I personally think E has addictivity built in, I have tried everything else and each project has SOME of the things I like about E, but only E has them all.
I think that about sums it up for me, too. E just can't be beat.
When I came to Linux from LiteStep/Windows E was the ONLY WM I could theme to act like the Litestep 0.24.5 default theme. AfterStep is close, since LS was modeled after it, but some things were just too different.
The article is incorrrect, it was not a word processor. It was text formatting/processing (think troff, etc.) in preperation for printing. Processing did happen, and it did process words, but to say that what they developed was a "Word Processor" is misleading at best. It wasn't even a text editor, what they developed was in a different category.
Gnome and KDE also get compared to the various Windows GUI's, and OS X. Therefore, thre is a degree of competition between Gnome and those interfaces. Granted, that's slightly different, given that neither runs on Linux, so that's not relevent to all the users of Gnome.
I remember when people complained because KDE was too windows-like. Now GNOME is so Windows-like it makes KDE look like a rebell. How times do change...
There is an expert mode in gnome: it's called gnome-terminal. Why do purported "power users" want anything else?
Yeah, exactly. In fact, screw gnome-terminal! It's too bloated. Even xterm is better! That's why I don't use GNOME. The only power tool GNOME offers is gnome-terminal, which frankly sucks by comparison to other terminal emulators.
Which I think proves the point: GNOME is not a good environment. I can tell this absolutely, because I don't even consider using it. I'd LIKE to, some times, so I try it now and then. ANd when it comes down to it I find myself shackled to a less configurable environment with nothing going for it. What can I do with GNOME that cannot be done with exec=xterm? Nothing. GNOME has removed all of the useful tweaks nd options, or relegated them into gconf so that I don't even know to look for them. It's utterly USELESS.
The argument that you'll get is that's not really fair, since Explorer is a shell and a browser, and Firefox is just a browser (despite that it contains lots of stuff that "just a browser" wouldn't). To keep people from making silly objections such as this, let's consider konqueror (a more equitable comparison indeed!)
According to ldd and a really awful pipeline, konq's libs on my system total to 27407883 in size, plus 3424 for the binary itself. I believe I have debug symbols on.
That makes Konq 26768K, compared with IEs 17315K.
Of course we are again not being fair, since I don't think IEs deps given above include (for example) GL:
Now if a shell = things that you click, GUI = X/things I display, windows manager = controlling borders/windows (but may or may not include how it looks or how parts act on that window), why would I care? I have a "Windowing System" that shows things/moves things around/accepts clicks and does things, isn't that one system, one "thing"?
In a sense, yes. You shouldn't care, most people don't care, don't need to care, and never need to care. However, the differences are highly important to one point which LostCluster was trying to make, which was (I believe) about Window Managers specifically and not about any of the other parts.
You are saying that there is a fixed definition for parts. If it controls windows, its a Windows Manager and ONLY a Windows Manager can control windows.
That is not at all what I am saying. Originally, LostCluster said "Microsoft makes the only window manager" and you said "There are replacement shells" which of course was a misunderstanding, which I tried to fix. Taking a *nix perspective, because on the *nix side things are more clearly broken out and can be refered to more easily, I described what it was you can replace on Windows, and what you can't. You can choose to define the parts any way you like and break them down however you like, that isn't important. The only point I was trying to make is that when the original poster said "microsoft makes the only window manager" they were probably NOT refering to the Explorer shell, and therefore the fact that it can be replaced (whereas the Windows-equivalent of the Window Manager cannot) is not really a valid refutation.
I still don't even see what is the practical difference between them all. You gave a nice example, but how does this apply to the real world in which someone would actually go through the trouble to do your example?
My example was an attempt to educate since you didn't seem to understand what I was talking about but wanted to know. It's not supposed to be something you'd do in the real world. You asked why WM != Shell, and I presented the example as an illustration of the differences between the parts. The idea was to increase your knowledge about how it all works so that we could continue this conversation more usefully.
If you were actually saying "I think WM should be the same as Shell, and I'd like to know the reasons why the terms cannot be used interchangeably" then I apologize, we are not having the kind of conversation I thought we were having.
I know of no way to run a full win32 application, even a simple one like Notepad, in any environment other than Windows or emulated Windows. You're right, I know nothing if Windows development. Could you write a new GUI which seemlessly replaces the Windows one but breaks no ordinary applications? This would have to be done at the kernel level, I presume, since the Windows GUI is done there.
