Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNOME GUI

GNOME 2.0 Released 461

Posted by michael from the stomping-its-way-to-glory dept.
MAXOMENOS writes "The GNOME team has announced the release of GNOME 2.0. You can get more information about the GNOME 2.0 system here." Congratulations to everyone involved. Use the mirrors...
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GNOME 2.0 Released More

GNOME 2.0 Released

Comments Filter:

  • Get To Those Mirrors! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26, 2002 @02:24PM (#3771009)

    GNOME FTP Sites This site is mirrored at:

    Last updated Wed Jun 26 03:18:01 2002 from our mirror database (webmaster@gnome.org [mailto]).

  • I have a mirror here for you people to use (Score:4, Funny)

    by Saint Aardvark ( 159009 ) on Wednesday June 26, 2002 @02:24PM (#3771010) Homepage Journal
    It's right here on my VIC-20's tape drive. The URL is --

    Cripes, already slashdotted. You bastards!

  • Good work everyone! I've been using gnome2 from cvs for some time now, and I am impressed with, and greatful for, all of your work. It is an excelent desktop, and one that no longer makes linux seem a compromise.

  • Screenshots (Score:5, Informative)

    by frantzdb ( 22281 ) on Wednesday June 26, 2002 @02:27PM (#3771050) Homepage
    For the lazy, here are the Screenshots [gnome.org].

    Great work to everyone who helped with this. Gnome2 is amazing.

    --Ben
    • Okay, Theme People, get busy! :)

      ... and while you're at it, come up with a way to make GTK1 and GTK2 themes match ...

      ... and since KDE can import GTK themes, make those match as well ...

      :)

      • Okay, Theme People, get busy! :)

        Speaking of which, is there anything approximating a Themes HOWTO? I'd like to play with making a custom theme, but would rather not stumble through the process of learning via minor tweaks to existing ones (especially since that might not reveal all available options).

    • Yep, slashdotted. The GNOME.org sysadmins are popping the Tums right about now...
    • I'll have those mirrored soon here [hmc.edu].

      --Ben

    • Re:Screenshots (Score:2, Informative)

      by sfraggle ( 212671 )
      Here are some screenshots of my own. These arent the exact released version but they are fairly recent; there should be little visible difference:
    • From the antialiasing in those screenshots, doesn't it look like the fonts could use some adjusting? Some lines look thinner than others. Doesn't look like a problem from the antialiasing code, but rather from the font data itself.
  • What's next, Duke Nukem Forever?

  • the feature I want (Score:2, Interesting)

    by tps12 ( 105590 )
    Situation: I am browsing the web in Galeon, editting an image in Gimp, or doing something else in some Gnome application.

    Now, I decide to save a document. I go to the File menu and select Save..., and am presented with the familiar "save" dialog. The default or current filename is in the text box at the bottom, and the directory navigation boxes are above.

    Suppose further that I want to now save the file in a different directory. So I select a new directory, and the filename disappears.

    Has this been fixed in 2.0?

    • YES. (Score:4, Informative)

      by luge ( 4808 ) <slashdot&tieguy,org> on Wednesday June 26, 2002 @02:31PM (#3771084) Homepage
      Thank god :)
      • Thank god

        I would wager that an omniscient diety had exactly nothing to do with it.

        Otherwise you're suggesting that the Gnome programmers received divine inspiration, and as such the Gnome source code should become a religious text. While one might argue that one can find religion in the Linux kernel source code, extending that analogy to Gnome will merely aggravate the KDE zealots (who believe their desktop environment is the true word of God!)

        We have enough religious wars for one planet already...
    • What would be even better is a miniature nautilus window for the open / save dialog. I mean, you already have nautilus, why reinvent the wheel with a different open/save dialog box? Using Nautilus would add consistency and functionality. Taking this a step further, "panels" could be used as application toolbars, such that the user can add or remove "applets" (which would be funcitons in the program) to his toolbars to customize them however he likes. Again this would be reusing components. I have submitted these suggestions to both gnome and kde but both did not like them :(

  • Gnome 2 vs KDE 3 (Score:2, Interesting)

    by OmniVector ( 569062 )
    What advantages does gnome have? Why would i go with it over KDE 3?
    Just a question, not for the sake of argument. i'm a linux desktop newbie.

    • Re:Gnome 2 vs KDE 3 (Score:2, Insightful)

      by georgeb ( 472989 )
      I really think it's a matter of taste rather than functionality. Both KDE and GNOME are huge undertakements and both seem to have their userbase... Well, of course I like gnome, but wouldn't mind working in KDE either.

    • One reason, and one reason only (Score:4, Funny)

      by unformed ( 225214 ) on Wednesday June 26, 2002 @02:44PM (#3771209)
      Gnomes are hard working little creatures. They are sworn enemies of the Troll race, and it their duty to kill all Trolls upon sight.

      Gnomes work hard, fast, and well. What they create not only shows pure power and eliteness, but also their artistic integrity.

      KDE on the other hand stands for K00l D3mon1c E133t. The KDE tribe are the "script-kiddies", the "hacks", in the Lunix Empire. They try to look good, and that is their only objective. While they do succeed on some fronts, they fail miserably on others.

