Solaris 9 Will Be Updated WIth Gnome 2.0 374
JAZ writes: "According to this article, 'The newest version of the GNOME open source desktop will not be ready in time to ship with Solaris 9 next year, but it will be included with a subsequent Solaris 9 quarterly update ...' Go Gnome!" I wonder if anyone truly prefers CDE.
GNOME 2.0 (Score:1, Insightful)
Btw, Fp
Re:GNOME 2.0 (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:GNOME 2.0 (Score:1)
Re:GNOME 2.0 (Score:3, Funny)
CDE!! (Score:1)
me, too (Score:1, Insightful)
1) not stable enough. Maybe 2.0 will be different, but my win98 box crashes less frequently (although by "crashes" I should say "freezes up" I can always kill enough processess to get going again.)
2) no
3) slow slow slooow (maybe 2.0 better)
Re:CDE!! (Score:2)
(for a while, until they stop supporting CDE
My decision is made (Score:1)
Re:My decision is made (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, I Prefer CDE... (Score:4, Interesting)
fast? (Score:3, Informative)
As an administrator I found CDE to be overly complex, difficult to use and customize, and generally a pain in the ^@$@! Having Gnome availible on Solaris in a pre-packaged, official distribution is nice even if you don't use it as your desktop just for the included applications, which can be a pain to compile properly otherwise.
On my current desktop I'm using Gnome and sawfish and it's quite reasonable. On my Sun cluster (used solely for remote computation) I don't install CDE OR Gnome.
Re:Yes, I Prefer CDE... (Score:1)
I switched to fvwm. There was no fvwm2 at the time.
Re:Yes, I Prefer CDE... (Score:2)
Re:Yes, I Prefer CDE... (Score:2)
Re:Yes, I Prefer CDE... (Score:2, Insightful)
To me, GNOME is just too fscking slow at drawing menus. Try this experiment if you're using IE (i.e. 99% of you). Click on File, and quickly move the mouse pointer back and forth between File and Help. You see how quickly Windows draws those menus?
Now try it with a GTK application. You can actually glimpse each individual menu being drawn, and that, to me, is unacceptably slow, and it's even slower if you have one of those pixmap themes loaded (Gradient, bubbles, marble3d are particularly slow). EVEN WITH ICONS TURNED OFF, you can still glimpse each button highlighter and menu being drawn.
GNOME's switch to Nautilus is even more retarded. While GMC wasn't the greatest file manager in the world, it certainly kicked Nautilus's ass in terms of speed and stability. Starting GNOME with Nautilus adds at LEAST 10+ seconds to the splash screen. Is it really that difficult to write a file manager that shows desktop icons without it being slow? Microsoft seems to have done a good job with Windows 9x.
IceWM rocks. It's fast, has a themeable interface, combines the desktop environment AND window manager into one, and provides all the applets I need without my system slowing to a halt.
What amuses me the most is that while Slashdotters bash Netscape on Linux and complain how slow and horrible it is at rendering, the other browsers aren't much better either.
Re:Yes, I Prefer CDE... (Score:3, Informative)
Now...back to the subject of nice environments in X11. Here's what you do:
Re:Yes, I Prefer CDE... (Score:2)
Re:Yes, I Prefer CDE... (Score:2)
Because its smaller and runs faster - nuff said, I'm a speed freak.
Excuse me - are we talking about the same CDE?
When CDE first came out and I had to run it on a SPARCStation 2 it was slower and bloatier than anything. It might be tolerable on current era UltraSPARC II hardware, but I got so burned up about the speed and size back then that I still run fvwm to this very day on my UltraSPARC II.
Probably I'm being unfair - I'm sure that running Gnome on a 486 is a different experience from running it on a 1.4 GHz Athlon.
More WM? (Score:1)
Try XFCE (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Try XFCE (Score:3, Interesting)
As for whether or not it's inclusion is a big deal, it absolutely is. Having Sun adopt your product is a very serious endorsement, and will lead to industry wide acceptance. (Another poster already mentioned that HP was looking to include it in the next HP-UX release.)
What is interesting to me is the fact that Solaris will not be including KDE by default, even though most would concede that it is a more mature, and more polished product. I have to conclude that this "snub" is related to the Trolltech Qt licencing...
Early in the KDE v Gnome debate, the Gnome folks stated that the Qt licencing issues would be KDE's undoing. While KDE continues to improve, it may never find it's way onto the installation CDs of the commercial *nixes.