More to the point: has anyone done this and released something I could use to do it to my own system? Because if they haven't than my point stands: The user cannot just swap out the windows GUI.
Similarly for the Windows window manager--I don't know of anything that replaces it, but please correct me if you do.
I don't get this. Task Bar does controls windows (close, opens, minimize, "titlebar it") but its not part of the "windows manager". Fine, so why bring it up? If it "technically" does it, why can't we count it "actually" doing it?
Because while what the task manager does could be described via the english phrase "manage windows" the task manager itself is actually managing tasks, and it is merely due to the multiple meanings of english words that either phrase would technically work. What is meant when people speak of Window Managers is a thing which a task manager does not do, even if one could speak of a task manager by using the words "window manager".
I seriously doubt it. If that screen shot is purely geoshell and not Geoshell+WindowBlinds (or similar) then it is merely geoshell providing a WM Theme.
Geoshell does this.
From http://docs.geoshell.com/R4?pagename=ReplacementSh ellForWindows "Allows you to launch programs from buttons, from menus, from hotkeys--in any combination! (How about a hotkey that pops-up a menu of your most used applications?)"
In Windows a "shell replacement" does many things which are not directly what is done by a window manager under *nix. A shell replacement provides launchers, hotkeys, etc.--what I refered to as "Desktop Envitonment" above. The fact that it can also add hotkeys, which is often controlled by the Window Manager under *nix, does not make it a Window Manager since Windows still manages the windows.
No, it includes stuff that does more than just rudimenntary theming, as I've pointed out above.
I have seen no evidence of more than mere theming. The screenshot you provided shows Geoshell, a shell replacement. Its launcher and other bits are, of course, not mere themes on the Explorer shell, but that is because the Explorer shell has been in that screen shot replaced. The Window Manager is still the same and has been merely themed.
Realistically, why would you want to replace X, in light of "Windows Managers"?
I wouldn't. (Although you can: see Y and other X replacements.) I don't see where this question comes from. I didn't suggest replacing X, I merely said it can be done.
Why isn't "Windows Manger = Shell", except for specific nitpicking?
Because a shell is just things you click on. Try this: Edit ~/.xsession or ~/.xinitrc (depending on X configuration it may be either or both) and change it to solely contain: exec xterm
When you startx X will come up with one xterm and no window boarders. Now, presuming you have KDE installed, say 'kicker &' to launcher the KDE panel in the background. You now have two things open with the ability to open many more--but still no way to manage windows. You can switch between tasks via kicker, but you cannot manage windows. Now in the xterm type (presuming you have it installed) 'metacity &' which should launch the Metacity Window Manager. Now you have a fully working environment! You have the shell (in this case just a launcher) kicker, the Window Manager metacity, and an application, xterm. Now do you see the difference? A launcher just doesn't manage windows.
This isn't nitpicking, it's real technical difference. My television set isn't the TV signal, no matter how closely the two are related in my head.
Why isn't for the vast majority of users they are not equal?
I do not parse that meaningfully.
I've shown how you can replace these things in MS Windows.
You have not. I welcome you to try, but I have never seen either one replaced in MS Windows. I don't doubt that it COULD be done, but I doubt it could be done easily or without breaking a whole bunch of stuff. When before I said "You can't" I meant "There are no products that do this" and to my knowledge I am entirely correct.
This is awesome. I still often play Pirates! myself, it is a game never really duplicated or bettered. Until, perhaps, now. I'd still prefer a standalone version that can be played single-player and offline, but maybe in time that will come.
I can't wait for the open beta to begin! I always liked to play the ruthless, merciless pirate and was dissappointed that I could always get away with it. Maybe this game will (at last) let me live out my swashbuckling fantasies with a bit of real challenge. Rape, pillage, plunder! Woo!
>Microsoft makes the kernel, Microsoft makes the one and only window-manager,
There are lots of third-party replacements shells for Windows.
Window Manager != Shell.
On Windows there are a lot of replacements for Explorer, the Windows desktop shell. There's Litestep, Darkstep, Geoshell, Neoshell, MyShell, @Shell, etc, etc.. My experience is out of date, but I personally tried a dozen fully usable free shells, and there were more you had to pay for.
But no matter what shell you used the windows always had the window control widgets in the same place. The shell is merely a desktop shell: With explorer you get a desktop, icons, taskbar, systray, and start menu. None of these things controls or positions windows.
