Gnome 2.0 RC1 314
lurgyman writes "The GNOME Desktop 2.0 release candidate 1 has been released! It looks like it's finally on schedule for its projected June 21 release." The release notes have some good information.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell
time to ditch Microserf XP? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:time to ditch Microserf XP? (Score:1)
A real steal...typically $50 for the system, and a controller. Games run $10-$20. Of course, if you can find theme, there are always the loki ports.
Re:time to ditch Microserf XP? (Score:1)
Re:time to ditch Microserf XP? (Score:1)
Yeah, I thought gnome 1 was pretty nice -- except for the time i logged in and my gnome panel refused to start -- kinda annoying. But i'm *sure* they fixed such things by now.
PS: Just wondering if someone can actually try this before saying it is better than windows XP or just leave god damn windows out of the discussion. Don't praise something by defecating on something else.
Re:time to ditch Microserf XP? (Score:1)
The audio production I do also makes me stick with windows, as well as IE.
Re:time to ditch Microserf XP? (Score:2)
Since when does Warcraft III and audio production require IE? IE sucks and you could be using Opera or Mozilla on windows at the very least.
Re:time to ditch Microserf XP? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:time to ditch Microserf XP? (Score:1)
Re:time to ditch Microserf XP? (Score:2)
Re:time to ditch Microserf XP? (Score:2)
1) I find it faster.
2) I like the tabbed browsing.
I highly recommend giving it a go. And even if you don't like it, realize that it has benefits and some people (not all) choose it not because it's Non-Microsoft, but because they find it provides a better browsing experience.
Re:time to ditch Microserf XP? (Score:2)
Re:time to ditch Microserf XP? (Score:2)
Actually, what would be handy, and something I'd actually *pay* Microsoft for, would be the ability to switch between "compatibility levels" in IE - so I could see the differences between IE4, IE5, IE5.5 and IE6 at the twiddle of a mousewheel...
Re:time to ditch Microserf XP? (Score:3, Informative)
It will be time to ditch it when... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have, through my years of computer experience felt the pain of using the better product despite it's lack of broad acceptance. I started off with an Atari 800, and then later worked on an Atari 1040ST. For their respective times both of these computers offered exceptional value over what else existed. The only problem was the market share problem; not enough people writing software to make them worth using.
So, expect to be paying the Microsoft tax for some time to come to use certain pieces of software...
Release Notes for /. (Score:1, Redundant)
The GNOME 2.0 Desktop Release Candidate 1, "Fever Pitch", is ready for your
bug-busting and testing pleasure! It is available for immediate download
here:
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/pre-gnome2/release
The GNOME 2.0 Desktop is a greatly improved user environment for existing
GNOME applications. Enhancements include anti-aliased text and first class
internationalisation support, new accessibility features for disabled users,
and many improvements throughout GNOME's highly regarded user interface.
Progress
The following tarballs have been updated since last week's snapshot release:
at-spi, eel, eog, esound, gail, GConf, gdm, gedit2, gnome-applets,
gnome-desktop, gnome-games, gnome-media, gnome-mime-data, gnome-panel,
gnome-session, gnome-system-monitor, gnome-terminal, gnome-utils,
gnome-vfs, libgail-gnome, libgnome, libgnomecanvas, libgnomeui, libgtop,
librep, libwnck, libzvt, nautilus, rep-gtk, sawfish, yelp
Testing the GNOME 2.0 Desktop
Binary packages and build scripts have been contributed to make installation
and testing of the GNOME 2.0 Desktop simpler.
Debian:
The following sources.list line will allow you to install the latest
experimental packages. Please see the debian-gtk-gnome list for more
information about these releases.
deb ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian
GARNOME: http://www.gnome.org/~jdub/garnome/
GARNOME downloads and builds from released tarballs. It includes a
number of ported applications and utilities, and is designed to be a
distribution of GNOME rather than an updater.
jhbuild: http://cvs.gnome.org/lxr/source/jhbuild/README
jhbuild builds directly from CVS, and includes required developer tools.
