Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GUI Software GNOME KDE Linux Business

eWeek Reviews Gnome 2.8 And KDE 3.3 233

Posted by timothy from the cross-*nix dept.
prostoalex writes "eWeek Labs reviewed the latest editions of GNOME and KDE desktop environments, and for all the criteria that eWeek uses for evaluating the software products ranked 'good,' while usability, capability and reliability for both products ranked 'excellent.' The online version is missing the screenshots and ranking tables that the printed version has, but eWeek likes Evolution (for mail), Konqueror (for file management), Samba and Kopete. They dislike GConf (still complex and a hassle to use) on GNOME and KMail on KDE."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

eWeek Reviews Gnome 2.8 And KDE 3.3 More

eWeek Reviews Gnome 2.8 And KDE 3.3

Comments Filter:
  • I haven't RTFAed yet, but Kmail is my favorite email app for commodity x86 hardware. Simple, clean, stable, fast, basically everything that evolution isn't.

    • Re:what's wrong with Kmail? (Score:4, Informative)

      by voisine ( 153062 ) on Saturday October 09, 2004 @09:35PM (#10483267)
      Okay, upon RTFAing, the poster is mischaracterizing the article. What they actually don't care for is Kontact, which I haven't used, so I can't comment on it, but their concerns seem to be minor ui niggles which seem really more a personal preference.

    • Re:what's wrong with Kmail? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by lphuberdeau ( 774176 ) on Saturday October 09, 2004 @09:48PM (#10483340) Homepage

      By reading the article, you would notice that they prefer Evolution for it's ability to connect to MS Exchange and Novell's groupware server. The feature is very important for companies that evaluate a transition to Linux. Since there are currently no viable F/OSS solutions available, they are all stuck with Exchange in most cases.

      Evolution is not useful for everyone. Some people actually consider that bloat an advantage, and the application is designed for those people.

      I personnally use Mozilla --mail. Don't you just love having choice?

      • By reading the article, you would notice that they prefer Evolution for it's ability to connect to MS Exchange and Novell's groupware server. The feature is very important for companies that evaluate a transition to Linux. Since there are currently no viable F/OSS solutions available, they are all stuck with Exchange in most cases.

        Luckilly there is some Kontact support for both of those servers in progress. The Exchange support in Evolution ( I don't know about GroupWise ) is still much more mature th

      • > you would notice that they prefer Evolution for it's ability to connect to MS Exchange

        But IMO you can't talk about "MS Exchange" being *integrated* into Evolution. It simply adds another button taking space in the main view and therewith still feels like being engrafted.

    • Re:what's wrong with Kmail? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Saturday October 09, 2004 @10:35PM (#10483550) Homepage
      Agreed. When switching back from Linux to Windows, the only app which I was really sorry to lose (besides sKill) was Kmail. It does everything an e-mail client should do, with one of the least cluttered interfaces I have ever had the pleasure of using. Configuring filters was a breeze, and I never got the feeling of being dumped into someone's pet project. It really felt like it came from the UI and application designers from Apple, working from a very non-Apple "Power is Good" mantra.

      I wish someone would do a Kmail Windows port. In the meantime I just have to subsist on The Bat! Yes, the punctuation is part of the name. Just look it up on Yahoo!

  • Screenshots (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 09, 2004 @09:22PM (#10483206)
    Here are some GNOME [gnome.org] and KDE [kde.org] screenshots.
    • more here [akcaagac.com]

  • Yeah.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ImaLamer ( 260199 ) <john.lamar@NospaM.gmail.com> on Saturday October 09, 2004 @09:30PM (#10483246) Homepage Journal
    ...like I'm going to listen to eWeek.

    I've got "MyYahoo" set as my homepage and their tech news stories are particularly disgusting. There was an exploit tool that was to be released under the GPL so the headline was " Open-Source Exploit Tool: 'Point, Click, Root' [eweek.com] ". Mind you the tool attacks Windows and OSX machines, not Linux. But since it was released under the GPL, Open Source==Bad!

