×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

193 comments

The future (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26119251)

I predict first post.

Re:The future (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26119379)

Too late, it's already the past.

Samba is considered harmful (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26119313)

Using Samba promotes the use of non-free M$$ software that keeps computer users in corporate slavery. Nobosy who supports FREEDOM should use Samba, because like the sly dance it implies, it binds you to the most blackheartede DEVIL Michrosoft. If you don't like it go to IRAN.

Re:Samba is considered harmful (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26119463)

slightly over the top, but there's a lot of truth in that. The Linux community has a "good enough" attitude. CVS was good enough (thankfully, there are finally better solutions). X is good enough. Interopability with Windows is good enough. No. It's a crutch that lets MS call their shit cross platform when they should be eliminated. Say NO to mediocracy. Say NO to Microsoft compatability.

Re:Samba is considered harmful (1)

Hordeking (1237940) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120751)

slightly over the top, but there's a lot of truth in that. The Linux community has a "good enough" attitude. CVS was good enough (thankfully, there are finally better solutions). X is good enough. Interopability with Windows is good enough. No. It's a crutch that lets MS call their shit cross platform when they should be eliminated. Say NO to mediocracy. Say NO to Microsoft compatability.

I don't know that it's entirely true. I use Samba on my Linux box. But that's because I'm temporarily using it headlessly via ethernet with X, SSH, and so on through my folk's Windows computer. I don't consider it a crutch at all. When I first changed off windows about a year ago, it was hard. Now I do a lot of my work on my linux box (and it's harder to do the stuff on windows now).

OS agnosticism is a good thing. It can be achieved in a couple of ways: open standards that everyone follows (probably the best way), and everyone implements everyone else's standards enough to make it work (not the most optimal, but it works).

Re:Samba is considered harmful (5, Insightful)

edsousa (1201831) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119583)

However, it will be the compatibility with M$ software that will push Linux mainstream.
I wouldn't be allowed to install Linux on my laptop if didn't work with the corporate network. I would be fired if I didn't open the Microsoft Word documents.
I'm glad that Linux can talk Microsoftish, so I can use Linux at my will.

Re:Samba is considered harmful (4, Insightful)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119719)

Exactly.

Microsoft compatibility is a misleading term as well. It is "Linux Compatibility With Microsoft Products."

Microsoft is not compatible with anything else but rather new microsoft products by design.

Linux, by design, is compatible with almost anything that it needs to interact with on a network. While this causes there to be proprietary code in your distro in some cases, it opens the door to actually using Linux.

The thing is, even if you are able to convert your whole company to Linux, companies do not operate in isolation, and hence the rep with his Linux empowered laptop will eventually have to go and do a presentation at a Windows shop, and hence compatibility will enable you to make the move to Linux with confidence.

I call nonsense (4, Insightful)

Excelcia (906188) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119851)

Samba is a transition tool that allows businesses to move away from Microsoft. It's the leverage that a company's IT professionals (who are, more often than not, Linux-friendly) can use to transition away from Microsoft tools. When a company's Microsoft boxes are all talking to shares on Linux servers anyway, and saving scads of money doing it, it's more compelling to say let's begin to transition other things away from Microsoft.

Linux isn't going to displace Microsoft by ignoring it. Linux will displace Microsoft by offering reasonable alternatives at a more reasonable price, and by making the transition as easy as possible. To that end,
Samba is one of the best things that has ever happened to Linux.

Re:I call nonsense (2, Insightful)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120103)

Using Samba to let Linux clients and Web Clients to talk to Linux Servers - Oh and the odd legacy MS server or client .... is a good thing too ...

Re:I call nonsense (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26121007)

Not only that, but as far as I'm concerned, Samba has successfully made SMB into a nice cross-platform protocol to use. It's decently fast, secure (AFAIK), pretty easy to set up (perhaps excluding some authentication issues), and is well supported in pretty much every platform. What's the problem?

Re:Samba is considered harmful (1)

Tatsh (893946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119983)

I'm not sure. Is NFS a viable alternative? I keep seeing Samba get better performance than Windows->Windows networking and have heard that NFS 'sucks' and 'wait until NFSv4'.

Re:Samba is considered harmful (3, Informative)

jimicus (737525) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120129)

NFS does suck. It trusts the client to do quite a bit of access control enforcement insofar as it expects the UIDs to be the same on the client and the server.

NFS does suck... (3, Informative)

tjwhaynes (114792) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120307)

Any administrator will tell you that NFS sucks. NFSv4 simply sucks less.

NFS is fine for systems which have static IP addresses, filesystems that have limited writes and do not require high-performance access for reads of many files. If you need better performance, you should look at direct-attach options such as SANFS, Veritas Storage or GPFS.

NFS has a nasty tendancy of tying itself in knots when a server goes offline. Witness the zombie processes that can't unlock themselves. Even if you go down the route of soft mounts and interruptable locks, it can be messy. As the original server comes back up, all the remote systems relying on it can suddenly flood the machine with requests for NFS access and knock it over again, requiring some careful masking of the servers traffic for a while.

Samba isn't perfect but it works better for dynamic IP, has reasonable performance and generally doesn't get into locking hell. You can also access remote services such as printing over Samba.

My 2 cents...

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

I seem to prefer GNOME (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26119355)

I don't know why, but whenever I try out KDE (every few years or so) there's something about it which drives me back to GNOME again. I'm trying out KDE4, which I really like but the real problem is program integration. The majority of useful utilities on Linux are written with GTK widgets rather than Qt, and while the Gnome-Qt bridge thingy which replaces GTK objects works for the most part, the different File Open/Save dialogue boxes grate on me.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26119427)

Yes, KDE 4 look really nice, but I can't stay with it more than 2 hours, I noticed that I rarely have to maximise windows on GNOME with my 1280x800 laptop monitor, while in KDE I alway have to maximise everything. And I don't feel very comfortable in KDE 4 like in KDE 3 or GNOME.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (3, Interesting)

cwAllenPoole (1228672) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119477)

I find GNOME to be a better reflection of big-brand windows managers "feel". KDE strikes me as having a clunky interface akin to (God forbid) the early Win32 designs. But, for my money (or lack thereof), I'll go with XFCE.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (4, Interesting)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119931)

Like most linux geeks I have run a variety of Window Managers. My favourites (with reasons) are:

1. Gnome.

The only good reason I give here is that I am very familiar with it. I like the feel, and I enjoy the lack of fuss it allows me to do my housekeeping. I run it without Compiz these days, and the built in compositing does enough for me (basically "true" transparency and some nice shadow/launch effects) I like that I can make window borders and panels (toolbars to you Windows folk) as small as possible to maximise my screen real estate.

