The FAQ is a bit confusing. What I understand it as is a packaging/polishing of the GNOME desktop. I guess you could think of it as a GNOME distribution. They've included some neat stuff from CVS (like gnome-core 1.15) and made the whole shebang installable from the web via a nice front end. It is not the automatic package installer only. It also includes sawmill as a default WM.
Hopefully Helix will have the time and energy to keep their packages up to date. If the installer/updater thing came with RedHat that would be fairly cool as well, then we wouldn't have to wait for Redhat to package up new GNOME stuff.
Another cool thing is that they will be including other apps that aren't that "core GNOME".
Note: I don't speak for the GNOME team. This is my understanding of what HelixCode mean by Helix GNOME.
Re:Why does Aqua look so much better than GNOME?
on
New Desktop for Linux
·
· Score: 1
GNOME. A desktop environment built on top of GTK which in turn is an X toolkit.
Therefore GNOME does not "have" fonts. Neither does it force you to change that background. Or for that matter that style of titlebar (use a different WM theme). Don't like the amount of icons on the screen? Get rid of the one's you don't want. Of all the bad aspects of GNOME, and that screenshot you could have picked on, you picked on the ones that either don't exist, or are not GNOME's fault.
The fonts are the reponsibility of the X server, (or XFS in newer distros). Short of dumping X there is nothing GNOME can do about it.
GNOME should however adopt an official WM, and work on making it integrate well with GTK themes. Sawmill is a prime candidate for this.
At the end of the day, it's just one screenshot. And one which was designed to demonstrate GNOME's component technology, not the beauty of the GUI. The Mac OS X one on the other hand was designed to do just that. Compare like for like if you're going to criticise. (That's not to say however that there are no criticisms, or that all of your criticisms aren't valid.
Incidentally the GNOMErs do know that the UI aspects need work. That's why they've started up a project to improve them. How about lending a hand? The GNOME development site is here.
*sigh*. When did Linus ever say that commercialism is bad. The sex/software quote contains the word free. Free speech, free beer, I wonder which one he was talking about?
"Holier than though attitude to non open source projects"?! That's why Linus has allowed Red Hat et al. to make money from his idea. He didn't have to release Linux under the GPL. He could have made his own licence that would have precluded the idea of any commercial use of the Linux kernel. But he didn't. Show me one quote where he "bashes" the idea that software can/should make money.
As for the anti-MS quotes, IIRC, they concern the inherent crapness (come and see the crapness inherent in the system!) of their OS. Not the fact that they make money. Or even because they make proprietary software. RMS has criticised Linus in the past because he has a "soft" stance on proprietary software.
Of course I haven't touched on the fact that he's merely an employee of Transmeta, and is probably not in a position to force the open sourcing of the Crusoe software. There are other comments in this thread that do so far more eloquently than I could.
The stuff that you mention is actually denied on the link provided in the article above. Well, the rumour about the Native-Americanish character anyway.
Although this may be a case of "methinks that they protest too much" of course.
Kick-ass development tools yes. Kick-ass visual development tools no.
Kdevelop is very good but doesn't feel as polished as Delphi or JBuilder. The others aren't really finished yet.
If Borland's IDE/debugger frontend is bolted onto GCC (I really hate Object Pascal) then I'll be a happy man. It could be to Linux what VB was/is to Windows.
Having said that, the VB IDE is even better, no matter what you think of the language. But that's an aside...
The "OSS model" was around before Bill Gates hacked out a version of BASIC. Software was routinely shared in places like the MIT AI Lab and the Bell Labs. That's how our beloved Linux came about, remember?
Sure it was nowhere near as recognised and well-known as it is now. Neither were computers widespread. However, OSS is merely a return to that philosophy of sharing software in order to make it better. Scrap all the words after "sharing software" in that last sentence if you're a GNUer!
You're right though when you say that OSS is a logical progression. Many people have got totally hacked off with the cack that is passed for software, mostly (but not exclusively) from Microsoft. Like an article at Linuxworld.com said, we have Bill and his company to thank for making RMS's arguments for him.
In this interview, both parties express the opinion that people who copy their software without their permission are bad and wrong.
Surely they have a right to feel like this. If they choose to develop software in a closed source type fashion, surely if we rip off this software this is wrong. Even if we feel that it was wrong of them to have written their software in that manner.
The part where Bill Gates is defending the fact that parts of the Trs-80, especially the ROM, were not fully documented. His (fairly inarticulate) defence shows how little he cared for the customers who were buying his stuff, many of whom would have been enthusiasts who wanted to use the machine to it's utmost. A policy which of course is still very much in evidence today in things like hidden API's and an OS which keeps all but the most determined away from the machine. Has anybody got a machine with Windows to be exactly as they wanted it?
Even back then he was firmly of the view that decent software could and would not be written by enthusiastic volunteers. He still can not see it, even with all the amazing stuff that has come out of decades of software sharing.
I remember reading a (admittedly unconfirmed)rumour that applications programmers in Microsoft were gagging to write ports for other platforms/OSes. If this is true, then surely the break up will make this easier for them.
