Eugenia writes "The Gnome Project announcedtoday that the ClearLooks theme engine will be the default theme for the Gnome 2.12 (to be released around September). This was a much needed refresh of the Gnome default desktop (old theme, new theme screenshots)."
Well, it looks somewhat like Plastik, but you can still tell it's GNOME because of all that ugly extra padding and spacing they stick into all their buttons, listviews, and many other widgets.
It one of the main reasons why GNOME visually irks the hell out of me, regardless of the theme.
Funny, when I run KDE I feel like there are so many toolbars, and the icons are so big, that it takes up too much real estate...and when I use gnome (debian), I feel like it's simple and small and tidy.
Doesn't it make you wonder if each of us is missing some obscure setting somewhere?
Re:Wow
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Gaim has the same problem, too.
No, Gaim has a different problem. The developers are assholes.
You know what's weird? I find gnome/gtk apps to have that extra padding and spacing you talk about... except with the taskbar buttons... for some reason they scrunch the words onto a too short (IMO) button!
All in all, I prefer the extra padding, except things like in GAIM... I mean, why are the buttons so huge, but the icons on them take up so little?
Actually, this is very close to the default theme that Sun has shipped with GNOME ever since they beta-released GNOME 2 for Solaris about a year and a half ago.
My thought exactly. It reminds me so much of KDE that I think I will be sticking with my custom pseudo Mac OS X theme for my wife, kid and folks and will be moving to Enlightenment 0.17 for myself. If you haven't checked out Enlightenment recently, you should. It's as fast as twm and has more eye candy thatn any other environment out there. Now... if only Evidence (the Enlightened file manager) would get to a point where it could be used reliably for day to day use.
-- -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Re:Wow
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No, Gaim has a different problem. The developers are assholes.
That, and the code is god awful. Have you ever looked at that thing? It's not exactly well organized.
Re:Wow
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The way GTK+ does widgets, they can "auto-expand" in their container. You can specify it not to, but it's been my experience that that often makes it look worse.
Re:Wow
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ugh the blue curve icons suck ass. Just like you.
Allmost noone ...
by
GNUALMAFUERTE
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Uses the default theme anyway, that the beautiness of having themes, but for those that hasn't used gnome or gnu/linux at all, the first impression will be important...
KDE made a good job choosing Keramik as the default theme, before that, they allways shipped the ugliest one.
ALMAFUERTE
-- WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Re:Allmost noone ...
by
croddy
·
· Score: 5, Funny
what? there are ones uglier than keramik ???
Re:Allmost noone ...
by
GNUALMAFUERTE
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Ok, Keramik is ugly, and it's not something one would call ellegant, but it's rounded and has some nice effects, like alpha-blending, and that's what people want to see. It may not be the most beautiful thing out there, but it's better than the default square gray buttons.
-- WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Re:Allmost noone ...
by
Quattro+Vezina
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The theme they used before Keramik (in versions 2.x and 3.0.x) was pretty good. I like it a lot, though I prefer the Light Style 2nd Revision widget style (NOT 3rd revision) and the Pale Gray colour scheme.
Keramik, on the other hand, was a massive mistake that seriously damaged KDE's reputation. I've heard on various boarda about how KDE looks like a hyperactive 12-year-old girl drew it. That's only half-true. Keramik looks like a hyperactive 12-year-old girl drew it. KDE can look incredibly good if you're not using Keramik, and it's a damn shame that Keramik is so ugly that it turns people off to KDE as a whole. I'm still pissed at whoever developer had the braindead idea of making Keramik the default style.
Plastik is a dramatic improvement on Keramik, but it's still a tad too flashy for my tastes, and the bloody huge window decorations are just a waste of space.
Plastik is a dramatic improvement on Keramik, but it's still a tad too flashy for my tastes, and the bloody huge window decorations are just a waste of space.
Reduce the font size for the title bar text. The only reason the buttons are that big is because the title bar has to be enlarged for the text.
Re:Allmost noone ...
by
Narchie+Troll
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
No. No, it isn't.
Keramik is ugly and nearly unusable, and makes KDE look like a big piece of shit.
for that matter, who uses the default window manager with Gnome? I once saw someone on #gentoo say "I wouldn't widh Metacity on my worst enemies." So the window border theme doesn't affect everybody. It's mostly new users who will see the default theme. I think it would be cool if Gnome made it easier for new users to select a different theme immediately, like the theme selection in the KDE setup wizard. Also, a completely new user will be subject to any changes their distributor might make to the theme settings.
--
Everyone is born right-handed; only the greatest overcome it
Re:Allmost noone ...
by
vrt3
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I don't understand why everybody seems to love Bitstream Vera. It doesn't look nice to me, though I can't explain exactly why. It's also less easily readable compared to, for example, Georgia. See this example: on the left is Bitstream Vera serif, on the right is Georgia, both the same size. Despite the Bitstream letters being larger than the Georgia ones, I find the text on the right *much* easier to read.
Of course, Bitstream is Free and Georgia is not, but that doesn't change the fact that I find Georgia much prettier.
-- This sig under construction. Please check back later.
Even Keramik would be tolerable if they switched to Bitstream Vera fonts by default.
Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww....
I hate hate hate hate hate the Bitstream Vera fonts with a burning passion. They're horribly ugly and they take up far more space than any font should be able to. I tried using them once and all of my screen real estate disappeared--the size of everything on my screen had to be doubled to accomodate those horribly wide fonts.
I've found that Luxi Sans (for sans serif), Times (for serif), Terminal (for console windows), and Lucida Typewriter (for any other use of monospaced fonts) make the perfect set of fonts.
Uses the default theme anyway, that the beautiness of having themes, but for those that hasn't used gnome or gnu/linux at all, the first impression will be important...
Well I guess I must be one of the few. I used to use the Industrial theme (both controls and border) which looks very nice and is similar to ClearLooks (at least in its curvyness), and also tried a few other more eye-candied themes. But I eventually just switched to Gnome's default theme (default controls and simple border, as in the screenshot) when I discovered how much faster it renders than the prettier themes. It's easy on the eyes, too; text and widgets are very visible.
Maybe it's just me.. For example, I started using OS X and find its look gets really old after a while. And I find my Gnome desktop to much more friendly on the eyes. I think too much shading makes it harder to make out when shapes end and begin. It's too bad Apple doesn't allow different themes.
Though, it's cool that they are switching the default to something more people would like, but the current default is what I'll be using for a while.
I think ClearType looks better on my system than Freetype. The letters don't look blurry at all, they look very sharp even. Freetype is close, but it's still somewhat behind.
-- This sig under construction. Please check back later.
Yes, make it look more like Windows XP, that'll make it "prettier!" *sigh*
Re:hmmm
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
The main Windows-ness seems to be the use of the Tahoma font for menus. However, this font can't be shipped with Linux distros, only downloaded by the user, so the actual defaults will be have to different. Too bad the normal set of X fonts don't look all that great at lower resolution.
It is only vaguely similar to the WinXP default theme. Clearlooks looks alot better than the current GNOME default, no doubt about it. Do you have a theme you think would be better for the default GNOME theme?
Gotta love the copy of Windows style floppy disc = save.
I know people who haven't used a floppy disc in their life to know what the icon means. Hell, I started computing in the 1970s and the disc icon has always seemed counterintuitive to me.
"Why does the little house icon mean save?" "what house icon?" "the one with the silver door and big square roof" "oh. see back in the day we had things called floppy discs..."
Well, I think it fits well. The manual save function is at least as antiquated as floppy discs.;)
Oh, big news here
by
Lord+Bitman
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Gnome is made to look like whatever windows currently looks like? Unheard of!
Copying windows will not get you anywhere. Innovate, damnit!
-- -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Re:Oh, big news here
by
GNUALMAFUERTE
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually, GNOME had Themes when windows hab static GUI, Microsoft introduced a theme engine in 2002, but Gnome had one way before, and had pretty good themes at that time. In this case, M$ coppied GNOME/KDE.
-- WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Re:Oh, big news here
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Reading com-pre-hen-sion... it's important, look it up.
What the grandparent was commenting on was the similarity between ClearLooks and Luna, not on whether or not one or the other hand themes.
I understood perfectly what he was saying. I just pointed out that the hole concept of HAVING themes at all, is a more important breakthrough than the colours or shapes of a particular theme. And that that feature was in the Free Desktops long before it reached the propietary ones.
-- WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Re:Oh, big news here
by
Lord+Bitman
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
So you couldnt refute my comment but felt bad about it, and decided to bring up an unrelated point instead? Go you! Did you know Microsoft didnt make the first optical mice??
-- -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
I didn't felt bad about your comment, or anything related to it. Actually, i agree with it. Gnome and KDE try to simulate windows and i don't like it, but your comment was just flamebait, because of the way it was written, it's objective was just to try to prove that m$ innovates, and free software copies. So i replied to you pointing that in this subject, the actual concept of having a theme with rounded buttons is not an m$ idea, it comes from the free desktops, and so m$ is copying free software. That's not a bad thing for m$ either, i'm just pointing that copying is part of developing, and it shouldn't be used to flame a particular software like you did.
-- WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Re:Oh, big news here
by
theantix
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Gnome is made to look like whatever windows currently looks like? Unheard of!
Copying windows will not get you anywhere. Innovate, damnit!
So uh, what version of windows does that look like? The one with the hideous malformed "start" button, the one with a cartoonishly unprofessional colour scheme, or the one that doesn't exist yet?
To me it looks a hell of a lot more like OSX than it does Windows, if you get beyond the widget set. But there is a hell of a lot more to Gnome than the maximize window widget, for example the open/save dialogs and desktop preferences are quite different from the windows methodology. To judge a desktop entirely by three widgets is just foolhardy...