2. XFCE

I like the clean feel and quick response. It has theme customization options second to none, and is compatible with most gnome and KDE applications. Takes a while to get used to, but you don't even really need a panel, you can work the whole computer from your right-click menu.

3. KDE3

I used it extensively in the past, but it feels cluttered. It has some nice customization options. I especially like the unique desktop background for every workspace, and the cycling of desktop backgrounds is awesome. It is good for people moving on from windows, the problem with it though is that it is too complicated.

4. Metisse.

At first glance it looks identical to gnome. The real treat is when you start fooling around with windows. Rotation and 3d really gets new meaning. It is a bit useless for office drones though, who would read documents upside down or in reverse? The positive on this is that it has many possibilities for implementation in future computer interfaces such as table-top computers and so on.

5. Enlightenment.

I really enjoyed my time spent using enlightenment, but it was a bit buggy and still needed some work. It has some novel ideas, such as the desktops stacked on top of each other like a stack of papers. With a little work this will become an awesome desktop environment to work in.

6. KDE4.

Yep, bottom of my list.

I used it, and tried to like it, but just couldn't feel at home. The lates releases are awesome, and I believe that this is a real desktop for the future. A few gripes I had included buggy plasmoid implementation, and the huge and chunky panel (taskbar.) I am fond of tiny taskbars, and why in KDE4 I cannot make it slimmer as in gnome, kde3 and xfce I do not know. The built-in compositing effects (transparency is cool...) is nice, but I generally do without. In fact, KDE4 and Vista Aero feels TOO similar to me, as if the two teams had a bet among each other who could create the best interface when measured along some very strict guidelines.

So there you have it, my list of favourite desktop environments.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120221)

A true Linux geek uses a tilling WM. Right now I use Awesome, and the name doesn't mislead anyone!

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (1)

pintpusher (854001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120471)

xmonad FTW!!

oh, and I prefer that my WM "tiles" rather than "tills". I can make enough of a mess of my code without my WM roto-tilling it for me... ;-P

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (2, Informative)

TheCycoONE (913189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120997)

6. KDE4.

Yep, bottom of my list.

I used it, and tried to like it, but just couldn't feel at home. The lates releases are awesome, and I believe that this is a real desktop for the future. A few gripes I had included buggy plasmoid implementation, and the huge and chunky panel (taskbar.) I am fond of tiny taskbars, and why in KDE4 I cannot make it slimmer as in gnome, kde3 and xfce I do not know. The built-in compositing effects (transparency is cool...) is nice, but I generally do without. In fact, KDE4 and Vista Aero feels TOO similar to me, as if the two teams had a bet among each other who could create the best interface when measured along some very strict guidelines.

So there you have it, my list of favourite desktop environments.

I've been using KDE 4 as my desktop environment of choice for a couple months now. In KDE 4.1 the 'huge chuncky panel' can be set to any desirable size - though admittedly the process for resizing and placing it still needs some work. The 4.2 beta just released adds auto-hide as well.

A lot of people used early versions of KDE 4.0 and gave up on it, but it is rapidly evolving into something much more usable, and very pretty.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (1)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 5 years ago | (#26121143)

I used 4.1 for a while, and I must admit I seem to have missed where the panel resizing happens. Since I have no active KDE4 install at the moment I cannot check it out.

There is no denying the prettiness of KDE4.

I agree KDE4 is evolving rapidly, and I hope it will at least reach the heights of KDE3.

And I seem to prefer KDE (3, Insightful)

quintesse (654840) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119511)

the different File Open/Save dialogue boxes grate on me

Which is exactly one of the reasons why I prefer KDE. I don't know how you can stand the Gnome requesters! They seem horrible to me.

But at the same time it grates that some applications only exist in their Gnome version, Firefox for example.

Although most of the time I just look for a KDE version of the application (like using Kopete instead of Pidgin, although it is not as feature rich it at least integrates perfectly with KDE)

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE (3, Insightful)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119805)

I use kopete instead of pidgin for the features, and I'm a Gnome user.

I also use Amarok, for its features.

I use Gnome as a desktop environment but I'm quite open to using Qt/KDE apps where they are superior -- I feel no need to be a desktop bigot :)

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE (1)

quintesse (654840) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119865)

Well I'm no desktop bigot either, heck I use Fedora, there's almost no way around using Gnome apps with that distro :)

But I do look out for KDE alternatives, because the integration is quite important for me. The different look doesn't bother me at all (the "feel" on the other hand does).

In the end I'm happy that, typical for the Free/Open software world, there are options to choose from.

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE (1)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119981)

I have yet to find anything, anywhere, available on any OS, which is even half as good as amarok.

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE (2, Informative)

Xabraxas (654195) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120727)

I have yet to find anything, anywhere, available on any OS, which is even half as good as amarok.

Banshee 1.4

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE (1)

tjwhaynes (114792) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120571)

the different File Open/Save dialogue boxes grate on me

Which is exactly one of the reasons why I prefer KDE. I don't know how you can stand the Gnome requesters! They seem horrible to me.

What's wrong with Ctrl-l (letter L)? Then just type with completion. Or just type - the GNOME dialogues generally are driven comfortably from the keyboard. I rarely use the mouse in GNOME.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE (1)

quintesse (654840) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120803)

Well for one, the completions sucks! (Or it used to suck at least, haven't tried Gnome for a while)

Completion has to work when you are looking at it or not. So if I type /usr/bin it should show /usr/bin, but in Gnome it would decide that because there is only one entry beginning with U you must mean /usr so in the end it would show /usrsr/bin. Auto-complete is nice, but it has to complete WHEN I SAY SO (by hitting TAB or ENTER or whatever key is defined).

And of course Gnome is supposedly easy to use, so why did I have to look for ages to find the Search function in the file dialog? There was no Search bar, no button, nothing in the right click menu... no you just have to type and the search box pops up... assuming the file list has focus. Pfff, that is SO easy it becomes difficult again!

You like it, that's great, really, but it drove me nuts. I prefer KDE _exactly_ because it shows the options that it supports, it doesn't try to hide it in clever ways. Do I think that sometimes the interfaces are cluttered? Yes, but I don't want less features. It's a price I'm willing to pay. And if some day somebody comes up with a way to have lots of features and still have an uncluttered , easy to use interface, well all the power to them. Until then I will happily use KDE :)

Re:And I seem to prefer KDE (1)

tjwhaynes (114792) | more than 5 years ago | (#26121019)

Well for one, the completions sucks! (Or it used to suck at least, haven't tried Gnome for a while)

I can tell...