      All in all, the KDE's are the George Bush's, wheras the Gnomes are the Alfred Hoffmans.

      --

      That said, it's just a joke, both are truly kickass, but, IMHO, I prefer Gnome (although recently moving to Fluxbox)....
    • If you have the disk space install them both. Then you can decide for yourself. The diffs aren't much it's just the apps that require certain dependancies. As a metter of fact you can have both installed and choose on login which you would prefer for the day in this way you can also run KDE apps in GNOME and vise versa.

    • Re:Gnome 2 vs KDE 3 (Score:2, Informative)

      by jaaron ( 551839 )
      Personally I think the biggest advantage to GNOME is that you can choose your window manager. Now to a Linux newbie that may not mean much, but for someone who has been using Linux for a little while that can be a very nice feature. KDE is great and it's probably best for someone with a Windows background just starting with Linux. KDE is more of an "all-in-one" package. This means a consistant look and feel. GNOME is more component oriented. I can take out one part of GNOME (like the window manager) and replace it with another. That feature adds some complexity and also the feel that some of the applications don't always belong together, but the flexibility is really nice. You can get all the advantages of a desktop, but run a light-weight windows manager that is specifically tuned for your needs.

      At least that's my $0.02

      • Re:Gnome 2 vs KDE 3 (Score:3, Informative)

        by DrSkwid ( 118965 )
        that's odd
        I use kde2 stuff all the time and I use enlightenment

        konqueror works just fine

        is kde3 different in this respect?


      • Personally I think the biggest advantage to GNOME is that you can choose your window manager.

        How is that an advantage? KDE let's you choose your window manager, too.

      • Re:Gnome 2 vs KDE 3 (Score:4, Informative)

        by Arandir ( 19206 ) on Wednesday June 26, 2002 @03:47PM (#3771644) Homepage Journal
        Personally I think the biggest advantage to GNOME is that you can choose your window manager.

        FUD, FUD, FUD, no go away!

        GNOME will use any window manager, but prefers those that are GNOME compliant. KDE will use any window manager, but prefers those that are GNOME compliant. The fact that KDE ships with its own window manager is about as irrelevant as the fact that GNOME does as well.
        • KDE will use any window manager, but prefers those that are GNOME compliant

          Oh it does, does it?
      • just do this in your x startup script:

        exec someotherwm &
        exec startkde

        KDE will tell you that another wm is already running, and will let it keep running. (kde3 anyways)

    • Gnome is fresh (Score:3, Funny)

      by Pierre ( 6251 )
      Everybody knows that software is like bread and Gnome 2.0 is BRAND new. So it's much fresher than KDE3.0.

      KDE3.0 has been out for months - surely it is getting stale by now!

    • Re:Gnome 2 vs KDE 3 (Score:5, Informative)

      by tempest303 ( 259600 ) <jensknutson@@@yahoo...com> on Wednesday June 26, 2002 @03:23PM (#3771483) Homepage
      This question will always be a matter of personal preference, and the ultimate answer is, "Install them both and see which one you like best!"

      But you've heard that already, and it's not what you were looking for. ;-)

      What you really wanted was Gnome's advantages over KDE. For me, it comes down to a few things...

      1) Seems speedier on my 400mhz workstation. This is subjective, but I think it's pretty apparent. YMMV! On faster machines, this is less of an issue, but I don't have a faster machine, so it is a big deal to me. :-)

      2) Application "consistency": I personally find Galeon, Evo, and Gnumeric superior to Konquoror, KMail, and Koffice's spreadsheet, so having those former apps match my desktop is nice. While you can run Gnome/GTK apps in KDE, and vice-versa, having your themes between your desktop and Galeon, Evolution, Gnumeric, etc, is really cool.

      3) This is the real kicker for me: Gnome 2 is, IMHO, much easier to configure and work with, and is far more intuitive. One of the Gnome 2 philosophies is that things should "just work", and use intelligent default settings wherever possible, instead of offering "6 equally broken ways to do it, and let[ing] the user pick one."* This means that while Gnome is still configurable, you don't have to wade through a nearly endless sea of preference options just to find that one button you were looking for. *cough*Kontrol center*cough* ;-) The tradeoff is that you might not like the default that's been picked, but I've really found that I haven't missed anything so far. There are a few features I'd like to see (re)added, like the system tray, but that's coming very soon in a future release.

      * thanks to Havoc Pennington for the great quote. [gnome.org]

      Once again, though, the only way to decide is to try for yourself.

      Happy GNOMEing!
      • I must object. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I found gnome 2 much harder to configure. The worst is the endless windows registry type settings in GConf (even with the GConf editor.) I tend to want to change things per application, and finding the specific option is nearly impossible under this scheme.

        Additionally, I really dislike what has happened with gnome 2 in configurability. Making intelligent defaults is all fine and good, but when you can't get it how you want, frustration ensues. The reason I never used KDE was precisely this lack of configurability. I have heard this same comment from many people and I predict that an outcry of configurability problems will happen.

