Looking Ahead at GNOME 2 258
Able writes "This is a good article that will teach you how to use the new and improved libraries available with GNOME 2 so that you can write your own Nautilus view, and panel applets. It also provides you with the understanding to compile a few sample GTK+ 2 programs that will give you a good understanding of GTK+ 2's many improvements over GTK+ 1."
IBM (Score:1)
Re:IBM (Score:1)
They're probably hoping this sort of thing will help lead to a return on their investment.
Higher numbers faster please.. (Score:5, Funny)
Some people have no damn sense of humor.. (Score:2)
Hmm.. I guess I better start putting disclaimers and lame emoticons all over my posts to make sure no one takes them to seriously.
Re:Higher numbers faster please.. (Score:2)
Or "Christos", as in "Jesus wants you to run this operating system", or perhaps "Jesus Christ, what is this thing?"
Re:Higher numbers faster please.. (Score:2)
98 and Me aren't 5.x? I'm curious what GetVersion() and GetVersionEx() return on those platforms. (I don't have any Windows OT machines handy, although I suppose I'll eventually manage to get it running on VMWare at home - I've no desire to run Windows OT, of any version, for real; the Windows partition on my home machine is running NT 4.0.)
W2K on my work desktop machine claims to be version "5.00.2195", i.e. 5.0 build 2195.
I think XP is really NT 5.1.
Hmm. At times it'd be nice if there were a Linux API to get the name and version number of the distribution, rather than that of the kernel, if for no other reason than to let you more easily or more automatically get that information from users when reporting bugs.
Much better, but still behind KDE (Score:1)
Re:Much better, but still behind KDE (Score:3, Informative)
Not a very good way of doing it in my opinion, and this becomes clear when you move through the different menus in a menubar, you can see the ghosts of the menu you had previously opened beneath your current menu.
If there is a better way of doing it, I'm not sure what it is, although I think you can do true translucent effects with Keith Packard's XRender extension [xfree86.org].
But it doesn't seem that anyone is using that to do translucency so either its really hard to use or theres problems. I'd love to know which it is if anyone has some more information.
PS - No offense to Mosfet or anyone else using this code to do translucent menus, it's a very good idea and I do use it when I'm in KDE. I just think it'd be cool to have it without the little quirks like seeing things behind the menu that shouldn't be there.
Re:Much better, but still behind KDE (Score:3, Interesting)
Awesome, aa fonts and all. It may as well be Word, Excel and Powerpoint for Unix.
Re:Much better, but still behind KDE (Score:2, Informative)
I see the following two main advantages to gtk over Qt (and this is why I will not use Qt except as a user): gtk is written for C development. C is much more standard on Unix/GNU/Linux than C++. Perl is written in C, which means that adding wrappers for the gtk library is likely to be less problematic than for some other toolkits (although Perl has it's own excellent version of tk... this advantage is likely to extend to other languages written in C, Ruby being foremost in my mind).
gtk has the same LPGL terms for every instance of the toolkit. This means that no matter what type of development you are doing that you never have to worry about licensing, at least not the way you might with Qt.
It is too bad, however, that on top of these two fairly decent widget toolkits the desktop environments are vastly different. GNOME just ain't as easy to get up and running with as KDE-- and I mean in the "compile from source and install" sense. I've also noticed distinct efficiency differences between the two on low-end hardware (KDE coming out ahead).
What we're left with is a mess, but it's a good mess. We have real powers like IBM supporting gtk/GNOME, and we have other serious groups like the German government supporting Qt/KDE (witness the Aegypten project for secure communications). We get the best of both worlds, and fortunately we can do some mixing and matching as needed. So either way users win and developers seem to have two decent high-quality choices to choose from (forgetting about the ubiquitous Tk for a moment).
Re:Much better, but still behind KDE (Score:2)
Worried Gnome User..... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have thought about switching to KDE for no other reason than they seem to have a much better, much more focused direction.
Does it seem to anyone else latley Gnome is becoming a throw in everything and if the kitchen sink dosent work its OK, or is it just me.
Admittedly Gnome 2 has some nice stuff but how much will be functional by first release ?
Re:Worried Gnome User..... (Score:3, Interesting)
For me, even more interesting, but quietly mentioned, was the Accessibility Tool Kit (ATK). If you start pushing Linux out there to handicapped people, OLDER people, who need help hearing, seeing, what have you, they can help provide a major market push for linux. Obviously the needs of these people vary greatly, so customized solutions are a must.
In the same vein, it seems that KDE is for the people who want the solutions given to them, and Gnome is for the people who want to build their own customized solution (IE what they want.) That explains a little bit of the difference in the attitudes. Capt. Obvious does point out to me that the "build your own solution" approach is a general platform for Linux, KDE included, but I think Gnome really goes after that more.