Completion has to work when you are looking at it or not. So if I type /usr/bin it should show /usr/bin...

That's what it does.

And of course Gnome is supposedly easy to use, so why did I have to look for ages to find the Search function in the file dialog? There was no Search bar...

It's in the Places sidebar on the left of the dialog. Indeed, it's the first option.

Software does occasionally improve. You might be surprised at recent releases of GNOME.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26119529)

I have to admit - I like Linux, and I will take either Gnome or KDE over Windows any day (And over OSX, since I prefer a start menu to a dock). But I have never been able to settle on Gnome of KDE being better than the other - I wish i could mash them together into one window manager...

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (4, Informative)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119681)

(And over OSX, since I prefer a start menu to a dock)

Well just for extended information (I am not trying to make you change your choice) the reason why OS X doesn't have a start button is because of the way that files are organized are different then on Linux and Windows.
For the most part application have everything it needs inside its own folder and when you see that application icon it is actually a folder that automatically runs the application within it. So except for going to the start menu you can just enter the Application Directory and choose your application much easier then with Linux and Windows (for that method). Where in windows you have a Program Folder directory filled with exe files that may or may not lead to to you running your application, that you want. Or Linux /usr/bin directory filled with application some are X Based (which really should be in /usr/bin/X11 or /usr/X11/bin) but still you have alot of little utilities mixed in your application.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (2, Informative)

Octorian (14086) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120061)

And on MacOS, all apps seem to prefer to be lumped in a completely disorganized pile in /Applications. Sure, you can rearrange them, but that rearrangement may break some apps, or at least cause issues with their updaters.

For this reason, I find it cumbersome to use a Mac without at least some sort of programs menu. Currently, I use a little app called MoofMenu [lobotomo.com], which does the trick.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119969)

In windows land, I run apps from the quick launch bar, hit win-R and type it in (which only works for some apps), or fumble around the start menu. In OS X, I run apps from dock (like the quick launch bar) or from spotlight (command-space, then type in a couple letters). Personally, it's generally faster to use spotlight as a launcher since it's entirely keyboard based.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (5, Insightful)

Spacelem (189863) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119585)

The usual arguments against GNOME are that it hides too much configuration, and that it is too slow compared to KDE. However, I find that GNOME usually has things configured correctly first time, and most of the options I do need are merely cosmetic (mouse focus etc), and these can be set in the preferences. Yes it hides things, but it makes the correct default options so most people probably never really need to find them. I've never found GNOME to be particularly slow, except for loading applications which probably does take too long, but once they're up they're fast enough. It's usually pretty easy to figure something out, and things usually work first time (e.g. CD burning, CUPS, HAL and D-BUS).

The only things I find that let GNOME down are its slow loading applications, Nautilus, and Totem (which I have to wrestle with to do what I want). Fortunately I have the command line and mplayer which taker care of most of these things.

KDE on the other hand, I find clunky, it's difficult to find where change the settings (which rarely default to the way I'd want them), and there are a host of little things which put me off, and I think GTK looks much better than QT. I can't put my finger on what exactly they are, but KDE always drives me back to GNOME after a few days' use. Really, the only thing I like about KDE is its wallpaper settings, which are not enough to make me switch, and Kile, which I can run quite happily under GNOME.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (2, Interesting)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119795)

> The usual arguments against GNOME are that it
> hides too much configuration, and that it is too
> slow compared to KDE. However, I find that GNOME
> usually has things configured correctly first
> time

The problem is, that's subjective to the users. i I've yet to find any WM that looks decent the first time. That, sadly, only works if the WM you are looking at has most of what you want/need.

> and most of the options I do need are
> merely cosmetic (mouse focus etc), and these can
> be set in the preferences. Yes it hides things,
> but it makes the correct default options so most
> people probably never really need to find them.

KDE doesn't need to hide them since it organizes them fairly well.

Last time I tried gnome, it took forever to get to auto-hiding panels, increasing font sizes, and getting colors set so my eyes didn't hurt.

But some of that is probably odd for most users.

> KDE on the other hand, I find clunky, it's
> difficult to find where change the settings
> (which rarely default to the way I'd want them),

They are kept in /one/ application that lets you change them (and you can right click on various UI elements to change settings specifically to those elements, at least in KDE4. The control application, kcontrol or something like that, has a tree structure rather than a static list. Maybe I just find different things intuitive, but I found it much easier to find whatever I wanted to change, in that as opposed to gnome.

Performance wise, I've found KDE to be rather responsive in terms of UI and Apps, however, I usually use machines with a decent/large amount of memory. KDE seems to use more memory than gnome, so I suspect if I cut the memory down, I would see KDE taking a significantly higher performance hit.

> and there are a host of little things which put
> me off, and I think GTK looks much better than
> QT.

Really aesthetics vary. For the most part, I find QT looks a bit more polished than GTK. As far as aesthetics go, the panels on Gnome look like Pre-OSX mac, which always seem like it didn't bother advancing out of the 80s with everyone else. (OSX Looks nice however).

That being said, if I could find the setting to change the font on the desktop icons (I've gotten every other font to a readable size), I'd probably switch to XFCE...

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (1)

Spacelem (189863) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120139)

> The problem is, that's subjective to the users. I've yet to find any WM that looks decent the first time. That, sadly, only works if the WM you are looking at has most of what you want/need.

Agreed. I've tried to make it clear that this is just my opinion ("it seems to me", "I think"...). I see screenshots of Fluxbox, Xfce4 or FVWM, and I've thought they look fantastic. Actually trying to make things look like that myself on the other hand is quite tricky, and I usually fall back to things that look simpler and plainer (less eye-candy means less eye-strain).

> Last time I tried gnome, it took forever to get to auto-hiding panels, increasing font sizes, and getting colors set so my eyes didn't hurt.

These things should be reasonably easy now. Right click on any panel and the option is there in the preferences. Font sizes are in System > Preferences > Appearance (which you can reach in several ways, including via setting the desktop wallpaper, since they've all merged). Getting the right colours is difficult, as it's very subjective. The clearlooks theme which is default on many distributions is quite good, but it's not everyone's taste.

> The control application, kcontrol or something like that, has a tree structure rather than a static list. Maybe I just find different things intuitive, but I found it much easier to find whatever I wanted to change, in that as opposed to gnome.

