Samba's Jeremy Allison On Linux's Future

TRNick writes "Jeremy Allison talks Ubuntu, why he loves Gnome, and the trials and tribulations of open source development in a wide-ranging interview on TechRadar."

Comments

post much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats a pretty thin Opening Post.

Re:post much?

[jabithew]

It's a pretty thin article.

I seem to prefer GNOME

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why, but whenever I try out KDE (every few years or so) there's something about it which drives me back to GNOME again. I'm trying out KDE4, which I really like but the real problem is program integration. The majority of useful utilities on Linux are written with GTK widgets rather than Qt, and while the Gnome-Qt bridge thingy which replaces GTK objects works for the most part, the different File Open/Save dialogue boxes grate on me.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, KDE 4 look really nice, but I can't stay with it more than 2 hours, I noticed that I rarely have to maximise windows on GNOME with my 1280x800 laptop monitor, while in KDE I alway have to maximise everything. And I don't feel very comfortable in KDE 4 like in KDE 3 or GNOME.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[cwAllenPoole]

I find GNOME to be a better reflection of big-brand windows managers "feel". KDE strikes me as having a clunky interface akin to (God forbid) the early Win32 designs. But, for my money (or lack thereof), I'll go with XFCE.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to admit - I like Linux, and I will take either Gnome or KDE over Windows any day (And over OSX, since I prefer a start menu to a dock). But I have never been able to settle on Gnome of KDE being better than the other - I wish i could mash them together into one window manager...

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[Spacelem]

The usual arguments against GNOME are that it hides too much configuration, and that it is too slow compared to KDE. However, I find that GNOME usually has things configured correctly first time, and most of the options I do need are merely cosmetic (mouse focus etc), and these can be set in the preferences. Yes it hides things, but it makes the correct default options so most people probably never really need to find them. I've never found GNOME to be particularly slow, except for loading applications which probably does take too long, but once they're up they're fast enough. It's usually pretty easy to figure something out, and things usually work first time (e.g. CD burning, CUPS, HAL and D-BUS).

The only things I find that let GNOME down are its slow loading applications, Nautilus, and Totem (which I have to wrestle with to do what I want). Fortunately I have the command line and mplayer which taker care of most of these things.

KDE on the other hand, I find clunky, it's difficult to find where change the settings (which rarely default to the way I'd want them), and there are a host of little things which put me off, and I think GTK looks much better than QT. I can't put my finger on what exactly they are, but KDE always drives me back to GNOME after a few days' use. Really, the only thing I like about KDE is its wallpaper settings, which are not enough to make me switch, and Kile, which I can run quite happily under GNOME.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[MBGMorden]

I have the same reaction. Back when they were in their 1.0 versions I was actually a KDE user (for as much as I "used" Linux back then - mostly I just played around in it because Windows had become boring at the time). Back then I remember hearing about some Linux standards group (I think related to Red Hat, and I think now irrelevant) deciding to officially back Gnome instead of KDE as the "official Linux desktop", due to licensing issues at the time with QT, and I was very sad at the news since at the time Gnome seemed almost like a toy to me.

Somewhere along the way though (largely after the release of GTK2), Gnome started feeling more "professional". The interface became streamlined, and attractive, but not really flash. KDE on the other hand took the turn towards flash, cluttered interfaces IMHO. KDE4 reminds me a lot of Vista. Flashy and pretty in screenshots, but it doesn't flow well or feel good (to me; naturally this is an opinion issue) when you actually sit down to use it. It's style over substance IMHO.

Both have their problems though. I'd really, really love for Linux get enough polish to approach Mac OS X. It's functionally a perfect desktop Unix system but the proprietary nature keeps on running on a limited subset of machines, with the source closed so the things that *ARE* wrong can only be fixed by Apple.

I've been hoping for "the year of Linux on the desktop" since 1998. We're getting closer every year for sure, but it remains to be seen whether or not we'll actually make it one day :).

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[jellomizer]

(And over OSX, since I prefer a start menu to a dock)

Well just for extended information (I am not trying to make you change your choice) the reason why OS X doesn't have a start button is because of the way that files are organized are different then on Linux and Windows.
For the most part application have everything it needs inside its own folder and when you see that application icon it is actually a folder that automatically runs the application within it. So except for going to the start menu you can just enter the Application Directory and choose your application much easier then with Linux and Windows (for that method). Where in windows you have a Program Folder directory filled with exe files that may or may not lead to to you running your application, that you want. Or Linux /usr/bin directory filled with application some are X Based (which really should be in /usr/bin/X11 or /usr/X11/bin) but still you have alot of little utilities mixed in your application.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[the_womble]

I don't know why, but whenever I try out KDE (every few years or so) there's something about it which drives me back to GNOME again.

I find the same - the other way around. Put it down to personal preference or different usage.

The majority of useful utilities on Linux are written with GTK widgets rather than Qt

Most of the apps (not quite the same thing!) I prefer are KDE. What I have open right now: Firefox, Kate, Konsole, Konqueror, Akregator, Epiphany, Kmail.

the different File Open/Save dialogue boxes grate on me.

I for prefer the KDE one.

I do like some things about Gnome, and will continue to give it a try every so often.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[lineymo]

If only GNOME had drawers for the panels which included text. I have RDesktop links to 15 Windows servers, I can see the name of the server next to the text when I add the custom menu on the panel in KDE. I can't do that in GNOME.

So, in this case, KDE gives me flexibility that GNOME does not.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[ByOhTek]

> The usual arguments against GNOME are that it
> hides too much configuration, and that it is too
> slow compared to KDE. However, I find that GNOME
> usually has things configured correctly first
> time

The problem is, that's subjective to the users. i I've yet to find any WM that looks decent the first time. That, sadly, only works if the WM you are looking at has most of what you want/need.

> and most of the options I do need are
> merely cosmetic (mouse focus etc), and these can
> be set in the preferences. Yes it hides things,
> but it makes the correct default options so most
> people probably never really need to find them.

KDE doesn't need to hide them since it organizes them fairly well.

Last time I tried gnome, it took forever to get to auto-hiding panels, increasing font sizes, and getting colors set so my eyes didn't hurt.

But some of that is probably odd for most users.

> KDE on the other hand, I find clunky, it's
> difficult to find where change the settings
> (which rarely default to the way I'd want them),

They are kept in /one/ application that lets you change them (and you can right click on various UI elements to change settings specifically to those elements, at least in KDE4. The control application, kcontrol or something like that, has a tree structure rather than a static list. Maybe I just find different things intuitive, but I found it much easier to find whatever I wanted to change, in that as opposed to gnome.

Performance wise, I've found KDE to be rather responsive in terms of UI and Apps, however, I usually use machines with a decent/large amount of memory. KDE seems to use more memory than gnome, so I suspect if I cut the memory down, I would see KDE taking a significantly higher performance hit.

> and there are a host of little things which put
> me off, and I think GTK looks much better than
> QT.

Really aesthetics vary. For the most part, I find QT looks a bit more polished than GTK. As far as aesthetics go, the panels on Gnome look like Pre-OSX mac, which always seem like it didn't bother advancing out of the 80s with everyone else. (OSX Looks nice however).

That being said, if I could find the setting to change the font on the desktop icons (I've gotten every other font to a readable size), I'd probably switch to XFCE...

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[thetoadwarrior]

Gone is definitely better.

KDE just feels like Windows too much. It does look as nice and it just doesn't feel right.

It's not junk it just feels like it's being held back because it wants to be Windows.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[Chrisq]

KDE just feels like Windows too much.

But you can'r really blame KDE for being copied in Vista.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[Spacelem]

Since I started using GNU/Linux exclusively back in 2002, I'd say that was the "Year of the Linux Desktop" for me. Every passing year I feel more sure I made the correct decision. I feel that Windows continues to get more difficult to use, and more intrusive, while Linux gets more applications and more choice, centralised installation programs and package management, everything gets easier to use, things look better. Yes, I have to trawl forums to makes things work sometimes, but the same is true for Windows. It's been the YotLD over and over again for me. And no, I don't run Ubuntu.

With regards to KDE, I know you can change the look to make things appear as professional or flashy or geeky as you want, but GNOME usually looks like something I'd want to use, whereas KDE doesn't. Both have totally configurable panels and menus (something I feel Windows desperately needs), but again I feel it is easier to achieve something usable with GNOME than with KDE. GNOME feels considerably better polished than Windows, although I'd rate Windows slightly higher or about the same as KDE.

Once wine does a better job of running Half-Life 2, then I'll be able to get rid of Windows completely. Wine already runs older games like Thief better with fewer crashes (although a little forum searching was required to make it work). I suppose that would be the true YotLD for other people.

P.S. I've only used Mac OS X once or twice, but it didn't impress me much, and I don't know of anything it offers that really make me switch.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[AndGodSed]

Like most linux geeks I have run a variety of Window Managers. My favourites (with reasons) are:

1. Gnome.

The only good reason I give here is that I am very familiar with it. I like the feel, and I enjoy the lack of fuss it allows me to do my housekeeping. I run it without Compiz these days, and the built in compositing does enough for me (basically "true" transparency and some nice shadow/launch effects) I like that I can make window borders and panels (toolbars to you Windows folk) as small as possible to maximise my screen real estate.

2. XFCE

I like the clean feel and quick response. It has theme customization options second to none, and is compatible with most gnome and KDE applications. Takes a while to get used to, but you don't even really need a panel, you can work the whole computer from your right-click menu.

3. KDE3

I used it extensively in the past, but it feels cluttered. It has some nice customization options. I especially like the unique desktop background for every workspace, and the cycling of desktop backgrounds is awesome. It is good for people moving on from windows, the problem with it though is that it is too complicated.

4. Metisse.

At first glance it looks identical to gnome. The real treat is when you start fooling around with windows. Rotation and 3d really gets new meaning. It is a bit useless for office drones though, who would read documents upside down or in reverse? The positive on this is that it has many possibilities for implementation in future computer interfaces such as table-top computers and so on.

5. Enlightenment.

I really enjoyed my time spent using enlightenment, but it was a bit buggy and still needed some work. It has some novel ideas, such as the desktops stacked on top of each other like a stack of papers. With a little work this will become an awesome desktop environment to work in.

6. KDE4.

Yep, bottom of my list.

I used it, and tried to like it, but just couldn't feel at home. The lates releases are awesome, and I believe that this is a real desktop for the future. A few gripes I had included buggy plasmoid implementation, and the huge and chunky panel (taskbar.) I am fond of tiny taskbars, and why in KDE4 I cannot make it slimmer as in gnome, kde3 and xfce I do not know. The built-in compositing effects (transparency is cool...) is nice, but I generally do without. In fact, KDE4 and Vista Aero feels TOO similar to me, as if the two teams had a bet among each other who could create the best interface when measured along some very strict guidelines.

So there you have it, my list of favourite desktop environments.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[larry bagina]

In windows land, I run apps from the quick launch bar, hit win-R and type it in (which only works for some apps), or fumble around the start menu. In OS X, I run apps from dock (like the quick launch bar) or from spotlight (command-space, then type in a couple letters). Personally, it's generally faster to use spotlight as a launcher since it's entirely keyboard based.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[MrCrassic]

Seriously, now that Compiz is mature as a desktop composition engine, using that with the latest GNOME not only looks a ton more elegant than KDE, but is also less cluttered and a lot more professional.

I think that Linux will become a more serious desktop alternative when it makes serious headways in the corporate sector. Given that many (if not most) people get most of their computer exposure in that environment, this is the area that they should be attacking (and I seriously hope that they are).

I believe that once Evolution adapts a more stable foundation for Exchange and when OpenOffice.org expands a little more, growth will ensue.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[LWATCDR]

Okay Maybe I am just a bit strange but I don't see that much difference between the two. I tend to use Gnome on my desktop because I have settled on Ubuntu and I find Ubuntu has a more finished feel than Kubuntu.
I have not tried out KDE4 yet. The simple fact is that I can get my work done on XP, Vista, Gnome, or KDE. I can move between them all without much effort.
Now Compwiz does make a real difference for me as far as ease of use. I love it and it really works well for me.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[MrCrassic]

I really want Linux to be my main desktop operating system. It's just the stupid small things that take huge blocks of time to "solve" that prevent me from making the switch. Why would I want to spend tons of hours editing my xorg.conf to get an extended desktop that (a) doesn't work with Compiz because it's really a hack and not a solution, and (b) has to be reconfigured, by me, everytime I dock/undock my laptop? Getting dual-screens of any kind to work with Windows takes five minutes at the most.

It's these kinds of pitfalls that make it difficult for me to push my clients to give it a try. I'm more supportive of those that are curious and wish to try it, but I would be hard pressed to do that setup for someone with a small business.

It is a lot closer than before, though.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[Octorian]

And on MacOS, all apps seem to prefer to be lumped in a completely disorganized pile in /Applications. Sure, you can rearrange them, but that rearrangement may break some apps, or at least cause issues with their updaters.

For this reason, I find it cumbersome to use a Mac without at least some sort of programs menu. Currently, I use a little app called MoofMenu, which does the trick.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[Tatsh]

I prefer KDE over GNOME but my only problem lately has been worry of easily moving to another desktop. It does not look like it will be easy. I am not sure if this problem exists with other environments like GNOME or Xfce or even Rox.

Basically, all of KDE's (and ALL app's) settings are in ~/.kde as one would expect. However, although (obviously) all settings file are open standards (for example, iCal, vCard, etc), it seems as though you have to hunt down these files, know what they are, in order to migrate to GNOME because running full-time apps like Kontact on GNOME (or any other environment) is not appealing and SLOW. Yes, GTK+ certainly takes a lot less RAM than Qt3 and then you add another layer, KDE for theming, special widgets, desktop integration, etc. It makes sense but in the end it has been slower than alternatives for most people. There IS a difference however between distros. You might notice that Kubuntu is REALLY SLOW and awful for running KDE, while Gentoo (with some nice - USE flags) and even Fedora have a much faster KDE. If you're running Kubuntu (like I was) and find it slow, I would suggest trying another distro. Moving ~/.kde from one distro to another does not work 100% but works a lot.

