Gnome 0.99.7 released 99
Science writes "
GNOME "Skillful and Conspicuous Cow" 0.99.7 has been released.
No more apes. Cows rule.
"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Gnome 0.99.7 released
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (1) Gee, I wish we hadn't backed down on 'noalias'.
Oh well, no .deb's (Score:1)
apt-get install gnome-panel gnome-session gnome-control-center
They lie... (Score:1)
RPMS? (Score:1)
how long .. redhat 6.0 (Score:1)
IMO you're right about E (although I wouldn't use such harsh language), but wrong about Red Hat. I certainly don't use their default window manager...in fact I chose not to install ANY window managers in my latest 5.2 box. I use and will continue to use icewm regardless of what they put in their 6.0 distro.
-W.W.
this thread is hosed (Score:1)
KDE = Windows 3.1 (Score:1)
mico is slow and bloated. It would be an idea for the KDe folks to carefully consider which ORB they use. It would be an idea to go for one written purely in C++, since this is their preferred language (it saves a lot of headaches to avoid going cross-language unless necessary, so the C++ to C-Library and other basic libraries should be the only case where this is done
(GNOME used to use it, but dumped it for this reason, and started ORBit).
p.s. anybody know what omniORB 2 [cam-orl.co.uk] is like? I hear that its fast and stable.
Intelligent, unemotional discussion of KDE v Gnome (Score:1)
Linux should NOT have any graphical user interface by default. KDE and GNOME should do to Linux what NextStep/OpenStep did to Mach -- provide a consistent OS with a GUI that is based on Linux. What should be dropped is the 'it's all Linux' thing -- though that could be difficult. The 'it's all GNU' a la RMS should also be avoided. That in itself is not the problem. The problem is that it goes for the flashy stuff at the expense of the simple stuff -- its in its feature bloat stage -- where new stuff is added at the expense of stability. However, I recall that KDE 1.0 wasn't exactly brilliant either, so we should give the GNOME guys the benifit of the doubt for now, and remember that having two heavily worked out avenues of exploration is better than one, since KDE and GNOME can and should copy ideas and try varaiatons on them (there's features of the GNOME panel that I like, and similarly for the KDE one) Than what? GNOME is currently totally unprofessional, and nothing times anything is still nothing... arguably Windows 3.0 is more professional (still) than GNOME (though I do use both) Its still really in the early development brainstorm stage -- its just useable, and useful for people to play around with. Expect this to get worse before it gets better. KDE needs to stress and use reusable components (far more then it already does anyhow). This should be done to the point that most applications can be easily scripted out of KDE.
Memory efficiency comes from minimalism and reuse. So expect GNOME to have similar problems if it is not already Hopefully, a port to something like GGI could be done -- abandoning X for network graphics and using CORBA and reusable objects would be an interesting long term goal, and the Berlin project could be looked to for ideas to this if nothing else (else... read implementation) The GNOME and KDE teams are NOT developing ORBS. Therefore it would be a good idea for them to settle on the same ORB and make their systems more interoperable. They should look at a larger number of ORBs, standardise on one, and possibly cannibalise others for the remaining parts if necessary (as a stop gap). Some examples of ORBs are
- mico -- KDE uses it.
- ORBit -- GNOME uses it.
- omniORB2 -- apparently its fast, and anyhow, its GPL, so code can be shared between these.
- TAO -- The ACE ORB (can't remember where to find it, so someone please add a link...
Should they tie themselves to one ORB. I don't have much experience of ORBs, so could someone explain the problems entailed with changing the ORB. Agreed. Though is should be given a more thorough analysis then just ps'ing it (for release candidate stuff). Bear in mind that KDE can make use of GNOME components, so they should consider doing the higher level stuff. KDE and GNOME working together more is always a good thing... I dumped RedHat for Stampede. The speed difference is huge, though debugging is more difficult. ld.so really needs to be modified to allow for the easy loading of a program with debugging libraries, without, or with a mix (i.e make a ldload command which allows you to specify how dynamic linking will be done) That said, Stampede installation is currently far from easy, and I haven't yet managed a proper install that I didn't have to clean up after. That said, its worth it for the speed increase compared to Slackware and relative cleanliness compared to RedHat.Is it me, or is RedHat really turning into the Microsoft/Windows of Linux?
Not a rebuttal, but points about both gmc and kfm (Score:1)
This is not a rebuttal, but an expansion on what
has been said.
And FAR TOO MUCH CODE.
