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!

Shuttleworth's Take On GNOME 3.0, Coordination with Debian

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the why-can't-numbers-jump-like-this-at-my-credit-union dept.

GNOME 320

suka writes "In a fresh interview with derStandard.at, Ubuntu founder Mark Shuttleworth talks about GNOME 3.0 — its strengths, but also about what he thinks is missing. He also mentions ongoing talks for a common meta-release-cycle with Debian which could delay the next LTS."

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

Gnome, eh ? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28673653)

Didn't someone tell him ? Google Chrome OS is dumping Gnome and KDE because they're clusterfucks.
The chance of gnome going anywhere past 2010 is pretty much zero.

Re:Gnome, eh ? (2, Interesting)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673997)

Feeding the troll, I know, but Google Chrome is not using Gnome or KDE because GC is designed to be a minimum functionality netbook distro, not a fully functional desktop. It may *become* a fully functional desktop, if Google is able/willing to take development that far, but whether Google's sprawling managerial structure will be able to concentrate the resources on that one project given their entrenched resource allocation tradition of "spread wide, spread thin" is something I don't think will happen in the near future.

Re:Gnome, eh ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28674311)

IT WILL ABSOLUTELY HAPPEN IN THE NEAR FUTURE

Sorry for yelling, but Chrome OS is a major strategic move originating from the highest executive ranks of the Googleplex. There is no way that it is going to go the way of your regular 20%-rule pet project.

mod parent up (-1, Troll)

A12m0v (1315511) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674067)

GNOME and KDE are clusterfucks, this is why I use Fluxbox. Fluxbox is much less of a clusterfuck by being much less of DE. It is a real shame that the UNIX world standardized on X and now they seem to be standardizing on GNOME.

Also Pulse Audio is a pile of shit that doesn't work!

Re:mod parent up (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674179)

Nice troll, but chromeOS is also ditching fluxbox! and i bet you can't justify your hatred of X either! I'll give you PulseAudio, expanding/improving alsa would have been a better call, but AFAIK neither you nor I are good enough to do the actual development of audiosubsystems, those that are got to make the call.

The only thing I got out of TFA... (1, Interesting)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673661)

The only things I really got out of reading TFA were "We have a release coming up" and "Files and folders confuse people". Oh, and "Jaunty was broken but it was Intel's fault and they fixed it." And "Kubuntu will have the same release schedule" which isn't really about Gnome.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (1, Interesting)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673715)

Yea, and I like how the "Files and folders confuse people" comes across. Seriously, if files and folders confuses you, you might want to reevaluate your need to use a computer.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (3, Insightful)

lilrobbie (1193045) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673765)

Ever watched someone who hasn't grown up on computers use files and folders? The physical notion may not be confusing, but the computer implementation definitely leaves a lot to be desired. I have had a 60minute discussion with someone about the distinction between copy & cut, and when it does and doesn't work. So yes... files & folders as used by computers can be enormously complex for those who are not accustomed to remembering large tree-maps ;-)

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (3, Insightful)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674011)

This is exactly why I hated it when MS started ramming the new term "folders" down our throats. The word "directories" suited better, as it did not conjour up invalid analogies in the minds of newbies. Now instead of just having to explain what a directory is, I now have to explain what a folder is AS WELL AS how it's not like a real folder.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (1)

quadrox (1174915) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674025)

Would you care to enlighten me on what exactly is the problem? As an experienced computer user I probably don't see the forest for all the trees, so could you please describe what the problem is?

Thanks.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (4, Insightful)

slim (1652) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674101)

In meatspace:

  • a file is a container for storing paper
  • a folder is a container for storing paper

They are almost synonymous. So someone with a non-computer background won't intuitively know which one is supposed to contain which.

In computer lingo:

  • a file is an entity that might be analogous to a wad of paper (e.g. a word processor document), but might not (e.g. an MP3)
  • a folder is a container for zero or more files

So it's completely unintuitive.

I think the word 'file' has its roots from the days when a 'record' was still a fundamental concept. So a 'record' is a sheet of paper, a 'file' contains a bundle of records.

I prefer 'directory'. At least then it doesn't push a false analogy on an already confused mind.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (1)

quadrox (1174915) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674147)

I see, thank you very much. That would also suggest that most of the icons representing directories are bad, because what they usually represent is a folder/file in meatspace terms. Am I right?

Hmm, I guess I never really thought about this stuff, but I can see how somebody deeply entrenched in meatspace terminology would have a problem with this. But does that really apply to most people - or won't most people have no problem learning the new meanings?