Anyone read that differently?
Why GNOME and not KDE on SOlaris. (Score:3, Insightful)
Note this is my personal interpretation and is not to be taken as an official Sun position.
Re:Try XFCE (Score:2)
If Gnome is used, commercial companies can develop closed source apps that use Gnomes libs without paying a thing to anyone for using the functions in said libs.
As it currently stands with KDE any closed source for profit software that wishes to use desktop functions needs to link again against QT, which the closed source company must pay a license to trolltech.
It makes more sense for Sun to go with gnome for 3rd party developer support.
CDE is better, sometimes. (Score:1)
I do. As long I still use the older 32-bit Sun workstations (SPARCstation 10, 20, etc.), I will use CDE (or at least something lighter than GNOME).
For example, I tried GNOME on an older SPARCstation model, and the CPU utilization meter alone utilized 50% of the CPU! Talk about irony.
Re:CDE is better, sometimes. (Score:1)
CDE cleaner (Score:1)
Preferring CDE? Compared to what? (Score:5, Funny)
You're only wondering that because you haven't experienced the pain of OpenWindows[tm], winner of the [entirely fictitious and just-invented] Most Unintuitive Interface In The Entire Fscking World Award.
Drop-down menus are dropped down with which button? The first, you say? Oh no, that would be far too obvious and industry-standard. The third button drops down a menu. If you press the first button, it activates the first entry in the menu, without ever dropping the menu down. Sort of a speed-select. Confusing as flaming fuck to people who don't expect it: if the first entry is "New Window" then you merely have windows popping up. "I clicked on "File" and a new window popped up? Huh?"
If the first entry is more, shall we say, "proactive," then you just lost data. Or had a file overwritten when you were just experimenting. Or... who knows what just happened, since there may not be any visual feedback to whatever the fsck the first menu entry happens to be.
I and my users were both extremely happy when we were able to move from OpenWindblows to CDE. They will be happier still if I ever get the chance to build KDE 2.2 for my SPARCs.
Re:Preferring CDE? Compared to what? (Score:2, Informative)
The Openwindows (or OpenLook) libraries are pretty well call for call compatible with the SunView library calls and look nothing like the normal X library stuff.. and are arguably easier to use, hence they were used quite widely in scientific applications.
For those who are used to the interface, moving to the other windowing systems and desktop environments can be quite a culture shock.
On our systems we have Openwindows, CDE, KDE 1, KDE 2.2 and GNOME 1.4. There are a number of people who I can't get to move from Openwindows, others who PREFER CDE, a lot who prefer KDE 1 to KDE 2 etc.
Each to their own, I say.
Re:Preferring CDE? Compared to what? (Score:3, Funny)
I got to discover OpenWindows' many qualities (sigh) when working in Denmark. My machine, a SPARC, was oooold as hell. So old that I actually saw a configure script tell me:
Humiliating.
This said, it's OpenWindows that got me hooked on the 'focus follows mouse pointer' scheme. Guess it wasn't entirely bad after all.
Re:Preferring CDE? Compared to what? (Score:2)
A comment I made during the Unix International/OSF wars, when it was Sun and AT&T vs. Everyone Else with Open Look and Motif their dueling GUIs:
"This just shows that it's not only about look and feel, but also smell."
Re:Preferring CDE? Compared to what? (Score:2)
Oh, certianly CDE sucks asteroids through a garden hse, but it sucks less than OpenWindows. There are far better windowing systems out there. I was just restricting my observations to the 2 choices that are currently shipping with Solaris.
The beauty is CDE apps will run on GNOME (Score:3)
"The other nice thing about GNOME is you can continue running your standard CDE motif applications, they just run on the GNOME desktop. Also, Java
applications can run on the desktop, so you really end up having the best of both worlds."
Under that logic couldn't you argue that since you can use gnome applications under CDE is the best of both worlds? If they still have motif applications you're not getting the best of both worlds, you're getting gnome with some nasty motif flavored bits
Ian
What about OpenWindows/CDE has its uses too (Score:1)
Even though I like OpenWindows, I almost always have my default sessions set to use CDE, since that way I can easily have my window manager the same on all the UNIX platforms I use (AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, OSF/1), with the exception of IRIX.
