GNOME 3.10 Is Now Properly Supported On Wayland 128
An anonymous reader writes "One week ahead of the GNOME 3.10 release, all of the basic Wayland support for GNOME has been merged. With today's GNOME Shell 3.9.92 release the Wayland branch was merged and there was also an updated Mutter Wayland release, besides earlier GNOME 3.9.x packages fostering the Wayland support. Fedora 20 is expected to ship with GNOME on Wayland as a technology preview. Additional details about the current GNOME Wayland support are available from the GNOME Wiki."
For those who didn't know... (Score:5, Informative)
(and didn't want to google it):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayland_%28display_server_protocol%29
http://wayland.freedesktop.org/
Wayland
Wayland is intended as a simpler replacement for X, easier to develop and maintain.
Re: (Score:1)
A first post by an AC that's actually useful. That's a FIRST.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't know what Wayland is odds are you don't care about this article.
Re: (Score:2)
I care about this article as long as xorg.conf goes away sometimes soon.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why?
At least it lets you pick any random modes, try dealing with windows and a monitor that does not support EDID.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What about it? You can define and set custom modes in the absense of EDID. It's trivially easy especially using Catalyst, NVIDIA Control Panel or Intel's drivers.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually the old catalyst drivers did not support it. All you could have were standard resolutions it felt like providing.
Re: (Score:1)
Great. How is that at all relevant to anything current?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
But... but... his 1980s vintage monitor and 1200/75 baud modem will mean that Wayland is useless for him.
How very DARE you.
Re: (Score:1)
Wayland wont be supported by Intel, Nvidia, AMD so you are out of luck with the older monitors
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I care about this article as long as xorg.conf goes away sometimes soon.
Mandatory xorg.conf went away a few years ago. You can still tweak parameters with one if you want to. Are you suggesting removing the ability to tweak it?
Re:For those who didn't know... (Score:4, Insightful)
Mandatory xorg.conf went away a few years ago. You can still tweak parameters with one if you want to. Are you suggesting removing the ability to tweak it?
Must be a Gnome developer. Configurability confuses users, so we make make them write 'extensions' in Javascript instead, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't know what Wayland is odds are you don't care about this article.
He must be posting for those people who reckon a thing isn't worth investigating until they've heard a hundred mentions to it. Wayland is just now entering these people's consciousness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand.. I forgot what Gnome is, have a link url for that?
Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
Now I can complain about the user interface on a whole new display technology!
What GTK3 novelties? (Score:2)
I wonder if there are new features removed from GTK3, or forced on users, or if GTK3 themes break again. This affects non Gnome 3 users sometimes (e.g. File/Open puts you into "Recently Used", wasting a bit of your time and clicks, in a app that uses GTK3.)
Re: (Score:2)
This affects non Gnome 3 users sometimes (e.g. File/Open puts you into "Recently Used", wasting a bit of your time and clicks, in a app that uses GTK3.)
Ooohh, is that what it is. Is there a workaround?
Re:What GTK3 novelties? (Score:4, Interesting)
This affects non Gnome 3 users sometimes (e.g. File/Open puts you into "Recently Used", wasting a bit of your time and clicks, in a app that uses GTK3.)
Ooohh, is that what it is. Is there a workaround?
Here's one that keeps the "Recently Used" category empty. Unfortunately, it does not prevent GTK3 applications from defaulting to that absurd category in a File/Open operation. As a logged-in user, run:
rm ~/.local/share/recently-used.xbel
mkdir -p ~/.config/gtk-3.0
echo -e "[Settings]\ngtk-recent-files-max-age=0\ngtk-recent-files-limit=0" > ~/.config/gtk-3.0/settings.ini
rm ~/.local/share/recently-used.xbel
The second rm will probably cause an error message, unless some application is busily updating the "Recently Used" category while you run these commands.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. It's the defaulting that's the real pain for me; I guess if I cannot fix that it's better to have a chance of the item being in there than not.
I don't know who Gnome thinks they're helping - it's a pain for me and royally confusing for my wife, who is a basic computer user.
Re: (Score:2)
The "Recently Used" items has always been empty since I first saw it, everywhere. What I'd like to know is how to make it go away forever!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What GTK3 novelties? (Score:5, Insightful)
Have they fixed the lack of options for decent previews? Selecting a picture or video by a 20px preview just doesn't cut it anymore.
Yes, it's called using KDE.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
(e.g. File/Open puts you into "Recently Used", wasting a bit of your time and clicks, in a app that uses GTK3.)