It handles dependencies and errors gracefully, to minimise build time
and frustration.
vicious-build-scripts: http://cvs.gnome.org/lxr/source/vicious-build-scr
v-b-s builds directly from CVS, and includes required developer tools
such as autoconf, gettext, etc.
Ximian Red Carpet Snapshots: (See the GMOME2 Snapshots Channel in Red Carpet.)
Binary packages for Red Hat 7.2 and 7.3 are available from Ximian's Red
Carpet. These are built nightly from CVS snapshots.
Build Requirements
- The tarballs included in the release.
- Some very basic packages not distributed with this release, such as
image libraries, popt and freetype. These should all be included with or
available for your distribution.
- Python 2 with expat xml modules for libglade (some modules still require
the libglade-convert script, however we do plan to ship glade2 files).
- Docbook DTD 4.1.2, Docbook XSL stylesheets and a valid system catalogue
file for scrollkeeper (which in turn is required by many desktop
components for documentation).
- You need recent GNOME 1.4 developer platform packages if you plan to
install the GNOME 2.0 platform libraries alongside 1.4.
A dependency graph for the developer platform and desktop release is
available on the dot.plan website:
http://developer.gnome.org/dotplan/notes/
Testers
If you have incredible talents at breaking GNOME, perhaps even to rival
Telsa's infamous path of destruction (and excellent bug reporting of said
path), this release is made for you!
When reporting bugs, use http://bugzilla.gnome.org/ or bug-buddy. Make sure
you choose the correct version number, as reports against particular
versions are easier to triage reports against unspecified releases.
Before submitting a bug report, try running the software from your terminal
to see if it provides extra information, and please make sure that you build
everything with full debugging support.
Bug Squad
Whether you're testing GNOME 2.0 or not, you can still help out with the bug
busting efforts by triaging and tracking bugs in bugzilla. Join the bugsquad
mailing list, and hang out on #bugs (on irc.gnome.org) to get involved -
Thursday is always bug-busting day!
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-bugs
For help with bugzilla accounts, email bugmaster@gnome.org.
Distributors
This release is not intended for inclusion in distributions. However, binary
packages for bleeding edge testers on your platform are very welcome. Please
email the release team if you have built
packages for your platform.
Hackers
When reporting bugs is simply not enough, and you'd prefer to make your own
(or, indeed, fix the ones you find), this release is also made for you!
Have a look through bugzilla or the TODO file included with many modules,
and make sure to send your patches to the maintainers via the appropriate
mailing list, or bugzilla.
Happy testing!
- The GNOME 2.0 Release Team
Oh no..... (Score:1)
alas there is no alternative out here in the stix.
Re:Oh no..... (Score:1)
Sure its not the best but it's better than dial up.
Re:Oh no..... (Score:1)
Re:Oh no..... (Score:1)
again?? (Score:1)
oh for a stable desktop!
Re:again?? (Score:1)
If you think it's too unstable, don't download it!
Re:again?? (Score:3, Interesting)
By stable I don't the the original poster ment how often things crash but more likely how much things change from version to version. I would agree with him/her entirely with that idea. The problem with current open source desktop software is that it is playing a lot of catchup. People are use to all the "features" of MS software and don't think that open source is quality utill it gets all of them.
This is putting major strees on the desktop developers that the older OS projects didn't have (ie Linux kernel, Apache, Perl, etc...) The all developed slow because the could so everything was over anylized and implemented in near to the best way possible. Desktop software on the other hand has been pumped out as fast as possible with little attention to doing it right. This will work its way out on its own over time, but it is giveing us changeing standards on an almost daily basis.
I still stand behind my assumption that Linux will be 100% ready to compete with MS software on the desktop in 2005. Maybe not till the end but it will be there. Things at that point will not change as much. 90% of everything will work out of the box. projects like Mozilla and Openoffice will be HUGE players in desktop role out.