    FUD! Just like when IDG reported the "double-free" CVS flaw in a story titled: "Search finds new holes in open source tool [infoworld.com]" (Notice, they reported this in July of 2004). After a little looking around [mintruth.com] I noticed that CERT released an advisory Feb. 2003! [cert.org]
    • I've got "MyYahoo" set as my homepage and their tech news stories are particularly disgusting.

      If that's how you feel, change your homepage instead of complaining.

    • Actually, I think eWeek has been surprisingly generous in their Linux coverage and support over the years. I remember 3+ years ago when I was trying to get a few experimental things switched over to Linux from Windows in the workplace, eWeek was one of the few publications I could almost count on to at least say something positive about Linux in a given issue.

      Granted, they've never been an especially "technical and in-depth" source of news. Rather, they seem to target more of the middle management and CI
    • Well, if the tool was open source, the e-week headline seems accurate to me. The fact that it was open source merited inclusion in the headline precisely because that has been a rare event. That's the newsworthy part of this story, not the fact that yet another Windows exploit is out there.

      e-week has no reason to sugar-coat and bias their reporting in order to hype open source. If you want that, there's Slashdot and its corporate brethern or The Register, etc.

  • gnome vs kde (Score:2, Interesting)

    by m1chael ( 636773 )
    I am starting to like the simplicity of Gnome these days. You may notice the menu insanity of KDE (eg konqueror 'other tabs' menu when you have websites with long titles...). But unfortunately neither completes me and I switch between the 2 all the time. Just to keep things even the thing I dislike about Gnome is it GUI slowness. A new kernel + staircase or nick's scheduler does help though. Strangely it is fine with plain nv drivers, but who the hell would use those.

  • I like both (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <`imipak' `at' `yahoo.com'> on Saturday October 09, 2004 @09:40PM (#10483301) Homepage Journal
    Yes, this story may well revive the "good 'ol" KDE vs. Gnome flamewars (or is that Gnome Vs. KDE :) however, I happen to like both desktop environments.


    Another poster remarked that they're both bloated. Well, that's not entirely fair. Both use a very plug-and-play software development scheme, so there's really no need to install/use components that you don't want.


    I'll agree that there are probably more layers than you'd ideally want for a desktop (eg: KDE -> Corba -> Underlying KDE stuff -> QT -> Xlib -> X11 client -> X11 protocol -> X server) but it's not horrible and most of the problem is caused by X11's design, which is very much a concept of layers on layers.


    Alternatives to X really haven't gotten very far. I am unaware of any distros which use Berlin / Fiasco, for example. I've not even seen any announcements for it for some time, and am unsure if it's even under active development still.


    Lighter-weight graphics drivers for X don't seem to have progressed well, either. GGI and KGI aren't nearly as well-developed as I'd have expected at this point. One can only assume that there just aren't many people who feel that particular itch.


    The growing use of networking systems such as CORBA is also not helping much. CORBA is fairly bulky, and if you're running the processes on the same machine, then you really don't need the capacity to run objects on remote systems. I don't even know if those CORBA applications for GNOME or KDE even support a distributed environment of this kind. It's certainly not obvious as to how you'd go about creating one.


    Also, CORBA implementations are not as interchangable as they should be. You can't just pick up an application that has ORBit in mind and use it with MICO, TAO or some other CORBA engine. This does start to get a little heavy, as it means that any software not designed for the CORBA engine your GUI is set up to use is going to have to have its own CORBA engine installed. That's plain ugly. It's also a design problem of CORBA, and NOT a problem with the design of Gnome or KDE.


    Personally, I think the whole concept of the "desktop environment" is archaic. It stems from the time of the "paperless office", which never materialized. I think we should be looking to see what people actually want to do on their computer, because it's very clear that 80s/90s thinking was wrong on this point.


    If the desktop metaphor is the wrong one to use, in the first place, then no implementation of that metaphor - however good it may be - will ever satisfy users. Since the metaphor is also almost wholly owned by certain corporations hostile to FOSS in the first place, changing the battleground would seem wiser than trying to compete in an area users might not even be wanting.

    • Re:I like both (Score:5, Informative)

      by dmaxwell ( 43234 ) on Saturday October 09, 2004 @09:57PM (#10483382)
      KDE moved away from CORBA quite some time ago. Apparently, it proved to be a hairball that made things more complicated than they needed to be. KDE uses "KParts" for object embedding.
    • Apparentky KDE is slimmer than it used to be (I can't tell), but honestly for desktop systems I just put a gig or two of memory in them and then they run everything I need simultaneously without swapping.

