Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
GNOME GUI

GNOME 2.10 Beta 1 Screenshot Demo 480

Posted by timothy
from the prettyful dept.
linuxbeta writes "GNOME 2.10 Beta 1 has just been released. There is a nice screenshot demo here. Also known as 2.9.90, GNOME 2.10 Beta 1 is the first pre-release intended for wide public scrutiny before the final release in March. It is packed full of tasty GNOME goodness. This release is a feature frozen snapshot primarily intended for wide public scrutiny before the final GNOME 2.10 release in March. Like the good old days of Linux kernel development, GNOME uses odd minor version numbers to indicate development status. Please check the 2.9 start page for more info. - gnomedesktop.org/node/2138"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GNOME 2.10 Beta 1 Screenshot Demo

Comments Filter:
  • Shitty SS's (Score:5, Funny)

    by wdd1040 (640641) on Sunday February 06, 2005 @11:52PM (#11594084)
    Yeah... 640x480 screenshots with a shitty theme really show us the changes to Gnome.

    Is it me, or does this look worse than the stock ubuntu install Gnome?
    • Re:Shitty SS's (Score:5, Informative)

      by Coryoth (254751) on Monday February 07, 2005 @12:21AM (#11594239) Homepage Journal
      Is it me, or does this look worse than the stock ubuntu install Gnome?

      If you look through the screenshots, it is an Ubuntu install, and has a number of the Ubuntu customisations already, so it's not even very representative of what the general GNOME 2.10 user is going to get. All up, the screenshots aren't worth your time, head here [gnome.org] to see what changes GNOME 2.10 has.

      Jedidiah.
    • Seriously, those screenshots (640x480, are we back in the Win 3.1 days?) look like crap. C'mon, GTK+ can look damn nice [xfce.org], why the hell do they use those blocky themes?

      I'm kinda disenchanted with GNOME these days.
  • Fonts look nice (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Dancin_Santa (265275)
    But everything is so huge. The screen resolution looks really terrible. What is that 640x480? Did GNOme just enter the VGA world?

    And I'm not sure I'd like that "Courtesy of OSshots" banner at the top. Ugly.

    So my initial reaction, is, "Hey, that's cool. Where did the mouse pointer go?" Then my second reaction was, "It looks like every other window manager out there."

    Screenshots are nice, but what are they trying to show us that can't be done with any other window manager?
    • yeah, I love screen shots. But these aren't so great. Possibly to a more trained eye, but not mine.
    • Would be nice with some comments and screenshots showing whats new. I really couldnt tell any difference from the previous releases (could have tried hrder but I m lazy:) Also that theme muust be the most ugly one they could have choosen...
      • Re:Fonts look nice (Score:5, Informative)

        by Coryoth (254751) on Monday February 07, 2005 @12:10AM (#11594179) Homepage Journal
        Would be nice with some comments and screenshots showing whats new. I really couldnt tell any difference from the previous releases (could have tried hrder but I m lazy:) Also that theme muust be the most ugly one they could have choosen...

        I think this [gnome.org] is what you're looking for - of course this one is "old news" having been posted on Slashdot previously. It does a lot better of job of actually showing you what to expect in GNOME 2.10 than the selection of Ubuntu screenshots from OSDir though.

        Jedidiah.
    • it is 640x480, and apparently was done by someone who doesn't know how/didn't want to bother to resize larger resoultion desktops to smaller image sizes. and it looks awful in 640x480, and yeah Ubuntu (at least the Live CD) tends to default to 800x600 or if it can't configure your graphic card to 640x480... so perhaps Ubuntu was mis-configured.
      I'm sure they've put a lot of work into it, but that it's very difficult for an end user to tell what has actually changed. what is signifigant is that this is a fea
  • I'm confused, according to their release schedule, this is due on the 9th. Is it really coming out 3 days early? How often does that happen?
  • Vectorized graphics (Score:4, Interesting)