Another subjective option. I think I remember the way the control panels worked on Mac OS pre X, and it works like that. I find the tree distracting, and it's very easy to get to the different preferences, providing they're well organised (not always the case, but things usually improve between releases). Occasionally I can't find what I'm looking for (and people always remember failures better), and I don't like using GConf (I want to get as far away from a Windows registry as possible).

As for GNOME's pre-Mac OS x panel: they don't work like old Mac OS, as they don't give you the applications own menus at the top, but that was always a debated subject anyway. Mac OS did some wonderful things, and some really stupid things, but it worked for the time. You can give GNOME a dock like OS X, but every time I've tried I gave up after a few hours, as it just seemed a distraction that wasted lots of desktop space. Just put the usual icons you want to use on the panel, and use a window list, not as pretty, but just as functional.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (2, Informative)

tjwhaynes (114792) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120655)

Last time I tried gnome, it took forever to get to auto-hiding panels, increasing font sizes, and getting colors set so my eyes didn't hurt.

Lets take it from the top.

Autohide in four clicks.

  1. Right-click panel,
  2. left-click Properties,
  3. left-click autohide,
  4. left-click close.

Application Font size in five clicks.

  1. Left click Preferences->Look and Feel->Appearance.
  2. Left-click Fonts tab.
  3. Left-click "Application font" (for example)
  4. Left-click font size
  5. Left-click close.

Changing theme colours in 4+3*N clicks.

  1. Left click Preferences->Look and Feel->Appearance.
  2. Left-click Theme tab.
  3. Left-click Customize.
  4. Left-click Colours.
  5. Repeat N: Click appropriate colour tab and click new colour. Click OK.

That last one is a little messier but you could always have chosen a different theme which matched your aesthetics better.

All with GNOME 2.24.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119991)

Okay Maybe I am just a bit strange but I don't see that much difference between the two. I tend to use Gnome on my desktop because I have settled on Ubuntu and I find Ubuntu has a more finished feel than Kubuntu.
I have not tried out KDE4 yet. The simple fact is that I can get my work done on XP, Vista, Gnome, or KDE. I can move between them all without much effort.
Now Compwiz does make a real difference for me as far as ease of use. I love it and it really works well for me.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (4, Interesting)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119655)

I have the same reaction. Back when they were in their 1.0 versions I was actually a KDE user (for as much as I "used" Linux back then - mostly I just played around in it because Windows had become boring at the time). Back then I remember hearing about some Linux standards group (I think related to Red Hat, and I think now irrelevant) deciding to officially back Gnome instead of KDE as the "official Linux desktop", due to licensing issues at the time with QT, and I was very sad at the news since at the time Gnome seemed almost like a toy to me.

Somewhere along the way though (largely after the release of GTK2), Gnome started feeling more "professional". The interface became streamlined, and attractive, but not really flash. KDE on the other hand took the turn towards flash, cluttered interfaces IMHO. KDE4 reminds me a lot of Vista. Flashy and pretty in screenshots, but it doesn't flow well or feel good (to me; naturally this is an opinion issue) when you actually sit down to use it. It's style over substance IMHO.

Both have their problems though. I'd really, really love for Linux get enough polish to approach Mac OS X. It's functionally a perfect desktop Unix system but the proprietary nature keeps on running on a limited subset of machines, with the source closed so the things that *ARE* wrong can only be fixed by Apple.

I've been hoping for "the year of Linux on the desktop" since 1998. We're getting closer every year for sure, but it remains to be seen whether or not we'll actually make it one day :).

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (2, Interesting)

Spacelem (189863) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119871)

Since I started using GNU/Linux exclusively back in 2002, I'd say that was the "Year of the Linux Desktop" for me. Every passing year I feel more sure I made the correct decision. I feel that Windows continues to get more difficult to use, and more intrusive, while Linux gets more applications and more choice, centralised installation programs and package management, everything gets easier to use, things look better. Yes, I have to trawl forums to makes things work sometimes, but the same is true for Windows. It's been the YotLD over and over again for me. And no, I don't run Ubuntu.

With regards to KDE, I know you can change the look to make things appear as professional or flashy or geeky as you want, but GNOME usually looks like something I'd want to use, whereas KDE doesn't. Both have totally configurable panels and menus (something I feel Windows desperately needs), but again I feel it is easier to achieve something usable with GNOME than with KDE. GNOME feels considerably better polished than Windows, although I'd rate Windows slightly higher or about the same as KDE.

Once wine does a better job of running Half-Life 2, then I'll be able to get rid of Windows completely. Wine already runs older games like Thief better with fewer crashes (although a little forum searching was required to make it work). I suppose that would be the true YotLD for other people.

P.S. I've only used Mac OS X once or twice, but it didn't impress me much, and I don't know of anything it offers that really make me switch.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (1)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120043)

I really want Linux to be my main desktop operating system. It's just the stupid small things that take huge blocks of time to "solve" that prevent me from making the switch. Why would I want to spend tons of hours editing my xorg.conf to get an extended desktop that (a) doesn't work with Compiz because it's really a hack and not a solution, and (b) has to be reconfigured, by me, everytime I dock/undock my laptop? Getting dual-screens of any kind to work with Windows takes five minutes at the most.

It's these kinds of pitfalls that make it difficult for me to push my clients to give it a try. I'm more supportive of those that are curious and wish to try it, but I would be hard pressed to do that setup for someone with a small business.

It is a lot closer than before, though.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (1)

Spacelem (189863) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120313)

Oh god yes. I've used Linux for years, and I still find X to be a real pain. Sometimes it just doesn't work, and it can take hours of trawling forums and fiddling before it finally pops up (and note you either been continually rebooting, using another computer, or using a command line browser). Someone, somewhere, knows how to fix your problem. Things are improving slowly.

Where I work (a biomathematics and statistics research and consultancy group in Scotland) almost everyone uses Linux, or dual boots between Linux and Windows. Fortunately we have competent sysadmins who can fix problems when they arise, and we don't need everyone to debug their own xorg.conf errors. I think this sort of environment is a great place to start for people who would want to use Linux at home.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (1)

tjwhaynes (114792) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120753)

I really want Linux to be my main desktop operating system. It's just the stupid small things that take huge blocks of time to "solve" that prevent me from making the switch. Why would I want to spend tons of hours editing my xorg.conf to get an extended desktop that (a) doesn't work with Compiz because it's really a hack and not a solution, and (b) has to be reconfigured, by me, everytime I dock/undock my laptop? Getting dual-screens of any kind to work with Windows takes five minutes at the most.