I hope most of it will be functional, but like you, I fear that we're going to see a whole lot more of "build your own" than in the past from Gnome. It's not just you...
Re:Worried Gnome User..... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Worried Gnome User..... (Score:2)
Ximian is still open source. When THAT changes, worry. For now, don't.
Their stuff is pretty compatible, tho to get things like Evolution working you have to have the latest versions of some things (gal, gtkhtml, I think bonobo)...
I have thought about switching to KDE for no other reason than they seem to have a much better, much more focused direction.
I use both Gnome and KDE. The only thing that irritates me about the holy war between them is that one would expect that, given all the hype, someone from one camp would have made that camp compatible with the other camp as a sort of reverse-psychology love-flame. They don't work perfectly together, but I digress.
Gnome seems faster. It also does not have the annoying habit of attaching a blinking app icon to my mouse cursor when an app is doing something that takes a long time...but Gnome apps don't to seem to have the lag that the KDE ones do. KPoker roxxx tho
Does it seem to anyone else latley Gnome is becoming a throw in everything and if the kitchen sink dosent work its OK, or is it just me.
It's just you.
Admittedly Gnome 2 has some nice stuff but how much will be functional by first release ?
The idea of a first release is that the code is stable and fully functional.
Re:Worried Gnome User..... (Score:2)
Re:Worried Gnome User..... (Score:3, Insightful)
With that said, I don't think you should worry about Ximian, much of their work gets added into the vanilla gnome.
My personal opinion of GNOME is that a lot of work is going into two sections right now: great applications (evolution, gnumeric, galeon, abiword), and whole new libraries for gnome 2.0. I think once gnome 2.0 stabilizes many people will be eager to take advantage of the new features and you'll see the desktop itself get many cool new features.
This point is brought up constantly but people seem to prefer to ignore it. When KDE 2 was being worked on many critics were saying KDE must be dying because they weren't seeing the work. You need to understand that such big code changes happen a lot more smoothly without non-programmers trying to use it and complaining about this and that or sending questions on how to get it working. You're just going to have to be patient, or you could just use KDE2 for a while.
And the problem is? (Score:4, Insightful)
What's the problem, exactly? Gnome will get better, KDE will get better, you can use as much of either or both as fits your needs and at worst, you can go on using the current versions.
It's not clear to me where there's a problem. What's the worst that'll happen -- you might be tempted to change desktops to something that works better for you? You can even keep using your GTK themes.
By the way, VFVTHUNTER, you can turn off the launch feedback indicator on the cursor. I'm on a Mac right now, but it's in a pretty obvious place in KControl.
Re:And the problem is? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:And the problem is? (Score:2)
Re:Worried Gnome User..... (Score:1)
I have thought about switching to KDE for no other reason than they seem to have a much better, much more focused direction.
I am what you could call a KDE user, ethousiastically even developing my own KDE app, but still I don't feel that Gnome is losing out to KDE. KDE might seem to have some advantage at this time, but Gnome is certainly strong in the application department. Off course I can't be sure, but I definitely hope that Gnome 2.0 will rock and maybe recapture a bit of the current kde users. If there's one thing that helps to get motivated then it's solid competition and I don't like Microsoft very much in this role of 'evil' competition. I'd rather see two projects with the same idealogy compete and I think that most KDE developers certainly wouldn't want Gnome 'out of the way' either.
Okay I'm just rambling now
Re:Worried Gnome User..... (Score:5, Informative)
Which strides is KDE making that are more useful than the ones GNOME is making? I'm curious.
I am also concerned about the Ximian fork, (even though I use it) How long till XImian hack up all the libs to work for their effort and how compatible will it be ?
Ximian does not produce a "fork" of GNOME. Ximian packages a "distribution" of GNOME and makes it easy to download. They tweak some minor things such as artwork, splash screens, etc, but it's not a fork of GNOME. I don't think you understand Ximian's relationship to GNOME. I suggest you spend some time on irc.gnome.org in #gnome and spend some time getting to know folks better.
Does it seem to anyone else latley Gnome is becoming a throw in everything and if the kitchen sink dosent work its OK, or is it just me.
That is not at all how it works. We're very particular about what we put in the release. I suggest you spend some time reading the archives of mailing lists such as desktop-devel [gnome.org]. Much work has gone into making GNOME 2 more usable, accessible, functional, and a better development platform while keeping it solid.
Admittedly Gnome 2 has some nice stuff but how much will be functional by first release
We won't release if it's not functional :)
-jamin
Re:Worried Gnome User..... (Score:2)
Re:Worried Gnome User..... (Score:3, Interesting)
- a better tested set of packages. Ximian makes sure they all work together. If you download updates and build them on your own, well...you're on your own.
- Automatic dependancy resolution with Red Carpet.