But what if you want to move from KDE to GNOME? Again, you hunt down those .ics files and vCards and the MBOX email box (I use Thunderbird because it's far better than KMail on 3.5). Then you import those. This is manual labour (meaning an average user could never figure it out) in my opinion that should be handled by the apps that create the data. Right now, there are a few apps that export settings but will average users (and even us lazy users) want to bother finding these options?

I think there needs to be less artificial lock-in between desktops. At the moment, I feel a tiny bit locked in to KDE because I use its apps (which I like a lot). When KDE4 is stable enough FOR ME, I will move to it. Overall, KDE has been the best because you get all the options thrown at you instead of (in the case of GTK/GNOME) limited options in dialog boxes and the rest in ~/.gtkrc and other places.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[Spacelem]

> The problem is, that's subjective to the users. I've yet to find any WM that looks decent the first time. That, sadly, only works if the WM you are looking at has most of what you want/need.

Agreed. I've tried to make it clear that this is just my opinion ("it seems to me", "I think"...). I see screenshots of Fluxbox, Xfce4 or FVWM, and I've thought they look fantastic. Actually trying to make things look like that myself on the other hand is quite tricky, and I usually fall back to things that look simpler and plainer (less eye-candy means less eye-strain).

> Last time I tried gnome, it took forever to get to auto-hiding panels, increasing font sizes, and getting colors set so my eyes didn't hurt.

These things should be reasonably easy now. Right click on any panel and the option is there in the preferences. Font sizes are in System > Preferences > Appearance (which you can reach in several ways, including via setting the desktop wallpaper, since they've all merged). Getting the right colours is difficult, as it's very subjective. The clearlooks theme which is default on many distributions is quite good, but it's not everyone's taste.

> The control application, kcontrol or something like that, has a tree structure rather than a static list. Maybe I just find different things intuitive, but I found it much easier to find whatever I wanted to change, in that as opposed to gnome.

Another subjective option. I think I remember the way the control panels worked on Mac OS pre X, and it works like that. I find the tree distracting, and it's very easy to get to the different preferences, providing they're well organised (not always the case, but things usually improve between releases). Occasionally I can't find what I'm looking for (and people always remember failures better), and I don't like using GConf (I want to get as far away from a Windows registry as possible).

As for GNOME's pre-Mac OS x panel: they don't work like old Mac OS, as they don't give you the applications own menus at the top, but that was always a debated subject anyway. Mac OS did some wonderful things, and some really stupid things, but it worked for the time. You can give GNOME a dock like OS X, but every time I've tried I gave up after a few hours, as it just seemed a distraction that wasted lots of desktop space. Just put the usual icons you want to use on the panel, and use a window list, not as pretty, but just as functional.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[icebraining]

A true Linux geek uses a tilling WM. Right now I use Awesome, and the name doesn't mislead anyone!

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[Spacelem]

Oh god yes. I've used Linux for years, and I still find X to be a real pain. Sometimes it just doesn't work, and it can take hours of trawling forums and fiddling before it finally pops up (and note you either been continually rebooting, using another computer, or using a command line browser). Someone, somewhere, knows how to fix your problem. Things are improving slowly.

Where I work (a biomathematics and statistics research and consultancy group in Scotland) almost everyone uses Linux, or dual boots between Linux and Windows. Fortunately we have competent sysadmins who can fix problems when they arise, and we don't need everyone to debug their own xorg.conf errors. I think this sort of environment is a great place to start for people who would want to use Linux at home.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[pintpusher]

xmonad FTW!!

oh, and I prefer that my WM "tiles" rather than "tills". I can make enough of a mess of my code without my WM roto-tilling it for me... ;-P

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[pherthyl]

I think it's a matter of exposure. You say that most useful Linux progs are written with GTK, but really the only one that I use day to day that is Firefox, and that's not even a GTK app, it just happens to use some GTK widgets.

Once in a blue moon I fire up Inkscape, and that's about it. VLC is now Qt, Skype is Qt, Google Earth is Qt, Konversation for IRC, Okular for document viewing, OO has a version drawn with Qt widgets, k3b for burning discs, plenty of good qt music players, Krita and kolourpaint for image editing (really kolourpaint is enough for 90% of what I do), gwenview for image viewing, etc etc

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[Hatta]

The majority of useful utilities on Linux are written with GTK widgets rather than Qt, and while the Gnome-Qt bridge thingy which replaces GTK objects works for the most part, the different File Open/Save dialogue boxes grate on me.

If that's the biggest complaint you have, that really underscores how excellent the desktop options on Linux are. Personally, I don't care which I use, but every once in a while I'll come across a save dialog that doesn't have a text box to enter a path. That is pure evil, whichever toolkit is used.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[tjwhaynes]

Last time I tried gnome, it took forever to get to auto-hiding panels, increasing font sizes, and getting colors set so my eyes didn't hurt.

Lets take it from the top.

Autohide in four clicks.

1. Right-click panel,
2. left-click Properties,
3. left-click autohide,
4. left-click close.

Application Font size in five clicks.

1. Left click Preferences->Look and Feel->Appearance.
2. Left-click Fonts tab.
3. Left-click "Application font" (for example)
4. Left-click font size
5. Left-click close.

Changing theme colours in 4+3*N clicks.

1. Left click Preferences->Look and Feel->Appearance.
2. Left-click Theme tab.
3. Left-click Customize.
4. Left-click Colours.
5. Repeat N: Click appropriate colour tab and click new colour. Click OK.

That last one is a little messier but you could always have chosen a different theme which matched your aesthetics better.

All with GNOME 2.24.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[bytor4232]

I prefer GNOME as well, I've found GNOME with Compiz, Emerald, and AWN to be the most productive and most beautiful environment I've ever worked with. Right now I'm using the Aurora Leopard theme off off gnome-look.org.

However, it is very resource intensive, and can't run it on everything I have in service in my home. I used to run XFCE on my old Athlon/256 meg Compaq Presario 700 Laptop, but the most recent releases of Xubuntu have been using almost as much resources as GNOME/Metacity.

I've recently turned to Fluxbox. Its takes a little kung fu to get it configured just right, but it uses next to no resources, has a system tray, and has a very nice set of themes, at least the Debian/Ubuntu packages do. I don't run it on my Acer Gemstone with 2 gigs of ram, or my desktops which all have 1 gig or more, but its a good alternative for those resource limited machines.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[tjwhaynes]

I really want Linux to be my main desktop operating system. It's just the stupid small things that take huge blocks of time to "solve" that prevent me from making the switch. Why would I want to spend tons of hours editing my xorg.conf to get an extended desktop that (a) doesn't work with Compiz because it's really a hack and not a solution, and (b) has to be reconfigured, by me, everytime I dock/undock my laptop? Getting dual-screens of any kind to work with Windows takes five minutes at the most.

More times than not, you can delete xorg.conf and just let Xorg set it up on the fly. I've had three or four systems work perfectly without a xorg.conf file (various laptops and desktops). The only /etc/X11/xorg.conf files I feel the need to edit now are the synaptics mouse pads which have some nice extras that aren't available in the vanilla configuration. You can find out what Xorg has actually done by looking in /var/log/Xorg.0.log - the internal configuration file is near the top and can be copied to /etc/X11/xorg.conf for tweakage.

If you are running an ATi card (and I'm guessing that you are) you might find that a lot more works than you anticipate. Including automatic detection of extra screens (thanks to XRandR). My ATi FireGL v5200 can run compiz and multiple monitors without additional configuration these days.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[TheCycoONE]

6. KDE4.

Yep, bottom of my list.

I used it, and tried to like it, but just couldn't feel at home. The lates releases are awesome, and I believe that this is a real desktop for the future. A few gripes I had included buggy plasmoid implementation, and the huge and chunky panel (taskbar.) I am fond of tiny taskbars, and why in KDE4 I cannot make it slimmer as in gnome, kde3 and xfce I do not know. The built-in compositing effects (transparency is cool...) is nice, but I generally do without. In fact, KDE4 and Vista Aero feels TOO similar to me, as if the two teams had a bet among each other who could create the best interface when measured along some very strict guidelines.

So there you have it, my list of favourite desktop environments.

I've been using KDE 4 as my desktop environment of choice for a couple months now. In KDE 4.1 the 'huge chuncky panel' can be set to any desirable size - though admittedly the process for resizing and placing it still needs some work. The 4.2 beta just released adds auto-hide as well.

A lot of people used early versions of KDE 4.0 and gave up on it, but it is rapidly evolving into something much more usable, and very pretty.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[AndGodSed]

I used 4.1 for a while, and I must admit I seem to have missed where the panel resizing happens. Since I have no active KDE4 install at the moment I cannot check it out.

There is no denying the prettiness of KDE4.

I agree KDE4 is evolving rapidly, and I hope it will at least reach the heights of KDE3.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[jellomizer]

I think it was an issue of back in the late 90's where Red Hat decided to push Gnome vs. KDE. Where at the time Red Hat was the main distribution out there... So GNOME got more funding and support. While most other distributions used KDE as default. I tend to like KDE of GNOME myself but not so much to make my life miserable switching so whatever WM my Distribution give I use.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[ion.simon.c]

OH SQUEE!

This is something that I ran into just last Thursday!
I assume that you're manually entering your display config into your xorg.conf? Stop that. You *NEED* to be using xrandr 1.2. If you're using a modern distro, you ought to have xrandr 1.2 support.

Check out the block after the first EDIT in this document for more info:
http://simoncion.livejournal.com/307011.html

Seriously, this stuff is slick as black ice. We're finally within pissing distance of Windows' multi-monitor configuration tools!

Also, if you have *any* questions about this, feel free to contact me. My email address should be easy to figure out... I have a gmail account. :)

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[ion.simon.c]

Yo.
There's a much more convenient way to do xorg display configuration.

Check out this comment for more info.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1062647&cid=26121807

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[Burz]

Except for a few major apps, I put all of my new programs into a subfolder called 'Mystuff' and use the dock or Quicksilver to launch them. Never had a problem.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the path

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[bledri]

For this reason, I find it cumbersome to use a Mac without at least some sort of programs menu.

I vacillate regarding this. For the most part, I put everything I use often (Aquamac Emacs, Terminal, Browsers, WMWare, Mail, and iTunes) on my dock. I don't really use that many applications on a daily bases. I added my apps folder to the dock, but I don't use it often. I seem to spend more time running UN*X stuff (macports) from the command line.

Conceptually I don't really like the big /Application bucket, but it seems to work OK for me to keep the Finder in list mode and then just about everything is in Command-Shift-A or Command-Shift-U. I do wish that hitting return on a selected app would launch it though.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[MrHanky]

I don't think you have used KDE. I'm in XP at the moment, and it doesn't feel like KDE at all. Windows don't snap to borders, window placement seems random, the menu is radically different (it is in Vista as well). The only thing that's pretty much the same is the lay-out of the taskbar, with the launcher to the left, then a quicklaunch, then the application tray, the system tray and then the clock, although none of the elements feel the same.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[doom]

A true Linux geek uses a tilling WM. Right now I use Awesome, and the name doesn't mislead anyone!

My favorite tiling window manager is "emacs" -- I do tend to use it inside of icewm, however, which at least has decent keyboard alternates for the window controls.

From cursory inspection only, I've tended to favor KDE over Gnome, but I'm getting the sense that KDE is losing it. KDE4 looks all whizzy, but there doesn't seem much real point, and the last time I tried to do something basic with it (do a wireless connection) I couldn't figure out what to do.

Oh, and I just went through a couple of days of upgrade hell, going from the kubuntu hardy-kde4 remix to intrepid. Couldn't get kdm to work -- zapped it all and switched to gdm, and it Just Worked.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[Bent Mind]

In KDE 4.1 the 'huge chuncky panel' can be set to any desirable size

Something else to point out. In KDE4, you can completely do away with panels. The menu, system tray, clock, task bar, etc., can all be run right off the desktop. There is no need for a panel to confine them to the edge of the screen. It's how I've been running my desktop for a while now.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[Anonymous Coward]

KDE is technically way ahead of Gnome, which is a bloated pile of rubbish. If you're on Gentoo just compare the number of packages and total amount of sources needed of both, KDE is smaller by an order of magnitude.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[Anonymous Coward]

Application Font size

Don't forget that you can also set the DPI of the monitor, so you may not need to change the font sizes.

In Ubuntu 8.10 it's: System/Preferences/Appearance, choose "Fonts" tab, click "Details..." button, and there it is at the top: Resolution.

One of my monitors has 110 DPI, and fonts are really tiny if the font renderer is using 75 DPI.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[vigour]

KDE is technically way ahead of Gnome, which is a bloated pile of rubbish. If you're on Gentoo just compare the number of packages and total amount of sources needed of both, KDE is smaller by an order of magnitude.

Rubbish, you're just trolling, KDE takes far longer to compile. It took me a whole weekend to compile KDE, Gnome took half that time.

Even the maintainers of the gentoo quick install guide time a Gnome compile as:

real 520m44.532s
user 339m21.144s
sys 146m22.337s

and a KDE compile as:

real 1171m25.318s
user 851m26.393s
sys 281m45.629s

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[vigour]

Fluxbox is really nice, have you tried LXDE? It has the speed of Fluxbox (it uses Openbox as its wm), and is still pretty since it uses GTK 2. I have it running on Arch on my netbook (NC10).