      That's not necessarily the strategy for everyone, but the cost of the extra memory is less than the cost of the extra effort of figuring out the lighter weight but harder to use desktops. Sure I can figure them out (I have in the past), but the effort just isn't rewarded when you can throw memory at the pr

    • Re:I like both (Score:2, Interesting)

      by blankslate ( 748549 )
      Okay, granted the 'desktop metaphor' is old and possibly not the most useful (especially to power users). Do you have any links / discussion about the alternatives? Because I hear your sentiment from time to time but there's usually little in the way of tangible alternatives proposed .. D

    • Re:I like both (Score:2, Informative)

      by arodland ( 127775 )
      KDE, for its day-to-day tasks, doesn't use CORBA. What it does use is lighter-weight and simpler. I never noticed KDE to be slow, even when I was running KDE3.0 on my 120MHz Cyrix with 64MB RAM, it wasn't any slower than anything else. Fortunately for everyone, that system is now dead. But anyway, my point was that most of your griping about CORBA only applies to GNOME, which in my experience is slow, and has apps with UIs that make me not want to use them anyway.

    • Re:I like both (Score:5, Informative)

      by nathanh ( 1214 ) on Saturday October 09, 2004 @11:43PM (#10483780) Homepage
      I'll agree that there are probably more layers than you'd ideally want for a desktop (eg: KDE -> Corba -> Underlying KDE stuff -> QT -> Xlib -> X11 client -> X11 protocol -> X server) but it's not horrible and most of the problem is caused by X11's design, which is very much a concept of layers on layers.

      Yes, well it would be bloated when you insert mythical layers. KDE doesn't use Corba and Xlib doesn't layer on top of an X11 client; the KDE application *is* the X11 client. And calling the X11 protocol a "layer" is a bit of a stretch.

      Amended diagram: KDE -> Kparts/Klibs -> Qt -> Xlib -> Xserver.

    • Re:I like both (Score:5, Funny)

      by Kethinov ( 636034 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @04:47AM (#10484854) Homepage Journal
      Do you like both vim and emacs too?
    • Do you know "The Humane Environment" by Jef Raskin? Is a whole new metaphor for graphic user interface.

  • Complaints about gconf (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mrroach ( 164090 ) on Saturday October 09, 2004 @09:48PM (#10483337)
    The complaints about gconf seemed pretty useless to me. What gconf is really about is providing a nice library to encapsulate preferences storage/updates. the Gconf editor is not meant to be something that you use on anything resembling a regular basis.

    Declaring it difficult to use, compared to the alternative (your text editor of choice) seems a strong enough claim that it should have been backed up by more description.

    -Mark
    • We've been hearing from the Gnome camp for a while? What is technically good and what is good for the user is not always the same thing. In fact, sometimes their quite different.

      And I belive ALL feedback is important, even if you have to work to translate it into something useful.

      99% of all users wont care about libraries or how they are supposed to use something. They've got babies, family, car payments and jobs to worry about.
      • > And I belive ALL feedback is important, even if you have to work to translate it into something useful.

        Nope. Lots of feedback is noise.

        If you have an actual criticism about gconf, or anything else for that matter, expressing it well is a good start to getting it resolved.

        There are things about gconf to criticize, and those criticisms don't seem to be ignored. It's just that the popular sorts of criticisms (OMG it's the registry!! Gnome hax0rs are teh eevil!!) are so tired and inaccurate as to be a c

        • Re:Isn't this the sort of thing.. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by msimm ( 580077 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @02:44AM (#10484422) Homepage
          Yes, and this is exactly why KDE will succeed. One camp proclaims why their system is good, while the other listens to how it could be better. The only thing is I can't tell is if its the Gnome users or the culture of the actual developers, but their comes a point where it doesn't matter.

          Feedback is feedback, if you want things to be spoon fed, I'm sorry, you woke up on the wrong side of the world.

