Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNOME GUI

Gnome 2.8 RC1 Released 442

Posted by michael from the someday-we'll-update-the-gnome-icon dept.
FlipmodePlaya writes "Linux Today reports the first release candidate for Gnome 2.8 has been released. A look at the new stuff can be found here. Notably, the possible inclusion of Evolution, and some networking goodies. My opinion: the GUI changes look too much like Windows/Internet Explorer for my tastes; I guess it's not just KDE."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gnome 2.8 RC1 Released More

Gnome 2.8 RC1 Released

Comments Filter:
  • GNOME 2.8 Release Candidate 1 Announced
    Sep 1, 2004, 18 :00 UTC (1 Talkback[s]) (1740 reads)
    (Other stories by Jeff Waugh)

    Release Candidate 1 marks the start of our Hard Code Freeze, on the way towards the final GNOME 2.8 release in a couple of weeks. The final lap! Let's just hope we're not dragged off the track at the last minute by a strangely dressed Irishman. Even though it almost sounds like fun... At last, without further ado, THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING!

    platform: http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/platf

  • Too much like MS? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheUnFounded ( 731123 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:36PM (#10135599)
    I'll probably get blasted for this, but like it or leave it, MS is known for making an interface that's usable to the masses. Want Linux on the desktop? That's the way to do it.

    • Re:Too much like MS? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by OmniVector ( 569062 ) <see my homepage> on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:44PM (#10135654) Homepage
      why copy the copy cat? I'd rather they copy apple, who's known for quality interfaces. luckily though, gnome has taken a page or two from them rather than microsoft. i'd say it's kde who's mimicing windows (konqueror is a file browser + web browser. in gnome these are different. gnome strives for simplicity. kde strives for features, etc).

      • Re:Too much like MS? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by SnprBoB86 ( 576143 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @12:12AM (#10135797) Homepage
        Personally I have always found Apple's interfaces limiting. They put the most common options right out in front (as they should), but seem to totally forget the more advanced options. And the lack of an (accessable) context menu is also very weird to me.

        • Re:Too much like MS? (Score:5, Informative)

          by AntiOrganic ( 650691 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @12:19AM (#10135840) Homepage
          And the lack of an (accessable) context menu is also very weird to me.
          No one's making you use a one-button mouse. You can plug in any regular two-button mouse and map the right-click to pop up a context menu.

          • Re:Too much like MS? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by dtfinch ( 661405 ) * on Thursday September 02, 2004 @01:43AM (#10136229) Journal
            No one's making you use a one-button mouse.

            I just checked the Apple store to see if I'm still correct. In their store, I tried ordering a Mac. A couple different models actually to be certain. The only option was a one button mouse. The two button mice are in another section of their store, and must be bought seperately. So if you want a two button mouse, you essentially have to buy 2 mice, the one button mouse that came with it (which you'll either burn for heat or use to decorate your christmas tree), and the two button mouse you'll actually use with the Mac. And of course they only resell two button mice. They don't have their own. Same goes for the tiny vs full keyboards. If it's a teeny tiny keyboard or one button mouse, it's made by Apple, if it's a 2+ button mouse or full sized keyboard, it's it's not.

            But it's not the mouse and keyboard that bothers me, it's that I can't find the reason for it.

            • Re:Too much like MS? (Score:4, Interesting)

              by @madeus ( 24818 ) <slashdot_24818@mac.com> on Thursday September 02, 2004 @03:51AM (#10136647)
              There are several relevent points:

              (i.)Knowing how to design good GUI software and interfaces (both physical and graphical) means knowing what to leave out.

              Software ought not to require users to use context sensitive menus to perfom an operation - if it does so then it is badly implimented because most users will simply not figure this out (and if and when they do, it won't be until after a significant of time wasted searching for the way to do it).

              Context sensitive menus should assist 'power users' in accessing things or performing operations more quickly, but should never be the only way to perform a given operation. I would further say that developers ought to be striving as much as possible to remove the need for right clicking from their interfaces.

              These tennets hold true even when an application is targeted at what are preceived as 'advanced' users. Sooner or later someone not as advanced as you think is going to end up using the software (or alternatively someone just having a bad day) and they are going to run in to problems because they can't find the way to perform the operation because they didn't realise they had to (or even could) right click to perform this operation.

              (ii.)People who don't know that context menu's are avalible are the exact same people who are better off with a one button mouse in the first place.

              The 'average joe' still replies to instructions of "click that icon" with "With what mouse button?" Most people are casual users of computers at best, and they are still daunted by having two butttons. The situation could be possibly be improved by having graphical (and possibly textual) representations of the behaviour on the mouse buttons themselves but that is not common.

