Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

GNOME 2.24 Released

timothy posted about 6 years ago | from the ekiga-has-the-best-screenshots dept.

Announcements 163

thhamm writes "The GNOME community hopes to make our users happy with many new features and improvements, as well as the huge number of bug fixes that are shipped in this latest GNOME release! Well. What else to say. I am happy." Notably, this release is also the occasion for the announcement of videoconferencing app Ekiga's 3.0 release.

cancel ×

163 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This is WONDERFUL news (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25142037)

if you're a foot fetishist.

Re:This is WONDERFUL news (1, Offtopic)

thhamm (764787) | about 6 years ago | (#25142063)

>if you're a foot fetishist.

why do you think i am so happy? :P

Re:This is WONDERFUL news (-1, Offtopic)

HappySmileMan (1088123) | about 6 years ago | (#25142891)

I know that it informs us about this guys foot fetish, but does that really qualify it to be "informative" in this context?

I assume that it would be "off-topic" and that "informative" is reserved for informative comments about the article in question.

Re:This is WONDERFUL news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25142933)

You won't be when you pull a life-sized Gnome logo out of your ass!

Re:This is WONDERFUL news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25145601)

given the two dimensional nature of the logo, papercuts would be the chief concern.

SmallerFasterLighter? (1, Offtopic)

Colin Smith (2679) | about 6 years ago | (#25142145)

Hmmmmm?

 

New? WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25142401)

Damn, yet ANOTHER version. I really wish they would sit down and code it right the first time around.

Re:New? WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25145047)

Perhaps you'd like to get involved and do some coding yourself?

Re:New? WTF (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25146621)

Not everybody can march in the parade. Some of us have to sit on the curb and clap as they go by.

                                      -Will Rogers

Re:SmallerFasterLighter? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25147735)

The trend with GNOME 2 has been DumberLessFunctionalLessStable.

Not to mention the eternam churn in the "standard" applications.

\mutterstocurmudgeonlyself

timothy (1)

martinw89 (1229324) | about 6 years ago | (#25142175)

I know typos in summaries and headlines are the norm, but have we really got to the point where the dept. gag has them also?

Re:timothy (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25142299)

He's referring to Ekiga's tendency to fire little bits of rock and gravel at people. It's a feature.

Re:timothy (1)

martinw89 (1229324) | about 6 years ago | (#25142793)

Oops.

Whooosh'd by the editor, ouch.

Re:timothy (1)

timothy (36799) | about 6 years ago | (#25143421)

Naw, the editor was wrong. Though screeshots would be interestingly dangerous.

timothy

Huge number of bugs? (5, Insightful)

Cthefuture (665326) | about 6 years ago | (#25142205)

Isn't it weird how developers (myself included) consider it a good thing that they fixed a whole bunch of bugs?

Personally I know it feels good to fix bugs because it feels like you're making the product perfect and somehow that feels like "development". However, the reality is that it would be better to have no bugs in the first place.

Re:Huge number of bugs? (4, Insightful)

fractic (1178341) | about 6 years ago | (#25142273)

However, the reality is that it would be better to have no bugs in the first place.

Sadly the reality is that it's just too hard to write such complicated software without bugs.

Re:Huge number of bugs? (4, Insightful)

wanderingknight (1103573) | about 6 years ago | (#25142349)

Or downright impossible. I believe that's one of the things FOSS is based on ;-)

Re:Huge number of bugs? (1, Offtopic)

Yetihehe (971185) | about 6 years ago | (#25142391)

Some people can't even write summaries or headlines (and now even "from the xxx dept.") without errors ;)

Re:Huge number of bugs? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25142417)

I just wish GNOME would fix the damn panels to keep them from rearranging the applets. That bug has been there since pretty much the very beginning of the GNOME project and they have "fixed" it many times but it is never really fixed. They have done things like introduce the "lock" feature that locks an applet into place. All that does is make it even more annoying because you then have to unlock them to put them back where they were before the panel mangled them.

Especially if you get a crash, freeze, or X otherwise terminates... but sometimes if you just logout and back on, it will rearrange the applets and icons on your panels. So annoying.