Even worse, then you Save, you end up in Recently Used. Try it with, for example, GIMP. Then GIMP tells you: "Please select a folder below"
It's even worse, if you're tweaking a web site. The absurd "Recently Used" category is just full of files named index.html, and they're a bunch of different files in different directories (but Gnome conceals the directories or other context, of course). It's one of the reasons I disabled that category on our PCs.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a bunch of really basic deprecations, including GtkStock (every app will now have to have its own translations of "Cancel" and "OK" for some reason) and GtkActionGroup.
Lots of new code will have to be written to port apps to Gtk 3.10, which makes one wonder if it's worth the upgrade. Normally I update my toolkits because I want new features, not new obligations.
Is Wayland there yet? (Score:2)
GNOME 3 is now at 3.10? Who'd have thunk it?
But how ready is Wayland itself for mainstream release? I know they've gotten as far as version 1, but are any of the distros - Fedora, Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, Arch, et al - near having Wayland ready so that one can install something like GNOME or KDE w/o installing X11, but installing Wayland?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Now for proprietary drivers to get on-board! (Score:3, Interesting)
No doubt, I am cheering the open source drivers to continue their great progress but I can't understand why Nvidia and AMD don't enable EGL extensions on their desktop drivers (especially AMD since I'm a shareholder because they started supporting open source). With Mir and Wayland needing the extensions, Gabe Newell saying Linux is the future of gaming, and the future of Linux windowing being Mir or Wayland, I'm not going to get super excited until one of the Big Two GPU vendors start supporting it.
And I'm hoping it's you, AMD, that will be the first to claim that crown on Linux. Please let it be in the forthcoming hardware Newell mentioned.
Should have been Gnome 3.11 for Workgroups.. (Score:4, Funny)
Really disappointing choice of version numbers.
Re:Should have been Gnome 3.11 for Workgroups.. (Score:4, Funny)
Can someone explain this with a car analogy? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Electric Motor! Not engine.
Re: (Score:3)
When Xcar was made everyone lived in a forest. The Xcar need to have its own built in machete to get anywhere, plus a built in oil well and refinery to make fuel and 14 different types of wheels. Now we all live in high-rise apartments, so we put the widgets the boot (er, thats 'trunk' for americans) and cram the car with all its blades, drills and distillation towers into the lift (elevator) to get to the display.
Wayland car is roller-skates and a shoulder bag, just enough to skate down the hall to the lif
Re: (Score:1)
Imagine the community has been driving a good old Volkswagen van from the 70's, is reliable but a little quirky and is starting to show its age. Many people don't see a good reason to replace it, it has been doing what is supposed to do, rarely fails and everybody uses it in a way or another. Some other people don't like all the things that are redundant (for example there is a dashboard hidden behind more modern plywood dashboards), some recent its step learning curve compared to more modern cars (its a st
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, dont hold your breath on that. They are pretty much committed to the line that their interface is great, it's you users that suck, and need to be shipped off for re-education if you dont like it.
In reality it's a trainwreck that epitomises what you can get out of a large group of 'designers' who dont have any real work to do.
The larger question I have, and asked many times before without getting any sort of satisfying answer is - what does Wayland provide that X cannot? X is mostly well tested very ma
Re: (Score:3)
X is mostly well tested very mature tech and it seems to work fine, and provide MORE not less capability than Wayland.
X11/Xorg is very well tested but largely misses the point on current platforms, if it's not outright causing problems and forcing workarounds.
Re: (Score:3)
X is mostly well tested very mature tech and it seems to work fine,
[citation needed] ....unless you want to concede that Windows 8 "seems to work fine" too.
Re:Now make GNOME work (Score:5, Informative)
It's not that Wayland does a whole bunch that X doesn't, it's that X has a lot more hoops to jump through to keep going. Wayland just presents what amounts of a framebuffer and a simple protocol to let the compositor and clients communicate about size changes, movement, available displays, etc.
All of the modern graphical environments and applications are using the COMPOSITE extension to X, which adds an extra step to a lot of graphical operations. Plus, to be "X", you have to support things like the old X line-drawing primitives, fonts in the server, and other things that simply aren't used anymore. Important things like changing the screen resolution are kept in protocol extensions that you have to check for before using. Large amounts of code and protocol are dedicated to working with screens of vastly different capabilities - everything from monochrome monitors to "true color" displays. Nobody has a fixed-sized monochrome X terminal anymore, but the code has to account for it still.
