GNOME 2.30, End of the (2.x) Line

stovicek writes "GNOME 2.30 was originally intended to coincide with GNOME 3.0 — a massive cleanup and rethinking of the popular desktop. However, GNOME 3.0 is delayed for at least another release, which leaves GNOME 2.30 as most likely the last version in a series stretching back almost a decade. [...] 2.30 will probably be the final version of the 2.0 series. For those who were around for GNOME 2.0 back in 2000, the 2.30 release stands as evidence of how far GNOME in general and the free desktop in particular have come in the last decade in usability and design. If you do a search for images of early GNOME releases and compare the results with 2.30, you can have no doubt that, although GNOME sometimes tends to over-simplify, its improvements over the last decade remain unmistakable."

Comments

Sounds like a KDE-type cleanup

[slimjim8094]

If this is done properly, I think it'll be good for GNOME. From where I sit, they sound like they're shooting for a major architecture redesign. In other words, this 2.30 release is analogous to the 3.5 releases of KDE.

And I think starting largely from scratch will be a net benefit. I've never personally used GNOME (though I've recommended it to others) and I've found it to be technologically lacking compared to KDE (KParts and KIOSlaves are awesome, and while there are GNOME counterparts they aren't as used).

One thing I think GNOME does very well is their HIG - probably the best outside of Apple. The new release is very simple - dump a lot of legacy code and keep the HIG. Maybe drop the old-fashioned look too.

Though my fantasy is to see them use Qt.

Re:Sounds like a KDE-type cleanup

[cheesybagel]

It's a matter of taste. Personally I hate Qt's slot mechanism. And Moc. IMO the problem with GNOME is not GTK+, it's Mono.

Re:Sounds like a KDE-type cleanup

[MrHanky]

The KDE type cleanup is what they did for 2.0, which was what made Linus Torvalds say "fuck this shit, I'm switching to KDE" (and, incidentally, what made him say "fuck this shit, I'm switching to Gnome" after trying KDE4). It pissed off a lot of other users as well. Of course, Gnome 2.0 was a bit more stable and less bug-ridden than KDE4, but on the other hand it had almost no features you'd expect from a computer (which was supposedly 'good for you', according to the HIG apologists, pretty much like the absence of multi-tasking on the iPad until yesterday), and took several years before it was as useful as 1.4 (the last version I used).

I forget. Did I have a point with all this? Oh, yes, the cleanup: it sucked the last time, and I hope they manage it better now, or they will probably hear it until the next time some huge project mismanages a major revision. On the other hand, maybe a botched Gnome3 release will help KDE get the recognition it deserves again.

Re:Sounds like a KDE-type cleanup

[slimjim8094]

I love signals and slots. They require a bit of a different way of thinking, and a semi-proprietary compiler (it's open source but still).

It's really the first time since Visual Basic where I think a language has really 'gotten' event-driven programming. Everything else has you writing your own event loops to switch on a message type. Signals/slots let you use a single statement as a patchboard. It's the reason they can have an example where a slider changes a text box in one line of code.

Is it different? Sure. It's slightly different than straight C++, but not by much. It definitely demands a new way of thinking about how to program graphical applications. But if you can manage it, I think it's far superior.

Though I'd also agree that Mono's crapulence is Gnome's biggest problem. I don't want the whole damn framework for some note-app

Re:Sounds like a KDE-type cleanup

[Mad Merlin]

It's a matter of taste. Personally I hate Qt's slot mechanism. And Moc. IMO the problem with GNOME is not GTK+, it's Mono.

I'd say it's Mono, to a lesser extent GTK+, and to a greater extent the fetish of removing any and all features.

GUADEC

[ReinoutS]

The GNOME Conference (GUADEC) will be in The Hague (NL) this year from July 26-30. You can bet there'll be a lot of GNOME 3.0 hacking going on there. More information: see the GUADEC website.

Re:First for the first time!

[sayfawa]

Good thing you didn't waste it.

I got first post once, but I didn't even say "first post" or any other misspelled incarnation of it, as I assumed (incorrectly) that someone else would have gotten it by the time my comment went up.

But there it was, at the top of the pile.