There are only so much that can be done as long as people expect that computes should have "windows" and that they should be hovering over a "desktop" Personally, I think what we really need is just some very, very good speach recognition systems. Just about everything should be able to be done without typing or using a mouse. For things which need to be displayed (layouts and things for documents), maybe some sort of touch-screen for draging images or whatever. maybe displaying text instead of reading it back, but ideally the system should be able to read words back and not sound like a Macintosh still does.
Personally, I think the PC is stupid. Whether I want to admit it or not, wearable is probably the future. I'm still a vintage fanatic and think centralization is the key. Maybe that's why I liked Star Trek so much. One computer, everyone can use it, and no one really/needs/ a "terminal." The computer is around them. it's like a cross between the centralization and the wearable without much of the wearable.
I personally dont use Gnome or KDE because I think the concept of a "Desktop" is stupid. I only put up with "windows" because (unlike a desktop), there's not really a choice in the matter. If you want to use an application, it defines its interface as a window and projects that information into a window manager. I certainly dont expect my "Windows" to hover over a "Desktop". "Windows" only exist because everyone expects them and everyone expects them only because they already exist.
When you get down to it, Windows are holding us back. They're putting everyone in the mindset of "this is one program, the data within it belongs to this program". That's really a poor mindset to have in this age. Everything is data, and there should be no boundaries between the data in one program and the data in another. (*security notes being a seperate issue with its own considerations, talking strictly about interface here) Yes, data should have the ability to be logically grouped together, but if you ignore the concept of windows, the ways you can use that data expand greatly. "Clipboards" are a cruel bastardization of this concept which poorly hack small portions of it onto the flawed concept of "Windows".
Windows were a great idea 20 years ago. Copying the look of MSWindows is not a good place to start if you want to do something better. Copying the usability of windows might be a good start, but the Open Source community seems somehow (contradictory to logic) opposed to interoperation between applications- I know that's not strictly true, but it does feel that way to me, and this whole post, (as it seems people need this explicitely stated) is just me stating my opinions.
-- -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Re:Oh, big news here
by
Lord+Bitman
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
please re-post your comment without the use of the "$" character and I may be able to read it
-- -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Re:Oh, big news here
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually, GNOME had Themes when windows hab static GUI, Microsoft introduced a theme engine in 2002, but Gnome had one way before, and had pretty good themes at that time. In this case, M$ coppied GNOME/KDE.
Meanwhile, Mac OS X has no theming support, and is a better GUI than any of those. Kind of makes you wonder how important crap like themes really are.
Re:Oh, big news here
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> To me it looks a hell of a lot more like OSX than it does Windows, if you get beyond the widget set... the frame-local menus, the lack of ubiquitous drag-and-drop, the lack of transparency, the taskbar instead of a dock... yeah, looks just like OSX. Well, it does have terminal windows running bash.
Re:Oh, big news here
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Great, spiffy, so do you have the foggiest concept of what to replace it with other than some vague conception of freely floating data that just magically appears and goes away when you're not using it?
It is kind of funny though... My physical desk doesn't have any durn windows in or on it. It's also a lot bigger. My screen is more like the size of the small tray table I have next to my desk.
Meanwhile, Mac OS X has no theming support, and is a better GUI than any of those. Kind of makes you wonder how important crap like themes really are.
Well, yes and no. Mac OS X has two different styles, and they're selected by the developer of the application. You have brushed metal look, and the other, aqua look.
-- God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
and is a better GUI than any of those. Kind of makes you wonder how important crap like themes really are.
It also makes us wonder what kind of taste you have. Mac OS X looks like shit. There are themes like Aqua for both Gnome and KDE and very few uses them. If OS X where skinable 90% of the users would go for something less vulgar.
When do they ditch the muddy, dull and visually abhorrant icons? Look at the dialog for Keyboard Preferences. The red/white "Help" next to the Avacado/Harvest Gold horror that is "Accessibility". The moldy folders...
It doesn't have to look "flash". Garrett LeSage did a half-decent job with the Bluecurve icons.
-- "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
It now appears -after digging through the linked announcement - that SUEDE is the candidate for default icons.
A great step up.
-- "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:Great Windows...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I hate to say it, but that doesn't really do it for me. It looks... muddy, with all that grey and beige.
Sure, Microsoft's Fisher Price approach at the other end of the scale is even uglier, but there must be a pleasant middle ground somewhere... surely?
Re:Great Windows...
by
Sentry21
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Wow, I've never seen well-done ugly icons before. The attention to detail in these icons is great (much better than Windows), but the icon design I have to say is ugly, blocky, and uninspired. It reminds me of the icons from System 6-7 & MacOS 8, which were great for their time compared to Windows, but are boring now. Why on earth would Gnome go from a blocky squared-off theme to a smooth, contoured one, and then go and make a blocky squared-off icon set the default?
If these are set as the default icons, I will swiftly change them.
From what I've seen of the gnome project, everything in the UI is too pronounced. For example, does the menu bar need all of the icons with a bold highlight around them? Why does the title/menu bar have to take up 25% of the window? Small subdued cues would be grand in a UI. We all eventually know where to click anyways right? For as much as I dislike the classic Windows 2000 UI, it still is not nearly as intrusive as gnome or kde as far as I am concerned. I guess there are some skins out there that probably give me what I want, but we really need something that is slick out of the box, something that doesn't work just like Windows. The Mac GUI creator just passed away (God bless his soul) and we haven't really come up with anything better in the last 30 years? Hell, even Nextstep and OS/2 were steps in a better direction.
If you ask me, there will never be a year of the Linux desktop until somebody creates a Linux desktop environment that is at least as rich as Windows. When is cut and paste going to be even supported across applications in KDE or GNOME? Oh, text works ok? Well what about a piece of a picture or a clip of a wave? What about drag and drop? Can I just drop any document onto a printer icon and have it spit out the result? Without configuring 20 various text files?
When the big boys like Adobe start releasing Photoshop for Linux, then perhaps there will be some sort of market, but until then I hear that the GIMP is fine as long as you don't need to work in CMYK.
Re:I gotta say
by
GNUALMAFUERTE
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"Can I just drop any document onto a printer icon and have it spit out the result?"
Can i just make a few modifications to the windows source and pass it over to a friend?
Compared to the scope of the second question, the first one is irrelevant.
Not everything is about functionality, remember, it's not called "Faster Software", nor "Slicker Software", it's called "Free Software", because it's goal is to bee Free to all it's users, and let the users be free to do whatever they wan with they computer without relying on big corporations managing their lifes and ideas.
Would you trade your freedom for nice icons?, I value my freedom a lot more than that.
-- WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Re:I gotta say
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0, Troll
> everything in the UI is too pronounced.
Well of course, they want you 100% aware that you are running Gome. So every interface detail has to scream GNOME APPLICATION all the time. Then you will LOVE GNOME and RECOMMEND IT TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS. GNOME GNOME GNOME!! (To be fair, KDE does the same kinds of stuff).
A "desktop environment" is a nice thing to have for programmers, but ideally it should be something that be nearly invisible to the end user. Unfortunately the X GUI world has decided to place a big marketing emphisis on KDE versus Gnome, that means very pronounced visual cues in your face.
Re:I gotta say
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well that sure was a well informed and enlightening comment, please don't bother in future, mmmKay?
Re:I gotta say
by
LWATCDR
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Can i just make a few modifications to the windows source and pass it over to a friend?
Compared to the scope of the second question, the first one is irrelevant." No not really. Maybe to you but to most people software is a tool not a religion or a political statement. Even now what percentage of Linux users will ever compile a program much less modify the source code to the kernel? Software that is hard to use no matter how "free" is still bad software.
-- See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:I gotta say
by
webfiend
·
· Score: 2, Informative
If you ask me, there will never be a year of the Linux desktop until somebody creates a Linux desktop environment that is at least as rich as Windows.
That's okay. I use Linux on my desktop and have for most of the last five years. I don't really need a "year" of the desktop. All I needed was for it work on my desktop and it's been doing that quite nicely for some time.
When is cut and paste going to be even supported across applications in KDE or GNOME?
Well, text works okay...
Oh, text works ok? Well what about a piece of a picture or a clip of a wave?
Well, um, text works okay. I haven't tried anything else so I couldn't really tell you. Then again, my only exposure to pictures or sound clips in my clipboard was when Windows tried to tell me that I had a huge lump of something in my clipboard whenever I tried to quit Photoshop. So you and I definitely don't have the same needs for this particular item.
What about drag and drop? Can I just drop any document onto a printer icon and have it spit out the result? Without configuring 20 various text files?
I never dig figure out the 20 various text files to configure, but I've been able to drag a file icon onto my printer icon and have it print (correctly, even!) since around Fedora Core 2, so yeah, that works now.
... then perhaps there will be some sort of market...
There already is a market, it's just not people stuck on waiting for Photoshop to come out for a particular platform. Besides, the words "Linux" and "market" just don't seem to go together in my mind. One doesn't really seem to need the other, and both will do quite nicely if they never meet each other. But maybe that's just me. I know Redhat and SuSE and Mandrake (and so on) must see some sort of market in Linux geeks, or they never would have bothered trying to make money from us in the first place.
But hey, I'm not going to tell you that you need to use Linux if what you really need is a platform that can run Photoshop natively. You and me, we're different markets.
Re:I gotta say
by
Mornelithe
·
· Score: 3, Informative
When is cut and paste going to be even supported across applications in KDE or GNOME? Oh, text works ok? Well what about a piece of a picture or a clip of a wave?