              When they are ready for added complexity it is there, just like the Unix command prompt is there for those who want it, but it's completely hidden from the majority of users.

              (iii.) Dispite being a unix software developer I have come to prefer the design of Apple's own mouse over my 5 button scroll wheel mouse when using Mac OS X.

              The primary reason being that I don't have to hold down a specific area of the mouse, just push down on it generally (the physical level of pressure required is adjustable). I have found this much better for my hand/wrist postioning (meaning I spend less time with my fingers crawled up in a ball).

              I also find that on Mac OS (this applies to both classic too) software is generally designed in such as way as to be completely usable without the need to right click, largely thanks to things like more comprehensive drag and drop support.

              It's not without sacrifices, I like scroll wheels for example, but when using OS X I don't find the lack of scroll wheel nearly as much of a problem as I do when using Gnome or Microsoft Windows, largely due to three factors relating to scrolling:

              1). Window scrollbar indicators are always proportional (with a 'sensible' minimum size).

              2). When I click on a scroll bar the visible area of the window jumps to exactly where I have clicked instantly (not just generally scrolls 'up' or 'down' a page).

              3). Both Scoll Up AND Scoll Down arrows at the top AND bottom of each scollbar.

              These of course are toggleable through the Preferences panel but I find with them I no longer miss having a scroll wheel enough to give up my 'no button' (push-to-click) Apple branded Bluetooth mouse when using OS X. Though it is something of a close call (mostly I miss having back/forward buttons and scroll wheels are still very useful with FPS games).

              • Re:Too much like MS? (Score:5, Insightful)

                by swv3752 ( 187722 ) <swv3752@NOsPAM.hotmail.com> on Thursday September 02, 2004 @08:25AM (#10137865) Homepage Journal
                There is another school of thought that says: Design for the upper tier not the Lowest Common Denominator. Who wants something designed for fools and morons?

                One must learn to drive a car, ride a bike, row a boat, swim, operate power tools, et cetera. Why should one not have to learn to use a computer?

                • Re:Too much like MS? (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by Cochonou ( 576531 )
                  Why do almost all the cars in the US have an automatic transmission, then ?
                • do you have to learn how to open a door with a nob? how about telling the difference between a pull open door and a push open door? do you need to learn how to use a light switch whenever you see a new style light switch? do you have to relearn how to talk when conversing with another person?

                  the ultimate goal of any interface is to be so intuitive that you look at it and say "duh." just because we haven't reached this level of design in cars, or boats, etc doesn't mean that we can't strive to achieve th

                • Re:Too much like MS? (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by @madeus ( 24818 )
                  There is another school of thought that says: Design for the upper tier not the Lowest Common Denominator.

                  Here is another school of thought (this happens the one applied in Mac OS X, and also in classic):

                  Design for people who *don't* know how to use a computer AND for those who do, at the same time. That is not exactly a huge relevation...

                  Mac OS follows this principle - Macintosh computers do not come with one button mice but why the operating system inherently supports context sensitive menus for multi

        • Re:Too much like MS? (Score:5, Informative)

          by crackshoe ( 751995 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @12:23AM (#10135862)
          accesible? if you're using the provided one button mouse (and i know very few people who do), you just hold down one key, and you get your context menu. just because you don't understand how to do something doesn't mean its not accesible.

          • Re:Too much like MS? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by InfiniteWisdom ( 530090 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @12:46AM (#10135959) Homepage
            I think button 1 does something, button 2 does something else is a lot more intuitive than button one does something if you press it for a short time and something else if you press it for a long time, and yet another thing if you move the mouse while you;re pressing it for a long time

            • Re:Too much like MS? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by 10101001 10101001 ( 732688 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @01:02AM (#10136034) Journal
              On that note, why should a click, two clicks, and a double click be treated differently? It's actually the third that's the issue, since with all the things that in Windows were made to require double clicking people double click on hyperlinks because they've come to understand a double click is what you use to activate a stand-alone widget (and MS stole this idea from Apple, clearly, who probably got it from PARC).

