Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNOME GUI

An Interview with Jeff Waugh 183

Posted by michael from the underwear-gnomes dept.
An anonymous reader writes "LinuxWorld has published a nice interview with Jeff Waugh, one of the core members of the GNOME community. In the interview Waugh talks about the upcoming GNOME 2.6, his views on software patents and on the involvement of the big vendors in the GNOME development process. Waugh is the current chair of the GNOME release team."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

An Interview with Jeff Waugh More

An Interview with Jeff Waugh

Comments Filter:

  • Waugh (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:37AM (#8284094)
    "Well well well, what is he good for?" [Only the aussies here will get this. Nothing on *this* (Jeff) Waugh)]

  • Software developer talking about patents (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ObviousGuy ( 578567 ) <ObviousGuy@hotmail.com> on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:44AM (#8284112) Homepage Journal
    What a sad state of affairs that this is one of the main topics that the GPL community has to discuss.

    More than the progress of the GNU project, more than software engineering breakthroughs, more than new ideas in user interface design, software patents seems to have eclipsed all that.

    I used to be excited about computers and sharing ideas, but when the community dedicated to sharing has become a one note wonder, I find myself dulled by such harping on technicalities rather than technologies.

    • Re:Software developer talking about patents (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      When the "one note" seriously threatens the ability of the community to continue sharing, it has a tendency to cast a dark shadow over everything.

    • I dont like their attitude either (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Way too corporate ... I think Linus's approach is better, just avoid reading patents as much as you can and start caring when someone sues.

    • Re:Software developer talking about patents (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gaijin99 ( 143693 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:45AM (#8284273) Journal
      I used to be excited about computers and sharing ideas, but when the community dedicated to sharing has become a one note wonder, I find myself dulled by such harping on technicalities rather than technologies.
      Ahh, another slashdot poster who doesn't bother reading the article. Had you read the article you would have noticed that out of seven questions, one was about software patents. And it was a damn relivant question, too. Other questions focused on interface design, coder community design, etc.

      Software patents are important, that's why people talk about them. If software patents are granted universally it won't do much good to talk about the other things, software engineering breakthroughs, etc, because it will be *ILLEGAL* for us to make any such breakthroughs. But, and again I really do have to recommend reading articles before posting like this, the article was hardly an example of FOSS becoming a "one note wonder".

    • Linus (Score:4, Interesting)

      by bonch ( 38532 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @02:04AM (#8284314)
      Why do you think Linus Torvalds is so popular? He's so down-to-earth about these things and interested in the technology and not the technicalities. This SCO mess forced him into it, but even then he still spits out the choice quotes, like the infamous "crack" comment.

  • This has to be asked... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by heironymouscoward ( 683461 ) <[moc.oohay] [ta] [drawocsuomynorieh]> on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:46AM (#8284116) Journal
    What is the roadmap for convergence of Gnome and KDE? It is good to have choice, but sad to see a fragmentation at the application level. Apart from the different programming languages used in the two, is there any fundamental reason why a common API cannot be defined or added?

    Right now it seems that the only solution for applications that want to be totally portable is to bypass KDE and Gnome entirely and use their own libraries (Mozilla, OOorg) and/or X.

    Even being able to run Gnome and KDE side-by-side in the same sessions would be a good thing.

    • Here is the roadmap (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Srin Tuar ( 147269 ) <zeroday26@yahoo.com> on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:13AM (#8284198)
      Here is the unification roadmap:

      KDE: ----------X
      GNOME: ------------------->

      </biased_gnome_user>

      But, seriously, it doesnt make sense to talk about unifying them, as they are built around fundamentally different toolkits. ( Qt uses a modified subset of C++, GTK+ uses C as a base but has a nice C++ wrapper)

      So they cant really be unified, though they can be made quite compatible.

      I'm personally biased towards GNOME, because as a C++ programmer I love the stl, and thus hate Qt and the moc. But that doesnt mean I really think that KDE will die off: Free code is, after all, immortal.