(While you do technically "manage" windows via the task bar, that is not what is meant by "Window Manager")
Under Windows to get the look-and-feel of window borders and control widgets to be different you must use WindowBlinds or some equivalent. Even this does not replace the Windows Window Manager, it merely provides more than rudimentary theming for it.
Under Linux, or more specifically under X-Windows, the Window manager controls the placement and sizing of windows. It provides borders and control widgets for Windows. It may provide hotkeys and a few things like that. Anything more than that is not really part of the Window Manager, but merely are programs that usually ship/run with it. KDE does not require kdesktop, it's just/usually run/ with KDE. In fact, the K desktop environment can run with a window manager which is not kwin.
The parts of what you see on the screen can be broken down like this:
GUI - this is X Window Manager - window movement/placement, controls and borders. WM Theme - how your window manager looks Widget set - your non-WM-controlled widgets/buttons/etc Widget theme - how your program widgets look Desktop Environment - launchers, task managers, etc. Programs - clocks, word processers, whatever
Under Windows you can not replace the first two. Under Linux you can
GTK requires GLib. GLib in no way uses or requires GTK.
GLib and GTK are required by GNOME, GNOME is in no way part of GLib or GTK.
It's important to get things in the right order.
Getting rid of the glib depend would be stupid. This is because the only way to get rid of it is to reimpliment parts of it. If GStreamer uses only a little, maybe they can phaze it out by just copying the bits they need into their own source tree. But if any significant portion is used, discarding glib just because "GNOME relies on it" would be stupid.
Also, the implication that glib is controlled by GNOME is false. Influenced, certainly, because GNOME programs as a collective whole are probably the biggest users of glib, and you would have to be a fool not to listen to your users.
GLib is simply a C library implimenting a lot of things which most C programmers are going to write themselves if they can't find an easy existing solution. A set of string functions is just the most obvious example. I used glib once in a little program just so I didn't have to write some bloody annoying string functions, and while I was at it saved time by using glib's dynamic arrays. I would have resorted to some substandard linked list stuff without glib.
GLib is a basic component, something C programmers can use to get the more important work done. It wont be maliciously changed by GNOME villains out to wreck KDE.
Slashdot Mirror
What article is that? I can provide a correction. Better yet, why don't you correct it? That's how it's supposed to work, after all.
The Infocom game I never finished was Bureaucracy! Now that was tough... /me screams!
/me goes looking for a strong drink.
Please to be NOT mentioning that game again.
Yes.
I personally think E has addictivity built in, I have tried everything else and each project has SOME of the things I like about E, but only E has them all.
I think that about sums it up for me, too. E just can't be beat.
When I came to Linux from LiteStep/Windows E was the ONLY WM I could theme to act like the Litestep 0.24.5 default theme. AfterStep is close, since LS was modeled after it, but some things were just too different.
All hail E! Now gimme my goddam E17 already...
The old default themes (which made the distribution almost 18M in size!) have been replaced with "Winter" by rephorm.
Great, great... but can I still use BlueSteel?
Did you note the day? Today is Saturday, also known as "Slow News Day" here on Slashdot. Any story of even minor interest will get posted.
tracert? Obviously you use Windows too much to be worth helping here on Slashdot.
Real = Buffering
Funniest damn thing I've seen all day...
Five coolness points! SPEND THEM WISELY.
...which will be wiped out by a tidal wave. Oops.
The article is incorrrect, it was not a word processor. It was text formatting/processing (think troff, etc.) in preperation for printing. Processing did happen, and it did process words, but to say that what they developed was a "Word Processor" is misleading at best. It wasn't even a text editor, what they developed was in a different category.
Gnome and KDE also get compared to the various Windows GUI's, and OS X. Therefore, thre is a degree of competition between Gnome and those interfaces. Granted, that's slightly different, given that neither runs on Linux, so that's not relevent to all the users of Gnome.
I remember when people complained because KDE was too windows-like. Now GNOME is so Windows-like it makes KDE look like a rebell. How times do change...
There is an expert mode in gnome: it's called gnome-terminal. Why do purported "power users" want anything else?
Yeah, exactly. In fact, screw gnome-terminal! It's too bloated. Even xterm is better! That's why I don't use GNOME. The only power tool GNOME offers is gnome-terminal, which frankly sucks by comparison to other terminal emulators.