- A cross-platform GNOME distribution that is consistent. Red Hat, Mandrake, Debian, etc. all package GNOME slightly differently, include different artwork, include different versions of the software and update at different times. Ximian provides one distribution of GNOME across something like 11 different Linux/UNIX platforms.
Re:Worried Gnome User..... (Score:2)
If there are conflicts with your distribution, you should report them on bugzilla.ximian.com. I have never had problems with installing Ximian GNOME on top of Red Carpet. (I use Red Hat).
I thought this was the job of distros, to test packages for their systems.
It is the jobs of distributions, however, most distributions do not release updates for GNOME all that often and often do not test well, with a few exceptions.
Do not take this personal, but Ximian has no solid business plan and is most likely to fail.
I don't take that opinion personally. For one thing, I don't work for Ximian.
Re:Worried Gnome User..... (Score:2)
I've understood that actually, ximian gnome is not a fork when it comes to the code, its just packaging and compilation of different versions of programs thats supposed to work well together. I might be wrong thou.
Basicly ximian works on many OSS projects and actually contributes back to them, not just making "their own fork" ... For example, read release notes [gnome.org] of of Gnumeric, quite a few ximian dudes are warmly thanked there.
Anyway, even thou the codebase is same, that doesnt mean all gnome distributions will work with each other. So, if you are using ximian, will stick with it or change it totally if the times comes ...
(and yeah, i dont claim these are the absolute facts)
Re:Worried Gnome User..... (Score:2)
Basically, if they remove nautlis from Gnome... gnome would be great. but for now it's the reaswon I am staying away.
Re:Worried Gnome User..... (Score:2)
Re:Worried Gnome User..... (Score:2)
Sick of Fantasy Movies (Score:1, Funny)
Sheesh...
My advice (Score:3, Informative)
Re:My advice (Score:2, Informative)
Re:My advice (Score:2)
I think it should be pretty safe to start developing for Gnome2 now.
look ahead to GNOME 2.... (Score:2, Funny)
look ahead to KDE (Score:2)
C-X C-S
Yay! (Score:5, Funny)
"Yeah, last night I was really tring to get the object-oriented cobol bindings to gtk+ working but then in a fluke there was this gcc bug that caused my userspace code to go wonky and install the wrong x colormap which recursed until the system locked up. It was righteous."
I don't know where open source would be without the fine users of Slashdot and all the wonderful programs they develop.
Re:Yay! (Score:1)
Misleading article summary (Score:1, Informative)
Not really -- that's what the series intends to cover, but this particular article only covers an introduction and overview of Gnome 2. For those familiar with the pace of previous IBM Developerworks Gnome articles, you know that it will take awhile before this series gets finished (assuming it does).
You know (Score:1)
Taking all their advantages, sorting out the code until only the best remains, and having linux users standardize on one backend (not frontend) would be so great, but it shocks me how much shit one would catch for it.
Anyone ever thought about just combining all the various backends into one, unified, STANDARD (that's what linux users like to parade about), backend API and let the users use any frontend without library problems?
Just a thought...
Re:You know (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes it could be done, two wrappers around the same backend resulting in QT and GTK. However, such a task would require so much additional coding that it would negate any benefits that it was supposed to have.
I hate to say this, but what will happen, is one of the desktop environments will die out. Its the nature of Open Source Software. Things can't stay splintered forever. Eventually natural forces (user's needs, technical needs, development needs, market needs, etc) will cause the gap between both desktop environments to widen. However, the initial competition that exists when there is still more than one option helps the end user get a better desktop environment sooner.
Now this has nothing to do with other ultra-feather weight desktop environments, which will compete amongst eachother for the bare bones performance niche.
Back to the dying out of one of Gnome or KDE... well, you can give any prediction you want, but the productive thing would be to contribute to the development of the desktop you like the best. Contribute by using the desktop and reporting bugs. Contribute by writing code. Contribute by making art (icons, themes, sounds, wallpaper, etc). Contribute by educating others about the desktop of your choice.
Finally, my point is that the dream of unifying Gnome and KDE is silly. One of them will kill the other, and thats a good thing because it won't happen until one is orders of magnitude better than the other meaning that natural community and technical forces will choose the best desktop for us.
GNOME is unorganized (Score:3, Troll)
Like said in a post, it's too little to consider a 10 years work. GNOME is always difficult to install from source. Hundreds of dependencies and packages.
Would be better if they did arrange the packaging in a better way:
gnome2-gui.tar.bz2 (4MB)
gnome2-extra.tar.bz2 (4MB)
gnome2-libs.tar.bz2 (5MB)
gnome2-core.tar.bz2 (9MB)
gnome2-applications.tar.bz2 (9MB)
gnome2-addons.tar.bz2 (3MB)
Hmmm... Looks much more organized. Lots of packages merged into "gui" like gtk+, glib, pango, etc.
In "extra" we have the stuff like esound, audiofile, etc.