I mean this is simple basic functionality that has been broken for years. Whoever wrote the GNOME panel code deserves a cockpunch and some lessons in programming.

Re:Huge number of bugs? (1)

PunkOfLinux (870955) | about 6 years ago | (#25145529)

Same thing happens in KDE, for me, and I've NEVER had GNOME do this.

Teach them a lesson (1)

gbutler69 (910166) | about 6 years ago | (#25146313)

Show them how it's done!

Re:Huge number of bugs? (5, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 6 years ago | (#25142663)

Not impossible, but quite likely you'd maybe hit Gnome 1.0 in these days after 10+ years of development. And everybody else would be using the betas/unstable versions because they're soooo much faster and more featureful despite the odd bug. In fact, the FLOSS market seems to be going after exactly its own pace - live on the bleeding edge? You can do that. Stay with the ultra-stabile? You can do that and so the bug level is pretty much what you want it to be. In short, most people wouldn't want the bugfree version if one existed. It's too extreme in the "of these three things, pick any two" department.

Re:Huge number of bugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25143673)

In short, most people wouldn't want the bugfree version if one existed.

It's not only the person using the OS, but the task they're using it for.

Empirical example: I use Ubuntu (reasonably bleeding edge) for my desktop, but Debian stable for servers.

Re:Huge number of bugs? (5, Insightful)

MojoMagic (669271) | about 6 years ago | (#25146263)

As a software developer I feel confident in saying this:

If your software "doesn't have bugs", it either doesn't do much or you just aren't looking hard enough.

(I'm not pointing any fingers...)

Re:Huge number of bugs? (4, Funny)

HTH NE1 (675604) | about 6 years ago | (#25142501)

Well, there's the theory that every program contains at least one bug and can therefore be reduced in size by at least one instruction. Iteratively then, every program can be reduced to a single instruction which doesn't work.

Re:Huge number of bugs? (1)

fractic (1178341) | about 6 years ago | (#25142587)

There's an obvious flaw in that theory. If a program contains a bug that doesn't mean that it's possible to fix that bug by removing an instruction. It's very likely that fixing the bug would require adding more instructions.

Re:Huge number of bugs? (1)

debatem1 (1087307) | about 6 years ago | (#25143385)

Its just a bug. I fixed it by removing a letter from the theory. Voila! Now it's a simple spelling problem, rather than a glaring logical fallacy.

Re:Huge number of bugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25147769)

Every program contains at least one bu?

Re:Huge number of bugs? (2, Informative)

knothead99 (33644) | about 6 years ago | (#25142515)

It's just not feasible to write software without bugs. In fact, Jeff Atwood would claim you're an amateur developer until you realize that everything you write sucks. Go read his post on the subject: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001020.html [codinghorror.com]

Re:Huge number of bugs? (1)

Cthefuture (665326) | about 6 years ago | (#25142611)

I realize that. That is why I included myself. The question was rhetorical and I was just commenting on the psychological aspects of it.

Re:Huge number of bugs? (1)

knothead99 (33644) | about 6 years ago | (#25145455)

Ahh. I didn't read it that way. I do agree that it feels great to squash bugs and see the outstanding issues closed.

Re:Huge number of bugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25144343)

jeff atwood can lick my asshole clean. Anybody who takes advice from his is a retard.

Re:Huge number of bugs? (1)

trouser (149900) | about 6 years ago | (#25144791)

Your asshole needs to be cleaned? Perhaps his is a retard, like such as The Iraq.

Catching up ever so slowly (-1, Flamebait)

DaveWick79 (939388) | about 6 years ago | (#25142419)

It is nice to see more features that Windows had 10 years ago.

Except for one - the tabbed file browser windows look great, I'd like to see Windows do that also.

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25142923)

Sad but true. Linux desktops seem a lot like NT4 desktop with some extra bling, they do not compare with the huge update that was Win2000. Lots of that functionality is just not present yet.

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (1)

DavidR1991 (1047748) | about 6 years ago | (#25142953)

And yet GNOME has been able to re-arrange items on its taskbars for years, and Windows still can't. Incomparable my ass.