              Fundamentally, a mouse is a pretty horrible tool to do a lot of things. Things like a second or third button and adding a scroll wheel all only attempt to overcome various limitations in control design inherent in trying to use a pointer in a 2D space. It's also a core reason why people are so attached to their keyboard, as it's often the case a lot quicker to just type a number into a spinbox or type in part of a url and arrow down to the right one (or finish it most often since your history has deep urls). Anyways, enough of that rant. :)

            • Re:Too much like MS? (Score:4, Informative)

              by prockcore ( 543967 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @01:55AM (#10136278)
              I think button 1 does something, button 2 does something else is a lot more intuitive than button one does something if you press it for a short time and something else if you press it for a long time

              Pet peeve: the "hold button for context menu" only works in the dock. How inconsitant. Doesn't work in the finder, doesn't work in safari.. doesn't work anywhere but the dock.
          • accesible? if you're using the provided one button mouse (and i know very few people who do), you just hold down one key, and you get your context menu.

            I'm not sure which context the parent poster was using when he said "accessible". When I read it, I thought of accessibility.

            Which makes your response hilarious in the context of, say, people with one arm. Just hold down one key with your nose, then use your good hand to click the button, boom your context menu.
          • He would have given us prehensile noses.
      • Maybe Apple's interface is technically better, but (like the parent poster said) if you want to bring it to the masses, use something people are already used to. That way the switch to a linux desktop won't be such a big difference.

    • Re:Too much like MS? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MarcQuadra ( 129430 ) * on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:52PM (#10135705)
      I disagree, I run WindowMaker, and most kids who come over and sit at my desk figure it out quickly enough, they really dig the dock, and they LOVE the 'start menu whenever I right-click the background'. Almost everyone figures out the multiple-desktop thing too, when they see the pager with eight screens that shows a mini-screen for each one.

      It helps that my menu items are named after the FUNCTION rather than the application that provides it. When you see 'music' it runs juk, when you click 'web' it opens firefox, etc.

      The Windows-style taskbar interface is pretty weak if you intend to keep your session running for days or weeks instead of hours.

      Everyone remarks how 'clean' and 'simple' my layout is, and the geekier note that 'it takes a lot less mousing around to get stuff done'.

      The trick is that every corporate desktop needs to be uniform and MANAGED by someone who does the stuff like rename menu items to functions and remove all the excess cruft that the heavier desktop environments populate interfaces with.

      • Re:Too much like MS? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Tim C ( 15259 )
        It helps that my menu items are named after the FUNCTION rather than the application that provides it. When you see 'music' it runs juk, when you click 'web' it opens firefox, etc.

        That only works for the case where you have a single application that provides each function, though. For example, were I to rename the shortcut for Mozilla to "web", what would I call the ones to Opera, IE and firefox? Sure, I'm a special case, but everyone working in the web is (or should be) in terms of using multiple browser

    • Re:Forgot the almost (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Bastian ( 66383 )
      I think what you meant to say is that MS is known for making an interface that's almost usable to the masses.

      I agree that Windows is more usable than Linux, but next-to-worst can still be pretty bad. And Windows is Bad. And there are several better examples out there. There are even a few Good examples out there.

      Assuming the goal is to be good (or even mediocre) and not bad, trying to copy Windows (here I'm talking about how it acts, not how it looks.) is totally the wrong way to go about it.
    • MS is known for making an interface that's usable to the masses
      The interface was designed at Parc, and MS just Xeroxed it.

  • more like windows? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dnotj ( 633262 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:38PM (#10135609) Homepage
    Commentary in article submissions now...

    Personally (as a long time KDE user) I don't find windows all that much like KDE. I sat down at an XP box the other day to try and accomplish some simple editing in a word document with embedded visio and felt lost. Perhaps Gnome is becoming more KDE like?

    BTW: open office has trouble saving (via crashes) documents with a large number of embedded visio drawings. :(

    .dn

    • Re:more like windows? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ajs ( 35943 )
      Yeah, I was a bit confused by the Windows comment. Certainly the Linux desktop (and by that I mean Gnome and KDE which are reasonably similar in many ways) has taken many concepts from Windows. The default layout of window controls, the look of a panel / task bar, and many more things are Windows-like by default, but I can't think of a single one that's not customizable.

      Windows is the dominant desktop paradigm right now, so it makes sense to emulate it for the defaults. You have a different idea, go right

  • cache? (Score:3, Informative)

    by TCM ( 130219 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:39PM (#10135618)
    since it even got its own story, why not use it [slashdot.org]?

    try here [nyud.net].

  • It's not KDE (Score:5, Insightful)

    by steveha ( 103154 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:45PM (#10135657) Homepage
    I looked at all the screenshots, and nothing on there jumped out and bit me and yelled "Windows! IE!" I have no idea what FlipmodePlaya is complaining about.

    It looks to me like it's just the GNOME 2.x that I know and love, with subtle, very incremental bits of polish. FlipmodePlaya, perhaps you could be a bit more specific?