Plus X stores a ton of things in the server, making it big, slow, and a source of potential security/information disclosure issues. Wayland stores less and does less.
In other words, developers are hamstrung having to maintain and work around lots and lots of very old code that will never, ever be used by a new application, ever, but has to be there, even though it slows things down, takes up space, and makes things more complicated.
Personally, I would've liked to have seen something more like "make COMPOSITE a part of the core X protocol and deprecate lots of things" and see X slowly evolve into a more "modern" system, but that's just me.
As for GNOME - I realize that GNOME 3 is different from GNOME 2, but I'm at least happy that for once the Open Source community *tried something different* instead of just aping Windows or Mac OS X (though GNOME 3 is obviously inspired by the latter). Maybe it worked, maybe it didn't, but at least we can claim to attempt to lead, instead of just blindly following.
Re: (Score:2)
This is interesting, you see, I have heard this before. There's a lot of handwaving about having to support old programs that YOU dont use anymore (which you equate to NO ONE uses anymore, incorrectly, but I digress) but you dont give me a single concrete example where this has actually caused any sort of problem. I dont hack the xorg code to say myself but I have heard people that should know telling me that while there is a ton of legacy code the maintainers have to check occasionally, it's not a big deal
Yes, X12 might have been better (Score:2)
I agree. The Wayland developers have convincingly argued that X11 is a broken heap of cruft, and non-backwards compatible changes seem to be needed to fix that. But as you say, that could be done by updating the protocol itself. Judging from the X version number, that has happened many times in the past, but somehow we've gotten stuck at version 11 for a long while now. Make X13 or X14 the redesigned version with all the cruft removed, and use the versions between there as a deprecation buffer.
Re: (Score:1)
That is possible, however it adds a burden of additional development and maintenance. Also X is an ugly, partly outdated and complex API that nobody uses directly, not to mention that some of the forgotten API's might have vulnerabilities (there are Xorg exploits found from time to time). Wayland will run the accompanying X server as unprivileged process, on demand. Eventually most apps will move away from it to Wayland (the only reason not to is maybe to run on both Ubuntu's Mir and Wayland but apps can be
Re: (Score:3)
X11 was introduced in 1986 and was not backwards compatible with X10.
So, it has happened in the (very distant) past, but not as you may think it did.
It's not possible to achieve what Wayland strives to achieve and keep X any more than Wayland does, unless you're satisfied with simply calling the Wayland protocol "X12" and be done with it.
There are two main problems.
First, there are problems in the X11 server/client protocol that can only be fixed by creating a new major extension, where a client connects an
Re: (Score:2)
> unless you're satisfied with simply calling the Wayland protocol "X12" and be done with it.
You cannot call Wayland X12: X is a drawing protocol, Wayland isn't: it only provides buffers.
And I disagree that an X12 protocol 'woud look awfully like Wayland':
-with X you know where your pixels are going on the screen, with Wayland you don't!
-with X (XRender), to draw text efficiently you can have a glyph cache managed by the X server, with Wayland you cannot have this.
Re: (Score:2)
Arguing about what features a display server protocol has or not to be worthy of being called X12 is a useless discussion to begin with.
Much more so when you consider how X1 to X10 looked.
- Even on X11, the client does not know where the pixels are going in the screen. In the end, the compositor does what it wants.
- XRender allows you to do a lot of things "efficiently" but we can do them more efficiently with direct or client side rendering and just push a shared memory buffer to the server. Even on X11.
Re: (Score:2)
> - XRender allows you to do a lot of things "efficiently" but we can do them more efficiently with direct or client side rendering and just push a shared memory buffer to the server.
More efficiently? Only locally, remotely it depends on a lot of things (bandwith, latency).
> Qt5 will not use XRender.
I'm not so sure: this webpage list XRender http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5.0/qtdoc/requirements-x11.html [qt-project.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that modern application/toolkits need to send stuff to the server that it no longer works that well over the network.
In fact, they often need to send so much Xrender commands that modern application/toolkit developers just give up on trying to make efficient use of Xrender and just start dumping pixmaps to the Xserver, with a minimum use of Xrender to stitch them together.
http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2008/10/22/so-long-and-thanks-for-the-blit/
Even by Qt4.5, they found out that their pure sof
Re: (Score:2)
>[cut] with a minimum use of Xrender to stitch them together.