They've got worse problems than that. I think that KDE might have solved this, but have any of you started a drag, and then switched window? Have any of you tried to cancel a drag? Have any of you had DnD'ing just crash the whole thing?
This is one of the BEST examples of the problems
of code bloat -- how large is GMC???
p.s dont shout about its wondeful features...
handled by GMC (they should be in a system
library or a GNOME support library. (n.b. they
ARE going this way) -- KDE still needs this to
be done for KDE, however I would expect them to
learn from the mistakes made with GMC.
all optimisations enabled) was noticeably slower
than M$ Excel 97 running under Wine from the
files on my Windows box (mounted over NFS under
linux from the VFAT drive...).
In short, gtk and gnome are SLOW. Using GMC instead of the GTK file boxes would make it interminably slow.
For a more stupid problem with both KFM and GMC. Why require that there be a desktop where things can be dragged at all. I'd personally prefer a shelf, and dragging an object to a desktop opens the object in that desktop.
So far as separate thread for desktop... How about a separate thread for each region (i.e. one for the whole window, one for the toolbars, one for the tree on the left, one for the file view window, a thread for each job given to GMC, i.e. copy or move, a thread for opening a ZIP file in the VFS.
Yes there are debs! (Score:1)
cows (Score:1)
it's good that those gnome people realize the power of the bovine side.. perhaps we shall kill them last them when the revolution comes. or allow them to live as slaves.
-the COW OF DOOM (tm)
Slackware + GNOME (Score:1)
Any "gnomeified" Xemacs? (Score:1)
Hey! (Score:1)
(Seriously, this is great! Even if I can't keep up. :)
Actual mirror (Score:1)
grrrr already /.'ed (Score:1)
ftp.gnome.org
The server may not be accepting connections or
may be busy
Try connecting again later.&<FORM &><INPUT TYPE=SUBMIT VALUE="OK" &></FORM &>
(lame attempt to create an OK button.
GNOME *STILL* Beta, shame on them! (Score:1)
KDE is uglier than all fuck.
Give me style over substance any day of the week...
GNOME *STILL* Beta, shame on them! (Score:1)
KDE is here.
So is Gnome.
KDE works.
So does Gnome.
KDE is a real product.
You must have a rather twisted definition of "real product" because last time I checked Gnome was too; you seem to imply that it isn't.
KDE acknowledged by Professionals as Best Desktop
Which ones? I've never heard anyone say anything like that about KDE or Gnome.
Use KDE, you know that, like this one, the next GNOME release is just another futile bug chasing exercise.
And did your psychic friend tell you that? Yeah, perhaps Gnome is going through more quality-testing than KDE. Tell me again how that's bad? I ask you to remember: Gimp went through something on the order of thirty-one 0.99.x releases before it finally went 1.0, and no one complained. GTK went through ten 0.99.x releases before it went 1.0, and no one complained. The Linux kernel itself went through one hundred and forty-one 2.1.x releases (132 plus the nine pre-patches) before finally going 2.2, and no one complained. In fact, I'll bet you even used preleases of Gimp and GTK and Linux 2.1.x kernels, and I'll bet you didn't complain then either. So what's the big deal with Gnome?
Proper HOWTO. (Score:1)
much neads to be done to put a working Gnome on a
working RedHat 5.1 instalation.
Long list of Libs ( yeah you can say it's just
this or that but you still have to download and
install over a dozen files.
Then you get to Gnome itself and you wonder which
pices you really nead.
How about wraping them up into sensible bundles
as folows.
1 : GTK -: gtk+, gtk--, gtk-whatever
2 : GNOMESUPPORT -: imlib, Orbit etc...
3 : GNOMELIB -: All the base librarys for Gnome
4 : GNOMEBASE -: A basic set of apps like the
panel the XTerm, file manager Text editor
and a Gnome compliant WindowManager or two.
5 : Everything else.
GNOME *STILL* Beta, shame on them! (Score:1)
KDE = Windows 3.1 (Score:1)
MSWin 3.1 is here.
MSWin 3.1 works.
MSWin 3.1 is a real product.
MSWin 3.1 acknowledged by Professionals as Best Desktop.
???
I am a Gnome fan. I admit KDE currently rules as superior desktop environment for Linux. Where do you think we'll be in 2 years? I'm sorry, but Gnome's GTK+, Corba, and scripting support will simply blow KDE out of the water. Sorry.
gtk-- (Score:1)
You can mail me personally, but no guarantees that I know the solution.