More times than not, you can delete xorg.conf and just let Xorg set it up on the fly. I've had three or four systems work perfectly without a xorg.conf file (various laptops and desktops). The only /etc/X11/xorg.conf files I feel the need to edit now are the synaptics mouse pads which have some nice extras that aren't available in the vanilla configuration. You can find out what Xorg has actually done by looking in /var/log/Xorg.0.log - the internal configuration file is near the top and can be copied to /etc/X11/xorg.conf for tweakage.

If you are running an ATi card (and I'm guessing that you are) you might find that a lot more works than you anticipate. Including automatic detection of extra screens (thanks to XRandR). My ATi FireGL v5200 can run compiz and multiple monitors without additional configuration these days.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (1)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119985)

Seriously, now that Compiz is mature as a desktop composition engine, using that with the latest GNOME not only looks a ton more elegant than KDE, but is also less cluttered and a lot more professional.

I think that Linux will become a more serious desktop alternative when it makes serious headways in the corporate sector. Given that many (if not most) people get most of their computer exposure in that environment, this is the area that they should be attacking (and I seriously hope that they are).

I believe that once Evolution adapts a more stable foundation for Exchange and when OpenOffice.org expands a little more, growth will ensue.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119737)

I don't know why, but whenever I try out KDE (every few years or so) there's something about it which drives me back to GNOME again.

I find the same - the other way around. Put it down to personal preference or different usage.

The majority of useful utilities on Linux are written with GTK widgets rather than Qt

Most of the apps (not quite the same thing!) I prefer are KDE. What I have open right now: Firefox, Kate, Konsole, Konqueror, Akregator, Epiphany, Kmail.

the different File Open/Save dialogue boxes grate on me.

I for prefer the KDE one.

I do like some things about Gnome, and will continue to give it a try every so often.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (3, Interesting)

lineymo (539729) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119753)

If only GNOME had drawers for the panels which included text. I have RDesktop links to 15 Windows servers, I can see the name of the server next to the text when I add the custom menu on the panel in KDE. I can't do that in GNOME.

So, in this case, KDE gives me flexibility that GNOME does not.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119803)

Gone is definitely better.

KDE just feels like Windows too much. It does look as nice and it just doesn't feel right.

It's not junk it just feels like it's being held back because it wants to be Windows.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119857)

KDE just feels like Windows too much.

But you can'r really blame KDE for being copied in Vista.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (1)

Tatsh (893946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120107)

I prefer KDE over GNOME but my only problem lately has been worry of easily moving to another desktop. It does not look like it will be easy. I am not sure if this problem exists with other environments like GNOME or Xfce or even Rox.

Basically, all of KDE's (and ALL app's) settings are in ~/.kde as one would expect. However, although (obviously) all settings file are open standards (for example, iCal, vCard, etc), it seems as though you have to hunt down these files, know what they are, in order to migrate to GNOME because running full-time apps like Kontact on GNOME (or any other environment) is not appealing and SLOW. Yes, GTK+ certainly takes a lot less RAM than Qt3 and then you add another layer, KDE for theming, special widgets, desktop integration, etc. It makes sense but in the end it has been slower than alternatives for most people. There IS a difference however between distros. You might notice that Kubuntu is REALLY SLOW and awful for running KDE, while Gentoo (with some nice - USE flags) and even Fedora have a much faster KDE. If you're running Kubuntu (like I was) and find it slow, I would suggest trying another distro. Moving ~/.kde from one distro to another does not work 100% but works a lot.

But what if you want to move from KDE to GNOME? Again, you hunt down those .ics files and vCards and the MBOX email box (I use Thunderbird because it's far better than KMail on 3.5). Then you import those. This is manual labour (meaning an average user could never figure it out) in my opinion that should be handled by the apps that create the data. Right now, there are a few apps that export settings but will average users (and even us lazy users) want to bother finding these options?

I think there needs to be less artificial lock-in between desktops. At the moment, I feel a tiny bit locked in to KDE because I use its apps (which I like a lot). When KDE4 is stable enough FOR ME, I will move to it. Overall, KDE has been the best because you get all the options thrown at you instead of (in the case of GTK/GNOME) limited options in dialog boxes and the rest in ~/.gtkrc and other places.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (1)

pherthyl (445706) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120495)

I think it's a matter of exposure. You say that most useful Linux progs are written with GTK, but really the only one that I use day to day that is Firefox, and that's not even a GTK app, it just happens to use some GTK widgets.

Once in a blue moon I fire up Inkscape, and that's about it. VLC is now Qt, Skype is Qt, Google Earth is Qt, Konversation for IRC, Okular for document viewing, OO has a version drawn with Qt widgets, k3b for burning discs, plenty of good qt music players, Krita and kolourpaint for image editing (really kolourpaint is enough for 90% of what I do), gwenview for image viewing, etc etc

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120545)

The majority of useful utilities on Linux are written with GTK widgets rather than Qt, and while the Gnome-Qt bridge thingy which replaces GTK objects works for the most part, the different File Open/Save dialogue boxes grate on me.

If that's the biggest complaint you have, that really underscores how excellent the desktop options on Linux are. Personally, I don't care which I use, but every once in a while I'll come across a save dialog that doesn't have a text box to enter a path. That is pure evil, whichever toolkit is used.

Re:I seem to prefer GNOME (1)

bytor4232 (304582) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120735)

I prefer GNOME as well, I've found GNOME with Compiz, Emerald, and AWN to be the most productive and most beautiful environment I've ever worked with. Right now I'm using the Aurora Leopard theme off off gnome-look.org.

However, it is very resource intensive, and can't run it on everything I have in service in my home. I used to run XFCE on my old Athlon/256 meg Compaq Presario 700 Laptop, but the most recent releases of Xubuntu have been using almost as much resources as GNOME/Metacity.

I've recently turned to Fluxbox. Its takes a little kung fu to get it configured just right, but it uses next to no resources, has a system tray, and has a very nice set of themes, at least the Debian/Ubuntu packages do. I don't run it on my Acer Gemstone with 2 gigs of ram, or my desktops which all have 1 gig or more, but its a good alternative for those resource limited machines.

Ubuntu (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26119367)

Bloatware for noobs

Ubuntu and the new users (5, Interesting)

Andr T. (1006215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119567)

I bought a laptop for my wife some time ago. It came with a extremely bad distro that tried to resemble Windows XP in every way - and, of course, it failed.

So, I asked her if she wanted to try Ubuntu, and installed it in the laptop. I had some problems with drivers for the webcam (which still doesn't work) and the wireless driver (which works using ndiswrapper).