        As an example, there are no virtual desktops in gnome 2, and neither metacity nor sawfish 2 add them. I realize there are only subtle differences, but there are many people who use those differences. Additionally, at least for now, sawfish doesn't even have the infrastructure to bind keys to switching to workspaces in a 2d sense (I can move left or right, but not up or down) Another example is that in metacity, clicking anywhere on a window raises it. This is terrible for me. One of the biggest reasons I use sloppy focus is so that I can have overlapping windows and cut and paste from the window underneath. This is especially useful with overlapping terminals that tend to be smaller and thus just disappear when the larger window raises. According to Havoc, most of these options (unless he uses them) are just "crack-rock." So don't use metacity right? Well, unfortuanately there isn't anything else that fits the bill right now, perhaps sawfish will get back to its usual self -- dunno. And to those who say, "make your own then, that is what open source is all about," I query, "Are you the same folks who wonder why we can't quit duplicating effort?"

        My vote still lies in configurability, and my hope is I don't have to turn to enlightenment to get it.

        • Re:Gnome 2 is terrible to configure (Score:5, Insightful)

          by tempest303 ( 259600 ) <jensknutson@@@yahoo...com> on Wednesday June 26, 2002 @04:58PM (#3772433) Homepage
          Note: nearly all of my responses to you will be directly influenced by this document [pair.com]. I personally consider it a must read for anyone interested in Free/OSS desktops.

          Additionally, I really dislike what has happened with gnome 2 in configurability. Making intelligent defaults is all fine and good, but when you can't get it how you want, frustration ensues.

          Understandable. As it says in the above link, if you feel that the behavior of a particular program is frustrating, file a bug either suggesting a change to the behavior, or, if it really really must be, requesting a preference to change the behavior. Either way, have a logical arguement ready, though - please be aware that "But I've always done it this way!" probably won't fly. If something is broken, but familiar, it's still broken. Sometimes it's really worth the small pain of learning to change your user habits. Of course, other times, the developers are wrong, and need your help in straigtening it out! :-)

          Another example is that in metacity, clicking anywhere on a window raises it.

          Read the Metacity README file! This is one of Metacity's precious few user options. If you really want a GUI instead of using GConf to change this stuff, check out Metacity Setup [tzo.com] - it's a seperate project from Metacity proper, but it's becoming quite nice!

          (incidently, sloppy focus really is total crack, as Havoc also says in the README, but he's letting it slide anyhow *because* of the fact that it's so very useful. The "weight" of the preference is justified in this case. Again, the README is highly informative on this subject.)

          Additionally, at least for now, sawfish doesn't even have the infrastructure to bind keys to switching to workspaces in a 2d sense (I can move left or right, but not up or down)

          See the release notes: http://www.gnome.org/start/2.0/errors.html#id28297 18

          My vote still lies in configurability, and my hope is I don't have to turn to enlightenment to get it.

          Well, if you can put up with E's serious bloat, stability, and consistency issues, (that I've always had with E - maybe it's different for you) in exchange for maniacal control over your WM, be my guest. My guess is you'll probably go back to Gnome or KDE after only a few days. ;-)

          (My apologies to E users and developers, but my experiences with it have been *terrible*...)
          • incidently, sloppy focus really is total crack, as Havoc also says in the README

            Then both you and he are fools. There is no right or wrong way to determine which window recieves focus based on where the mouse is. The mouse is used to tell the computer which window the user wants events to go to. Focus policy simply dictates how the user does this.

            What you're saying uses the same reasoning as saying that for people to communicate, it's total crack for them to use chinese, but this is one of those cases where it's just too darn useful. All conventions which are merely convention are equal in value and worth. This is why there are so many preferences, and until everyone is the same, good programs will be stuck with a lot of preferences.

            Moreover, I've looked at the metacity readme. Havoc is just plain going off the deep end. This man has gotten to the point where he actually thinks that if there are two or more ways to do something, then one of them is better than the rest. That just isn't the case. Sometimes there are alterntives which are better than others, but in many, many situations there are alternatives where none are superior to the others. Hence options.

            Do you people really believe that the last 30 years of software implemented so many options because programmers are just mean at heart? That there has been, all along, one shining path that we've all just ignored because we want to punish users with making them wade through configuration files and dialogs to find it?

            If you really believe that, then of all the things here mentioned it's your opinion which is on crack.

            • There is no right or wrong way to determine which window recieves focus based on where the mouse is.

              No, but usability testing would probably indicate which method is easiest for certain groups of users, from total newbies, to windows users, to CDE users.

              What you're saying uses the same reasoning as saying that for people to communicate, it's total crack for them to use chinese, but this is one of those cases where it's just too darn useful.

              Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. English is crack, too, as are ALL languages, really. The only languages that could ever qualify as crack free are human constructed languages, like Newspeak. Newspeak is flawed in that it doesn't offer a large enough vocabulary, but who can deny that its straight-foward approach and completely uniform grammar are less useful for communicating ideas than the tremendous over-complexity of all non-constructed languages? However, in this case, Chinese, English, et al, are so entrenched that we'll never get rid of them, despite their very real flaws. That, and the fact that language (and depending on who you are, code) has aesthetic value as well as a function - poetry is a perfect example of a using a language's inexactness to spur the imagination, and create something of beauty. Maybe Enlightenment is the software equivilant of this? ;-)


              All conventions which are merely convention are equal in value and worth.