I thikn Linux is ready for the desktop now. Actuall I think it was ready in 1998 when I first started useing it as a full time desktop. I do think that it takes a lot of work that people not interested in doing shouldn't have to do, witch is why I think it will still be ~3 years before it is ready.
Just my take on the situation.
Re:again?? (Score:1)
An example would be KDE - I don't use KDE (I prefer FVWM2), but I do occasionally check it out to see how it's progressing and the advances that it's made since v2 are impressive to say the least. What I particularly enjoy is the way that OSS seems to get more efficient and faster with successive releases when MS stuff traditionally gets slower and heavier with successive releases (compare Mozilla 0.96 with 1.1a, or KDE 2 with KDE 3).
Whether having superior software will be enough to help Linux displace MS in the short-medium term is debatable, but if you're prepared to wait a few years I think the difference in quality is going to become so extreme that short of purchased legislation or major adaptaion on their part MS is doomed to lose it's dominance.
--
Andy
Re:again?? (Score:2)
What I did want to point out, because it is makeing a shaky stance for open source, is that in the past, mainly the '80s and '90s, open source was devoloped one feature at a time. For example lets take Apache. First serve static conntent, then serve dynamic content then build a full featured web server. Everything was build slowly and the new was built on the old.
With the current desktops it was a race to get all the features in as fast as they could. The building process was not as well thought out as the older projects and things were excepted because they were done, not because they were done right.
Being open source this is really only a short term problem and is really almost completly fixed already. kde3 and gnome2 are going to be very good desktops and they are an excelent start, but I don't think they are that stable yet. Again, not stable on an aplication level (I have had some gnome apps open and running for more than a month at a time at work with only locking my desktop and not logging out.) but the other development things like UI or API and libs and architectures are going to take a little longer to hammer out.
Although version numbers dont really mean anything and it is completly upto the developers weather it will be or not, but this is my prediction:
somewhere around 2005 there will be kde5 and gnome5. This will be when updates will only come out ever 1-6 months (because everything is already done and there is only cleanup left). This will be a time when third party developers and more open source developers will be programming for open source than closed by far. And the geeks will rule the world (ha as if we don't already)
Huh? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone knows that KDE doesn't get good and stable until the dotted releases hit. 3.01 was for bugfixes and 3.1 is coming soon with some extra features. Gnome is the same way AFAIK.
When maintaining a distro with new stuff coming out daily, I think the hardest decision to make is 'where do you draw the line'. What do you wait for to include or what do you exclude? Tough.
new distros for GCC 3 (Score:2)
Mandrake 8.2 shipped with KDE 2, but now has an update to KDE 3. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to do the same for GNOME 2. I'd give it a couple of months, though, for testing.
I don't know that GNOME 2 will drive up too many distro version numbers. It's pretty safe to assume that Red Hat is already working on 8.0 with GCC 3.
GNOME on FreeBSD (Score:1)
Re:GNOME on FreeBSD (Score:1)
There is
Re:GNOME on FreeBSD (Score:2)
[1]http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84
Re:GNOME on FreeBSD (Score:1, Funny)
GARNOME rules.... (Score:4, Informative)
Garnome makes it braindead easy to have a GNOME2 desktop
Re:GARNOME rules.... (Score:1)
Re:GARNOME rules.... (Score:3, Informative)
Please test it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Please don't wait for the final product to come out.
It is you obligation (ok, maybe not) as a user of "software libre" to contribute something. If you cannot program, you can at least test the stuff on your hardware.
