Ask Miguel de Icaza About Gnome 229
How many of you are using Gnome right now? Wow! A lot of hands went up. How many of you have had a chance to meet or chat with Miguel de Icaza, Gnome's chief instigator? Hmmmm ... not nearly as many. Miguel's a cool dude, way out there on the forefront of Linux GUI development, and well worth meeting. If you don't get to a lot of Linux conferences, here's your chance to get to know him a little better. Take a look at his activity log and you'll see that he's about as busy as a human can be. What should you ask Miguel? Up to you. Post your questions below. One question per post, please, and try to keep things brief instead of submitting extended essays. We'll forward 10-15 of the highest-moderated questions to Miguel by e-mail shortly after 12 noon Tuesday (US EST -- that's 17:00GMT); his answers will run within the next week.
Hypothetical situation (Score:1)
Roman JURKECH
Mexican (Score:1)
X-Windows (Score:1)
Do you think that there's a chance for X to be seriously replaced in the foreseeable future? Do you think that it's necessary?
Mexican Elementary Schools (Score:1)
It seems there was a fellow doing this in New York, too.
Is there some organized effort of this sort? If not, are you still interested in it? Why doesn't it get more publicity, with lots of Linux celebs pushing the cause?
Use of GTK+ Object System (Score:1)
Gnome uses the GTK+ object system for all objects. I feel this conflicts with one of the current Gnome precepts: leverage established known-good technologies.
This object system has not been proven enterprise worthy or extensible enough for all problems, as have many other OO systems. This puts the GTK+ Object system in a less well-known, but similar situation to Objective-C when it was first coming into use: enterprise application programmers won't touch it. The learning curve here is simply not cost effective. Especially since you don't know that GTK+ or its object system will be around in 2 years, which would make the whole effort wasted time, wasted money, and most importantly, wasted knowledge.
It is easy to see that C++'s major downsides include its lack of a standard ABI (applications binary interface), and arguably its complexity (it is of course up to the user to determine how C++'s Templates/Exceptions/RTTI/STL are used, if at all). However, with Bonobo, CORBA is now being used in Gnome as a component/object interconnective layer. Corba handles object inheritance, typing, and network transparency (and the related ABI). This ABI handling effectively allows components to be used anywhere, avoiding C++'s ABI hurdles.
So the question is, why not C++? Most arguments about C++ are ended with the insurgence of CORBA. GTK+'s system is not well known, adding a lot of necessary programmer overhead, and its long-term usefulness is not known.
P.S. - I tried to keep my personal feelings out of this, but oh well... GTK+'s system is ugly. It is a pain to use, especially when you didn't create what you are working with. It makes code hard to read and difficult to understand quickly.
Re:GNOME's role in installation (Score:1)
A million and one things (Score:1)
Something I admire in you is the vast number of things you can keep track of at once. Do you think that's an innate ability that you either have or you don't, or is it something that can be learned?
Re:Same old GUI vs. Innovative GUI (Score:1)
>already been impressed with Helix), how much work/thought has been put
>into the user interface? Is there anybody out there currently,
>specifically working on the UI for GNOME and programs for GNOME? We're
>also talking about more than just pretty graphics, but actual design
>of the interface, making it more intuitive (aka, easy enough so the
>novice user can figure it out, but still robust enough the expert can
>still do what (s)he wants).
Sigh. Will you UI interface lamers give it up? There is no reason on earth why Gnome or Kde for that matter should become the place where UI designers dump their ideas to be tested out.
q: Excel vs. Gnumeric vs. Siag (Score:1)
Currently I'm using both siag and Gnumeric at work to deal with spreadsheets imported from PC programs. Bear with me, this isn't a user question. I've found siag better at 1-2-3 files, and gnumeric better at excel (which siag doesn't do). Gnumeric's interface seems a lot more polished. However, I like some of the concepts behind siag. Once upon a time, before gnumeric, there was a project called maxwell's lemur or something like that. (Hey, even back then they were using primate names :-). From what I've heard, it was supposed to be a siag-inspired spreadsheet for gnome.
I don't know how much of Maxwell went into Gnumeric; my question, however, is with all the fancy Corba stuff and the like, how hard would it be to put the gnumeric interface onto siag? (And if I want to try myself, is source for gnome-stuff available in tarballs instead of srpm's and cvs?)
Re:How important is COM-like architecture? (Score:1)
But my current job forces me to develop for WinNT/98 (which are very different BTW (and Win2000 is the bastard child of both, with alot more of Win98 than Microsoft would like to admit))
But I am getting off-topic here...
