Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GNOME To Start Using Codenames

Posted by timothy on from the not-very-hush-hush-of-you-to-point-out dept.

prisoninmate writes: A discussion between GNOME developers and users during the annual GUADEC conference lead to potential code names for the desktop environment, starting with the upcoming September release, GNOME 3.18, which might be dubbed Gothenburg. They decided to codename the September releases after the city where the GUADEC conference took place, as explained above, and the March releases after the city where the GNOME.Asia Summit will take place.

25 of 46 comments (clear)

  1. So we won't know it's Gnome until the release? by tlambert · · Score: 1

    So we won't know it's Gnome until the release?

    Very, very, sneaky!

    I suggest the first code name be "Zurich"; my second choice is "Gringott"... don't tell anyone, we wouldn't want them knowing we were talking about Gnome!

    1. Re:So we won't know it's Gnome until the release? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Alberich. OK, so that's a dwarf.

      A homicidal dwarf who hides the treasure and turns into a dragon.

      Sounds about right.

  2. Yay by ArchieBunker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So glad they sorted out all the other issues and devoted time to what really matters.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Yay by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      There is always some time for mundane things. That's not the problem. The problem is that /. is making it news for nerds.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
  3. changeling, starring angelina jolie, will continue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Switching to codenames seems unnecessary. Version 3 was completely unrecognizable as Gnome already.

  4. Everything you need to know about GNOME 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There are two screenshots that will show you everything you need to know about GNOME 3 and the disaster that it has been.

    The first screenshot shows Gedit, a simple graphical text editor for the GNOME environment. This is what it looked like prior to the GNOME 3.

    The second screenshot also shows Gedit, but as part of GNOME 3.

    Yes, that's right. GNOME 3 somehow managed to completely fuck up the UI of something as basic as a simple graphical text editor. It took a program that was usable, and turned it into a monstrosity. It took a desktop environment that was usable, and turned it into a monstrosity.

    1. Re:Everything you need to know about GNOME 3 by Kavonte · · Score: 2

      Holy fuck... Does anyone actually use Gnome 3, or is it just a playground for a bunch of people who wish they weren't born after all of the good GUI concepts had been discovered and want to move ahead as if there are still better GUI concepts to be discovered and we all just need to get used to them?

      I mean, the original goal was "come up with GUI widgets that are intuitive enough that you don't have to teach people how to use them." However, we've already done that, so they seem to have chosen a different goal, namely "come up with GUI widgets that everyone would agree are better if only they'd take the time to learn how to use them and also forget about all of those things that make using a computer easier that we haven't bothered to implement an alternative for as we don't do those things ourselves."

      I feel handicapped enough when I'm forced to use Windows, as the lack of (a useful implementation of) virtual desktops drives me insane when I try to do anything of moderate complexity, and even when I'm doing simpler things I'm annoyed by the task bar now having just icons and no window titles, and having to click the program's icon, then select which window of that program I want. (Undoubtedly that's done to deal with the lack of virtual desktops requiring so many windows to be displayed on the task bar, and indeed, none of the third-party virtual desktops available for Windows bother to limit the windows shown on each virtual desktop's task bar to only the windows that are open on that virtual desktop.) If I were ever forced to use Gnome 3, however, I'd probably just switch to using Windows, since even though it's a pain in the ass, it's still possible to do things with it.

      Honestly, I think KDE 4, Gnome 3, and Pottering are all just plots by Microsoft to ensure that Linux never wins the OS war. I mean, everyone hates Pottering, so how is he able to affect the Linux ecosystem so much? Obviously he has a publicity team working for him, telling him where he needs to be, what he needs to say, and writing piles of just-good-enough code for him, such that he is able to inflict maximum damage to the Linux ecosystem.

    2. Re:Everything you need to know about GNOME 3 by Kavonte · · Score: 1

      What exactly is wrong with a task bar and a start menu? It works. People know how to use it. Why fuck that up, especially to replace it with something that seemingly no one is able to understand the vision behind. Even you haven't told me what is actually better about Gnome 3, other than it being a "blank slate" as if failing to start out with a usable configuration is a good thing. Indeed, I wouldn't even call the Firefox which had to be loaded up with plugins to be a worthwhile web browser a good thing. Back then I was using Opera, where all of the plugins people loved in Firefox were out-of-the-box features in Opera. (Of course, that didn't stop lots of "but Opera doesn't have a ______ plugin" complaints. Plugins are fucking retarded, they're just features that should be a part of the core software but for some reason aren't.)

      As for the out-of-date icons, I can understand that, but then why fuck up the entire UI rather than just replace some icons? Hell, remove the icons entirely for all I care. I've never been a fan of the stupid icons anyway, usually ignoring them in most cases just to pick things out of the menus anyway, which is why I get pissed when people take away my menus because they're "too cluttered" or whatever. God-forbid that the fact that software is capable of doing things be even remotely visible to first-time users. Apparently software isn't elegant enough until it appears to be entirely featureless to first-time users.