      • Desktop haiku (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward
        kde and gnome
        two answers to a problem
        thats one too many

        poor linux user
        just wants his applications
        to run on his box

        choice is a good thing
        and, and, and but not or, or.
        Unification!

      • Re:Here is the roadmap (Score:5, Insightful)

        by be-fan ( 61476 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @05:02AM (#8284657)
        Qt and the STL are not at odds. They are two different approaches for two different problems. The STL is a general-purpose container library. Its not at all object-oriented, and aggressively static.

        Meanwhile, Qt is specialized for GUI programming, and moc and the Qt container library fit that very well. Both allow for much more dynamic code, and in my experience, GUIs are extremely well-suited to dynamism in the language. After all, two of the best GUI languages ever (Smalltalk and Objective C) were of the dynamic/object-oriented variety.

        I'm a C++ coder too, and also love the STL. However, I've spent a bit of time doing Qt programming, and really do agree that a more dynamic approach is better suited for GUIs.

        • Having used libsigc++, it allows all the flexibility of Qt's string based callback system and is typesafe in addition.

          Admittedly, it is all compile-time, but that doesnt mean its not dynamic: you can certainly hook and unhook things at runtime. The MOC isnt going to make C++ into an interpreted language or anything.

          The other things about gtkmm that I like are that it doesnt try to duplicate things from the stl (such as QtString), that the code size tends to be small, and the executables tend to be fast.

          • Re:Not sure I'd agree (Score:3, Insightful)

            by be-fan ( 61476 )
            Admittedly, it is all compile-time, but that doesnt mean its not dynamic
            ---------
            If its compile-time, then its *not* dynamic. C++ has very limited support for any sort of dynamism, and the STL and libsigc++ continue that tradition. Like I said, I'm a fan of "modern" C++, but I have to admit that its static nature isn't great for GUIs.

            The MOC isnt going to make C++ into an interpreted language or anything.
            -----------
            Since when do you need an interpreted language to have dynamism? Smalltalk and Lisp are amon

      • Re:Here is the roadmap (Score:5, Informative)

        by claes ( 25551 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @06:38AM (#8284834)
        There is more to convergence than just toolkits. It is unfortunate that every comparison between Gnome and KDE always involves comparing toolkits and the differences between them. A desktop is so much more than just the stuff that builds the GUI. Actually, I think we should stop talking about desktop at this point, since the "desktop problem" is more or less solved. I would say both Gnome and KDE have accomplished what was envisioned at the point when the KDE project was started. I say there is a need for a new vision now, something that goes beyond just the simple toolkits on the desktop.

        Convergence can take place in a number of areas. The configuration problem needs to be dealt with. Ideally, all programs should have a common configuration mechanism. Apache, Samba, mail servers, X, drivers etc should be easier to configure. There is a need for a common approach to these problems. This is a major problem to solve, since it needs cooperation and a common vision between all developers, not just the desktop developers.

        Better hardware handling. There is work in progress here, and it is more important than most other things going on in KDE or Gnome.

        Documentation and help systems. Every program should deliver documentation in a way so that can be integrated in a common help system. It should contain relevant metadata, be easily translatable, viewable in different environments. The information about available programs in the system today is scattered: there is information in the package management database, in the man pages, in the doc directory, in the menu hierarchy, but it is loosly coupled and it is not easy to find the documenation given the .desktop entry in the menu directory. I believe the free software community should define a metadata format like the one that freshmeat uses. Every tarball should include descriptions in a common format, and it should be usable in a number of contexts. There is a need for a distributed web of metadata. Today it seems the metadata is centralized in the package repositories and on freshmeat. There is a gap between description of packages and descriptions of the programs they install. Every available application needs good descriptions. Not just "Mozilla" "Web browser". "Konqueror" "Web browser".

    • Re:This has to be asked... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nzkoz ( 139612 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:15AM (#8284203) Homepage
      A fundamental API like you're describing would be the 'lowest common denominator' between the two systems. No KIOSlaves for KDE and no Nautilus integration & panel applets on GNOME. Kinda like AWT from old java, and we all know how much that sucked.