Now, when I hear someone say they have no regrets in life, I can only sigh and sadly look down at my feet.

Not the same stuff - much worse!

[_greg]

Yes, I DO remember the early days of Gnome and how much better it was than now:
    - automatic save and restore of multi-workspace sessions
    - handy window operations like maximize-vertically and maximize-horizontally
    - easy to change settings like which app to handle movies, etc.
I remember when clicking on a menu button gave an instant response,
not a several second delay for the first time in a session.

Gnome has become bloated and slower while becoming less stable and less powerful.
It is neither easier nor harder for beginners. It has more eye candy.

Gnome clients have also gone downhill: Evolution used to support my mh mail folders.
Now it uses a database that crashes when I try to load my old mail and fails to work
with my rules. It still doesn't integrate the contact manager with the mail rules.

I'd switch to KDE but they've been destroying themselves even faster!

Re:Uhmmmm

[Peach Rings]

There are a lot more things I don't like about KDE4. It tries to be all integrated, with a common notification daemon for example, so that status messages can appear with a consistent look in the corner of the screen. The problem is that virtually nothing supports it except for KDE apps that start with "K". If you want that sleek, consistent QT4 look, you're limited to a small subset of free software - there are a lot more GTK applications than QT applications. And I'd prefer to be able to use, for example, a different file manager. Without dolphin, you're unable to take advantage of KIO and whatever search index thing that KDE uses. KDE as a whole seems really tightly coupled - I regularly use gnome apps on my XFCE system without having the gnome libs installed. That's unheard of for KDE.

A particular barrier for me to use KDE is a decent web browser. I've used Konqueror for a few months and it's OK, but KHTML became intolerable. Arora (webkit powered) is good but incomplete. I have similar complaints about the usual KDE chat programs, music players, and Konsole.

Re:early gnome

[jonadab]

Not the same, that's for sure.

Personally I liked Gnome 1.x a good deal better than I like the 2.x series.

Except for gnome-terminal. The newer versions of gnome-terminal are better.

But everything else is worse. More dependencies that shouldn't be necessary, worse performance, more emphasis on completely pointless features like the ability to use the file manager as a web browser (WHY would I EVER want that?) but fewer *useful* features (like, the ability to have an always-on-top panel of a particular size in a particular position, which was great for stuff like having a clock just to the left of where the minimize button was on maximized windows), more gratuitous bug-the-user annoyances (like dialog boxes asking you stupid questions and/or unasked-for windows popping up voluntarily every time you connect a USB device or insert a disc), more undesirably arcane Windows-esque stuff (like gconf), more effort required to get the theme the way you like it, and some things you just plain *can't* do, or I have not figured out how (like, changing the icons on the built-in feature buttons on the panel for things like logging out; in 1.x this was as easy as changing the icon on an app launcher).

If Gnome 1.4 were compatible with modern software (both directions: modern versions of the software it requires, like libraries, and, going the other way, modern versions of applications), I'd still be using it. It was good. I have no idea why they decided to screw it up so much. Gnome 2.x comes across as a bad sequel or a poor remake. It is inferior in nearly every respect.

I can't say I'm very excited at the prospect of Gnome 3.0. What features are they going to take away now, the foot menu and the ability to have a clock on the panel? And what are they going to add? A useless 3D "walk through" filesystem animation like in Jurassic Park, which activates automatically every time a filesystem is mounted? Fixed-size desktop-bound "gadgets", like in Windows Seven, which are strictly inferior to panel applets in every way? Take your time, guys, take your time. I'm in no hurry to upgrade.

I think a lot of KDE users disappeared with KDE4.

[aussersterne]

I used KDE from KDE 1.0, when I switched away from TWM. I was fully integrated into the KDE "way of life," and reliant on lots of KDE apps.

I tried to use KDE4.0 but after about two weeks it got the boot. Though it has theoretically improved and I keep a KDE 4 installation on my Fedora 12 personal machine, logging into KDE thus far provides no incentive to switch back, despite updates.