          But being hostle about the kind of feedback your actually getting really takes the cake. No-one said users had to be developers in order to be heard. If we in the OSS community can't bridge that gap then it is our failure, not theirs.
          • > One camp proclaims why their system is good, while the other listens to how it could be better.

            You're really not paying any attention here are you? How can anyone listen to what isn't being said? Saying "product X was disappointing" is not the same as "doing Y will make it better." Read my post again. I say that actually telling what that Y is would be helpful. There is no intelligent way to argue that specificity is not helpful, I think you have demonstrated that.

            -Mark
            • Oh, I am listening. If a major media outlet says your projects feature 'K' isn't adequate, adequate being vague and general, you pose the question: how or why isn't it adequate. This is the part we have the pointy-hairs and marketing research departments for. Some of the best comments your going to get will simply point you in the right direction. The rest is up to you. But who really wants to hear that, right? So we go on complaining about DAU's in our smug condescending way.

              Maybe I've just got too many

    • Re:Complaints about gconf (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Brandybuck ( 704397 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @12:42AM (#10484069) Homepage Journal
      the Gconf editor is not meant to be something that you use on anything resembling a regular basis

      Yet whenever someone complains about an option being removed from the main config dialogs, the standard response is, "use GConf." So what is it? Are we supposed to use GConf or not?
      • >FreeBSD: Open Source without that fishy smell

        You don't like OpenBSD? ;-)

      • Re:Complaints about gconf (Score:5, Insightful)

        by FooBarWidget ( 556006 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @04:43AM (#10484842)
        GConf-editor is supposed to be only used by advanced users. The kind of people who don't fear editing text files. Average users don't even care about the option that was removed. Really, which average users care about the "Use FVWM window manager hints" checkbox (or whatever it was called) from the GNOME 1.x days? Or the "Display icons on desktop" checkbox (average user: click, disable, "Oh my god, my desktop is gone! How do I get it back?!?! HEEEELP!!!!!").
      • It's really very simple. The simple options can be set in dialogs. Advanced options can be tweaked using Gconf. Since you're only supposed to be fiddling with them if you know your way around, you should also be able to use Gconf.

        That said, I don't think it's the right way. Why make setting simple options easy and setting advanced options hard, when you can make both easy? Just tuck away the advanced ones behind some advanced options button and you're set.

        Perhaps it's just that the GNOME people are unwil
      • Yet whenever someone complains about an option being removed from the main config dialogs, the standard response is, "use GConf." So what is it? Are we supposed to use GConf or not?

        It's the same with about:config in Firefox: if you need it to set some option, you know it's there, but there are also extensions that will do that for you with a prettier GUI.

        For Gnome it's just a matter of installing something like GTweakUI [sourceforge.net] instead of resorting to gconf-editor.

    • What gconf is really about is providing a nice library to encapsulate preferences storage/updates.

      Gconf - just try exporting settings! To a great degree it is a single user, single computer app in a multiuser networked world. To an extent it shows the MS windows mindset has gone into developing it, where MS windows at least has the excuse of being orginally built on DOS and constrained that way.

      To this day it really looks like someone said "don't know much about unix, but how about we put a windows style

      • > Gconf - just try exporting settings! To a great degree it is a single user,
        > single computer app in a multiuser networked world.

        I'm not quite sure what you mean by this--it's very easy to cp, tar, rsync, etc, the .gconf directory. If you want an individual setting, you can always "gconftool --get /desktop/gnome/screen/default/0/resolution", for example.

        Gconf is multi-user. Check /etc/gconf/2/path on your machine. Assuming you haven't altered it, the default configuration for a gconf app is to firs

  • Relative performance? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Colin Smith ( 2679 ) on Saturday October 09, 2004 @10:02PM (#10483400)
    I've found that KDE is quite a bit more responsive than Gnome, especially running applications remotely, it's difficult to tell when KDE apps are remote but performance wasn't mentioned. Has this changed for the latest versions?

    • But Gnome is way more responsive on a Pentium II with 64MB of memory. There is quite a difference between Gnome 2.4 (although I realize I may be a bit behind with it) and KDE 3.3. In any event, I can never decide which one I prefer. When I have the resources I install both, and switch depending on my mood and application need.