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (4, Funny)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674355)

Waitress: Morning!
Man: Well, what've you got?
Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and meatspace; egg bacon and meatspace; egg bacon sausage and meatspace; meatspace bacon sausage and meatspace; meatspace egg meatspace meatspace bacon and meatspace; meatspace sausage meatspace meatspace bacon meatspace tomato and meatspace;
Vikings: meatspace meatspace meatspace meatspace...
Waitress: ...meatspace meatspace meatspace egg and meatspace; meatspace meatspace meatspace meatspace meatspace meatspace baked beans meatspace meatspace meatspace...
Vikings: meatspace! Lovely meatspace! Lovely meatspace!
Waitress: ...or Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and meatspace.
Wife: Have you got anything without meatspace?
Waitress: Well, there's meatspace egg sausage and meatspace, that's not got much meatspace in it.
Wife: I don't want ANY meatspace!

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28674189)

Solution: Instead of "file" we say "disk-bound binary data abstract object" or dbbdao for short.
Then there is no room for confusion.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (3, Interesting)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674265)

In computer-space we have either directories/files or folders/documents.

In any case, word excel and powerpoint documents can contain multiple sheets of paper, and I see a lot of people take that to extremes - for example having all the day's letters contained in one word document, or every single spreadsheet they work on in one excel document.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28674087)

Ever watched someone who hasn't grown up on computers use files and folders?

Back in the 1980's I had to teach our clerical staff to use command line terminals and X11 terminals that would be used by them to do their work. Everyone concerned had never seen a hierarchical file-system before although some had used CP/M so these people did have a vague idea. It took about 15 minutes to get across the basic concepts of what a file was (in Unix everything is a file) and what a directory (in those days a folder was a manilla folder) was and all of them understood this. The training was carried out on Unix machines and no one was confused.

Everyone I taught had no issue with the concepts of copy, cut and paste and that was on GUI applications running under Unix. As for remembering large tree maps you have got to be joking you never needed to do that under Linux/Unix from inception although you could make complex structures if you wanted but this would have to be your decision. Even MS windows does not force you to do this although IMHO it does have some annoying structures which can get quite convoluted. BTW I am taking about the users home directory not the overall file-structure.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (5, Interesting)

hattig (47930) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673787)

Or you could be less elitist and realise that we're far beyond having to manually file things in this day and age, indeed that is something the computer was meant to eradicate.

A tagged document repository (with versioning history) would be best. Coupled with desktop search and changing the system file open window to be one that lets you use said search and tags to find the file instead of clicking through folders. Most files people want are more recent, so a default view of reverse chronological for the filetypes the application supports would be best.

You do, of course, still need a traditional filesystem view of this repository, and that is probably where the work will go in. Sure, tags could be folders, and you could have multiple ways of drilling down to the same file. You'd probably have a folder hierarchy that shows the most used tags at the highest level, then each subfolder is really a tag filter.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28673813)

Or, GNOME 3.0 could just be one big dialog box which says "You are too fucking stupid to use a computer", and it switches you computer off when you press the OK button. Except that would probably fail due to some bug.

I guess I will be sticking with several gnome terminal windows, except gnome terminal will get removed, so back to xterm.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (1)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673815)

So you're going to give people who don't understand files and folders "A tagged document repository"?

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (2, Interesting)

hattig (47930) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673877)

Yeah.

It would be a file library like itunes is a media library. File management would be done by the implementation instead of directly (unless you wanted to, we shouldn't take functionality away).

Some applications could use tag-discovery libraries to automate tag generation.

I'd hope it wouldn't be called "Tagged Document Repository" in the end-user documentation or presentation.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (3, Insightful)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674073)

I've been pushing this for the last six months. I think that the best example of how to use a tagging system already exists in programs like F-Spot. A tree-like tag system goes on the left. A time-line goes on top. The files are in the main pane in reverse chronological order. Double-clicking takes the main pane into "view" mode and embeds a document, image, or video viewer. Click the "edit" button to open an editor.

The "open file" dialog in applications would be the file browser with a filter for supported files.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (1)

Yoozer (1055188) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673955)

By using a computer you manipulate the graphical representation of a Turing-complete symbolic language while performing vast amounts of integer calculus. All of this I do when I open MSN. Just because I explain it in a complex way doesn't mean it has to look complex by default.

A tagged repository can be shown as a set of folders. Where a document is actually located on the computer is not something I should be concerned with unless I manage files manually, as long as I can find it. Having a set of Word documents that show stuff like "Procedure THX1138, last revision by John, 3 days ago" tells me far more than the botched "Untitled Document Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy 0003 DO NOT DELETE.docx" actual humans can produce, or the horror people inflict on their poor inboxes by using Outlook PST files as some kind of botched MSN.

Tags solve the problem of having different folder names for everything or homebrew structures. They just don't force unified tags or the act of tagging it at all, so you have to make this a habit for people new to computers. It is however far less difficult to do than dealing with baroque folder structures and nomenclature dating from the time 8.3 filenames were radical.

Organization requires talent. Ask them to come up with some representative tags of what they just typed, and they'll do a better job.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (4, Interesting)

dyefade (735994) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674085)

Sounds great to me - obviously you wouldn't call it that though!
Consider gmail "labels" vs traditional email/imap folders - labels are both easier to use for novices and more flexible for capable users.