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[jellomizer]

I tend to keep them in alphabetic order. And not cause any problems... Also 4 or 5 most used apps I keep them on the Dock. Windows start menu button while it does get you most used apps however does get cumbersome when you get a lot of little apps who feel that they are so important that they need to be in your start bar. Or there is an app that you use often but not in your top 5. Say firefox for me as I tend to use safari but when I do need firefox I need it now. That is why the Doc concept is handy.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[MrNiceguy_KS]

I can't comment on Spotlight, as I haven't used OSX for more than a couple of minutes, but from your description, it sounds a lot like Launchy Great app - it indexes your start menu so you can hit Alt-Space (by default, can be reassigned) and start typing the name of the app you want. Does auto-complete and you can also set up your own macros and pass variables.

For example, I have my work PC set up so I can type rdp (insert server name or IP) and open up Remote Desktop session to any of our servers.

I find it really handy on my laptop. (I hate touchpads) The only problem is that I have let my desktop become way too cluttered with program shortcuts I don't bother to clean up. I just never launch anything from the desktop anymore.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[thetoadwarrior]

I've not used it nearly as much as Gnome because i don't like it. I'm not saying it's exactly like Windows but it's more like it than I would like.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[SanityInAnarchy]

In KDE 4.1 the 'huge chuncky panel' can be set to any desirable size

I'd very much like to know how.

And I'm sorry to bite the hand that feeds me, but the UI for doing so sucks. In KDE3, I could right-click on the panel, go to "Panel settings", and tweak everything about it, from translucency (I liked mine completely transparent) to fonts (draw a border around them, so they're visible against any background) to size (about seven increments).

In KDE4.1, on Kubuntu Intrepid, right-clicking on the panel and choosing "panel settings" gives me a completely unintuitive interface that appears to be inspired by a word processor. I cannot figure out how to change the thickness of it. Maybe the length, but even that isn't clear.

I see the potential of KDE4. I want to like it, I really do. I use it every day.

But at this rate, it looks as though it will take until KDE 4.5 to match the features available in KDE 3.5, which makes it as much a joke as Vista.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between window managers and desktop managers, and you're blurring it by mixing both. A window manager is just about window decoration really (plus initial placement, and focus strategy), while a desktop manager generally provides some methods to share objects between applications (Corba, Dbus, com+, name your poison).

Myself, I really tried to love gnome or kde over the years, but in the end I always come back to window maker, which is a simple window manager, but based on NeXT look and feel (somewhat ported later to OS X) ; reasons : kde has always been a kind of beta stuffed to the brim with technology previews, and too much bugs. Gnome is simply the worst memory hogging, cpu cycles thief in town at the moment. On a 1 GHz CPU, gnome has a base load of 0.3 on average ; that is, if you cut every crappy {perl|python} daemons distro makers throw in your face, like updaters and such. Window maker base load is too small to register.

Just say "no" to bloatware, nobody needs a desktop manager. While I admit some window managers are a bit spartan, there's still enough choice to pick a nice one.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[jbolden]

Apple has spent a fortune on things like core video, core image integrating quick time. They aren't going to be able to close that gap anytime soon.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[Anonymous Coward]

Wish I had a /. account with mod points, so I could mod this one down.

In NO WAY are OS X applications required to live "in a completely disorganized pile in /Applications". Certain cantankerous software vendors (Adobe being the most infamous) have poorly-written software that imposes this requirement, but in my experience they are few and far between. Even the Slashdot-despised Microsoft programmers get this right--my copies of Office for the Mac have never been installed in /Applications, and both run and update correctly (disclaimer: haven't tried Office 2008 yet).

I am a strong believer in strict separation of church and state--the "church" being all of my stuff (apps, data, scratch files, home directory, etc.), the "state" being Apple's (or Microsoft's, or Sun's, or $LINUX_DISRTO's) operating system and bundled app files. In any well-configured system (IMNSHO) the two categories shouldn't even be on the same file system, never mind the same directory. And, of course, I can sort my apps into as many or as few sub-folder as I wish to keep them all neat and tidy.

There are exceptions of course--a whopping 5 of them for me at this point: Adobe Acrobat Pro (see gripe above), and a few utilities/apps that need to work their tendrils deep into the bowels of the OS to run at all (Cisco VPN, VMware Fusion, GPG, Keyspan USB/Serial driver).

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME

[jp10558]

On Windows you might want to try Find and Run robot. It searches your start menu (and other locations you specify) with find as you type... very fast and free(with some hassle in getting the code).

And I seem to prefer KDE

[quintesse]

the different File Open/Save dialogue boxes grate on me

Which is exactly one of the reasons why I prefer KDE. I don't know how you can stand the Gnome requesters! They seem horrible to me.

But at the same time it grates that some applications only exist in their Gnome version, Firefox for example.

Although most of the time I just look for a KDE version of the application (like using Kopete instead of Pidgin, although it is not as feature rich it at least integrates perfectly with KDE)

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE

[MikeBabcock]

I use kopete instead of pidgin for the features, and I'm a Gnome user.

I also use Amarok, for its features.

I use Gnome as a desktop environment but I'm quite open to using Qt/KDE apps where they are superior -- I feel no need to be a desktop bigot :)

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE

[quintesse]

Well I'm no desktop bigot either, heck I use Fedora, there's almost no way around using Gnome apps with that distro :)

But I do look out for KDE alternatives, because the integration is quite important for me. The different look doesn't bother me at all (the "feel" on the other hand does).

In the end I'm happy that, typical for the Free/Open software world, there are options to choose from.

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE

[Anonymous Cowpat]

I have yet to find anything, anywhere, available on any OS, which is even half as good as amarok.

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE

[tjwhaynes]

the different File Open/Save dialogue boxes grate on me

Which is exactly one of the reasons why I prefer KDE. I don't know how you can stand the Gnome requesters! They seem horrible to me.

What's wrong with Ctrl-l (letter L)? Then just type with completion. Or just type - the GNOME dialogues generally are driven comfortably from the keyboard. I rarely use the mouse in GNOME.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE

[Xabraxas]

I have yet to find anything, anywhere, available on any OS, which is even half as good as amarok.

Banshee 1.4

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE

[quintesse]

Well for one, the completions sucks! (Or it used to suck at least, haven't tried Gnome for a while)

Completion has to work when you are looking at it or not. So if I type /usr/bin it should show /usr/bin, but in Gnome it would decide that because there is only one entry beginning with U you must mean /usr so in the end it would show /usrsr/bin. Auto-complete is nice, but it has to complete WHEN I SAY SO (by hitting TAB or ENTER or whatever key is defined).

And of course Gnome is supposedly easy to use, so why did I have to look for ages to find the Search function in the file dialog? There was no Search bar, no button, nothing in the right click menu... no you just have to type and the search box pops up... assuming the file list has focus. Pfff, that is SO easy it becomes difficult again!

You like it, that's great, really, but it drove me nuts. I prefer KDE _exactly_ because it shows the options that it supports, it doesn't try to hide it in clever ways. Do I think that sometimes the interfaces are cluttered? Yes, but I don't want less features. It's a price I'm willing to pay. And if some day somebody comes up with a way to have lots of features and still have an uncluttered , easy to use interface, well all the power to them. Until then I will happily use KDE :)

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE

[tjwhaynes]

Well for one, the completions sucks! (Or it used to suck at least, haven't tried Gnome for a while)

I can tell...

Completion has to work when you are looking at it or not. So if I type /usr/bin it should show /usr/bin...

That's what it does.

And of course Gnome is supposedly easy to use, so why did I have to look for ages to find the Search function in the file dialog? There was no Search bar...

It's in the Places sidebar on the left of the dialog. Indeed, it's the first option.

Software does occasionally improve. You might be surprised at recent releases of GNOME.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE

[quintesse]

Software does occasionally improve. You might be surprised at recent releases of GNOME

"Undoubtedly" and "I doubt it" ;)

Do you regularly try KDE to see if it finally is better than Gnome so you can switch? Neither do I.

But I'm really not here to turn this into a flamewar, my example was just one of many that I encountered during the years. Exactly the same when others say that after trying KDE for a while they switch back to Gnome it's the other way around for me.

And in the end I just try Gnome once every year or 2 years out of curiosity because unless they come up with some mayor improvements over KDE I just see no reason to change.

I do wish the freedesktop people would come up with a way so each application can use the standard services of each desktop (like file dialogs) ;)

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE

[Evangelion]

Thank you for pointing that out. I just reinstalled my box on the weekend, and I was trying to handle my music collection. Amarok2 is ugly as hell, and seems to have less features (not to mention the ongoing problems I've always had with it stopping and starting all the KDE services every time it loads). I installed Banshee with apt, but only 1.2 is in right now, and it did not impress. 1.4 looks to have all the things I was missing.

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick question.

The last time I tried Banshee, I couldn't define the way it kept my library organized exactly how I already do (~/Music/Artist/Album/01 Song Title.mp3).

It had a list of choices, but that was not one of them, and it didn't have a way to make a custom option. Has this been changed? Is there a workaround I just don't know about?

I know it is not a big deal, but I really shouldn't have to change something like that just to use a music player.

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE

[bill_mcgonigle]

Banshee 1.4

Which is lovely and may or may not contain Microsoft patents which Microsoft may or may not sue users for using (mono).

I used to use GNOME, until they embraced the Microsoft platform.

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE

[Xabraxas]

Which is lovely and may or may not contain Microsoft patents which Microsoft may or may not sue users for using (mono).

Take your tinfoil at off and educate yourself on the matter. First of all Microsoft cannot sue users of the software just like any other patent case. Secondly the only thing used by Banshee that was invented by Microsoft is the C# language and it is a standardized language. Banshee doens't require any .NET libraries, only Mono libraries which are completely different from .NET libraries. For all the bellyaching about Mono over the years Microsoft hasn't even made a peep about it and in fact has helped Moonlight along. I suppose you're waiting for the rapture too.

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE

[bill_mcgonigle]

Take your tinfoil at off and educate yourself on the matter. First of all Microsoft cannot sue users of the software just like any other patent case.

You mean like when SCO sued AutoZone and Chrysler for using their "linux patents"?

Secondly the only thing used by Banshee that was invented by Microsoft is the C# language and it is a standardized language. Banshee doens't require any .NET libraries, only Mono libraries which are completely different from .NET libraries.

"Completely different" - by this you mean a faithful reimplementation of the .NET platform? Heck, I'll just copy from the mono website:

The Mono Project is an open development initiative sponsored by Novell to develop an open source, UNIX version of the Microsoft .NET development platform.

For all the bellyaching about Mono over the years Microsoft hasn't even made a peep about it and in fact has helped Moonlight along.

No peeps? Heck, I'll just quote Ballmer:

"The only other thing I would say that is probably germane is we spend a lot of money ... on R & D," [Ballmer] said. "We've spent a lot of money licensing patents, when people come to us and say, 'Hey, this commercial piece of software violates our patent, our intellectual property, we'll either get a court judgment or we'll pay a big check.' And we are going to [settle the matter]. I think it is important that the open-source products also have an obligation to participate in the same way in the intellectual property regime. That's why we've done the deal we have with Novell, where not only are we working on technical interoperability between Linux and Windows but we've also made sure that we could provide the appropriate, for the appropriate fee, [protection for] Novell customers [so that they] also get essentially the right to use our patented intellectual property. And I think its great the way Novell stepped up to kind of say intellectual property matters. People who use Red Hat, at least with respect to our intellectual property, in a sense have an obligation to eventually compensate us."

I suppose you're waiting for the rapture too.

Oooh, pulling out the random guilt by association fallacy to go with your misstatements. Well played.

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just type - the GNOME dialogues generally are driven comfortably from the keyboard.

I have only big gripe with Gnome (GNOME?): accelerator keys in modal dialogs do not work without the Alt-modifier.

Here's an example for gdm. Here's my keystroke list for changing session type before login:
[user]
TAB
[pass]
Alt-T: options
s (Alt-S doesn't work): change session
Alt-[num] ([num] doesn't work, even though it's a modal dialog): choose session
Alt-S: accept entry
ENTER
Alt-T: just for this session

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE

[Xabraxas]

You mean like when SCO sued AutoZone and Chrysler for using their "linux patents"?

That worked out real well for them huh?

"Completely different" - by this you mean a faithful reimplementation of the .NET platform? Heck, I'll just copy from the mono website:

The Mono Project is an open development initiative sponsored by Novell to develop an open source, UNIX version of the Microsoft .NET development platform.

You are so completely clueless. Also from the Mono website:

The .NET Framework is divided in two parts: the ECMA/ISO covered technologies and the other technologies developed on top of it like ADO.NET, ASP.NET and Windows.Forms.

Mono implements the ECMA/ISO covered parts, as well as being a project that aims to implement the higher level blocks like ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms.

The Mono project has gone beyond both of those components and has developed and integrated third party class libraries, the most important being: Debugging APIs, integration with the Gnome platform (Accessibility, Pango rendering, Gdk/Gtk, Glade, GnomeUI), Mozilla, OpenGL, extensive database support (Microsoft only supports a couple of providers out of the box, while Mono has support for 11 different providers), our POSIX integration libraries and finally the embedded API (used to add scripting to applications and host the CLI, or for example as an embedded runtime in Apache).

Not providing a patented capability would weaken the interoperability, but it would still provide the free software / open source software community with good development tools, which is the primary reason for developing Mono.

GNOME GTK applications don't use Windows.Forms or other microsoft technologies. The .NET libraries are there for compatiblity if needed but none of the GNOME applications use them. They all use libraries created specifically for GNOME, which are NOT provided by Microsoft.

No peeps? Heck, I'll just quote Ballmer:

Ballmer was referring to his "Linux violates 235 patents" bullshit which includes the Linux kernel and OpenOffice specifically (no mention of Mono). By your logic we should all just stop using Linux and OpenOffice. What is so stupid about your argument is that C# is specifically licensed royalty free, while most of the claimed patent infringements in the Linux kernel and OpenOffice are not.