While for your average user, COM/ActiveX/OLE/Bonobo aren't that useful (embedding spreadsheets in your a Word Document)
for a developer they are a mixed blessing.
They are a pain in the butt, and poorly documented, but being able to say, do some client-side ADO to get some data, and shoving that data into a Excel chart which is then posted side by side with a GIS map, all inside Internet Explorer, is pretty cool.
What I am pretty much saying is that the power of Bonobo isn't so much for a document writer, as a application writer.
Just my two cents...
(I haven't looked at bonobo at all, but I pray to whatever you believe in that the API is well thought out, well documented, and actually works as advertised, since if I have to fight one more undocumented "you can't do that" in windows I will go postal...)
Jeff
Re:Mac style menu bar (Score:1)
What this guy is asking about is something that actually takes the menubar from the application currently in the foreground, being as it's already tearable, and puts it in the menubar at the top of the screen. I'd kind of like this feature too but it would be somewhat hard to do. There would either have to be some kind of communication between all running apps and a menupanel (possibly through ORBit, though that would mean making ALL gnome apps have to link to libORBit, which they currently aren't, breaking binary compatibility) or have the apps themselves put their menubar up there, which introduces problems when one program freezes up taking control of the menubar (since there's no menubar program to reliquish its control) and it also means that libgnomeui needs to know how to deal with the WM hints which previously only a couple applets had to deal with (ie, bloat). Either way it'll take large changes to libgnomeui.
I guess the best way would be to just go with the menupanel thing and save that feature for gnome 2.0, since you're going to need to break binary compatibility anyways...
Re:Object Models (Score:1)
That's sorta the whole point of CORBA--all ORBs can interoperate with each other using the Internet Inter-ORB Protocol.
Don't know about your other questions though.
Turing Complete WM == SCWM! (Score:1)
Cut and Paste? (Score:1)
The simplest functions are the ones I tend to miss the most when using a GUI under Linux. Cntrl-Ins and Shift-Ins for Cut and Paste is a good example.
Are there plans for a standard set of interface operations (such as Cut and Paste functions, Right-Clickable Actions, etc) that can be agreed upon universally by GUI designers?
Some would argue that corollaries exist, just using different conventions/key strokes. But wouldn't it be more beneficial to adopt at least a few well-known conventions from Other *cough*Windows*cough* GUI environments that are tried and proven rather than obfuscate the situation with different key configurations and pragmas?
Illusionists (Score:1)
Re:Were Gnome's the lamest character class, or wha (Score:1)
Connectivity/Data interchange (Score:1)
Progress & Opportunities in Mexico (Score:1)
2) How would one find out about this and other opportunities to do Linux programming in Latin America, and maybe make a living wage there while doing it?
Stability (Score:2)
Where has your time been spent? (Score:2)
Re:Gnome and Enlightenment (Score:2)
Miguel, can you share your side of this story?
I don't know many of the details, except the enlightnment pager kicks the GNOME pager's ass, and that now enlightenment is trying to recreate a file-manager...there seems to be a battle between esound versions, etc. etc. etc. The SVLUG with the enlightenment didn't really cast a light on this schism, except to add more cryptic references to the flame......
I wish these youngsters would just kiss and make up..
Standard theming? (Score:2)
Gnome and Window Managers (Score:2)
I don't know what everyone else's experience has been, but the newest version of E doesn't seem to be as friendly to GNOME as it used to be, by default...It takes over right-click and middle-click menus, thus not allowing me to use the GNOME menus. Now, i know you can configure it, but by default, it doesn't...
So, what is the current status, if any? If so, what are the candidates??
I, myself, must recommend sawmill, it works beautifully with GNOME.
Re:Reconciling fonts (Score:2)
IMO, we really don't want a GNOME-specific solution to this problem, because then users will have to install fonts once into KDE and once into GNOME -- this is an improvement over installing fonts once into every app, but it's still unsatisfactory.
As for TeX fonts ( metafont ), they are a completely different beast. They are very high quality, but render very slowly, and are unsuitable for WYSIWYG publishing. The TeX font system is also somewhat more complex than anything you'd use for WYSIWYG publishing, and as such, it probably needs to be kept seperate.
PS: For everything you ever wanted to know about Type on Linux, check out the Font HOWTO [rutgers.edu]. Cheers,
Re:Traditional Unix philosophy... (Score:2)
GNOME and KDE are not monoliths. They are simply a big bunch of applications that share common APIs. This is a very good thing IMO -- things have evolved to the point that there are two clear winners in the API stakes, GTK/GNOME and QT/KDE. The APIs are certainly modular, though this modularity is at times transparent to the user ( who doesn't know, for example, that "kdesupport" and "kdelibs" are actually several different shared libraries shipped in one package ).