She never typed a single 'apt-get' in the command line (in fact, I think she doesn't even know there is one) but, after the initial setup, I didn't have to help her at all. And now, even being an average computer user, she is trying to spread Linux to her friends and colleagues.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26119593)

This reads just like my story, with "Kubuntu" substituted for "Ubuntu".

Re:Ubuntu and the new users (5, Funny)

Provocateur (133110) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119653)

Act 1, Scene 2:

(Wife bursts into room with printout, and looks accusingly at husband, who turns to face her from his laptop)

Wife: Did you write this? "average" computer user??

Husband: (incredulous) You read Slashdot?? On your second day???

(Cut to exterior shot of house. Smashing sounds ensue.)

Re:Ubuntu and the new users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26119709)

Depending on the hardware, you might need to (re-)enable that webcam in the BIOS - weird, I know, but it worked on my Eee PC.

For the Eee, hit F2 at the start of the boot process and enable the hardware from there. No idea why it was disabled by the Xandros>Ubuntu upgrade.

Install Cheese and see if it's alive!

Re:Ubuntu and the new users (1, Redundant)

WiglyWorm (1139035) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119717)

And now, even being an average computer user, she is trying to spread Linux to her friends and colleagues

Which will be fantastic, until they have to set up the ndiswrapper themselves.

I am an advanced computer user (I work in IT), and ndiswrapper caused ME to give up on Linux. I'll try it again when I have a card that plays nice, but I still think that what Linux needs is a friendlier interface than even Ubuntu can offer. Why should I have to type "apt-get"? Why don't the linux coders make a rich graphical "application marketplace" or, hell, an iTunes-esque GUI?

The easier you can make things, the more it will catch on. Ubuntu is definately not ready for the big time yet. It's close, but it needs a lot of polish.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users (4, Informative)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119813)

Why should I have to type "apt-get"?

You don't. Just go into the main menu and pick "Applications..." or whatever the menu option is. It pops up a simple, user-friendly interface for installing any major applications you'd be interested in, ordered by category (the same categories as present in the main menu, actually).

Of course, if you want to get a little more advanced, you can always pop up Synaptic. But there's absolutely no reason whatsoever that an average user needs to run apt-get on the command-line.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users (2, Interesting)

WiglyWorm (1139035) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119861)

You call it "simple", I will call it "simpler". Yes, it is easier than apt-get, but it is still by no means user friendly. It feels (at least the last version I used) like selecting drivers manually in windows XP. Not exactly a pain, but not as easy as it should be. It should feel more (IMHO) like finding add-ons for Firefox.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120051)

I sure am glad Microsoft created XP.

I remember the pains of windows 95 and 98 as well as the crap ware of ME. You wan't to talk about a pain, there you go.

Anyways, you have to remember, Linux is not windows so don't expect windows or you will always be disappointed. It's like eating a ham sandwich and bitching that the roast beef doesn't taste quite right. If it's roast beef you want, then order it in the first place.

Anyways, Typing apt-get or using the package manager or installing synaptic or whatever isn't that much of a problem. At least it is less of a hassle then figuring out the game play of new games. I got a new TV last week and it seems that the remote is giving me more problems then any Unubtu install has. We make changes to accommodate things like new TVs and Games without thinking twice about it. I'm not sure why we can't with Linux or Mac or Vista or whatever.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users (1)

WiglyWorm (1139035) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120211)

Oh yeah, Windows 95/98 "Plug-and-Pray" compatability was a joke, I would rather have manually set IRQs than deal with some of the crap I had to back then. However it was a growing process and it works very very well in XP, and even better in Vista.

I hope Linux will continue to grow as well. I find it interesting to hear Linux supporters say that they really want Linux to catch on, "Year of the Linux Desktop" and what not, but yet they expect the market they wish to target to adjust to them. That isn't the way it works. If people have certain expectations that are keeping them from trying Linux, then Linux devs should attempt (at the very least) to meet them in the middle. For instance, as a Windows power-user, I love the command prompt and all the power it affords me, however microsoft knows that not all computer users are going to feel comfortable, and so there are usually 3-4 different ways to do any task in Windows (command prompt, wizard, managment console), and usually one will fit most people's expectations.

To say "Anyways, you have to remember, Linux is not windows so don't expect windows" is very valid up to a point. Linux should not seek to emulate Windows. In fact, the best thing it could do right now in the wake of Vista is differentiate itself from Windows as much as possible. However, to neglect the user interface or ease of operation because "it works just fine for me" when there are clearly improvements that could be implemented smacks of eliteism. It seems like you (not you you, the proverbial you) don't want Linux to catch on as much as you say if that's your opinion. I think windows XP did a very good job of crafting a user interface. I think Mac OS 9 had a great interface too. That didn't stop them from updating OS 10 and Vista/7, did it? Find where improvements can be made, and institude them.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120883)

I understand and agree with what your saying to a point. However, you mentioned that the package manager was like installing drivers as if it is some foreign concept. Windows Vista, in the programs dialog, has a very similar feature where you can buy programs from windows live and download them and install in much the same way you do updates. This is in fact, very similar to windows update if I remember correctly except that instead of running inside IE, it has it's own window. (note, I tried Kbuntu so it might be different in the regular Gnome Ubuntu)

I guess where I was going is that there will always be differences. Currently, I don't think the differences are much different then going from XP to Vista or 98 (ME) to XP. Those are differences that we should be able to live with. This brings me back to the ham and roast beef comparison, the same can be said within windows itself with the annoyances between XP and Vista as well as the cosmetic differences between XP and Ubuntu or Mandriva or whatever.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for continuously improving the UI and making the User Experience better. But there comes a time when the only way to improve it is to install windows because someone isn't happy that it doesn't work exactly like windows. From your complaint about the package manager, I gathered that you just wanted windows. But hey, It doesn't matter to me, I'm typing this on an XP system, I use what's convenient and necessary at the time. This system was in XP so I didn't bother changing or moving to another console. And seriously, if you prefer windows XP or Vista, it doesn't mean there is anything wrong with you, it just means your like the rest of us and have your own tastes and opinions.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users (1)

Darundal (891860) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120083)

Can I ask how that is different than finding add-ons for firefox? To me it seems to be the exact same thing, without firefox.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120705)

One difference is that the Firefox pages often features screenshots, while the application installer in Ubuntu is plain text.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users (4, Insightful)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120203)

You call it "simple", I will call it "simpler". Yes, it is easier than apt-get, but it is still by no means user friendly.