    P.S. I'm really looking forward to some of the new features, specifically Volume Manager and the new MIME handlers. GNOME 2.8's MIME features won't just be easier to use than previous GNOME versions--they will actually be easier to use than Windows's application association system.

    steveha
    • I suspect its a border line troll.

      It appears he links to his own site rather than to an offical ChangeLog. Perhaps its simply an effort to get hits.

      Maybe someone could post a link to the changes on gnome.org or somewhere.

    • Outsider's Take (Score:4, Interesting)

      by cjsnell ( 5825 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @12:48AM (#10135972) Journal

      I haven't looked at GNOME since the very early versions. I've always been a waimea/blackbox fan. The look and feel is very impressive--and nothing like MS Windows in my opinion. It looks crisp and business-like. This is attractive enough to get me to try it out. I wonder how long it would take to build on my P3 FreeBSD box...

      • Re:Outsider's Take (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ajs ( 35943 ) <[ajs] [at] [ajs.com]> on Thursday September 02, 2004 @07:09AM (#10137289) Homepage Journal
        Look and feel are uninteresting except where they are expressions of unique features. Gnome, KDE, WindowMaker and dozens of minor desktops I've probably never heard of are all themeable.

        The real test is how FUNCTIONAL your desktop is. Does it have modern internationalization and accessibility featurs. Does it provide a framework for application cooperation? Does it provide a framework for user management of desktop features that is consistent, even for external elements?

        Pretty baubles are easy and relatively universal. Functionality is hard.

    • Re:It's not KDE (Score:3, Insightful)

      by RevAaron ( 125240 )
      this is in response to a lot of people talking about this...

      If you don't see any striking similarities between KDE and Windows, then you've been using Windows too long. GNOME has a lot of the same similarities that KDE has with Windows, though oftentimes they seem to steer away from the level of borrowing that KDE does. It could be independent thought on the part of the GNOME developers, or they may just be borrowing from other sources, which is fine by me.

      A lot of folks don't really see many similaritie

  • Yeah (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dedazo ( 737510 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:45PM (#10135658) Journal
    My opinion: the GUI changes look too much like Windows/Internet Explorer for my tastes; I guess it's not just KDE

    Honestly I'm getting a bit tired of this march towards boring copied GUIs that only half-work. I mean, KDE is becoming almost unusable with all the crap in the menu and little parts and whatnot. I mean, I suppose it's nice for new users but I really don't like it.

    That's why I went with the little mouse [xfce.org].

    No disrespect to the GNOME and KDE hackers, but it's good to have choices. The big desktops are becoming more difficult and time consuming to customize "just right*.

    • Re:Yeah (Score:3, Informative)

      by latroM ( 652152 )
      You don't have to use then GNOME/KDE window managers etc. to use their programs. I like GNOME mostly because the GNOME apps started without GNOME don't load the whole environment.

    • Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Brandybuck ( 704397 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @01:03AM (#10136036) Homepage Journal
      The big desktops are becoming more difficult and time consuming to customize "just right*.

      If XFCE is customized "just right" out of the box for you, then great. Someone must have been reading your mind. But for me and a lot of people, it is NOT customized just right out of the box for the way we like to use the desktop. Frankly, there's way too many people and way too few desktops to expect very many instances of people finding a desktop whose default settings perfectly match their preferred customizations.

  • Submissions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by entrigant ( 233266 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:49PM (#10135688)
    My opinion: the GUI changes look too much like Windows/Internet Explorer for my tastes; I guess it's not just KDE."

    You know it wouldn't kill the slashdot editors to EDIT submissions instead of just dumping them as is into the main site. Especially when one is as unprofessional as this. Flaming does NOT belong on the front page of slashdot. This is absolutely rediculous. First "four of parts", and now this bull? Why, Slashdot, do you feel like you can ask me for money when you pull crap like this?

    • Re:Submissions (Score:2, Interesting)

      by FlipmodePlaya ( 719010 )
      Well, first of all, (as the article submitter) I went out of my way to make it clear I was expressing an opinion. In hindsight, I probably should have just posted that in a comment, but I don't think it was rediculous to have an opinion to discuss put in a news article. Secondly, I maintain that it was warranted. It certainly wasn't flaming. Look at dialogues such as this [home.sapo.pt] and tell me it doesn't look as if they went out of their way to make it look like the Explorer copy/download one. That's not necessa

      • Re:Submissions (Score:5, Insightful)

        by optikSmoke ( 264261 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @01:02AM (#10136031)
        Um, its a copy dialog. Really, it's ok. If they've decided to make it a dialog, there isn't much else to do with it. It looks like they put the progress bar at the top instead of the bottom........ but there isn't much else to put in there, so I don't see how it can be considered "copying" windows. If you take the simplest dialogs as an example, obviously there will be similarities.