    by st3v (805783) on Sunday February 06, 2005 @11:53PM (#11594095)
    I hope GNOME will take a step ahead and use vector graphics. Then those of us that use large screen resolutions (such as those UXGA laptops) will have nice looking fonts without a magnifying glass. I know it might be easier said than done, but this will push the Linux desktop miles ahead.
    • yes, fonts have been a long time gripe for me as well. I end up running a lower res than I'd like, or just guessing what text says. making me unpopular on IRC. :)
    • Its been a while, but I'm pretty sure GNOME has already been using vector graphics for a long time. I recall my roommate doing a background in vector graphics, though that might have been an gdm login screen instead. It had a robot breating fire! Also, I'm pretty sure icons can be vector graphics as well. As for text, all I can really think of is sub pixel rendering, or whatever its called for X. There was an article not too long ago on the subject, just look for something like "cleartype linux."
    • by be-fan (61476) on Monday February 07, 2005 @12:20AM (#11594236)
      Fonts are already vectorial. If you've got a high-resolution screen, just go to "Preferences", then "Fonts", click the "Details" button, and set the "Resolution" spinner to get the fonts to the right size. For a UXGA laptop, presuming a 15" screen, 133dpi is the proper resolution, and 8-9 is the right-size for the UI font. I have such a screen, and I use Albany AMT 9pt at 130dpi, with sub-pixel anti-aliasing disabled (but the auto-hinter enabled). I've also heard of good results with 8pt or 9pt Tahoma at 133 dpi with sub-pixel AA enabled.
    • Oh, I forgot in my other post. With regards to non-font rendering, GNOME is already planning on using Cairo (a vector-graphics library) for its core drawing routines.
    • by ticktockticktock (772894) on Monday February 07, 2005 @12:26AM (#11594265)
      Hmm. I thought the font issue was already solved, at least in SUSE, where font sizes at a given point are exactly the same size (or very close to it) in different resolutions. I vaguely remember reading somewhere, that it was actually an X related feature where it calculates the actual pixel heights/widths based on the DDC info from the monitor that contained the monitor's actual height/width, and if it cannot get that info, it defaults to something (I think).
      • by prockcore (543967)
        I vaguely remember reading somewhere, that it was actually an X related feature where it calculates the actual pixel heights/widths based on the DDC info from the monitor that contained the monitor's actual height/width

        I don't know if that's part of X or not, but Gnome uses the monitor info to determine the DPI for the current resolution and thus, all gnome fonts are drawn at proper size regardless of what resolution or monitor you're on.

        You can hold a pica pole up to the screen and see that yes, indeed,
    • I hope GNOME will take a step ahead and use vector graphics.

      IRIX had them long before I used my first SGI machine in 1996. Great in principle, but the downside is that they were ugly as hell. A net loss.
    • I'm sure that one day, GNOME will even ship with SVG-powered solitaire, minesweeper, and even klotski.

      Yes, I'm bragging. Click here [rahga.com].

      (For what it's worth, I don't care about using SVG for icons just yet. Perhaps one day, we will se people running at least 133 dpi regularly, then I'll consider it. That day is not today.)
    • GNOME is taking steps toward greater SVG usage, but SVG isn't a panacea... [ximian.com]
      • by Brandybuck (704397) on Monday February 07, 2005 @01:45AM (#11594522) Homepage Journal
        Tell me about it. I did an SVG icon recently for an app of mine. It looked great at 48x48. But when I went to create bitmaps for the Mac OSX icon (which required a greater range of resolutions), I discovered that what looks good at 48x48 often looks like crap at 16x16, and fugly at 128x128. The problem is that when you scale an SVG image, everything scales, including the line widths. I had to manually tweak each resolution by hand.

        Why would you need so many resolutions? Why can't everything be 128x128? Because that same icon is going to be used as the app icon in the folder or destkop, a smaller size if the folder is in a columnar view mode, as a quick launch icon on the panel, and as a mini icon in the titlebar or task manager. You will also have the rude heretic users who will change the GNOME defaults.
  • Difference (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mboverload (657893)
    Honestly, I relaly don't see much of a difference.
    • Look at the version number!!! It's one more than the other versions! C'mon! Just look!
    • Re:Difference (Score:5, Informative)

      by tpgp (48001) on Monday February 07, 2005 @12:47AM (#11594304) Homepage
      Honestly, I relaly don't see much of a difference.