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (1)

DaveWick79 (939388) | about 6 years ago | (#25144065)

Are you prepared to say that Gnome is better than the Windows GUI simply because one or two display features either do not exist or do not match functionally? I'm looking at it from the perspective of functionality, not graphical organization. For instance, Gnome is now able to handle multiple monitor setups. They now have improved accessibility features, something MS implemented in Windows 95. They now have sound themes that don't conflict with music playback, which Windows had in version 3.0 if not earlier.
By the time Windows 2000 came around, there was nothing in the OS that I could not configure using the GUI. Linux still hasn't accomplished this, they are way behind Mac and Windows in this aspect.

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (5, Interesting)

Daengbo (523424) | about 6 years ago | (#25145541)

BS.

Comparing Gnome 2.24 to Win2000 is a joke. Heck, comparing it to WinXP is a joke. Gnome 2.24 is a modern desktop just like Windows Vista is, only faster. Same bling available. Better consistency. Better features than WinXP (though probably not Vista). In fact, using Windows XP makes my ears bleed after only a few minutes.

X (not Gnome) has handled multiple monitor setups since before I started using it in 1997.

Gnome has strict accessibility and localization requirements and has since 2.2. Windows wasn't even localized in Thai until Gnome adoption there forced it to be, and even then they just half-assed the "start menu" and nothing else. A generation of Thais learned to do computing in a language they didn't understand.

ESD never had a problem with mixing stuff if you used it instead of OSS or ALSA. It even mixes stuff locally and outputs it to another computer if you want it to. Maybe your problem is that you didn't know what you were doing ....

Gnome configures everything for Gnome and always has. Since Gnome runs on a large number of operating systems, it doesn't deal withthe underlying system, and you'll have to be specific about which one isn't configurable and take that up with the OS vendor. That's not the job of a cross-platform desktop.

Since we're playing this game, these are the places Windows doesn't live up to Gnome:
  1. UI consistency
  2. Context menus
  3. Window management
  4. Virtual desktops
  5. Select and middle-click to paste
  6. Deskbar applet (pre-Vista)
  7. User filesystem layout
  8. Menu layout
  9. System messages
  10. Mime handling
  11. Panel layout
  12. See them all [ibeentoubuntu.com]

Gnome vs. Win95 or Win2000? Pshaw!

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (1)

mR.bRiGhTsId3 (1196765) | about 6 years ago | (#25145809)

Hahaha! I'm so tremendously amused. Why is it that when I plug an external monitor jack into my input, output automatically shows up and I am given the opportunity to configure ignore, clone, external only in windows. Why is it that windows can actually hide taskbar icons that I don't use. That and the built in gnome network management tools fail, and don't expose wireless connectivity options, even if the underlying driver supports them. Oh, and my personal favorite, clicking on menus. I love clicking on a menu, having it appear without icons. Then, when my mouse is just about to the item I want, all the icons whoosh in lke a second later, and I have to find whatever I was looking for again.

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (2, Informative)

Daengbo (523424) | about 6 years ago | (#25145917)

The graphics sussytem is not a part of Gnome, or Gnome wouldn't run on so many systems. Heck, you can almost get Gnome to run on Windows.

Gnome can hide panel icons that you don't use. You put them in a "drawer."

Managing the network is the job of the operating system, not a desktop environment.

I'll quote myself, since you obviously didn't read my post the first time:

Gnome configures everything for Gnome and always has. Since Gnome runs on a large number of operating systems, it doesn't deal withthe underlying system, and you'll have to be specific about which one isn't configurable and take that up with the OS vendor. That's not the job of a cross-platform desktop.

Getting slow icons is certainly annoying, and has been improved in recent versions, but it's not more annoying than clicking on the Start menu and waiting for five seconds to have it show up. You can turn off icons in the menu, too, if you want that.

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (0, Troll)

Tangent128 (1112197) | about 6 years ago | (#25146055)

So how is that UI consistency?

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (1)

Daengbo (523424) | about 6 years ago | (#25146177)

How is what UI consistency? That has no sensible antecedent here.

Gnome has the HIG [gnome.org] , which makes Gnome applications and the desktop function consistently. It means that Gnome does the same thing that Apple does for Mac in this regard. No, I don't want to get into an argument about whether Macs or Gnome are more usable. I'm saying that Gnome is consistent with itself. The developers judge applications based on the HIG before those apps are allowed to become part of the official Gnome desktop.