        Anyway, I don't understand people's outright negative reactions when things "look like" Windows. Some parts of most desktops look like some parts of others, it's just a matter of choosing which parts are best for inclusion, or building something better if that's possible. Windows may not be the best in all areas (I'll be the first to admit my annoyance with some of its behaviour), but in some areas it has good UIs -- and I don't see why making a similarly good UI is frowned upon. However, in no way do all of either KDE or GNOME resemble Windows or Apple, and both desktops have their own pluses over other systems.

      • Re:Submissions (Score:5, Insightful)

        by prockcore ( 543967 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @01:59AM (#10136293)
        Look at dialogues such as this and tell me it doesn't look as if they went out of their way to make it look like the Explorer copy/download one.

        Looks exactly like the OSX copy/move dialog box. No reason to be different just for the sake of being different.

        • Re:Submissions (Score:3, Insightful)

          by egarland ( 120202 )
          No reason to be different just for the sake of being different.

          EXACTLY! People seem to get all upset that their "alternative different" thing is becoming just like everything else. Gnome is growing up, get used to it. Gnome isn't trying to be different from Windows, it isn't trying to be the same as Windows, it's trying to do the best job it can at providing an interface. So is Windows, so is Mac OS. Reason dictates that when they all get it right, they'll look very similar.

          This is like complaining

    • Re:Submissions (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stor ( 146442 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @12:41AM (#10135945)
      I hate to agree with you but I do.

      The snide and brain-dead remarks/trolls/flamebait should be left to the posters, rather than be in full view on the front page.

      Otherwise you end up with patronising posts such as this one =)

      Cheers
      Stor

  • Evolution does not belong !! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Qwavel ( 733416 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:50PM (#10135695)

    Evolution should not be part of Gnome - it should be added by the people who build the distro's.

    If you start adding applications to Gnome, where do you stop? Are they going to add OpenOffice or AbiWord/Gnumeric to the next version of Gnome? After all, a word processor is pretty basic.

    The Gnome people should focus on making it easy for distro builders and end-users to add (well integrated) apps. Don't build the apps into the desktop.

    • Re:Evolution does not belong !! (Score:5, Informative)

      by theantix ( 466036 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:57PM (#10135741) Journal
      There is a good reason why Evo is being included -- having the contact information centralized and standard in every Gnome installation means that other Gnome applications can use that data. This has implications for IM clients, browsers, file managers, and the interesting new fringe projects like Storage and Beagle and Dashboard. Without Evo's datastore built into Gnome, they would have to build an independant contact manager, and to me it makes sense to use the perfectly good one that Evolution already has.

      And I'm not even an Evo user, I just understand the logic behind one of the reasons to include it. I'm sure there are other reasons too.

      • Re:Evolution does not belong !! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Eric Smith ( 4379 ) * on Thursday September 02, 2004 @12:08AM (#10135783) Homepage Journal
        good reason why Evo is being included -- having the contact information centralized and standard in every Gnome installation means that other Gnome applications can use that data.
        If having that data is valuable for other applications, then it would be reasonable to include a system component that provides the storage and APIs for that data. Then Evolution and other Gnome applications could use it. But that doesn't justify including the entire Evolution client as a standard part of Gnome.

      • I need some karma (Score:4, Informative)

        by md17 ( 68506 ) <james AT jamesward DOT org> on Thursday September 02, 2004 @12:24AM (#10135868) Homepage

        So that you all can avoid those google searches here are the links:

        Storage [gnome.org] Beagle [gnome.org]
        Dashboard [nat.org]
      • I agree, it's important to have the features of you competitors, and this can be seen as a major one. Especially with all the hubub about PIM at the aKadamy. Browsers are starting to flock to PIM, look at the popularity of such plugins for IE.
      • EDS is a great move for Linux apps - separating the presentation (GUI) from the data. I'm waiting to see the final EDS, to see how close it comes to split the data from the logic. I'd love to be able to install the Evolution schema on any DB I want, from local MySQL to a datacenter's WAN-replicated Oracle cluster, with my own rules embeddable in the engine as they appear, and a GUI on each of my devices, from desktop to 'phone to airline seatback. Evolution has long favored niche specialization and division

      • having the contact information centralized and standard in every Gnome installation

        I'll probably get flamed for this, but I don't see why we can't use the mbox style for mail, just like mozilla and everything back to pine and some things prior uses. Address books should be human readable and easily parseable as well. Just because Microsoft has it's *.pst format doesn't mean we need an open source copy - Outlook is widely used because it comes bundled, not because of some of its nasty design flaws.