Dolphin is still intolerably slow. Important apps still don't share a consistent appearance; Firefox, Chrome, and OpenOffice in particular look good in GNOME but are full of distracting artifacting and other appearance problems in KDE. GNOME apps in general don't mix well with KDE themes right now. The graphics still don't work right. A notification balloon is likely to take out half the taskbar, etc. They blame this on the radeon driver and I believe them, but that's the hardware I have, and GNOME shows none of the same problems. Desktop management for multiple monitors doesn't behave as I expect it to, and it's difficult to create a configuration that jostles well amongst varying configurations of external, internal, or both, monitors without taskbars disappearing or desktops shifting from display to display unexpectedly. The default icon theme is far too colorful and luminous for focused desktop work of the kind that I do (lots of writing, editing, and calculating) but there are few replacement icon sets to be found. The wireless connectivity manager seems incapable of working with my simple home WiFi installation without needing constant reconfiguration and tinkering, while in GNOME it "just works."

Yes, some of these things could be fixed, but to trudge through each one of them would require rather a lot of time and effort that I just don't have to spare. So despite the fact that I'm still not wild about GNOME either, KDE4 is simply not on the cards in the near future for me. What's missing everywhere is polish. Not the kind that makes widget corners have a "glass" appearance, but the kind that keeps widgets from disappearing or artifacting unexpectedly, or the kind that doesn't leave you wondering why the hell the widget doesn't work, or there isn't a widget for that at all, in the first place. Details work. Not big thoughts. KDE needs to cut out the innovation for a while and patch roof leaks.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that many other KDE users right up through KDE 3.x switched to GNOME with the KDE4 release.

Re:Uhmmmm

[Stormwatch]

"Simplicity" can mean different things.

Ask a regular user: a "simple" system hides any complexity; in this sense, Ubuntu is simple - everything is automated or set by GUI-based tools.

Ask a developer: a "simple" system is transparent; in this sense, Slackware is simple - there are few GUI-based tools to set the system.

Re:Uhmmmm

[Abcd1234]

I'm really tired of the trade-off between simplicity and functionality. This trade-off should not be inherent to either windowing system. Rather, the variety of options presented to the user should be configurable. Each distribution should be able to decide how simple or how configurable they want to make their windowing environment when it is first installed.

Uhuh.

And then people would bitch about bloat because supporting all those features, options, and workflows would required a fuckton more code.

So here's an idea: pick the environment that fits your needs. Gnome, KDE, XFCE, or heck, throw components together that fit your needs. But quit expecting these projects to be infinitely flexible, it's completely unreasonable.

Mono considered harmless

[steveha]

If there is a patent trap in Mono (which exists regardless of its license), then that means that MS can then sue all those businesses and governments for patent infringement.

I'm getting sick of this meme.

Tell me, are you a patent attorney? What is your expertise for making claims like this one?

Now I'm not a patent attorney either, but here is my understanding: If Microsoft does assert some kind of submarine patent, the main effect will be to cause GNOME and everybody else to yank out Mono. At that point, we will just have to port the Mono apps to Java or something. That is the absolute worst case. Can you give me an example of any time where some company had a submarine patent, then suddenly asserted it, and successfully extracted a bunch of penalties from businesses and governments?

Furthermore, while I'm still not a patent attorney, I have read Groklaw for a while, and I read some essays there about the "unclean hands" doctrine. If a company has patent rights, and discovers that someone is infringing, that company has a duty to inform the infringers as soon as possible; it is not allowed to just let the patent sit there ticking like a bomb, and then demand extra damages because the infringer was infringing for so long.

So, let's review: Mono is a technology that is very similar to the JVM, which in turn is similar to other virtual systems, going all the way back to the UCSD P-system. The amount of prior art is staggering. Besides that, the only danger is a submarine patent, not a new patent: the .NET stuff has been around for years and years, and you have to file for a patent before you publicly disclose a technology, or you lose your chance.

So, the alleged threat is that there is a patent already granted, that nobody has noticed, on technology that has a ton of prior art; and Microsoft is deviously not asserting the patent, but is going to later. Microsoft won't care about the negative publicity for itself and for .NET, because it stands to gain so much and is certain its patent will survive all challenges. And anyone infringing will somehow be on the hook for penalties.

I for one don't believe any of it. C# is as safe as Java and Mono is as safe as the JVM.

steveha