as time goes by (this is from the OO roadmap) and a lot of the work that has been done in regards to theming etc. have been with GNOME integration in mind. A lot of this integration work also benefits KDE, but their stated goal is that of integrating as closely as possible with GNOME.

  151. Re:GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE t by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    I would love to see a Mac OS/X Quartz native port of GTK and GTK+
    QT right now runs on Mac OS/X, Windows, and Linux. It would be very nice to have a "free" multi platform system. Before anyone flames me it is IMPOSSIBLE to produce GPL software for windows using the latest version of QT.
    If GTK and GTK+ where ported to MacOS/X would mono be far behind?

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  152. Re:GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This contrasts with "console", which is "konsole", and all the other names of apps in KDE that people think are "cute spellings" because they don't realize that other countries have developers.

    Crap. SOME of the other names might be German words, but there's no way that "aKregator" is a word in any language. Some of the "cute spellings" are just very very not at all cute deliberate mispellings. If you have to lie about these things then you probably don't have a very good case.

  153. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by Hentai · · Score: 1

    No, the first word is GNU (GNU's not Unix), so it's deliberately ambiguous. ;)

    --
    -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
  154. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by Tribbin · · Score: 1

    Google is an excidentally faulty spelled 'googol' by the founder. And as it turns out again the founder is always right.

    --
    If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
  155. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by McDutchie · · Score: 1
    GROSS (the Get Rid Of Slimy girlS club)

    Um, I don't think that one is right.

  156. Re:Logical dissonance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean SuSE is more biased toward KDE than RedHat is biased toward GNOME?

    IME SuSE used to offer vanilla GNOME while RedHat started to include KDE integrated/patched on their own while not communicating those changes upstream often leading to unnecessary incompabilities. I don't know about you, but IMO the latter is worse.

  157. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

    Haha, anata wa hentai desu ka. nihonjin ka. And in case you have even worse japanese than me, nice score getting hentai as a user name. Are you japanese or a fellow j-phile?

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
  158. GNOME's ruined by martinultima · · Score: 0

    Simplicity my ass. They want it simple and they make it impossible to compile? (I've never done it myself, but heard it's tough.) I heard Mr. Volkerding's removing GNOME from Slack 10.1, and I hope he does. How I used to like it I don't know... GNOME's gone the same way Zelda has: From cool to trash.

    Right now I use E on my desktop, and Fluxbox on two older systems of mine (another desktop and my laptop). I've played around with KDE, and although I used to hate it I think it's really neat now that I've had time to really check it out without being brainwashed by Red Hat. All my programs are written in Python + Tkinter; I happen to like it, even if it is a bit Win95-ish. I only have GNOME on the one desktop, and that's just because I did a full install of Slack and still play GNOME Robots occassionally ;-)

    --
    Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
    1. Re:GNOME's ruined by brank · · Score: 1

      Hi, I'm an E user, too. I don't see how you can call GNOME hard to compile if you've ever tried building E (E16 not so much anymore, but E17 definitely so). :) GNOME has this reputation because it's split into many tarballs (like E17 and unlike KDE). There are advantages to both approaches, IMHO neither is really "better".

      Anyway, there's a simple list anyone can go down in order (or even mostly out of order). Or you can do like most people and use jhbuild or garnome.

      Pat's reasons have less to do with this and more to do with the design of several GNOME features (like GConf). Long story short, they're great for sysadmins but somewhat hard to package.

      --
      it's green.
  159. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by 808140 · · Score: 1

    It's a reference to Calvin & Hobbes, dumbass :)

  160. Re:GNOME team seems more aggressive than the KDE t by Surye · · Score: 1

    It's primary goal was i586 vs i486 binaries.

  161. Re:Logical dissonance by Ogerman · · Score: 1

    I'm certain these developers that volunteer their time are eagerly awaiting your consent as to what projects they may work on.

    So, let me get this straight: I'm not allowed to express a valid opinion, but you're allowed to assume that I must be arrogant and must want to tell people what they're allowed to do?