GNOME/KDE are also modular -- you don't need to run all or none of the applications. You only need to have the required shared libraries installed, and you can run any apps. ( for example, there's no reason why you can't just run "panel" and no other GNOME apps. )
There are two ways you can think about KDE/GNOME -- they are either a collection of APIs, or a collection of applications that use those APIs. The fact that you choose to use one of those applications doesn't compel you to use them all. For example, koffice is only "part of KDE" in the sense that it is built on the KDE APIs. But you certainly don't have to run koffice to run other KDE applications ( whether those applications be the window manager, panel, terminal, editor or dialup tool ).
In conclusion, you are free to choose whatever you want. You can run Koffice under Window Maker, with the GNOME panel and transparent eterms running if you like. No one is stopping you.
Window Manager issues (Score:2)
--
Re:yc? (Score:2)
Its not about not being able to do something, its about the efficiency of doing the development and the stability/maintainability of the end product.
In small development tasks the benifits of C++ are not very large compared to C or some other procedural lanugage. When you start developing large scale, distributed systems, OOD/OOP becomes not only a nice feature, but mandatory.
C++ can add some whoppers to bugs and trying to get them to work. I think before we start to develop in C++ too much we need a tool that does a good job of creating and IDE with compiler, easy debugger, and other features. That's the biggest problem I get into. using vi and the command line is simple and fast but I like interactive things that allow me to see bugs and squash them quickly.
GDB seems to be quite suitable for finding bugs in any code. The name mangling of c++ functions and templates can be annoying, but hopefully we can have tools to ease these troubles soon. A tool like purify and quantify for linux (opensource) would be awesome, however, i wont hold my breath for something like that. glib does a good job of finding memory errors within itself..
Also another thing you have to consider is that perhaps the libraries that are being used the most are C related and not C++ as of this time? That can put a damper on things.
Actually, its a very trivial matter to call C functions from within a C++ program. The keyword extern is used for this.
ex: extern "C" int foobar(void);
Re:C++/Java/CORBA/Components/Frameworks (Score:2)
True, it is a very powerfull object system. But it is also overly complex and needlessly limited. This complexity and inflexibility are there because the code is implementing object oriented features that would normally be within the domain of a language. You can write object oriented code in assembler, but thats not the point. The point is that when doing this type of development, it becomes increasingly more efficient to use a language designed for object oriented programming, as well the various other practices which aid OOP development. Such as models, detailed designs, patterns, frameworks, etc.
UNIX on the desktop dead? (Score:2)
But outside of there somewhat niche markets (SGI for there video power (both in scientific visiulazation and movies/tv) and sun for the more general purpose unix requirments (math, stats, and CS types)) you dont see these machines anywhere, and the later (addadamia) is moving to windows PCs , at least at the uni's Ive seen (in the labs anyway). And all of the systems, while easier to administer that 'bare' unix all seem to be set up so that 95% of admin tasks are realy easy, but the other 5% need a realy experience admin - and since enviroments that use these general have an admin on staff, its not a problem.
So my question (and Im sure youve heard it a million times before) is:
It seems that unix systems are fundimantly unsutable for the desktop (given that you dont see unix on the desktop outside the above cases), why will the Gnome be any different?
Re:Gnome and Enlightenment (Score:2)
My main disappointment is that I still haven't found a really usable theme. My favourite one visually is Hand of God, but it conflicts so severely with the Gnome pager that I can't really use it. Most of the vanilla themes seem vanilla in terms of functionality, too. Or perhaps I'm doing something wrong?
In defense of both Gnome and Enlightenment, as far as I can tell they did invent the integrated pager + Windows95 style taskbar. I find it quite useful, and there's certainly nothing like it in Windows. Admittedly, it's an "embrace and extend" kind of thing instead of true originality, but it does work well, and I use both the Unix-style pager part and the Windows-style taskbar.
D
----
Re:Gnome and Enlightenment (Score:2)
An improvement, but certainly not the original thinking I'm really craving.
D
----
Developing tools (Score:2)
But I don't see any effort been focused on creating easy programming tools for GNOME other than Glade, and Glade is far from being as easy to use as other tools. Sure, it beats doing the GUI by hand, but..........
Are there any efforts out there to create a similar tool to program under GNOME other than Glade ?