      I am going to presume you meant really, rather then relay.

      How about the places menu [osdir.com], the MultiMedia Systems Selector [osdir.com], maybe the Device Manager [osdir.com] or the Dictionay [osdir.com].

      But honestly, this is an incremental release. What were you expecting? A complete revamp?
      • or the Dictionay.
        I am going to assume you meant dictionary... (sorry, had to :-)
      • Only a computer programmer would take a simple idea like "sound" and call it "multimedia systems selector."

        I can't help but notice that the sound control panel -- er, sorry, the "multimedia systems selector audio tab" --doesn't have a volume control on it.

        Sigh.
        • Did the 'video' tab escape your notice?

          The multimedia systems selector allows you to select which multimedia systems, both audio and video, programs will use. What would you have called it?

          To change the volume, you click on the little volume icon shown at the top right of the screen.
  • Gnome? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 06, 2005 @11:56PM (#11594106)

    A changelog be more useful than crappy screenshots...

    And why is this news anyway? There's several hundred current distros. Wheres the news posts for all those?

    • Re:Gnome? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Coryoth (254751) on Monday February 07, 2005 @12:17AM (#11594222) Homepage Journal
      A changelog be more useful than crappy screenshots...

      Indeed, this story seems to be a waste of time. If you want screenshots that actually show you what you're getting that's different, look here [gnome.org]. It's old news (it's been up for some time), but it gives you a far better idea of what you're getting.

      Jedidiah.
  • Visually I can see no leaps and bounds here, so I'm a little baffled at the purpose of the "screenshot slideshow". Then again, graphics certainly aren't everything. I haven't been reading up on GNOME developments lately but what is "Assistive Technology"? It sounds like something dubious and misleading that Microsoft would promote...
  • Volume Control (Score:5, Interesting)

    by espergreen (849246) on Sunday February 06, 2005 @11:58PM (#11594120) Homepage
    Having used gnome 2.92 in Ubuntu Hoary, I have to say the best new feature is the volume control. The old one had way to much information, the new one is amazing. It's hard to describe, but it's much better than the old one. It may not seem like a big deal. But gnome currently only has a mediocre volume control. In the next release it will have the best volume control I have ever used on any platform.
  • bad menu UI (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 06, 2005 @11:59PM (#11594130)
    There's a big space between the "foot" and "Applications" (same spacing as between other menus), yet they're the same menu?! Either glue the foot to Applications, or call it foot *or* applications. What where they thinking?
    • " There's a big space between the "foot" and "Applications" (same spacing as between other menus), yet they're the same menu?!"

      That is one (minor) thing that has nonetheless always annoyed the hell out me. Another is how difficult it is to add extra items to the "Start Menu" under Gnome. KDE is so much uglier than Gnome, but at least all I need to do is open up the Prefs dialogue and hit "right-click>Add New Item" to add an app.

      You have to edit some text file hidden deep in the bowels of the system to
  • by DeathAndTaxes (752424) on Monday February 07, 2005 @12:07AM (#11594168) Homepage
    This is just about the only complaint I have with gnome. You're stuck with the same desktop pic on all your workspaces. It's gone on too long, and it's silly.
  • by rmdir -r * (716956) on Monday February 07, 2005 @12:09AM (#11594176)
    Smaller GTK widgets (Maybe its just perceived, but GNOME, and GTK apps in general seem to waste waay to much real estate... not everyone has a 21' monitor..)

    A decent default theme (Grey is ugly. Get over it.)

    • Gray is a beautiful colour. Themes that aren't gray tend to irk the hell out of me. That theme isn't gray--it's tan. Who's bright idea was it to use a tan theme for a desktop?

      Frankly, the default looks of both GNOME and KDE are rather ugly. I used to think it was just GNOME that was ugly--not only the default theme, but also most user's themes, but I've since realised that most KDE themes (including the default) are just as ugly.
      • Gray is a beautiful colour.