How could it *possibly* be simpler? You literally select the category (say, "Sound and Video"), and then find something you like. I honestly can't conceive of a more user-friendly interface. Hell, it's *better* that the Firefox add-ons selector as it's a simple picklist ordered by category, as opposed to an interface where you have to know what to search for in order to find what you're looking for.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users (2, Insightful)

WiglyWorm (1139035) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120401)

Well, sometimes "simple" does not equate in to user-friendliness. The fact that it is a "simple pick list" is the issue. You're confronted with a list of applications, some well named, some not. Sorted by type... and not much else. If I look for a firefox add-on, to continue the comparison, I can sort by type or keyword, and get a brief description of the application click it for a detailed explanation as well as reviews and comments...

I'm not BASHING Linux, keep in mind. I would like to see it catch on, I'm just giving my advice. Sorry I can't program, or I'd build it. As it is, I'll give my opinion.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120483)

If I look for a firefox add-on, to continue the comparison, I can sort by type or keyword, and get a brief description of the application click it for a detailed explanation as well as reviews and comments...

Same with Synaptic, except without the user comments. I do think, however, that level of information tends to scare away the more shy users, so I'm also happy the default install/removal app doesn't have it.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users (1)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 5 years ago | (#26121045)

The Add/Remove application shows the application name and a one line description in the pick list. If you select an item in the list, a more detailed description (usually with a link to the app's website) is displayed in the lower window. It also gives user ratings, and in the future will likely use the Debian screenshot database to show a picture of the application.

While sorting is limited to application name and user rating, you can filter by type or run a keyword search. It is all very intuitive and I can't really see it being easier to use.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users (1)

xouumalperxe (815707) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120373)

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Lets say you want to install skype. You head over to skype.com, and you choose download. If you get the windows version, you'll then install using a more or less standard windows installer. If you choose to get the ubuntu version, you'll get a .deb, about equivalent to a windows .msi -- double click, wait, done. If you want to install applications that are equally supported in Windows and Linux, you'll get Linux installations that are as simple as Windows ones.

Now, let's say you know you want some sort of drawing program. You don't quite know which one, you just want something. In Ubuntu, you head over to the Applications thing (can't recall what it's called, always use synaptic), browse to the right category, check the short descriptions for something that seems interesting, double click. How would this process go in Windows? Can you honestly say it'd be simpler? (Yes, I'm disregarding Paint, just the same as I'm disregarding that most linux installs have Gimp.)

Re:Ubuntu and the new users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26119833)

Sure in windows you don't have to type apt-get, just a bunch of clicks and few typing on google to get your webcam a driver.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users (1)

WiglyWorm (1139035) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119927)

Or you plug it in and it works because windows comes with the driver for nearly any USB device, or you plug it in and windows update gets them. Hell, vista even gets the latest nVidia drivers for my video card for me as part of windows update.

Even if what you said was true (which it is in a few cases), it's more acceptable than apt-get because everyone knows the internet is available as a resource, and google has a great user interface. apt-get is a tool that many don't even know exist.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26120069)

Well, Ubuntu does it too, just plug it in and most of the time you don't have to worry about it :)

Sure they could made a better interface for installing things in Ubuntu/linux, but IMO CLI is the quickest way to get thing working, think if you have to tell you friend the location of an option that lost in a sea of tabs.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users (1)

Ultra64 (318705) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120117)

Yeah! Why should anyone have to know the slightest details about the tools they use?

Re:Ubuntu and the new users (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120469)

it's more acceptable than apt-get because everyone knows the internet is available as a resource, and google has a great user interface

Yes, everyone should be encouraged to download and run unsigned binary files from random 3rd party OEM websites. (Or links that come up in Google which purport to be such sites.)

Re:Ubuntu and the new users (1)

barq (1194291) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120023)

So much of this is luck with hardware. I've done many Ubuntu installs and most often everything worked out the box. But the hoops you need to jump through to get certain hardware running are very off-putting. :-( Assuming you have a desktop environment installed (and working!) I can't think why you'd have to type "apt-get...". Although instructions are often posted for the command line because they can be cut and pasted which is often quicker and can eliminate mistakes. But mostly graphical package management is pretty good and a strength of linux. Some people I know reacted with "Wow, you mean I can just click and install any of these for free?!".

Re:Ubuntu and the new users (1)

Ultra64 (318705) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120065)

Why don't the linux coders make a rich graphical "application marketplace"

You mean like it already has? The fact that you couldn't click on the System menu and select Synaptic doesn't mean that ubuntu isn't ready.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120685)

Why should I have to type "apt-get"?

Leaving aside the fact that you DON'T have to use apt-get directly, what's so bad about typing a command? Your brain devotes an immense amount of resources to the processing of language, surely typing a few words can't be too hard for you.

Try making it through the day without issuing any verbal commands. It would be awfully difficult to get what you want by just pointing at things. Life is much easier and better when you can use words as commands to get what you want. The computer is no different.

You're just reluctant because you don't know the language yet. And that's ok, there are tools that will help you get by. But as a foreigner in Linux land, you should know that learning the local language will help you out a lot. This isn't because the GUI facilities aren't there, in most cases they are. But because the CLI is truly a more powerful, and in the long run, easier to use than a GUI.

Re:Ubuntu and the new users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26121055)

Wow, I would love to meet your wife!

Wow this was disapointing. (3, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119657)

Okay next to nothing about Samba 4, AD, or how about the potental for better integration with and possible replacing of Exchange now that the protocol have been documented and released?

Re:Wow this was disapointing. (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119907)

If the possibility is there, why not take the initiative to get this project started or supported?

Not saying you can't ask for it, but this seems like a personal itch you should look at scratching.

Re:Wow this was disapointing. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120219)

Actually there are some projects now starting to work on the exchange protocol. Samba 4 is currently under development. I just want more meat out of a front page slashstory than two pages that just sort of touch on Novell politics and and why somebody likes Gnome over KDE.
Like the future of Samba and the future of FOSS solutions replacing Microsoft network services.

Re:Wow this was disapointing. (2, Insightful)

somenickname (1270442) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120553)

I agree. Jeremy Allison seems like a nice enough guy and his contributions are surely appreciated but, there was very little content to this interview. I'm not sure why this particular interview is worth putting on the front page other than getting people riled up into a Gnome vs. KDE war.

Re:Wow this was disapointing. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120663)

Riled up?
It shouldn't even do that. He likes Gnome better. So what so do I but I can use KDE just fine and I don't hate it.
Just blah... Not Jeremy Allison's fault at all. It was just a really bad interview. He his answers where fine it was the questions that sucked.

