Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNOME GUI

GNOME 2.0 Desktop Beta 3 Released 179

Posted by michael from the stomping-toward-destiny dept.
damiam writes "GNOME 2.0 Desktop Beta 3 has been released. Changes include new versions of Nautilus, Yelp, and the control center, as well as bugfixes all around. Download it from gnome.org or one of the mirrors." Jeff Waugh adds: "The possibility of a complete beer freeze at GUADEC has inspired another kickarse release of the GNOME 2.0 Desktop. It's awesome stuff, definitely worth trying out. You should find GARNOME handy if there are no packages available for your distro."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GNOME 2.0 Desktop Beta 3 Released More

GNOME 2.0 Desktop Beta 3 Released

Comments Filter:

  • The name of the release (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nachtfalke ( 160 ) on Sunday March 31, 2002 @03:38AM (#3259005) Homepage
    This release is codenamed "La lluvia en Sevilla es una maravilla", which babelfish translates to "Rain in Seville is a wonder". Any spanish speakers here that can tell us, what it really means? :-)

    • Re:The name of the release (Score:5, Interesting)

      by changos ( 105425 ) on Sunday March 31, 2002 @03:45AM (#3259035) Homepage Journal
      The rain in Seville it's wonderfull. Although maravilla can also be interpreted as "a sight to see"

    • Re:The name of the release (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      That's an accurate translation, but I think the point is that it sounds nice - all the 'll's (which are pronounced 'y'). Also, perhaps a joke on Pygmallian's "The rain in spain"...

    • Uh... the rain in spain falls mainly in the plain?
    • The rain in Seville is marvelous or When it's raining in Sevilla it is marvelous.

      Something along those lines... only taken 2 semesters of espanol.

      La Lluvia = to Rain, raining
      En Sevilla = In Seville (city in spain)
      es = is
      una maravilla = Marvel, marvelous

    • Re:The name of the release (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I think it's somthing like "When pigs fly".

    • Re:The name of the release (Score:5, Informative)

      by ElMiguel ( 117685 ) on Sunday March 31, 2002 @06:08AM (#3259364)
      It means "the rain in Seville is wonderful". It has been taken from the Spanish translation of the film "My Fair Lady". I think the original English sentence was "in Spain the rain falls always in the plain", or something like that, but the translators adapted it so the translation would also repeat a difficult phoneme ("ai" in the original, "ll" in the translation).
    • (I'm from Spain) The complete sentences says: "La lluvia en sevilla es una pura maravilla", and yes, it's from my fair lady, (original: "The rain in spain stays mainly in the plains") as said above. 'll' is not pronounced as 'y', not exactly... is more "liquid"; so the phrase gets a curious rythm and sound. Why did they translate it so and what does it really mean... it is a mistery for me. I suppose you have to see my fair lady to know it.
    • As many have alreqady stated it is a play on "The rain in spain falls mainly in the plain" from the musical "My Fair Lady"

      The point of the phrase (in the musical) was to teach this girl (was her name liza dolittle?) to speak "proper english" instead of cockney. This Professor Henry Higgins guy had made a bet that he could turn a street urchin into a "fair lady" of society, and one of the things he had to do was change the way she was speaking.

      Ms Dolittle had to say the phrase again, and again, and again... until she pronounced it right. It was very frustrating, and the next song in the musical was along the lines of "I'm going to kill Henry Higgins."

      So the title could refer to the sheer repetitiveness of releases, or all the (boring) work it took to get it right. And I think there's a developer conference in spain, too.
  • You should make them - if you have the brains to compile software, you have the brains to package it. As well as not breaking your system, and ensuring a uninform install, uninstall / query process for all your software, your work is repeatable for other users and generally other distributions.
    • Well, not entirely true. Ever try compiling Gnome for Sparc64? [grin] I wish somebody would make a package... an "all-in-one" one... I would, but I really would miss the 3 weeks of my life, plus how many people on sparc64 besides me want Gnome anyways?
      • sorry, I meant Solaris 8/Sparc64, because I'm sure gnome builds fine on OpenBSD/Sparc64.. :-)
      • Well, not entirely true. Ever try compiling Gnome for Sparc64? [grin] I wish somebody would make a package...