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE

[bill_mcgonigle]

That worked out real well for them huh?

The point is you said users couldn't be sued and I showed a recent and relevant counter-example. No doubt SCO and Chrysler spent considerable money dealing with these nuisance suits. So we can settle the point that users can't be sued for using patented software, right?

You are so completely clueless

First the rapture thing and then this? Do you know how to engage in civil debate?

Not providing a patented capability would weaken the interoperability, but it would still provide the free software / open source software community with good development tools, which is the primary reason for developing Mono.

OK, right... are you stating with certainty that Mono implements nothing that Microsoft claims patent rights on? Because Microsoft hasn't disclosed their patent concerns and has signed a deal with Novell to specifically indemnify Novell's customers against their lawsuits. Why would they do that if it were valueless?

GNOME GTK applications don't use Windows.Forms or other microsoft technologies. The .NET libraries are there for compatiblity if needed but none of the GNOME applications use them. They all use libraries created specifically for GNOME, which are NOT provided by Microsoft.

GNOME has a stated policy of not using any non-ECMA libraries in their development? That would be welcome news but I haven't seen it announced.

Ballmer was referring to his "Linux violates 235 patents" bullshit which includes the Linux kernel and OpenOffice specifically (no mention of Mono)

Um, no, there are at least 83 alleged undisclosed violations in OSS that's not Linux or OpenOffice.

By your logic we should all just stop using Linux and OpenOffice.

Nope, those are independently developed works. The patent case is considerably harder to prosecute than a re-implementation. Samba is in roughly the same boat, except they're probably grandfathered under the DOJ terms.

What is so stupid about your argument is that C# is specifically licensed royalty free, while most of the claimed patent infringements in the Linux kernel and OpenOffice are not.

Yes, C#, but not the .NET libraries. If you have information that .NET is licensed under a royalty-free Open Source-style license (ala CDDL or GPL3) then please post a cite.

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE

[Xabraxas]

The point is you said users couldn't be sued and I showed a recent and relevant counter-example. No doubt SCO and Chrysler spent considerable money dealing with these nuisance suits. So we can settle the point that users can't be sued for using patented software, right?

The judge dismissed the charges with a summary judgement.

OK, right... are you stating with certainty that Mono implements nothing that Microsoft claims patent rights on? Because Microsoft hasn't disclosed their patent concerns and has signed a deal with Novell to specifically indemnify Novell's customers against their lawsuits. Why would they do that if it were valueless?

I am stating that GNOME application like Banshee do not use Microsoft libraries at all. The only thing they use is the C# language itself. This isn't a secret. Mono libraries are not dependent on Microsoft. The language is the only thing they share in common. Novell's agreement wasn't specifically for Mono, it was for a range of techonologies but it would also indemnify people who wanted to USE Mono's reimplementation of .NET, not that I have seen anyone use it for a Linux project.

GNOME has a stated policy of not using any non-ECMA libraries in their development? That would be welcome news but I haven't seen it announced.

Using the Microsoft libraries would just be stupid. It doesn't make any sense. Why would they use something like Windows.Forms when they have GTK#? Banshee and other Mono application use GNOME specific libraries. Do you not understand that?

Um, no, there are at least 83 alleged undisclosed violations in OSS that's not Linux or OpenOffice.

That doesn't negate anything I said. Mono was never specifically mentioned but the Linux kernel and OpenOffice were yet you aren't boycotting them.

Nope, those are independently developed works. The patent case is considerably harder to prosecute than a re-implementation. Samba is in roughly the same boat, except they're probably grandfathered under the DOJ terms.

You see this is why I called you clueless. Mono was independently developed also. Mono is not just a reimplementation. It just proves you don't know anything about it. Banshee and other Mono applications don't use any any reimplemented parts of .NET. The ONLY thing that is shared is C# which is licensed royalty free. The parts that were reimplemented are there only for compatibility. No Mono application needs the .NET libraries.

Yes, C#, but not the .NET libraries. If you have information that .NET is licensed under a royalty-free Open Source-style license (ala CDDL or GPL3) then please post a cite.

I never said the .NET libraries were royalty free. They don't need to be. No Mono application uses them. Your irrational fears are unfounded. If Microsoft ever threatened to sue or sued anyone over Mono they could just drop the .NET library compatibility and lose nothing because no application depends on them.

Your whole argument seems predicated on the belief that somehow Mono applications like Banshee are secretly dependent on .NET libraries. Thank god for open source. If you really believe that then just take a look at the source and realize how wrong you are. It isn't likey to happen ever either. The .NET reimplementation is second-rate to Mono's own libraries on Linux. No one in their right mind would use them over the native libraries. Learn a thing or two about Mono before you spout off more nonsense that can easly be disproved with 5 minutes of research.

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE

[bill_mcgonigle]

The judge dismissed the charges with a summary judgement.

This is still costing Autozone money, almost five years later. It doesn't matter the merit of the case, you can punish an adversary just the same.

I am stating that GNOME application like Banshee do not use Microsoft libraries at all. ... Using the Microsoft libraries would just be stupid. It doesn't make any sense. Why would they use something like Windows.Forms when they have GTK#? Banshee and other Mono application use GNOME specific libraries. Do you not understand that?

Yeah, I've got that, it's C#, CLI, and GTK# (I'm assuming they don't use ADO.NET). But the point is to use them you have to install mono which includes ADO.NET, ASP.NET, System.Windows.Forms, etc. If the mono project would just provide a version that was ECMA and their original development, its critics would all go away. But, from their FAQ:

Will you offer an ECMA-compliant set of class libraries?
Eventually we will. Our current focus is on inter-operating with the Microsoft SDK, but we will also offer an ECMA compliant subset of the libraries.

Why this is hard to do is something I don't understand. Because it's apparently hard one would have to assume some intrinsic linkage. It would be nice if someone explored this and published the results; it's too high a hurdle for me to do to just use a music player.

Mono was never specifically mentioned but the Linux kernel and OpenOffice were yet you aren't boycotting them.

I seem to not have conveyed my point about the prosecution value of a reimplementation vs. independent work with likely prior art. Hrm, I don't know how to say it better. Mono is specifically mentioned in the Novell/MS license deal of '07, though. I think the SFLC called that "worse than useless". Jeremy Allison resigned from Novell over it; I assume he's better informed that I am on the matter (whoops, I almost veered back on topic).

You see this is why I called you clueless. Mono was independently developed also. Mono is not just a reimplementation.

Yes, it's not "just" a reimplementation, but it contains a reimplementation.

If Microsoft ever threatened to sue or sued anyone over Mono they could just drop the .NET library compatibility and lose nothing because no application depends on them.

No, it doesn't work like that. If you're on the hook for patent infringement you don't just get to go 'oh, my bad, we'll fix that'. You have to 'fix that' (or pay ongoing license fees) but you also have to pay damages. Yes, the mono project would survive such an assault, I think that's their point. But the assault will have inflicted other casualties. If you're a small enough company you don't pay damages, you declare bankruptcy and dissolve the corporation.

If OSS software developers want to be limited in imagination by Microsoft designs, that's fine (if C# stagnates they can always port). It's when they drag potential liability into unrelated parts of the community that people get concerned.

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE

[Xabraxas]

This is still costing Autozone money, almost five years later. It doesn't matter the merit of the case, you can punish an adversary just the same.

You're right you better watch out. Microsoft is going to track you down and sue you. You could just follow Chryslers lead and ignore them, it doesn't cost a dime and when they actually went to court the judge dismissed the charges. You can't prevent being sued in any case even for ludicrous charges. Have you ever seen People's Court? When the law is on your side though you shouldn't be so paranoid.

Why this is hard to do is something I don't understand. Because it's apparently hard one would have to assume some intrinsic linkage. It would be nice if someone explored this and published the results; it's too high a hurdle for me to do to just use a music player.

You know what they say about assumption...nevermind. The fact that you think you have to clear this hurdle just to use a music player is delusional. I'm not sure where your irrational fears about being sued by Microsoft are coming from but you should probably get your head checked out.

No, it doesn't work like that. If you're on the hook for patent infringement you don't just get to go 'oh, my bad, we'll fix that'. You have to 'fix that' (or pay ongoing license fees) but you also have to pay damages. Yes, the mono project would survive such an assault, I think that's their point. But the assault will have inflicted other casualties. If you're a small enough company you don't pay damages, you declare bankruptcy and dissolve the corporation.

This is where the paranoia creeps in again. Microsoft isn't going to sue individual users or businesses that use Mono applications. They could do it just like I could sue you for defamation of character if I wanted to but that's not going to get very far in court. The point I was trying to make is that Banshee and other applications built using Mono aren't just going to go away because of Microsoft. .NET compatiblity isn't needed for them to operate so even if it became an issue users wouldn't be affected. If you're a developer just stay away from Microsoft's libraries. The only company that needs to fear being sued is the company that created Mono and that company is Novell so I doubt that is going to happen considering the deal they struck. They are the only ones legally liable for patent violations. If I buy a car from Ford and they are sued by GM because of a patent violation, GM can't then demand that I pay them for the patent violation.

Ubuntu and the new users

[Andr T.]

I bought a laptop for my wife some time ago. It came with a extremely bad distro that tried to resemble Windows XP in every way - and, of course, it failed.

So, I asked her if she wanted to try Ubuntu, and installed it in the laptop. I had some problems with drivers for the webcam (which still doesn't work) and the wireless driver (which works using ndiswrapper).

She never typed a single 'apt-get' in the command line (in fact, I think she doesn't even know there is one) but, after the initial setup, I didn't have to help her at all. And now, even being an average computer user, she is trying to spread Linux to her friends and colleagues.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[Anonymous Coward]

This reads just like my story, with "Kubuntu" substituted for "Ubuntu".

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[Provocateur]

Act 1, Scene 2:

(Wife bursts into room with printout, and looks accusingly at husband, who turns to face her from his laptop)

Wife: Did you write this? "average" computer user??

Husband: (incredulous) You read Slashdot?? On your second day???

(Cut to exterior shot of house. Smashing sounds ensue.)

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[Anonymous Coward]

Depending on the hardware, you might need to (re-)enable that webcam in the BIOS - weird, I know, but it worked on my Eee PC.

For the Eee, hit F2 at the start of the boot process and enable the hardware from there. No idea why it was disabled by the Xandros>Ubuntu upgrade.

Install Cheese and see if it's alive!

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[WiglyWorm]

And now, even being an average computer user, she is trying to spread Linux to her friends and colleagues

Which will be fantastic, until they have to set up the ndiswrapper themselves.

I am an advanced computer user (I work in IT), and ndiswrapper caused ME to give up on Linux. I'll try it again when I have a card that plays nice, but I still think that what Linux needs is a friendlier interface than even Ubuntu can offer. Why should I have to type "apt-get"? Why don't the linux coders make a rich graphical "application marketplace" or, hell, an iTunes-esque GUI?

The easier you can make things, the more it will catch on. Ubuntu is definately not ready for the big time yet. It's close, but it needs a lot of polish.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[Abcd1234]

Why should I have to type "apt-get"?

You don't. Just go into the main menu and pick "Applications..." or whatever the menu option is. It pops up a simple, user-friendly interface for installing any major applications you'd be interested in, ordered by category (the same categories as present in the main menu, actually).

Of course, if you want to get a little more advanced, you can always pop up Synaptic. But there's absolutely no reason whatsoever that an average user needs to run apt-get on the command-line.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure in windows you don't have to type apt-get, just a bunch of clicks and few typing on google to get your webcam a driver.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[WiglyWorm]

You call it "simple", I will call it "simpler". Yes, it is easier than apt-get, but it is still by no means user friendly. It feels (at least the last version I used) like selecting drivers manually in windows XP. Not exactly a pain, but not as easy as it should be. It should feel more (IMHO) like finding add-ons for Firefox.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[WiglyWorm]

Or you plug it in and it works because windows comes with the driver for nearly any USB device, or you plug it in and windows update gets them. Hell, vista even gets the latest nVidia drivers for my video card for me as part of windows update.

Even if what you said was true (which it is in a few cases), it's more acceptable than apt-get because everyone knows the internet is available as a resource, and google has a great user interface. apt-get is a tool that many don't even know exist.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[barq]

So much of this is luck with hardware. I've done many Ubuntu installs and most often everything worked out the box. But the hoops you need to jump through to get certain hardware running are very off-putting. :-( Assuming you have a desktop environment installed (and working!) I can't think why you'd have to type "apt-get...". Although instructions are often posted for the command line because they can be cut and pasted which is often quicker and can eliminate mistakes. But mostly graphical package management is pretty good and a strength of linux. Some people I know reacted with "Wow, you mean I can just click and install any of these for free?!".

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[sumdumass]

I sure am glad Microsoft created XP.

I remember the pains of windows 95 and 98 as well as the crap ware of ME. You wan't to talk about a pain, there you go.

Anyways, you have to remember, Linux is not windows so don't expect windows or you will always be disappointed. It's like eating a ham sandwich and bitching that the roast beef doesn't taste quite right. If it's roast beef you want, then order it in the first place.

Anyways, Typing apt-get or using the package manager or installing synaptic or whatever isn't that much of a problem. At least it is less of a hassle then figuring out the game play of new games. I got a new TV last week and it seems that the remote is giving me more problems then any Unubtu install has. We make changes to accommodate things like new TVs and Games without thinking twice about it. I'm not sure why we can't with Linux or Mac or Vista or whatever.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[Ultra64]

Why don't the linux coders make a rich graphical "application marketplace"

You mean like it already has? The fact that you couldn't click on the System menu and select Synaptic doesn't mean that ubuntu isn't ready.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Ubuntu does it too, just plug it in and most of the time you don't have to worry about it :)

Sure they could made a better interface for installing things in Ubuntu/linux, but IMO CLI is the quickest way to get thing working, think if you have to tell you friend the location of an option that lost in a sea of tabs.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[Darundal]

Can I ask how that is different than finding add-ons for firefox? To me it seems to be the exact same thing, without firefox.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[Ultra64]

Yeah! Why should anyone have to know the slightest details about the tools they use?