  • Running Gnome, KDE, XFCE, and WinXP (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ChaoticCoyote ( 195677 ) on Saturday October 09, 2004 @11:01PM (#10483631) Homepage

    I'll never understand the religious wars about these issues. It's technology, folks -- use whatever works for you.

    Freedom is predicated on the availability of diverse choice; we need different philosophies and approaches.

    For day-to-day work, I use KDE, though I prefer Thunderbird to KMail (or Evolution, which is overkill for my purposes). I've run Gnome quite a bit, too; my Opteron system has both Gnome and KDE installed, and I spend about 90% of my time in the latter. I can live with either one, though I prefer the customization available in KDE.

    Gnome and KDE both have high overhead (disk space and processor use) as compared to XFCE, which is the GUI for my dusl 600MHz Pentium 3 and 300MHz Sun Ultra 10.

    My Pentium 4 box dual-boots between Gentoo/KDE and Windows XP. I find XP limited in many (many) respects, but some things (games) just work better under Windows.

    Competition is a good thing.

    • This is a classic FOSS old-wives' tale. The fact that we would like it to be true unfortunately doesn't alter the fact that it is complete nonsense.

      In the real world diverse choices at one level (KDE vs. Gnome, let's say) result in reduced choice at another (I chose KDE but now need to run Eclipse etc.).

      The trend is therefore precisely the opposite of what the parent poster pretends - rationalization will happen in response to the compatibility imperative and marginal products (XFCE etc.) will decline rat

  • Konstruct (Score:3, Interesting)

    by vivek7006 ( 585218 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @12:05AM (#10483872) Homepage
    I had never compiled and installed KDE from the source, it just felt too huge and complicated. But I gave it a shot this week and it turned to be a brainless exercise with konstruct. You just run this script and it automagically downloads, de-compresses, compiles and installs everything!!

    Three cheers to the KDE team :)

  • KMail and HTML (Score:5, Informative)

    by anduril1 ( 540346 ) <anduril1@hotmail.com> on Sunday October 10, 2004 @12:46AM (#10484076)
    Quoth the review:
    Another thing that annoyed us about KDE's mail handling was the way it dealt with HTML messages. By default, every HTML message appears in source view, with a security warning and a link to render the HTML for viewing. We could opt instead to have all HTML messages render by default, but we'd prefer that Kontact provide the option of rendering the message in a "sanitized" form-one that doesn't fetch remote images or objects. Evolution and Thunderbird work this way by default.

    KMail (and therefore Kontact) does provide "sanitized" HTML mail support. The KMail docs claim that sanitized is the default, but it is an easy change regardless. The check box is located in: Configure KMail -> Security -> "Allow messages to load external references from the Internet". It seems they didn't look too hard for the option that is default anyway.

    As far as the warnings before rendering HTML messages, this is just a question of how paranoid you'd like to be (or, how important the integrity of you system is). HTML parsers/renderers are very complex software, and therefore they may have bugs. Look to the recent JPEG exploits for bad bugs in seemingly innocent software. If there were a bug found in the HTML renderer used by your mailreader, reading email messages might present a threat to the security and integrity of your computer.

    Like the documentation in KMail says "Displaying the HTML part makes the message look better, but at the same time increases the risk of security holes being exploited"

  • Although many advanced features are present, so are some rather annoying bugs. Some of them -- for years, since much earlier releases :-(

    Sadly, the version, released with KDE-3.3, continues the poor tradition of features over bug-fixes. I understand, that adding features is usually more fun, than fixing bugs -- especially, someone else's, and a volunteer project will always be skewed towards the former, but other projects (inside KDE even) manage to impose discipline somehow...

  • Why one or the other, again? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by karmaflux ( 148909 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @01:43AM (#10484248)
    I run fluxbox. I use KDevelop and I launch it from a gnome-panel. Then I write a letter in KWord, and bring up gnome-terminal to edit something in /etc with SciTE. This ability to choose is why I like the OS. There's nothing about KDE that precludes Gnome or vice-versa.
    • Why one or the other, again?


      Simple: while running Gnome apps along with XFCE4 (being gtk2 programs) is OK, throwing in KDE with its QT and kdelibs overhead causes memory use to increase significantly. Yeah, I know, memory is not that expensive now, but still I'd rather use it for something else than just to load additional libraries.