Re:What about OpenWindows/CDE has its uses too (Score:2)
Re:What about OpenWindows/CDE has its uses too (Score:2)
If you really want CDE for IRIX, call up SGI telesales and request "CDE 5.0" (part number SC4-CDE-5.0). It's free of charge, though you will have to pay for shipping and handling. Great for someone that wants or needs to have the exact same desktop environment on all of his machines.
Solaris + Gnome? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Solaris + Gnome? (Score:2)
I do agree that GNOME is still very much a work in progress, and that there are still loose ends, but it is shaping up very nicely.
Re:Solaris + Gnome? (Score:2)
From the post I was responding to:
Re:Solaris + Gnome? (Score:2)
I don't need a file manager when I have the command line. I definitely don't need desktop icons (I find those useless no matter what windowing system they're in). So what GNOME gives me is just the panel.
Re:Solaris + Gnome? (Score:2)
Re:Solaris + Gnome? (Score:2)
CDE? You've got to be kidding! (Score:1, Troll)
People actually use CDE? What on earth for? It's buggy, slow, ugly, has no apps, poorly documented, closed source and bloated. In short, it has absolutely *no* good points.
I'm flabbergasted that anyone can prefer the steaming pile of crap that includes "dtterm" and that lame "tool bar" that takes up 12% of the screen and offers no noticeable benefits. I forget what that piece o' junk is called, the "control pane" or somesuch. It's the only thing worse than the Windows tool bar in terms of incomprehensibility and unusability.
It just goes to show you - you can sell about a thousand of anything.
I love CDE (Score:5, Insightful)
1) I do 90% of my work from a terminal. The only reason I even run X is to have Netscape, XMMS, and SDtMail. I actually tried running just console for a while, and didn't notice any degredation in my productivity - it was just hard to read UserFriendly.
2) This is Solaris, and GNOME is very Linux-oriented. I don't care what anyone says, it is. I don't like not having access to some Sun-specific keys in the hotkey editor, or having all these "Unknowns" pop up in my sysid.
3) It's slower and less mature than CDE. GNOME is trying to hit a moving API, and there is the one problem with Open Source development: The second-system effect. CDE knows what it does, and does it well. GNOME tries to do everything - which I don't want. I like that it just manages my workspaces, windows, cut'n'paste buffers, etc...And doesn't browse the web, grab the weather report, make julienne fries...
Anyway, just my two cents. But CDE is a good desktop if you want a more UNIX-y (small tools doing one thing well, instead of Nautilis trying to be a web browser, file manager, PIM, etc.)
GNOME isn't fast (Score:2, Interesting)
Now I'm running KDE 2.2 on the box, and it's really snappy.
My only complaint is really slow opaque window dragging, but that's really Sun's fault, for somehow deciding not to include pixel-copy hardware 2D acceleration in their Creator3D framebuffers. (a strange reason why for some things, SunRay thin-clients feel faster at graphics) Anyone know if other newer Sun framebuffers fix this lack of feature?
Why don't they port KDE as well? (Score:1)
Did they consider KDE? (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably licensing issues (Score:2)
Re:Probably licensing issues (Score:2)
AFAIK Qt only has to be licenced for commercial development, something Sun can certainly afford. Still a major drawback, but one customers won't directly suffer from (though indirectly the cost of their software will rise).
The real reason why Sun's going for Gnome is C. The developers at Sun are more used to C than C++ and Gnome==C, KDE==C++.
Nope (Score:2)
Re:Double Nope (Score:3, Informative)
On the other hand, gnome libraries are licensed under the LGPL, which allows non-gpl (closed source) development based on it.
Although I believe this was one of the deciding factors--potential software partners would not need to depend on an external company to develop, this is currently true with Motif, so it probably wasn't the only factor in their decision.
Probably Sun engineers felt Gnome was more true to unix traditions than KDE, felt more comfortable with it, and felt they would have a bigger say in the direction it ultimately took.
Re:Double Nope (Score:2)
Re:Did they consider KDE? (Score:3, Informative)
QT is GPL if it is a non-comercial application, comercial apps pay big bucks for the QT licence.
so unless you are going to GPL your app, you will have to buy a licence from QT to link to the QT libs.
Wrong (Score:2)
No, YOU are wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The "QT Free Edition" is licensed under the GPL. The GPL dictates that if you wish to distribute a derivative work of a GPLed program (or a program linked to a GPLed library), you must distribute it under the terms of the GPL. The set of all GPLed closed programs is closed under the operation of derivative work creation.