I just went into kview, copied part of a picture, and pasted it into the GIMP. Then I went into kpdf, copied part of a page, and pasted that into the GIMP. Then I copied part of a page in kpdf, and pasted it into a konqueror window, and it asked me what filename I'd like, and turned it into a PNG image.
I don't have any sound editing software, so I can't test anything there.
Without configuring 20 various text files?
I haven't used text files to configure printers in a long time. With CUPS and KDE, you can just use their printer install wizard. It's about the same as installing a printer on Windows.
--
I've come for the woman, and your head.
Re:I gotta say
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Can I just drop any document onto a printer icon and have it spit out the result?"
Can i just make a few modifications to the windows source and pass it over to a friend?
Compared to the scope of the second question, the first one is irrelevant.
Printing is something at least 99% of computer users do. Modifying operating system source code is something less than 0.001% of computer users do. The scope of one question does indeed make the other irrelevant, but I think you have them the wrong way round.
Re:I gotta say
by
nathanh
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
No not really. Maybe to you but to most people software is a tool not a religion or a political statement.
Maybe to you software is just a tool but to many others it's a core component in their business.
Software is not really like a tool at all. No other tool integrates so tightly with your business processes, your other systems, your data, and your policies. Consider all the companies that have found themselves stuck with Exchange, or Notes, or Groupwise, and due to the lock-in nature of the software they are unable to migrate to anything else. This isn't a "tool". It's a system with hooks into almost every aspect of the enterprise. Tugging at even the slightest part of the system causes breakage elsewhere, often in non-obvious locations. Those hooks might be a tiny programming language that HR decided to use to implement their timesheet system (Notes), or it might be the calendaring system that has turned into a building meeting room manager (Exchange). Whatever the hook, it ties you to that product and becomes a core part of your business. Changing it isn't easy. Sometimes changing it is impossible.
The reality is that it's pragmatic to use and only use free software. Putting your business software in the hands of a proprietary software vendor is naive. You are hoping that the vendor doesn't screw you; either by deprecating the softare, or breaking it, or raising the price, or whatever. But to the very nature of capitalism, the vendors are constantly thinking of new ways to screw you!
Even now what percentage of Linux users will ever compile a program much less modify the source code to the kernel?
Irrelevant. How many people will run for local office? Very few, but that doesn't mean democracy is a failed concept. The benefit of free software isn't that I personally can modify the source, but that anybody is free to do so.
Software that is hard to use no matter how "free" is still bad software.
Yes, but like the grandfather poster, I often use "bad software" that is free in preference to "good software" that is not free, for certain values of "good", "bad", and "free". For example, I use Linux and GNOME instead of MacOS X as my desktop. As a counter-example, I use IOS instead of Linux for my routers.
It's a balancing act. For my desktop I'd been burnt so often by vendor lock-in and forced upgrades that I finally got sick of it and migrated to Linux (back in 1992). Now MacOS X is tempting, but not tempting enough that I'll give up the freedom I enjoy with Linux. However with routing the value of IOS so exceeds the potential value with Linux that I'm willing to compromise freedom, secure in the knowledge that IOS is at least standards compliant.
Re:I gotta say
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Not everything is about functionality, remember, it's not called "Faster Software", nor "Slicker Software", it's called "Free Software", because it's goal is to bee Free to all it's users, and let the users be free to do whatever they wan with they computer without relying on big corporations managing their lifes and ideas.
So, instead of being reliant on corporations (not all of which are big, mind you) or private individuals that don't want to share their source code, you're reliant on unaccountable masses of developers that may or may not have your interests in mind.
You claim that Free Software is about allowing me, the user, to do everything I want to do with the computer, but *I can't* do everything I want with Free Software. That's why I use Mac OS X -- because it lets me do what I want to do, which includes developing and using free software. GNOME and KDE might be Free, but at the expense of not being able to do what I want them to do. And I don't want to spend all my time hacking GNOME to catch up to Mac OS, just so that I can devote what remains of my time to developing the software that I actually want to develop.
Would you trade your freedom for nice icons?, I value my freedom a lot more than that.
You're making the baseless, stupid, and generally fraudulent assumption that the only thing proprietary solutions over over free software is "nice icons". This is the attitude that causes so many free software advocates to spend time developing "nice icons" instead of useful software.
I do not think you understand where the parent post is coming from. The basic idea is it did not work in Red Hat 1 so therefore it does not work in Linux, at all, ever.
So, instead of being reliant on corporations (not all of which are big, mind you) or private individuals that don't want to share their source code, you're reliant on unaccountable masses of developers that may or may not have your interests in mind.
Yeah, what an alien concept. It's like relying on unaccountable masses of citizens to determine the leadership of a country. That idea will never take traction!
It is far easier to let the monarchy make all the decisions. Why should we spend all our time playing "catch up" to Britain? I'd rather get on with my life!
NB: Why is it that Americans seem to have the greatest difficulty in understanding the importance of Free Software?
Re:I gotta say
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I agree with you. I started using a non-free multitrack recorder program on windows and now I can not export the files to something I can use on Linux.
I should have used Audacity, even when it requires a bit of work on my behalf...
The reality is that it's pragmatic to use and only use free software. Putting your business software in the hands of a proprietary software vendor is naive. You are hoping that the vendor doesn't screw you; either by deprecating the softare, or breaking it, or raising the price, or whatever. But to the very nature of capitalism, the vendors are constantly thinking of new ways to screw you!
I despise proprtary systems, particulary protocols and file formats, as well. That's the main atitude I got out of college. However, sometimes you have to go with a proprietary system, when the alternatives just aren't there.
It's a balancing act. For my desktop I'd been burnt so often by vendor lock-in and forced upgrades that I finally got sick of it and migrated to Linux (back in 1992). Now MacOS X is tempting, but not tempting enough that I'll give up the freedom I enjoy with Linux.
I've run linux as my primary os since november 1994. I'm a unix guy. I like eveything being a file. I like small tools that do one thing well. I like being able to have a variety of tools for each job. I like being able to have a choice of real scripting languages to dash off my own custom tools.
That said, I'm typing this on my new powerbook with MacOSX. MacOSX is bsd, well more precisely NeXTSTEP. It's real unix. You have nothing to lose but your hardware incompatabilities and your teletubies developed software. ("Let's rewrite the entire software...AGAIN!" "Let's change the filechooser...AGAIN!")
However with routing the value of IOS so exceeds the potential value with Linux that I'm willing to compromise freedom, secure in the knowledge that IOS is at least standards compliant.
Standards complience is what's more important because you're not locked in. It doesn't matter whether or not you can change the code on the router, since you're not going to do that anyway. What is important is that you can swap out your router and replace it with no ill effects.
Not everything is about functionality, remember, it's not called "Faster Software", nor "Slicker Software", it's called "Free Software", because it's goal is to bee Free to all it's users, and let the users be free to do whatever they wan with they computer without relying on big corporations managing their lifes and ideas.
That's not excuse for substandard software, and too often it is. People want software that works, so they can do what they want to do. This simple fact is lost on to many "free" software developers. Instead they expect everyone to stop what they're doing and spend their time and effort on the developers' pet project instead of the user's project. The best part of this arrogant attitude is that if someone refuses, the user is the one being unreasonable.
Let me illustrate my point with a play.
"Developer": Here's my new desktop environment. I hope you like it. Most importantly you have the source!
main() {/* FIXME */ ]
Potential User: Hey, I downloaded your environment. It doesn't work. It doesn't even compile.
"Developer": It's still under development. If you don't like it, it fix it yourself! I spent my time to give this to you, and you should appreciate that and give me some respect. I don't see you releasing a desktop environment.
That seige mentality and refusal to take honest criticism really garners users and developer respect.
As the saying goes, "Free software is only 'free' if your time is worthless."
Re:I gotta say
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> From what I've seen of the gnome project, everything in the UI is too pronounced. For example, does the menu bar need all of the icons with a bold highlight around them?
Because it's a theme! Look at me, I'm a theme! Am I not a pretty theme! Pay attention to the theme folks! Look at how wonderful this desktop theme is, ladies and gents!
> The Mac GUI creator just passed away (God bless his soul) and we haven't really come up with anything better in the last 30 years?
That's okay, because neither did he.
Re:I gotta say
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
YHBT. HAND.
Re:I gotta say
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> NB: Why is it that Americans seem to have the greatest difficulty in understanding the importance of Free Software?
Maybe because its most vocal boosters are assholes like yourself? Go fig.
When you say Americans, you actually means USA Citizens, Argentina is also in America, you know?
And the answer is pretty simple, the USA citizens think that USA = Freedom and all that stuff that they listen to in the CNN, but actually the USA is far, far away from being a Free Country. Let's compare it to what happends on/.: You are Free to say whatever you want on slashdot, there is freedom of speech here, unleast, off course, you go against the/. groupthink, in that case, you will get flamed and moded down, you will loose your karma, and it will be hard to recover. The same happends in the USA... You are Free, if you are "American", that is, if you agree with all of our policys, if you do something that we don't like, then you are "unamerican", and in that case, you are doomed.
They have the greatest difficulty understanding Freedm because they are not used to really be free, they are "free" for as long as they don't think something that is "agains america". That's not really freedom.
They tend to think that Freedom is supeditated to comfort. Freedom is good, but comfort is better. That's how the government buys the people. They are not really free, but they get comfort in exchange.
In the case of Software, they trade Freedom for technicall advantages, and that is a reproduction of the freedom for comfort trade that they do with their government.
ALMAFUERTE
-- WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Re:I gotta say
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Now MacOS X is tempting, but not tempting enough that I'll give up the freedom I enjoy with Linux.