And so on... forget the hassle to download all the 60 tarballs. Just download one single tarball, untar/ungzip it and start compiling!
But yet, GNOME as it is, is unorganized for real.
Re:GNOME is unorganized (Score:3)
Actually we are pretty focused though of course there is always room for improvement. Much has changed in the GNOME 2 platform. If you'd read the article you'd gleam a smidgeon of of the vast work that has gone into making Gtk+2 better. That's just one aspect of GNOME. GNOME 2 requires porting to a new platform and as such, is taking time. Many of the user-visible improvements will be visible in subsequent releases, though I personally think GNOME 2 is quite exciting from a user's perspective.
We release the way we do for several reasons. The individual packages are just that, individual pieces of a platform. For users who have slow modem connections this is a godsend. Also many people do not want to get the whole platform. They just want small pieces. There are other reasons as well which have been hashed out several times in the past. I'd be happy to talk more about it offline if you want...
Re:GNOME is unorganized (Score:2)
What would be nice though would be if the latest [gnome.org] sections of the GNOME ftp site would be well maintained, free of multiple entries and kept up to date or culled (xchat 1.2?).
Re:GNOME is unorganized (Score:2)
Re:GNOME is unorganized (Score:2)
glib is useful on its own. Without anything else. it gets its own package.
Gtk+ is the widget set. It gets its own package (you can write applications just to Gtk+ if you want).
CORBA stuff is independent. They get their own packages.
Some things are likely to install even in distributions without GNOME. They get their own package as separate downloads.
Each application needs to be independently installable.
If you want something easy and organized, why not just either a) skip the direct download, and wait for your distribution, or b) use Red Carpet for download, and let it resolve the dependencies for you.
If the complexity of compiling bothers you, don't compile.
Horizontal Scroll Bar for new Text Widget? (Score:1)
I don't know if i missed it or not, but did the article mention anything about using a horizontal scroll bar for the new text widget? I hate those stupid "wrap arrows", and I was hoping the new text widget would replace them! The screenshot shown doesn't show either a wrap arrow nor a horizontal scroll bar... Anyone closer to the project know?
Re:Horizontal Scroll Bar for new Text Widget? (Score:2)
Re:Horizontal Scroll Bar for new Text Widget? (Score:2, Informative)
We should be taking a lead from BEos. (Score:1)
Before you automatically hate me, I am not necessarily bashing KDE + GNOME. However, I am a former BEos user and I would love to see a window manager/system/full-on GUI that maintains an ideal balance between beauty, features, simplicity and small size. For those of you who never used BEos, its GUI was so incredibly fast an efficient it made even the most hardcore Windows/Mac/UNIX user drool uncontrollably. That, and it was really nice to look at, and packed with desktop features that even KDE in its advanced state has yet to implement entirely to my liking (e.g., 'drag and drop to the extreme'). GNOME looks nice and is definitely useable, but it's sluggish on my 400MHZ PII, and I've seen the Beos Tracker fly on 166MHZ pentiums. KDE is too much like Windows, and has also gotten much slower since v 2.0. On the sparse side of things, Blackbox is quick and nice looking but low on features, and pretty much everything else I've seen is outdated and ugly looking. Has anyone ever considered a project using the resources of OpenTracker [opentracker.org]?
Good to hear news from Gnome (Score:1)
But since then, Gnome has remained Gnome. No new, fantastical releases. No big news. KDE has taken the spotlight.
And between the two, I now prefer KDE. I mean, KDE 2.2.2 is fabulous. The desktop icons are easy to work with, the panel is just sweet. So much easier to use than Gnome. Konqueror is come so far. The first time I loaded Konqueror, I thought it was useless. I actually preferred Netscape (blech). Now whenever I'm in KDE, I use Konqueror almost as much as I use Mozilla. Especially when I don't want any cookies being passed without my knowledge. I know people that use Koffice exclusively.
Don't get me wrong, I am -so- glad to see some big achievements from the Gnome camp. One of the biggest and greatest attractions to Linux is choice. Choice to use whatever you want, and to have as many options as you can handle.
I'm not a developer, I wish I was, but don't we all? I didn't read the code in that article too closely, so I may have missed some great points. But GTK+ 2 looks like it has a promising future. As long as they keep going on it, making it easier to use (and install), maybe they'll surpass KDE again.
Or maybe everyone will just go back to the CLI.
Personally, I use AfterStep. Dunno why, I just like it. Talk about hard to configure, though.
p24t
Re:maybe GTK is not the correct choice for the fut (Score:1)
Re:maybe GTK is not the correct choice for the fut (Score:1)
Re:maybe GTK is not the correct choice for the fut (Score:1)
The coolist things about GTK are #1 - It's Free (Speach) and #2 It's cross platform (Unix, Max and Win32)
Re:maybe GTK is not the correct choice for the fut (Score:2, Flamebait)
yeah, those are the coolest things about it. i prefer software whose coolest features are features, not licensing and 8-way compatibility.
call me a troll i guess...