      Raf

  • Win XP Powertoys (Score:3, Funny)

    by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @02:03AM (#10484288)
    Well, I thought that XP was a bit limiting until a fellow /.er pointed out the Windows XP Powertools. Now, with MS Virtual Desktops and the x-windows style mouse over focus stuff, and the cool alt_tab tool, I don't know what else KDR or Gnome could offer me...

  • Only Kmail has folder purging (Score:3, Interesting)

    by akc ( 207721 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @03:35AM (#10484620) Homepage
    I have continually looked around at alternative e-mail clients to Kmail. Apart from Outlook, I have yet to find another mail client that has a key piece of functionality - the ability to clear out old messages from a mail folder automatically.

    I read a lot of mailing lists - some such as Debian-User with several hundred messages a day. I filter each mailing list into its own folder, and then set purge dates on the folder to delete messages.

    I tried evolution, thunderbird, balsa and a few others - none of them have this function. Why doesn't this lack of ability to clear unwanted mailing list messages worry anyone else?
    • If you are using Maildir a simple script should do the trick:

      # delete files that were last accessed >30days ago
      find . -type f -atime +30 -exec rm {} \;
    • ``I tried evolution, thunderbird, balsa and a few others - none of them have this function. Why doesn't this lack of ability to clear unwanted mailing list messages worry anyone else?''

      Because this is UNIX? I use scripts for tasks like this one. Works no matter which mail client you use (as long as it uses some standard format for storage). Do one thing, and do it well. KISS.

  • The Title :-( (Score:2, Interesting)

    by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 )
    GNOME, KDE Aim at Windows

    They wish! Both GNOME and KDE are a whole lot better than Windows, just by the looks! I'm not even talking about the underlying OS, ability to run on older hardware (both GNOME 2.8 and KDE 3.3 run like charms on a P333 with 128 MB RAM), and customizability.

    It's rather Aqua that has to be afraid; Windows has long lost out and can hardly fall any further.

    • 128MB of bull (Score:3, Interesting)

      by poptones ( 653660 )
      I've seen this repeated twice in this thread. I call bullshit. I had a system with a decent Via motherboard, Ati videocard and 1GHz AMD cpu and with 128MB of ram the thing ran like shit. Oh yeah, you could "use it" - so long as you only opened one app at a time. Anything beyond that you had about a 70% chance of the process just dying - no error message, no warning, nothing.

      You can make blackbox or ice dance with 128mb, but a late model gnome or kde desktop with only 128mb ram is about one step above usele
      • Hello there. I'm posting this from a Powerbook G3 [lowendmac.com] at 266 MHz with 64 MB RAM, running Debian GNU/Linux and Gnome 2.6 and Firefox just to disprove you. I also have Emacs open at the same time, and switching between the apps works fine. Thunderbird and Firefox are too heavy to run at the same time without getting sluggish though, as they would in any environment on a computer with 64 MB. And I wouldn't run OpenOffice.org in Gnome, although it does run quite well in WindowMaker (it takes about a month to start

  • GNOME's really grabbing my interest (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Milton Waddams ( 739213 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @05:53AM (#10485052)

    I've been using debian with KDE for nearly 2 years on my PC at home but GNOME seems to be getting really cool. I really like the automount thingy they have and the interface seems simpler which is great since that my main machine now is an iBook.

    I think when I get home (in about a year), I'll give ubuntu [ubuntulinux.org] a spin.

  • I thought this looked familiar. Look at the article's date: September 24, 2004. I read this weeks ago. Took me a few paragraphs to realize it. Anyone read anything new lately?
  • But testing KDE and GNOME on other distros means you'll be using a desktop environment modified by the distributor. KDE on fedora looks different than on Suse or Mandrake. However, when you install a desktop environment on gentoo, it's just the way GNOME or KDE intended. And since they compiled it for Fedora anyway, not that much different from emerging. I'm not sure if that meant that they got a vanila gnome, but if they didn't then their review is not the fairest it could be.

    This is really just a nit

Slashdot Top Deals

The most difficult thing in the world is to know how to do a thing and to watch someone else doing it wrong, without commenting. -- T.H. White

Close