Dont you think that GNOME needs more developing tools to be more atractive to programmers, so you can guarantee a increasing number of developers for GNOME and therefore killer apps ?
There's a joke around about Microsoft tools been crack to programmers because when you use them it feels so good and great, but they make you stupid because they are so easy to use so you forget how to program the old fashion way.
Miguel, we need crack, but GNOME addictive crack.
Bueno, saludos, y a ver cuando le caes de nuevo a Monterrey.
Francisco Romo Alfaro
http://linux.mty.itesm.mx
Post-C-ism (Score:2)
That's my opinion, but I have to agree the lack of language-level support for things like classes, inheritance, fine-grained scoping, etc. is bothersome. Not enough to make me want to move to C++, but enough to make me wish some language junkies in the free-software community would get together, and create a derivative of C that addresses all those problems. A language that can do OO gracefully, without any run-time magic (unlike ObjC), that has a small specification (unlike C++), and a reasonably limited system library (unlike Java).
If that were to come about, in conjuction with a small $LANG-to-C translator program that could be put into tarballs, I think the architects of Gnome would be willing to give it a try. *I* certainly would . . . .
Re:the ugly panel (Score:2)
Most people are misinterpretting my question. I meant that the programming behind the panel is icky, while the outside is nice. There are some UI issues, but my main concern was the implimentation, not the look and feel. I love panels too, but currently I have to do kludgy things to get them to work right. see this page: screenshot [themes.org] for what I managed to get the panel to do after a _lot_ of fiddling.
Helix Code on other Desktops (Score:2)
Also, thank you for doing this. GNOME is by far not only a Linux thing, and I find CDE almost completely unusable...
Re:the ugly panel (Score:2)
Motivation (Score:2)
Midnight Commander (Score:2)
I couldn't really get into the icon based stuff. It's just not fast enough for me (yet).
I was surprised when I downloaded gmc and saw, well, MS Explorer.
Do you think there's a way to get the best of both worlds? A two-pane file manager that works like Explorer and mc?
I've been playing with the KDE 2 snapshots to see if Konqueror could do it. I then discovered a neat feature. I could have four panes: two containing files and two containing previews of whatever files are currently selected in each of the file panes. In mc there's a quick view feature, but I couldn't stand not having two file panes. Maybe I'm just an old coot...
Oh well, I guess what I'm really trying to ask is if the mc way is dead. Should I give in and use Gmc or Kfm/Konqueror the way other people do? Will I end up happy if I gave it an honest try? (I've given it tries before, but it never worked out. I kept reaching for the 'F3' key...)
Even if it's dead, I have to still thank you for providing what is(was?) the most important piece of software I have used (In my opinion, at least) under Linux.
How far will Gnome take objectification? (Score:2)
One of the things I miss from my days using OS/2 is that in the workplace shell (WPS), everything was an object: every folder on the desktop; every template icon that pointed to an app; the launchpad; everything. As a result of this, I could customize the WPS in ways that the engineers at IBM had never anticipated. I could instantiate weird mutated variants of the launchpad with just a few lines of Rexx.
My question is what are the plans for this type of true objectification to come to gnome? When will everything be an object and be embeddedable anywhere the user pleases? Because gnome sits on top of X, which in turn sits on top of the OS, hat do you think the limits are for gnome in this regard, what limits does gnome have as far as objectifying and abstracting the OS?
End User Usability (Score:2)
With that in mind -- What elements were included in GNOME that were done, specifically, thinking from the ease-of-use standpoint? Did the team work from a "this would be cool, let's make it usable" viewpoint, or a "this would be usable, let's make it cool" one? Or has it been a little bit of both, and if so, when did it change?
very straightforward question (Score:2)
On Helix GNOME versions (Score:2)
Re:Web pages with Java (getting offtopic) (Score:2)
Re:How important is COM-like architecture? (Score:2)
Actually, I'm a developer too and have used Visual Basic for a long time at work (and at home 'fore I switched to linux). Let me take these one at a time:
Pictures, word art: These seem to be more of a problem with the terrible cut & paste functionality in X.
Application development: we already have widgets and things without bonobo. COM has allowed you to develop faster, but prevents you from developing fast, reliable programs. It has created somewhat of a developer's hell in terms of maintenance, messianic promises notwithstanding.
Web pages with java: Java is completely USELESS as things stand today. No one uses them on web pages except doubleclick.net. I always turn java OFF no matter what computer I'm on (my PII 350 win box at work or my linux 133mhz at home) because its so slow and often unstable.