        Don't i

    • Evolution should not be part of Gnome - it should be added by the people who build the distro's.

      Evolution is included because every single library in the entire Gnome install (about 784,197 of them at last count) has a hard dependency on some obscure 2K feature widget (usually the HTML library).

      Gnome is the undisputed galactic champion of dependencies. Last time I tried to install Evolution from an RPM, I thought I was following a treasure map through the Saskatchewan tundra.

  • Explorer Easy to use? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Luineancaion ( 803672 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:51PM (#10135704)
    I don't think that microsoft have done a good job of making computers easy to use at all, for a complete beginner it's completely confusing, when my father first tried to use a windows box he didn't know at all what to do with it to get the stuff he wanted done. Since using Gnome he hasn't asked me a single question and has found it incredibly easy to use. Keep it simple stupid.

    • Re:Explorer Easy to use? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ciroknight ( 601098 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @01:18AM (#10136112)
      Important question: Had he used Windows before GNOME?

      I only ask because the skills learned in Windows are easily portable to any current GUI, and visa versa. I personally believe that I could sit down at any computer and figure out the GUI, but then again I was like this when I first started using computers with Windows 3.1 on them. So it's really important to look and see how GUIs are alike and how they are different.

      Today, the main functionality of a GUI is virtually the same in any operating system, under any Windows Manager (minus a few frenge ones...); we are getting to the point that we are "desktop-agnostic". The only thing that remains in Linux is to get video accelleration up to Windows/MacOS X levels, and once there, start sprucing everything up with a bit of eye candy (drop shadows rock eye-candy wise, fast window transforms like in Mac OS X, etc). But I do have to admit that Linux, at current, is far more themeable than either Windows XP or Mac OS X, and I believe it will probably remain that way for a long time... (bad for new users, good for established users).

  • Not necessarily bad... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FiReaNGeL ( 312636 ) <.moc.liamtoh. .ta. .l3gnaerif.> on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:55PM (#10135723) Homepage
    Ressemblance to Windows / IE goes a long way toward new users migration for Microsoft, keep that in mind.

    • I agree... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by carlmenezes ( 204187 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @01:32AM (#10136183) Homepage
      Let's look at things from a Windows user's point of view :

      1) Things work.
      2) They look good.
      3) Few options available, but most are hidden in the registry. Those few options seem more than sufficient for the teeming masses.

      Now take someone from that environment and put them on Gnome. What does he/she experience?

      1) Stuff works.
      2) It looks good.
      3) Few options available, but most are hidden in the registry. Those few options seem more than sufficient for the teeming masses.

      Now, let's take a windows power user :
      1) Things work, but always looking for ways to make them work faster.
      2) It looks good, but always looking for ways to customize it.
      3) Few options available, so the user always has some program Xteq XSetup Pro to tweak hidden settings all over the place.

      Take THAT user and put him/her on KDE:
      1) Things work and work fast. User is quite happy.
      2) It may or may not look good, but hey, it's VERY customizable, so it WILL look good after a week.
      3) Tons of options available all over the place - the former windows power user is in heaven.

      So to sum it up, KDE and Gnome in my opinion, both serve a VERY good purpose - they cater to the needs to both ends of the spectrum of Windows users - and they're both getting better/faster with each new version.

      Now since we're celebrating Gnome 2.8 RC1 here, kudos go out to the Gome devs out there for capturing the essence of Windows' ease of use and porting it to Linux. You guys are doing a great job.

      It would be nice to have a unified Desktop one day, but hey, I'm not complaining right now, even tho I'm a KDE fan - GREAT WORK GNOME! - I'm seriously thinking of setting up Gnome 2.8 as my mum's default Linux account and see how she likes it - she currently uses KDE 3.3 :)

      • Re:I agree... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Deusy ( 455433 )
        "Now take someone from that environment and put them on Gnome. What does he/she experience?

        1) Stuff works.
        2) It looks good.
        3) Few options available, but most are hidden in the registry. Those few options seem more than sufficient for the teeming masses."

        And for the power user...

        `4) They find Gnome registry actually isn't a registry, but a nicely organised set of XML files that are easy to navigate and edit, and not swamped with the crap you get in, say, the Windows registry.'