Is it really cross platform? (Score:2)
Is it really cross platform?
I keep hearing this rumor of GTK running on Win32, but all I can find is Gimp on Win32 [gimp.org] and these [google.com], which look more like geek-hobby-project then a stable product that a company can rely on (Note, I'm *not* trying to insult Tor at all, but in his words "I work on this project in my spare time
Can someone please provide some real links for *real* 'cross platform' GTK projects ?
Re:Is it really cross platform? (Score:2)
is a good starting point. GTK makes a good attempt at cross platform - I've had better luck with QT myself though. YMMV.
Re:Is it really cross platform? (Score:2)
Re:Is it really cross platform? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:maybe GTK is not the correct choice for the fut (Score:2)
So yeah, gee, if you don't mind using UIs that use properietary and/or ugly and/or incomplete widget sets, there isn't all that much benefit?
Additionally, GTK (and QT) widgets do have 'real' usability improvements too; creating internationalized consistently functioning accessible (via keyboard or one of the special devices blind users etc use) UIs is much easier, and as a result developers are more likely to create better UIs. UIs that are much more accessible to 'minority' user groups (foreigners, people with disabilities).
agreed (as is Ximian and Red Carpet) (Score:2, Interesting)
After copying the RPM to a floppy (thanks you Ximian morons) and getting back in to log in, I was unable to un-install.
fdisk.
Thanks you Ximian morons. Do you even test this stuff before you distribute it? And my only option is KDE?
Re:agreed (as is Ximian and Red Carpet) (Score:2)
Afterstep is lightweight? (Score:2)
my favorite lightweight wm: tvtwm
Re:agreed (as is Ximian and Red Carpet) (Score:2, Informative)
Perhaps you should actually *read* the uninstall list that Red Carpet provides you before proceding, instead of blindly hitting the 'next' button.
Red-carpet occasionally asks to uninstall certain fundamental programs from your system. If you install RPMS from outside the Ximian fork, Red Carpet may want to uninstall those RPMS & install it's own version (Or sometimes, not install a replacement). These are bugs. Bugs happen.
Vanilla RPMs sometimes have the same problem. I want to install RPM xxx, but this will break a dependancy on RPM yyy. That's always been an issue with RPMs.
Re:agreed (as is Ximian and Red Carpet) (Score:3, Informative)
Hey PAM. PAM? PAM?! Oh PAM! (Score:2)
Look, Ximian's stated goal is to provide "simple, intuitive set-up tools for first time users" [ximian.com]. Failure to anticipate such a conflict on a widely-used Linux distro is pretty serious. Yeah, we all make mistakes, but this was a biggie.
Ximain installed fine (Score:2, Informative)
There are a few dependancy annoyances on RH 7.1 and the new Up2date/RHN from RedHat that I've not figured out, but the 7.2 RH machines are humming along just fine.
Using "ClearType" with XFree86, GNOME, KDE (Score:5, Informative)
Rubbish. XFree86 has supported what Microsoft calls "ClearType" for over a year.
The method, called sub-pixel rendering, is designed to work with LCD panels. This is why Microsoft are pushing for its use on laptops and palmtop devices. On standard CRTs, it holds no advantage over standard greyscale anti-aliasing.
A single pixel of an LCD screen is actually composed of three "sub-pixels": one red, one green, and one blue (R-G-B). Taken together this sub-pixel triplet makes up what we've traditionally thought of as a single pixel. This means that an LCD screen boasting a horizontal resolution of 800 whole pixels is actually composed of 800 red, 800 green, and 800 blue sub-pixels interleaved together (R-G-B-R-G-B-R-G-B
"ClearType" can be enabled in XFree86 versions 4.01 and greater by modifying
match edit rgba = rgb;
An in-depth look into sub-pixel rendering support in XFree86 is available here [jmason.org].
Re:Using "ClearType" with XFree86, GNOME, KDE (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft makes their cleartype technology enablable with a big large red button shouting "PUSH ME DARN YOU PUSH ME!".
Linux puts it in a text file.
While having the text file option is nice and all, it would be better if the friendlier installation packages said at install time "heya, we noticed that you have an LCD screen, any chance you want to enable LCD font antialiasing? It'll make your text alot easier to read!"
For the boxed distros, shove it on the back of the box in a yellow jaggy oval. Bright yellow.
Also include it in a settings->display style applet. Make it obvious. Make it easy. Make it so that people KNOW its there.
Linux has alot of unused features, unused because few people
Hell, it could be able to cure cancer and theres a chance the lot of us wouldn't know what string to put on what line to enable it.