    Seeing as how I did nothing of the sort, stop insinuating and come up with a good response.

    It's amazing how on Slashdot, the contrary opinion always gets modded up to +5 regardless of how baseless it is.

  162. Re:Logical dissonance by Ogerman · · Score: 1

    Gnome's still OK - I certainly wouldn't make fun of someone for using it - but understand that quite a few advanced users prefer KDE for reasons that have nothing to do with Windows.

    That's exactly it.. advanced users, myself included, usually prefer KDE because it has a richer interface (more widgets, more context sensitivity, more features, more options, more extensibility, etc.) And yet, from what I've seen, most Windows users are more comfortable with using KDE than GNOME because it has a more familiar file dialog box, file manager, etc. So you have a huge community developing for the needs of a very tiny population. It just doesn't make sense. Software today can/should be modular enough that you can plug in alternative components when special needs arise. (such as user-specific sets of HCI guidelines)

  163. Re:Logical dissonance by Ogerman · · Score: 1

    Not really. Gnome is written in C, KDE is written in C++. Gnome uses GTK+, KDE uses Qt. What makes you think that Gnome-hackers would be good KDE-hackers, or vice versa? I mean, the two are technologically quite different.

    Despite the fact that GNOME is written in C, they have developed a standard set of extensions that allow developers to use object-oriented design. Some would call that a hack. Others would note that C++ itself was a hack. (: Point is, the language difference is not an issue. There are also GNOME bindings to just about every major language in existance. (same with KDE) Qt vs GTK+? Well, Qt has better API documentation and does a lot more in itself -- GTK+ apps rely on dozens of other libraries. In the end, you can get the same functionality out of both.

    Each group has created a desktop according to their vision of what the desktop should be like. And they apparently have quite different visions. How exactly would you merge those two?

    Modular design. Use all the same core libraries, but have teams work on pluggable GUI components that suit their taste. Now everybody is happy and the only 'duplicated' effort is that which is actually unique to alternative ideas. This is my contention with the KDE vs. GNOME situation. It's fully possible to accommodate diverse ideas without having two huge, separate, disconnected communities.

    Right now Gnome and KDE provide each other some good competition. having one big project with no competition is not necessarily a good thing. Just look at what happened with Xfree! it stagnated for years. and users had no real alternative to it.

    I wholly disagree with this argument. There's no reason why competition cannot come from within a community (such as competing sets of pluggable GUI components as prior mentioned). The reason why XFree stagnated was that its development was effectively closed to outsiders. There was no way to get involved and then introduce change from within -- no opportunity for 'new blood' and fresh ideas. Compare to the Linux kernel. There are hundreds of people competing *within* this community to get their improvements accepted into the mainstream codebase. In some cases, the end user can choose which components to use. (think of all the competing filesystems!)

    Regarding performance and stability, this is really beyond the scope of reasonable discussion here. It suffices to say that based on what I have seen, there is a lot of room for code optimization in both KDE and GNOME. (Fortunately it is happening, if slowly..) As for stability, I've found dozens of bugs in Kmail and Konqueror. Most don't cause a crash, but they are still annoyingly incorrect operation.

  164. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by McDutchie · · Score: 1
    It's a reference to Calvin & Hobbes, dumbass :)

    Oh I see, thanks. Please substitute "foreigner" for "dumbass", though, it's more accurate. :) I have only ever read Calvin & Hobbes in Dutch.

  165. Re:Logical dissonance by 10Ghz · · Score: 2
    My comment regarding technological differences (language, toolkit etc.) is also relevant to other things besides those two. What about other technologies? KDE uses DCOP, Gnome uses CORBA. KDE uses kparts, Gnome uses Bonobo. There are simply so much differences between the two that merging them is not really possible. And you can't really merge the developer-base and start a new project, since some developers would prefer Gnome-style, whereas other would prefer KDE-style (and these include stuff like language, toolkits, technologies, UI-design and the like). Some developers would start a new project, and we would (again) have several competing projects.