      A much saner approach is to ensure that the basic stuff is compatible [freedesktop.org]. Window manager hints, preferences etc. Let application authors write with their preferred toolkit, but ensure it doesn't affect users.

      Almost all linux users have both toolkits installed anyway. Yes, I realise some KDE users won't have gnome (Gentoo hackophiles etc.) however if they want to use CoolGnomeApp1.0 they'll just install some librarys and they're away.

    • KDE and Gnome *do* run side-by-side (Score:5, Informative)

      by jonathanbearak ( 451601 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:18AM (#8284212)
      I don't understand how people keep saying that KDE and Gnome don't work together. They're different environments, but all they're parts are pretty darn interchangeable. A while ago, for the heck of it, I replaced gnome-panel in Session prefs with kicker. Worked perfectly. After reading your post, I called kwin --replace to switch from metacity to kde's wm.

      And OO.org ... that's for running across OS's, not KDE/Gnome. Besides, Native Widget Framework is due for the next major release AFAIK.

      Mozilla ... it uses gtk+ or gtk2, many of which would consider to be (sort of) Gnome. XUL is not a KDE/Gnome issue. Like OO.o, it's another platform issue.

      Gnome and KDE don't need to converge. At this point, they're aiming at different markets. KDE is uber-customizable. Gnome is focusing on KISS usability issues. The important backend stuff is already being taken care of via freedesktop.org.

      • Re:KDE and Gnome *do* run side-by-side (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Uhm, perhaps.

        I've had a lot of trouble getting Gnome to run on my KDE (Xandros) box.

        So you're saying that with Native Widget Framework and freedesktop.org we'll see more of a common package?

        basically I'd like to be able to run _all_ linux software on my linux box without having to become an expert sysadmin to do it. Not a big thing to ask for, eh?

        • Re:KDE and Gnome *do* run side-by-side (Score:5, Insightful)

          by theantix ( 466036 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:57AM (#8284301) Journal
          Bah.

          The problem you are complaining about is a problem with Xandros's distribution, not linux. If gnome doesn't run properly in Xandros that just means that they haven't bothered to properly package it. Many distributions have the ability to install GNOME and KDE on the same installation, and applications written for one DE have always run just fine in the other one in every distributions I have tested.
      • He wasn't asking for them to work together. He was wondering why we still have to keep installing two different collections of libraries and packages so we can run each other's apps.

        They DO need to converge. You say KDE is uber-customizable, and GNOME is focusing on KISS usability issues. Why the hell aren't they one desktop project that is both uber-customizable yet focusing on KISS usability issues?
        • "Why the hell aren't they one desktop project that is both uber-customizable yet focusing on KISS usability issues?"

          Do you even know what KISS means? Keep It Simple and Stupid! Uber-customizability and uber-simplicity are two mutually exclusive things. It's like trying to make hot ice!
            1. Uber-customizability and uber-simplicity are two mutually exclusive things

            You know, call me crazy, but I just don't believe this. Think of the apps out there that have an "advanced interface" button. With it turned off, the app adopts the KISS principle, with a streamlined interface with only basic options, but if the user selects the advanced mode, the interface expands or even alters itself to support the needs of the power user. So the problem with KDE is that they don't adopt a KISS interface as st

            • You know, call me crazy, but I just don't believe this. Think of the apps out there that have an "advanced interface" button.
              -----------
              HIG research shows that such interfaces do not work. People overestimate their capabilities and try to use the advanced mode when they shouldn't, or need to use it the minute they need even one thing not in the default interface.

              I don't buy the argument that a feature from KDE couldn't be ported to GNOME or vice versa
              ------------
              The KDE code and GNOME code are completely d
                1. HIG research shows that such interfaces do not work. People overestimate their capabilities and try to use the advanced mode when they shouldn't, or need to use it the minute they need even one thing not in the default interface.