Re:Using "ClearType" with XFree86, GNOME, KDE (Score:3, Informative)
This is the difference between Linux and Windows. Microsoft makes their cleartype technology enablable with a big large red button shouting "PUSH ME DARN YOU PUSH ME!". Linux puts it in a text file.
The parent post was a bit deceiving
The code to do this on Linux very new. It's part of the Xrender extension to XFree86 which was introduced in 4.1. It requires toolkit support. Qt has it. Gtk does not have it (though 2.0 will).
Editing that text file won't do much for you if you aren't using Qt. And if you are using Qt, you probably have it enabled by default...there's a checkbox to use it, though the XftConfig settings also affect it. In the future, KDE will probably have a fancy graphical configurator that will do everything the text file has. These things take time. I'm sure in Microsoftland a lot of Control Panel options started out life as something you could only change with regedit. You're just seeing the process with Linux instead of getting the final product.
Re:Using "ClearType" with XFree86, GNOME, KDE (Score:2)
I know it sounds nasty, but a balance can be found.
If Linux wishs to pull ahead, then a balance has to be found.
Concentrate on the features that people really want. Or at least that people think that they really want.
The opensource development community has the capability to not only
*COUGH* USB2.0 *COUGH*
Re:Using "ClearType" with XFree86, GNOME, KDE (Score:1)
Linux is an operating system. It doesn't wish anything. And the open-source development community isn't the borg. Developers are individuals. If this feature is important to you, why don't you do something? Do the work yourself or, if you don't know how, pay someone else to do it.
Someone will surely get around to it eventually. But when that feaure becomes important to them. Once again, developers are individuals. Many are not striving for Linux dominance in any given market; they are simply making software they want or need.
Concentrate on the features that people really want. Or at least that people think that they really want.
Absolutely. The developers concentrate on the features they want. Oh, is that not what you meant? Well, too bad.
Re:Using "ClearType" with XFree86, GNOME, KDE (Score:1)
I am simply stating what is needed if Linux is to do such.
A larger user base would mean more hardware support and more software support from other companies.
It also has its down sides of course, but this is not the place for that debate.
If features are to be added then they should be added in some sort organized way. Sure alot of new features may look good, but do they help contribute to the overall usability of the OS/GUI/ETC?
Even more, are they the most efficent contribution? Could time have been spent implementing features that add even more to the OS then the ones that were implemented? Too late now, water under the bridge and all of that, but prehaps a list of these hypothetical "high gain" features should be compiled for prioritized implementation.
Re:Using "ClearType" with XFree86, GNOME, KDE (Score:1)
Re:Real Features (Score:1)
Oh, and to get my Creative Webcam 3 installed in Linux took at the most 2 modprobe commands and compiling gqcam to take pictures. While I could never get it working in Windows 2000 (this was a year ago though)
Re:Real Features (Score:1)
When you install?
How. . . . quaint.
Multiple language packs easily and seemlessly working together in all applications. Installed on the fly as the user encounters new text, small downloads perferable.
"Oh, and to get my Creative Webcam 3 installed in Linux took at the most 2 modprobe commands and compiling gqcam to take pictures. While I could never get it working in Windows 2000 (this was a year ago though)"
That is one slight issue, a shitpot load of patchs not on the windows update site (hidden within the bowls on microsofts webpage, sometimes not even linked too from within it, Google is your friend.) need to be installed to get great USB support. By default it is only decent.
It doesn't help that most webcams insist on using their odd arsed data tranfer format instead of .
Re:Real Features (Score:1)
Re:Real Features (Score:1)
Re:Real Features (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact Asian Charecter support in Windows is also easy, just a single EXE file to be downloaded and run. Just select the desired language and spell things out phonicaly in romanized letters, watch the desired charecter appear.
More popular programs like this are needed on Linux, and need to be installed by default. A standard of some sort needs to be set that allows for all programs to easily use these features. Imagine every Gnome/KDE/ program having easy to implement naturalization.
Or a Hiragana flashcard program, or a Kanji flashcard program, or both intermixed with each other with no issues at all. The english letters/word choices being shown at the bottom of the screen.
Now imagine the Kanji charecters also being antialiased. Along with everything else.
All the user would know is that he/she is improving their Japanese skills on a very nice looking display and that it was even easier to get running that the Windows equivilent.
Re:Real Features (Score:3, Informative)
I am currently typing this with a USB keyboard, and will click the 'submit' button with a USB mouse, both of which are plugged into a USB hub on my monitor. If you plug more than one mouse into the computer each gets its own /dev/input/mouseX device.
As for installing font packs, yes it can be that easy. On my system I'd just have to type 'apt-get install kde-i18n-ja', but if you really must have a point and click interface to it, you can install RedCarpet which will make things similarly easy.
Re:Real Features (Score:1)
B S D
Re:Debian (Score:1)
for unstable at least =)
Re:NewB Question (Score:1)
Re:NewB Question (Score:1)
the XRender extension supports alpha-blending, useful for transparency effects and anti-aliasing fonts.