Windows applications, on the other hand, have no standard and every one is completely different, which Windows users seem to enjoy. Sometimes a context menu on the desktop will get you what you expect. Other times, though, it won't.

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (1)

Tangent128 (1112197) | about 6 years ago | (#25147235)

If the graphics subsystem can affect the behavior, and is different on each system, then it's not very consistent, is it?

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (1)

Daengbo (523424) | about 6 years ago | (#25147345)

Again, the behavior of what? The graphics subsystem affects the behavior of the graphics subsystem, not Gnome. The administration utilities for each system reflect that system and nothing else. Windows uses its system. OSX uses its own. Some Unix systems use X, but some don't. Don't confuse system administration with user experience. If you want to talk about a specific operating system's problems, then do that. Don't conflate them with the Gnome desktop.

Do you want the world to standardize on one graphics layer? Never mind. Looking at your responses, it's obvious that you do and which one you think that should be.

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (0)

Tangent128 (1112197) | about 6 years ago | (#25147527)

The behavior of menu expansion mentioned several posts up would fall under Gnome, I'd think.

Also, system administration is very much a part of the user experience. I'll excuse a desktop environment for avoiding the details for sanity's sake, no problem.

I am also curious as to which of my words betrayed my preference. Actually, I'm curious as to what my preference is myself. Do tell me, since I didn't know I had an opinion.

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (3, Insightful)

mhall119 (1035984) | about 6 years ago | (#25146149)

Why is it that windows can actually hide taskbar icons that I don't use.

I assume you mean the system tray. My question is, if you don't use them why would you even want them in the system tray? The very fact that Windows needs a "hide" option is a problem.

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (1)

mR.bRiGhTsId3 (1196765) | about 6 years ago | (#25146553)

Because every once in a while, I find one of those auto-start programs useful. For instance, the vast majority of the time, I want the last.fm thing to get out of my way and report my track plays. But then every once in a while I'd like ot use it.

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25147157)

Can I view thumbnails in my file dialogs at least now?

Further required specs:

  • Must be larger than 32x32
  • Must be for each item, a preview section does not count

Please be serious.. its honestly been a while (at least over year now) since I tried out a Gnome system.

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (1)

Daengbo (523424) | about 6 years ago | (#25147229)

Gnome uses the preview pane by default, but you can just DnD from Nautilus if you prefer.

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25147563)

Pretty disappointing knowing Nautilus is still used as workaround; but at least there is some sort of preview...

One step at a time I suppose... hopefully. Karma though.. (The captcha given is "disaster")

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (1)

Daengbo (523424) | about 6 years ago | (#25147647)

Agreed. I'd like to see more options and previews in the file dialog. Freedesktop.org has had a recent, long discussion about thumbnails and has a spec up for it. I hope this means that we can look for more integration of thumbnails into file dialogs.

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25147533)

Yeah, I think you forgot to take your focusin. Windows 95 already knew how to hide panels and look like itself. Gnome is at Windows 3.0 level.

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (2, Insightful)

Daengbo (523424) | about 6 years ago | (#25147747)

Are you implying that Gnome doesn't hide panels or have a consistent appearance?

Compare
  1. Abiword to [cleardefinition.com]
  2. Epiphany [soccio.it] to
  3. Totem. [ubuntu.com]

Next, compare

  1. Internet Explorer 7 [wikipedia.org] , released on October 18, 2006 to
  2. Microsoft Word [wikipedia.org] , released in December, 2007, to
  3. Windows Media Player 11 [geekpedia.com] , by the same company for the same platform.

Now tell me with a straight face that Windows knows how to look like Windows.

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 6 years ago | (#25147667)

Comparing Gnome 2.24 to Win2000 is a joke. Heck, comparing it to WinXP is a joke. Gnome 2.24 is a modern desktop just like Windows Vista

That bad, huh? Well, I think I'll stick to something that's at least an upgrade from XP like KDE.

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (1)

Daengbo (523424) | about 6 years ago | (#25147857)

Ha ha. Point well taken.