    3. Re: Everything you need to know about GNOME 3 by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      But why would you hit enter? Since it searches while you type, what other reason is there to hit Enter, unless you are done with it? Edit the line you need and if you need the search box as it was, press ctrl+f again.
      There is little use of it just hanging there. If you need to see what contains, it is already highlighted in the text, if you need to type something there, you already have lost the focus and will be forced to click in it or press ctrl+f anyway.

      Also, if you don't mind having search dialog up all the time, use search and replace one.

  5. Could be worse, Fesora 19, Schroding"er's Release by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

    It could have been worse. Fedora 19 was the "Schrödinger's Cat" release, and it broke number of software installation tools . Many old scripts in bash, ruby, or perl would read "/etc/issue.net" or "/etc/fedora-release", and now had to parse the Unicode content with a single quote and two text words embedded in the text. For many old, simply written shell scripts, in particular, it broke them _very_ badly.

    For many of us, Fedora 19 was known as the "Bobby Tables" release. ( https://xkcd.com/327/ )

  6. Re:Yay - systemd by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

    When I first got into computers, the startup sequence was hard-coded into the kernel, as was the command shell. The idea of plug-replaceable shells and filesystems came later, along with customizable startup sequences and other buffet-style services.

    I'm beginning to feel like we've stopped moving forward and have started moving backwards.

  7. Transparent Default Terminal by jwymanm · · Score: 1

    It had to be said.. Yes, I know, Fedora patches and urxvt (I even maintain a branch with text shadow and transparency), terminator, etc. But come on and include something at least on par with MacOS's terminal. I do love the quake-like terminal plugin for gnome shell and it does transparency without a hitch. Out of box matters and people do want something equivalent to MacOS or hell even Cygwin's mintty. The rest of Gnome / Gnome Shell are doing pretty well except I think Tweak Tool should be a default as well. Otherwise I appreciate the project all together and use it daily once I configure it heavily. The project needs to listen a bit more to its users it definitely could easily make many more people happier with it that way.

  8. Re:Seems like an optimization for crappy search by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

    Quite true.

    Unfortunately a lot of projects pick overly clever code names and get themselves all tangled up with existing popular search terms, to the detriment of both.

  9. Because version numbers were simple... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...and easy to understand. Obviously they have no place in GNOME.

    1. Re:Because version numbers were simple... by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      I suppose there is an hidden configuration option you can set to translate the codename into a version number, provided you know how to do it from the command line to show the hidden option into the GNOME configuration menu.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    2. Re:Because version numbers were simple... by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      No, but I believe there's an extension for it. The problem is that they broke the extension with the Smelly Skunk release.

  10. Featurekill, Nodesktop, Ignoreusers... by BrendaEM · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sabbotaged, Cantshutdown, Removefunctionality, Singlepanefile, Cinnamonh8tr, Activiteslongword, Formoverfunction, Lostourway.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
    1. Re:Featurekill, Nodesktop, Ignoreusers... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Mac1984

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Featurekill, Nodesktop, Ignoreusers... by Arkh89 · · Score: 2

      WeJustLostOurUserBase, GnomeIsGone, WeDontEvenReadYourFeedbacks, ClickThatShit, YouBetterBeBlind, VivaLaUX, ...

  11. Dibs on "Chrome Falcon" by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 1

    After Gnome 3, it's completely understandable that the developers would want to switch to code names. Using their real names probably made it too easy for disgruntled users to track them down.

  12. Re:Could be worse, Fesora 19, Schroding"er's Relea by kthreadd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But then the software that broke was obviously broken, so this was a good test to catch them and fix them.

  13. Re:code names are annoying by Kavonte · · Score: 1

    I feel the need to reply "me too" here, just so that perhaps some people not reading score 0 comments (since, by default, they're not shown) will see your post.

    Damn Slashdot and its war on Anonymous Cowards.

  14. Codenames by Kuruk · · Score: 1

    Because a code name makes everything better.

  15. Re:Could be worse, Fesora 19, Schroding"er's Relea by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

    I just read the discussion over su reimplementation in systemd, Funny how people insist that old [UNIX] code is not broken and any evidence of contrary are met with denial.

  16. pronunciation by mcswell · · Score: 1

    I hope they can pronounce it. It's s.t. like [yotebur], at least that's what I recall from when I was there ten or twelve years ago. If English speaking people pronounce it the way it's spelled, the Vikings may start raiding our coasts.

    Ok, just found it in the Wikipedia article, and it's [jtbrj]: that's a front rounded vowel in the first syllable, and a sort of [i] ('ee') on the end. I guess my pronunciation was/is pretty bad. But not as bad as it would be if I tried to use the spelling (and my English pronunciation) as a guide.