Too much? (Score:2)
Re:Why emulate windows (Score:2)
Re:Why emulate windows (Score:2)
Themes and remote operation (Score:2)
Therefor: Are there any plans to allow the theme to be fetched from the remote WM, rather than the local system?
Re:yc? (Score:2)
"Why is GTK+ written in C?
First and foremost: asking this question in any public forum is strongly discouraged. Don't do it. Check the archives for several extended off-topic
flamefests if you're interested.
Here are some reasons:
The original authors wanted to write it in C, and now many C-only applications are based on it. The current authors enjoy C.
GTK+ handles types and objects much more flexibly than C++; it is runtime-oriented, more like Java or Objective C than C++ system. This
is convenient for GUI builders and language bindings.
C is the lingua franca of UNIX development; most people know how to code in it.
There are already nice toolkits for languages such as Java and Objective C. There are C++ wrappers for GTK+; several, in fact.
C is more portable than C++; ANSI C++ is not yet widely implemented, so only an ill-defined subset of C++ can actually be used.
When GTK+ development first started, there was no free, working C++ compiler.
Again: do not ask this question on any mailing lists, because people will not be amused. "
"You want to kiss the sky? Better learn how to kneel." - U2
Re:pointers a prob!!? (Score:2)
Thats my two cents in the nickel jar...
Re:yc? (Score:2)
any time in another laguage (im sure C++ would be picked, whether or not it deserves to be)?
C has a tendency to make things just a little faster and more nitty gritty in terms of the things it can do. Although I would admit that C++ is good for things and for allowing for a changeable design I wonder if it's totally necessary. I got headaches just trying to comphrend some of the C++ concepts. I have read books which indicate it's really useful however I haven't seen anything that couldn't be just done in straight C. I was able to learn C with little problem (well pointers just suck badly) but C++ and it's interactions started to get murky about the time inheritance and polymorphism started getting added.
C++ can add some whoppers to bugs and trying to get them to work. I think before we start to develop in C++ too much we need a tool that does a good job of creating and IDE with compiler, easy debugger, and other features. That's the biggest problem I get into. using vi and the command line is simple and fast but I like interactive things that allow me to see bugs and squash them quickly.
Also another thing you have to consider is that perhaps the libraries that are being used the most are C related and not C++ as of this time? That can put a damper on things.
When will we stop following? (Score:2)
Here's my [radiks.net] DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
GUI configuration utilities (Score:2)
Re:When will we stop following? (Score:2)
Is there anyone out there that has a real idea of what should be done??
Wiwi
--
"I trust in my abilities,
but I want more then they offer"
Learning... (Score:2)
Same old GUI vs. Innovative GUI (Score:2)
I've seen an alarming trend within GNOME and other linux (GUI)programs/window managers to design their programs after other OS-based programs (mainly windows).
I don't mean to say just because it's linux, it should be different than any other OS/program design out there, or that there aren't some good ideas out there ripe to steal. Rather, it seems that a lot of the time, we're stealing the design, and not putting much thought in how to IMPROVE upon those designs (for example, take the GNOME PIM! Looks EXACTLY like the Outlook calendar).
For example, within MS Outlook, I like the function I can e-mail a calendar invite out, and people can accept/refuse from right within the e-mail, without the recipient having to add the invite manually. On the other hand, I'm continually irritated by the lack of being able to sort and view all incoming mail the way I want to (This would take WAY too long to explain how exactly it's irritating)
Besides Eazel and Helix (two projects I have high hopes for, and I've already been impressed with Helix), how much work/thought has been put into the user interface? Is there anybody out there currently, specifically working on the UI for GNOME and programs for GNOME? We're also talking about more than just pretty graphics, but actual design of the interface, making it more intuitive (aka, easy enough so the novice user can figure it out, but still robust enough the expert can still do what (s)he wants).
On top of that, I wonder how versatility is being worked on as well? I remember reading one time, that a major complaint against Microsoft Office, was that it had grown to such massive proportions, that it was currently designing how office operations work (memo's, docs, meetings, etc.), instead of being designed towards how businesses are run (if that makes sense). In my mind, it'd be better to have an office suite you can configure towards your business model, instead of changing your business model to fit with your software (via plug-ins, modules, configuration, etc. of buzzwords)
Performance (Score:2)
VS. Microsoft (Score:2)
In other words: are you prepared to battle the forces of evil?
Future of GNOME (Score:2)
Also, what do you think about the porting of GNOME to other desktop platforms(Windows, BeOS, etc)? Would you rather concentrate on providing a stable desktop environment or making it more portable.
Thanks.