The GNOME libraries (with the sole exception, IIRC, of the non-essential libgtop) are licensed under the LGPL, or Lesser (ne'e "Library") GPL. The LGPL allows linking with closed source code; it merely stipulates that you must re-link it with new versions of the library and/or supply customers with
So, to recap: an LGPL library allows closed-source applications to link with it. It is possible to write closed-source GTK+ and GNOME apps. A GPLed library, on the other hand, can only be linked into GPLed software, so if you want to make closed-source Qt programs, you're stuck forking over the ducats to trolltech.
It is not in Sun's best interests to force Solaris application developers to pay royalties to trolltech for commercial applications.
Ok (Score:2)
Re:No, YOU are wrong (Score:2)
In fairness to Sun, I don't believe Qt was distributed under GPL at the time Sun made their actual commitment to Gnome. (quite awhile back) .. it was still QPL only. In fact, Qt going GPL seemed like a reactionary move.
Re:No, YOU are wrong (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No, YOU are wrong (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Wrong (Score:2)
Cause I've seen totally 0, none, nada.
Qt license is free only for linux/bsd OSS.
And this is bad how? You mean people that charge money for software have to PAY for a QT license? And people who write free software pay nothing? How is that bad? If anything it enforces the advantages of free software.
Who cares about open source apps for windows? It's a closed operating system! Everyone pays money to develop on Windows anyways, its always been that way. But everyone is anti-QT because commercial companies have to pay
Re:Did they consider KDE? (Score:2, Informative)
I read this some tim ago on KDE KT Cousin [zork.net], basically they say that KDE isn't that portable, and port to Sun asch is going to take a while. GNOME is plain C and has ran on Sun for a long time, so there's not so much trouble to go through.
Consider also that KDE uses C++, and Sun's own compilers isn't maybe so good at C++ and g++ sucks on Sun too...
And.. If Sun used KDE on their arch, they'd had to pay Qt $$. That's pretty hard to explain to shareholders when there's equivalent totally FREE option available.
I'm not talking about government however
Rubbish! KDE works fine on Solaris (Score:2)
Re:Did they consider KDE? (Score:3, Offtopic)
besides, KDE already runs on Solaris. oh, and Sun would only need to pay Qt if they wrote closed source applications.
troll. *sigh*
Re:Did they consider KDE? (Score:2, Informative)
...and you base this on WHAT?
Oh, just a hunch, right?
Sure, it probably has nothing to do with the fact that Sun's developers are more familiar with C (GNOME) than they are with C++ (KDE) [linuxpower.org].
From that link: This came down to a comparison of QT to GTK+. We favoured GTK+ mainly because it was C based. We have more experience with C, it is more portable, we wouldn't be exposing C++ interfaces that might cause problems with different compilers and we would still get a nice object framework to work with which is well suited to GUI development.
You said... you really have to ask whether Sun gave KDE fair consideration in making their decision
No you don't. All you have to do is a little bit of reading. Again, read above referenced article, which was posted some time ago.
If you keep making "bets" on shit you know absolutely nothing about, you're gonna lose.
Re:Did they consider KDE? (Score:2, Informative)
Of course that is not the reason they chose GNOME. The license of gtk+, use of CORBA, influence over the implementation of gtk+, and C instead of C++ are probable reason.
I can't speak for myself...... (Score:5, Interesting)
GNOME is pretty. (Score:1)
CDE (Score:1)
CDE... *shudder*
OpenWindows... *shudder*
GNOME... only used it once or twice, but I think anything is better than either of them. I can't stand the unconfigurability of CDE... I literally spent HOURS trying to figure out how to customize the menus in the control panel thingy (not sure what it's called... it's ugly and silly), and it STILL doesn't behave the way I want it to. *Sigh*. Now, if only I can figure out where an unb0rken C compiler is on this miserable system, perhaps I have a chance of compiling VTWM (which, in spite of its flaws, is still my favorite WM).
But on another note... isn't it interesting how bigshot Sun is adopting a free desktop? Just a thought...
Timing is everything... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is GREAT news for those of us (me) who are not use to "using the source" and working from scratch. If they are bundling Gnome, they will have the GTK toolkit installed too! Its hard enough for a Solaris newbie like me to get an app installed, much less this plumbing. I've really gotten spoiled by Linux distros -- a C compiler and all the other parts are usually just there.