              I couldn't disagree more. Not all options are equally good. Good usability testing will help reveal what conventions are more intuitive or easier to work with than others. More on this below...

              until everyone is the same, good programs will be stuck with a lot of preferences.

              While no 2 people are alike, we all (generally) share similarities, too. Most people have two hands, two eyes, hate reading dialog boxes/manuals, and don't like spending half an hour learning how to make feature foo work, when it ought to be (dis)(en)abled by default, and the preference removed. Naturally, you can't please 100% of all people all of the time, but adding lots of preferences can start to alienate more users than would ever be turned off by the lack of a certain preference. I could go on, but I'm guessing it's obvious where I'm going with this, so this "until we're the same" is a fallacy, IMHO - we're already the same in many many ways.

              This man has gotten to the point where he actually thinks that if there are two or more ways to do something, then one of them is better than the rest. That just isn't the case.

              Again, I disagree. Most of the time, there probably IS a better way between the two. Moreover, even if there are two ways to do something, and they're supposedly equally good, why not pick the one that's easier/less bug prone to implement, and stick with it? If they're equally good, users should be equally happy with either behavior, but delighted that they didn't have to find yet another checkbox to hit to make app foo act consistantly with app bar.

              Do you people really believe that the last 30 years of software implemented so many options because programmers are just mean at heart?

              Absolutely not. And neither the Metacity README, nor HP's "Free software and good user interfaces" [pair.com] essay, nor my post, say anything of the sort. What IS being said is that preferences have a cost, and that there generally is a correct way to do a certain thing. Of course, this isn't always the case, and that's what preferences are for. The argument being made is that the majority of preferences shouldn't be preferences. Adding band-aid after band-aid on the software only leads to bloated, buggy, hard to maintain/troubleshoot code.

              If you add a bunch of "band-aid"/useless/frivolous preferences to an app, and it means you keep 10 users, is it worth it if it means that you lose another 20 because your app behaves inconsistently , or is buggy as hell?

              • No, but usability testing would probably indicate which method is easiest for certain groups of users, from total newbies, to windows users, to CDE users.

                Ok, I know that this thinking stuff is a bit hard, but the solution when usability testing indicates that each group finds easiest what they're already used to, which one is then the "right" one? Answer: NONE. Each person has their preference, and they are used to it. Claiming that either you or the majority are correct simply because either you are you or the majority have more people than the minority is just plain dumb when there is an alternative. Tyrrany of the majority is not a good form of government (unless you are the majority, I guess).

                but who can deny that its straight-foward approach and completely uniform grammar are less useful for communicating ideas than the tremendous over-complexity of all non-constructed languages

                There speaks a man who has obviously never used language very much. Language is a mess because reality is a mess and human beings live for limited periods of time and so time is precious. Now of course languages have thier quirks, but you'll never get rid of them, as they'll quickly creep in to a designed language. First off, virtually noone cares about lingual purity. Second, most people don't particularly like to think in great depth about things that aren't of great practical significance. Put those two together and it guarantees that any language which you have will mutate and change. To say that the only way in which a person can think the result good is by using mind-altering substances is just arrogance or stupidity. Natural language has proved quite useful, often because of its quirks as in spite of them.

                when it ought to be (dis)(en)abled by default, and the preference removed

                Alright, here is my suggestion: we do usability testing where simple majority rules on which features are enabled by default. Then everyone who doesn't like features doesn't look at the preferences dialog boxes. Simple, problem solved. You don't like features? Shut up and go away. There, you didn't have to deal with any of those nasty, scary features. What are you, a rabbit? You run scared of too many features and need to kill them to protect yourself? NOT EVERYONE IS YOU. Many of us, in fact, are rather unlike you. Quite a bit. For example, some of us would rather hit the developer of the window manager rather than use a window manager which has click-to-focus and focus-raises-window behavior. Thankfully, we still have a choice. Havoc Pennington hasn't quite gotten alternative window managers made illegal to avoid user confusion, yet. But just wait. Maybe gnome 4 or 5 will check to see what window manager you're using and delete it if you're not running his featureless preferenceless windowmanager.

                Does the remarkable similarity of your philosophy to that of totalitarian dictatorships not worry you, even a little? Doesn't the fact that your arguments would fairly easily support, "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Furor!" make you wonder, just a little?

                People are different. Get over your megalomaniacal fantasies that everyone is just a copy of you running around who happens to take different shoe sizes. We're not. And even if you can't get over this egotistical delusion of yours, please at least don't do some research to find out what the "most common" shoe size is and lobby for laws to force all shoes to be made in that size.

                • Two things:

                  One, calm down. We're discussing software, not the future of Law.

                  Two,

                  your arguments would fairly easily support, "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Furor!

                  I invoke Godwin's law, you lose. ;)
                  • That does nothing to refute any of his points, which isn't particularly surprising, because he's right.