If you're running X11R6.5+ (Xfree86 4.0+) then you've got XRender installed already
another newbie X question (Score:1)
Re:NewB Question (Score:2)
Re:NewB Question (Score:2)
Moot point, every serious X server (including XFree86, which most Slashdot users have) _does_ implement shared-memory pixmaps. Indeed, this has been true for better than 7 years now, when I started running XFree in 1994 both MIT-SHM and XShm were certainly supported.
Basically, X is great for usual GUI applications, but if you want to do something like, for example, an xmms plugin, you are incurring much overhead as opposed to direct access to some type of framebuffer
Not at all, there are plenty of ways to bang on the framebuffer without the round-trip to the server. One of the most prevalent is GLX, the OpenGL X extension which is supported on many card for XFree these days. It's been around on other platforms for over a decade.
Remember, SGI ruled the graphics performance world for a long time _using_ X11. X was designed to be very flexible through the use of extensions. My bet is that in 1-2 years GLX will be standard on pretty much all new Linux desktop installations, combined with DRM that can give darned good performance. Of course, good drivers are a prerequisite to good performance.
And yes, GLX works great for high-performance 2D graphics as well as 3d.
Couple of other points:
The protocol is unavoidable overhead: even if client and server are running on the same host, a call to, for example, XPutPixel() still has to pack a protocol request
Not true in the general case. Xlib is quite good at buffering many Xlib calls into far fewer X protocol requests.
and send it over a UNIX socket
Even on my old PPro 200 we're talking order 5*10^-4 seconds for a server round-trip over a Unix socket. That's pretty quick. And there's work being done on X servers that don't use UNIX sockets but rather SHM or other transports for protocol submissions. Jim Gettys had a very nice post on the subject that I'll try to dig up and link here.
Sumner
Re:NewB Question (Score:2)
As for GLX... Haven't played with it, now I will.
Finally, I must disagree about the UNIX socket. 5*10^-4 seconds seems short, but if that is the time it takes to draw several pixels (assuming the draw requests are buffered in Xlib), then you are in trouble. In that amount of time, a 500 MHz CPU goes through 250,000 cycles. Imagine how many pixels you could draw into a framebuffer in that amount of time...
Re:NewB Question (Score:2)
Yeah, I mentioned Xshm as well. Forgot to mention Xvideo, which is also worth looking at for video applications.
Finally, I must disagree about the UNIX socket. 5*10^-4 seconds seems short, but if that is the time it takes to draw several pixels (assuming the draw requests are buffered in Xlib), then you are in trouble. In that amount of time, a 500 MHz CPU goes through 250,000 cycles. Imagine how many pixels you could draw into a framebuffer in that amount of time
Not nearly that many. Going over the PCI or AGP bus is not going to run anywhere near that 500 MHz CPU, not to mention that drawing a pixel is more than one cycle _and_ you're going to be limited by memory bandwidth to get at your render data, _and_ most importantly if you update faster than the refresh rate of your display then you're just doing work that'll never be displayed. 85-90 Hz is about as fast as most displays are set.
Moreover, you're generally doing actual work to determine what pixel to display. If you're just blitting images as fast as possible to the screen, then either Xshm or or Xvideo or GLX extensions are probably what you want (XFree has them all).
Sumner
Re:NewB Question (Score:2)
renice -20 PUTTHEPIDHERE
You will be happy. You might also do the same for sawfish & panel.
Re:What good is it, if nobody adopts it? (Score:5, Funny)
Couldn't you have just said, "The foot bothers me?"
Jeremy
Re:What good is it, if nobody adopts it? (Score:5, Informative)
People are using the API's. Much of the improvements to Gtk+ and GNOME for version 2 involve making the platform and desktop accessible to more users. This includes better internationalization and rendering of text, accessibility (a major project being headed up by Sun Microsystems). This has been a very important emphasis of this release. Other improvement in the configuration system, component model, etc. allow developers to write more powerful applications quicker. And these are being used.
Making the GUI easier for first-time Linux users, which was the whole point of GNOME in the first place, wasnt it?
This has been a major focus of the GNOME Project for GNOME 2 and beyond. Check out the GNOME Usability Project [gnome.org] and the GNOME Usability mailing list [gnome.org].
Re:What good is it, if nobody adopts it? (Score:2)
Think about old X applications. They were difficult to use, because Xlib is impossible to program in. A better API brings better applications.
Also, haven't you been looking at the recent announcements? Evolution 1.0, Galeon 1.0, and Gnumeric 1.0. These are all programs that are extremely easy-to-use while being powerful.
Re:Why does everyone get their panties in a knot? (Score:2)
Re:Pathetic (Score:2)
Oh God. They have?!? Quick, somebody, TELL LINUS!