        How is that not entirely true? I was responsing to the article where it suggests using compiling Garnome to install the latest GNOME beta, and suggesting compiling GNOME into packages (or both the source and binary packages). Compiling Garnome on Sparc64 will take a similar amount of time than compiling it into packages, and will provide a stable set of install metadata which can be used to install other packages on top of your GNOME, which seems likely.

        I fail to understand how my post was in any way a troll.
        • The moderator labeled you a troll because you said that people who felt uneasy in packaging and redistributing their system had no brains.

          Compiling Garnome on Sparc64 will take a similar amount of time than compiling it into packages

          Do you know this for sure? Have you tried to compile Gnome on Sparc64 yourself? If it was so easy to compile Gnome onto a Solaris box, then why are their so many Solaris questions in the Gnome mailinglists?

          I've compiled Gnome (but not GarGnome) on RH7.2 , and it was pretty easy. Very few problems. I tried the same thing on my Solaris8 box, and probably spent 4 hours compiling, recompiling and re-recompiling, and another 4 hours searching for packages which were required but not included with the Gnome source.

          Solaris is less supported then other *nixs, and therefore has more problems. This applies to the source as well as the distributed binaries.

          Heading towards Gnome2.0 , hopefully Sun will kick in some more resources to the development process, and compilation will be less of an issue.
          • The moderator labeled you a troll because you said that people who felt uneasy in packaging and redistributing their system had no brains.

            No I did not. If the moderator thought that, they didn't read what I wrote, which implied that if someone had the tchnical knowledge to compile source, then compiling packages was well within their abilities.

            "Compiling Garnome on Sparc64 will take a similar amount of time than compiling it into packages"

            Do you know this for sure? Have you tried to compile Gnome on Sparc64 yourself?

            No. I have compiled other source applications into Solaris packages before. I see no reason why compiling Gnome would be any different. Feel free to provide me with one.

            If it was so easy to compile Gnome onto a Solaris box

            I never said it was easy to compile Gnome on a Solaris box.
      • Go to Sun's web page, http://www.sun.com/gnome
      • plus how many people on sparc64 besides me want Gnome anyways?

        You, me and Sun Microsystems, baby!

        But honestly, I agree with you. I'm running Gnome on my Sparc5/Solaris8 box. I tried installing Gnome from Source, and I spent about 8 hours trying to fufil dependancies.

        Finally I broke down and installed Ximian Gnome, which works, but is still sometimes a nightmare to maintain. Red-carpet breaks every other release, gnome-terminal won't work now (font problems)... it can be very frustrating.

    • I don't really believe that. With configure scripts, compiling is really easy. I am very incompetent, but I can compile GNOME from sources (not from GARNOME). Still, I've never managed to create binary packages for any distro (even though I've tried).

      • I don't really believe that.

        Fair enough - at least you've been a whole lot more civil than most of the replies.

        With configure scripts, compiling is really easy. I am very incompetent, but I can compile GNOME from sources (not from GARNOME). Still, I've never managed to create binary packages for any distro (even though I've tried).

        Keep trying - I'm not that skilled myself but creating packages is well within my reach. RPM (the standard Linux packaging system) has macros to handle any GNU autoconf/automake application, so most of what you have to do will be filling in specfiles.

        I reckon there's a good chance you might not have found the right docs (because there's a lot of poor ones out there). Try freshrpms.net or IBM Developerworks for good packaging tutorials.
    • Why would I want to package software? Who am I distributing it to?

      • Why would I want to package software?

        Ahem...
        "As well as not breaking your system, and ensuring a uninform install, uninstall / query process for all your software, your work is repeatable for other users and generally other distributions."

        Who am I distributing it to?