                    *shrug*

                    I hate it when people say "calm down" just because someone else visibly cares about what s/he is talking about and has given the subject some thought, rather than just spewing whatever comes to mind into the comment window and clicking "Submit" and moving on.

                    Godwin's law and its violation aside, I agree with what he was saying, as I suspect many others do as well... thus illustrating his whole point: People are different, and they always will be. Arguing against his assertion that there are many cases where there are multiple options with none being the clear winner is absurd. One might be the clear winner to *you*, but another may be the clear winner to Joe Sixpack, and Mr. Sixpack's reason may well be "Because I just like it better that way..", and if you're a good software developer you're not going to try to force Joe to bend to your wishes unless you *absolutely must do so* (which is almost never the case), because 9 times out of 10 he won't, and he'll just turn for the very next program that gives him the option yours lacks.
                    • I hate it when people say "calm down" just because someone else visibly cares about what s/he is talking about and has given the subject some thought

                      I generally hate it when people say stuff like "calm down" too, but there's a difference between passion and foaming at the mouth. Alluding to political beliefs (especially of the fascist/Nazi variety) because of one's views on the usability and maintainability of software is silly and counterproductive. I wasn't trying to dismiss him, but it got to the point where it wasn't going to go anywhere. I figured it was better to end it than to let it become a flamefest.

                      However...

                      Yes, configurable behavior can be nice, but it's a *trade off*. People seem to fail to realize that preferences aren't free. I'd personally prefer software that's more stable and comes to completion quicker rather than having a zillion behavior preferences and being buggy as hell, or taking forever to get to release status, or BOTH! Any time you have two behaviors to choose from, and one isn't obviously better than the other, if they're both ok, why not just make one the default and forget about it? Making it a preference just bloats the code, (a frequent complaint here on /. ), makes it harder to fix, harder to maintain, etc. Is it really worth adding all these little tweaks in the name of "because I like tweaking it"? I would argue that it's not. Anyone else is free to differ, and the "market" (such as it is in the Free Software/OSS community) will hopefully show us the winner, eh? :)

                      As for Joe Sixpack, I would assert that he'd rather have things work out of the box and ideally be consistant between apps, and he could give a shit about configuring it. If you know anyone who works tech support for an "end user" computer product or service (Which I do - I work for an ISP doing support as part of my job), ask them just how much they think people care about changing the prefs on their computer. In my experience, people are TERRIFIED of it, much less interested in it. They want things to work correctly out of the box, and are only interested in changing their wallpaper and their WinAmp skins. (and even the latter is more rare than one might imagine. It's no small minority, but we are talking about Joe Sixpack here. His computer isn't a hobby, it's a way to write email to his kids at college and to get exotic pr0n from distant lands.)

                      No, it's not Joe Sixpack or his neighbor Harry Homeowner that likes to play with settings, it's Andy Hacker that wants to tweak everything. This isn't a BAD thing, either, believe me, I'm a tweaker too, but some things shouldn't require a user decision, they should Just Work. The question is determining which things need a preference, as opposed to "it should just work any way I please because I say so and I feel like it." It isn't that the latter isn't valid, rather, it's just a poor way to make quality software, and makes for a miserable user experience for anyone who isn't a l33t h4x0r like you or me. (and don't try to deny it, I saw those picutures of your laptop running Window Maker/*step. ;) I probably try just about every new window manager that comes out, because I like playing around with stuff, but I've found that only a few are worth a damn; I'm so busy tweaking config files that I never get around to actually USING the software!

                      Ultimately, however, it's a personal decision. What people seem to have been forgetting is that I'm not advocating that we pass laws about software production - I'm merely suggesting a course of design: THINK before you add an option, and MORE PREFS != BETTER SOFTWARE. I never said everyone had to use Gnome and like it, and that it's my way or the highway. If you don't like Gnome, or any other piece of software, you can try to improve it, or you can just not use it! That's part of the point of Free software!

                      Finally, totally off topic: mad props for the DM quote at the bottom of your web page. :)
          • I just read the document you referred to, and I do agree with most of it in most cases. There are a few cases where I would disagree, however.

            First of all, while I agree that too many preferences can be a usability problem for new or less technically savvy users (e.g., the "too many clocks" problem), you won't get around the fact that a lot of more advanced users want tweakability. In fact, in my own experience, the more I use a particular application, the more I find I want to tweak things here and there. As a result, I disagree with Havoc that the layered preferences approach (beginner, intermediate, advanced) used in Nautilus 1.x is a bad thing. If done properly, and applied on a global scale (all of GNOME, for example), I think this can be a good solution to the problem. The added preferences still add complexity, however, so it clearly doesn't solve all of the problems with preferences.

            Secondly, while preference overkill is a problem for many applications, user desktop environments are probably one of the types of applications where users want the most tweakability. This occurrs for two reasonts: 1) Many more (I dare say nearly all) users use some kind of desktop environment (even if it's TWM), whereas only a subset of users use any given productivity application. This means there are many more peoples' tastes and needs to deal with. 2) People use their desktops day-in-and-day-out, and as I mentioned before, the more someone uses a program, the more they are likely to find things they want to tweak.