I recently bought a Mac Mini, and I honestly don't see what's so great about OS X. Maybe I haven't spent enough time with it. There are so many little things that are missing and so many things that don't work. I at least feel better that I can install Linux on it if I want to. Some of the features are nice, but the closed-source nature of the GUI makes it even less appealing due to the fact that no one but Apple can make the modifications necessary to make a truly usable desktop. Maybe with additional software OS X can be better, and I want to look into developing for it. I'll give it a chance, but for now I'll say that I like Debian Linux a lot better than OS X.
"Maybe to you software is just a tool but to many others it's a core component in their business."
Since I am a software developer I can say that you are WRONG. Software is a tool no different than a hammer for a carpenter or an anvil for a blacksmith.
I love open source. I use Netbeans, FLTK, Postgresql, MySQL, PHP, Perl, OpenOffice, Thunderbird and Firefox. My office is standardizing on Firefox and Thunderbird and dumping IE and Outlook. But had to use software is bad software. Making open source easy to use is VITAL. Making good tools is vital. If an individual has a choice between a good tool and a bad tool it is only logical to use the good tool. Saying that the freedom of getting into the source is of more value than ease of use is just wrong for 99% of all the people on the planet. If Open Source developers loose sight of that then Open Source is doomed. The best open source programs are "BETTER" than the closed source programs they compete with. Moziilla, Firefox, Thunderbird, Apache, PHP, and Perl are actually a better value. OpenOffice is very close to being a better value. While we sell the software we write we include a free copy of OpenOffice and recommend Firefox to our customers. If we can help to get people educated about OSS options and give them a good tool as well I say it is all good.
-- See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
That said, I'm typing this on my new powerbook with MacOSX. MacOSX is bsd, well more precisely NeXTSTEP. It's real unix. You have nothing to lose but your hardware incompatabilities and your teletubies developed software. ("Let's rewrite the entire software...AGAIN!" "Let's change the filechooser...AGAIN!")
No, that's not all you lose. You also lose your freedom. You become tied to a single vendor with their proprietary software. Sure, it's UNIX, but before Linux I ran another proprietary UNIX. It's not like I went from DOS to Linux. I went from UNIX to Linux. In fact, I'd used three proprietary UNIX before Linux (SCO, Microport, ISC). The freedom was what I enjoyed with Linux, not the fact that it was UNIX.
I have no desire to migrate to MacOS X because although it is UNIX, it is proprietary UNIX, and I've already been burnt by proprietary UNIX. Back in 1992 I was considered mad for choosing Linux, because the proprietary UNIX (eg, ISC) were clearly superior at the time. But I'm still using Linux and ISC doesn't exist anymore. Proprietary software ceases to exist and you have no power to stop that. The same thing will happen to MacOS X, one day.
Standards complience is what's more important because you're not locked in. It doesn't matter whether or not you can change the code on the router, since you're not going to do that anyway. What is important is that you can swap out your router and replace it with no ill effects.
Yup, my thoughts exactly. A router closely approaches the "tool" metaphor. You can just swap it with a similar router with very little impact.
Now, can you easily swap out MacOS X with another UNIX? Will all your apps continue to run? Will your desktop look the same? If any of those answers is no, then that's one of the freedoms you gave up when you migrated to MacOS X.
Now, can you easily swap out MacOS X with another UNIX?
Yeah. If you don't want to use the proprietary apps anymore. You can get most of your settings out via the XML.plist files. Also since it's real unix, you can use any of the standard tools, and even use the preloaded Perl and Python.
Will all your apps continue to run?
Well I just converted my debian laptop to macosx, and with some minor conversions, (XBEL to nsHTML bookmarks, recompilation of locally developed apps, some path conversion, etc.) all my apps and files continue to run just fine.
All your X11 apps will (X11 under MacOSX works great); and you can get your data out of all the other proprietary apps to the extent of any other proprietary app, if not a bit more.
Fink and OpenDarwin provide precompiled ports of many popular opensource apps, so if you're already using opensource apps, you get to keep them. Also several propritary apps are available for MacOSX, o the "app churn" is mitigated.
Since MacOSX is real unix, there's more developers coming to it everyday.
Will your desktop look the same?
Well that's a pretty trival concern. Especially considering that none of the three linux systems I use almost daily look the same. Two are GNOME. One is KDE. They're different based on the software installed, and look different based on how they're used. MacOSX no different. And no, I'm not going take the canard that "KDE isn't free".
If any of those answers is no, then that's one of the freedoms you gave up when you migrated to MacOS X.
I gave up nothing than the anoyances if poorly supported hardware, and the shit job being my own sysadmin. You should take a look at it. It's not what you think.
Actually, the "Human" theme that Ubuntu uses as default is based on Industrial (slightly different colours, and square corners on the windows). This may change in the future though.
A Mac User's Perspective
by
BandwidthHog
·
· Score: 1
The semi-matte finish is nice. It's a very polished (heh) look when viewed on an LCD. Pity about the corners, though. Kinda distracting, at least at first glance.
rounded corners of the windows
by
eraserewind
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Looking at those screenshots, one thing bugs me. Can't they do some anti-aliasing on the rounded corners of the windows? Those jagged edges don't look nice at all. Also the "X" button looks too big, and is too pointy for the rounded corners. Win XP has knocked the points off the 3 window control buttons, and it looks like a better match. The theme itself is ok, if a bit on the dull side.
Re:rounded corners of the windows
by
daniel+borgmann
·
· Score: 5, Informative
No, the corners unfortunately can't be anti-aliased right now. That's one of the things we need composite for.:) I'm sure Havoc will support it quickly after composite becomes available by default.
Also I made the icons smaller in the latest release of the metacity theme, you can get it here: http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?cont ent=212 37
I don't think it's perfect yet, the main focus has been on the Gtk engine.
Re:rounded corners of the windows
by
DaveJay
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I guess I'm a freak. I -like- the aliased corners, because it reminds me of an old mac desktop. For me, anti-aliased everything is just blurry and overrated -- I'll take crisp well-defined edges any day of the week.
Re:rounded corners of the windows
by
digitect
·
· Score: 1
I looked at the two linked screenshots of old vs new. Without a side by side comparison, i can't really tell the difference. Can anyone point out what the major differences are? Does it just look different, or is there new functionality.
It saddens me to think the announcement of the change was big enough to hit the slashdot front page.
It saddens me more to see they are only as original as Windows (which is only as original as Apple, ad infinitum). Doesn't anyone do innovative UI research? (Longhorn doesn't count. It's not functionally different, just prettier).
-- -Ryan AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
Re:what's the difference?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Well, remember that this is for GNOME 2.12, which is still only a glimmer in the developers' eyes. GNOME 2.12 will doubtless contain new features and stuff.
This theme is different from the old one because: Old: Kinda grey New: Almost orange, yellow, and XP Green(TM)
Old: Lines and bevels New: Curves and gradients. And lots of rounded corners.
Re:what's the difference?
by
Brandybuck
·
· Score: 1
Doesn't anyone do innovative UI research?
The last automobile I had came with this truly incredible and innovative UI. Instead of the depressingly boring copies of Henry Ford's steering week and brake/accelerator pedals, you sat in harness and controlled the vehicle by leaning left or right. Pushing forward hard on the dash (a very intuitive action) caused braking.
I really can't understand why nobody else likes this radical new automobile UI. I'm waiting for mine to get back from the repair shop so I can try getting it further down the street this time.
-- Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Currently KDE has to be the best desktop environment (looking at 3.4rc1, I'd have to say they did a really good job). Theres several problems though, its slow , bloated, and still not completely integrated. Mac OS X does a much better job.
And my reasoning for slow: What exactly you have here is Application on top of KDE lib on top of Qt lib on top of X11 lib on top of X11 server on top of Linux, 5 steps. Windows? Application on Windows API on Win32 GUI on Win Kernel, 3 steps. Mac OS X? Application on Cocoa/Carbon/Whatever on Quartz on Darwin, 3 steps. See my point?
Gnome applications are on top of GNOME lib on top of Gtk2+ on top of X11 lib on top of X11 server on top of Linux/FreeBSD/..., but are, most of the time, faster than counterparts in KDE. I personally prefer Gnome for the simplicity, but sometimes would suggest others to use KDE instead. I would not agree to let Gnome die. And if it dies, I would go for XFCE instead of KDE.
darwinports
by
OmniVector
·
· Score: 2, Informative
if you're using os x, you can try it out in darwinports by typing
port install gtk2-clearlooks
-- - tristan
factoid
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Less is definitely more.
by
JPyObjC+Dude
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Personally, I would vote for Gnome over KDE. Gnome's strict adherence to GUI standards where less is more will get them to a lot more usage in the future. KDE, although very feature friendly, is not nearly as refined as Gnome from a UI perspective and this will bite them in the ass as it has bit Microsoft.
When I look at the latest screenshots, I am blown away with the finite details that the UI designers have gone through. Most importantly, they seem to have stuck with the minimal real estate impact that I have come to love with OSX.
Real estate is where Microsoft have failed in the past with XP sytles and from what I have seen with their replacements, they are only getting worse with tons of real estate taken up by oversized and over spaced text on pretty but poorly contrasted backgrounds.
Keep up the good work Gnome... You are the best bet for me to move to Linus or *bsd besides OSX.
JsD
Side bit - L&M of car manufacturers. Honda (Apple)
- Less but works more but better General Motors (Microsoft)
- More but works less and worse.
Keep up the good work Gnome... You are the best bet for me to move to Linus or *bsd besides OSX.
Huh? If OS X doesn't do it for you, and your main beef with Windows is aesthetic, you're not gonna be happy with GNOME...