For those interested, we have a gtk-- feature freeze and will be releasing gtk-- 1.0pre1 any day now. This version will correspond to the gtk+ 1.2 release.
--Karl
Gtk-- Contributor.
Tired of the KDE/GNOME flamewar. (Score:1)
That said, I wish the flaming would stop. GNOME and KDE started out from two different points to achieve the same goal. KDE looked at Qt, which already provided a sound foundation for a GUI API, and built upon it. They have generally succeeded in delivering a nice environment in terms of looks, an environment based upon shared libraries that do a great deal of thigns, and allow for efficiency and code reuse, and a generally lovely API that makes one understand the Zen which the OO paradigm can be when well done. GNOMR looked at using CORBA as an object model that integrated well with the goal of providing a desktop environment for X. Another good idea there. They've generally suceeded there. Although I disagree with the design choice of GTK as the widget set, it is not a horrible choice. Soon GNOME will have delivered upon their promise.
The flaming is dumb. The developers of KDE and GNOME, from what I've seen written by each of them, have nothing but the utmost for each other. In fact, in the case of KDE, after the release of 1.0, the developers looked at the CORBA base of GNOME and liked it a lot. KDE 2.0's major advance, KOM/OpenParts, KDE's version of this object model is an attempt to look at the strengths of GNOME and see how those strengths can be added to KDE. Once GNOME reaches stability, I'm sure the advances of KDE will be on their mind in choosing future directions.
In short, KDE and GNOME each have touched on something important. My opinion is that in the end KDE will win out, because of good design and having a head start, but this is to take nothing away from GNOME. Even if my prediction is correct, and KDE does win out, it, and indeed all of us will owe a great deal to the GNOME project. If the opposite happens, the obsitie debt of grititude will also be deserved.
In conclusion, I'd like to close on a paraphrase of something Eric S. Raymond said when he was participating in a panel on free software that I organized several months ago (I'll try to get the quote as close as possible): "I'm glad KDE and GNOME are competing with each other. Providing a good GUI for linux is something that's far too important for just one group to work on."
Well, Eric, I couldn't agree more.
Oh well, no .deb's (Score:1)
Oh well, no .deb's (Score:1)
...only a little (Score:1)
Comments on recent GNOME releases (Score:1)
I have yet to see the required, significant, very important Changelog entry that says:
made gmc STOP SUCKING.
The Gnome motto seems to be "Real Men use CVS".
Death to all Gnome-vs-KDE flamewars.
Thank you.
RPMS? (Score:1)
Intelligent, unemotional discussion of KDE v Gnome (Score:1)
Everyone, please resist turning this thread into a flame war. We need to stand together as a community, not degenerate into infighting; "A house divided cannot stand" and all that sort of rot.
0. I should start off setting the context for my comments. I find KDE more usable at this point but for the long run I hope Gnome turns out to be the winner but I'm torn for a number of reasons. I am going to throw out points I consider important more or less randomly. Please, please, please respond in as constructive a way as possible. (Thanks.
1. To me, KDE looks *much* more polished at this point.
2. Gnome has not been around as long and will no doubt get better.
3. Although I fervently believe in choice when it comes to apps like wordprocessors, spreadsheets. etc. I strongly believe that the less technical end user should only have to "learn Linux" once. To the new non-technical user, the interace *is* the OS. I believe that for the good of Linux, only one interface should be dominant.
4. That said, competition is good. On the other hand duplication of effort is not necessarily good.
5. KDE looks and feels much like Windows. As much as I despise WinXX, I have to admit that the UI itself is unparalleled. This is my strong *opinion*. I believe that we should not "throw out the baby with the bath water" by discounting anything "windows" out of hand. That way lies vulnerability for any strengths that windows may have (for all it's weaknesses) is forever denied to us. Looking like windows is not in and of itself bad. On the other hand, if one doesn't like the UI then the criticism is (locally) valid.
6. Gnome seems to go for flashy and neat stuff. KDE seems more professional. I have never been able to deal well with Enlightenment. It seems to give up functionality and ease of use in favor of a sort of bizzare flash. KWM seems (to me) very no nonsense, direct, intuitive, and functional.
7. KDE seems more integrated. I like the fact that kpanel handles the (excelent) task bar and that the task bar can grow so large. I like the desktop icons. (E's desktop icons always and other accessories just seem to be in the way and I turn them off.) Gnomes components overlap each other and generally don't seem to "know about" each other. Gnome's taskbar seems quite limited in comparison to KDE's, especially with lots of apps running. (Yes, I know I'm coming down hard on Gnome and E but just wait...