        Besides the abovementioned benefits, if you were a social, community minded sort of fellow (which I suggest from the subject line of your post you are not) then you might wish to help other users of your OS / distribution by distributing source / binary packages.

    • Well, why don't you just show me how? Because I don't know how and I guess I'm just a loser because I don't have the knowledge you do. Elitists like you give Linux a bad name. Feel free to email me if you'd like to assist rather than talk shit.
      • Well, why don't you just show me how?

        Sure. Visit freshrpms.net, rpm.org, or IBM developerworks for a couple of excellent tutorials on packaging.

        Feel free to email me if you'd like to assist rather than talk shit.

        I would, but you just insulted me, so now I rather wouldn't. People who abuse others like that give Linux a bad name.

  • GARNOME . . . (Score:3, Interesting)

    by uberjon ( 569815 ) on Sunday March 31, 2002 @03:44AM (#3259032)
    GARNOME seems like a pretty sweet deal, should give people running less mainstream versions of linux or other *n*x's a chance to run Gnome. Has anyone tried this, i'm interested in the results, very interested.

    • Re:GARNOME . . . (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nickm ( 1468 )
      I wrote the gnu make libraries that it uses, and the system is getting more and more robust as time goes on.

      Of course, GAR is in itself a sort of packaging system, so the GARNOME tree is only as good as the dependencies it provides. You'll still have to install all of the other software.

      GAR was designed originally with the idea that slackware users could just "make install" to upgrade to a newer tree of packages, but that was before I discovered that backing up your data and installing Debian was much quicker.

      That said, GAR's main purpose is to build the complete filesystem tree for the LNX-BBC [lnx-bbc.org] CD-ROM image. Ultimately we hope to have a complete GNU system packaged within it.

    • Re:GARNOME . . . (Score:3, Interesting)

      by reaper20 ( 23396 )
      I just finished getting the GARNOME package and installing it this morning.

      I did this on Debian unstable, so ymmv depending on your distro. I apt-getted the necessary packages as listed on the garnome page. (Forgot to get flex, but someone pointed that out to me on the irc channel).

      There was a small bug in .8.5, but .8.6 is on the ftp site now. I wasn't timing it, but my guess is that it took about 2.5 hours on my 800 Tbird w/384MB RAM.

      After I got the tarball, I just did a "make install" and it installed the gnome2 distro right in my home directory. I haven't used anything with GAR before, but this package is definately a welcome addition to my box.

      Gnome2 impressions - Nautilus is f*cking FAST. Real fast. As in, I will finally use it. Kudos to the hackers that improved this thing.

      The fonts - very nice, look good. It even used my ms ttf fonts that I had previously installed. I don't know if that was intentional or something that "just happened".

      The bad - not too many apps ported yet, but I'm sure that will change.

      I usually wait for packages for major things like desktops and the such, but garnome really really makes it easy. The guys in #garnome on irc.gnome.org are really helpful too.
    • I just tried it.

      Nautilus, gnome-terminal, and a great many other (but not all) apps segfault.

      It's not the Nautilus/gnome-session segfault bug listed in the GARNOME FAQ, either, because I don't have any "Xftcache" files.

      Damn.

  • Screenshots! (Score:5, Informative)

    by awptic ( 211411 ) <`infinite' `at' `complex.com'> on Sunday March 31, 2002 @03:49AM (#3259045)
    Wow, I'm impressed nobody has posted links to screenshots yet!
    Here you go: http://developer.gnome.org/dotplan/images/ [gnome.org]

    • Re:Screenshots! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mbyte ( 65875 )
      Anyone know if there are any themes allready ported to gtk2? the default theme does not look very .... impressive. Now if someone would have ported the xeno* theme engine to gtk2 ... hmmm ;)

      Btw, what you can't see on the screenshots that some screen updates have been undergone a major overhaul in gtk2. For example take gtop, the process monitor. With gtk1.x it would flicker so much you can't use it. (Basicly the whole screen is redrawn each refresh, and u can watch the redraw :)

      With gtk2 this is MUCH better, i guess due to double buffering. you only see the numbers change :) very cool !