        Um. It seems like you either misspelled "grey" or you misspelled "color." Pick one and stick with it, huh?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 07, 2005 @12:11AM (#11594188)
    Congrats to the Gnome and Ubuntu teams. You have taken Linux from depths of desktop mediocrity and confusion and transformed it into something that real people can use to get work done.
  • Backwards? (Score:2, Funny)

    by hokputooy (762081)
    2.10 is actually 2.1 mathematically.
  • Question? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Vectorferret (814726) on Monday February 07, 2005 @12:14AM (#11594204)
    As a real question (not trolling), does Gnome have a graphical way to edit the menus yet? My primary reason for staying with KDE is I don't want to have to edit them manually.
    • Re:Question? (Score:5, Informative)

      by chazwurth (664949) <cdstuart@umi[ ]edu ['ch.' in gap]> on Monday February 07, 2005 @12:36AM (#11594279)
      Yes, several.

      You can right-click in the menus for some options. You can also, for example, open a nautilus browser window and type 'applications://' in the URL bar to edit the applications menus as if they were directories.

      Check out the GNOME docs on menu editing. They're not perfect, but they aren't too bad.
      • mod parent up ;-)

        Some useful info on /. for a change. Thanks now I finally got rid of that lingering xgalaga icon from my games menu!!!

        Tom
      • applications://?!?!?

        You have got to be joking me.

        How about right-click on footprint, menu editor? Why can't there be something like that? And that takes you to some sort of application?

        If the poster -- or more appropriately, average user -- can't figure it out by the first three guesses, it's not obvious and by extention wrong for a gui.

        Heck, there's someone who asked for the comment to be modded up because he couldn't figure out how to remove an icon from the menu!

        Tell me when gnome catches up with KD
  • Everybody in the world comes up with a better one. For what amounts to promotional screenshots, you'd think they'd try to at least demonstrate how pretty it can be, even if does eat cycles and causes noticable lag / draw in. Is it just that they dont want to play favorites with the other author's choices?
  • by Sark666 (756464) on Monday February 07, 2005 @12:15AM (#11594217)
    I tried gnome recently and found out about this cmd to graphically quick user switch a la xp/osx. So one user can log in and leave other(s) still logged in.

    This has some issues but what would give almost complete functionality right now, would be if the screensaver had an option to run gnomeflexiserver.

    The other problem with this though, is if logged in as another user, the other users settings for xscreensaver will kick in after the idle time and bog down the other user(s). I also believe this will take over the 3d functionality of the users card and not allow another user to use it.

    Also, I recently set up my .asoundrc file for software mixing with alsa, and used esd for gnome sounds and piped to alsa. I get sound in pretty much everything simultaneously, nothing holding the soundcard, but if another user uses gdmflexiserver to log in, that user will have no sound.

    Afaik, this is also a bit of a kludge, tying another Xscreen to a vert terminal similar to some users using ctrl alt f8 for the other X session. I'm not sure if there would be a way to tie multiple users to one Xsession, but I would think it would save resources and potentionally avoid sound/video accel getting taken over by just one login.

    I know this is somewhat off topic as I don't believe gdm is being enhanced in the coming future in this regard, but I'd like to know how /. users deal with this with multiple users in the household. Esp wanting to lock out kids from ones login by xscreensaver but not locking them out from theirs.

    Xp and MacX have now had this for ages. The DE's for linux really need to catch up in this regard.
  • by hatrisc (555862) on Monday February 07, 2005 @12:16AM (#11594219) Homepage
    But screenshots of the next version of a piece of software do absolutely nothing if it looks exactly the same!
  • Wow! (Score:5, Funny)

    by gustgr (695173) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .anidnor.> on Monday February 07, 2005 @12:16AM (#11594221) Homepage
    I can't wait to see the ScreeShots of Gnome 2.10 Beta 2!
    • "I can't wait to see the ScreeShots of Gnome 2.10 Beta 2!"

      I want to see screenshots of peoples faces when they have been trying for three hours to untar this, complile that and generally unzip the other but STILL can't get the damm thing installed.
  • Can it edit START menu?