                It seems to me, people overestimating their own ability isn't the fault of the interface. I agree its a dilemma, but not as bad as not offering the advanced interface at all. If GNOME takes the KISS principle too far they are just going to drive the power users to another alter

                • Comment removed based on user account deletion

                • Yep, a lot of foundation code is migratable. Oh wait, let me correct that, a lot of foundataion code is common between the two. Both systems for instance require libxml. More work is being done where it makes sense. However sometimes there are two different ways of doing something, both with good and bad points. Then one group goes one way and one the other. Sometimes it turns out after comparing what happens (sometimes after many years) when going different ways that one way is considered better.

                • GNOME is C written in a OO style, while C++ is, of course, very similar to C but with OO features.
                  --------
                  Its not just a matter of language. Its a matter of the fundemental structure of the code.

                  a lot of the foundation code in both systems isn't GUI dependent and could migrate a lot easier I believe than you think.
                  ---------
                  I am reasonably familier with the KDE architecture and parts of the KDE code, and I can tell you that nearly everything is fundementally tied to Qt. Even non-GUI stuff like kio and dcop
                • "If GNOME takes the KISS principle too far they are just going to drive the power users to another alternative."

                  So? Power users aren't GNOME's target audience. That's the whole point!
            • "Think of the apps out there that have an "advanced interface" button."

              Advanced buttons/menus/modes/whatever don't work. Users overestimate themselves and set each application into advanced mode or click on the Advanced button and either get confused or mess things up. It's also a support nightmare ("Turn on option X", "I don't see option X", "Oh, you aren't in advanced mode?").
              Sawfish had beginner/intermediate/advanced modes. Nautilus had beginner/intermediate/advanced modes. Everybody (including beginne
        • The problem is their *frameworks* are completely different. Because of this if you wanted to bring the two together you would have to scrap one DE's entire framework as "melting" them together would take so many man hours I don't even want to think about it. The closest your going to get is esthetic integration. KDE uses a lot of things that integrating into GNOME would be more work then it's worth. Kpart's(embedding applications in other applications aka konqueror), Kioslaves(doing ftp:// in kate and being
        • He was wondering why we still have to keep installing two different collections of libraries and packages so we can run each other's apps.
          -----------
          Why does Explorer, MS Office, and Visual Studio on Windows all use different toolkits and underlying lbrares? Because things historically just don't work out the way you always want it to, and if "integration" is good enough, than it doesn't matter that its not a perfect solution.

          Why the hell aren't they one desktop project that is both uber-customizable yet f
      • KDE is uber-customizable. Gnome is focusing on KISS usability issues.

        [grin] I think you've got that backwards, but whatever makes you happy...

    • Freedesktop.org is the fulcrum point (Score:4, Informative)

      by Ars-Fartsica ( 166957 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:21AM (#8284216)
      A great deal of work is taking place to push commonalities up the food chain to Freedesktop.org. Mostly this is X related, but I suspect this will grow over time into a true interoperability effort.

      Once we've reached a point where the projects are not duplicating effort needlessly, we can truly say vive la difference with no guilt over wasted efforts.

    • Re:This has to be asked... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by unoengborg ( 209251 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @02:31AM (#8284346) Homepage
      I certainly agree that fragmentation is a bad thing when it reduces choise. Even Microsoft is starting to use the lack of integration against free desktops in their get the facts campaign. It would be nice if we could prove them wrong.

      Even if Gnome/Gtk and KDE/Qt are very different toolkits, that should not prevent users from having a good user experience even if toolkits are mixed. The tookit choise should be a developer only issue.This is possible in windows and on MacOS so why not on free desktops.

      E.g. why must each browser have their own bookmark file format and bookmark file lokation? Both Gnome and KDE use a folder as Trash, why not use the same location for that folder by default?

      Both Gnome and KDE have a postit applet for small desktop notes, why not use the same file format and file location.

      Why not make it possible to do drag&drop between nautilus and konqueror. After all there is a XDND standard that both KDE and Gnome tries to follow in other applications. And if we drag a file from konqueror to the Trash in Nautilus we should get the expected behavior.