    • Re:Screenshots! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by powerlinekid ( 442532 )
      Amazingly it looks just like gnome 1.4. This isn't flamebait but i still think gnome lacks the smoothness and grace of kde. This is coming from a former gnome user, one who after playing with mac os switched to kde, because at least its functional and looks good.

      • Re:Screenshots! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Syberghost ( 10557 )
        Amazingly it looks just like gnome 1.4.

        And we all know a windowing environment isn't "good" unless the look and feel changes with every release, right?
      • The point is that they could smooth it out alittle bit. Gnome always looked too clunky for me. Maybe blend the taskbar alittle. Try not to be so angular... then again now i'm just arguing for it to look more like kde and any other nice wm out there.
        • Did you ever try themes or even code tweaks? Between the two I have managed to smooth out almost everything that bothered me about Gnome. It may not be the most attractive thing out of the box (although I think it looks a lot less cluttered than KDE), but it is extremely customizable. Pick a window manager you like, add a theme and you can get Gnome to look like almost anything. A lot of the themes these days even have rounded, less angular windows. I have one friend who actually had his looking like Windows and another who duped KDE. With a little time, it's amazing what you can do to Gnome's appearance.
    • These screenshots are ancient. I know the date says Mar 27, but they're pre-alpha shots. See the dotplan site.

    • Re:Screenshots! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Skeezix ( 14602 ) <jamin@pubcrawler.org> on Sunday March 31, 2002 @09:11PM (#3262814) Homepage
      Some recent shots of beta3 I made:

      http://www.gnome.org/~jamin/screenshots/beta3/ [gnome.org]

  • question (Score:3, Insightful)

    by vectus ( 193351 ) on Sunday March 31, 2002 @03:51AM (#3259055)
    I'm pretty new to Linux (I've ran it since January as a primary OS.. before I had it installed but only dicked around with it once and awhile) and I've been trying to figure this out for awhile.

    What are the main differences between Gnome and KDE?

    I use KDE because it seems a lot more natural for me, with a lot more tools to change stuff around with. I go over to Gnome sometimes, and I wonder what difference there is between KDE and Gnome. They look the same, they have a similar 'feel'.. I personally don't see the difference.

    (note; this is not a troll, this is something I am legitimately wondering about)
    • Well, they are definitely in a way a natural competition. Some people like one, some people like the other, but it always feels good to have choices.(Says me typing this from WinXP, if only Visual Studio .NET ran under Linux, if only!)
    • Yeah, I'm also interested to hear that whats is the difference between KDE and Gnome. What is done better in Knome than in KDE?

    • Re:question (Score:3, Informative)

      by ArsonSmith ( 13997 )
      The main diffrence isn't even user level it is

      KDE is based in C++
      Gnome is based in C

      both have language bindings for other languages but they still are partial to the language they are based in.

      other wise there really isn't much diffrence. Not even a vi vs. emacs diffrent. More like a vim vs elvis type thing.

      They feed off each other to improve them selves, and do quite a good job of it.

      just my 2cents

    • IMHO:

      KDE is faster and cleaner, GNOME is prettier and has better apps.

      • Here's an article that says the opposite:
        http://www.linuxandmain.com/tech/xibret to.html
        • The only thing the article really says is that GNOME1 uses less memory than KDE3. Which is no wonder, KDE1 used less memory than KDE3 too. You should try GNOME2 - it's just as memory hungy as KDE3(both the environment itself and apps themselves - I bothered to check it, and yes, I tried to make the comparison fair).
          In fact, unless GNOME2 will get some optimizations in this area, KDE3 will need less memory after prelink finally becomes available.

    • Re:question (Score:3, Informative)

      by infiniti99 ( 219973 )
      They look the same, feel the same, and their goal is the same. GNOME and KDE are both trying to be good desktop environments.