You would be sureprised at how few tester there are. I have found that if I submit a valid bug, it is fixed quickly. YOUR INPUT COUNTS!
screenshots (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.gnomedesktop.com/scr/gdb3-1.jpg [gnomedesktop.com]
http://www.gnomedesktop.com/scr/gdb3-2.jpg [gnomedesktop.com]
http://www.gnomedesktop.com/scr/gdb3-3.jpg [gnomedesktop.com]
http://www.gnomedesktop.com/scr/gdb3-4.jpg [gnomedesktop.com]
http://www.gnomedesktop.com/scr/gdb3.jpg [gnomedesktop.com]
http://gnomedesktop.com/scr/limebubble.jpg [gnomedesktop.com]
http://gnomedesktop.com/scr/beta2-8.jpg [gnomedesktop.com]
Slashdotted already? (Score:1)
Re:Slashdotted already? (Score:1)
I didn't figure THAT many people would check them out. sorry gnomedesktop.com
Re:Slashdotted already? (Score:2)
Re:screenshots (Score:1)
Re:screenshots (Score:1)
Re:screenshots (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to use gnome 1.x style viewports, don't switch to gnome 2. Their "usability experts" decided it was too complicated to have both viewports and workspaces so they ripped viewports out, stating tht "we can do the same thing with workspaces". Well, after that, the programmer(s) responsible for that portion of gnome decided that the functionality provided by viewports was extra cruft that they wouldn't implement and everyone would just have to get used to doing things the way they liked it. Gone are the days when gnome offered ultimate flexibility because some usability pinheads know what's best for all of us.
Not trolling... I've been using gnome for years and downloaded/compiled/installed new gnome 2 tarballs up until the end of april when I got completely frustrated with the lack of progress. Yeah... it's open source so put up my code. I'm just a gnome user - I do have more things to do than work on gnome 2 when gnome 1 does everything that I want already. Alas, as much as I wanted to stay bleeding edge, I'm going to have to wait until the developers start listening to real users rather than "experts" again.
Re:screenshots (Score:5, Informative)
GNOME 2 developers can't listen to GNOME 2 users unless the users speak directly to them. File a bug in bugzilla.gnome.org. That's the best way to put this request on the developers' plate. And don't just say "RE-ENABLE VIEWPORTS," explain exactly what it is about viewports that you miss... is it that windows can straddle viewports? Is it navigation?
It's my understanding (after lurking on the gnome lists for a while) that the intention is not to leave viewport users in the dust, but to try to allow viewport users to use workspaces in the same way they used to used viewports. I.e. put a checkbox somewhere that says "allow windows to straddle workspaces" etc.
But this functionality won't be implemented unless the GNOME developers know people want it. So file a bug. File several bugs, one for each bit of functionality you miss that viewports had.
-Erik
Re:screenshots (Score:2)
Re:screenshots (Score:2)
If you want 4 virtual desktops that are all connected to each other (ie, drag a window to the bottom of the screen and it flips to the desktop below it on a 2D grid), you want viewports. If you want to straddle a window and see half on one desktop and half on the other, you want viewports.
Viewports are essentially one huge 2D desktop that you move around on and see parts of at a time. Workspaces are like having a bunch of tables stacked on top of each other that you have to search through linearly to find what you want.
If anything, viewports seem more intuitive to me (being two dimensional instead of 1). I wouldn't be complaining if they disabled the functionality of one to dumb down the interface for users who couldn't grasp it if there was still a configuration option to enable the functionality found in gnome1. Instead, they entirely nuked one choice because a couple core developers preferred the other, telling the end users who complained to "get used to it because KDE/Windows/etc don't support viewports either".
Re:screenshots (Score:5, Informative)
Jason.
Re:screenshots (Score:2)
Re:screenshots (Score:2)
Re:screenshots (Score:2)
Re:screenshots (Score:1)
Re:screenshots (Score:1)
I think that screenshots have become less and less important as Gnome and KDE have grown. It all looks pretty much the same (or very different with themes). But it really doesn't tell much of the story as far as speed and useability.
Screenshots (Score:1)
On schedule? (Score:1)
Re:On schedule? (Score:4, Informative)
On schedule? (Score:1, Insightful)
June 07 RELEASE - Gnome 2.0 Desktop Release Candidate 1
They are are a week behind schedule.
the only real windowmanager (Score:3, Funny)
wipe your drool!