        I don't know why people thi

  • I see these +0.1 releases discussed often, but.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SpookyFish ( 195418 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:55PM (#10135724)

    I use linux and 'doze both daily, but spend ~70% of my time hacking code on linux. The WM doesn't matter that much to me, because it just needs to be a good way between 4 desktops full worth of bash shells and vi windows.. but both gnome and kde feel weak when it comes to the 'everyday' stuff I usually do on windows .. email, browsing, office apps, etc.
    -
    the real BUT, though, is this thought - Would it help the (big) open source groups to start being more feature focused?

    Look at many dot releases from M$ or Apple.. 90% is NEWNEWNEW and a little is 'does xyz better, zyx works now'

    The geek stuff needs to be available, sure, but "higher level" messages might go far to boost adoption.

    My thinking is, Average Joe just dipping a toe into 'non-conformist' ways, and sees a big new announcement.. he looks in and sees a ton of stuff he doesn't understand, and a long list of bugs fixed that makes him think 'ugh, this still has too many problems.'

    If he looks in and sees mostly "Now imports Word 2006 docs with perfect formatting! .... New graphics engine leverages 3d hardware to be 80% faster! .." he is going to have a very different view.

    $.02
    • you have to consider that open source is far more trickle-down release centric. i'm sure the amount of new stuff between 1.0 and 2.0 is pretty significant. however, it's all those updates inbetween that lead up to a major change that you normally may not see with big software packages.

      open source is much more evoluationary, than revolutionary. just because it doesn't have a wizz bang release cycle doesn't make it any less productive for getting major features done over time.


    • but both gnome and kde feel weak when it comes to the 'everyday' stuff I usually do on windows .. email, browsing, office apps, etc.

      I suppose this isn't the focus of this post. But since you tossed this in... I'm curious as to what apps you're specifically referring to. I was going to refute your statements until I realized my examples weren't GNOME or KDE specific. For browsing, I use Firefox - on both Windows and Linux. For office apps I use Open Office - on both Linux and Windows (although som

    • Phffft! Aaack! Horrible idea!

      I have to deal with think like that at work too much, to tolerate it at home on my desktop. I don't want new features, I want a desktop that WORKS!

      Commercial software does this because it has to persuade people to fork over more money for another release. But GNOME (and KDE) are free. As in free beer. There is no compelling need to force people to upgrade. If they upgrade they upgrade, if they don't they don't. Considering the price, most people will upgrade anyway.
    • Basically, what you're saying is 'open source should be marketed better'. But keep in mind... that is explicitly not what open source projects are about; almost all of them are technology-, not marketing-driven. Most open source coders aren't writing code to extract cash from people's wallets, they're doing it because they love doing it, or because they're solving an issue.

      And these point releases aren't meant for Average Joe anyway; they're bleeding-edge and unstable. Joe doesn't want this stuff.

      This

  • Mirror! (Score:2, Informative)

    by cham31e0n ( 746424 )
    The screenshot link in the original post has been Slashdotted. Here's a mirror:

    http://tuggy.home.sapo.pt/gnome/ [home.sapo.pt]

    (Here's hoping this doesn't get Slashdotted too quickly!)

  • Official Mirror (Score:5, Informative)

    by davydmadeley ( 267470 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @12:00AM (#10135752) Homepage
    I'm not going to make the mistake of getting in trouble for getting /.ed again. The maxclients on that server has been set down quite low, I've added a redirect to offload to offload to GNOME's webserver [gnome.org].

    If someone could update the story URL, that would be great ;)

  • Human Interface Guidelines (Score:5, Interesting)

    by phreakv6 ( 760152 ) <phreakv6@nOSPAM.gmail.com> on Thursday September 02, 2004 @12:06AM (#10135777) Homepage
    GNOME 2.4 used to be slower than KDE 3.1... atleast on my configuration... but GNOME 2.8 seems to have improved hell-a-lot in terms of speed.. looks like am back to GNOME again..
    It is also very interesting to see how Gnome is developing Human Interface Guidelines. [gnome.org] I wish programmers would stick to them.
    • Not so fast! KDE 3.1 is old. So is GNOME 2.4. They're not terribly old, but still not current. If you going to make a decision for today, make it based on today's desktops.
    • It is also very interesting to see how Gnome is developing Human Interface Guidelines. I wish programmers would stick to them.

      The most amazing thing is a lot of Gnome developers are doing just that...

      That may be partly due to the fact that if you're developing a new app people will resist including it in Gnome if it doesn't follow the HIG. It may also be a simple matter of "Give the developer a spec and they'll try to follow it" whereas before this aspect of the design was undefined so people invented th

  • Too much like Windows!?!? Oh, Heaven Forbid!!!!!! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ZuperDee ( 161571 ) <zuperdee.yahoo@com> on Thursday September 02, 2004 @12:23AM (#10135858) Homepage Journal
    My opinion: the GUI changes look too much like Windows/Internet Explorer for my tastes; I guess it's not just KDE.