Conversely, I suppose that whoever is in charge of "Microsoft Applications" could prevent that. How is it decided who runs these "Baby Bills" anyway? What's to stop the three heads of the new companies basically carrying on as normal by consipiring (for want of a better word) with each other?
And to be honest, who would design human language the way it is? Unneccesary redundancies and contradictions do not a nice language make. It's only because of the amazing capacity of the infant brain to learn language that we pick it up so easily.
That's the point isn't though? Despite it's "design", human language is expressive and powerful. It's evolved that way. And so it is, and will be, with Perl. Like LW said :
"A camel is a horse designed by a committee. Or at least it looks like one. But appearances can be deceiving, and a camel is well adapted to its ecological niche. So is Perl. Despite the fact that it is designed by a committee."
Plus, from the Camel book, "Camel's weren't designed to smell good. Neither was Perl."
Nice idea. However, the main problem with speeding - in the UK anyway - is in rural or built-up areas. I can see many annoyed motorists if cars were restricted to 30 mph!
No, the better solution is decent education of motorists, and the proper use of external measures, such as decent policing and (where appropriate) traffic humps.
Yes this idea does go against human rights. No it is not right that the government can remotely control us. But....
The UK government can't run the number of hospitals it has, let alone additional ones in the number that would be required
Override switches would be useless in the majority of the cases where it is neccesary to accelerate away from danger. It would only work in the case of emergency vehicles - which IMO should not have the device fitted anyway if this scheme were to go ahead.
Therefore these "counter" arguments can be easily countered.
It is a combination of both arguments that must be made. The counter arguments given here simply do not hold water.
Absolutely. In the UK, speeding charges can be appealed against on the grounds of "special circumstances", or wording to that effect. For example, the footballer David Beckham escaped a driving ban because he was escaping from paparazzi who were pursuing him dangerously. Whether this was a good argument or not, UK law see's fit to allow leniency if the circumstances allow.
Under this system there is no appeal, no special circumstances. The government (who regularly protest that they are not anti-motorist) will put pay to this, and endanger lives.
I don't work for either of these companies. I was trying to think of alternatives to Amazon (there aren't that many in the UK) and these are the sites I thought of.
For the most part I agree with you. However some psychological problems are truly caused by physical issues with brain, chemical inbalances, whatever. I'm not a psychopharmacologist (is that the word I'm looking for or did I just make it up?) by any means, so I may be wrong, but surely for those instances drugs are the best, if not only solution.
It's obviously true that not all problems are soluble thorugh a pill. (Pun unintended.) Some are though.
BTW I'm not completely talking out of an orifice other than my mouth. My mother works in a respite home for mentally disabled children.
Sergeant Pepper in many respects could be regarded as a hack (in the Jargon file sense) , technically and musically Technically because, let's face it, many recording techniques were pioneered on that record and musically because it sounded like nothing before it. Just my tuppence worth
The Independent is one of the UK's leading broadsheet papers. It's pretty reliable. In the UK is articles in paper's such as the Daily Sport (~Weekly World News) that you never ever believe.
The problem, as far as I see it, is not only the proprietary extensions added to browsers like IE but also the plug-ins that are written for them that are Windows only. I don't think that plug-ins are neccesarily a bad thing, it's just a fact of life that along with so many other applications, they're just not there on Linux. Yet.
I think you've missed the point. Yes Christianity is prevalent in Western society. But it is increasingly clear that Christians are fair game but anyone who takes a shot at any other religous/ethnic group is a bigot. Those views are "full of shit". And I would hazard a guess that they are not shared among the vast majority of Christians. BTW. I especially enjoyed the link to a posting made by one isolated WMC.
Slashdot Mirror
Hopefully Helix will have the time and energy to keep their packages up to date. If the installer/updater thing came with RedHat that would be fairly cool as well, then we wouldn't have to wait for Redhat to package up new GNOME stuff.
Another cool thing is that they will be including other apps that aren't that "core GNOME".
Note: I don't speak for the GNOME team. This is my understanding of what HelixCode mean by Helix GNOME.
Therefore GNOME does not "have" fonts. Neither does it force you to change that background. Or for that matter that style of titlebar (use a different WM theme). Don't like the amount of icons on the screen? Get rid of the one's you don't want. Of all the bad aspects of GNOME, and that screenshot you could have picked on, you picked on the ones that either don't exist, or are not GNOME's fault.
The fonts are the reponsibility of the X server, (or XFS in newer distros). Short of dumping X there is nothing GNOME can do about it.
GNOME should however adopt an official WM, and work on making it integrate well with GTK themes. Sawmill is a prime candidate for this.
At the end of the day, it's just one screenshot. And one which was designed to demonstrate GNOME's component technology, not the beauty of the GUI. The Mac OS X one on the other hand was designed to do just that. Compare like for like if you're going to criticise. (That's not to say however that there are no criticisms, or that all of your criticisms aren't valid.
Incidentally the GNOMErs do know that the UI aspects need work. That's why they've started up a project to improve them. How about lending a hand? The GNOME development site is here.