YMMV, as ever.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (2, Interesting)

Homburg (213427) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673989)

Coupled with desktop search and changing the system file open window to be one that lets you use said search.

The GTK file open windows do in fact integrate desktop search, as well as a recently used file list, although the standard folder view is the default, and the search and recent options are not especially prominent. I've only recently got into the habit of using them, and they certainly are, a lot of the time, far superior to digging through some confusing mess of folders.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (1)

MrMr (219533) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674079)

we're far beyond having to manually file things in this day and age
Exactly, so the whole 'Desktop' metaphor, including the silly unintuitive dragging about of pictures to various obscure effects on the underlying file-system has come and gone.
Good riddance to bad rubbish. Glad I can still type things like 'cp -a' and 'mv'.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (4, Interesting)

stevied (169) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674309)

Arguably a Unix filesystem already is a tagged repository.

In Unix-y filesystems, you don't put files in folders. You put files in the filesystem, where they get a number (inode number). Then you can set up other special files (directories) to act as indices, linking names to the inode number - as many as you want. Voila - nest-able tags (albeit not versioned in most filesystems.)

(Actually, if Unix hadn't insisted on banning '/' and NUL from filenames, a directory could in fact link arbitrary binary data to inode numbers. Bit of a missed opportunity there ..)

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673827)

Well it's not about files and folders in general. It's more about how application files are placed on different locations instead of one particular folder. Of course I'm not referring to all files, the bins should still go under e.g. /usr/bin but we all know how some applications prefer certain locations and others on other locations. There should be a more "official" standard to this. It wouldn't disallow any application to place itself wherever it pleases, but it would ease the user experience by having a majority of application files collected under the same tree. I see no harm come out of this.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (2, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674165)

Since we are going to have non technical people using linux I think it would be better to have everything in / except /home under a folder like /linux. So you would have...
  • /home
  • /home/smithm
  • /linux
  • /linux/etc
  • /linux/bin

...and so on

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (2, Informative)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674295)

Or you could do what MacOS does to hide the unix filesystem from the user.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (1)

davetv (897037) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674347)

I live in bris and would be interested in 1 phone mike ... how do we get in touch?

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673879)

OK, a little explanation:

Why is it so hard for people to grasp files and folders?

You have a folder. You put files in this folder. You may put other folders inside this one.

Really. Someone gives you a confused look, throw a couple manila folders in their face and ask them to put paper in them. Then, if they continue to be confused, slap them.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (1)

slim (1652) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674125)

Really. Someone gives you a confused look, throw a couple manila folders in their face and ask them to put paper in them.

Here in the UK at least, many people would call those manila folders "files".

And since when have you called paper "file"?

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674169)

I don't put manila folders inside other manila folders. They don't fit.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (2, Interesting)

value_added (719364) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673911)

Seriously, if files and folders confuses you, you might want to reevaluate your need to use a computer.

A bit harsh, but I'd agree otherwise. I think the problem is that for those that do understand the concepts of files and directories, they balk at the idea of having to use them.

Granted it's possible that the average person in daily life has an aversion to organisation, but what I see is a relatively recent and often shrill insistence that their computer (and, by extension, the applications they use) should do their work for them and magically organise everything behind the scenes.

I consider that kind of thinking sheer laziness. And given that everyone is a system administrator (whether they like it or not), I'd suggest it's also shortsighted.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (2, Insightful)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674021)

what I see is a relatively recent and often shrill insistence that their computer (and, by extension, the applications they use) should do their work for them and magically organise everything behind the scenes.

And then there's the bit that always gets me (and which annoys me with some of the Firefox 3 results and can be a touch annoying with too many Gnome Do extensions): They also want to to magically understand what they meant when they try to find files from the magical file system.

People have these fantastic ideas about "intelligent applications" that guess what you want, but there are just too many times when they can't/don't get it right because I know what I want and could do it quickly with a "dumb" system, but it is ambiguous to a "smart" system and so it returns excess cruft that I need to filter out.

And before anyone mentions "learning" with smart systems, that's all well and good until I want to do a different but similar behaviour, at which point it is more buried than it should be because it has "learned" that I only ever do the normal thing ;)

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673925)

I think we should recognise that the file naming and organising semantics we have known for 40 years might not be the best way to go. When using a graphical user interface I don't see why several files should not have the same name. Versioning could be provided by the file system. This has been in RSX since the 1970s and VMS since the 1980s.

I think it would be interesting if gnome users could create folders with similar semantics to the garbage bin. You could put multiple files in the container regardless of their file name.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (1)

ubernostrum (219442) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673949)

I think there are multiple ways to take this.

One is whether you can answer a couple simple questions: where is this program's executable located, and where is its configuration located? Though in theory there are standards for this, in practice they're not followed or don't really solve the problem. The executable may end up in /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /usr/local/bin, /opt/bin, /opt/local/bin, etc., etc. The configuration may be in a dotfile in your home directory, it may be in multiple files in one or more directories, it may be site-wide in /etc and customizable (or not) on a per-user basis, etc., etc.