Which I think proves the point: GNOME is not a good environment. I can tell this absolutely, because I don't even consider using it. I'd LIKE to, some times, so I try it now and then. ANd when it comes down to it I find myself shackled to a less configurable environment with nothing going for it. What can I do with GNOME that cannot be done with exec=xterm? Nothing. GNOME has removed all of the useful tweaks nd options, or relegated them into gconf so that I don't even know to look for them. It's utterly USELESS.
Debian does something almsot identical with its upgrades.
Yes. RTFM.
I'll bet is was Microsoft. A small price to pay to promote their DRM'd WMA!
The last student who set up a files search for a university network was sued for copyright infringement. Remember that?
The argument that you'll get is that's not really fair, since Explorer is a shell and a browser, and Firefox is just a browser (despite that it contains lots of stuff that "just a browser" wouldn't). To keep people from making silly objections such as this, let's consider konqueror (a more equitable comparison indeed!)
/usr/bin/konqueror /usr/lib/libkdeinit_konqueror.so (0x4003b000) /usr/lib/libkonq.so.4 (0x400f7000) /usr/lib/libkparts.so.2 (0x40173000) /usr/lib/libkio.so.4 (0x401b6000) /usr/lib/libkdeui.so.4 (0x404c3000) /usr/lib/libkdesu.so.4 (0x40765000) /usr/lib/libkdecore.so.4 (0x4077f000) /usr/lib/libDCOP.so.4 (0x40967000) /lib/tls/libdl.so.2 (0x4099c000) /lib/tls/libresolv.so.2 (0x4099f000) /usr/lib/libart_lgpl_2.so.2 (0x409b1000) /usr/lib/libkdefx.so.4 (0x409c7000) /usr/lib/libqt-mt.so.3 (0x409f3000) /usr/lib/libpng12.so.0 (0x410b2000) /usr/X11R6/lib/libXext.so.6 (0x410d4000) /usr/X11R6/lib/libSM.so.6 (0x410e2000) /usr/X11R6/lib/libICE.so.6 (0x410eb000) /lib/tls/libpthread.so.0 (0x41102000) /usr/lib/libXrender.so.1 (0x41111000) /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.so.6 (0x41119000) /lib/tls/libutil.so.1 (0x411e1000) /usr/lib/libz.so.1 (0x411e4000) /usr/lib/libfam.so.0 (0x411f5000) /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5 (0x411fd000) /lib/tls/libm.so.6 (0x412b6000) /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x412d9000) /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x412e2000) /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000) /usr/lib/libfontconfig.so.1 (0x4141b000) /usr/lib/libaudio.so.2 (0x41440000) /usr/X11R6/lib/libXt.so.6 (0x41455000) /usr/lib/tls/libGL.so.1 (0x414a6000) /usr/X11R6/lib/libXmu.so.6 (0x41503000) /usr/lib/libXcursor.so.1 (0x41519000) /usr/lib/libXft.so.2 (0x41522000) /usr/lib/libfreetype.so.6 (0x41534000) /usr/lib/libexpat.so.1 (0x415a2000) /usr/lib/tls/libGLcore.so.1 (0x415c0000)
According to ldd and a really awful pipeline, konq's libs on my system total to 27407883 in size, plus 3424 for the binary itself. I believe I have debug symbols on.
That makes Konq 26768K, compared with IEs 17315K.
Of course we are again not being fair, since I don't think IEs deps given above include (for example) GL:
$ ldd
libkdeinit_konqueror.so =>
libkonq.so.4 =>
libkparts.so.2 =>
libkio.so.4 =>
libkdeui.so.4 =>
libkdesu.so.4 =>
libkdecore.so.4 =>
libDCOP.so.4 =>
libdl.so.2 =>
libresolv.so.2 =>
libart_lgpl_2.so.2 =>
libkdefx.so.4 =>
libqt-mt.so.3 =>
libpng12.so.0 =>
libXext.so.6 =>
libSM.so.6 =>
libICE.so.6 =>
libpthread.so.0 =>
libXrender.so.1 =>
libX11.so.6 =>
libutil.so.1 =>
libz.so.1 =>
libfam.so.0 =>
libstdc++.so.5 =>
libm.so.6 =>
libgcc_s.so.1 =>
libc.so.6 =>
libfontconfig.so.1 =>
libaudio.so.2 =>
libXt.so.6 =>
libGL.so.1 =>
libXmu.so.6 =>
libXcursor.so.1 =>
libXft.so.2 =>
libfreetype.so.6 =>
libexpat.so.1 =>
libGLcore.so.1 =>
Now if a shell = things that you click, GUI = X/things I display, windows manager = controlling borders/windows (but may or may not include how it looks or how parts act on that window), why would I care? I have a "Windowing System" that shows things/moves things around/accepts clicks and does things, isn't that one system, one "thing"?