      A desktop environment (or "DE") is more than just a window manager, it is the integration of applications. Before DE's, most X applications had their own individual look and feel, did not interact very much with other applications, and there was very little code sharing. KDE sought to solve this, by building a group of libraries (now known as kdelibs) for all desktop apps to utilize. Before KDE, there was CDE, but it was not nearly as ambitious. KDE was to be the ultimate unix desktop. GNOME came around about a year later, as a result of the GNU folks unhappy with the Qt license (KDE uses the C++ Qt library as a foundation). Now Qt is GPL, but back then it was not. This leaves us today with two desktop environment efforts.

      From a user (or UI) standpoint, there is very little difference between the two. You'll find that most of the differences are internal. GNOME uses CORBA and Bonobo to integrate applications, while KDE uses DCOP and KParts.

      In my opinion (note: I am a KDE user), KDE is more stable and complete because it is based around a featureful and commercialized foundation toolkit: Qt. This means that the KDE team can focus soley on the DE, while a dedicated company, Trolltech, works on their foundation. GNOME, on the other hand, uses (and maintains) gtk as a foundation toolkit, an offshoot of the GIMP. This is a tremendous effort on the part of the GNOME folks, because they have to develop both the foundation toolkit _and_ DE. gtk1 is not on par with Qt, and I don't think gtk2 will be either (Qt just simply has way too many years over gtk), but perhaps someday...

      Anyhow, I say just choose the one you feel most comfortable with. They both have a large selection of applications, and excited userbases. I don't think one will ever win over the other, but maybe they will slowly merge together in some respects. I use KDE because I like the look/feel/behavior, as well as the programming style and organization. Also, DCOP from the commandline is just too cool.
  • +5 Informative for anyone who can either point out links to
    1) Precompiled binaries made from a Garnome (if it's not too giant)
    2) RPMs that will coexist nicely with Gnome 1.4
    3) Instructions on how to get Gnome 2 from the Mandrake cooker (yes, it's there) but avoiding the conflicts with gnome 1.4 (and without removing Gnome 1.4)

    Asking the user to require 1.1Gbs of build space seems rather excessive! Even the "206Mbs once installed" seems large
    • Build space is always huge, and you have to remember that the binaries are unstripped and built with full debugging symbols so that the bugs reported are actually useful for developers. It's quite a bit smaller when you build without debugging and strip the binaries (but please, don't do this until it's released).

      Additionally, the GNOME 2.0 Desktop *replaces* the GNOME 1.4 desktop components, so most RPMs will not "coexist nicely".

  • Wonder if the group Pink Martini could be commissioned to whip out a quick and dirty GNOME2 Beta3 theme song. The title seems right up their alley.
  • The only accurate way I can describe the event of KDE3, Gnome2 and Moz1 all coming out within a month or so of each other is as some sort of "open source orgasm". Sigh.

  • Nautilus progress (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by Ogerman ( 136333 )
    Seems to me that Nautilus is roughly at the functionality level of old Konqueror 1.0. Any word on when serious progress is going to be made?
  • Are the packages in debian/unstable yet? Which bits do you need to install (and remove) to upgrade to gnome2?
  • When last I tried Gnome, it was slow and
    featureless in comparison to KDE3rc3. I'm
    quite willing to switch over to Gnome, if
    it becomes a better productivity environment,
    and consumes less resources, but I'm concerned
    that until someone who is willing and able to
    leave their dull axes in the closet for a while
    can make a comprehensive feature and performance
    comparison, both Gnome and KDE users alike will
    have little practical choice but to continue in
    their current environment.

    Therefore, I ask: Can anyone recommend a
    reasonably thorough and objective comparison of
    Gnome 2 and KDE 3?
  • Give me something wicked fast and utterly reliable. I run K on two low end PCs and frankly it kind of sucks from a usability perspective given its sluggishness.

Slashdot Top Deals

"All the people are so happy now, their heads are caving in. I'm glad they are a snowman with protective rubber skin" -- They Might Be Giants

Close