Gnome Forever (Score:1, Funny)
Some News For You (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Some News For You (Score:2)
I'm waiting to hear from others who are brave enough to do the upgrade. How painful is it? How many days of downtime are we looking at? :-)
Re:Some News For You (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Some News For You (Score:2)
Good work guys! This release is amazing. I'm still exploring all the new cool features...
How fast is GNOME 2.0 compare to KDE2/3? (Score:2)
This faster speed than v1.4 is great news for me. I don't use Nautlius in GNOME because of the slowness.
Thank you in advance.
gnome 2 is faster. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:gnome 2 is faster. (Score:2)
Language supported (Score:1, Redundant)
here is the list
[gnome.org]
http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gtp/status/
more gnome 2 screenshots (Score:4, Informative)
screenshots [2good.nu]
pretty, isn't it?
just in case you are wondering where those wallpapers come from, I guess some of them are from deskmod [deskmod.com] , or a similar site, but I could be wrong...
UI Features? (Score:3, Insightful)
While I realize this release wasnt supposed to 'look' much different, they still could have taken advantage of new eyecandy availible to x and gtk2. Even kde supports tranparent menus. Besides anti-aliased fonts and alpha blending in widgets, nothing else looks much different. These hackers dont realize the reason why MS and OSX look so professional is for 2 reasons.
1.) consistancy (yes! we have metathemes, but kde and gnome themes are completly incompatible)
2.) cool little features like drop shadows on the menus and windows, alpha blending and animations on mouse over widgets or icons, faded menus, transparency, etc....
As long as there is no inovation, these desktops will never look as good. e17 has the right idea, its a shame that their development process is so slow (no one has enough time to develop on the half written libs they created).
Re:UI Features? (Score:5, Informative)
Well like you said, this release is about under the hood changes, much like the difference between Windows 95 and 98 - a lot of good changes, but not really in the visuals department.
2.) cool little features like drop shadows on the menus and windows, alpha blending and animations on mouse over widgets or icons, faded menus, transparency, etc....
Drop shadows on menus will have to wait for real transparency, which doesn't rely on taking a screen grab of the underside (which is how current X transparency is implemented, it means once blended it'll get out of date). This doesn't exist in X yet, but will once Keith Packard has finished his transparency server. I wish I knew when this would be.
Animations on mouse over widgets and icons is implemented in KDE3, so I dunno why GNOME doesn't have it either - guess it's just priorities. For faded menus, I guess you mean transparent menus, see above. In fact, that list basically comes down to "transparency". It's coming. Hold tight.
Meanwhile, here is a shot of GNOME that actually looks good [2good.nu]. And look - the terminal is transparent. Happy now?
Re:UI Features? (Score:3, Insightful)
An appeal from a would-be applications hacker (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever the GNOME team is planning after GNOME2 is release, I make one solemn plea from the point of view of many would-be app hackers out there:
I'm an app writer who knows Win32 but wants to learn/use Linux to its fullest. However, learning a moving target has been rough. "Why are you writing to Gtk1 when Gtk2 is almost out?" I hear all the time. Because I have Gtk1 and new snapshot libraries don't break everything every other week. Because I like a stable dev platform so I spend my time fixing my code, not fixing library problems.
Re:An appeal from a would-be applications hacker (Score:5, Informative)
Re:An appeal from a would-be applications hacker (Score:2)
While you're at it, make it two years. Or three.
Re:Can it compete with KDE? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Can it compete with KDE? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think GNOME should start to differentiate itself in some way, and I expect we'll start seeing them diverge somewhat as GNOME realise they can't out-KDE KDE, and instead try and do their own thing.
Differences appear minor (Score:5, Interesting)
I've installed both KDE-based systems and Gnome-Based systems and shown them to Linux newbies- everyone from relatives to co-workers (caveat: I work in an engineering dept.)
After spending a few hours playing around with each one, my personal experience is that Gnome is their preferred choice, apparently because the icons and screen widgets look better, the interface appears simpler, and most of the engineers like the graphical virtual desktop manager on the gnome panel as opposed to the KDE version.