Which is a very good way to use XRender: use the glyph cache in the server for efficient text rendering, for the background render locally and push the pixmap (which could be easily compressed in case of WAN access) to the server and stich everything together.
And you can't do this with Wayland (no drawing API..).
>Even by Qt4.5, they found out that their pure software backend (Raster) was fast than the XRender one (Native).
The benchmark you'v
Re: (Score:2)
No, you need to make a distinction between using XRender and actually making efficient, network friently, use of XRender.
If you care about rendering across the network, the good/efficient way to use XRender, it to send many (typically small) pixmaps to the server, which can actually be reused (and cached) and then send XRender commands to draw your application, reusing those pixmaps.
Ie, you send a pixmap for an "a" in a given size and font and then you can reuse the pixmap to draw every A of that size and f
Re:Now make GNOME work (Score:4, Interesting)
They couldn't fix X. The developers behind wayland looked at what it would take to do the same thing they are doing but do it with updates to the X code. They saw a process that would take 20 years rather than 5.
X has 20+ years of legacy code, on a modern X install you are using at best 5% of the code. When you've reached a point where 95% of the code and application isn't even being used it's time to start over rather than work to upgrade what you have. You would spend so much time troubleshooting old code that you could literally rewrite the entire thing 4 times before you finish.
Wayland is designed like a modern interface that is used on almost every other OS. It's designed to be as simple as possible while being extensible. It isn't trying to be anything but a channel for programs to talk to graphics hardware. X was everything and the kitchensink as you said everything from drawing lines on vector displays to keyboard and mouse. X was a monster that's time to deprecate and replace.
Re: (Score:1)
At this stage of my life I can honestly say I don't care about attempts at being different, just for the sake of being different. Execution is far more important. I'd rather a copycat of Windows/OS X which had m
Re: (Score:2)
As for GNOME - I realize that GNOME 3 is different from GNOME 2, but I'm at least happy that for once the Open Source community *tried something different* instead of just aping Windows or Mac OS X (though GNOME 3 is obviously inspired by the latter).
The two billion different window managers out there supporting every imaginable workflow would like to have a word with you. Yes, they're still out there, despite all the efforts of the "userfriendliness" crowd to break them.
Maybe it worked, maybe it didn't, but at least we can claim to attempt to lead, instead of just blindly following.
The problem with GNOME isn't whether it sucks (I haven't really used GNOME since the crap that was 2.0, so I have no opinion on how good or bad it is), it's that they have decided that their way is the only way and have taken over independent projects (like GTK, the "G" really doesn't s
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Now make GNOME work (Score:5, Informative)
Check this presentation by Daniel Stone (one of the X.org developers) on the problems with X.~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44
Re: (Score:2)
The larger question I have, and asked many times before without getting any sort of satisfying answer is - what does Wayland provide that X cannot? X is mostly well tested very mature tech and it seems to work fine, and provide MORE not less capability than Wayland.
Anybody who has looked in the innards of X knows its a pig. No secret there. It's only Unix fanbois that cannot fathom that some parts of Unix were not properly designed from inception.
Most of those have been patched over the years (e.g. security which initially was non-existent, internationalization, which still lags Windows/Mac but is closing in). X is one of the few remaining *big* mistakes in Unix. It was designed with the wrong philosophy and overtaken by actual usage. Wayland is an effort to clean up
Re:Now make GNOME work (Score:4, Informative)
Anybody who has looked in the innards of X knows its a pig. No secret there. It's only Unix fanbois that cannot fathom that some parts of Unix were not properly designed from inception.
At 15:19, David Stone has a nice slide that says:
xserver 1.0.2: 879,403 lines of code
xserver (now): 562,678 lines of code
That's 300,000+ lines of cruft they wiped out without breaking the X protocol. Wayland is currently about 20,000 lines of code, that's about 3.5% the size. Even if that doubles they're still getting rid of 90%+ of the old code, that's huge.
Re: (Score:1)
X is one of the few remaining *big* mistakes in Unix. It was designed with the wrong philosophy and overtaken by actual usage. Wayland is an effort to clean up and refactor the code.
X was ahead of its time and nothing ever caught up to it. It was designed around the idea that all the resources of the network should be seamlessly accessible from a single user's desktop, and embodied the old Internet ideal of ubiquitous peer-to-peer connectivity (still perfectly reasonable and incredibly useful on a secure LAN). Wayland is an effort to make it easier to develop eye-candy user interfaces for consumers and throw out any functionality that gets in the way of that goal. It's totally approp
Re:Now make GNOME work (Score:5, Insightful)
X was so "ahead of its time" that its entire architecture was dumped in version 10 to give way to X11, and then it remained so far ahead of its time that to this day NextOS, MacOS, Android and Windows have yet to adopt a single thing from it, contrary to the rest of Unix most of which has made its way into those operating systems.