LSB & lgpl questions (Score:2)
2) the gnome faq states that most libraries are under lgpl. Does this mean that some are GPL?? This really scares me. I think that if too many GPL libraries get out there, then linux will fail, and fast. If there are some, can we make it clear which ones they are?
RMS offers good reasons for GPL'ing libraries, but look what we end up with: No commercial apps use readline, which sucks for us users, and companies would probably fear linking against GPL libraries, in a what if posibility. IMHO, GPL libraries is the mess that get's people calling GPL viral.
Form and Function (Score:2)
While there are many applications suited to a point-and-click metaphor with windows and menus and buttons and text fields, there are also many - and perhaps more - where a written or spoken command interface (not just keyboard accelerators) is more efficient/productive and often also more natural/intuitive.
The classic Midnight Commander made progress in some ways towards providing both interfaces where appropriate, allowing a person to do most things through a command interface, and also to quickly/easily switch over to a more GUI-like interface for some operations without losing the state of their application session - especially their own mental state.
Considering, for example, the evolution(?) of the Midnight Commander user interface, how do you feel about the support in GNOME for developing, using, and integrating applications which have strong support for simple, flat, written command interfaces?
Office compatibility (Score:2)
Do Gnome and KDE has the same file format for their office suite ?
Do people in charge of filters work together ?
Agents (Score:2)
When Windows fails... (Score:2)
World Domination Rules...
Code Formating (Score:2)
My question: What rationale do you have for putting a space between a function name and the open param in the function call?
eg:
result = my_func (arg1, arg2) instead of
result = my_func(arg1, arg2)
I've seen this used before, but no one (not even the people that do it) can give me a reason why.. I can think of many reasons not to, not the least of which is complexity with multiple function calls..
Can you shed some light on why you do this?
Why emulate windows (Score:2)
Hacking >> GNOME &&|| OSS (Score:3)
Heath
beltranh@wenet.net
Were Gnome's the lamest character class, or what? (Score:3)
Gnome in Embedded Linux Devices (Score:3)
We heard news recently that Trolltech plans to release a Linux Qt that does not require X. To me, this sounds like a great idea.
Will Gnome follow? Has Cygnus/RedHat expressed any interest?
I also noticed that svgalib is depreciated in Red Hat 6.2 and will be removed. Does this leave the frame buffer as the only non-X device?
Linux in developing countries (Score:3)
As an open source coder from a (third world|developing|whatever) country, could you comment on the prospects of the open source model as it relates to the zillions of folks in the world compared to the closed source proprietary stuff our of Redmond (and elsewhere)?
Specifically, it seems like places without a lot of cash can adopt one of three paths:
What the real status as you see it? And where is it going? And are the pointy haired jefes any wiser than their industrialized counterparts?
the ugly panel (Score:3)
It has been suggested that the panel be rewritten to be based on XML in order to facilitate layout and customizablilty. when will such work begin? Is backwards compatibility with applets an issue?
Object Models (Score:3)
Kind Regards,
Ola, Miguel. (Score:3)
Question: Desktop standardization. Everyone wants it, but it has to be configurable as well. The current menuing, at least as shipped with RedHat, seems overly complicated, too many levels deep, and applications can be tough to find.
Has there been any progress towards a standard desktop, with a seperate area for vendor/developer
Thanks for keeping it fun,
S.D.
Comand line vs GUI (Score:3)
Future interfaces (Score:3)
What do you think of future user interfaces, now that we are finally starting to approach the level of computing power necessary for more advanced interfaces such as voice control and 3D "desktops"? Where (or will) GNOME fit in the future?
yc? (Score:4)
"There is no spoon"-Neo, The Matrix
"SPOOOOOOOOON!"-The Tick, The Tick
Esound replacement? (Score:4)
---
Reconciling fonts (Score:4)
Can high-level window managers like Gnome bring a little typographical sanity to Un*x? I realize that the problems are on a much lower level, but could a Gnome-aware application eventually be able to use fonts of any type without having to worry about this font being TeX and that font being TrueType?
Gnome and Enlightenment (Score:4)
What are the likely consequences of the schism that has occured between Gnome and Enlightenment? I'm not sure if I even understand the whole thing, but it looked to me like the Enlightenment folks were/are trying to create a more aesthetically pure graphical environment. What do you think of their direction, and are there plans to reconcile the two camps? Or were they really UN-reconciled to begin with?
Finally, I'm relieved to see Gnome gaining ground on KDE - I was sick of that group's slavish adherence to the Windows look and feel. It's nice to see that a different path remains viable.