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[Abcd1234]

You call it "simple", I will call it "simpler". Yes, it is easier than apt-get, but it is still by no means user friendly.

How could it *possibly* be simpler? You literally select the category (say, "Sound and Video"), and then find something you like. I honestly can't conceive of a more user-friendly interface. Hell, it's *better* that the Firefox add-ons selector as it's a simple picklist ordered by category, as opposed to an interface where you have to know what to search for in order to find what you're looking for.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[WiglyWorm]

Oh yeah, Windows 95/98 "Plug-and-Pray" compatability was a joke, I would rather have manually set IRQs than deal with some of the crap I had to back then. However it was a growing process and it works very very well in XP, and even better in Vista.

I hope Linux will continue to grow as well. I find it interesting to hear Linux supporters say that they really want Linux to catch on, "Year of the Linux Desktop" and what not, but yet they expect the market they wish to target to adjust to them. That isn't the way it works. If people have certain expectations that are keeping them from trying Linux, then Linux devs should attempt (at the very least) to meet them in the middle. For instance, as a Windows power-user, I love the command prompt and all the power it affords me, however microsoft knows that not all computer users are going to feel comfortable, and so there are usually 3-4 different ways to do any task in Windows (command prompt, wizard, managment console), and usually one will fit most people's expectations.

To say "Anyways, you have to remember, Linux is not windows so don't expect windows" is very valid up to a point. Linux should not seek to emulate Windows. In fact, the best thing it could do right now in the wake of Vista is differentiate itself from Windows as much as possible. However, to neglect the user interface or ease of operation because "it works just fine for me" when there are clearly improvements that could be implemented smacks of eliteism. It seems like you (not you you, the proverbial you) don't want Linux to catch on as much as you say if that's your opinion. I think windows XP did a very good job of crafting a user interface. I think Mac OS 9 had a great interface too. That didn't stop them from updating OS 10 and Vista/7, did it? Find where improvements can be made, and institude them.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[xouumalperxe]

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Lets say you want to install skype. You head over to skype.com, and you choose download. If you get the windows version, you'll then install using a more or less standard windows installer. If you choose to get the ubuntu version, you'll get a .deb, about equivalent to a windows .msi -- double click, wait, done. If you want to install applications that are equally supported in Windows and Linux, you'll get Linux installations that are as simple as Windows ones.

Now, let's say you know you want some sort of drawing program. You don't quite know which one, you just want something. In Ubuntu, you head over to the Applications thing (can't recall what it's called, always use synaptic), browse to the right category, check the short descriptions for something that seems interesting, double click. How would this process go in Windows? Can you honestly say it'd be simpler? (Yes, I'm disregarding Paint, just the same as I'm disregarding that most linux installs have Gimp.)

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[WiglyWorm]

Well, sometimes "simple" does not equate in to user-friendliness. The fact that it is a "simple pick list" is the issue. You're confronted with a list of applications, some well named, some not. Sorted by type... and not much else. If I look for a firefox add-on, to continue the comparison, I can sort by type or keyword, and get a brief description of the application click it for a detailed explanation as well as reviews and comments...

I'm not BASHING Linux, keep in mind. I would like to see it catch on, I'm just giving my advice. Sorry I can't program, or I'd build it. As it is, I'll give my opinion.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[jonaskoelker]

Husband: (incredulous) You read Slashdot?? On your second day???

It only goes downhill from there.

http://xkcd.com/456/

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[Waffle Iron]

it's more acceptable than apt-get because everyone knows the internet is available as a resource, and google has a great user interface

Yes, everyone should be encouraged to download and run unsigned binary files from random 3rd party OEM websites. (Or links that come up in Google which purport to be such sites.)

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[Draek]

If I look for a firefox add-on, to continue the comparison, I can sort by type or keyword, and get a brief description of the application click it for a detailed explanation as well as reviews and comments...

Same with Synaptic, except without the user comments. I do think, however, that level of information tends to scare away the more shy users, so I'm also happy the default install/removal app doesn't have it.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[Hatta]

Why should I have to type "apt-get"?

Leaving aside the fact that you DON'T have to use apt-get directly, what's so bad about typing a command? Your brain devotes an immense amount of resources to the processing of language, surely typing a few words can't be too hard for you.

Try making it through the day without issuing any verbal commands. It would be awfully difficult to get what you want by just pointing at things. Life is much easier and better when you can use words as commands to get what you want. The computer is no different.

You're just reluctant because you don't know the language yet. And that's ok, there are tools that will help you get by. But as a foreigner in Linux land, you should know that learning the local language will help you out a lot. This isn't because the GUI facilities aren't there, in most cases they are. But because the CLI is truly a more powerful, and in the long run, easier to use than a GUI.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[grumbel]

One difference is that the Firefox pages often features screenshots, while the application installer in Ubuntu is plain text.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[sumdumass]

I understand and agree with what your saying to a point. However, you mentioned that the package manager was like installing drivers as if it is some foreign concept. Windows Vista, in the programs dialog, has a very similar feature where you can buy programs from windows live and download them and install in much the same way you do updates. This is in fact, very similar to windows update if I remember correctly except that instead of running inside IE, it has it's own window. (note, I tried Kbuntu so it might be different in the regular Gnome Ubuntu)

I guess where I was going is that there will always be differences. Currently, I don't think the differences are much different then going from XP to Vista or 98 (ME) to XP. Those are differences that we should be able to live with. This brings me back to the ham and roast beef comparison, the same can be said within windows itself with the annoyances between XP and Vista as well as the cosmetic differences between XP and Ubuntu or Mandriva or whatever.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for continuously improving the UI and making the User Experience better. But there comes a time when the only way to improve it is to install windows because someone isn't happy that it doesn't work exactly like windows. From your complaint about the package manager, I gathered that you just wanted windows. But hey, It doesn't matter to me, I'm typing this on an XP system, I use what's convenient and necessary at the time. This system was in XP so I didn't bother changing or moving to another console. And seriously, if you prefer windows XP or Vista, it doesn't mean there is anything wrong with you, it just means your like the rest of us and have your own tastes and opinions.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[mhall119]

The Add/Remove application shows the application name and a one line description in the pick list. If you select an item in the list, a more detailed description (usually with a link to the app's website) is displayed in the lower window. It also gives user ratings, and in the future will likely use the Debian screenshot database to show a picture of the application.

While sorting is limited to application name and user rating, you can filter by type or run a keyword search. It is all very intuitive and I can't really see it being easier to use.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I would love to meet your wife!

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the list is messy, badly-formatted (descriptions can't be skimmed easily, etc.), but the real problem is that stuff is cryptically named and, more importantly, poorly-described, and I admit that that isn't precisely a software problem.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[Anonymous Coward]

I had some problems with drivers for the webcam (which still doesn't work) and the wireless driver (which works using ndiswrapper).

wow. if you would have said this about a windows machine all the linux heads would be ranting on and on about it being 'defective by design' and how 'windows is broken and you should be trying out a new os... ftw!!!!oneoneone!!eleven!'

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[Andr T.]

Nah. The webcam doesn't work because the chipset has no drivers for Linux, and the company which supplies the chipset refuses to open their specs so the community could write their own drivers.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[WiglyWorm]

It sounds like they've made some addittions since the last distro I tried, which was at least a year back. I will have to give it a shot again (i tried to earlier but it wanted me to break apart my RAID array which isn't gonna happen).

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[gregbot9000]

Thats the best part about Ubuntu IMHO, I've never messed with the commandline, and have no idea what is going on back there, and frankly, I don't care. I tried SUSE about 2 years ago and deleted it within the week as Google earth wouldn't work. It really surprises me the attitude of Linux users. They seem to think that not wanting to install from the command line is a flaw in the consumer.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[mhall119]

Here's a screenshot from 8.04: http://bp2.blogger.com/_dpFEn-yp6Rs/SHLpTNt6PQI/AAAAAAAAB1s/AC2KLvtxcKU/s1600-h/Installing-Software-add-remove-ubuntu.jpg

Supposedly Synaptic already supports getting app images from the Debian screenshots database, and I would be surprised if that's not integrated in Add/Remove as well.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[spandex_panda]

This is true ... But! You can search for applications on the internet (just like with windows or osx) and when you find one, you can first try the 'install applications' application or do what I do these days and type 'apt-cache search deluge' to find the applications name, then type 'sudo apt-get install del' and enter and within minutes its there.

In my opinion package management is the thing which moves Linux (and debian based which is all I have used in particular) miles ahead of osx and windows.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[Bent Mind]

So, I asked her if she wanted to try Ubuntu, and installed it in the laptop.

My sister-in-law asked me for a Linux computer about a year ago. Her son's school was moving to Linux and she wanted him to have a head start.

My sister-in-law lives a little over a thousand miles from me. If things went really wrong, I wouldn't be able to do much to fix it. However, if her son was learning this at school, I figured he would be able to seek help there. I chose KUbuntu because I had heard it was easy to maintain.

About a month after receiving the laptop, the networking broke. I had my sister-in-law open the command line and try out some simple ipconfig and iwlist commands. They reported that the interface didn't exist. She also told me that the laptop had been lent out and she was afraid the bottom of the machine (where the network card is) had gotten wet.

We decided it was a hardware problem and gave up. However, my sister-in-law doesn't give up easily. She had me talk her through a reinstall about a month ago. The reinstall worked and networking was repaired. Maybe I should have suggested it first. It turns out that her son was applying updates. The updates were about half done when he turned the computer off. He started it back up, networking didn't work, it got handed off to Mom. She had seen the updates ready to install. However, she figured that clicking on OK after seeing the list would install them. I guess the package manager for KUbuntu has some kind of preview function. She was previewing the list of packages to upgrade when she thought she was actually upgrading them.

At any rate, the laptop is working fine now, and she learned how to install to OS and software.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[rantingkitten]

Indeed. Clicking "Add New" and having your choice of click-to-install applications, codecs, drivers, and all dependencies met, in an all-in-one GUI window with search capabilities, is a real pain!

They should do it the Windows way. Want something new? Search Google for it, and tromp through ten or more likely results. See if you can find one that's free, cause you don't want to pirate it, now do you? By "free" I mean it should actually have full functionality and not be a crippled "demo" version, have nag screens, whine at you to register or pay in thirty days, and so on. Check out the vendor and try to be reasonably sure it's not going to install spyware or other malicious garbage on the system. Next, download an executable installer and blindly run it, having no idea who it's really from or what it's really going to do. Accept the EULAs and answer all kinds of asinine questions about where to install it, because there's no real standard. Finally, go back and clean up all the horseshit little icons, shortcuts, system tray helpers, start menu entries, startup items, and other party favors it left behind.

Or you could cough up for a CD of the software, but you'll have to go through most of the above anyway.

Seriously. You say it should be more like finding add-ons for Firefox. Well, it is, isn't it? You want add-ons for Firefox, you go to the add-ons page, search for some keyword, find one you like, and click Install. It's done. This is exactly how it works through the GUI in Ubuntu. What's the difference, really? I just don't understand your complaint.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[MrNiceguy_KS]

Now, let's say you know you want some sort of drawing program. You don't quite know which one, you just want something. In Ubuntu, you head over to the Applications thing (can't recall what it's called, always use synaptic), browse to the right category, check the short descriptions for something that seems interesting, double click. How would this process go in Windows?

Depends. For most people, it involves a trip to Best Buy. The rest usually open up a browser, type in "piratebay.org" and hit enter, then type in "Photoshop" because it's the only drawing program they know of.

Slightly off-topic side note 1: I think Photoshop's piracy rate would plummet if more people knew about http://www.getpaint.net./ I still haven't found a Linux drawing program I like as much. (Suggestions gladly accepted)

Slightly off-topic side note 2: Ubuntu's "Applications thing" you mentioned is actually labeled "Add/Remove Applications" Kinda like the one under Windows, except this one really can add programs.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[FrankieBaby1986]

Have you EVER used the Add/Remove application?

You just described all the things it has as if it didn't have them. See this image: http://dhashi.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/screenshot-add-remove-applications.png It has search, Categories, And Complete Descriptions, as well as links to more information.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[cynyr]

that only works if you can find the category of the thing you want to install? what about mplayerplug-in the firefox plugin to use mplayer to display videos? is that in "internet" "videos" "internet plugins" "plugins" etc...

Also if i need specific file/command how do i find it using synaptic?

i can usually find whatever package it's in but not without a trip to google. I've been using linux since the redhat 6.1 days(yes yes cue up "get off my lawn" comments) and still cannot find my way around ubuntu. Also why is it that it only installs things one at a time, and why can't I run 2 copies of the "package manager" at once? seems like something that needs fixing.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[Creepy Crawler]

I also fault idiot users.

I can show flowery graphs and pretty pictures with sound and everything... and yet, "df -hm" gives just as much information as some over-bloated app that does the same thing.

Sometimes text is more helpful, but in certain cases.

What would you think if compiler showed a movie of someone getting kicked in the balls with "Ow! My Balls"? I'd rather have "** exception error: no match of right hand side value 2"

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[gregbot9000]

I don't knows what a compiler is and thats the way I likes it(not really).

