Slashdot Mirror
Elive Beta: Enlightenment Sans Commitment
An anonymous reader writes "Elive, the ultra-slick Debian based Enlightenment (16.7 and 17) liveCD project has released version 0.1 for download. See the package and features list for more information. A screenshot tour is also available."
...I've been looking for an Enlightenment based distro for some time. Does anyone know of any others, and can this be installed on a hard drive like normal distros?
I like that 3D Firefox icon. Anyone know where to find it?
That bottom-center taskbar is pretty snazzy.
Anyone know where I can get it for OS X?
Is there any bootloader able to load an OS, even RO, from a ISO in a fat/ext2 partition?
It would be cool.
Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
Well biff is a traditional unix tool for watching your mail box, so Ebiff is an englightenment applet fo doing the same.
Why not fork?
1. biff has been called biff since time immemorial. Every OS has illogical or obtuse application names -- hell, what's the difference between "Finder", "Chooser", and "Sherlock"?
2. Who's "you guys?" The development team of the Linux kernel? Every Linux user? I certainly don't want to lose my choice to use the Ion window manager and the naim instant messaging client and the Mozilla browser just because of some ill-advised quest for market share.
3. OS X has what, 4, 5 percent of the market?
4. Let's not even get into the i-apps on OS X. How is that any better than G or K or X or E-everything?
5. Firefox is Firefox, not Linux. The prefs are in different menu locations because of different conventions on the different platforms. Firefox already looks and feels too much like a Windows application on Linux.
6. Many distributions have graphical interfaces for manipulating system settings. All of the prominent desktop environments have settings dialogs as well. This shouldn't and doesn't prevent me from using a distribution (Slackware) that relies on directly editing configuration files.
7. When Windows has even the slightest amount of consistency in terms of preference windows (or, hell, file choosers), you may have a point.
8. Actually, you still wouldn't. KDE and GNOME applications both have perfectly good reasons to maintain consistency within themselves. Fans of GNOME don't want the clutter of KDE, and fans of KDE don't want the stark minimalism of GNOME. I don't want either.
9. Some people work on eye candy. Some don't. People work on what they want to.
10. Again, let me reiterate: I don't give a flying fuck what the PC manufacturers take notice of. As long as Slackware works fine on my machine, I'm perfectly content. "World domination" is not a goal. There's no valid reason that Linux should be prominent over any other free (as in freedom) operating system. Choice is good.
11. Finally: Enlightenment users are currently a minority of Linux users. You can't use a specific complaint about the former to damn the latter.
"This is why Linux is never going to be a widely adopted desktop OS."
I assume you know what they say about assumptions.
"If you guys want Linux to be as widely used as Windows and OSX you have to standardize."
Standardize what? The look? The feel? The administration tools?
"a standard set of applications."
Applications? What's unstandard about the avaliable linux desktop applications?
I think you might mean A set of applications exactily like Windows OR OSX since the ones I am thinking of are not standard across those OSs.
"unless there is a solid and unified environment behind it (like Windows and OSX) Linux is never going to go anywhere on the desktop."
Like windows? Windows and the word solid shouldn't be put into the same sentance unless that sentance is: "Windows is very much unlike a solid terd since it barly ever holds together while afloat"
The screenshots are of e16.1 7-34.jpg.html i ews/e17_japan.png.html 1 7-33.jpg.html i ews/e17_gant_theme2.png.html 1 7-31.jpg.html
Pulleeze try theeese
http://get-e.org/Screenshots/Official/_previews/e
http://get-e.org/Screenshots/User_Submitted/_prev
http://get-e.org/Screenshots/Official/_previews/e
http://get-e.org/Screenshots/User_Submitted/_prev
http://get-e.org/Screenshots/Official/_previews/e
I Completely agree. I will never swap my freedom of choice with the 10% of the desktop market.
Let people actually learn how to choose and they will be happy, just like every e user.
Thanks for the advice. I'll start working on that right away.
This sig is only here so people stop skipping the last lines of my posts.
"Eye Candy is all well and good, but unless there is a solid and unified environment behind it (like Windows and OSX)"
You are insaine.
Have you ever tried to find the location of the SendTo folder in widows? Guess what you have to do something totally different in win 98 and XP.
I could go on and on but why bother. You have never written code for windows or else you would never make that statement.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Windows: I could use Notepad to type my grocery list... maybe Wordpad if I need fancy formatting and colors. The icons in Wordpad are the same as almost every other Windows program. I know which button is the "Save" button, and which will create a new document. If I want to use a different program, I could download one and install it easily because 99% of Windows programs use Windows Installer or InstallShield. No messy text-based installers, no headaches.
The problem is choice (I didn't intend to quote The Matrix, really). Consumers are mostly clueless when it comes to computers. Those of you who work in a retail environment will likely agree with me there. They don't want half a dozen different programs that do essentially the same thing. They want one program that does what they need to do and nothing more. They aren't interested in learning something new or using something that's ugly.