D
----
interface consistency? (Score:4)
I'm a former OS/2 user, so, to an extent i know what it's like to use an interface where everything has a somewhat predictable "feel" - SOM objects act a particular way on the WorkplaceShell desktop, and you come to expect it.
It's because of that that I use plain old IceWM instead of Gnome. It's not the memory overhead, it's not the processing overhead, it's the feeling that it's a bunch of unrelated methods for displaying data all on the same screen.
Are there plans to come up with a set of design guidelines, like Apple had in the early MacOS days to define how the interface of a particular module should act?
Gnome and Motif (Score:4)
Though this isn't a proper forum for solving a specific problem, I would like to know the following: How big of a development priority does Gnome put on support for legacy applications and legacy APIs, such as Motif? Also, what about support for slower connections and machines? Is the development priority more forward looking (new machines, new applications), or regression based (old machines, old applications), or do you strive for a balance between the two?
The Use of Gnome and becomming a one true GUI (Score:4)
Is there a formal method of creating a scalable GUI interface that will work well on almost anything but still be gnome? Other WMs have done this to a considerable extent and perhaps a little better being more leightweight. My first impressions from running the latest debs avaible was that perhaps it's still a little primitive and perhaps a little more shall we say corpulent than I care for. Also most WMs seem to be reinventing the wheel and duplicating a great deal of functionality of others.
Obviously (Score:5)
My question is, where do you see GNOME as fitting in to more groundbreaking user interface research? Not that anyone expects the GNOME team to start pondering lexicons for 3D interfaces (or are you contemplating such things!?!). But there's lots of crazy stuff that still goes on in traditional, 2D interface design. A lot of recent research has been in terms of PDA interface design. Do you see GNOME, with its obvious advantages of modularity and scalability, as having a role to play in that arena?
And what about fundamental changes to the way we use our desktops? I for one haven't really changed at all since the days when I used fvwm1. Sure, things have gotten much prettier, and more applet-filled
How 'bout the rest of the folks? Anyone done anything truly funky with sawmill? A Turing-complete wm is a fun place to start
When did it take off? (Score:5)
Was there a particular application or library or component of GNOME after which you knew GNOME was going to be successful or in general "something special"? What did the GNOME project do that prevented it from sinking into obscurity like so many other free software projects?
Printing and Gnome (Score:5)
Okay, alright....answer this HONESTLY (Score:5)
Seriously though, how much communication really does go on between the two camps? I would imagine at least some must if you and the KDE camp are to maintain interoperatability.
Outlook Interoperability with Evolution (Score:5)
My question actually has to do with Evolution, the upcoming Outlook killer..
Will GNOME serve (Evolution) information to MAPI clients? Would be a nice way to get rid of those Exchange servers sitting in most companies server room...
handicapped accessibility and Gnome (Score:5)
visual impairments
mobility impairments
hearing impairments
thanks
--- eric
Print / display font unification (Score:5)
The problem, of course, is that the printing (usually ) goes through ghostscript, while the screen fonts are handled by X11, which operates independently of ghostscript. However, given a screen ( ie X11 font ), there is no canonical way to get the corresponding outline file (pf[ab]|ttf) or the detailed metric information ( such as kerning ). This problem is quite deep in some sense, because the fact that the X client and X server run on different machines means they may not have the same typefaces available. In short, Linux's right hand does not know what it's left hand is doing when it comes to font management.
Applications such as Star Office and Applixware "solve" this problem by using a text configuration file that basically consists of a catalogue of mappings from screen fonts ( in particular, XFLDs ) and printing fonts ( including outline files, metric files and the printer font name ). While these solutions are all more or less satisfactory in their own right, there are too many of them -- we need one GUI font manager that all apps can share.
It is very unfortunate that there are several incompatible solutions to the problem, because it means that the Linux user needs to install their typefaces once for each WYSIWYG app they need. A standard would be a very good thing. Personally, I like the idea of a well documented XML configuration file that could be used by any app regardless of the GUI API used.
In conclusion, my question is this -- What are GNOMEs plans for attacking the WYSIWYG typography problem ? And will the solution be GTK/GNOME specific ?
C++/Java/CORBA/Components/Frameworks (Score:5)
The architecture of GTK/GNOME is technically somewhat object oriented, however, without all of the benifits of an object oriented language (at least the parts written in C)
It would seem to me that as the scope and size of the GNOME project increases, it would be increasingly advantageous to use C++ or Java with much more CORBA support and more structured design (UML design models?) for reference by the developers. Standard components and frameworks would also fit well into this type of extension.