Re:Less is definitely more.
by
DaveJay
·
· Score: 1
Funny you should say that. I have a G4 tower sitting here that I just acquired, and it has OSX Panther on it. The first thing I did was install to dual-boot Debian testing (gnome) on it.
I played around with OSX for a while (I normally use an x86 box, so it was a novelty), then flipped over to debian with gnome. Honestly, and I'm as surprised as anyone else, I found that I liked it better. Obviously, being used to it has a lot to do with it, and compared to Windows 2000, OSX looks amazing, but...well...I guess everyone's taste is different.
Re:Less is definitely more.
by
JPyObjC+Dude
·
· Score: 1
I guess I was not totally clear. I love OSX. It rocks. However, it is always good to have an alternative to consider and Gnome is the next best thing regarding refined interefaces.
Windows interfaces have always and will continue to suck well into the future.
Also, in most large corporate environments, having a mac is considered a joke although I totally disagree. In such cases, Linux is a possible alternative to either expensive Unix boxes or crappy win32 boxes. When linux is the option, I will be selecting Gnome as the desktop and application framework.
Clearlooks is actually based on Bluecurve, because we'd agree. I'm sad to hear if you think our changes are no improvement, but personally I'm very happy with it.:)
Re:Can't Gnome just die?
by
Mornelithe
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
And my reasoning for slow: What exactly you have here is Application on top of KDE lib on top of Qt lib on top of X11 lib on top of X11 server on top of Linux
Okay.
Windows? Application on Windows API on Win32 GUI on Win Kernel
Wrong. You left out MFC, or whatever equivalent overlay on top of the Windows API you're using. Most people don't program in the straight Windows API anymore, and even if they don't use MFC, they write their own wrapper around the Windows API.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of stuff in the KDE libs is just KDE standard widgets that aren't part of Qt. So it's more like kdelibs + Qt is one layer if you're developing KDE applications. It's just artificially split in some ways. It's a lot like how some widgets are in the Gnome libs, and others are in GTK+. In fact, I believe some widgets get pushed from Gnome libs into GTK+, because they are more generally useful.
The number of "layers" is irrelevant. For example, Qt can be split into a section that deals with GUI widgets, and a section that deals with making C++ programming nicer. If Trolltech chose to market them separately, would you call that two layers, and say that KDE must be even slower because of this?
By the way, was that your explanation of why you believe the slowness you have actually perceived is happening, or were you saying that "5 layers is too many, therefore it must be slow"? I'm unsure on that point. KDE isn't slow on my computer, and it's more than 3 years old (the computer, that is). What are you running it on?
Finally, I'm curious: What isn't integrated about KDE? And have you filed bugs/wishlists to alert the developers?
--
I've come for the woman, and your head.
I knew it wouldn't take long...
by
BrokenHalo
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
... for the flames to get fanned back and forth between Gnome and KDE.
The whole point of themes is that you customise them to how YOU want them to look.
So if you think it's fugly, change it.:-)
I've been a big fan of Gnome since ~1997 and used to hate KDE with a passion, but recently as an experiment I took the time to customise a KDE desktop to look almost identical to my Gnome desktop, and found it actually wasn't that bad (in some respects superior to Gnome), so I actually now use KDE more often.
WTF? You mean....
by
Korgan
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Okay... When did people stop using this great Emacs? I mean... Graphical interfaces? Wow! Who'da thunk it. Thats just a totally innovative and novel idea.
What? I can change the way my interface looks so it suits my own personal tastes and preferences? OMG! Someone get on the phone and tell Microsoft, they're gonna want to embrace that idea. They already do? Damn, they're on the ball. What? They got the idea from KDE and Gnome? OMG! Isn't that like stealing? Xerox? Apple Computer? Who are they again?
</>
It amazes me to see how so quickly the whole fight between KDE and Gnome sprang up over something as simple as the new DEFAULT THEME for Gnome being announced. Its not like people can't change the theme for either KDE or Gnome if they don't like the defaults. I thought the whole Keramilk issue was put to rest a long time ago. Guess not. Must've missed that memo. Sorry, didn't mean to stay out of the fight for so long.
Come one people. Get real. Personally, I think it looks good. Its clean, open, totally uncluttered (like some KDE shots I've seen recently) and its functional. Its pretty easy to navigate and it keeps with the K.I.S.S principle I have always liked in Gnome (KDE was always too cluttered with too many bells and whistles presented to the average end user. Might be fine for advanced users, but generally the newer users prefer not to get a whole heap of stuff thrown at them when all they want to do is configure their desktop).
But who cares? If you use Gnome and you don't like this theme, install a different one. There are so many available out there. Hell, I even went as far as making my own (*GASP*) so that my desktop looked and felt the way I wanted it to so I was more productive and it was useful to me.
Damn... Lets badmouth a clean and easy on the eyes interface simply because it bears some resemblance to Windows XP. Damn... Last time I looked, every Window Manager had 3 buttons at the top of their windows for minimize,maximize/restore,close. Even OS X.
If it really is that much of an issue, don't you dear look at FVWM. Maybe you should go check out Enlightenment again. Its not dead you know. In fact, some of use still use it every day. Then you can really make your desktop look any and every way you could possibly want it to. Amazing that.
Gotta love the fact that you can choose what interface your desktop has. In fact, if you really wanted to, you could set your.xinitrc to pick a different one at random every time you started X. Now theres a really far out idea.
Gotta love the fact that you can choose what interface your desktop has.
Don't forget to love the fact that you can choose what desktop your OS has;)
Now... you CAN choose your desktop, right?
-- My cats ate my karma. They also wrote this comment.
Re:WTF? You mean....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Don't forget to love the fact that you can choose what desktop your OS has;)
That's precisely what he meant.
Re:Can't Gnome just die?
by
stuuf
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
How portable are the Windows or Mac OS X widget sets? The fact that they're both named for an operating system is a clue. Splitting into numerous layers is one of the ways that many open source projects are so portable. Gnome sits on GTK which uses Glib and GDK, on top of either X11/POSIX or Win32. On windows, there is almost always an extra layer such as VCL, MFC, or WxWidgets above the windows API, because it's so hideous to use directly. The layers don't necessarily have anything to do with speed. I think that the small slowdowns and large code size is a reasonably tradeoff for making applications more portable and easier to write. Sure, writing Mozilla in C++, Javascript, and several proprietary compatibility libraries makes it bigger and slower than a pure C application, but also much easier to port and maintain.
I use the Gnome desktop, file manager, and some small utilities, but third party apps for most work. Gnome has Epiphany; I use Mozilla. Gnome has Gcalctool, I use Qalculate. Gnome has gedit, I use XEmacs or Leafpad.
--
Everyone is born right-handed; only the greatest overcome it
They are nowhere near as fast, IME. Gnome apps are far faster if you are running gnome or xfce, simply because the libs you need are already loaded, but that's to be expected and the same is true in reverse when running KDE.
They should use the theme that's default in XFCE4. It looks much cleaner (the gnome themes all seem to have too much colour in them) and still has good performance.
-- I am trolling
nah, linux isn't there yet
by
N3wsByt3
·
· Score: 1
"Maybe to you software is just a tool but to many others it's a core component in their business."
I'm sorry, but I disagree. I understand you can see things both ways, but if you are speaking of 'Linux on the desktop' then the above poster is right. Most people (as in non-tech-savvy joe doe users) just use their puter as a tool; to chat, to work, to download, etc. Some basic tasks is all they need, and they need it in a clear and user-friendly way.
They do not want, nor need nor even would like to try 'compiling' things or having to install some obscure libs just to get something running. They need something simple and easy to use to get what they want, and political, ideological and tech-savvy issues are not a prime concern for them. I think the Linux crowd, being tech-savvy themselves, all too often fail to realise this truth.
And, frankly, while Linux came a long way, they are still not there. I myself, for instance, while I'd consider myself more tech-savvy then most joe doe users, am a newbie at linux, and the last week, I have tried to download firefox on my mandrake box. After a week, I still don't have it installed and ready to use. Sure, I've searched for help, and (linux)people are mostly willing to help me out, but I just don't seem to get it working. It's download a lib here and a lib there or it doesn't work, use apt-get or urpmi or something else, use the commandline and fill in commands I never heard before...but all to no avail, as yet. I just need a simple, clear klick-and-install thingy, goddamnit. Which would be an rpm, I heard, but somehow, my standard KDE browser doesn't want to d/l the only place I could find one, probably because it was ftp. And I could use another browser, if that weren't exactly what I was trying to d/l and install.
Compare that with surfing to the firefox-site, and klick on the exe on the site, and all is done automatically, with windows.
THAT is the sort of ease-of-use that Linux needs, before it ever is going to have a chance to break through on the desktop.
-- ---
"To pee or not to pee, that is the question."
---
Re:nah, linux isn't there yet
by
nathanh
·
· Score: 1
They do not want, nor need nor even would like to try 'compiling' things or having to install some obscure libs just to get something running.
No modern Linux desktop requires the user to compile things. You are being dishonest.
And, frankly, while Linux came a long way, they are still not there. I myself, for instance, while I'd consider myself more tech-savvy then most joe doe users, am a newbie at linux, and the last week, I have tried to download firefox on my mandrake box. After a week, I still don't have it installed and ready to use. Sure, I've searched for help, and (linux)people are mostly willing to help me out, but I just don't seem to get it working. It's download a lib here and a lib there or it doesn't work, use apt-get or urpmi or something else, use the commandline and fill in commands I never heard before...but all to no avail, as yet. I just need a simple, clear klick-and-install thingy, goddamnit. Which would be an rpm, I heard, but somehow, my standard KDE browser doesn't want to d/l the only place I could find one, probably because it was ftp. And I could use another browser, if that weren't exactly what I was trying to d/l and install.