In a sense, yes. You shouldn't care, most people don't care, don't need to care, and never need to care. However, the differences are highly important to one point which LostCluster was trying to make, which was (I believe) about Window Managers specifically and not about any of the other parts.
You are saying that there is a fixed definition for parts. If it controls windows, its a Windows Manager and ONLY a Windows Manager can control windows.
That is not at all what I am saying. Originally, LostCluster said "Microsoft makes the only window manager" and you said "There are replacement shells" which of course was a misunderstanding, which I tried to fix. Taking a *nix perspective, because on the *nix side things are more clearly broken out and can be refered to more easily, I described what it was you can replace on Windows, and what you can't. You can choose to define the parts any way you like and break them down however you like, that isn't important. The only point I was trying to make is that when the original poster said "microsoft makes the only window manager" they were probably NOT refering to the Explorer shell, and therefore the fact that it can be replaced (whereas the Windows-equivalent of the Window Manager cannot) is not really a valid refutation.
I still don't even see what is the practical difference between them all. You gave a nice example, but how does this apply to the real world in which someone would actually go through the trouble to do your example?
My example was an attempt to educate since you didn't seem to understand what I was talking about but wanted to know. It's not supposed to be something you'd do in the real world. You asked why WM != Shell, and I presented the example as an illustration of the differences between the parts. The idea was to increase your knowledge about how it all works so that we could continue this conversation more usefully.
If you were actually saying "I think WM should be the same as Shell, and I'd like to know the reasons why the terms cannot be used interchangeably" then I apologize, we are not having the kind of conversation I thought we were having.
I know of no way to run a full win32 application, even a simple one like Notepad, in any environment other than Windows or emulated Windows. You're right, I know nothing if Windows development. Could you write a new GUI which seemlessly replaces the Windows one but breaks no ordinary applications? This would have to be done at the kernel level, I presume, since the Windows GUI is done there.
More to the point: has anyone done this and released something I could use to do it to my own system? Because if they haven't than my point stands: The user cannot just swap out the windows GUI.
Similarly for the Windows window manager--I don't know of anything that replaces it, but please correct me if you do.
I don't get this. Task Bar does controls windows (close, opens, minimize, "titlebar it") but its not part of the "windows manager". Fine, so why bring it up? If it "technically" does it, why can't we count it "actually" doing it?
u =F 0Vela
h ellForWindows
Because while what the task manager does could be described via the english phrase "manage windows" the task manager itself is actually managing tasks, and it is merely due to the multiple meanings of english words that either phrase would technically work. What is meant when people speak of Window Managers is a thing which a task manager does not do, even if one could speak of a task manager by using the words "window manager".
Doesn't Geoshell do this?
http://www.geoshell.com/users/desktop.zoom.asp?
I seriously doubt it. If that screen shot is purely geoshell and not Geoshell+WindowBlinds (or similar) then it is merely geoshell providing a WM Theme.
Geoshell does this.
From http://docs.geoshell.com/R4?pagename=ReplacementS
"Allows you to launch programs from buttons, from menus, from hotkeys--in any combination! (How about a hotkey that pops-up a menu of your most used applications?)"
In Windows a "shell replacement" does many things which are not directly what is done by a window manager under *nix. A shell replacement provides launchers, hotkeys, etc.--what I refered to as "Desktop Envitonment" above. The fact that it can also add hotkeys, which is often controlled by the Window Manager under *nix, does not make it a Window Manager since Windows still manages the windows.
No, it includes stuff that does more than just rudimenntary theming, as I've pointed out above.
I have seen no evidence of more than mere theming. The screenshot you provided shows Geoshell, a shell replacement. Its launcher and other bits are, of course, not mere themes on the Explorer shell, but that is because the Explorer shell has been in that screen shot replaced. The Window Manager is still the same and has been merely themed.
Realistically, why would you want to replace X, in light of "Windows Managers"?
I wouldn't. (Although you can: see Y and other X replacements.) I don't see where this question comes from. I didn't suggest replacing X, I merely said it can be done.
Why isn't "Windows Manger = Shell", except for specific nitpicking?