    For 5 releases (2.4 to 2.9), I haven't been able to drag and drop a new ICON/application into the START menu bar, yet.

    Last time I tried this, it involved a convoluted method of editing three different files just to borne a new application menu item within the START menu.

    (sigh).
    • by DeathToBill (601486) on Monday February 07, 2005 @01:37AM (#11594492) Journal
      *sigh*

      You didn't actually try it did you? Come on, 'fess up...

      Try any of the following:

      1. Right click on the menu. Click "Enture Menu" -> "Add New Item To This Menu"
      2. Open nautilus, go to "applications:///". Right click, click "Create Launcher".
      3. Right click on the desktop, click "Create Launcher". Drag the resulting launcher to the panel.
      4. Open the Applications menu, drag an item to your desktop (it would be nice if this worked the other way around, but it doesn't for me - YMMV).

      Admittedly, 1 only works on launcher items in the menu, not items that are actually submenus. Even so, it would be nice if you could *try* the feature you're complaining about before you complain.

      Note: The above works for me in GNOME 2.8, Debian/Sid edition. Not sure how much variation there is in other distros.
  • by kasparov (105041) * on Monday February 07, 2005 @12:23AM (#11594250)
    Here [gnome.org] are some better screenshots of apps in this release with descriptions. Much better than the 640x480 screenshots linked to in the article.
  • by SuperBanana (662181) on Monday February 07, 2005 @12:25AM (#11594261)

    GNOME 2.10 Beta 1 is the first pre-release intended for wide public scrutiny before the final release in March. It is packed full of tasty GNOME goodness. This release is a feature frozen snapshot primarily intended for wide public scrutiny before the final GNOME 2.10 release in March.

    To those who say the Slashdot staff are resting on their laurels, I present you with what I believe to be the first case of single-story duplicity!

  • by wotevah (620758) on Monday February 07, 2005 @12:50AM (#11594325) Journal


    I just hope they fix that godawful file selection thing. I have never found a tool so unfriendly to "power users". I mean, what's up with forcing people to browse instead of letting them type the path.



    I mean having to browse through to /usr/bin and waiting minutes for it to build a fancy list so I can finally select what I already knew I wanted, that annoyance is worth wanting to switch to KDE or something else that allows me to TYPE stuff. Yaknow, like the old interface.

  • GNOME (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Codifex Maximus (639) on Monday February 07, 2005 @12:59AM (#11594360) Homepage
    There was once a day when I was in the GNOME camp. I didn't like the non-free Qt stuff. These days, Qt is not much of an issue. I still appreciate the GNOME guys for giving us an alternative but...

    Why does GNOME always seem to be in a state of trying to define itself - to always be in the concept stage? Perpetually in ALPHA state.

    Is GNOME still the GNU Network Object Model Environment of old?

    Now, in favor of GNOME I must add: There are some GNOME apps that just rock. I really like the process list, some of the games and the panel apps. The widgets are crisp, beautiful and intuitive just like they were on the original GIMP.

    The GNOME guys have got alot of impressive code. Now to use that code to form a cohesive and easy to use interface that doesn't change drastically with every point release.
    • Why does GNOME always seem to be in a state of trying to define itself - to always be in the concept stage? Perpetually in ALPHA state.

      Umm, I and countless others use GNOME on a daily basis. What makes you think it's in an alpha state? Well, except, oh, maybe if you run from CVS. So therefore KDE, XFCE, and every other project known to man is also alpha?