I realize Linux supporters want people to move away from Microsoft and towards F/OSS (I do too, believe it or not), but you can only push people so far so fast. They won't go out of their way to learn something new, or use something that's ugly or inconsistent. You have to make the transition easy. Saying something like that is a great way to lose any credibility your comment might have.
Here's the deal: The makers of Linux distributions want people to embrace Linux, but they refuse to embrace the average person. The won't budge an inch. They won't emulate Windows concepts, just because it's Windows and it's "evil".
I'm tech-literate, yet I choose to use Windows for everyday stuff like web browsing, email, chatting, research, word processing, etc. No, I don't use some obscure Windows-only program daily. Linux can do everything I need it to do, but I don't use it because it's ugly, inconsistent and a pain to use. It's fine for my home's file server, but I wouldn't make one of my family members use Linux if you paid me.
This comment will probably get modded down as a troll or flaimbait, but it is not intended as either. It's intended as constructive criticism. I want Linux to be a kick-ass operating system that my grandmother can use, but as of right now, it has a long way to go.
-William Brendel
That comment is like asking me to compare KDE 3.4.1 to KDE 1. Things are going to be drastically different.
Incase the mirrors are slow or you prefer torrent:b eta_nialpha.iso.torrent
http://mirror.hrnoc.net/pub/torrents/Elive_0.1_ni
For what it's worth, William, I'm almost exclusively a free software user, avoid Windows like the plague, and agree with nearly everything you've said. Generally, the trouble is that evangelism doesn't work, but is significantly easier than making a product that makes people want to use it.
This isn't a critique of Linux or F/OSS. I'm happy to use it instead of Microsoft products, but I don't expect my friends, family, or colleagues to unless I can actually show them something compelling. Saying "I don't have to reboot for months" or "I can use really powerful command-line scripts" only makes them think (more) that I'm a geek; showing them Firefox's tabs and a few extensions fitting in (relatively) nicely into their already-available Windows or OS X installation switches them as quickly as giving them a URL.
As I said, I agree with you, and I'm certainly not criticizing the software--but it would help if a few more people (there are one or two out there) would concentrate on the product instead of the selling. Done right, it will sell itself.
Christian Jones
Medicine. Mathematics. Mediocrity.
Umm except you can require people do upgrade from KDE 1 to KDE 3.4 since they are free.
But if you want try and put write the code that finds the sendto in ME and XP? they where out at the same time and the methods are very different and poorly documented!
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
And you think the KDE code is better documented? I doubt it. People who get paid for the code that they write tend to actually document their code.
Yes KDE is better documented. And yes I have written windows code and KDE code. If all else fails I can look at the source in KDE. Windows is a MESS. MFC is a nightmare. Whole sections of the multimedia subsystem in windows just does now work as documented. TAPI is a total messs. And Yes I HAVE been paid to write windows code. About 10,000 people are using my code under windows right now. It works but it was UGLY.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Wouldn't it scale terribly? I know on OS X icons are usually rendered at various midpoints between 128 px and 16 px so they can look good at any size. A 256 px wide icon can't look very good at 16 px.
there's more than one way to do me.
I remember the good old days (1996?) when I downloaded and ran 'e', and it took 60% of my CPU just to display the background pic of a big flaming reflective marble
1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
This is great work and an interesting project, but Enlightenment is quite slow on my 750mHz p3, even to the point where the mouse falls behind when eyecandy is going off. Kde nor Gnome have these problems, even with SuperKaramba or GDekslets running.
As a recently (converted?) Mac user, one of the aspects of the system I most like is the fact that the Dock displays one icon per application, rather than one icon per window, which rapidly beomes less useful than it might be, but is the norm for Gnome/KDE/Windows.
As a user, I'd much rather click to say, "I want to go back to _this_ application."
If E17 has adopted the Mac paradigm in this respect I'm most impressed.
On a more general note, I wonder how long it will take Apple Legal to become interested.
It's like they tried to copy Apple but it looks like a crappy knockoff.
It may seem like that. But Enlightenment was first. I was using Enlightenment well before OS X first came out (and I then bought a Mac with OS X and retired my Enlightenment machine, mind you).
But Enlightenment was excellent way back when. There are some things I still miss, like the pagers (although Expose is cool as well).
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt to assume you're talking about OS X, and not talking about OS 9 or previous systems. Because they bear absolutely no resemblance at all to Enlightenment. So if that's what you're suggesting than you're not just wrong, you're insane.
Random and weird software I've written.
please stop linking to osdir's screenshots... they are useless...
As the enlightenment website says in 'news' somewhere, http://get-e.org/ is quite useful. It's probably less effort to follow this site then bothering to change your setup entirely. Go with whatever distribution you prefer.
"You know you don't act like a scientist, you're more like a game show host." Dana Barret
Here Here.
As a longtime computer user who has recently switched to Linux, I think some of your points miss the point.
vi, emacs, pico, gedit, OpenOffice.org, etc. [...] The problem is that I could use any of those programs[...] But they all use very different interfaces.