I'm sure you may be right and thats your opinion, but Microsoft thinks the user is never too dumb and caters to their every ignorant need. They also make money hand over fist. You haven't convinced me, when I'm useing my computer i consider it a failure when ever I have to get out of my reclined position and type. right click-properties-disk space is not just an improvement, it's the floor, anything more complicated is into negative points. Call me stupid when it comes to OS's but I'm not, just really lazy. I don't want a free Tank that takes years to learn to operate, I want an automatic Honda civic that starts every time and doesn't break down even if it is a little slow. Ubuntu is the only distro that offers that that I've seen, and thats only in the last 2 years. From mine and most consumers I know perspectives, Linux has only now started to really exist. SUSE was a joke, Red Hat was a joke The biggest obstacle to overcome yet is the user experience, because with OS's function and form are nearly the same thing.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[Abcd1234]

what about mplayerplug-in the firefox plugin to use mplayer to display videos?

I believe Firefox will automagically do the right thing, here, thanks to the Ubuntu plugin that's part of their default browser install. That said, I could be wrong... I've never had a problem playing videos, so I've never needed it. They all just work out-of-the-box.

Also if i need specific file/command how do i find it using synaptic?

You... type the command and press enter. When the command isn't available, Ubuntu flat out tells you which package that command can be found in.

I've been using linux since the redhat 6.1 days(yes yes cue up "get off my lawn" comments) and still cannot find my way around ubuntu.

Uhh... I was using RedHat during the 4.x days, and Slackware before that. I then switched to Debian for a number of years before moving to Ubuntu. Meanwhile, I've deployed and administered a number of Fedora Core boxes. And in all that time, I honestly believe Ubuntu has proven to be, hands down, without question, the most user-friendly, polished distribution of the bunch.

Also why is it that it only installs things one at a time, and why can't I run 2 copies of the "package manager" at once?

It doesn't. Using synaptic, you can select any number of packages to install, and then hit execute, and it does what you ask. If you use apt-get, you can just provide a list of packages to install.

You can only run one package manager at a time because the package database must be locked to prevent concurrent access from corrupting the database. And as it happens, you can't run concurrent copies of Yum on Fedora, either... this is nothing new, and it sure as heck isn't unique to Ubuntu.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[Creepy Crawler]

---I'm sure you may be right and thats your opinion, but Microsoft thinks the user is never too dumb and caters to their every ignorant need.

It's not really my opinion of anything: text is needed where we need to read about informing things. As per Microsoft, I think they're too dumb and cannot make any better.

---They also make money hand over fist.

Illegally, I might add. Many, many people do not want Vista under any circumstances. That's why MS allowed XP to be sold for a longer time, but that gig is up. Now, Dell and others are jacking up the prices on XP so that we can be 'forced' to Vista. And, frankly, the only reason Microsoft sells Windows is because they have 'agreements' with the box manufacturers to not sell non-Windows machines.

---You haven't convinced me, when I'm useing my computer i consider it a failure when ever I have to get out of my reclined position and type. right click-properties-disk space is not just an improvement, it's the floor, anything more complicated is into negative points.

I'm god friends with a few librarians who recall the old days. In the old days, the library computer was a Unix box with terminals set up all around so that patrons could search books, view what they had checked out, set interlibrary loans, reserve books, and whatnot. The terminals were dead-easy to use as everything just made sense. Nobody had to train the patrons that the "search" menu allowed you to search...

Fast forward to today. These libraries got away from the gold Unix standard and went to a "Microsoft Platform". They nixed their terminals and had to go with full desktops, which introduced security issues. Extra software was bought for that. There was anti-virus, so they bought software for that. Since they surfed the internet too, filtering software was bought also. Before, when I searched for a book, I pressed F1 to return to home screen, enter (defaults on search), and enter subject. Now, it's "Click on Internet Explorer, load up the homepage, click on this link to search".. And no extra features at all. All the while, features allowed to patrons are decreased and workload on librarians are increased.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users

[Dehcapella]

Oh yes. I do read /. . Indeed. But still don't type 'apt-get'. And talking about Linux with my schoolmates is just like...hm...Greek.

Re:Samba is considered harmful

[edsousa]

However, it will be the compatibility with M$ software that will push Linux mainstream.
I wouldn't be allowed to install Linux on my laptop if didn't work with the corporate network. I would be fired if I didn't open the Microsoft Word documents.
I'm glad that Linux can talk Microsoftish, so I can use Linux at my will.

Wow this was disapointing.

[LWATCDR]

Okay next to nothing about Samba 4, AD, or how about the potental for better integration with and possible replacing of Exchange now that the protocol have been documented and released?

Re:Wow this was disapointing.

[dkleinsc]

If the possibility is there, why not take the initiative to get this project started or supported?

Not saying you can't ask for it, but this seems like a personal itch you should look at scratching.

Re:Wow this was disapointing.

[LWATCDR]

Actually there are some projects now starting to work on the exchange protocol. Samba 4 is currently under development. I just want more meat out of a front page slashstory than two pages that just sort of touch on Novell politics and and why somebody likes Gnome over KDE.
Like the future of Samba and the future of FOSS solutions replacing Microsoft network services.

Re:Wow this was disapointing.

[somenickname]

I agree. Jeremy Allison seems like a nice enough guy and his contributions are surely appreciated but, there was very little content to this interview. I'm not sure why this particular interview is worth putting on the front page other than getting people riled up into a Gnome vs. KDE war.

Re:Wow this was disapointing.

[LWATCDR]

Riled up?
It shouldn't even do that. He likes Gnome better. So what so do I but I can use KDE just fine and I don't hate it.
Just blah... Not Jeremy Allison's fault at all. It was just a really bad interview. He his answers where fine it was the questions that sucked.

Tagged : Flamebait ?

[frenchbedroom]

You call those flames ? FTFA :

No, I'm a Gnome fan really. I tried KDE 4 and it wasn't bad, but I find KDE a bit cluttered. There are too many options. I did a column recently on the Linux Haters blog, and the writer of that blog really summed it up with KDE. They're like, "Oh, change your encoding to ISO 8859-1". I know what that means, but my brother doesn't. Firefox says 'use Western European encoding' when it means the same thing.

This pegs the meh-o-meter. Even if I was the biggest fan of KDE I would still shrug at it (but I like XFCE better nowadays)

Re:Samba is considered harmful

[AndGodSed]

Exactly.

Microsoft compatibility is a misleading term as well. It is "Linux Compatibility With Microsoft Products."

Microsoft is not compatible with anything else but rather new microsoft products by design.

Linux, by design, is compatible with almost anything that it needs to interact with on a network. While this causes there to be proprietary code in your distro in some cases, it opens the door to actually using Linux.

The thing is, even if you are able to convert your whole company to Linux, companies do not operate in isolation, and hence the rep with his Linux empowered laptop will eventually have to go and do a presentation at a Windows shop, and hence compatibility will enable you to make the move to Linux with confidence.

I call nonsense

[Excelcia]

Samba is a transition tool that allows businesses to move away from Microsoft. It's the leverage that a company's IT professionals (who are, more often than not, Linux-friendly) can use to transition away from Microsoft tools. When a company's Microsoft boxes are all talking to shares on Linux servers anyway, and saving scads of money doing it, it's more compelling to say let's begin to transition other things away from Microsoft.

Linux isn't going to displace Microsoft by ignoring it. Linux will displace Microsoft by offering reasonable alternatives at a more reasonable price, and by making the transition as easy as possible. To that end,
Samba is one of the best things that has ever happened to Linux.

Re:I call nonsense

[JasterBobaMereel]

Using Samba to let Linux clients and Web Clients to talk to Linux Servers - Oh and the odd legacy MS server or client .... is a good thing too ...

Re:I call nonsense

[nine-times]

Not only that, but as far as I'm concerned, Samba has successfully made SMB into a nice cross-platform protocol to use. It's decently fast, secure (AFAIK), pretty easy to set up (perhaps excluding some authentication issues), and is well supported in pretty much every platform. What's the problem?

Jennifer Aniston

[jglov]

Am I the only one who initially thought the name of this article was "Jennifer Aniston on why she loves Gnomes"

Re:Jennifer Aniston

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who initially thought the name of this article was

"Jennifer Aniston on why she loves Gnomes"

Everyone has their fantasies I suppose, but sometimes things like these really creep me out.

Re:Jennifer Aniston

[Anonymous Coward]

...yes

Re:Jennifer Aniston

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. But I ate a couple of of old tabs of blotter acid that I found sitting in the bottom of my desk drawer last night, and I'm still tripping balls. It peaked a few hours ago, but that was a big motherfucking hit.

What's your excuse?

Re:Jennifer Aniston

[Culture20]

She must be playing pre-4th edition. Gnome Saying?

Re:Samba is considered harmful

[Tatsh]

I'm not sure. Is NFS a viable alternative? I keep seeing Samba get better performance than Windows->Windows networking and have heard that NFS 'sucks' and 'wait until NFSv4'.

Re:Samba is considered harmful

[jimicus]

NFS does suck. It trusts the client to do quite a bit of access control enforcement insofar as it expects the UIDs to be the same on the client and the server.

I'm a big fan of KDE

[dfdashh]

While KDE's speed and overall configurability are a huge plus, it is really the apps that make KDE win over GNOME for me. GNOME just can't come close to Amarok, Konqueror (KIO slaves in particular), and K3B.

Re:I'm a big fan of KDE

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. I can't stand KDE as a desktop and don't use it (too much clutter and bloat), but the applications I wouldn't want to miss.

NFS does suck...

[tjwhaynes]

Any administrator will tell you that NFS sucks. NFSv4 simply sucks less.

NFS is fine for systems which have static IP addresses, filesystems that have limited writes and do not require high-performance access for reads of many files. If you need better performance, you should look at direct-attach options such as SANFS, Veritas Storage or GPFS.

NFS has a nasty tendancy of tying itself in knots when a server goes offline. Witness the zombie processes that can't unlock themselves. Even if you go down the route of soft mounts and interruptable locks, it can be messy. As the original server comes back up, all the remote systems relying on it can suddenly flood the machine with requests for NFS access and knock it over again, requiring some careful masking of the servers traffic for a while.

Samba isn't perfect but it works better for dynamic IP, has reasonable performance and generally doesn't get into locking hell. You can also access remote services such as printing over Samba.

My 2 cents...

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Re:NFS does suck...

[widderslainte]

What's your recommendation for network file system in a linux-only shop?

Re:NFS does suck...

[Burz]

Samba isn't perfect but it works better for dynamic IP, has reasonable performance and generally doesn't get into locking hell.

Its also slow, is a beast to configure, and chokes on multi-gigabyte transfers... actually truncating and mangling files.

I don't think is necessarily Samba-specific. I've had much the same experiences with the genuine Windows stuff too.

In general, I've learned that tools like scp and secure rsync are more reliable.

Re:NFS does suck...

[whoever57]

NFS has a nasty tendancy of tying itself in knots when a server goes offline.

I've found that running NFS over TCP does not have this issue. With this configuration, the fileserver can go down and come back up again and all the clients will resume whatever they were doing that depended on the fileserver.

Re:NFS does suck...

[tjwhaynes]

That's actually a huge question, not easily answered in a post.

If your needs are HA, then you probably want something chunky, expensive and high-performance like GPFS or other SAN offerings.

If your needs are light, you may find that SSH actually provides everything you could possibly require (via scp/sftp/ssh+rsync) without configuring anything funky.

Somewhere in the middle, dedicated NAS boxes can make life easier (running NFSv3 or v4) for centralised storage and backup. Just make sure that the boxes can take the load and are always available.

The bottom line: trial first, test hard, deploy and monitor. Real usage can reveal problems you missed in test, in which case you had better be prepared to move up to a better solution.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Re:NFS does suck...

[TerminaMorte]

You say NFS sucks, but then mention clients connecting to it that have dynamic IP addresses and the server going down.

Either all the administrators you've talked to have been incompetent, or you are just talking out your ass.

If you have an NFS server, why not a DHCP server with static leases? Why the hell would your clients have dynamic IPs? (This is going to piss off other services too.. including smbfs).

Why is your server going down (and why would you expect clients NOT to be unhappy?)

Zombie processes due to NFS server being down will only happen if you don't allow interrupts (which is by design!). It will all come back when NFS comes back.

One of the reasons NFS is so popular for media servers is that you can be watching a movie, restart the server in the middle of the movie, and the movie will resume playing when the server comes back up!

When it comes to performance for a network filesystem, NFS is great. It's certainly better than SMBfs. You can choose the size of the packets you send/receive, you can choose to use UDP or TCP...

In my experience the only people who have a strong dislike of NFS are those that only experienced it years ago, or who don't know how to use it properly.

Re:NFS does suck...

[steveha]

In my experience the only people who have a strong dislike of NFS are those that only experienced it years ago, or who don't know how to use it properly.

Could you please tell me a book or web site that will teach me how to use modern NFS properly?

I'm a software developer, not a professional sysadmin, but I am the sysadmin for the computers in my home. The one time I tried NFS (years ago) I had trouble with it, got frustrated, and stopped. SAMBA has been working pretty well for me, but I'd like to give NFS a try, because almost all of my computers are running Linux anyway.

steveha

Re:NFS does suck...

[salahx]

NFS(v4) would be a lot more accessible if Linux supported more methods than AUTH_SYS and Kerberos. 2 more mechanisms - SPKM3 (TLS-like) and LIPKEY (simple username/password, requires SPKM3)are mandated by the NFSv4 RPC. (SPNEGO and NTLMSSP mechanisms would be nice too). The kernel might have support for them, but userspace GSSAPI support for anything other the Kerberos is poor to nonexistent.

Re:NFS does suck...

[Daengbo]

With no security? WebDAV + Apache + Avahi to announce. I guess you could use Apache's security as global protection, but it still wouldn't really get you anything file-level.

I use it anywhere I just need to share stuff. It's a lot simpler than FTP or Samba. See Debian2Debian

Gnome is a problem.

[Poppa_Chubby]

Gnome is a problem because it doesn't encourage desktop use of linux in the sense that users use applications that are written to work and play well together. Gnome does nothing to encourage that.