Granted, I use Gnome a lot and there are some deficiencies.. Nautilus is very slow. Sawfish has focus problems. The panel can behave in unexpected ways. The library dependencies for applications like Evolution are scary, but it generally works well and many people use Gnome as their full time desktop.
It looks to me like KDE may be slightly more stable, and may be easier to program for. Still, the differences between gnome and KDE from a user's point of view do not seem so great that you can call one "high level" and the other "mid level". They both look high level to me.
So, does someone want to try to explain the qualitative user-experience differences between KDE and Gnome, or is it as I suspect very minor?
Re:Differences appear minor (Score:1)
KDE does seem slightly easier to get working (depency-wise), but both are pretty damn easy to setup... especially if using a distro's update tools.
Re:Differences appear minor (Score:2)
You've hit on something here. From a development standpoint, GNOME is ugly as sin. From a user standpoint, GNOME rocks. Why? Because users like things that are prettier. I would much rather use Qt than everything under the GNOME sun for development, and C++ rather than C, but as a user, I just like GNOME better.
GNOME and Ximian could do many good things for developers and system maintainers by consolidating a lot of those little libs into big lib packages. That would put GNOME more on par with KDE as far as programmability and maintainability go.
Re:Differences appear minor (Score:5, Insightful)
Not meant to be flamebait, but there is a large set of developers out there who greatly prefer C to C++; this is especially true on a Unix-like platform, given the close history of the two. Saying that "from a development standpoint, GNOME is ugly as sin" is _definitely_ an opinion. C++ and Qt are out there if you want to use them. Personally I think that the language difference has had a huge impact on the high-level goals and progress of the two projects, and that sort of diversity is a good thing.
GNOME and Ximian could do many good things for developers and system maintainers by consolidating a lot of those little libs into big lib packages.
Likewise here. On many occasions I've used just one small library from GNOME in a completely non-GNOME (often not graphical at all) project, and I love that it's easy to pull out small pieces (glib, libunicode, parts of the gcal ical implementation) and use them.
Sumner
Re:Library reuse- PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE STOP! (Score:2)
And then all of a sudden every application has a copy, so memory use is up. New bug fixes aren't picked up or need to be applied many times.
Cut and paste coding is evil. You can mitigate maintenance hassles by linking statically (you'll still have multiple copies in RAM, but that's often okay), but duplicating code is a major programming sin.
Sumner
Re:Differences appear minor (Score:5, Interesting)
And while you may prefer C++ to C (and for good reason too), the decision to use plain old C for GTK2 was, IMHO, a good one. In so doing you enable the maximum flexibility and, when done right (as GTK2 is, for the most part) makes writing language bindings (almost) trivial. I can't say for QT, but GTK/Glib 2 allow for complete run-time introspection of types, parameters, etc. in a very clean manner. By doing the base object-system in C with a clean API, it allows binding authors and programmers in general, a way to write to the underlying library in a way that fits in naturally with the language they are using to write it. Rather than using moc hacks or other ugliness, you get clean, standard, C (which may be, IYHO, ugly, but it is standard C, which most compilers support at this point in history -- excluding C99 -- which cannot be said for either C++ or the C++ derivitive used by Qt/KDE). Say what you will about C the language, but using it to implement the object system was a good idea, the additional complexity involved in coding for it is minimal and a the code, in large part, for creating a GObject subclass is largely boilerplate anyway which can be scripted or wrapped by something like 'gob'
Everytime I've looked at Qt/KDE development I've been struck with just how . . . unwieldy and inflexsible it is.
The differences in attitude ("let's do it now and invent some new, quasi-documented, way of doing it" vs. "is there a standard way to do this and how should we do it RIGHT") are behind most of the differences in toolkit and, more importantly, time line. GTK2 took a long time to get out, because a lot of thought and planning when into it. Whether this was actually the case with KDE2/3 as well or not, I can't tell, but it certainly doesn't look like or feel like it.