I could use Notepad [...] Wordpad if I need [...] The icons in Wordpad are the same as almost every other Windows program. I know which button is the "Save" button [...]. [...] No messy text-based installers, no headaches.
okay, sorry for the messy snipping. Your comparison is not valid. vi, pico, emacs et al are CLI, terminal based editors with a history that predates widespread acceptance of GUI. Notepad, wordpad et al are GUI apps for a GUI OS. Oo.org and Abiword are GUI apps for a GUI OS. They use essentially the same icons and menu structure as the windows apps you mention. True there are differences, but nothing beyond the difference say between Word and WordPerfect. You are comparing pre-GUI terminal apps to GUI apps. Better to compare vi, pico, etc to WordPerfect 5 (I think, was that the last terminal one? can't recall) or to whatever gawdawful editor we used on the old Apple IIe's for Pascal (dating myself) code. Of course the interfaces are different -- its apples and oranges, or penguins and paper-clips.
Choice is not the problem, choice is the solution. We can have whatever we want, and if noone has made it, then we can make it ourselves (assuming a lot here). So if you want to use a Windows type app, you can, but if you don't want to, you don't have to. In current Windows, you don't have the choice. Just try and run an old DOS editor in one of those XP fake MS-DOS shells (going out on a limb here as I've not tried it... making an ass out of uma thurman). Linux has merely allowed you that option, which you can choose to ignore (more and more). Further, apps that compare directly to notepad and wordpad and Word all use nice graphical installers, or can be installed with nice graphical front-ends to CLI package managers.
They want one program that does what they need to do and nothing more.
not true. if it was true, we'd all still be using pentiums with 32 megs and a whopping huge 3 gig HD... people want as much bang as they can get for their buck whether they'll ever use it or not. That's not the point. and frankly, Linux is becoming more and more bang for the buck ($0) as time goes on.
They won't go out of their way to learn something new, [sad but oh so true.]
or use something that's ugly [eye of the beholder]
or inconsistent. [have you looked at anything other than MS proprietary stuff? try all over the map]
The makers of Linux distributions want people to embrace Linux, but they refuse to embrace the average person. The won't budge an inch. They won't emulate Windows concepts, just because it's Windows and it's "evil".
You're right. And it seems they do this for the wrong reasons. If they don't want to embrace Windows concepts in the quest for something different or better or more purple, fine, but this shunning of Windows because of its "Evil", real or perceived, is misguided.
man, I feel like mold.
"Linux: vi, emacs, pico, gedit, OpenOffice.org, etc. Which one should I use to type up a grocery list?"
Windows: edit, wordpad, notepad, Word, acrobat, wordperfect, acrobat, openoffice.org. Type your grocery list in any or all of them.
The linux approach to "keeping the icons the same" is through the various toolkits. gtk, qt, ewl to name a few. You think that they are ugly, I think that windows is ugly.
"The problem is that I could use any of those programs to write a grocery list, and most if not all of those programs come preloaded with most Linux distros. But they all use very different interfaces."
So what? Pick 1 learn its ugly interface and move on, thats what everyone did with windows.
"Everything from big differences like GUI/non-GUI and the coice of KDE/Gnome/Enlightenment/(all the others) to little things like different toolbar icons for nearly every program makes Linux different and ugly."
Talking about the Linux Desktop gui is assumed.
If choice is ugly Chevy wouldn't have different colors on the same models, or different modles for that matter. 1 size fits all only in Redmond. Little things? Cmon, I think your confusing ugly with new and unrecognizable since you have admitted that you don't use a linux desktop this is understandable.
"And different = difficult"
A Desktop Computer is typicaly a personal computer. I don't care if my computer is difficult for you to use. If this is an enterprise desktop deployment, I say learn it or get another job. I can do that since I am the boss.
"Not to mention installing new software."
Software manufactures need to do a better job.
This is a huge hinderance to Linux Desktop adoption.
"Will I have to compile the source?"
Luckly with FOSS that is an option, and one that works %99 of the time. Try that with a failed windows install.
"Will there be a text-based script to run?"
If so the GUI should run it.
"Will a nice GUI pop up and guide me?"
Next, Next, Next, Next, Accept, Next...Finish.
I have never thought that windows has had a "nice gui" to guide software installation. But thats just me.
"Do I have the right permissions to install this software?"
In windows everyone has the right permissions to install any software.
Again the software developers need to do a better job. The most difficult issue that I see is cross distro packaging. I think that gentoo's portage is best positioned to fix this. Unfortunatly their developers don't seem to what to have much to do with binary packaging. If someone can get portage to convert between the many binary package types (example: rpm emerged.tbz)
this could give all distribution packagers(i.e.software manufactures) a single development and package building tool(i.e.portage). They may then use their distro's installer's gui to install the binary package. This is only not a problem with the different windows OS's because they are all neerly identical.
"I'm tech-literate, yet I choose to use Windows for everyday stuff like web browsing, email, chatting, research, word processing, etc. No, I don't use some obscure Windows-only program daily. Linux can do everything I need it to do, but I don't use it because it's ugly, inconsistent and a pain to use."
Saying something like that is a great way to lose any credibility your comments might have.