This is the reason why OSX (and even windows) is beating the crap out of linux on the desktop and why it always will.

The average Gnome user (according to /.'s own roblimo) patches together a bunch of applications that are pretty much desktop agnostic.
The other two cases are the "optimizer" that worries about the terminal program they're using taking up another half kilobyte of memory when they recompile their kernel, or a developer that doesn't care about the desktop because all they really do is development.
All of these type of users would be just as well using Windowmaker or FVWM or any other window manager that we used to fight over last decade.

KDE has its issues, but at the very least it attempts to encourage users to utilize the K* applications and those K* applications actually work together very well. Further, the environment is a fairly consistent development target for applications.

At the moment, KDE is really the only coherent desktop environment that the free unix world has (with a possible nod to Xfce). Enlightenment development stalls out on a regular basis and as it stands now is years behind even Gnome for the most basic stuff. GNUstep was a great idea, but its in the same boat as E, too little, too late.

Finally, let's remember why Gnome was initially developed -- as a political response to some issues with QT that no longer exist -- and more often than not Gnome is still chosen over KDE in distros due to politics.

Re:Gnome is a problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because nobody uses any GTK2 apps. Those are lame.

Re:Gnome is a problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gnome is a problem because it doesn't encourage desktop use of linux in the sense that users use applications that are written to work and play well together. Gnome does nothing to encourage that.

Huh?

The Gnome project has "human interface guidelines" documents to make all Gnome apps look kinda similar and work kinda similar, and the Gnome guys are constantly working to make Gnome better (and add more apps). This "does nothing to encourage" applications that work and play well together? What else could they be doing?

Compare the Gnome in Ubuntu 8.10 with the one even in 7.10. The biggest change for me is that the Gnome guys finally added a decent Gnome-based disk burning tool ("Brasero"). I used the KDE one ("K3B") for years, hating the way it looked and worked, but liking that it worked and that it verified my burns after I finished. Now Brasero looks and works like a Gnome app, and will actually verify burns. This is an example of the Gnome project improving their product in such a way that I have stopped using a KDE app I used to always use.

I really don't know what you are talking about dude.

Re:Gnome is a problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gnome [...] doesn't encourage desktop [...] applications that are written to work and play well together. This is the reason why OSX (and even windows) is beating the crap out of linux on the desktop and why it always will.

I can't speak to Mac, but on Windows I find your statement completely unrealistic. Windows programs are terrible about following common user interface guidelines, and almost never work together well.

Every major software house seems to promote its own "take" on the perfect GUI look--and none of them are compatible. Even within some of the application suites the look is not consistent. It's laughable to me that the applications which follow published Windows GUI standards the best are often the ones not originally written for Windows.

As to playing well together: my printer drivers crash my USB stack, my anti-virus messes up my network, and my word processor won't talk to my raster manipulator. Nothing plays well together under Windows--and that includes applications from the same suite!

What Windows are you using? 'Cause it certainly ain't like mine.

a developer that doesn't care about the desktop because all they really do is development.

Er, no. I am a developer, and I can state quite firmly that the desktop "matters." All that frilly shit like swooshing windows and fading menus? No. But the ability to properly and clearly organize windows, and manipulate them without having to cramp my mouse-hand or wait three seconds for some animation to finish? Oh yeah.

The desktop matters very much to any modern developer (those developers who adamantly refuse to use more than a single terminal window "because that was good enough back in the day, so it's good enough now" can shut the hell up already).

KDE [...] attempts to encourage users to utilize the K* applications and those K* applications actually work together very well.

As to the first point, I would argue that GNOME does the same. I see an awful lot of G* applications out there, which are the "GNOME way" of doing something. KDE does not have the market cornered on blind support.

As to the second point, I've rarely seen that the integration in KDE (or GNOME) provides much benefit over "patching together a bunch of applications that are desktop agnostic." In fact, the extra integration usually serves to limit my options, not expand them.

I used KDE for several years, BTW, before finally declaring that I no longer cared to fight the GNOME tide (our clients use Red Hat * linuxen exclusively).

more often than not Gnome is still chosen over KDE in distros due to politics.

And Windows is often chosen over Linux for much the same. So?

Re:Gnome is a problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, let's remember why Gnome was initially developed -- as a political response to some issues with QT that no longer exist -- and more often than not Gnome is still chosen over KDE in distros due to politics.

Not everyone particularly likes the Qt license as it is now (including myself). I'm pretty pro open source, but I'm very much against making something a "standard" GUI toolkit when it forces developers into licensing choices unless they pay an expensive per developer cost.

Besides, why does Trolltech/Nokia get to collect fees from developers making software whose license isn't on their list of acceptable licenses for free version use, but noone in the API/dev chain below Qt doesn't get anything? Why doesn't Xorg get something? What about the kernel? Or the multitude of other APIs that are may be used by the app?

Focus stealing is your enemy

[skeeto]

Gnome used to be my favorite window manager, until I realized that the focus model is totally wrong, and there is no way to fix it. It lies in this principle,

No window should ever steal focus ... ever. Don't even do it if the computer will blow up, or the world will end, if I fail to respond.

If you are trying to maximize your computing efficiency, focus stealing is your worst enemy. It's entire purpose is to slow you down.

Focus stealing breaks flow and can also be a security issue. Let's say you are typing away in a text editor and some other application decides it needs you to make a decision in the form of a pop-up window. Just as you are hitting enter in your text editor, the window pops-up, grabs your return keystroke and accepts it as your answer, doing whatever the default action is. Or the case where you are typing a password and a dialog steals focus and you type part of your password out in plain sight into the dialog.

A lot of this can be blamed on Windows for having a really shitty focus model, which everyone else tries to emulate in order to appeal to mouse-driven Windows users, I guess. I have noticed that Vista has a slightly improved focus over XP, but still very wrong. This focus model is the same attitude that gets you the Windows update manager that bugs you every 10 minutes by stealing focus, or worse, automatically rebooting while you aren't even at the machine (this is simply unforgivable).

Unfortunately, if you switch to a reasonable focus model, you will break poorly designed applications that are used to the broken focus models (OpenOffice, Matlab, any IDE, to name a few). These are applications that use a lot of pop-ups that don't "disable" the main window, which is when it is ok. For example, save dialogs are just fine for pop-ups: you can't have the main window in focus, so the change in focus to the dialog is natural and doesn't have a negative effect (it's not actually focus stealing).

However, pop-up text-searching is always absolutely wrong, for reasons beyond focus stealing too*. You will find that removing focus stealing will (correctly) not give these search boxes focus, which really breaks things for these applications. (Firefox wins here, maintaining its fairly good usability, with the integrated, incremental search bar.)

KDE does actually have a setting that can strictly stop focus stealing, in the form of a sliding bar. This works most of the time, but it's not perfect. New windows do in fact steal focus for a few milliseconds. This is enough to occasionally steal a keystroke, but I can live with it for now.

At work, I only get to choose between Gnome and KDE, so some other window manager out there may get this 100% right and I haven't explored it. At home I use IceWM, which also has a broken, unfixable focus model. However, the software I use at home is better behaved, making it less of an issue.

* Side rant here. For seasoned Emacs users, the incremental search function is frequently used for navigation (see item 4). If I need to move the point by more than a few characters or words, I start a text search (C-s, C-r) and type some text at the point I want to go. I do this all the time without even thinking about it. This doesn't work in a pop-up text search, even ignoring the fact that the aren't incremental either. When you bring it up, usually ctrl+f, there is always a delay to the window coming up. If I start typing my search right away, as I am used to in Emacs, it will go into my document rather than the search box. I find this incredibly annoying. I shouldn't be waiting for the computer like that.

Re:Focus stealing is your enemy

[Quantumstate]

In windows XP tweak UI can be used to prevent focus stealing. This works most of the time but there are some applications which seem to be able to get around this.

Re:Focus stealing is your enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

Using BBEdit, chosen because it has what I think you mean by "pop-up text-search" (spawns a new window for the query), while there is a delay, characters typed during the delay are buffered and entered as soon as the window comes up. Incremental search, abomination though it is, is admittedly not used.

Re:Focus stealing is your enemy

[0xABADC0DA]

If using compiz go to gnome configuration editor and change Apps -> Compiz -> Screen0 -> options -> focus_prevention_level to "2" (or whatever amount you prefer, see help text).

Unfortunately, no GUI for this afaik and it gets reset from time to time during updates.

Re:Focus stealing is your enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

Enlightenment DR16 is the only one I have ever seen that gets it spot on. You can configure the focus settings for all windows, dialogs and new dialogs whose parent has the focus.

Re:Focus stealing is your enemy

[zvonik]

I'd add evil enemy, although the change seemed to be done with good intentions. I used to run four desktops with cranky old engineering applications, including matlab, in each one. Then I updated RHEL and got thrown into a focus stealing hell. Blinking items were appearing on the current taskbar from another desktop. My taskbars were already full and organized and this meant that to restore my organization, I had to go service some app on another desktop and return. Over and over, many times per hour. KDE could disable it once I could name what was happening to me, but KDE has a little windowing delay that randomly messes with my main application being able to pop a window . The application isn't going to adapt so KDE was out.

I use IceWM for vnc sessions of the same setup and updated to the (then) latest version, thinking that I'd get some new and useful feature, and it did the same darn thing. I reverted to the old IceWM and would have stayed forever at that version as it was my only useful solution. Then life took a left turn and here I am lurking Slashdot. Focus stealing is not my main issue today.

Re:Focus stealing is your enemy

[bill_mcgonigle]

At work, I only get to choose between Gnome and KDE, so some other window manager out there may get this 100% right and I haven't explored it. At home I use IceWM, which also has a broken, unfixable focus model. However, the software I use at home is better behaved, making it less of an issue.

Mac OS (6-9) had this right. OSX lost it. Some patches have been attempted by third parties but they react too slowly. Drives me bonkers.

A sibling content mentions Enlightenment. I'd be willing to put up with it if focus works.

Re:Focus stealing is your enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

Gnome used to be my favorite window manager, until I realized that the focus model is totally wrong, and there is no way to fix it.

It can be fixed--the GNOME developers stoically choose not to. KDE calls it "focus strictly under mouse" or some such, and one of my co-workers patched GNOME to work the same.

On a similar note, auto-raising of windows seriously pisses me off. Flash in browser windows is the worst for this, but plenty of other examples exist. If I want to change the damn Z order, I will change it. Don't help me.

Re:Focus stealing is your enemy

[martin-boundary]

Emacst tip #2 is pretty silly though, and it starts from the wrong premise: M-x doesn't involve scrunching the left hand at all. Anybody who knows how to touch type will already use two hands, one hand for the right ALT key and one hand for the x key. The days of old keyboard layouts with a single ALT are long over.

Re:Focus stealing is your enemy

[ion.simon.c]

No window should ever steal focus ... ever.

I disagree. I wish for dialogs originating from the application that currently has focus which pop up due to an action that I have initiated to steal my keyboard focus.

Firefox Profile Manager comes up at Firefox start? I want it to have focus.
File chooser dialog spawns 'cause of a "Save As..." type action? That needs focus.
Said file chooser box takes a while to spawn, and I've moused over to a terminal in the meantime? The terminal shall maintain focus when the chooser dialog eventually shows up.

At some level, this becomes a matter of taste. :)

Incremental search is the greatest thing since sliced bread. (Even Visual Studio has it!) ;)

Re:Focus stealing is your enemy

[Creepy Crawler]

No GUI??

On Ubuntu 8.10, do following:

System>Preferences>CompizConfig Settings Manager (we will say CCSM for short)

In CCSM, click on icon "General Options".

In this screen choose tab labeled "Focus & Raise Behaviour".

Find option "Focus Prevention Level". Set to any setting you wish (mine is at high).

________

I just described what you could do as per a ex-Windows user would be used to being told. Things just work, and settings- complex settings are easy to set.

Re:Focus stealing is your enemy

[lena_10326]

Yahoo messenger is very annoying with focus stealing. You can be typing to a friend and suddenly you're accepting some jackass/bot on your friends list or accepting some conference invite because a sudden popup stole the ENTER keystroke.

Re:Focus stealing is your enemy

[tehcyder]

No window should ever steal focus ... ever. Don't even do it if the computer will blow up, or the world will end, if I fail to respond.

That's a tad selfish, no?

Re:Focus stealing is your enemy

[0xABADC0DA]

I'm running Ubuntu 8.10 and there is no "CompizConfig Settings Manager" under System -> Preferences.

It may be a GUI that configures Compiz, but it's not included out of the box like every other Preference a user would expect. I'm not sure Configuration Editor is included for that matter, I might have specifically installed it.

Re:Samba is considered harmful

[Hordeking]

slightly over the top, but there's a lot of truth in that. The Linux community has a "good enough" attitude. CVS was good enough (thankfully, there are finally better solutions). X is good enough. Interopability with Windows is good enough. No. It's a crutch that lets MS call their shit cross platform when they should be eliminated. Say NO to mediocracy. Say NO to Microsoft compatability.

I don't know that it's entirely true. I use Samba on my Linux box. But that's because I'm temporarily using it headlessly via ethernet with X, SSH, and so on through my folk's Windows computer. I don't consider it a crutch at all. When I first changed off windows about a year ago, it was hard. Now I do a lot of my work on my linux box (and it's harder to do the stuff on windows now).

OS agnosticism is a good thing. It can be achieved in a couple of ways: open standards that everyone follows (probably the best way), and everyone implements everyone else's standards enough to make it work (not the most optimal, but it works).

Very true

[Viol8]

I don't know how windows works low level but in X windows theres no excuse for focus stealing since its quite easy to make a window pop up over all the others but not take the focus so you still keep typing away in the window underneath.

Emacs

[kwabbles]

Since you mentioned it, I think Emacs is my favorite desktop manager. It's also my favorite CAD program.