Do you see GNOME increasing in complexity and size to the point where these types of development techniques would be required?
Interface abstraction (Score:5)
User interface importance? (Score:5)
Now then, how do you think GNOME will evolve in terms of usability? GNOME has certainly conquered the stability mountain (anyone who argues otherwise probably isn't using release versions), which is almost certainly a side-effect of the Free Software development model. However, while Free Software is generally powerful and easy to use for experienced users, it's not generally the kind of thing a novice can operate easily.
I remember hearing about a "usability group" or something like that for GNOME, to concentrate on interface issues. This is a great idea, but I haven't heard much about this group since then. Are modern user-interface issues a concern for GNOME, or is it mainly trying to match the interface conventions of other popular GUIs (like NeXT, MacOS and Windows)?
Thanks for your time,
-zack
Mexico and OSS (Score:5)
As a fellow mexican I want to know...what do you think is the impact of OSS in our country? I know all about the project of putting a whole bunch of linux boxens in schools, so that's nice, but...what about developers? I don't really remember more than a couple of names of mexican developers besides yours, which, in a way, also means that we don't have as much advocacy/knowledge about OSS in Mexico as we should (the MS tax kills easier here than in the US, for obvious reasons).
I guess as part of that question...what do you think should be done to "push" more developers into OSS here in Mexico?
Gracias por un excelente trabajo para todos nosotros.
Vox.
How important is COM-like architecture? (Score:5)
WM interchange (Score:5)
and WOULDN'T like to see GNOME/KDE/Other merge developement regardless of the benefits.
Dispite this, do you think WM developers would work towards a set of interface or API standards (to facilitate
interoperability) or would this place to great a restiction on innovation and the developement process?
Mozilla Technology? (Score:5)
Personally, I would like a few things to come out of such an implementation:
1. An awesome XML-based help system that is also tied into online resources about Linux in general.
2. GNOME apps that can use XUL for their GUI.
3. Integrated file manager/web browser (you probably seen this coming), but I think such a combo can be used in a much better way than Microsoft does theirs with Windows/IE.
a. Better search and file management functions.
b. Better customizability, including tools to let the user alter their file manager in many ways.
c. Better blending of local files and network/Internet files into one interface.
Also, I would like to see an XML-based customization panel that allows a person to search through a compilation of quality GUI customization files, including icons, fonts, and window managers (and their related)
Hmm, well, that is all I can think of right now. I know that Mozilla is not GPL, but I hope that will not get in the way of people using their great technologies.
EC
"...we are moving toward a Web-centric stage and our dear PC will be one of
GNOME's role in installation (Score:5)
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
Sound support (Score:5)
For example-- if I was developing a word processor, I'd want it to be straightforward for me the developer to add a pleasing click with each word that is highlighted.
I understand there are some technical problems to be solved here, but there are more than enough sharp people working on GNOME to make good sound UI happen-- if it is made a priority. I admit that I'm pretty ignorant as to how GNOME is approaching sound. Could you fill me in (and hopefully reassure me)?
-dbm
Traditional Unix philosophy... (Score:5)
When I first started using Linux (about a year ago), what impressed me the most was that you weren't locked into a single, all-encompassing solution. Everything was (and is) so modular. Tools like grep, ls, cat, head, etc. and the use of pipes just seemed so refreshing to me, someone who had been using MS-DOS (including Win95) for as long as I can remember. Even in the GUI, there was the display server, the font server, the window manager...
I see desktop environments as being very contradictory to the traditional UNIX philosophy of "do one thing, but do it very well". We have the two leading desktop environments, Gnome and KDE, which are rapidly expanding to include everything under the sun. Is an office suite really part of a desktop environment? Is an email client? Terminal emulator? Web browser?
Personally, I think the answer is no. I want the freedom to choose my desktop shell, my email client, my web browser, and my office suite.
To get to the point, my question is this: do you believe that the notion of a "Complete Desktop Environment" contradicts the traditional UNIX philosophy? If so, why do you feel the need to change something that has obviously worked so well for so long?
If you would like to know, I would personally prefer that Gnome consist of the panel and shell ONLY, and then we could have something like Helix which could package the panel and shell with a nice browser (branded mozilla maybe), window manager (sawmill or e), etc. I definitely believe there is a need for an open-source office suite, but I think the development should go on outside of Gnome or KDE core.
I am curious about other people's opinions on this as well, email me with any thoughts...
--
Include or exclude? (Score:5)
Your ceaseless work is greatly appreciated. Thank you.
"First things first, but not necessarily in that order."