Well, don't take this the wrong way, but you might be retarded. Installing FireFox is as easy as following the instructions on the FireFox website. I can't even begin to comprehend how you managed to fail at this simple task despite trying for an entire week. I strongly recommend you seek professional help.
Compare that with surfing to the firefox-site, and klick on the exe on the site, and all is done automatically, with windows.
THAT is the sort of ease-of-use that Linux needs, before it ever is going to have a chance to break through on the desktop.
Nonsense. Microsoft achieved desktop dominance without any such ease of use. MS-DOS was so difficult to use that it single-handedly created the PC desktop support industry.
My strong belief is that price is the single greatest factor in winning the PC desktop. While there are many reasons why Windows beat GEM, GEOS, MacOS and OS/2, cost was the reason that mattered most.
Final point...
Most people (as in non-tech-savvy joe doe users) just use their puter as a tool; to chat, to work, to download, etc. Some basic tasks is all they need, and they need it in a clear and user-friendly way.
If that were true then they'd all be buying Macintoshes. Ease of use is clearly overrated; it is only ever trotted out as an argument against Linux, but the same argument applies back in spades against Windows.
Re:nah, linux isn't there yet
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm sorry, but I disagree. I understand you can see things both ways, but if you are speaking of 'Linux on the desktop' then the above poster is right. Most people (as in non-tech-savvy joe doe users) just use their puter as a tool; to chat, to work, to download, etc. Some basic tasks is all they need, and they need it in a clear and user-friendly way.
They do not want, nor need nor even would like to try 'compiling' things or having to install some obscure libs just to get something running.
I can understand why you are saying this only because you said you are a newbie. But most Linux distros are very simple to use. Installing and managing software in Debian Linux, for example, is easier than it is in Windows or OS X. And other Linux distros have tools similar to Debian that make it as easy.
I think Linux distros do need to do a better job of delivering the simplicity to users, either by better documentation or more user friendly tools that present themselves immediately to the user (instead of the user having to search to find out what these tools are).
But just to give you an idea of how easy a Debian installation is, all I do is login as root and type this at a command prompt:
apt-get update; apt-get install mozilla-firefox
Or since I already have Firefox installed, I just want to upgrade it, so I upgrade ALL the software on my machine with this command:
apt-get update; apt-get upgrade
Say yes to install. Occasionally, it may ask you some questions, but for the most part everything downloads and installs automatically with very little user interaction.
This is even easier than Windows. Where I have to find the website, find the file to download, download it, run the executable, click OK several times, uncheck any options that I don't want. And I have to do this every time I want to upgrade the software. OS X seems to have a lot of the same issues. Making the user work just install software simply doesn't make sense.
And yes, there are point and click GUI tools that abstract away these command line tools. For example Synaptic.
Indeed, Gnome seems... overrated
by
biryokumaru
·
· Score: 1
ill bet that many gnome users who complain about the present state of gnome and kde haven't even tried the slimmer flavors of x. as ive noticed in these comments, people have complained about "intrusive decorations" and "excessive highlighting (like on the over-sized buttons and stuff)" both of which can be essentially non-issues in xfce. and all the slim x environments use their own unique interface features, each innovative in their own, whilst people complain about gnome's inherent similarity to ms windows.
i'd mod you up, but you really are kinda flamebait, sorry.
-- When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
"No modern Linux desktop requires the user to compile things. You are being dishonest."
Well, make it yourself easy then, and say I'm dishonest about all the rest I said. I do not know what you read into it (I didn't say people had to compile anything to install Firefox, for instance), but my statement as such remains valid, whether you 'require' compiling or not, let alone installing libs. That would depend entirely on what you try to do on your box, or what you are trying to run.
"Well, don't take this the wrong way, but you might be retarded."
Well, don't take this the wrong way, but you might be the typical smug and arrogant bastard who thinks he has to insult people - while at the same time acting as if he doesn't - to try to make some point.
"Installing FireFox is as easy as following the instructions on the FireFox website. I can't even begin to comprehend how you managed to fail at this simple task despite trying for an entire week. I strongly recommend you seek professional help. "
Indeed, one would think so. Alas, the instructions did not work. As for that matter, in theory, it would have been even more simple to get it with urpmi and apt-get, but those failed too.
"Nonsense. Microsoft achieved desktop dominance without any such ease of use. MS-DOS was so difficult to use that it single-handedly created the PC desktop support industry."
Dude, there wasn't much of a choice back then. Do you actually think people would want to go back to DOS-commands, now that they are used to GUI? I don't understand your argument: what was enough to create a monopoly 20 years ago, isn't enough anymore today. That's why all major linux-distro's bring out GUIs too, you know.
"My strong belief is that price is the single greatest factor in winning the PC desktop. While there are many reasons why Windows beat GEM, GEOS, MacOS and OS/2, cost was the reason that mattered most."
Ofcourse cost is an important factor too; did I claim the contrary? But, in reality, many people make use of an illegal copy, or have win pre-installed, so they don't have or perceive the cost of it. Thus, while it's an advantage that Linux can be free (beer), it's not ALL that great an advantage compared to windows, in reality.
"If that were true then they'd all be buying Macintoshes. Ease of use is clearly overrated; it is only ever trotted out as an argument against Linux, but the same argument applies back in spades against Windows."
Macs cost too much for the ordinary users. And even if it were at exactly the same price today, the ease of use in win is good enough for most ppl, so they wouldn't change anyway, unless some other reasons prevail (such as looks/design). If the Macs had been allowed to be cloned in mass, and become as cheap as the other PC at the time that it first had a GUI, there is little doubt THEY would dominate the market today. But they missed that chance.
Now, it's all too easy to claim a person is dishonest and retarded, but rest assured it doesn't change the fact that Linux is not ready for prime time. It's the easy way out, isn't it? Don't acknowledge Linux is not as user-friendly as yet, just say the users giving critique are retarded.
No doubt that will bring Linux to the desktop much sooner.
-- ---
"To pee or not to pee, that is the question."
---
Re:ahum...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It really is true that MS-DOS achieved dominance despite being a piece of crap in every measurable way to both tech-savvy users and retards. It's really amazing to think that 15 years ago, there were plenty of people, including many who knew nothing about computers, using computers on a command line (and not just any command line, but the crappy MS-DOS, no history, no line editing command line!). Today users would be scared to death of a command line. Why? I don't really know. People are weird.
I use Mac OS X primarily, and I have a PC next to my Mac that dual boots Windows XP and Ubuntu Linux. I really honestly think all the crap about "Linux isn't usable enough for the desktop" is just nonsense. It's more usable than Windows is. Windows is a nightmare. I temporarily put Ubuntu on my non-tech dad's computer for a week and a half. He was fine with it, and actually said he liked it a lot. Click on the icon for the mail program, you can read mail. Click on the icon for the browser, you can browse. Exactly how is this difficult again? He went to Windows XP because he is completely addicted to Delta Force: Land Warrior and wanted to be able to play it again. And THAT is the hurdle for Linux on the desktop - not usability.
Of course, if you just want the theme, not the default theme, you could switch to it yourself:)
-- "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Wait, this is KDE... I KNOW this!
by
Eil
·
· Score: 1
Hmm. This new GNOME looks awfully darn similar to KDE's Plastik theme, the new default for 3.4.
In fact, there are a lot of features in the upcoming GNOME that KDE already has. Many of them have even been around for a long time. Let's look at a few:
Integrated help browser w/ man and info support
Developer-friendly text editor
Nice GUI for sharing files
Freedesktop.org cross-desktop menu specification
Weather panel applet
Panel and applet transparency
An "new and improved" mixer (looks like kmix now)
Additionally, there are two contenders vying for the position of Official GNOME CD-Ripper. KDE needs no such thing, because you rip and encode audio tracks just by dragging and dropping them from the file manager.
Now, I'm not trying to bash GNOME here. I used GNOME for a long time before the Great Feature Removal of GNOME 2.0. But all of you GNOME zealots out there (you know who you are) who claim that KDE tries too hard to be like Windows need to wake up and realize that your desktop environment is now starting to borrow heavily from others.
Re:Wait, this is KDE... I KNOW this!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
Now, I'm not trying to bash GNOME here.
Good to know you are just trolling.
Just one thing..
by
omega9
·
· Score: 3, Informative
-- I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
Subtle, but pleasant - drop shadows
by
QuietRiot
·
· Score: 1
I didn't notice it at first, but part of the reason the ClearLooks screenshot is so appealing is the presence of dropshadows. Subtle, but definatly pleasing.
Just get your X server up to snuff and you can enjoy them too....
"He went to Windows XP because he is completely addicted to Delta Force: Land Warrior and wanted to be able to play it again. And THAT is the hurdle for Linux on the desktop - not usability."
Yes, games is another matter. And I know it could be claimed that it's not the fault of Linux. And, while I agree for the large part, for joe doe that doesn't change all that much.
Yes, linux could be good enough for 'my granny'; if my granny only wants to browse and email, and not try out some new progs found on the Net. But, in all honesty: can one truelly say that any prog one can find for windows, is as easily installable (if you can find the same for linux in the first place) on Linux?
The moment you diverge from the truelly mainstream and well-known progs, you soon run into missing libs, tars and what not that just happen to fail on your particular distro, and god forbid, involves compiling. One can not expect a normal user to give up windows for an OS that (as he sees it) has all those problems. While oçne can rightfully say it's not all the fault of Linux istelf, it still remains a drawback.