"Holier than though attitude to non open source projects"?! That's why Linus has allowed Red Hat et al. to make money from his idea. He didn't have to release Linux under the GPL. He could have made his own licence that would have precluded the idea of any commercial use of the Linux kernel. But he didn't. Show me one quote where he "bashes" the idea that software can/should make money.
As for the anti-MS quotes, IIRC, they concern the inherent crapness (come and see the crapness inherent in the system!) of their OS. Not the fact that they make money. Or even because they make proprietary software. RMS has criticised Linus in the past because he has a "soft" stance on proprietary software.
Of course I haven't touched on the fact that he's merely an employee of Transmeta, and is probably not in a position to force the open sourcing of the Crusoe software. There are other comments in this thread that do so far more eloquently than I could.
Although this may be a case of "methinks that they protest too much" of course.
Kdevelop is very good but doesn't feel as polished as Delphi or JBuilder. The others aren't really finished yet.
If Borland's IDE/debugger frontend is bolted onto GCC (I really hate Object Pascal) then I'll be a happy man. It could be to Linux what VB was/is to Windows.
Having said that, the VB IDE is even better, no matter what you think of the language. But that's an aside...
Sure it was nowhere near as recognised and well-known as it is now. Neither were computers widespread. However, OSS is merely a return to that philosophy of sharing software in order to make it better. Scrap all the words after "sharing software" in that last sentence if you're a GNUer!
You're right though when you say that OSS is a logical progression. Many people have got totally hacked off with the cack that is passed for software, mostly (but not exclusively) from Microsoft. Like an article at Linuxworld.com said, we have Bill and his company to thank for making RMS's arguments for him.
Surely they have a right to feel like this. If they choose to develop software in a closed source type fashion, surely if we rip off this software this is wrong. Even if we feel that it was wrong of them to have written their software in that manner.
Conversely, I suppose that whoever is in charge of "Microsoft Applications" could prevent that. How is it decided who runs these "Baby Bills" anyway? What's to stop the three heads of the new companies basically carrying on as normal by consipiring (for want of a better word) with each other?
When every new VHS movie it seems has a DVD release as well?
When major film companies are releasing big chunks of their back catalogue?
What more do you want? Distributors giving you free DVD's to persuade you about the format?
Oh, and the argument that something is not going to catch on because there's "something better round the corner" is almost always hokum.
Personally, I fail to see the point in video piracy. OK, I haven't seen any VCD pirates, but pretty much all the VHS pirates I've seen have been lousy
Also, thank LW for patch, surely his second best contribution to the programming world.
That's the point isn't though? Despite it's "design", human language is expressive and powerful. It's evolved that way. And so it is, and will be, with Perl. Like LW said :
"A camel is a horse designed by a committee. Or at least it looks like one. But appearances can be deceiving, and a camel is well adapted to its ecological niche. So is Perl. Despite the fact that it is designed by a committee."
Plus, from the Camel book,
"Camel's weren't designed to smell good. Neither was Perl."
No, the better solution is decent education of motorists, and the proper use of external measures, such as decent policing and (where appropriate) traffic humps.
The UK government can't run the number of hospitals it has, let alone additional ones in the number that would be required
Override switches would be useless in the majority of the cases where it is neccesary to accelerate away from danger. It would only work in the case of emergency vehicles - which IMO should not have the device fitted anyway if this scheme were to go ahead.
Therefore these "counter" arguments can be easily countered.
It is a combination of both arguments that must be made. The counter arguments given here simply do not hold water.
Under this system there is no appeal, no special circumstances. The government (who regularly protest that they are not anti-motorist) will put pay to this, and endanger lives.
Waterstones
WHSmith Books online
I don't work for either of these companies. I was trying to think of alternatives to Amazon (there aren't that many in the UK) and these are the sites I thought of.
For the most part I agree with you. However some psychological problems are truly caused by physical issues with brain, chemical inbalances, whatever. I'm not a psychopharmacologist (is that the word I'm looking for or did I just make it up?) by any means, so I may be wrong, but surely for those instances drugs are the best, if not only solution.
It's obviously true that not all problems are soluble thorugh a pill. (Pun unintended.) Some are though.
BTW I'm not completely talking out of an orifice other than my mouth. My mother works in a respite home for mentally disabled children.
Sergeant Pepper in many respects could be regarded as a hack (in the Jargon file sense) , technically and musically Technically because, let's face it, many recording techniques were pioneered on that record and musically because it sounded like nothing before it. Just my tuppence worth
The Independent is one of the UK's leading broadsheet papers. It's pretty reliable. In the UK is articles in paper's such as the Daily Sport (~Weekly World News) that you never ever believe.
The problem, as far as I see it, is not only the proprietary extensions added to browsers like IE but also the plug-ins that are written for them that are Windows only. I don't think that plug-ins are neccesarily a bad thing, it's just a fact of life that along with so many other applications, they're just not there on Linux. Yet.
I think you've missed the point. Yes Christianity is prevalent in Western society. But it is increasingly clear that Christians are fair game but anyone who takes a shot at any other religous/ethnic group is a bigot. Those views are "full of shit". And I would hazard a guess that they are not shared among the vast majority of Christians. BTW. I especially enjoyed the link to a posting made by one isolated WMC.