Re:Samba is considered harmful

[inasity_rules]

*wonders why sibling posters took this so seriously.*

At least he has the sense to post AC when drunk... :-)

Can GNOME do these KDE equivalents?

[KWTm]

Sir, you seem to be familiar with GNOME, so I'll throw out some more questions about KDE equivalents in GNOME, and maybe you can convince me to switch.

1. Customizing keyboard shortcuts in GNOME. E.g. I want the "reload" key to be "Alt-Shift-B" rather than "Ctrl-R" in Firefox (for example), or Win-Shift-D to bring up the clipboard list of items for cut&paste. How do I do this?
2. Controlling GUI programs via command-line/script. The equivalent of DCOP in KDE3. If I want Konqueror (web browser) to go to the web page in Klipper (the clipboard) memory, I say: dcop konqueror-6500 konqueror-mainwindow#1 openURL `dcop klipper klipper getClipboardContents` I think GNOME uses either DBUS or something called "Bonobo". Same sort of scripting ease/flexibility?
3. File requester dialogues, specific to each program. When I want to open a file in Kolourpaint (for example), the file search dialogue box has bookmarks which I can preset to jump to commonly used directories (see here: http://api.kde.org/4.0-api/kdelibs-apidocs/kio/html/kfiledialog.png for image). GNOME has the same, but I don't know how to get them to be program-specific. That is, the bookmarks for Kolourpaint, which point to my image directories, should be different from KWrite's bookmarks, which point to where my text files are stored.
4. When I Drag & Drop in KDE, a menu pops up: "Copy? Move? Link?" If I press Ctrl before "dropping" the file (releasing the mouse), KDE will know I want to copy. If it's Shift, then KDE will move the file. If it's Alt, then it will link. Equivalent in GNOME?
5. Equivalent of Norton Commander/Midnight Commander for GNOME? (In KDE, it's Krusader.)

These are the main things that keep me with KDE. In particular, there are a whole bunch of scripts I've written with DCOP calls.
There are a few things inducing me to consider GNOME.

1. KDE is switching to KDE4. It uses DBUS, not DCOP. If I have to re-write my scripts, I'll take a close look at whether KDE4 really is better than GNOME.
2. Ubuntu uses GNOME. Yes, there's Kubuntu, but it's treated like a second-class citizen. They don't address the weaknesses in KDE: "New! We're going to use Beagle search! Oh, it's not compatible with KDE? Ah, well, you guys go mess around with Strigi or something." They don't address the strengths of KDE: "Breakthrough: after pouring tons of man-hours into Ubuntu, we have improved utilities! What's that? KDE already had that three years ago? Who cares --don't you have to run along and go compile some code?" And the last straw: "Oh, we can't support KDE3 long term. But we're not supporting KDE4 long term either. In fact, we're decided to forget to mention anything about Long Term Support in Kubuntu."
3. My mom and dad switched to Linux and are using Ubuntu with GNOME. They keep asking me how to set things, and I have no idea since I use KDE.

So, if I can get comfortable with GNOME, it might be worth serious consideration.

Thanks for any help you can give.

Re:Can GNOME do these KDE equivalents?

[tjwhaynes]

1. Customizing keyboard shortcuts in GNOME.

"gTweakUI - menus" offers a GUI way to enable GTK apps to rebind keys on the fly. Or you can edit your ~/.gtkrc-2.0 and add

gtk-can-change-accels = true

2. Controlling GUI programs via command-line/script.

qdbus or dbus-send allow this sort of activity and apply to both GNOME and KDE4 apps. Although for your example I'd probably use xclip and invoke firefox directly.

3. File requester dialogues, specific to each program.

Not that I'm aware of. Most GNOME apps seem to remember the last location a file was saved but I think that's it.

4. When I Drag & Drop in KDE, a menu pops up

Right-click drag in GNOME produces a menu (Copy/Move/Link). Left-click drag will move files if you are on the same filesystem, or will copy if you are crossing filesystem boundaries. The latter is useful when copying files to a USB key, for example. The icon changes to indicate that change in behaviour, and can be overriden using Ctrl (for copy), Shift (for move) or Alt (for menu prompt).

5. Equivalent of Norton Commander/Midnight Commander for GNOME?

GNOME Commander is one choice. I seem to remember others but I tend to either use Nautilus, Emacs or the command line for file ops.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Re:Can GNOME do these KDE equivalents?

[Dolda2000]

Or you can edit your ~/.gtkrc-2.0 and add

gtk-can-change-accels = true

Minor correction: That seems to be gtk-can-change-accels = 1. At least my GTK did not accept true as a valid value.

Re:Samba is considered harmful

[amias]

in most situations i have tested scp is faster than samba and its encrypting the data so something is
not so good with samba.

KDE vs GNOME, bleh, another war

[massysett]

I have used both KDE and GNOME for extended periods (total, over a year for each) and I just can't claim to have a strong preference for either. I like how KDE is configurable, but sometimes it is too cluttered. I like that GNOME looks cleaner, but it can be irritating when I want to change something but can't. I like KDE's ioslaves, but GNOME also integrates things like ssh into Nautilus fairly well. GNOME's defaults are good; by default KDE 3.5 makes a bunch of irritating sound effects.

I have gone back and forth between them but have now settled on KDE just because I know how to make it do what I want, not because I have a strong preference. Before I used GNOME, not because I had a strong preference but because I used Ubuntu.

Overall it seems to me the two desktops are somewhat different so it is good to have them both. I don't know why folks like to swear one of them is "better" because, if it were better, it would be the only one in existence. Tools fall into disuse when there is an obviously superior alternative.

Since this is (was?) a place for programmers it would be more interesting if these wars talked about the differences of programming for KDE versus GNOME.

Mod parent up! Screenshots would help Debian pkgs

[KWTm]

Can I ask how that is different than finding add-ons for firefox? To me it seems to be the exact same thing, without firefox.

One difference is that the Firefox pages often features screenshots, while the application installer in Ubuntu is plain text.

Good point! Not necessarily easy to implement, but you do point out something that would give a more user-friendly feel, since lay users find graphics less intimidating.

Maybe, to cut down on CPU load, there can be a blank picture next to each program with "Click to see screenshot." Also another (easily visible/accessible) option saying, "Click to load all screenshots (might take a long time!)". And that option must be cancellable if the user has decided that the wait is too long.

Re:Samba is considered harmful

[Culture20]

Say NO to Microsoft compatability.

Say no to wide-spread Linux usage!

I don't think parent is meant as Flamebait. It's the eventual result of Microsoft incompatibility (at least it would be in most IT shops). If you remove MS Office compatibility from OpenOffice, and Samba from Linux, unless you're in a university or some other place that does number crunching, the only use for Linux would be as a webserver. With rdesktop, Samba, et al, I'm able to gradually nudge my users into a *nix world by using only Linux on my laptop (which I take to meetings just to show off compiz).

Re:Samba is considered harmful

[Anonymous Coward]

While I may agree with some of the sentiment about things only being "good enough" but interoperability is what helps people transition their networks to Linux. For example if someone wants to import a Linux workstation into a Windows environment, it will do fuckall if they cannot access useful shares on the SMB shares. Sure you can say "Just move everything over to NFS" but that takes time, money, and effort. Transitions can happen but people need things in the mean time and I think SMB is doing a phenomenal job bridging the gap between Windows and Linux. Also lets say for example, just hypothetically that maybe an office doesn't want to move over to 100% Linux. You know "best tool for the job" etc and so on, so while you may have animosity towards Microsoft, it is the a top player in office environments and when you're fighting a uphill battle, you try to be as compatible as possible, make the transition smooth, and give users less of a reason to use the other guy's product if your product does the same thing and also inter operates with the competition, people will be more inclined to use it.

Ah yes. All this 'choice' is sooooo great

[Rob Y.]

Reading this post, it's obvious that the 'choice is good' mantra is so simplistic as to be useless.

When it comes down to desktop environments, if you need to know all these details to choose best of breed apps from various desktops, you're essentially gonna end up picking one or the other desktop and living with its deficiencies. That's a choice of sorts, but hardly optimal.

That isn't to say that both KDE and GNOME are not better than they would otherwise have been without the other as competition to spur them along - though Windows and OS/X ought to provide competition enough for that...

But seriously. The advantages of competing development have been reaped, and we're left with the problems. Various incompatibilities and no logical target for any new app. KDE, GNOME and freedesktop need to work together toward a new goal. Define a set of shared services that all underlying toolkits can rely on for common dialogs, themes, etc. Ultimately produce a desktop on which there are no visible differences between a GTK app and a QT app. Or as close as you can get.

The ultimate question is whether there's something about FOSS that makes such cooperation impossible. Obviously, nobody can be forced to respect any kind of dictated standard - though it seems like within the desktops, devs do respect the standards. Yes somebody could always fork off yet another desktop, but ultimately if the GNOME and KDE muckety-mucks could agree to cooperate, they could more or less impose their decisions on the rest of us. And about now, that sounds okay - as long as it works like KDE ;)

As it is, we're ending up letting Ubuntu (a good, but not great distro) make our decisions for us. Even somebody like Jeremy Allison ends up pretty unenthusiastically 'endorsing' GNOME because he figures Ubuntu is the new 'standard target'. But he doesn't sound thrilled...

Re:NFS does suck... does not.

[agristin]

??

1- NFS performance is amazing. It isn't the protocol you have performance problems with it is the transport (layer 1 or layer 2). The protocol in a transport might make a couple % points difference, and that even rarely.

The transport is where it is at. Comparing gigabit with FC is a losing battle for NFS, but compare 10G with FC (even 8G FC) and you have NFS at the top of the performance heap right now for mass storage, only iSCSI is in the same ballpark- but it is also on... 10G ethernet. iSCSI also cannot do simultaneous reads/writes like POSIX compliant NFS can. Direct attach is miserable because you invest loads in disk and can only use it on one server. What if you want to share that data around? Replicate? Islands of storage?

2) use automounter. Seriously, this hasn't been a problem for 5-10 years. Automounter, hostnames, don't use IP addresses (better if you can reverse the addresses).

You obviously haven't maintained NFS either recently or in a large environment.

NFSv4 does things your post doesn't even mention (security and ACL improvements, some performance in some cases).

Debian FTW!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing wrong with apt-get...Since using Linux about 2 years, I have used the keyboard more than I did with the previous 6 of windows xp....I feel like I'm actually *using* my computer rather than a CPU housing with a mouse....Regarding GNOME/KDE I noticed that Debian used to come with KDE by default, but now it installs GNOME ...I bet there were a few tears and gnashing of teeth at the KDE devs office...but I think it was the right choice.

Re:Samba is considered harmful

[fabs64]

Absolutely.

Boss: Wait, but if you're using this "linux" how will you use outlook?
Me: I'll be running windows in a VM
Boss: So it'll make..
Me: ..No difference
Boss: ... So why would I care?

FVWM2

[Anonymous Coward]

I never understand the need to drag and drop things between windows. If you don't need that, stay with the lightest, reasonable, window manager - FVWM2.

Re:Samba is considered harmful

[Yiliar]

However, it will be the compatibility with M$ software that will push Linux mainstream.

It was MS Word incompatibility that caused it to become the de facto standard when MS convinced PC manufacturers to pre-load Windows. There were many UNIX based and proprietary OS based word and document processing, and plublishing tools that were (only a few still exist) far superior to Word.

Prior to those days, MS used to rant about compatibility until it became a power buzzword.

It is a sad truth that the world of IT and computing in general would be better off tomorrow if MS disappeared from the face of the earth.

The dearth of computing platforms is already frightening. No one should be pushing future business towards the existing 'standards' of MS compatibility.

Linus is oft quoted as saying that he has no wish to make Linux compete with MS.

He is wise.

He is not alone. Thankfully, there are companies like Apache, and projects like perl and php, that defy the corporate doctrine of market share, in favor of innovation and common sense.

Re:Ah yes. All this 'choice' is sooooo great

[jbolden]

Since about 1999 KDE has had problems with major distributions. It started with Debian (though that is fixed) then RedHat was very pro-Gnome, and Sun's Java desktop. Just look at who are the members of the Gnome foundation particularly 6-8 years ago. The OEM versions Progeny and User Linux were both Gnome based.

In the end though KDE has out innovated Gnome fairly consistently. Linux users pick KDE over Gnome for themselves by a large but not overwhelming majority. Ubuntu started off Gnome only but KDE users demanded a KDE version. On the other hand Mandriva (Mandrake) had to go the other way.

There just isn't a clear winner today. Moreover the two diverged heavily in their plusses and minuses and design choices.

Re:Samba is considered harmful

[Fred_A]

However, it will be the compatibility with M$ software that will push Linux mainstream.

Of course, and with pretty much anything else.

It had a big advantage in being able to decipher files (having access to a wealth of open tools) and protocols through a wealth of open libs) that most proprietary systems, most notably Windows are blind and deaf to unless you invest in several compatibility packages.

In the past 10 years that I've been setting up Linux machines for small and middle sized shops, the main point was that they were typically the simplest ones to just drop in (although a BSD would have worked equally well in most cases I guess) with associated simplicity/security/simplified maintenance (at least from my POV). And I haven't had any complaints yet.

Mostly, Linux "just works". And then, it keeps on working. No weird crashes (or I've always tracked them down to faulty hardware), no incomprehensible messages in syslog à la Mac OS, no daemons running that nobody knows about à la Windows.

Nowadays I'm putting it on workstations for "plain" users more and more often. And those who still keep a legacy Windows machine because of some old app to ease the transition (old machines won't have enough RAM to run a virtualizer) actually typically won't run anything else in Windows after just a few weeks. "It's just to crappy" they say.

IMO Linux has a very bright future in the workplace. And once people use it at work, they'll bring it home.