      GNOME's mission is more defined than KDE. Their goal is provide a consistent, intuitive, and accessible interface for all users for Free (note the

  • by Xofer D (29055) on Monday February 07, 2005 @01:11AM (#11594395) Homepage Journal
    Davyd Madeley's page (coral cache) [nyud.net] shows a cute overview of the new features that you can't see at all in those stupid screenshots.
  • button on the top left of each window?
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Monday February 07, 2005 @02:15AM (#11594599) Homepage Journal
    In the old days, a release came with release notes, so we knew whether we cared about a release. Maybe GNOME's release notes release is just very hard to use, but I don't see a meaningful list of changes. And I don't mean a ChangeLog, which is meaningful only to developers, people waiting for a specific bugfix, or others involved in the project enough to be upgrading from daily build snapshots.
  • by jotaeleemeese (303437) on Monday February 07, 2005 @02:27AM (#11594631) Homepage Journal
    What about posting articles talking about features, bug fixes and enhancements. I mean, we are talking about software after all, aren't we?
  • by ortholattice (175065) on Monday February 07, 2005 @03:01AM (#11594754)
    OK, I'm going to go off on a limb here with a rant that's probably an unpopular opinion. But what do I hate about virtually all Linux distros (and the current Mac)? It's this fad of antialiased fonts.

    Am I the only one left who prefers clean bit-mapped fonts?

    Sure, the screenshots shown in the article look pretty snappy from a distance, because the fonts are large. But to get a lot of work done you want small, even tiny fonts. That's the whole point of high screen resolution, right?

    Antialiased small fonts look awful. Compare the crisp, clean bitmaps of NeXTSTEP [levenez.com] or even Windows to the small blurry fonts in GNUStep [collaboration-world.com] or the Mac [collaboration-world.com]. With aliasing letters bleed together , the shapes aren't quite right, etc. It gets so tiring to read after a while.

    And if you turn off antialiasing they're barely legible (and sometimes even touch each other - I hate it when letters touch each other!) because no one takes the time to produce correct bitmaps for specific font sizes. (OK, to be honest I haven't seen the Mac with antialiasing turned off.) I don't even care about a zillion different sizes, just give me a couple of fixed sizes, small and smaller, that look right.

    As much as I hate Windows, one thing it has going for it is that the fonts are very clean and legible with antialiasing turned off. I tried the latest Ubuntu for a while, playing with all the font settings available (even LCD subpixel) and in end couldn't stand it because of the fonts. Such a beautiful OS gone to waste because it's unreadable with antialiasing turned off, and I can't stand it turned on. Isn't readability like half the point of a computer in the first place? Or do all people care about anymore is just getting a pretty "printed page" effect from a blurry distance?

    The irony is that font bitmaps are not even copyrightable! Heck, just steal them from NEXTStep! Or even Windows! (The bitmaps, that is.) Why doesn't anyone do this?

    (End rant.)

    • by gidds (56397) <slashdot@@@gidds...me...uk> on Monday February 07, 2005 @07:38AM (#11595464) Homepage
      Please don't think that everyone dislikes anti-aliased fonts. Personally, I love 'em; I find 'em much easier on my eyes. Non-AA fonts may be 'sharper', but that sharpness is just an artefact of the rasterisation. To me, they look gritty, awkward and uneven; AA fonts are much smoother and easier to read, even at fairly small sizes. (At least, here on OS X.) And they're a more accurate representation of the glyphs.

      As others have said, you can usually disable AA on your fonts; but if you're running at a reasonably high resolution, on a reasonable quality monitor, with a reasonable font renderer, then it's worth giving them a second try.

  • by coaxial (28297) on Monday February 07, 2005 @05:13AM (#11595086) Homepage
    So after much out cry over the file chooser in 2.6, they decided to change it again. The problem with the 2.6 dialog was that there wasn't a way to type in filenames. GNOME is the only framework that doesn't allow users to type in filenames. Almost 30 years of GUI research and development had this, but GNOME decided that was dumb. Now, GNOME did allow users to type in a directory names if they hit CTRL-L. The problem with that is that it's hidden from the user.

    Now, GNOME has added typeahead find to the dialog. Well, that got rid of the CTRL-L nonsense, but it's still hidden functionality, and doesn't allow users to paste in filenames.

    This is just incompetence.
  • Gnome Sucks (Score:3, Funny)

    by Icephreak1 (267199) on Monday February 07, 2005 @05:48AM (#11595182) Journal
    I never did like Gnome. It reminds me of those big utility crayons you give to first-graders to teach them dexterity.

    Enlightenment. Now that's a man's GUI.

    - IP

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.

Working...