    Since when does "looking too much like Product X" automatically make something bad? Are you really that much of a zealot that you concern yourself more with how much it "looks like Windows/IE" than with how USEFUL GNOME IS AS A PRODUCT IN ITS OWN RIGHT?

    Good grief, man!!! I'd hate to break it to you, but I hate Microsoft just as much as anyone here, if not MORE so... They *ARE* an evil company, no two ways about it. HOWEVER, having said that: it IS possible for even the most evil of people/corporations to have a good idea once in a while. (Need I point out that Hitler, for all his evil, was the one who started work on things like the Autobahn and the Volkswagen.)

    If I were to take your argument to an extreme, I would have to say: Ogg Vorbis is no good--after all, the concepts behind it sound too much like MP3 or AAC.

    Heh. No wonder Slashdot has so little credibility with some people.
  • Novell says Evolution 2.0 will be released in 2004Q3. That's 7-9/2004, only 29 days left (in North America). When do you think it will be apt-get'able?

  • Brave New GNOME (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @12:50AM (#10135983) Homepage Journal
    The inclusion in GNOME of the improved MIME lookup engine [gnome.org], with configurable renderers, is a tremendous step. Apps should use IPC to exchange data, each handling only their own processing specialty. Transport apps that merely retrieve data per specified protocol (eg. FTP, HTTP, torrent), and presentation apps that merely render data per type, and accept user interaction, with standard APIs among them, make the entire system more stable. And easier to expand. Sometime soon we'll have apps which include layered, overlapping window panes each rendering and accepting user events, calling across to mixed logic components, and down into any data source, whether local storage, network, or sensors. Compilable flowcharts, anyone?
  • This might have window dressing of windows but it's layout and some of the ideas they have seem more like OSX than Windows.

  • Damned if you do and damned if you don't (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Alioth ( 221270 ) <no@spam> on Thursday September 02, 2004 @03:35AM (#10136594) Journal
    Well, from the screenshots, I don't think it looks anything like Windows (other than having the features that all GUIs have, so there will always be some similarity).

    But part of the problem with Free desktop critics is you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you make your interface look like Windows, these critics will have a go because it looks like Windows. If you make it look unlike Windows, they will criticise you because it's "unfamiliar".

  • Too much like Windows? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 10Ghz ( 453478 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @06:06AM (#10137059)
    Answer me this: Why is anything that even remotely resembles Windows automatically a bad thing? Is this just a case of "Windows? It's made by Microsoft. And since Microsoft sucks, Windows suck as well. And since Windows and Microsoft sucks, the Windows UI sucks as well!".

    I don't think Gnome looks like Windows. Well, of course it (and KDE as well) shares some common things with Windows. They all have windows. they have a taskbar. They have a start-menu or equivalent. And they all offer integrated system with similar look 'n feel between apps and tools. Are ANY of those things bad things? Why? Just because Windows has them as well?

    Why don't you whiners start your own GUI-project. Call it UTIADFWAP, or "UI That Is As Different From Windows As Possible". Make sure that it doesn't look anything like Windows. Maybe then you will be happy. Who cares about usability or consistensy, at least it would be different from Windows! And it seems that many people think that being different from Windows is the primary feature of a Linux/Unix-UI these days!

    Some "anything but Windows!"-zealots usually whine about KDE that "it looks too much like Windows". I use KDE at work (occasionally I boot to W2K for a game or two) and XP at work. I don't think KDE and Windows'es look that much alike. Well, the file-dialog is a bit similar, but that's it. And that's not really a bad thing, since I think the Windows file-dialog serves me well. The one in KDE looks somewhat similar, but it's alot better.

    Yes, I dislike Microsoft as well. And Windows the OS has it's share of problems. But it's UI is OK on the basic level. Yes, the UI does have problems as well, but luckily KDE (and Gnome I think) fixes those issues.

    repeat after me: just because something can be found in Windows does not automatically mean that it's a bad thing.

  • Shadows on window edges (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DJayC ( 595440 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @09:06AM (#10138302)
    Is the author using X.org with that shadow hack or something? I noticed all his screenshots have shadows under the window edges. Anyone know how he's doing this?

Slashdot Top Deals

Children begin by loving their parents. After a time they judge them. Rarely, if ever, do they forgive them. - Oscar Wilde

Close