The only platform I've seen tackle this in anything approaching a consistent way is OS X, where you know that there's a directory where the applications live, and you can easily predict where the configuration will be (Library/Application Support/(name of application), either top-level for global config or in the user's directory for per-user config). Simply getting a consistent standard for this on Linux distros would be a big win.

Organization of files created by end users is tougher; various platforms have tried different approaches -- "My Documents", specific locations for different types of media, etc. -- and so far nobody's really managed to beat this, with the result that every user either ends up with their own ad-hoc organizational system or (more commonly) ends up with a single directory holding "UNTITLED-1", "UNTITLED-2", and so on. And this isn't really related to users being dumb or not knowing how to use a computer; it's due to the fact that (1) we still impose a physical metaphor (a desktop, with files organized into folders inside) even though it's increasingly irrelevant and (2) we still haven't noticed that managing individual pieces and collections of data is a tedious and repetitive task, and that automating such tasks is a big part of why we use computers in the first place.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674081)

I don't see why users should care about what goes in /bin, /usr/bin and so on. Thats for the operating system and package manager to take care of.

My wife has her own filing system. Everything she is currently working on goes on the desktop. Her files are arranged geometrically into "folders". She has a hierarchy in her mail system. Everything outside there is pretty ad-hoc. He system drives me mad, but what can I do? Its her system.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28674109)

http://www.gobolinux.org/

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674177)

The only platform I've seen tackle this in anything approaching a consistent way is OS X

And the BSDs.

where you know that there's a directory where the applications live, and you can easily predict where the configuration will be ... Simply getting a consistent standard for this on Linux distros would be a big win.

The above isn't relevant to the article as Shuttlesworth was talking about the "every-day user experience" relative to the "Where is my stuff?" question. Feature-filled desktop environments is what most people concentrate on, but unless you're using a terminal (or prefer to think of the computer as an appliance), it's still the case that the file manager presents the most useful interface to the computer.

That said, I'd agree that the consistency you're referring to would be a big improvement for Linux distros. Consistency is the chief reason why I use FreeBSD wherever possible (and why others who do consider Linux a bit of a mess). That, and the completeness of the documentation. Consistency, documentation and ... ruthless efficiency. I'll come in again.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674331)

in practice they're not followed or don't really solve the problem. The executable may end up in /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /usr/local/bin, /opt/bin, /opt/local/bin, etc., etc.

Thats up to package maintainers and generally they are followed,
sbin = executables for root only
/ (core os) /usr (everything else) /usr/local (locally compiled stuff)
I'm yet to see anything use /opt unless i unpacked it there in which case it goes /opt/program_name/whatever_the_developer_wants

The configuration may be in a dotfile in your home directory, it may be in multiple files in one or more directories, it may be site-wide in /etc and customizable (or not) on a per-user basis, etc., etc.

This is down to each program so very hard for a distro to change, but generally its also simple
if its a system setting its configured in ./etc, some programs prefer a flat rc file, some prefer a subdir with all the settings in seperate files (whatever fits the task best tbh), but generally /etc/prgname+tab will list the correct file/dir. per-user configs vary more but anything kde based is in .kde/ anything else is in .prgname/ (i think gnome is a bit more of a mess as they decided to switch to .settings but not everything has yet, however gnome3 will probably finish the transistion)

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673967)

Yea, and I like how the "Files and folders confuse people" comes across. Seriously, if files and folders confuses you, you might want to reevaluate your need to use a computer.

It certainly would be nice if only people qualified to use a computer did so, but it won't happen any time soon.
Even people who have lived with computers all their lives still have no idea how they work. All they know are a handful of applications and MSN messenger.
That's because to most of the population, computers are utterly boring.

No need to be catty (1)

LKM (227954) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674005)

To most people, hierarchies are confusing. They work for programmers and technical people (the people who visit /. obviously understand hierarchies, otherwise they would be confused by /.'s comment system), but most people don't get hierarchies. My parents store all of their files into a single folder. Most people do that. Humans look at their environment in terms of spatial and temporal aspects. Humans understand where things are in space, and when things are in time. I've written a letter yesterday. I've put the printout next to the phone. Those are things people get.

But they don't get hierarchies, because hierarchies don't exist in nature.

There's no need to be catty or insulting about this. You're not like everybody else, and the fact that other people have different strengths doesn't make them idiots.

Re:No need to be catty (3, Insightful)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674257)

But they don't get hierarchies, because hierarchies don't exist in nature.

I'd have to disagree with you here. The very words we use to describe hierarchies come from nature - look at 'trunk' / 'branch' / 'leaf', 'parent' / 'child', 'master' / 'slave'. Maybe they don't instantly, intuitively get the idea when it's used as a metaphor, but that's partly vocabulary. They'll get it quickly enough if you explain to them that a 'folder' or 'directory' is a box, and a 'file' is a bit of paper that you can write on, and you can put either paper or boxes in any box.