Wish it was bundled in there now. That which does not kill us...
Worth Mentioning... (Score:5, Informative)
CDE (Score:3, Informative)
CDE and Xinerama... (Score:2)
I've tried for ages to get Xinerama support using XFree86 under Solaris - no dice, until recently I got it all compiled. Of course, documentation is extremely scarce, and I'm pretty sure I don't need an XFConfig file for the Sun framebuffers, but there isn't one included, either. Haven't gotten it to work yet...
The problem with Sun's out-of-the-box implementation is that there are no header files or some such (can't remember exactly right now) and it works with CDE, but nothing else! That is, you can't compile sawfish or enlightenment, etc. against their libraries due to missing files. CDE which is pre-compiled by Sun, of course, works.
So unless Solaris 9 w/GNOME supports Xinerama, guess what I'm choosing to go with my two 21" monitors?
Compilation works just fine! (Score:2)
Xinerama support within either... If you watch during the "configure" script's output, you'll see that "-lxinerma" bombs out - at least under Solaris 7, it sure does. Haven't tried it on Solaris 8 yet.
Re:Compilation works just fine! (Score:2)
As a regular Solaris user (Score:5, Interesting)
FWIW, I actually use OpenWindows as my desktop (oh, the horror, the horror!) and along with olvwm, it does its job and stays out of the way. All my real work is done with xterms, gcc/cc, emacs (so go on, flame me) and custom astronomy software. If you ever had the misfortune to use AIPS [nrao.edu], you'd be into B&D too.
With Linux (and gnome) on my laptop and on our newer production machines, I just don't know: it looks (and feels) clunky. What 5 year old drew those ugly icons? Even with the "tiny icons" on my laptop Gnome toolbar, the only icon I actually like is the simple red star of Mozilla. And my work is all at the command line, I don't use icons! But I still can't convince Gnome, even with repeated "Save settings," that I'd rather not have an icons for /dev/fd0 and /dev/hda cluttering my desktop. Non-intuitive, hard to learn (this from an OpenWindows user!!) and ugly: is there any reason for Sun to switch to Gnome besides saving development costs?
I, for one, am not impressed.
Re:As a regular Solaris user (Score:2)
reason for Sun to switch to Gnome besides saving development costs?
Umm, yeah: sucking up to Linux freaks. It's the latest marketing gimmick.
Re:As a regular Solaris user (Score:2)
-Paul Komarek
what's there to "dread"? (Score:2)
Excited for Gnome 2.0 (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone know how far off this really is?
CDE: the environment for people who don't want one (Score:2)
I have to admit, it does include a window manager that lets you move, resize, and iconify windows and change the keyboard focus. But, other than that, just using an xterm would be nicer.
Get a job, Tim (Score:5, Insightful)
Few things are cleaner and simpler than a stripped-down CDE desktop. A drawer with the 4 or 5 most common applications, a clock, a trashcan, and a drag-and-droppable printer icon. No taskbar, no nested program menus, no disk icons, no desktop clutter.
It may be awful for an engineer (but then, maybe not; if you primarily use the command line, who needs all of GNOME's gizmos?) or a "power user", but CDE is great for heads-down managed environments like call centers, trading floors and so forth.
Yes, a modern, flexible desktop comparable to what MacOS and Windows offer is necessary for home and small-business use, and for some breeds of power user, but that's mostly because such users have to do nearly all of their own file and system maintenance. For someone who has no need for that--and that's true of many a work environment--the empty simplicity of CDE is a virtue. Not to mention easier to deploy, maintain and support on a network. CDE is terrible as a "general purpose" desktop. GNOME and especially KDE are far better for that. But the work that has to go into stripping down and locking down GNOME or KDE for ease of use in a 100-seat call center makes me cringe.
Maybe someday, Tim, you'll work for a company where Unix people have more than 20 desktops to worry about, where most of the people using those dektops aren't techies, and servers really have to be up 24/7.
Re:Get a job, Tim (Score:2)
Maybe Sun will realize that and distribute a stripped down option. If they don't, maybe you could do so. After all, it sounds like a common need.
What's with all the trolls lately (Score:2)
Is this some kind of conspiracy from Taco to post actuall trolls as stories to circumvent the noodnick trolls who post comments? First the slackwear troll and now this... I mean, really.