Because a shell is just things you click on. Try this: Edit ~/.xsession or ~/.xinitrc (depending on X configuration it may be either or both) and change it to solely contain:
exec xterm
When you startx X will come up with one xterm and no window boarders. Now, presuming you have KDE installed, say 'kicker &' to launcher the KDE panel in the background. You now have two things open with the ability to open many more--but still no way to manage windows. You can switch between tasks via kicker, but you cannot manage windows. Now in the xterm type (presuming you have it installed) 'metacity &' which should launch the Metacity Window Manager. Now you have a fully working environment! You have the shell (in this case just a launcher) kicker, the Window Manager metacity, and an application, xterm. Now do you see the difference? A launcher just doesn't manage windows.
This isn't nitpicking, it's real technical difference. My television set isn't the TV signal, no matter how closely the two are related in my head.
Why isn't for the vast majority of users they are not equal?
I do not parse that meaningfully.
I've shown how you can replace these things in MS Windows.
You have not. I welcome you to try, but I have never seen either one replaced in MS Windows. I don't doubt that it COULD be done, but I doubt it could be done easily or without breaking a whole bunch of stuff. When before I said "You can't" I meant "There are no products that do this" and to my knowledge I am entirely correct.
This is awesome. I still often play Pirates! myself, it is a game never really duplicated or bettered. Until, perhaps, now. I'd still prefer a standalone version that can be played single-player and offline, but maybe in time that will come.
I can't wait for the open beta to begin! I always liked to play the ruthless, merciless pirate and was dissappointed that I could always get away with it. Maybe this game will (at last) let me live out my swashbuckling fantasies with a bit of real challenge. Rape, pillage, plunder! Woo!
>Microsoft makes the kernel, Microsoft makes the one and only window-manager,
/usually run/ with KDE. In fact, the K desktop environment can run with a window manager which is not kwin.
There are lots of third-party replacements shells for Windows.
Window Manager != Shell.
On Windows there are a lot of replacements for Explorer, the Windows desktop shell. There's Litestep, Darkstep, Geoshell, Neoshell, MyShell, @Shell, etc, etc.. My experience is out of date, but I personally tried a dozen fully usable free shells, and there were more you had to pay for.
But no matter what shell you used the windows always had the window control widgets in the same place. The shell is merely a desktop shell: With explorer you get a desktop, icons, taskbar, systray, and start menu. None of these things controls or positions windows.
(While you do technically "manage" windows via the task bar, that is not what is meant by "Window Manager")
Under Windows to get the look-and-feel of window borders and control widgets to be different you must use WindowBlinds or some equivalent. Even this does not replace the Windows Window Manager, it merely provides more than rudimentary theming for it.
Under Linux, or more specifically under X-Windows, the Window manager controls the placement and sizing of windows. It provides borders and control widgets for Windows. It may provide hotkeys and a few things like that. Anything more than that is not really part of the Window Manager, but merely are programs that usually ship/run with it. KDE does not require kdesktop, it's just
The parts of what you see on the screen can be broken down like this:
GUI - this is X
Window Manager - window movement/placement, controls and borders.
WM Theme - how your window manager looks
Widget set - your non-WM-controlled widgets/buttons/etc
Widget theme - how your program widgets look
Desktop Environment - launchers, task managers, etc.
Programs - clocks, word processers, whatever
Under Windows you can not replace the first two. Under Linux you can
llxdoom!
It does run on Windows.
GLib is not tied to GTK, GTK is tied to GLib.
GTK requires GLib. GLib in no way uses or requires GTK.
GLib and GTK are required by GNOME, GNOME is in no way part of GLib or GTK.
It's important to get things in the right order.
Getting rid of the glib depend would be stupid. This is because the only way to get rid of it is to reimpliment parts of it. If GStreamer uses only a little, maybe they can phaze it out by just copying the bits they need into their own source tree. But if any significant portion is used, discarding glib just because "GNOME relies on it" would be stupid.
Also, the implication that glib is controlled by GNOME is false. Influenced, certainly, because GNOME programs as a collective whole are probably the biggest users of glib, and you would have to be a fool not to listen to your users.
GLib is simply a C library implimenting a lot of things which most C programmers are going to write themselves if they can't find an easy existing solution. A set of string functions is just the most obvious example. I used glib once in a little program just so I didn't have to write some bloody annoying string functions, and while I was at it saved time by using glib's dynamic arrays. I would have resorted to some substandard linked list stuff without glib.
GLib is a basic component, something C programmers can use to get the more important work done. It wont be maliciously changed by GNOME villains out to wreck KDE.