--Shahms
Re:Differences appear minor (Score:2)
I am a developer and I one of the reasons I chose GNOME over KDE was that I thought its development platform was more elegant so I'm having trouble seeing where you're coming from here. In addition the point on C/C++ seems to indicate you think C++ is more beautiful than C. If that is what you're saying I find that amusing. Also, you can develop GNOME applications in C++ if that strikes your fancy. But as we all know there's much more to a development platform than language choice. That's really where I think GNOME shines and GNOME2 is even better.
GNOME and Ximian could do many good things for developers and system maintainers by consolidating a lot of those little libs into big lib packages. That would put GNOME more on par with KDE as far as programmability and maintainability go.
I strongly disagree here. I guess we're coming from different backgrounds and have pretty different tastes. I prefer having the libraries split out by functionality.
Re:Differences appear minor (Score:2)
My biggest gripe with gnome when I was doing active development using it was that all the bleeding edge stuff wasn't documented well enough that I could just go out and read the document and get some idea of what was going on with it. That's no biggie though, you just wait a while and eventually you can find a program that demonstrates its usage well enough for you to get a handle on it.
Re:Can it compete with KDE? (Score:1)
It seems that gnome is far more configurable from the front end than KDE, but kde has better app integration and tools.
I like them for different reasons and fortunately, I can get 90% of the functionality I want from either system.
Kind of like the difference between Mercedes and BMW...
Re:Can it compete with KDE? (Score:1)
Re:Can it compete with KDE? (Score:1)
I mean, if I were to agree with you, we could start a flame war here.
Re:Can it compete with KDE? (Score:1)
Re:Can it compete with KDE? (Score:2)
It works for me (i'm using sawfish+kde)
> Similarly, I can't figure out how to have frameless windows.
It works for me (i'm using sawfish+kde)
> And... where is the KDE version of red-carpet?! (I know - that's Ximian, not Gnome, but still...)
There will never be a KDE-version of red-carpet. This is because generally, red-carpet is a POS, imho. Get a real installation software from your distro maker. I use Gentoo, and emerge is great. Apt-get is also wonderful for installing such things.
Re:Can it compete with KDE? (Score:2)
Well, you can't do the above things with Metacity either (pretty much the GNOME version of kwin).
Anyways, you can use any _NET_WM compliant window manager with either GNOME or KDE. This is the whole point of freedesktop.org, btw, and more.
> Hence, we run into the same issue as with all OSS. Sorry folks, that doesn't work in the main stream...
I doubt the average user wants to remove the frame from their window anyways.
Re:Can it compete with KDE?--better question: (Score:3, Insightful)
How much further would OS software be without all of the effort duplication?
If your office is in Redmond, you really have to like all the fragmentation in the OS world. You can sip that latte in comfort, knowing that the competition's lack of focus is your own best friend.
Diversity is swell, but not priceless, unfortunately...
My vote is that the two efforts drift together, with the paint-and-powder aspects turned into themes. The desktop switcher both Gnome and KDE contain is welcome evidence of this trend.
Someday I'll be skilled enough to put a few hours in, instead of trash talk...
Re:Screenshots? (Score:1)
Re:Screenshots? (Score:2, Informative)
EoG and xbill [soton.ac.uk]
The new terminal program, yelp (help system) and the sound recorder [soton.ac.uk]. You can see the anti aliasing support at work in the yelp window.
Re:Screenshots? (Score:1)
1) Is that the default theme for Gnome 2.0?
and
2) What's up with the 2 (X) buttons on each window?
Re:Screenshots? (Score:1)
look closely (Score:2)
By the looks of this screenshot [gnome.org], somebody is taking a course in "Ethical Crap".
(Unfortunately, its a fairly old screenshot.)
Re:How does this compare... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Finally on Schedule? (Score:1)
Gnome 2.0 debs expected soon! (Score:1, Insightful)
You heard it here first!
Dude. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Anti-aliased fonts.. (Score:2, Informative)
Duh! KDE has had anti-aliased fonts for more than a year. They've had it ever since XFree86 had it (actually one week later, when Qt had it).
Re:Gnome options (Score:2)