            This doesn't mean that the defaults shouldn't be chosen intellegently - they should - and it doesn't mean that every preference in the universe should be included "just because", but I think that there will always be some applications (e.g., desktop environments) where there will inherently be more demand for preferences, and if you remove too many of them, a large number of people will feel they can't get the behavior they want.
            • I disagree with Havoc that the layered preferences approach (beginner, intermediate, advanced) used in Nautilus 1.x is a bad thing. If done properly, and applied on a global scale (all of GNOME, for example), I think this can be a good solution to the problem.

              I liked this idea too, except that it usually means that a lot of total *crap* gets crammed under "advanced". So we're back to square one: too many preferences. Yeah, advanced users are better equipped to deal with it, but I'm an advanced user, and I want MY desktop to Just Work just like the newbies' do! :-) That, and since a lot of junk gets stuffed into a particular user level, you get the same problems of bloat and difficulting in troubleshooting that Havoc mentions. It's a shame, because it's not too bad of an idea on its own, IMHO, it just has too many implementation problems...

              People use their desktops day-in-and-day-out, and as I mentioned before, the more someone uses a program, the more they are likely to find things they want to tweak.

              True! But as was mentioned in the article, why lobby to make it an option - if the tweak is truly better, make it the default! If not, the cost of the preference needs to be weighed... It's a personal decision, naturally, but I would gladly trade in a tweak or two for a more stable, more usable desktop.

              I think that there will always be some applications (e.g., desktop environments) where there will inherently be more demand for preferences, and if you remove too many of them, a large number of people will feel they can't get the behavior they want.

              Damn right! Certain options, while sub-optimal, are destined to be judged too important to ditch. This is where the judgement of the coders and the release team comes in, and if they screw up, their users will let them know... the problem is when judgement slips, and coders give in to the pressure to include misfeatures that will alienate more users than it will ever keep/draw in.

              Hell, at least in Free Software, we actually have some say in how things will work.

    • Re:Gnome 2 vs KDE 3 (Score:4, Informative)

      by capt.Hij ( 318203 ) on Wednesday June 26, 2002 @03:32PM (#3771548) Homepage Journal
      Well... KDE is mighty slow and gnome is only really slow.

      Gnome 2.0 and KDE 3 seem fine on recent machines with enough memory. (Howz that for vague?) But we have a lab with a bunch of 5 year old machines and 32 mb or ram. We *have* to use icewm on them. It is possible to get gnome running on them but kde just plain won't run on them.

      If you've got a recent machine there isn't much difference between the two, except that kde has some different features which are kind of nice. If you do not have a big machine then gnome is much nicer to work on. If you've got an old beater, then your best bet is icewm.

      If it weren't for ice we would not have a back door for installing linux. Our argument to the money holders is that linux lets us use older machines and still be efficient. We can't do that with these "modern" window managers. The code bloat has just plain gotten out of hand. Thank goodness for ice! It allows us to sneak linux in the back door which then permeates the system!

      • My choice for older machines is more along the lines of Windowmaker. Real good usability, no bloat. I don't need anything else.

        In fact, it's what I'm using in my brand new 1.4Ghz laptop, so I guess it's also my choice for fast hardware.

      • A Scenario:
        • You install your desktop environment with the default settings
        • Your hard disk begins overheating

        Unix operating systems will start sending all the error messages from yoru disk to /dev/console. Because all users on a Unix system are supposed to see /dev/console. If you're running KDE, you'll see /dev/console. If you're running the default setup of any other desktop, you won't. Your hard disk will melt. Have a nice day.

        Sure, you can add some third party app to your non-KDE desktop yourself if you know you need to, but secure defaults (security == protecting data) are why I use Unix.
    • Just for once, can we have a KDE article or a GNOME article where instead of bashing the other Linux desktop UI, we bash the Windows UI instead? The common enemy?

  • Blizzard in Hell (Score:3, Informative)

    by Junta ( 36770 ) on Wednesday June 26, 2002 @02:36PM (#3771134)
    Gnome2, Mozilla 1.0, Neverwinter Nights..... Damn cold in hell, is amazon turning a profit?
    Duke Nukem Forever and Doom 3 just need to come out, and as a nice touch it would be cool if Star Control 2 would be re-released for Linux, Mac, and windows.... oh wait [classicgaming.com] it is, hell is damn cold.

    Now time to watch my karma go down the drain, but at least this time I was *less* offtopic.
    • Jesus Fucking Christ, Star Control 2 is going to be available for LINUX? To hell with Gnome, man, that's fantastic!

      (Sorry 'bout the language, if you're offended. If you've wasted as much of your life on SC2 as I have, you'll understand.)

      DAMN, but that's cool.

    • Star Control 2 would be re-released for Linux, Mac, and windows.... oh wait [classicgaming.com] it is

      ...and they're even bsing it on the 3DO version, which rocks the world.

      I am squeezing the juice!