Tagged : Flamebait ? (1)

frenchbedroom (936100) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119669)

You call those flames ? FTFA :

No, I'm a Gnome fan really. I tried KDE 4 and it wasn't bad, but I find KDE a bit cluttered. There are too many options. I did a column recently on the Linux Haters blog, and the writer of that blog really summed it up with KDE. They're like, "Oh, change your encoding to ISO 8859-1". I know what that means, but my brother doesn't. Firefox says 'use Western European encoding' when it means the same thing.

This pegs the meh-o-meter. Even if I was the biggest fan of KDE I would still shrug at it (but I like XFCE better nowadays)

Jennifer Aniston (2, Funny)

jglov (1371125) | more than 5 years ago | (#26119877)

Am I the only one who initially thought the name of this article was "Jennifer Aniston on why she loves Gnomes"

Re:Jennifer Aniston (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26120147)

Am I the only one who initially thought the name of this article was

"Jennifer Aniston on why she loves Gnomes"

Everyone has their fantasies I suppose, but sometimes things like these really creep me out.

Re:Jennifer Aniston (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26120699)

...yes

I'm a big fan of KDE (1)

dfdashh (1060546) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120161)

While KDE's speed and overall configurability are a huge plus, it is really the apps that make KDE win over GNOME for me. GNOME just can't come close to Amarok, Konqueror (KIO slaves [wikipedia.org] in particular), and K3B.

Re:I'm a big fan of KDE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26120757)

I agree. I can't stand KDE as a desktop and don't use it (too much clutter and bloat), but the applications I wouldn't want to miss.

Gnome is a problem. (4, Interesting)

Poppa_Chubby (263725) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120359)

Gnome is a problem because it doesn't encourage desktop use of linux in the sense that users use applications that are written to work and play well together. Gnome does nothing to encourage that.

This is the reason why OSX (and even windows) is beating the crap out of linux on the desktop and why it always will.

The average Gnome user (according to /.'s own roblimo) patches together a bunch of applications that are pretty much desktop agnostic.
The other two cases are the "optimizer" that worries about the terminal program they're using taking up another half kilobyte of memory when they recompile their kernel, or a developer that doesn't care about the desktop because all they really do is development.
All of these type of users would be just as well using Windowmaker or FVWM or any other window manager that we used to fight over last decade.

KDE has its issues, but at the very least it attempts to encourage users to utilize the K* applications and those K* applications actually work together very well. Further, the environment is a fairly consistent development target for applications.

At the moment, KDE is really the only coherent desktop environment that the free unix world has (with a possible nod to Xfce). Enlightenment development stalls out on a regular basis and as it stands now is years behind even Gnome for the most basic stuff. GNUstep was a great idea, but its in the same boat as E, too little, too late.

Finally, let's remember why Gnome was initially developed -- as a political response to some issues with QT that no longer exist -- and more often than not Gnome is still chosen over KDE in distros due to politics.

Focus stealing is your enemy (5, Insightful)

skeeto (1138903) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120491)

Gnome used to be my favorite window manager, until I realized that the focus model is totally wrong, and there is no way to fix it. It lies in this principle,

No window should ever steal focus ... ever. Don't even do it if the computer will blow up, or the world will end, if I fail to respond.

If you are trying to maximize your computing efficiency, focus stealing is your worst enemy. It's entire purpose is to slow you down.

Focus stealing breaks flow and can also be a security issue. Let's say you are typing away in a text editor and some other application decides it needs you to make a decision in the form of a pop-up window. Just as you are hitting enter in your text editor, the window pops-up, grabs your return keystroke and accepts it as your answer, doing whatever the default action is. Or the case where you are typing a password and a dialog steals focus and you type part of your password out in plain sight into the dialog.

A lot of this can be blamed on Windows for having a really shitty focus model, which everyone else tries to emulate in order to appeal to mouse-driven Windows users, I guess. I have noticed that Vista has a slightly improved focus over XP, but still very wrong. This focus model is the same attitude that gets you the Windows update manager that bugs you every 10 minutes by stealing focus, or worse, automatically rebooting while you aren't even at the machine (this is simply unforgivable).

Unfortunately, if you switch to a reasonable focus model, you will break poorly designed applications that are used to the broken focus models (OpenOffice, Matlab, any IDE, to name a few). These are applications that use a lot of pop-ups that don't "disable" the main window, which is when it is ok. For example, save dialogs are just fine for pop-ups: you can't have the main window in focus, so the change in focus to the dialog is natural and doesn't have a negative effect (it's not actually focus stealing).

However, pop-up text-searching is always absolutely wrong, for reasons beyond focus stealing too*. You will find that removing focus stealing will (correctly) not give these search boxes focus, which really breaks things for these applications. (Firefox wins here, maintaining its fairly good usability, with the integrated, incremental search bar.)

KDE does actually have a setting that can strictly stop focus stealing, in the form of a sliding bar. This works most of the time, but it's not perfect. New windows do in fact steal focus for a few milliseconds. This is enough to occasionally steal a keystroke, but I can live with it for now.

At work, I only get to choose between Gnome and KDE, so some other window manager out there may get this 100% right and I haven't explored it. At home I use IceWM, which also has a broken, unfixable focus model. However, the software I use at home is better behaved, making it less of an issue.

* Side rant here. For seasoned Emacs users, the incremental search function is frequently used for navigation [googlepages.com] (see item 4). If I need to move the point by more than a few characters or words, I start a text search (C-s, C-r) and type some text at the point I want to go. I do this all the time without even thinking about it. This doesn't work in a pop-up text search, even ignoring the fact that the aren't incremental either. When you bring it up, usually ctrl+f, there is always a delay to the window coming up. If I start typing my search right away, as I am used to in Emacs, it will go into my document rather than the search box. I find this incredibly annoying. I shouldn't be waiting for the computer like that.

Very true (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 5 years ago | (#26120775)

I don't know how windows works low level but in X windows theres no excuse for focus stealing since its quite easy to make a window pop up over all the others but not take the focus so you still keep typing away in the window underneath.

Emacs (2, Insightful)

kwabbles (259554) | more than 5 years ago | (#26121195)

Since you mentioned it, I think Emacs is my favorite desktop manager. It's also my favorite CAD program.

Re:Focus stealing is your enemy (1)

Quantumstate (1295210) | more than 5 years ago | (#26121269)

In windows XP tweak UI can be used to prevent focus stealing. This works most of the time but there are some applications which seem to be able to get around this.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...