If they don't 'get it' when it's explained that simply, then they're below the mental cutoff for that level of abstract thought. Many people (for instance) struggle to execute a sequence of simple instructions, and cannot solve even simple logic problems. They literally don't have the mental machinery required to visualise three different entities and the relationships between them, "A is next to B and B contains C". I'm not saying they're 'idiots' or that they're worthless, they just don't have abstract thought among their strengths.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28674197)

exactly gnome should just emulate 'user standards' fast efficently and in a pretty way. that is all.

No one wants a quake engine based file browser (exageration) just because it is different.

GNOME 3's solution for files and folders (3, Interesting)

Homburg (213427) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673979)

I'm suprised Shuttleworth didn't mention Zeitgeist [gnome.org] , which is a solution to the difficulty of manually managing files and folders and is, as I understand it, being considered for inclusion in GNOME 3. The basic idea is to group files (and other activities, like web bookmarks and email contents) automatically according to human-relevant criteria, like "edited last week" or "related to this document I'm writing." It's still very much a work in progress, but it looks like it could be pretty great.

Re:GNOME 3's solution for files and folders (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674209)

Ignoring good opportunities seems to be a Linux tradition. (In the marketing sense, not the technical sense). I think big inroads could have been made with netbooks with a bit of advertising.

Re:GNOME 3's solution for files and folders (1)

sammyF70 (1154563) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674293)

paid by whom?

Re:GNOME 3's solution for files and folders (1)

reallyjoel (1262642) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674345)

Exactly. When are people going to realize that the slow uptake of Linux or other free software has nothing to do with quailty, and everything, absolutely everything, to do with marketing? No year will ever be the 'year of Linux'.

Re:The only thing I got out of TFA... (1)

ericrost (1049312) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674195)

Oh, and there'll be a new theme by the next LTS.

Pulse Audio is what I worry about (4, Insightful)

wrook (134116) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673717)

I'm not worried about X breakages, personally. I even have an Intel 945G and I can live with the problems its causing. What I can't live with is the extreme instability of Pulse Audio. It crashes my apps contstantly from broken pipes. OK, people should be checking their pipes. But Pulse Audio itself crashes very frequently (about every hour or so on my machine). Rhythmbox won't go for more than 10 minutes without either crashing or audio failing. This is incredibly bad for me.

I realize that it's probably due to older, underpowered hardware (3 year old cheap laptop), but this should not be happening. I've yanked Pulse Audio from my machine altogether now and it's a lot more stable. I was also getting lock ups in Firefox every hour or so. Now that I've dumped Pulse Audio, I've only had one lock up in the past 3 days (still can't figure that one out -- related to video drivers???).

So, I plead with Ubuntu developers: either fix Pulse Audio, or punt it. The extra features it has is *not* worth the massive pain that some people experience.

Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673751)

What I can't live with is the extreme instability of Pulse Audio. It crashes my apps contstantly from broken pipes. OK, people should be checking their pipes.

Everyone wanted to run ted stevens out on a rail, but he could have made laws to protect us from defective tubes!

I realize that it's probably due to older, underpowered hardware

they're not lead are they?

BAM.. yeah.. i just did that..*cheesy music and stage hook NOW*

Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28673977)

There's more problems than just pulse audio, there are too many daemons appearing in general. Stuff like gnome-pty-helper, gnome-keyring, ssh-agent, consolekit, hal-addon-storage, gconfd. All this stuff is fine on general purpose machines when the user mainly engages in browsing, multimedia, IM and office apps. The problems arise when you want to do something demanding like A/V work, with distros increasingly integrating services for the common usage case it's becoming increasingly difficult to get a usable setup on older hardware.

A few years back, I could successfully do multitrack audio and video editing on systems that struggle just to run todays desktop environments. I'm not talking about underpowered hardware per se, I'm talking about having to strip out ever increasing amounts of bloat and replacing the wm with something sane (currently I use openbox). As for pulse audio, that's one of the first things I yank from an install in favour of jackd.

There's also something very wrong with the intel drivers. Something to do with the in-kernel mode setting where the kernel configuration refuses to let you disable framebuffer if you've enabled DRI or AGPGart (can't remember which). I had to manually hack the .config through 7-8 recompiles just to get X up and running with these drivers. Ridiculous.

Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about (1)

ericrost (1049312) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674259)

So why not use the alternate installer and only install what you want? start with a minimal install and build from there. You aren't locked into the "desktop cd install" ffs.

Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about (1)

dyefade (735994) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674099)

I left Ubuntu at the start of the year after 4 relatively happy years - PulseAudio was one of my biggest complaints.
Even if I could have got it working properly, I shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get my computer to play sounds.

Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about (2, Funny)

quadrox (1174915) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674239)

DITO - with 8.10 I had to buy a webcam just so I would not get delay on my microphone when skyping. After 9.04 not even that workaround worked any longer. I have since switched to Arch even though that is likely not what I want either. I wish I was a millionaire and had money to hire a dev-team to create a proper linux distro.