      Browsers and some other applications have icons that have similar functions in both Gnome and KDE. E.g. Back and Forward icons for browsers. Why not let the icons have the same name in both Gnome and KDE.

      Perhaps all such config options and data that is common to both Gnome and KDE could be held in a separate folder named e.g. .freedesktop.org.

    • 1) GNOME apps work just fine in KDE, and KDE apps work just fine in GNOME. Indeed, the integration between GNOME and KDE apps is much gerater than between either desktop and Mozilla/OO.o/Motif/Xaw apps.

      2) GNOME and KDE have adopted quite different philosophies. The GNOME folks have thrown a lot of effort into polishing the UI, and the KDE folks have spent a lot of effort on the underlying technology. GNOME goes with a "simpler is better" philosophy, while KDE goes with "users like features and power." GNOM

  • Speaking of GTK 2.4 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by $calar ( 590356 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:47AM (#8284118) Journal
    Wasn't it supposed to be released on the 2nd?

    http://gtk.org/plan/2.4/ [gtk.org]

    New file selector, yum.

    • Re:Speaking of GTK 2.4 (Score:2, Informative)

      by anarxia ( 651289 )
      From the same page:
      "A timescale of 8-9 months seems reasonable; that is, a final 2.4.0 in late August or early September. As always, we're a bit late, so our current target date is early in 2004."

  • I'd love to Gnome out! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Basehart ( 633304 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @12:47AM (#8284121)
    After a few lackluster attempts at installing Gnome on my OSX box I have to say that a nice easy step by step instruction would be most helpful.

    For many users, all the untarring, compiling and whatnot is a major headache -- akin to grasping the concept of depth of field in photography for me. Once I finally got it, it was super easy, but getting it in the first place was a big struggle.

    I guess there's something about the whole process that I either just don't get, or maybe I think it's a lot harder than it really is.

    So anyone know an easy way to get Gnome on an OSX box?

    • Re:I'd love to Gnome out! (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      try garnome. It is a great 'installer' for gnome. In reality it is just a bunch of makefiles and scripts that fetch, unpack and install packages in order of dependency.
      http://www.gnome.org/~jdub/garnome/
      It worked great on my RedHat box, but not sure if it will work on OSX.
    • So anyone know an easy way to get Gnome on an OSX box?

      Google is your friend, the first six hits [google.com] (after which I stopped checking) all send you to the right place. [sourceforge.net]

    • yup. fink install gnome-bundle. or fink-install [gnome-package-name] to install individual components. I did this and it took about a day of compiling off and on, but I have a full gnome desktop that I run on top of the normal OS X desktop (turn off nautilus, use quartz-wm). On the left side I have the normal OS X panel, and on the bottom I have a small gnome panel. The best of both worlds.

      See the fink home page for more information. But really, it's not hard at all.

      Michael
    • Ah, yes. Download, decompress, untar, compile, discover missing package, download, decompress, untar, compile, discover missing package...
    • It's easy to grasp the concept of depth of field. But it's not very intuitive, or straightforward. Much less understanding to use it to you benefit.

      A simple way to make people understand what's the point with depth of field, or why it's used, was shown to me with an example:

      A near object (a mupet) and a large (skycrapper) very far object where shot with 2 cameras. One had a very powefull zoom lens, and the other had a comon lens. The important thing was that the mupet was about the same size in both pict
    • Yes. It is in Fink [sourceforge.net] now, which means that GNOME 2.4.x should be extremely simple to install on OSX.

      Read this [gnomedesktop.org] for instructions.
      • "should be extremely simple to install"

        That's the whole point -- it is NOT extremely simple to someone like me who is missing some basic point. I just don't get it for some reason. Something is not making sense, and I don't know what it is!

        Installing Fink was the easy bit - I even re-downloaded the Fink 0.6.2 installer and was greeted with:

        Fink 0.6.2 Installer cannot be installed on this computer.