    Use all the same core libraries, but have teams work on pluggable GUI components that suit their taste.


    So the new desktop would use both GTK AND Qt? And kparts and bonobo? etc. etc. Isn't that wasted resources? And I would guess that it would make the end-result even more resource-hungry, since you would have two separate, yet functionally similar libraries/technologies running in the background. All that would make the desktop even more bloated and it would be a nightmare to maintain.

    It's fully possible to accommodate diverse ideas without having two huge, separate, disconnected communities.


    Well, they are not THAT disconnected...

    As for stability, I've found dozens of bugs in Kmail and Konqueror. Most don't cause a crash, but they are still annoyingly incorrect operation.


    I trust you reported these on bugs.kde.org?
    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  166. Re:Logical dissonance by 10Ghz · · Score: 2, Informative

    That 270MB is not "for a desktop". It's for SEVERAL desktops (three simulatenous desktops for three different users who are logged in on the machine), together with SEVERAL running applications, X.org, several background-services (some by Linux itself, others by the desktop) and the like. And since absolute minimium amount of RAM in PC these days is 256megs, I think that's pretty good.

    But hey, if you really want to use as little as RAM as possible, how about something like Ratpoison? Or Fluxbox? Or Xfce?

    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  167. Re:Pronounciation for y'all by SeanCier · · Score: 1

    Sorry, even open software projects don't get to redefine English pronunciation by fiat.

  168. Re:Logical dissonance by Ogerman · · Score: 1

    My comment regarding technological differences (language, toolkit etc.) is also relevant to other things besides those two. What about other technologies? KDE uses DCOP, Gnome uses CORBA. KDE uses kparts, Gnome uses Bonobo.

    That's true.. they each take a slightly different approach, but the end result is the same. Therefore, they are technologically equivalent. Neither is significantly behind the "state of the art" in any area.

    There are simply so much differences between the two that merging them is not really possible. And you can't really merge the developer-base and start a new project, since some developers would prefer Gnome-style, whereas other would prefer KDE-style.

    I'm not suggesting a merge because that would, indeed, be impossible. However, there should be a way to compromise between the two. Since there's no dominant technological advantage to developing for either GNOME or KDE, we're talking solely about personal preferences here. Sorry, but that's really not as important as the bigger picture. Developers on both sides should suck it up and agree to disagree but still work together on a single, unified desktop environment. As I mentioned before, it's not so much about KDE vs. GNOME. It's the fact that for every KDE app, somebody wastes time writing a nearly identical GNOME app and vice-versa. In the end, both apps do the exact same thing. They don't really compete with each other. No matter which way you cut it, that's a waste.

    So the new desktop would use both GTK AND Qt? And kparts and bonobo? etc. etc.

    No, the new desktop would be either KDE or GNOME at its base. For example, GNOME developers could port their HCI-based GUI design to Qt and KDE developers could add a layer of abstraction if necessary allowing the key GUI components to be swapped out.

    Isn't that wasted resources? And I would guess that it would make the end-result even more resource-hungry, since you would have two separate, yet functionally similar libraries/technologies running in the background. All that would make the desktop even more bloated and it would be a nightmare to maintain.

    And we don't have that today? Honestly, how many people use strictly GNOME or strictly KDE apps? There's always one or two apps that one desktop simply has the better version of. It sure is a shame that all those apps aren't competing within the same desktop environment. For example, I wouldn't give KMail unfair weight over Evolution just because I use KDE and that makes it more efficient for me. See how this wasteful divide can actually *diminish* competition?

    Well, they are not THAT disconnected...