Re:Pulse Audio is what I worry about (3, Interesting)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674215)

Whats the point of it? my problem with pulseaudio is I'm getting all these bugs but i cant see a singe case where its better than a tricked out alsa setup (well actually it does deal well with simultaneous log-ins, but I'm sure that could have been edged into alsa without as many problems as PA brought). Perhaps the problem is distros have invested a fair bit of time in it, and now they're in the longest que for the bar but don't want to switch because while they would get served sooner, they'd have to accept they just wasted 5minutes in that que.

Not the KDE4 way, plase (5, Insightful)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673761)

I only hope they will follow a different path than KDE team.
They rushed to release 4.0 and since then I'm still struggling to have all the features I used to have in KDE v3.5.
And, more important, I hope that Ubuntu people won't trash GNOME v2 from night to day like they did with KDE v3.5.

Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase (0)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673819)

I think it's a bit unfair to criticise KDE 4.0. It wasn't supposed to be for the end user, but for some reason the end users started using it and then started complaining. 4.1 was supposed to be the proper release, but I found it too painful to use compared to KDE 3.5 and as a result I downgraded back to Hardy.

Unfortunately Hardy's long term support ends in October so I'll have no choice but to upgrade to Karmic. Hopefully KDE 4.3 will be more along the lines of what people want.

Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase (4, Insightful)

Razalhague (1497249) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673857)

They release a 4.0 and are surprised people start using it? WTF?

Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase (4, Interesting)

squoozer (730327) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674019)

The KDE 4.0 release was a total management cock up from start to finish but it did have some positive sides. If they hadn't released it as 4.0 a lot of people wouldn't have tried it out and therefore they wouldn't have found as many issues as they did. They certainly should have worked more closely with the main KDE distributions to make it clear to end users they 4.0 was going to be a dog. With hindsight I think it would have been better to have held off on 4.0 until it was 4.1 quality. That way they would have got most of the user testing but without so much of the "I want to stab you in the eyes for making me ruin my machine".

I don't hold out much hope for Gnome bringing great new things to the party. I try it out every now and then but it just doesn't do it for me in the same way that KDE does. All the Gnome LAFs look terribly dated dumbed down. While I don't spend my days admiring the widgets used in my applications I prefer to look at something that is pleasing to the eye just like I would rather the view from my house was green fields rather than a rubbish dump.

Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase (1)

segedunum (883035) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674059)

The KDE 4.0 release was a total management cock up from start to finish.../blockquote> Hmmmm, it wasn't from KDE's perspective. It's the way things have always worked. The KDE developers set themselves some goals for KDE 4.0 and they achieved them - mainly API and ABI stability. What happened was that distributors then blindly started compiling and packaging it and then whinging when they found out that their users weren't too happy with it. Virtually all distributors are braindead when it comes to putting together a whole system and looking intelligently at the software they want to use. It's why we have PulseAudio being thrown into desktop systems today. That thing isn't stable at all, let alone feature complete.

Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase (4, Insightful)

segedunum (883035) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674117)

HTML malfunction.........

The KDE 4.0 release was a total management cock up from start to finish...

Hmmmm, it wasn't from KDE's perspective. It's the way things have always worked. The KDE developers set themselves some goals for KDE 4.0 and they achieved them - mainly API and ABI stability. What happened was that distributors then blindly started compiling and packaging it and then whinging when they found out that their users weren't too happy with it. Virtually all distributors are braindead when it comes to putting together a whole system and looking intelligently at the software they want to use. It's why we have PulseAudio being thrown into desktop systems today. That thing isn't stable at all, let alone feature complete.

Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase (0)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674047)

people pick up a .0 release and are surprised its not as polished and featureful as a .5? WTF?

The kde4.0 snafu really highlighted a problem in ubuntu->KDE communication, other distros got that kde4.0 would be rough around the edges and at least offered kde3.5or shipped their 4.0 with a lot of patches ect. I tend to follow kde developement from afar and I've always know that kde4.3 is the first kde4 that is end user ready.

Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase (4, Interesting)

pz (113803) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674203)

people pick up a .0 release and are surprised its not as polished and featureful as a .5? WTF?

The kde4.0 snafu really highlighted a problem in ubuntu->KDE communication, other distros got that kde4.0 would be rough around the edges and at least offered kde3.5or shipped their 4.0 with a lot of patches ect. I tend to follow kde developement from afar and I've always know that kde4.3 is the first kde4 that is end user ready.

No, distribution packagers decided KDE 4.0 was good enough to include in their releases so it got sent out to a lot of people. I don't know if you tried 4.0, but I did. It was horrible. Saying, "it was not as polished and featureful," does not describe what happened with 4.0. KDE 4.0 was a huge, massive step backwards in functionality that should never have been considered for release. It was barely alpha-grade software at release time. It still contains idiotic major achitectural mistakes (like what amounts to an entirely new, and needlessly separate windowing system for the Plasma widgets) and requires a major reorganization to what goes where (I can never find the right submenu / screen to make adjustments because they're split over too many unrelated interfaces).