        A root directory /sw exists. Please see the Read Me file for update instructions, or for information

  • GNOME (Score:1, Informative)

    by Tom-the-Great ( 752644 )
    I have always used GNOME, so I am excited that a newer version will be released. I am a little behind, I am still using the GNOME version that came with Red Hat 7.1 :(
    • How exactly is this informative?

      It seems more likely that it was a set up post for the usual "GNOME has turned to crap ever since it went 2.0" trolls.

      Jedidiah.
    • Okay. Thanks for letting us all know.

    • Re:GNOME (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Gnome is pretty impressive these days, especially considering it is built on top of a paint program. ;-)

  • Case Dismissed (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    In terms of the technology, we've basically got all of the desktop applications solved.

    In terms of the mental ward, we've basically got all of the penthouse suites booked....by YOU! HAHAHAHA

    Honestly, GNOME is the best desktop excluding OSX in terms of usability (imho omg wtf) - but give me break, Jake! I guess if by 'solved' you really mean "looks kind of like something you've seen in either Windows or Mac, but not really", then I agree whole-heartedly.

  • Smart People (Score:1, Insightful)

    by boudie ( 704942 )
    They seem to have loads of smart people working on Gnome these days. So how do they explain something like Epiphany? And why is gtk-2.0 so slow (compared to the first gtk certainly)?

    • Re:Smart People (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      gtk 2 renders slower due to internationalization added when gtk 2 was being worked on. Its much harder to render when you have to be able to render in everyone's native language.
      • So why doesn't everyone just learn to speak English? That way mozilla can load faster! I usually leave off nls support wherever I can. Ever looked at the size of kde-i18n-whatever?
    • The big deal is antialiasing. Try using the antialiasing patch in gtk1 -- gtk1-aa actually runs more slowly than gtk2.

      You think that's a big CPU cycle eater, try Mac OS X. Whee!

  • Desktop Apps (Score:5, Interesting)

    by petabyte ( 238821 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:17AM (#8284207)
    In terms of the technology, we've basically got all of the desktop applications solved. Between OpenOffice.org, GNOME, Mozilla and a number of other projects, the stack of stuff people generally use on the desktop is pretty much there.

    Which really makes me wish that GNUCash was in that group. I do everything (word processing, email, spreadsheets, gaming) on Linux inside Gnome except for managing my finances. I keep a windows box with Quicken around for that. GNUCash could replace that for me but probably not before GNUCash-2 which is supposed to be GTK2. I heard they were short on developers and that was stalling progress on that. I guess personal finance doesn't have much of a place on a business desktop and gets less attention. I've been playing around with SQL-Ledger but thats a bit overkill for my needs.

    That aside I love Gnome and am looking forward to 2.6 and Epiphany 1.2. :)

    • Re:Desktop Apps (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I do everything (word processing, email, spreadsheets, gaming) on Linux inside Gnome except for managing my finances

      Let me guess, all the Tuxracer you can handle?
    • I do everything on Linux inside Gnome except for managing my finances. I keep a windows box with Quicken around for that.

      If you'd like to do away with that Windows box but you need Quicken, you could use Crossover Office [codeweavers.com]. Or maybe first try Wine [winehq.com] since that's free, but I have had loads of more luck with Codeweavers' commercial version.

    • Re:Desktop Apps (Score:3, Informative)

      by mcrbids ( 148650 )
      I keep a windows box with Quicken around for that.

      Dunno about you, but some time ago, I put a version of Quicken5 for DOS on a Linux system in FreeDos using DosEMU. I can now access this instantaneously via SSH from any computer in the world on the Internet, with a very high degree of security.

      Nice. Very, very NICE.
    • We used to strugle with GNUCash at our business, then we switched to Quasar available at linuxcanada.com.

      I have followed the GNUCash project from early on and I think what hurt them was a strong resistance to including business features early in the projects development. The community seemed to be crying for it and they really squandered a lot of momentum by resisting it.

      Anyway, Quasar is not Open Source, but it is cheap for business ($30 US), has some add ons like POS, and is free for personal use. I

    • Which really makes me wish that GNUCash was in that group.