    Yes, the situation is improving slightly. Of course the ultimate irony is that in the next 10-15 years, the today's concept of a "desktop" is going to be obliterated by both server-centric and distributed technologies. How's that? Well, for instance, users aren't going to be so much worried about "finding / organizing files on their local disks" Most data will be stored in a centralized repository with rich association and context sensitivity. Office suites will be replaced by web-enabled document management systems and extremely rich database tools. Most new applications will be written for the platform that evolves out of today's web browsers. (think: vector graphics, full multimedia capabilities, etc.) Ironically, Open Source may never usurp the desktop from Microsoft. It may simply obsolete it before they can adequately respond. By the time that happens, KDE vs. GNOME will be so irrelevant that either one will fade away or they will have merged into the same technology. In the meantime, it's just a waste, IMO.

    I trust you reported these on bugs.kde.org?

    The repeatable ones, yes. (:

  169. Re:Logical dissonance by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
    No, the new desktop would be either KDE or GNOME at its base. For example, GNOME developers could port their HCI-based GUI design to Qt and KDE developers could add a layer of abstraction if necessary allowing the key GUI components to be swapped out.


    Not gonna happen. Seriously, if the new desktop used (for example) Gnome as their base, why would KDE-developers work on it? They would look at it, and think that "We already have a working desktop. Why should we throw it away and work on their desktop instead?". Yes, they would bring along some of their technology, but in the end, they would still abandon their desktop. If KDE-developers wanted to work on Gnome, they would already be working on Gnome. But they aren't. They want to work on KDE instead. You couldn't force them to work on Gnome. If someone deciced that "we will take the best of KDE, and port it to Gnome, and work on Gnome for thereon", they would simply say "no way! I like KDE, and I will keep on working on KDE!". Same thing applies to Gnome-developers.

    No, it would not work. WHy do Linux-hackers work on Linux and not *BSD? Why do FreeBSD-hackers work on FreeBSD and not on NetBSD? Before you say "but all those people cooperate quite a bit!", I can simply say that Gnome-hackers and KDE-hackers also cooperate quite a bit.
    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  170. In response to this, and those below it by sp0rk173 · · Score: 1

    both LASER, RADAR, and SCUBA are pronounced the way they look. GNU is not. Guh-New? If you pronouce it the way it looks, you should just say "New," however that's not the perfered, "proper" way, right? That's the argument. I have no problem with acronyms that are pronounce the way they look. If you have to tell me the right way to pronounce and acronym, then it's not an acronym - it is, indeed, an initialisation. Acronyms are meant to make things easier, not to make engineers feel even more like they're God and can tell people how to do things.

    1. Re:In response to this, and those below it by mvdw · · Score: 1

      Wel, you say tomato, and I say tomato. I also pronouce gnu (the animal) as guh-noo. Go figure.

  171. Re:Logical dissonance by Ogerman · · Score: 1

    Not gonna happen. Seriously, if the new desktop used (for example) Gnome as their base, why would KDE-developers work on it? They would look at it, and think that "We already have a working desktop. Why should we throw it away and work on their desktop instead?". Yes, they would bring along some of their technology, but in the end, they would still abandon their desktop.

    Obviously, nothing is going to change overnight. But that doesn't mean that change isn't necessary. I think the realistic answer is this: Both projects need to set a standards base goal for say.. 3 years from now. By that time, there should be no such thing as applications "developed for" either GNOME or KDE. As stated prior, that's really where the big problem is anyhow -- duplicate applications. Instead, applications should be written such that they are fully neutral to the desktop environment and simply use the services made available. (which might not necessarily be provided by GNOME or KDE anyhow!) Incidentally, this is the direction that all cutting edge technologies are moving already, whether from the Java or .NET arena.

    And as I said earlier, today's concept of "the desktop" is dying anyhow..

  172. Doesn't fix the biggest problem... by Synbiosis · · Score: 1

    It's all nice and dandy, but it seems like nobody's willing to fix the biggest problem GNOME has: Its collosal waste of screen space.

    Every button is twice as big as it should be and has an obscene amount of space between it and the next.

    Although this may be a problem inherent in GTK itself, I guess. Windows gaim suffers from the same problems.

    Does OpenOffice also use GTK? Because I've noticed that it to, wastes obscene amounts of screen space when compared to Word.