Blaming the users is shortsighted. Blaming the distro packagers makes some sense. But placing blame on the KDE team for the total cockup that was 4.0 is putting it where it is due. KDE4 is inching toward consistency and usability, but what we have NOW is what should have been the original release -- ignoring the massive mistakes in the redesign that remain deeply baked into Plasma.

The message here is simple: if you're going to radically redesign a product with a large user base, don't release the replacement until it's in much better condition than for minimal changes. With 4.0 and the introduction of Plasma, the KDE team should have (beyond being struck repeatedly with a two-by-four for being frelling nincompoops) skipped a release cycle in order to get things into better shape.

Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674071)

More like they released 4.0 and are surprised that people assumed it would be stable. If they hadn't the bugfix process wouldn't have been as quick, this is how FOSS development works. One cannot expect FOSS development to be like properietary development and then get disappointed by the differences.

Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673861)

Hardy's support doesn't end until April 2011.

> but for some reason the end users started using it

The blame for that lays squarely on the shoulders of the Kubuntu team and others like it that shoved 4.x down everyone's throat and cut off 3.5 support. It wasn't the users' fault. With anything later than Hardy, you either use 4.x or you use Gnome. Some choice.

Running Hardy, because every release since then has sucked.

--
BMO

Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase (2, Informative)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674251)

Since 4.2, KDE works just fine. I use it all day long and have no trouble with it.
The early releases were majorly broken though. Why they made it into the distros is beyond me.

Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase (2, Insightful)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673867)

I would say that when you release something to the public (especially with large "marketing battage") it is for the public, unless stated differently.
And then, what about all subsequent releases untill now? Are all of them "not for the end user"?

Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28674003)

Insightfull? Just STFU. KDE 4.0 was CLEARLY labeled as "WILL EAT YOUR CHILDREN" everywhere, except for in the release notes which someone screwed up. Anyway, since when, exactly, is an upstream project responsible for what a downstream project, in this case the distribution your installing on your system, chose to include or not? How is it the KDE projects fault that various distributors apparently did not read ANYTHING but the release notes, and apparently did NO testing whatsoever that would have revealed that 4.0 wasn't for end users, and thus should have been avoided? Hmmm? Go back to under your bridge.

Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase (1)

tapanitarvainen (1155821) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674089)

Unfortunately Hardy's long term support ends in October so I'll have no choice but to upgrade to Karmic.

You can run KDE3.5 with Jaunty, see https://wiki.kubuntu.org/Kubuntu/Kde3/Jaunty [kubuntu.org] -- I've been doing that for a few months and it works quite well. Whether it'll be possible with Karmic, remains to be seen.

Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674123)

I think this is what hes trying to address

Debian release team. So the Debian release team has indicated that they are very open - not about a release date but a freeze date. That freeze date would be the time where we sit around and look at all the major components and decide what the major versions would be that we collaborate around. There is no pressure that we have to agree on everything, but just actually having the conversation is useful for any upstreams who care about this information.

I understand why kubuntu choose to jump the shark (they thought it was easier to shift people to kde4.x and help get it working*, than "waste" time supporting an old version of their second rate DE), and while i belive they were wrong, i switched to debian, I'm glad that they are moving to address the problem.

*Probably not the best call as ubuntu has more end users pre developer(esque) people than most distros.

so I'll have no choice but to upgrade to Karmic

There are other distros *cough*debian lenny still has 3.5*cough*, I used kde4 as an excuse for a wander and i do despite what some upstream devlopers claim, ubuntu really is a pretty good distro. But im generally under the impression KDE4.3 will be much more useable for end users than 4.0/.1 (.2 is ok but a bit slow and buggy on fedora)

Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase (1)

ericrost (1049312) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674273)

From what I've heard EVERYTHING is a bit slow and buggy on Fedora these days. *duck*

Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase (5, Insightful)

mrtommyb (1534795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673843)

What KDE4 proofed is that you can also sit down and have really interesting conceptual changes that get introduced as big shifts.

What KDE4 proofed is that if you make really awful software that is full of bugs even long term fans will switch to using an alternative.

Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28673873)

What KDE4 proofed is that if you make really awful software that is full of bugs even long term fans will switch to using an alternative.

No they wont.

Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase (3, Informative)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673895)

Well I am using kde 4.2 now on just one of my machine and its awesome. It is so snappy and uses far less resources than kde 3.5 which i use on the other machine. But still not as lightweight as iceWM that i use on yet the other machine. In fact once the new slackware comes out I will probably switch all machines over to kde 4.2.

What went wrong was that distro put in the new version far too early.

I have never really liked gnome... It always seems to consume the ram like a windows desktop...

Same on OS X/PPC (4, Interesting)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674283)

I use that version on OS X, thanks to Fink project. While they don't promise any kind of 'final' version at this state, I can easily keep KDE 4 applications in my OS X Dock, using them instead of iTunes for example.