Interesting.... (Score:2)
- Kernels(Linx, BSD, etc)
- Apache
- Most of the GNU Tools
- Most implementations of X Windows
...are all writen in C. And because it is "old" makes C "bad" why njdj? C++ and other OO languages aren't a "magic bullet" by any stretch of the imagination.
C and C++ and any other language binding have thier uses in the right places but to claim a language is bad because it is simply "old" is stupid.
Re:Interesting.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Apache was written in C, either because the programmers were UNIX programmers who are hardcore into C and refuse to use C++, because they had C source to work from, because there were no good C++ compilers out there, or any combination or lack of the above. Same with X-window implementations.
These both would be nice if implemented properly in C++, because the object-orientation features of C++ make a lot of things clearer and easier, and in a lot of cases, mind-numbingly less complex.
The GNU tools (I assume you're referring to things like wget, fileutils, binutils, and so on) are, 99% of the time, pointless to write in C++, because you wouldn't use object-orientation on such a small/limited scale (wget deals with one file at a time, why bother objectifying?).
I do, however, point you to other large projects that DO use C++ - KDE, Mozilla, AtheOS, just to name a few.
Large projects that deal with objects - buttons, windows, controls, lists, etc. - are great when implemented in C++ (if done properly), because it makes the code easier to deal with, less complex, more reusable, and on and on.
C++ isn't for everything, but for something like a graphical user interface, it would sure be nice.
--Dan
Re:Interesting.... (Score:2)
1) It adds complexity
2) No standard ABI (this is a very big point for libraries). This means if Solaris' GNOME was compiled with Sun's C++ compiler, you couldn't use gcc to build GNOME applications.
3) There is a larger pool of skilled C programmers. C++ programmers generally do not know enough of the strange nuances of C++ to adequately implement libraries.
If there were another OO language with a standard ABI, then there might be a case. Maybe Objective C. However, C++ is definitely a bad implementation choice because of the complexity it adds.
Re:Interesting.... (Score:2)
Depends. If you're going to write object oriented code, it's a hell of a lot simpler to write it using well documented, standardised semantics than trying to write C++ code in C. In the case of GNOME, complaints about it "adding complexity" are moot -- GTK/GNOME add complexity by using obscure idioms to emulate what C++ supports using well-defined semantics.
2) No standard ABI (this is a very big point for libraries).
The KDE people have been working on a library that generates C wrappers for C++ applications.
3) There is a larger pool of skilled C programmers.
If they're really skilled, they shouldn't have much trouble learning C++.
If there were another OO language with a standard ABI, then there might be a case. Maybe Objective C.
Anything but C++, huh ? A standard ABI would be nice, but it's not a be-all-end-all.
Re:Interesting.... (Score:2)
Depends. If you're going to write object oriented code, it's a hell of a lot simpler to write it using well documented, standardised semantics than trying to write C++ code in C. In the case of GNOME, complaints about it "adding complexity" are moot -- GTK/GNOME add complexity by using obscure idioms to emulate what C++ supports using well-defined semantics.
***
To say the semantics of C++ is well-defined are true, but the semantics are not really that logical.
***
2) No standard ABI (this is a very big point for libraries).
The KDE people have been working on a library that generates C wrappers for C++ applications.
***
You are missing the point. The C wrappers are fine, but they don't help C++ people using a different compiler.
***
3) There is a larger pool of skilled C programmers.
If they're really skilled, they shouldn't have much trouble learning C++.
***
But why? C++ adds little but complexity.
***
Anything but C++, huh ? A standard ABI would be nice, but it's not a be-all-end-all.
***
Yes, anything but C++. I teach C++, so I know it quite well, and all of it's magic templating, virtual base class features. And I can tell you that trying to write useful C++ libraries is just plain a bug-ridden, pain-in-the-butt nightmare. Especially if you are using libraries from multiple developers. You have to wonder if pass-by-value might invoke the copy constructor. You have to make sure that all of the templates support the features you want, just right. And then, there's function overloading, which is just a plain bad idea (it's basically setting you up for calling the wrong version of a function accidentally). C++ has a lot of features. It even has one feature (the ability to pass templates as template parameters) that no other language has. However, the way that the features are put together is so wretched, that I can't imagine a worse way to do it.
And on top of that, there is no standard ABI.
Re:Interesting.... (Score:2)
Not that interesting. It's about as hard as saying extern "C"
able to inherit from a base class with a bunch of pure virtual functions, and have their implementation be the implementation of the plugin.
But this is quite easy to do. To make this work, you need some variant of the prototype pattern, since you presumably don't know about all the derived classes at compile time. The function that one extracts from a dlopen()ed module should just create register a prototype by inserting it into a static member of the base class (eg: a list or map). To use the prototype pattern, you're going to have to create and register a prototype regardless, so I don't see how the language is making life more difficult.