      Go to here [moneydance.com]. Problem solved. And if you want it to look like your other Gnome/GTK apps, just pass it the GTKLookAndFeel when starting it up. With j2se1.5 coming out soon, it will even have a skinnable look and feel for Gnome. Just add jre!

  • gnome 2.5 (Score:5, Informative)

    by prockcore ( 543967 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:25AM (#8284225)
    I'm using Gnome 2.5 (Subscribed to the 2.5 channel in Red Carpet, automagically upgraded everything for me). I have to say that Nautilus in the 2.5/2.6 branch is amazing.

    How amazing, you ask? It's as fast as gmc used to be. Although it is a little strange to switch back to the old OS9 style Spatial Finder style of file management.

    Things are a little buggy, Nautilus crashes every once in a while, and Evolution sometimes doesn't quit correctly. But in general, the whole desktop is great. Gimp1.3 is super sweet, and finally supports re-editable Text layers (ala photoshop)

  • GNOME is excellent (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Beavis! ( 50891 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:29AM (#8284233)
    I've recently been introducing my staff at my day job to GNOME since we are moving away from OpenVMS to Unix. Since HP-UX will be coming with GNOME as a default in future releases, I figured it would be good to get the guys used to it by having them use it on a daily basis for basic work stuff. So far they have taken to it pretty well. The most amazing thing is that some of them actually find it EASIER and more FLEXIBLE than Windows. Thank you for a terrific project!

    • Re:GNOME is excellent (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bonch ( 38532 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:51AM (#8284285)
      I think the thing that keeps me going back to Gnome is both its simplicity and its speed. KDE feels way too much like an overload of thrown-in features, although the 3.2 release really impressed me.

      I often switch back and forth between the two as new releases come out--I will be using Gnome again when its new version is released.

      • Re:GNOME is excellent (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Beavis! ( 50891 )
        Actually, I do the same thing myself. I find elements in each that I like, but GNOME seems to feel more polished and put together these days. I'm not saying that KDE doesn't, but... GNOME apps seem more flexible in terms of look and feel. I can't stress the importance of a really slick looking desktop when it comes to the usability of a computer from a non-techie perspective. It makes it much easier for me to introduce people to a new desktop when it looks more impressive than Windows XP.
    • Since HP-UX will be coming with GNOME as a default in future releases
      I thought they chickened out [hp.com] of this? Did they change their mind again?

  • The reverse? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Gyan ( 6853 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:37AM (#8284251)
    Waugh: The whole point of the patent system is that they're supposed to be obvious things. But there are a lot of things in computing that are unobvious to a point

    Umm, isn't it the opposite? Only those insights and ideas which are "non-obvious".

  • Mono? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15, 2004 @04:12AM (#8284549)
    Does anyone know about the legal status of Mono? I mean, if Gnome starts using it all over the place and M$ decides to shut it down (they have like a million lawyers, so they can probably do that), won't Gnome be, well, dead? Or at least in a very uncomfortable position?
    • MS cannot shut Mono down. There are a few patents involved, but MS has, by submitting C# to the EMCA, agreed to allow use of those patents royalty-free for any purpose. The only controversial aspects are ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms, none of which would be used by GNOME (although they're still being implemented).
      • I believe the ECMA's patent policy is Reasonable And Non Discriminatory, so they can charge $10m per developer, so long as they charge that to everyone.

  • Evolution Dataserver version 2.0 (Score:4, Informative)

    by axxackall ( 579006 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @08:29AM (#8285061) Homepage Journal
    Something magical is upcoming. I've tried to find anything about Evolution Dataserver version 2.0 mentioned in interview, and all I found so far were references to cvs. Looks like apart few developers accessing thisnew wombat no one else knows what it is, how it is designed and how it works.
  • The emphasis still seems to be on adding yet *more* features
    and bloat to GNOME. At what point are they going to stop doing
    this and finally declare the desktop *feature* complete?

    IMHO, GNOME is eminently useable and has sufficent features already.
    Stability should be given greater emphasis.

Slashdot Top Deals

Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine

Close