    • I feel proud... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dalutong ( 260603 )
      The guy who's porting SC2 to linux is my buddy chris nelson. I feel especially cool because i'm the one who installed debian unstable on his laptop (toshiba something or other -- stupid not-quite-eepro100 NICs...) and got him into SDL (that took A LOT of pushing)

      he was already a brilliant OpenGL programmer (luminescent is his handle on sf.net... he has some cool stuff there) but only delt with windows.

      so.. if you like SC2 for linux... thank him, but thank me for getting him into linux too :)

      (oh. to his credit.. he only started using linux and SDL a year ago... and loved enlightenment so much that he's stuck to it.. hehe)
    • Star Control 2 for: Linux, OSX, and Windows
      Why isn't this a full Slashdot news article?
  • This year has been an awesome year for the Linux desktop:
    • KDE 3.0
    • Mozilla 1.0
    • OpenOffice 1.0
    • And now, GNOME 2.0
    This doesn't even include a bunch of other cool things, like:
    • XFree86 4.2
    • CodeWeavers crossover plugins and MS Office at 1.0 stable releases
    • Ximian connector for Exchange
    • AbiWord 1.0
    • WineX
    And a bunch of other stuff I forget. :) Whether Linux makes it big mainstream or not---and who knows, who knew 5 years ago the likes of IBM and Oracle would support Linux---this is a great year for those of us who Linux as our daily work and home environment. Congrats to all!

  • Porting to GNOME 2 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jmv ( 93421 ) on Wednesday June 26, 2002 @02:39PM (#3771167) Homepage
    I've got a GNOME 1 applications GNOME 1 application [sourceforge.net] that will eventually have to be ported to GNOME 2. Anyone with experience with that? Is that a two minute job or a long, painful process? I'm using libxml, GnomeCanvas and GnomeMDI (heard it was deprecated in Gnome 2).

    • Re:Porting to GNOME 2 (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Hi,

      You should check out the Porting Plan done by Malcolm Tredinnick here:

      http://developer.gnome.org/dotplan/porting/

      The whole dotplan minisite has lots of useful info.

      If you have questions you can ask them on the gnome gnome-devel-list, the archive is here

      http://lists.gnome.org/archives/gnome-devel-list /i ndex.html

      Hope that helps,

      Steve

    • Re:Porting to GNOME 2 (Score:5, Informative)

      by nullity ( 115966 ) on Wednesday June 26, 2002 @02:57PM (#3771312) Homepage

      While its not a two minute job, for most small to medium applications it is not terribly difficult. GNOME 2 is a major platform change with many of the underlying libraries being rewritten and their APIs sanitized and revised. In general, however, APIs have been marked deprecated rather than outright removed. That means that just getting your application compiling and running with GNOME 2 should not prove too difficult, since the APIs you are familiar with are still there, its just recommended you don't use them for much longer ;-)

      Some things, such as Bonobo, have changed a lot and will provide hours of endless porting amusement. However, looking at the list of libraries you have used, I suspect it will not be difficult.

      A lot of small common changes, pitfalls, and specifics about individual libraries can be found in The GNOME 2 Porting Guide [gnome.org]. Many modules, such as GTK+ also contain specific "what's changed in the API" information in their API documentation (GTK's for example is available here [gnome.org]).

      I would expect that you could do a basic port in a few hours of concentrated effort. Feel free to frequent irc.gnome.org/#gnome and ask questions. A lot of the problems you may run into will be common and can be answered in a few seconds by somebody experienced with GNOME 2 ports (hopefully most of these are embodied in the porting guide, but... :-)

      Good luck with the port!

      -Seth
  • I am using the packages from Debian's experimental archive, and they are very usable. GTK+ 2 has many improvements. I love the uncluttered new panels, the simplified control panels. Nautilus is as good as ever :) There are still many bugs in GNOME 2.0, but I suggest that people should not be shy about trying it.

  • Incase you are thinking of running metacity... (Score:4, Informative)

    by plastercast ( 234558 ) on Wednesday June 26, 2002 @02:46PM (#3771226) Homepage
    Incause some people out there are running the "experimental" metacity WM, here is configuration tool I wrote that is much nicer to use than the command line.

    http://plastercast.tzo.com/~plastercast/Projects /

  • Some questions (Score:4, Interesting)

    by unformed ( 225214 ) on Wednesday June 26, 2002 @02:55PM (#3771292)
    I've been kinda following the Gnome2 prereleases, and it's nice. Glad to hear about the save dialog bugfix.

    But some others:
    1) The old volume control applet was way nicer than the current one, any possibility of it coming back?
    2) I know the Gnome2 applet API is not backwards compatible to the old one. How hard would it be to port a Gnome1 applet to a Gnome2 applet, and when will some docs appear? (Specifically looking into porting the Gaim applet, and some others I can't use anymore)

    I think that's it for now...

    besides that, good f*g job!
  • There is no Swedish conspiracy.

    http://www.se.gnome.org/conspiracy/ [gnome.org]

  • Icons (Score:2, Interesting)

    by MConlon ( 246624 )
    I watch the thrashing that goes on on kde-artist everytime somebody makes an icon that looks similar to OSX (normally) or Windows.