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (1)

mhall119 (1035984) | about 6 years ago | (#25146103)

By the time Windows 2000 came around, there was nothing in the OS that I could not configure using the GUI.

That's true, but only because you can't configure anything without the GUI. I could remove all of the command line configuration tools from Linux, and then everything that could be configured would be what would configurable via the GUI.

Here's my list of Windows GUI functionality complaints:
Windows only has one panel, ever. You can't remove the start button. You can't move the start button. You can't rearrange the start menu. Application launchers in the start menu are not organized. There are non-launcher entries in the start menu. You can't add your own menu to the panel. In fact, you can only add application launchers to the task bar. Windows doesn't have virtual workspaces. Windows don't shade. Windows can't be made sticky. Window frame can't be changed. Window frame buttons can't be added, removed, or change position.

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (3, Insightful)

Draek (916851) | about 6 years ago | (#25146463)

By the time Windows 2000 came around, there was nothing in the OS that I could not configure using the GUI.

I'm sorry, but most of us don't consider "regedit.exe" a GUI, at least not anymore than "gedit /etc/httpd.conf" is. And without considering the registry, then yes, there's plenty of stuff in Windows that you can't configure from within the GUI.

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (1)

Brain Damaged Bogan (1006835) | about 6 years ago | (#25147239)

download taskbar shuffle :)
not as good as being natively built into the UI, but there are plenty of workarounds for all the flaws in windows.

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25143929)

Lots of that functionality is just not present yet.

I hear this from Slashdot Microsoft trolls occasionally, but never with any examples.

So come on Mr Troll: what functionality?

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (4, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | about 6 years ago | (#25143277)

I'd like to see Windows pick up some features that any UNIX desktop had 10 years ago. How about virtual desktops that actually work? Window shading? The ability to keep a window on top of the others? Can I even add something like a CPU usage graph to my panel in Windows? If so, it's not clear how, but it's trivial in my desktop environment of choice.

UNIX has had a superior GUI than Windows for a long time. The only thing it's really missing is wizards to help the less savvy configure it.

Caveat: this is coming from an XP perspective. I've not used Vista, so I don't know if these features are available there.

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (1)

DaveWick79 (939388) | about 6 years ago | (#25143979)

Virtual Desktops - agree wholeheartedly. Window Shading - I don't see how this is better than minimize to the taskbar. CPU usage graph is now available as a sidebar applet in Vista, and has been available as a 3rd party active desktop applet since Windows 98, and like you said, it's trivial.
You don't mention much to explain just why UNIX has a superior GUI, but I expect a GUI to be able to control all aspects of the OS that I need to access. This is where Linux and UNIX fall way short, as is evidenced by the new feature list in TFA. 95% are items that have been standard features in Windows since at least Window 98. Call it flamebait for pointing that out, but it's just the facts.

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (3, Insightful)

Daengbo (523424) | about 6 years ago | (#25145793)

No, I call it trolling for being misinformation. 95%? Let's look at the details:
  • 2.1. Stay in Touch
    This is about voice / video and the new IM client in Gnome. Has Windows had integrated AOL or Yahoo! Chat since Win98? No? Does it now? I didn't think so.
  • 2.2. Track Your Time Better
    Did Windows 98 have an integrated time-tracker? No?
  • 2.3. Ekiga 3.0
    Has Windows had an integrated Voice / Video / Text SIP client since Win98? Hmmm ....
  • 2.4. File Management
    Complex Asian characters in Win98? Tabbed file browser? Tab completion in the file browser?
  • 2.5. Do More With Deskbar
    Calculator, Google search, Yahoo suggestions, Twitter updates, and indexed search from a key press? Not even to this day.
  • 2.6. New Screen Resolution Controls
    Windows has had this one for a while.
  • 2.7. New Sound Theme Support
    Windows, annoyingly, has had this one since like Win95. I think it says a lot about Microsoft's priorities.
  • 2.8. Better Digital TV
    I'd be really surprised if Win98 had DVB capability.
  • 2.9. Extra Pretty
    Desktop backgrounds. Again, Windows has had numerous wallpapers for years, but it says something about what they think is important when they still haven't gotten window management to work correctly.

Two out of nine. 22%. Not quite 95%, eh? I give you a D+.