Well anyways, I LIKE CDE, ya rat jap bastards. It's light and fast, even on my butt slow sparcstation. I shudder in uncontrolable spasms to think of how KDE or Gnome would behave on my box. Yeah, CDE is far from pretty, but hell, it's running on solaris so it all makes perfect sense if you think about it.
Okay, so there you go, IHBT, IHL, HAND.
I might be wrong.... (Score:3, Insightful)
But most Solaris boxes I deal with are rackmounts through a Telnet session. Maybe I have just slept through the "Solaris as a desktop" revolution. Please someone fill me in on what I missed.
You slept through most of Suns history (Score:2)
They have moved thei focus from workstations to servers recently, as NT and Linux have taken over the workstation market.
You experience with Sun is probably after this happened.
Thoughts on CDE, after years of use... (Score:3, Insightful)
I actually prefer many of the older, commercial desktop environments and window managers. These include not just CDE but vanilla Motif (mwm, the Motif Window Manager) and OpenWindows.
Why on earth would I say this, especially when GNOME is free *and* certainly looks better??
Because OpenWindows and Motif/CDE have worked. They still work. They'll most likely continue to work well into the future. And they work well with the software I use. As much as I like to fiddle and futz with GNOME (and KDE) on my Linux box at home, I'm actually glad I don't use them for work. Openwindows was fast and extremely configurable back when I used a SPARCstation 2 as my desktop workstation. Because it was running atop the X Window System, I could do far more with it than my buddies on Windows 3.1 boxes down in accounting. Several years later I moved to a SPARCstation 10 with Motif which was quite a change, but by that time most pointy-clicky gui-based software for SunOS/Solaris was becoming Motif based so the move made sense. A year later I tried CDE and found it to be a pleasant yet simple extension to the minimalist Motif/mwm desktop I had been running. Most of the time I didn't notice the difference as I had the CDE Front Panel minimized and was busy working in my own apps anyway. By early 1996 I moved to a Ultra 2, a machine that stayed with me (albeit with two new cpu modules in 1999) up until this past summer when I upgraded to a Blade 1000.
The experience has been great. Never once has the desktop gotten in the way or clashed aesthetically with Matlab, Xilinx, or any of the other tools I work with. I was never working with a piece of artwork, mind you, but it looked good enough and wasn't bothersome. OpenWindows was lean and fast back in an era when it had to be. Motif brought about some unix-wide standards (even SGI uses slightly modified Motif). In fact, I would be willing to bet that Motif has been documented moreso than even Microsoft's GUI libraries. CDE gave us a few extra goodies based on Motif. While I don't use CDE's mailer, text editor, or calculator, I do find myself relying heavily on the simple but quite useful calendar manager. These days it'll even sync with my Palm. A few other utilities are great for the little things I don't do too often (such as change the color scheme, screen saver, or fiddle with the print queue). Even the login manager is quite nice, especially for its age. Like many of the newer freeware options (gdm, kdm, etc) it allows the user to select a desktop environment at login. Quite handy when trying out a few other the up and coming environments (I tried Sun's version of GNOME 1.4 several months ago).
I say all of this as a combination hardware and software engineer, mostly working in the embedded RISC world. I'm not a sysadmin with every script, utility, flag, and manpage memorized. Nor am I a graphic artist with a need for a PowerMac and its Postscript, ColorSync, and FontSync. I'm just a guy that needs to get real work done on a platform that's both flexible and not going to give me problems. Thankfully the past 11 years have be extremely nice to me. Of the 5 workstations I've used, each has had it's OS installed only once (with the exception of the Ultra 2 which I upgraded from Solaris 2.5.1 to Solaris 7 [2.7]). I only had to install my software packages once. Of all this, the gui toolkits and windowmanagers played a very small part. But they played that part with exemplary performance. They weren't wiz-bang, but they weren't a moving target either. They did their job - well. As for me, I am going to continue working with my current setup. I don't need the toys and whistles while I'm at work and thus will continue using CDE. I'll let my two UltraSPARC III CPUs spend their time working on my code.
That said, I'm glad Sun has an open mind and is working with GNOME. I personally don't think GNOME (or KDE) is the long term answer, but at least they're looking in other directions. Motif and CDE are old, but well used and well documented. For many, it's time to move on. Lets do so with some common sense and a historical perspective.
Calculus and alcohol don't mix. Never drink and derive.