And no, it was not designed to access resources from the desktop. It was mainly designed so that you could use a dumb terminal to access your server. When it became clear that was pie on the sky, instead of redesigning the turd, they just added layer upon layer of cruft, so you ended up with a dumb as doornails protocol running on a heavy weight, expensive "dumb" terminal.
Wayland is an effort to remove those layers of cruft that nobody uses (Xtoolkit?)
Lastly the web browser has nothing to do with Unix. It is platform independent. The fact that you think the web==unix shows how little you know about deep OS architecture.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
X was so "ahead of its time" that its entire architecture was dumped in version 10 to give way to X11, and then it remained so far ahead of its time that to this day NextOS, MacOS, Android and Windows have yet to adopt a single thing from it, contrary to the rest of Unix most of which has made its way into those operating systems.
Mac OS X, Android and Windows are consumer operating systems, for which eye-candy UIs are considered more important than network transparency. Their remote connectivity needs are limited to accessing corporate Web, cloud, and IT services, not other peers on the network.
NeXT was a great OS that used Display Postscript as the rendering engine, but it was also wrapped in a networked desktop environment, NextStep, and used with X11 and NeWS as well (Sun's Network Extensible Window System). I did find NextStep
Re:Now make GNOME work (Score:5, Insightful)
The dumb terminal at that time was a VT100.
By dumb terminal I mean a thin client, something that didn't happen.
X mostly ran on engineering workstations.
Not by design dude. It was meant to run on thin clients but it ended up being such a pig that you needed a workstation to run it. At the time a "thin" X-client was more expensive that a PC.
I'm not sure why you think that is "pie in the sky" since it worked and continues to work rather well.
So a protocol designed to run on a cheap thin client ends up needing a powerful workstation to run and you call it "working rather well"? With those definitions it's no wonder you consider X a success.
Part of the reason for that was because the protocol was rich enough to transmit graphics primitives at a higher level than a bitmap. Nothing dumb about it.
No one uses such primitives because they are incredibly sucky. Hence VNC and such.
I did find NextStep and NeWS superior to X11 and it's a damn shame they didn't succeed
Of course, anything was better than X11. Steve Jobs famously declared "X11 is brain dead".
Re: (Score:2)
When
Re: (Score:2)
Mac OS X, Android and Windows are consumer operating systems, for which eye-candy UIs are considered more important than network transparency.
Windows was for the office from the get-go, and I think you'll find fewer and fewer PCs in homes now that there are tablets. It suffers from the fact that it was originally written as a standalone OS and not designed for networks. OSX was completely rewritten using the BSD kernel, which was Unix-based. Unix was originally written to be networked. People screamed blood
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me sum it up:
1) the people who know X best, say it sucks.
2) I've programmed on it from its very early days (Xlib, Xtoolkit, Motif, all the way to the present) and it sucks.
3) The people who developed graphic subsystems thereafter (NeXTSTEP, MacOS, Android, Windows) avoided it because it sucks.
4) The developers of Linux are dumping it because it sucks.
5) You defend X by talking about "network transparency" (the mating call of the X11 noob). "Network transparency" is a rarely used X11 feature which is ful
Re: (Score:1)
You defend X by talking about "network transparency" (the mating call of the X11 noob). "Network transparency" is a rarely used X11 feature which is fully supported in Wayland as an extension. So the rare few people who need it will have access to it.
and YOUR feeble excuse that network transparency may or (more likely) may not be available as an extension does NOT help if it is not always available BY DEFAULT on any system you may need to remotely connect to. If Wayland becomes widely implemented they way *you* want to see it done, it's highly likely the overwhelming majority of systems will be forever isolated and unreachable. For all that will give us, you might as well be using the Point-and-Drool MSWindows interface you seem so hot and horny to em
Re: (Score:2)
Make up your mind. Either it is useful in which near every one will apt-get the extension, or it isn't in which case it won't be installed.
Your reality in which is useful yet people don't install it is absurd.
Re: (Score:1)
The larger question I have, and asked many times before without getting any sort of satisfying answer is - what does Wayland provide that X cannot?