Let's talk about localization. Windows XP3 offers retail installs for Chinese Simplified, English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese (Brazil), and Spanish [1] [microsoft.com] (that's eight), while Gnome offers forty-five languages.

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (1)

mhall119 (1035984) | about 6 years ago | (#25146435)

I expect a GUI to be able to control all aspects of the OS that I need to access

Why?

some humane features of gnome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25148021)

*ubiquitous mouse wheel to cycle through gui element

*hold alt and/or shift and move and resize a window with magnetic locking to edges of screen and other windows

*mini pager autohiding at the left middle edge of the screen for multiple virtual desktops. hover at the edge of the screen and cycle through desktops with the wheel

*also i have a tasklist widget in my upper right so i can very easily move the mouse to that corner without having to aim and then cycle through all windows on current the desktop with the wheel. no need for a task bar at the bottom (or anywhere) so i get rid of it. this frees up the most valuable realestate on the screen.

*select and middle click paste (old), no need to click to change focus

*middle click on title bar to send a window to the back of the stack, making the next window under it visible

*being able to make any window 'always on top' or 'visible on all desktops'

*having scroll and window-move/resize events work without having to first click into and have that window brought ontop of everything.

ever have to scroll in a document while you want to keep a window in the foreground, simply use the wheel on the document window. lets compare;

WINDO$
1) click on background window to get focus
2) scroll
3) identify, aim and click on taskbar to bring original window back into focus

vs

LINUX
1) scroll in background window, no need to change focus to another window

  your eyes are constantly scanning from top to bottom moving towards the bottom of the screen, so getting rid of the bar at the bottom of the screen is #1 in my list of improvements for a more humane gui. now you can use it for actual user content. imagine that! getting to use your own computer for your own content, instead of having micro$haft bully you into letting them constantly advertise themselves on the most valuable part of the screen.

of course micro$haft want to condition you to a more masochistic less efficient gui, which requires many more steps and much more effort so that you have to work hard to use your windows box. you become used to the contrived inconvenience and value being able to perform these unnecessary acts 'quickly' and 'accurately'

my linux desktop is just so much more relaxing to use than xp. think tabbed browsing*1000

your statement of "Window Shading - I don't see how this is better than minimize to the taskbar." really says it all. its because its more relaxing, it requires fewer steps and less effort, and it frees up the waste due to the taskbar. you have to constantly move the cursor up and down, on average over a distance of half the height of the screen, identify and then aim at a relatively small target on the taskbar at the bottom of the screen, then bring the cursor back up to interact with the window that has been maximised. its much more relaxing to be able to middle click on the taskbar which is a larger target than say a tiny minimize window button, while youre carefully avoiding the close window button which in the case of a maximized windows is the easiest to hit.

Re:Catching up ever so slowly (1)

pato101 (851725) | about 6 years ago | (#25148471)

Window Shading - I don't see how this is better than minimize to the taskbar

It is better because when you minimize a window, it goes somewhere far from its current location (a place on the taskbar which also depends on further windows being opened).

Is this feature available? (1)

bogaboga (793279) | about 6 years ago | (#25142487)

I would like to know from those who have test driven this new release, whether I can copy a PDF URL address link, paste it into the appropriate PDF application, and have the application open the file.

Is this possible? In earlier versions, one had to download the PDF file, then point the application to it...a nonstarter to me!

Just note that I handle PDF documents all day.

Um, yes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25143067)

It's been a feature of firefox's for a while now.

Re:Is this feature available? (2, Informative)

ReinoutS (1919) | about 6 years ago | (#25143943)

Just press Alt+F2 and paste in the URL. Evince, Gnome's document viewer, will open it nicely for you.

Good! (5, Funny)

Sasayaki (1096761) | about 6 years ago | (#25142495)

Excellent!

Now when can I expect this in my Intrepid Ibex repositories, mmm?

Mandatory puns:

"Glad to see Linux really putting it's best foot forward in the GUI department."

"The new Gnome is a feet of software engineering."

"Maybe I'll revert from Kubuntu to Ubuntu, dip my toe in and see what it's like."

"I hope the new version doesn't have a much bigger footprint."