I'm not saying this because I'm against linux, in fact, while I have hardly used the OS, I have frequently bought some distro's (mainly mandrake) just to support the development. But, if I have to give an honest impression as how user-friendly it is, it still falls short.
For ionstance, when my OS was installed (which I must( say went very well, even better then with win, in some instances), the desktop and browser was set in miniscule letters: I could hardly read anything. Now, ofcourse there were setting to change that, but try that with menus you can barely read on a strange OS. This was the case with my 8.2 as well as with the 9.2 version. It's not a huge problem, but it still is very annoying and frustrating spending hours just to be able to READ the letters on the desktop in the letters. And it's just those little things that do it, you know.
I have tried a lot of win OSses in my life, and for sure they weren't perfect, but I never had it start-up with letters almost too small to read. I do not doubt that Linux is technical superior, and a lot of the fault lies with the applications, and the installment went really well... but it should be possible to say what's still wrong with it, without being called names, me thinks.
-- ---
"To pee or not to pee, that is the question."
---
With all the news about themes,
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Could we not FINALLY get a new theme for the IT section of Slashdot? It's like "harvest gold" appliances.
Very nice
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Cool, that's a really nice theme. Looks a little bit like a cross between Luna and Plastik, but that's no bad thing. While Luna's bright blue titlebars are gaudy and hideous, the widgets are fairly nice, and Plastik's one of the best-looking Free Software themes there are. Looking a little bit like either is no bad thing, and I think this has enough character of its own as well. Now if they could just update the icons a little, then GNOME would start having a pretty sweet default look.
Slashdot Mirror
It looks just like KDE now.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
Uses the default theme anyway, that the beautiness of having themes, but for those that hasn't used gnome or gnu/linux at all, the first impression will be important ...
KDE made a good job choosing Keramik as the default theme, before that, they allways shipped the ugliest one.
ALMAFUERTE
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Yes, make it look more like Windows XP, that'll make it "prettier!" *sigh*
Gnome is made to look like whatever windows currently looks like? Unheard of!
Copying windows will not get you anywhere. Innovate, damnit!
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
When do they ditch the muddy, dull and visually abhorrant icons? Look at the dialog for Keyboard Preferences. The red/white "Help" next to the Avacado/Harvest Gold horror that is "Accessibility". The moldy folders...
It doesn't have to look "flash". Garrett LeSage did a half-decent job with the Bluecurve icons.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
From what I've seen of the gnome project, everything in the UI is too pronounced. For example, does the menu bar need all of the icons with a bold highlight around them? Why does the title/menu bar have to take up 25% of the window? Small subdued cues would be grand in a UI. We all eventually know where to click anyways right? For as much as I dislike the classic Windows 2000 UI, it still is not nearly as intrusive as gnome or kde as far as I am concerned. I guess there are some skins out there that probably give me what I want, but we really need something that is slick out of the box, something that doesn't work just like Windows. The Mac GUI creator just passed away (God bless his soul) and we haven't really come up with anything better in the last 30 years? Hell, even Nextstep and OS/2 were steps in a better direction.
If you ask me, there will never be a year of the Linux desktop until somebody creates a Linux desktop environment that is at least as rich as Windows. When is cut and paste going to be even supported across applications in KDE or GNOME? Oh, text works ok? Well what about a piece of a picture or a clip of a wave? What about drag and drop? Can I just drop any document onto a printer icon and have it spit out the result? Without configuring 20 various text files?
When the big boys like Adobe start releasing Photoshop for Linux, then perhaps there will be some sort of market, but until then I hear that the GIMP is fine as long as you don't need to work in CMYK.
zosxavius photography
...but it looks really "flat" to me. Maybe that's not a bad thing ... but it doesn't come off as anything special.
1. Bootable CD-ROMS. They don't remember that you changed the theme. They might not even give you a choice.
2. Public teminals. Hopefully these do not let you change the theme.
3. Other people's computers. Not everyone will have the sense to change a theme.
Simon's Rock College
and if you run Ubuntu Linux, you're already using the theme.
It looks better than KDE.
The semi-matte finish is nice. It's a very polished (heh) look when viewed on an LCD. Pity about the corners, though. Kinda distracting, at least at first glance.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Looking at those screenshots, one thing bugs me. Can't they do some anti-aliasing on the rounded corners of the windows? Those jagged edges don't look nice at all. Also the "X" button looks too big, and is too pointy for the rounded corners. Win XP has knocked the points off the 3 window control buttons, and it looks like a better match. The theme itself is ok, if a bit on the dull side.
I looked at the two linked screenshots of old vs new. Without a side by side comparison, i can't really tell the difference. Can anyone point out what the major differences are? Does it just look different, or is there new functionality.
It saddens me to think the announcement of the change was big enough to hit the slashdot front page.
It saddens me more to see they are only as original as Windows (which is only as original as Apple, ad infinitum). Doesn't anyone do innovative UI research? (Longhorn doesn't count. It's not functionally different, just prettier).
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
Currently KDE has to be the best desktop environment (looking at 3.4rc1, I'd have to say they did a really good job). Theres several problems though, its slow , bloated, and still not completely integrated. Mac OS X does a much better job.
And my reasoning for slow: What exactly you have here is Application on top of KDE lib on top of Qt lib on top of X11 lib on top of X11 server on top of Linux, 5 steps. Windows? Application on Windows API on Win32 GUI on Win Kernel, 3 steps. Mac OS X? Application on Cocoa/Carbon/Whatever on Quartz on Darwin, 3 steps. See my point?
I'M NOT ANGRY!
Gnome applications are on top of GNOME lib on top of Gtk2+ on top of X11 lib on top of X11 server on top of Linux/FreeBSD/..., but are, most of the time, faster than counterparts in KDE. I personally prefer Gnome for the simplicity, but sometimes would suggest others to use KDE instead. I would not agree to let Gnome die. And if it dies, I would go for XFCE instead of KDE.
- tristan
This news factoid is merely rumour.
Please read this for more information.
Personally, I would vote for Gnome over KDE. Gnome's strict adherence to GUI standards where less is more will get them to a lot more usage in the future. KDE, although very feature friendly, is not nearly as refined as Gnome from a UI perspective and this will bite them in the ass as it has bit Microsoft.
... You are the best bet for me to move to Linus or *bsd besides OSX.
When I look at the latest screenshots, I am blown away with the finite details that the UI designers have gone through. Most importantly, they seem to have stuck with the minimal real estate impact that I have come to love with OSX.
Real estate is where Microsoft have failed in the past with XP sytles and from what I have seen with their replacements, they are only getting worse with tons of real estate taken up by oversized and over spaced text on pretty but poorly contrasted backgrounds.
Keep up the good work Gnome
JsD
Side bit - L&M of car manufacturers.
Honda (Apple)
- Less but works more but better
General Motors (Microsoft)
- More but works less and worse.
...is still the best looking and cleanest theme I have ever seen.
And my reasoning for slow: What exactly you have here is Application on top of KDE lib on top of Qt lib on top of X11 lib on top of X11 server on top of Linux
Okay.
Windows? Application on Windows API on Win32 GUI on Win Kernel
Wrong. You left out MFC, or whatever equivalent overlay on top of the Windows API you're using. Most people don't program in the straight Windows API anymore, and even if they don't use MFC, they write their own wrapper around the Windows API.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of stuff in the KDE libs is just KDE standard widgets that aren't part of Qt. So it's more like kdelibs + Qt is one layer if you're developing KDE applications. It's just artificially split in some ways. It's a lot like how some widgets are in the Gnome libs, and others are in GTK+. In fact, I believe some widgets get pushed from Gnome libs into GTK+, because they are more generally useful.
The number of "layers" is irrelevant. For example, Qt can be split into a section that deals with GUI widgets, and a section that deals with making C++ programming nicer. If Trolltech chose to market them separately, would you call that two layers, and say that KDE must be even slower because of this?
By the way, was that your explanation of why you believe the slowness you have actually perceived is happening, or were you saying that "5 layers is too many, therefore it must be slow"? I'm unsure on that point. KDE isn't slow on my computer, and it's more than 3 years old (the computer, that is). What are you running it on?
Finally, I'm curious: What isn't integrated about KDE? And have you filed bugs/wishlists to alert the developers?
I've come for the woman, and your head.
The whole point of themes is that you customise them to how YOU want them to look.
So if you think it's fugly, change it. :-)
I've been a big fan of Gnome since ~1997 and used to hate KDE with a passion, but recently as an experiment I took the time to customise a KDE desktop to look almost identical to my Gnome desktop, and found it actually wasn't that bad (in some respects superior to Gnome), so I actually now use KDE more often.
yuck
Okay... When did people stop using this great Emacs? I mean... Graphical interfaces? Wow! Who'da thunk it. Thats just a totally innovative and novel idea.
What? I can change the way my interface looks so it suits my own personal tastes and preferences? OMG! Someone get on the phone and tell Microsoft, they're gonna want to embrace that idea. They already do? Damn, they're on the ball. What? They got the idea from KDE and Gnome? OMG! Isn't that like stealing? Xerox? Apple Computer? Who are they again?
</>
It amazes me to see how so quickly the whole fight between KDE and Gnome sprang up over something as simple as the new DEFAULT THEME for Gnome being announced. Its not like people can't change the theme for either KDE or Gnome if they don't like the defaults. I thought the whole Keramilk issue was put to rest a long time ago. Guess not. Must've missed that memo. Sorry, didn't mean to stay out of the fight for so long.
Come one people. Get real. Personally, I think it looks good. Its clean, open, totally uncluttered (like some KDE shots I've seen recently) and its functional. Its pretty easy to navigate and it keeps with the K.I.S.S principle I have always liked in Gnome (KDE was always too cluttered with too many bells and whistles presented to the average end user. Might be fine for advanced users, but generally the newer users prefer not to get a whole heap of stuff thrown at them when all they want to do is configure their desktop).