Re:If you prefer CDE... (Score:1)
*BSD-is-dying-posting is dying. (Score:1, Funny)
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD-is-dying-posting's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD-is-dying-posting faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD-is-dying-posting because *BSD-is-dying-posting is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD-is-dying-posting. As many of us are already aware, *BSD-is-dying-posting continues to lose trolling share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. *BSD-is-dying-posting is the most endangered of them all.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
*BSD-is-dying-posting leader Benny "Stupid Trolling Retard" McGoatfucker states that there are 7000 *BSD-is-dying-posters. How many *BSD-is-dying-posters are there? Let's see. The number of *BSD-is-dying-posting versus Imagine-a-Beowulf-cluster posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 *BSD-is-dying-posting users. Goatse.cx-link posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of *BSD-is-dying-posting posts. Therefore there are about 700 posters of Goatse.cx links. A recent article put *BSD-is-dying-posting at about 80 percent of the idiotic trolling posts. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 *BSD-is-dying-posters. This is consistent with the number of *BSD-is-dying Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, *BSD-is-dying-posting went out of business and was taken over by Klerck who post other idiotic trolls. Now Klerck is also dead, his corpse turned over to another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD-is-dying-posting has steadily declined in trolling share.
*BSD-is-dying-posting is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD-is-dying-posting is to survive at all it will be among no life redneck retards. *BSD-is-dying-posting continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD-is-dying-posting is dead.
Re:GNOME is dead (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so! glib provides a plugin system; gconf is significantly better than the Windows registry; evolution 0.15 is extremely stable (I've been using it as my sole mailreader since the patch to a single disabling bug came out in version 4 of the Debian package). Yes, Nautilus sucks -- but there's no obligation to use it.
Also, as a C programmer, I much prefer the design philosophy behind GNOME to that of KDE. Yup, it's personal prejudice. Hell, maybe it's wrong. Nonetheless, I prefer it.
As for the development community, I've had excellent support from them. Perhaps you've exercised poor grammer or a conspictuous lack of research in your posts? (The lack of respect both of these show can rightfully, in my opinion, get one ignored in almost any community).
Finally, you may need to note: Wishing something dead doesn't make it so.
Re:GNOME is dead (Score:2)
The biggest drawback of the Windows registry is that it is stored in a binary format so if it is corrupted you're basically screwed.
GConf provides multiple backends. The default XML based backend is much more resistent to corruption that the Windows registry. If something goes wrong and something gets corrupted, it's almost certainly going to be limited to a single file. Also, if you're ever in a pinch, you can easily edit XML with your text editor of choice.
System adminstrators can set system defaults for users and can make certain settings non-overrideable.
A system like GConf is necessary to allow different programs to share common settings (e.g. the user should only have to specify his or her proxy settings once rather than in each application). GConf provides a mechanism for notifying applications of changes in settings pertinent to them.
Re:GNOME is dead (Score:2)
Re:GNOME is dead (Score:2)
- Having each app have its own configuration file format sucks; thus, a single format and API is beneficial.
- App configuration should have a universal means of setting systemwide defaults, without having each app hardcode such capabilities.
Hope this helps.
Re:GNOME is dead (Score:2)
>is a pretty stupid idea.
>I just upgraded my distro and was very happy
>that I could copy single per-app configfiles
>instead of the whole "registry" (that may not
>work). This happyness is about both the
>files and the KDE config files.
Whew... Good thing Gconf has nothing to do with storing everying in a single file, and allows you to copy single per-app configuration instead of the whole "registry".
[galt@damballah
.
./%gconf-xml-backend.lock
./apps
./apps/nautilus
./apps/eazel-trilobite
./apps/eog
./apps/gda
./apps/galeon
[galt@damballah
./apps/galeon/%gconf.xml
./apps/galeon/State/%gconf.xml
./apps/galeon/State/prefs_dialog/%gconf.xml
./apps/galeon/Advanced/%gconf.xml
./apps/galeon/Advanced/Crash/%gconf.xml
./apps/galeon/Advanced/Filtering/%gconf.xml
./apps/galeon/Advanced/Network/%gconf.xml
./apps/galeon/Rendering/%gconf.xml
./apps/galeon/Rendering/FontsColors/%gconf.xml
./apps/galeon/Rendering/Language/%gconf.xml
./apps/galeon/Browsing/%gconf.xml
./apps/galeon/Browsing/Find/%gconf.xml
./apps/galeon/Browsing/General/%gconf.xml
./apps/galeon/Browsing/History/%gconf.xml
./apps/galeon/UI/%gconf.xml
./apps/galeon/UI/Tabs/%gconf.xml
./apps/galeon/UI/Windows/%gconf.xml
./apps/galeon/UI/Toolbar/%gconf.xml
Re:Who USES Solaris? (Score:2)
Personally, I *like* building up a system from scratch from a "bare" OS install. I know exactly what goes on my system, exactly where its installed, and know that 1000 other packages that I *dont* need havent been installed as well.