Re:Good! (1)

Facetious (710885) | about 6 years ago | (#25142959)

Just stop it or I'll have to put my foot dow... Oh, damnit! Now you've got me doing it!

Re:Good! (1)

Sasayaki (1096761) | about 6 years ago | (#25143501)

Yep, you totally put your foot in it that time.

Re:Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25143313)

This foot really smells.

Re:Good! (1)

Flammon (4726) | about 6 years ago | (#25144579)

I think that you just put your foot in your mouth.

Re:Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25145429)

You really put your foot in your mouth there!!!

Completely Offtopic, but... (0, Offtopic)

SevenHands (984677) | about 6 years ago | (#25142543)

"I want to tell you a story
'Bout a little man if I can.
A gnome named Grimble Gromble.
And little gnomes stay in their homes,
Eating, sleeping, drinking their wine.

He wore a scarlet tunic,
A blue-green hood, it looked quite good.
He had a big adventure
Amidst the grass, fresh air at last.
Wining, dining, biding his time...

And then one day...
Hooray, another way for gnomes to say
Ooh my...

Look at the sky, look at the river.
Isn't it good?
Look at the sky, look at the river.
Isn't it good?

Winding, finding places to go.

And then one day
Hooray, another way for gnomes to say
Ooh my ooh my..."

Rest well Richard Wright...

Re:Completely Offtopic, but... (0, Offtopic)

trouser (149900) | about 6 years ago | (#25144693)

Only slightly further off topic....

I'm having a lentil nightmare,
everything has gone black,
except for the lentils in the nightmare,
they're a sort of greeny, yellow sort of colour,

Ahhhhhhh

etc.

What is left for them to do? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25142639)

Haven't they managed to strip out most of the useful features of a Desktop Environment already?

Things like being able to configure the screen or add/edit MIME types? You know, the types of things that any DE since Windows 3.1 has been able to do.

I don't see how they can dumb Gnome down any further.

Re:What is left for them to do? (0, Troll)

abigor (540274) | about 6 years ago | (#25142829)

My favourite is the terminal cursor. I was stuck on shitty Gnome at work, and the default terminal cursor is a blinking block. I prefer a non-blinking underscore, so I went into the terminal app's preferences to change it. Guess what - you can't. Eventually, I found a place in the general desktop config to change the cursor from blinking to non-blinking, but it affects the WHOLE desktop, not just the terminal! And I was still stuck with a block instead of an underscore.

So I spent the time to rip the whole thing out and install KDE 4.1, which has proper configurability. Now I have my non-blinking underscore...ahh.

Re:What is left for them to do? (1)

InfiniteLoopCounter (1355173) | about 6 years ago | (#25147649)

You shouldn't use such over-the-top language.

I can fully relate to wanting certain little things to be improved because of growing annoyance with them. I absolutely hated when I scrolled over the sound and it sometimes showed mute (even though it wasn't), etc.

However, GNOME is open source. If you really want stuff done find the appropriate developer and send a detailed (and nice) bug report.

Better yet, have a go at fixing something yourself. If you manage to do something and pop up on irc or whatever as a minor developer, people will take you seriously and they should fix easy bugs you are having very quickly (as you will have had exposure to the code and should know better what to include in the bug report).

PS - I am not a GNOME developer, but I have done minor other stuff.

...install KDE 4.1, which has proper configurability.

PPS - you really put your foot in your mouth with that comment there.

Re:What is left for them to do? (1)

awrowe (1110817) | about 6 years ago | (#25147903)

So, how will they respond to a bug report on fixing the screensaver configuration? [launchpad.net]

Probably not well.

Don't get me wrong, I like Gnome and use it every day, but this answer "file a bug report" just doesn't wash all the time, particularly when upstream developers have this attitude of 'won't fix' something as simple as this.

It isn't just gnome developers who do this, I recall something similar with KDE4, where the lead developers refused to even talk about what they were doing much less respond to the users.

find the appropriate developer and send a detailed (and nice) bug report

doesn't work when the appropriate developer is being precious about the code.

That said though, this looks like a pretty good maintenance release with a few nice little features added in. It has no immediate benefit for me, but I can see how it can all be built upon, which is great.