8. KDE's memory requirement is embarrasing. Nobody involved with KDE ever seems to even care about that. I *cannot* set up a low memory 486 system built out of "junk parts" for friends using KDE which is sad because those are the very friends that could benefit most from KDE! Memory usgage may be KDE's greatest weakness.
9. Gnome has lower memory requirements by a long shot. As I understand it, ORBit is much more efficient than MICO and that MICO was originally written as an educational tool and nothing more. (Don't assume I know what I'm talking about here, about MICO. I just *heard* this. I don't know that for sure.)
10. I get the impression that the Gnome team has started at a lower level, building a foundation of ORBit, etc. which will pay off in the long run, whereas KDE picked available tools a jumped right into coding the GUI. This is not a criticism of KDE. If KDE were not here, we would not have anything finished and ready right now or over the last year or two and Linux/Unix would not be in as good a shape. (The two projects may be complememtary in that way.) I'm interested in (*constructive*) comments about the quality of the relative foundations.
11. From what I understand KDE and QT pretty much constrict the developer to C++. Now aside from the relative merits of C, C++, and other languages, I notice that compared to C expertise, C++ expertise is relatively scarce which has bearing on the size of the future developer community.
12. QT had a very problematic license. The first draft of QPL was troublesome. (That whole business of "patches only".) Current QPL seems more palletable, though not GPL or LGPL.
13. Development of GTK is very impotant to the OSS initiative.
14. Finally. RedHat, for better or worse, is currently the most influential Linux distributor. I like RedHat, myself. I think that RedHat had the best of intentions in throwing such support behind the Gnome project. I wish Trolltech had changed their minds a long time ago. If they had, we wouldn't have this conflict. If they had stayed with their old license, I think that Gnome would eventually have just phased itself in and KDE would be phased out. Now it just looks like a big division for a long time.
15. Be careful how you interpret the last paragraph. I'm not pro or con RedHat's support of Gnome, or more accurately, I'm not sure if I'm pro *or* con. I'm just the sort of person who likes to know what to expect... to have a plan.
-Steve
P.S. Where's the spellchecker?
re:how long (Score:1)
In other words: I hope it wont be 1.0 until it is stable for good!
Szo
anyone know why Gnome wants gtk+-1.1.12 ... (Score:1)
gmc *still* can't hold a candle to kfm... (Score:1)
BTW, is there less functionality in gmc than in mc? Or does it only appear so? At the moment, I very much prefer mc over gmc.
comment viewing code *is* hosed (Score:1)
They lie... (Score:1)
has the mirrors of the rpms...
Just finished downloading it...
Enjoy -
FINISHED --18:34:11--
Downloaded: 19,283,601 bytes in 54 files
Thank you (Score:1)
wxWindows (a C++ GUI framework) runs on top of GTK. As an added bonus, you get a cross-platform C++ GUI framework.
GNOME *STILL* Beta, shame on them! (Score:1)
Btw, I am a KDE user.
Actual mirror (Score:1)
I just got it from this US mirror.
Call me lazy (Score:1)
RPMS? (Score:1)
They lie... (Score:1)
Oh well, no .deb's (Score:1)
I won't say that gnome sucks.
It's just not as aesthetic as KDE.
Something about gnome just looks... brash.
BTW, if any KDE folks are listening, I liked the default 1.0 colors better than the 1.1.
Oh well, no .deb's (Score:1)
I won't say that gnome sucks.
It's just not as aesthetic as KDE.
Something about gnome just looks... brash. Even the alternative themes don't sit well with me. (To each his own.)
BTW, if any KDE folks are listening, I liked the default 1.0 colors better than the 1.1.
'Cos REDHAT OWNS GNOME (Score:1)
Besides, it usually takes a long time even for RPMs to shop up of the development series. These releases aren't for "ordinary" users.
And you won't get me to help start a new Gnome vs KDE flamewar. I'll leave it at saying that I've used Gnome development releases on my regular desktop since 0.22, and it has all the features that I want and need, and the few times I've used KDE, I haven't seen any features that have given me any reason to consider a switch. It's about taste, not about features or quality.
Bandwagoning (Score:1)
It seems like KDE has their shit more together, but I hear that Gnome is easier on the hardware. Is this true?
Any reasons to use one versus the other?
PDG--"I don't like the Prozac, the Prozac likes me"
They lie... (Score:1)
They lie... (Score:1)
- jay