Wayland provides severe broken-ness and an inability to work on remote systems. It's designed to bring all the uselessness of MSWindows to the Unix world.
Re: (Score:1)
How about GTK+3 for Win32? (Score:2)
Still no stable binary release of GTK+3 for Win32. Any word on when that's happening?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.tarnyko.net/dl/
I use this to develop GTK+3 applications with MinGW. Everything works fine.
Okay, that's half-way there. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Probably never, unless you add it.
Personally I'll just use gnome-classic.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQzMTU [phoronix.com] "GNOME 2 Fork MATE Desktop Aims For Wayland"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But in fact it's NOT properly supported. (Score:4, Interesting)
But in fact it's NOT properly supported.
If you read the wiki that the article poster linked to, there are all sorts of caveats and missing functionality. "Properly Supported" means functional parity, and from where it sits right now, there is not functional parity.
Re: (Score:1)
"Properly Supported" means functional parity
New to Gnome development, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
there are all sorts of caveats and missing functionality
Technically, it is the next version of Gnome.
Wary of tabletication (Score:3)
Don't care about Wayland. I gave Intel my money, and in return they have 30 Developers, that have given me an astonishing return on my hardware. Hell they can still use X as far as I'm concerned.
I do care about the Gnome Shell and how to kill it with fire...I currently use Cinnamon, but do not want to continue to patch my Desktop , and I do care if Gnome is going to (continue) to cripple my Desktop experience. these two articles http://worldofgnome.org/gnome-upcoming-features/ [worldofgnome.org] http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/08/gnome-core-app-project-make-me-excited-for-desktop-linux [omgubuntu.co.uk] show off the new core applications Maps, Music, Photos, Software & Calendar...ans they look great, only it looks like oversized icons/Buttons; "not over-burdened with features"; "built around the premise of ‘finding and reminding’ you of your files". Yeah I am nervous too.
How about they expand on evince(a fantastic program on any platform) by giving it epub compatibility. Rhythmbox has just been updated codename "I Eat Tapes" http://worldofgnome.org/rhythmbox-3-0-is-eating-the-tapes/ [worldofgnome.org] which is looking great after being much neglected for Banshee(Which was great) in the Mono push to satisfy some self serving... anyway great; modern looking; desktop app, not even mentioned. Hopefully I can finally get rid of the awesome Tomboy notes with Notes(Bijiben) ready so I can ditch Mono altogether (Cue that self serving prick to spout crap to retain reverence soon).
The bottom line is I don't want my Desktop experience Tabletified. There is a great hybrid touch/keyboard+mouse interface in here somewhere, and some great ideas, but my main computer is not about find...its about organising files not search; Sensible user of a 24" screen and accurate pointing devices (and I include pen too); Feature rich presented sensibly with good defaults...only removing unnecessary "options". There is something great here, but Gnome is taking too long at fitting the pieces together.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, Evince can't even read EPUB? (Score:2)
At this point it almost seems like classic GNOME fans might be better off using KDE and themeing/fiddling with it to make it look and behave how they want. And KDE doesn't even make you write Javascript extentions to do any of that, it's all in the actual UI to customize it . . .
And to speak of Tabletification . . . (Score:2)
I really do think the KDE devs are going about it the right way, leveraging the Model-View paradigm to make it so most of the code can remain the same but the UI/UX can be changed for different circumstances. So if you do install on a tablet, you can have a full-screen launcher and nice finger-friendly icons and such, running what are underneath completely compatible programs. But if you run a desktop, you have the full and unfiltered desktop experience. You don't really have to sacrifice one for the other
Re: (Score:2)
...fun, I've been using Okular for pdfs for years now, but I didn't know it could do epub as well...shame on me!
I agree though.
Thank you Ubuntu! (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
"Bloated, fragmented and space consuming" (Score:2)
My favourite bit of the linked article...
Re: (Score:2)
My favourite bit of the linked article...
Seems you can justify anything in UI design if you include the magic words "bloated, fragmented and space consuming" in your rationale.
I can't find any of that in any of the linked articles
You clearly are confused (Score:3)
Why do Linux desktop/window manager developers want to emulate Microsoft windows? If you want to steal things try and steal from someone like Apple, please.
There is no Linux windows manager that follows a tile/wiget/wall paradigm. Apple OSX is basically the old desktop paradigm which is the same as Gnome+Cinnamon; XFCE; KDE etc etc although is starting to go iOS round the edges.