Re:What is left for them to do? (1)

InfiniteLoopCounter (1355173) | about 6 years ago | (#25148411)

So, how will they respond to a bug report on fixing the screensaver configuration? [launchpad.net]

Case in point. Read down a bit [launchpad.net] to here [launchpad.net] .

If some programmers are not receptive, they probably just need a bit of prodding (you explaining why your approach is better), or they are right not to try (if it is clearly not going to work well this way).

Remember that developers might like coding new stuff better than fixing old stuff. In my opinion, filing bug reports for enhancements might work better if you are on the same wavelength as the developer.

Gnome is too heavy. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25142675)

Interestingly enough, I just switched to Xfce yesterday.

Re:Gnome is too heavy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25143203)

Interestingly enough

No.

Exchange 2007/MAPI Connector waits for GNOME 2.26 (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25142699)

It looks like the Exchange 2007/MAPI Connector we've all been waiting for isn't in this release.

The road map shows it's planned for the Gnome 2.26 release.

RoadMap Link - http://live.gnome.org/RoadMap

500 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25142731)

I am sooo looking up for "500@ekiga.net"

I thought they were skipping this release? (1)

pizzach (1011925) | about 6 years ago | (#25143171)

and going straight to 3.0?

Re:I thought they were skipping this release? (2, Informative)

Randle_Revar (229304) | about 6 years ago | (#25146197)

2.24 -> 2.26 -> 2.28 -> 3.0

Re:I thought they were skipping this release? (1)

pizzach (1011925) | about 6 years ago | (#25147807)

Oh.

Re:I thought they were skipping this release? (1)

mhall119 (1035984) | about 6 years ago | (#25146517)

I think it was GTK that was going to do a 3.0 release, not Gnome.

Re:I thought they were skipping this release? (1)

mhall119 (1035984) | about 6 years ago | (#25146619)

I'm working on a Fx/Tb extension for importing Photos to F-Spot. Comments/Testing appreciated.

You know, not two days ago I was thinking that it would be nice to import an image from a website directly into F-Spot. I just installed your extension, and it's fantastic!

Re:I thought they were skipping this release? (1)

pizzach (1011925) | about 6 years ago | (#25148551)

Welcome! It's good to hear people finding it useful.

Did the "people picker" in GDM ever get fixed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25143627)

Or does it still prevent you from turning off the "people picker" display (which is a serious "information leakage" issue and precludes its use in secure environments)?

Re:Did the "people picker" in GDM ever get fixed? (2, Informative)

donscarletti (569232) | about 6 years ago | (#25146461)

It always was optional, just open up gdmsetup and turn it off.

Re:Did the "people picker" in GDM ever get fixed? (2, Informative)

J.Y.Kelly (828209) | about 6 years ago | (#25148527)

It always was optional, just open up gdmsetup and turn it off.

gdmsetup has gone from recent releases. GDM is undergoing some fairly major changes and the developers haven't got round to reimplementing the preferences. You can make some changes by directly editing custom.conf, but the documentation is a bit sparse right now. Things which used to be easy (like turning off the people picker are currently difficult or not possible. Things are likely to improve soon but I don't know if they're sorted in the 2.24 release.

tagged bsd? (0, Flamebait)

mdemonic (988470) | about 6 years ago | (#25143631)

Don't try to push this onto us. This is gnu all the way

Where is the "Cancel" button? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25144141)

I want my "cancel" button in the option windows!

Tabbed browsing... (1, Interesting)

sdac (882526) | about 6 years ago | (#25145375)

It took six months for them to implement tabbed browsing? What the hell? Isn't that just another widget in GTK+?

Xfce (1, Redundant)

Sp4c3 C4d3t (607082) | about 6 years ago | (#25146095)

Switched to Xfce over a year ago and never looked back. I can get all the same functionality, while maintaining the ability to control certain aspects of my computer. GNOME is just too bloated and is going in the wrong direction. If Xfce can clone the functionality and do it with less resources, there is something wrong with GNOME.

BSD tag? (1)

incripshin (580256) | about 6 years ago | (#25146895)

Whoever tagged this 'bsd' needs to wise up. Gnome developers don't give a frak about BSD.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?