But who cares? If you use Gnome and you don't like this theme, install a different one. There are so many available out there. Hell, I even went as far as making my own (*GASP*) so that my desktop looked and felt the way I wanted it to so I was more productive and it was useful to me.
Damn... Lets badmouth a clean and easy on the eyes interface simply because it bears some resemblance to Windows XP. Damn... Last time I looked, every Window Manager had 3 buttons at the top of their windows for minimize,maximize/restore,close. Even OS X.
If it really is that much of an issue, don't you dear look at FVWM. Maybe you should go check out Enlightenment again. Its not dead you know. In fact, some of use still use it every day. Then you can really make your desktop look any and every way you could possibly want it to. Amazing that.
Gotta love the fact that you can choose what interface your desktop has. In fact, if you really wanted to, you could set your .xinitrc to pick a different one at random every time you started X. Now theres a really far out idea.
I use the Gnome desktop, file manager, and some small utilities, but third party apps for most work. Gnome has Epiphany; I use Mozilla. Gnome has Gcalctool, I use Qalculate. Gnome has gedit, I use XEmacs or Leafpad.
Everyone is born right-handed; only the greatest overcome it
They are nowhere near as fast, IME. Gnome apps are far faster if you are running gnome or xfce, simply because the libs you need are already loaded, but that's to be expected and the same is true in reverse when running KDE.
I am trolling
They should use the theme that's default in XFCE4. It looks much cleaner (the gnome themes all seem to have too much colour in them) and still has good performance.
I am trolling
"Maybe to you software is just a tool but to many others it's a core component in their business."
I'm sorry, but I disagree. I understand you can see things both ways, but if you are speaking of 'Linux on the desktop' then the above poster is right. Most people (as in non-tech-savvy joe doe users) just use their puter as a tool; to chat, to work, to download, etc. Some basic tasks is all they need, and they need it in a clear and user-friendly way.
They do not want, nor need nor even would like to try 'compiling' things or having to install some obscure libs just to get something running. They need something simple and easy to use to get what they want, and political, ideological and tech-savvy issues are not a prime concern for them. I think the Linux crowd, being tech-savvy themselves, all too often fail to realise this truth.
And, frankly, while Linux came a long way, they are still not there. I myself, for instance, while I'd consider myself more tech-savvy then most joe doe users, am a newbie at linux, and the last week, I have tried to download firefox on my mandrake box. After a week, I still don't have it installed and ready to use. Sure, I've searched for help, and (linux)people are mostly willing to help me out, but I just don't seem to get it working. It's download a lib here and a lib there or it doesn't work, use apt-get or urpmi or something else, use the commandline and fill in commands I never heard before...but all to no avail, as yet. I just need a simple, clear klick-and-install thingy, goddamnit. Which would be an rpm, I heard, but somehow, my standard KDE browser doesn't want to d/l the only place I could find one, probably because it was ftp. And I could use another browser, if that weren't exactly what I was trying to d/l and install.
Compare that with surfing to the firefox-site, and klick on the exe on the site, and all is done automatically, with windows.
THAT is the sort of ease-of-use that Linux needs, before it ever is going to have a chance to break through on the desktop.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
i'd mod you up, but you really are kinda flamebait, sorry.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
http://www.anythingleft-handed.co.uk/lefty_origins .html
"No modern Linux desktop requires the user to compile things. You are being dishonest."
Well, make it yourself easy then, and say I'm dishonest about all the rest I said. I do not know what you read into it (I didn't say people had to compile anything to install Firefox, for instance), but my statement as such remains valid, whether you 'require' compiling or not, let alone installing libs. That would depend entirely on what you try to do on your box, or what you are trying to run.
"Well, don't take this the wrong way, but you might be retarded."
Well, don't take this the wrong way, but you might be the typical smug and arrogant bastard who thinks he has to insult people - while at the same time acting as if he doesn't - to try to make some point.
"Installing FireFox is as easy as following the instructions on the FireFox website. I can't even begin to comprehend how you managed to fail at this simple task despite trying for an entire week. I strongly recommend you seek professional help. "
Indeed, one would think so. Alas, the instructions did not work. As for that matter, in theory, it would have been even more simple to get it with urpmi and apt-get, but those failed too.
"Nonsense. Microsoft achieved desktop dominance without any such ease of use. MS-DOS was so difficult to use that it single-handedly created the PC desktop support industry."
Dude, there wasn't much of a choice back then. Do you actually think people would want to go back to DOS-commands, now that they are used to GUI? I don't understand your argument: what was enough to create a monopoly 20 years ago, isn't enough anymore today. That's why all major linux-distro's bring out GUIs too, you know.
"My strong belief is that price is the single greatest factor in winning the PC desktop. While there are many reasons why Windows beat GEM, GEOS, MacOS and OS/2, cost was the reason that mattered most."
Ofcourse cost is an important factor too; did I claim the contrary? But, in reality, many people make use of an illegal copy, or have win pre-installed, so they don't have or perceive the cost of it. Thus, while it's an advantage that Linux can be free (beer), it's not ALL that great an advantage compared to windows, in reality.
"If that were true then they'd all be buying Macintoshes. Ease of use is clearly overrated; it is only ever trotted out as an argument against Linux, but the same argument applies back in spades against Windows."
Macs cost too much for the ordinary users. And even if it were at exactly the same price today, the ease of use in win is good enough for most ppl, so they wouldn't change anyway, unless some other reasons prevail (such as looks/design). If the Macs had been allowed to be cloned in mass, and become as cheap as the other PC at the time that it first had a GUI, there is little doubt THEY would dominate the market today. But they missed that chance.
Now, it's all too easy to claim a person is dishonest and retarded, but rest assured it doesn't change the fact that Linux is not ready for prime time. It's the easy way out, isn't it? Don't acknowledge Linux is not as user-friendly as yet, just say the users giving critique are retarded.
No doubt that will bring Linux to the desktop much sooner.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
that this theme is not a lot different than the old one... it is different, mind you, just not a lot.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
September? God, now I have to wait forever to use the new default theme!
It might be the sweetest, most awesome theme ever created, ever!
Hmm. This new GNOME looks awfully darn similar to KDE's Plastik theme, the new default for 3.4.
In fact, there are a lot of features in the upcoming GNOME that KDE already has. Many of them have even been around for a long time. Let's look at a few:
Additionally, there are two contenders vying for the position of Official GNOME CD-Ripper. KDE needs no such thing, because you rip and encode audio tracks just by dragging and dropping them from the file manager.
Now, I'm not trying to bash GNOME here. I used GNOME for a long time before the Great Feature Removal of GNOME 2.0. But all of you GNOME zealots out there (you know who you are) who claim that KDE tries too hard to be like Windows need to wake up and realize that your desktop environment is now starting to borrow heavily from others.
Sorry, but this story is bullshit.
All spelled out here.
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
I didn't notice it at first, but part of the reason the ClearLooks screenshot is so appealing is the presence of dropshadows. Subtle, but definatly pleasing.
1 -December/msg00107.html
Just get your X server up to snuff and you can enjoy them too....
[May or may not be useful....]
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-doc-list/200
http://www.xfce.org/gtkmenu-shadow/
http://www.gnome-look.org/
"He went to Windows XP because he is completely addicted to Delta Force: Land Warrior and wanted to be able to play it again. And THAT is the hurdle for Linux on the desktop - not usability."
Yes, games is another matter. And I know it could be claimed that it's not the fault of Linux. And, while I agree for the large part, for joe doe that doesn't change all that much.
Yes, linux could be good enough for 'my granny'; if my granny only wants to browse and email, and not try out some new progs found on the Net. But, in all honesty: can one truelly say that any prog one can find for windows, is as easily installable (if you can find the same for linux in the first place) on Linux?
The moment you diverge from the truelly mainstream and well-known progs, you soon run into missing libs, tars and what not that just happen to fail on your particular distro, and god forbid, involves compiling. One can not expect a normal user to give up windows for an OS that (as he sees it) has all those problems. While oçne can rightfully say it's not all the fault of Linux istelf, it still remains a drawback.
I'm not saying this because I'm against linux, in fact, while I have hardly used the OS, I have frequently bought some distro's (mainly mandrake) just to support the development. But, if I have to give an honest impression as how user-friendly it is, it still falls short.
For ionstance, when my OS was installed (which I must( say went very well, even better then with win, in some instances), the desktop and browser was set in miniscule letters: I could hardly read anything. Now, ofcourse there were setting to change that, but try that with menus you can barely read on a strange OS. This was the case with my 8.2 as well as with the 9.2 version. It's not a huge problem, but it still is very annoying and frustrating spending hours just to be able to READ the letters on the desktop in the letters. And it's just those little things that do it, you know.
I have tried a lot of win OSses in my life, and for sure they weren't perfect, but I never had it start-up with letters almost too small to read. I do not doubt that Linux is technical superior, and a lot of the fault lies with the applications, and the installment went really well... but it should be possible to say what's still wrong with it, without being called names, me thinks.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Could we not FINALLY get a new theme for the IT section of Slashdot? It's like "harvest gold" appliances.
Cool, that's a really nice theme. Looks a little bit like a cross between Luna and Plastik, but that's no bad thing. While Luna's bright blue titlebars are gaudy and hideous, the widgets are fairly nice, and Plastik's one of the best-looking Free Software themes there are. Looking a little bit like either is no bad thing, and I think this has enough character of its own as well. Now if they could just update the icons a little, then GNOME would start having a pretty sweet default look.