    The "home" icon in Gnome takes liberties on OSX, as does the terminal, and the process viewer. Hell, one of the screenshots features a straight rip-off of the OSX "Internet" globe.

    I'm a little puzzled.

    MJC

  • Some things missing? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Darth Maul ( 19860 ) on Wednesday June 26, 2002 @03:16PM (#3771450)
    Perhaps I'm just missing some things, but I can't find:

    1) The window manager switcher (I don't want Sawfish)
    2) A lot of the cool panel applets from 1.4 (clock)
    3) A way to save a session and have it remember window positions (it'll start programs that were "saved", but they all default to the middle of the desktop)

    Can anyone fill me in? Thanks.

    • Re:Some things missing? (Score:4, Informative)

      by epukinsk ( 120536 ) on Wednesday June 26, 2002 @03:38PM (#3771600) Homepage Journal
      Off the top of my head:

      1) You can switch windows managers in Applications -> Preferences -> Advanced -> Window Manager

      2) The alternative clock applets were not ported to GNOME 2 because it was decided that there should be only one clock applet that is flexible. Having many clock applets was a significant source of confusion for users in Sun's usability test.

      3) Where responsibility for saving windows states lies is still a topic of debate. There is a discussion [gnome.org] of this that began this weekend on the desktop-devel-list. There was also a more technical discussion [gnome.org] of this last month on the wm-spec-list.

      Erik
      • 1) No, that's where it used to be. No longer.

        2) But why did "they" choose the one, boring clock? ASClock was far superior.

        3) I can't even startup the Sawfish config tools, so it looks like that'll remain a problem for me. None of the sawfish tools startup; a rep-gtk issue, I believe.

        Overall, I'm *not* impressed with 2.0. I upgraded from 1.4 about two weeks ago, and have been fighting with things ever since. Can't even get anti-aliased fonts working.

    • The window manager switcher is AFAIK and hopefully gone.
      You can still switch WM by using the gconf-editor, or just kill the current WM and start your own.. it will be saved in the session.

      Choosing WM has nothing to do in a complete desktop-environment. Way too potentially harmful, and much better to include the option without it being visible in the GUI.
  • Just figured out every last thing I could about RC2 and now this. Thank you to everyone who made this possible!

    And off I go to "emerge gnome" (thanks gentoo)....

    :-)
  • Does this mean gnome-panel won't crash on half the machines it's installed on any more?

    I'm just about ready to leave Redhat over this one. If only KDE weren't such a memory hawg.

  • CVSGnome 0.2.2 buildscript for TARBALLS and CVS (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    grab that amazing script from

    http://www.fh-wilhelmshaven.de/~akcaagaa/

    it builds you gnome 2.0.0 from tarballs

    1) grab that script
    2) change PREFIXDIR="" to point to a location you want to install gnome 2.0.0
    3) enter 'world' for CVS build or 'world stable' for gnome 2.0.0 released tarball build.
    4) grab popcorn, coke or get out for a fuck no matter what, lay back and enjoy the show.

    you dont need to manually download tarballs or something.. all automatically...
  • I hope they gave more attention to product stability than to new features. My only difficulty with gnome is that it has tons of irritating bugs and regularly causes X crashes.

    Oddly, my linux/gnome box is dramatically less reliable than my Win2000 box. Win2000 is a vast improvement over previous MS operating systems. The linux _kernel_ may be far more reliable, but the desktop certainly is not. It's embarrassing to suck more than Microsoft.

    I sometimes get the feeling that the gnome crowd pays too much attention to screenshots, eye candy, themes, and pointless customizability. The vast majority of people want a desktop that just works, ALWAYS. Perhaps gnome 2 will be an improvement, beacause 1.x fell somewhat short of that goal.

    With that in mind, I _do_ believe that linux will succeed on the desktop, but not for a couple of years. Microsoft's egregious pricing model will eventually benefit linux on the desktop.
  • I thought Ximian and GNOME were together? I was hoping to upgrade my GNOME v1.4 from Ximian. Is it safe to use GNOME's or do I need to wait for Ximian's GNOME? I am confused.

    Thank you in advance.
  • If I'm using the Red Hat Update service where I get notifications and use up2date, do they notify for this kind of release? IOW, should I be expecting an email from RH Real Soon Now(tm)?

  • Just to repeat the whail of the common Redhat user at major KDE releases:

    Where are the binary packages for SuSE? :-)

    There are none, are there? (Checked three mirrors.)

    Also quite interesting that apart from a little claimed speed improvement nothing seems better than in your other leading desktop environment...

    Anyways, congratulations Gnome team! May the best team win (and may all cooperate!).

  • Garnome 0.12.0 also released (Score:3, Informative)

    by MicroBerto ( 91055 ) on Wednesday June 26, 2002 @07:59PM (#3774721)
    Garnome [gnome.org] 0.12.0 has been released for Gnome 2.0 already!

    Checket out, it makes installing/testing Gnome 2.0 very easy and will not affect your Gnome 1.4 installation (it installs to ~/garnome/)

  • Just thought that needed saying.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close