Re:Who USES Solaris? (Score:2)
Last time I checked they did, shipping with and turning on unnecessary RPC based services, Telnet servers, and having a fucking Netscape based install process (that was avoidable, at the expense of missing out of some features. There's at the useless dt* programs I'm not aware that anyone uses.
with a nice point-and-drool web-based sysadmin interface.
If I remember correctly both Admintool and Solaris Management Console (or whatever its called - that thing that used to be in Easy Access Server) are both installed by default in Solaris 8.
In addition, it seems they don't give anything a modern Unix server needs out of the box - like Tripwire (or another IDS) and some basic default packet filtering system (although Sun does give away their basic firewall product for free).
If you're talking about default installs, give me Red Hat 7.2 anyday.
Re:Who USES Solaris? (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact, after a visit to sunfreeware.com, Solaris feels pretty much like Linux
Re:Who USES Solaris? (Score:2)
>Um, why not just use Linux then?
That'd mean re-installing the OS, and quite frankly, Solaris works fine and I don't need to fix something that ain't broke.
(You might then go on to ask why I went to the trouble of making my Windows system dual-boot Debian and Windows. Well, Windows ain't Unix, and Win98 is definitely broke )
Re:Ugh... I'm using CDE right now (Score:2)
Actions are super easy to create and are much more versitile and useful than window shortcuts. The is a program that should be in your desktop apps folder.
Windows is only intuitive because you've spent your life wacking off in front of it and have gotten use to how it behaves. You have no right trashing a system that you absolutely do not understand. It's like driving a porche when you've only ever driven a bicycle...
CDE is ugly because it supports a very large range of platforms and therefore needs to be scalable. It's default values will work on most systems but it can be configured to be just as pretty as windows.
Gnome is superior by all means, but CDE blows Windows out of the water.
BTW: xlock is an X-Windows program and has absolutely nothing to do with CDE.
Re:PuTTY (Score:2)
Believe it or not there are those of us who actually prefer Unix desktops. By the time I get my Windows machines up to speed (cygwin, Emacs, Python, Perl, TeX, LaTeX, ghoscript, sgmltools, etc.) I generally find that it would have simply been easier to install Linux. Especially since getting all of these Unixy tools to work together under Windows is a real chore.
Besides, I can't even imagine trying to be productive without virtual screens. I also have a pile of ssh sessions going on, but each group is on a different virtual screen. That way I can easily tell which machine I am looking at.
Putty is nice, but if most of your actual work is done on Unix systems, there is simply so much more that you can do if you are likewise sitting down at a Unix system.
For a while there I was getting worried that I would have to switch just because Mozilla was taking such a long time to get to the point where it was useable. I was a little bit afraid that I would be stranded without a decent web browser. Nowadays, however, I no longer worry. I actually miss Mozilla when I sit down at my Windows machine. I really like having a modern browser that happens to have Emacs key bindings for keys like Ctrl-K, Ctrl-E, or Ctrl-A.
That makes me very happy.
Re:PuTTY (Score:2)
Read the last line in my Post. :-) I was stating what I prefer. I love UNIX, but I don't like its GUI interfaces. So why waste my time.
I have no doubt that Mozilla WILL BE a great browser. But its still not near enough to IE (again, IMHO). And don't get me wrong on anything, I'm not a Microsoft hoar, I will not install XP until enough hacks come out where i can get rid of all the things i don't like about it.
I guess I just don't let politics bother me, bah.
I've been wanting to see how productive I'd be under an OS X box, but i havnen't had the chance to use one long enough, and I'm ot going to buy one to end up not liking it :-/. I haven't even tried it under OS X.1, though it looks pretty and on the G4 I breifly tried it on seemed pretty snappy.