They are linked to actual OS X frameworks, down to Quicktime and very interestingly they use far less CPU and resources than regular OS X apps.

There are similar reports from Windows users who binary installed it and using Amarok 2 etc. right now. While on it, is there any reason why KDE 3.5 given up when KDE 4 installed? I keep using KDE 3.5 suite on OS X too. It doesn't conflict with anything at all including KDE 4.

I think what KDE 4 is and what a huge revolution it is will be understood in 1-2 years. For example when Nokia and other members of open source Symbian foundation starts using it in some form in their smart phones.

No one will repeat the KDE4 tar pit (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28673951)

I say that IMO KDE4 was the biggest FOSS failure regarding management, planning, and development ever. It is at least the biggest cluster-f* of failure I can remember of. After such a text book example of how to destroy a project, I doubt anyone else will repeat it.

[...]

The KDE 4 release - according to... myself :-P

A bunch of devs decided to rewrite code, for the sake or rewriting. Much more code than they could churn. Users did not care, many other devs did not care as well. They literally walked into the 'tar pit'. So taken by group think they thought the more people we suck in, the faster we may find our way out of this tar pit.

So they decided to "trick" users into using it by calling this particular SVN checkout of "4.0". They knew it would get pushed into users due to the expected meaning of a ".0" release. At the same that they defend themselves saying that it was implied to be work in progress, they admit that the move was to get testers to it, as otherwise no one seemed interested.

KDE maintainers in many distros -probably also taken by 'group thinking'- decided that indeed, the greater the amount of people we inflict this pain, the faster we'll get out of this tar pit. And KDE4 was trickled down onto users.

I have no respect for people saying that a line in release notes was the only thing that was missing. KDE was in a tar pit. It still is, and no "line in the release notes" would have changed that.

Users did not want KDE4 code. They wanted the 3.5 branch, but that was being killed, with many bugs being closed in 3.5 with the excuse of it being "unmaintained" (yes, there was a maintenance release but that was actually much *later*, when some devs realized the size of the kde4 problem).

[...]

The only problem in this group thinking was the piece where they believed that (1) users did not have anywhere else to go; (2) that the Desktop world would keep still in the 3 years that it took them to rewrite existing code. The desktop environment that used to have 70% of user preference (Linux Journal pools) is now a bleeb in Gnome's radar.

Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase (1)

haifastudent (1267488) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674163)

What, specifically, is missing in KDE 4 for you? I'll help you file the bugs, but you need to tell me what is missing.

Re:Not the KDE4 way, plase (4, Informative)

nutshell42 (557890) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674271)

Gnome 2.0 was just as unusable. They just pretended is was for philosophical reasons.

OSX 10.0 was crap, hell even Microsoft needed 3 years after Vista (with some major architecture changes).

It just takes too much time the achieve feature/stability/usability parity with the old system no matter how needed those major under-the-hood changes were.

So sorry, Gnome will take the same path as everyone else and sites will rush to declare 3.0 "A Major Disappointment". What you can hope for, though, is that distros won't be so braindead to drop Gnome 2 immediately after the 3.0 release.

Honestly, there was a time when distributions were concerned about providing a usable user experience instead of just grabbing all the latest stuff, add their configuration tools and ship that crap. See PulseAudio, great idea, terrible execution on every single fucking distro I've tried.

Yay! Fixing 100 Paper Cuts! (4, Informative)

ziggamon2.0 (796017) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673775)

So, it finally happened! A major effort by a distro to fix one hundred really small but irritating bugs. Also known as polish. This is what Ubuntu needs, and to be fair has been quite good at. Just fixing more and more of the tiny annoyances is what creates a well-rounded desktop. On the other hand, they are introducing Gnome Shell, which while probably cool, will certainly introduce a couple of hundred new paper cuts!

https://launchpad.net/hundredpapercuts [launchpad.net]

Where is my stuff? (0)

digipres (877201) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673807)

The "where is my stuff?" problem is not trivial. My work desktop is an Ubuntu installation where I do my actual work with Windows XP running in Virtualbox to let me get to corporate legacy things (like my email). At home I have a Linux desktop main machine. I carry around a Linux netbook and an Android phone. There are a handful of servers lurking in datacentres around the world on which I have shell accounts and on which I have some of my 'stuff'. I have code hosted in various places. My stuff is diverse. It's photos, blog posts, documents, music, videos, administrivia, code, email etc. I have no idea just 'where' all of my stuff is.

Don't include Gnome 3 in the next LTS (2, Insightful)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673809)

I'm not a Ubuntu advocate (more of a Fedora/RHEL person really) but if the well documented problems with KDE 4 are anything to go by then including Gnome 3 in the next LTS release of Ubuntu would be IMHO a big mistake.
An LTS release deserves to be of the highest quality from Day 1. To me it would be madness to base an LTS release on anything Gnome 3.0.
IMHO an Ubuntu LTS release whould be the desktop equivalent to RHEL or SLED in terms of stability. If it is not then you have shot yourselves in the foot. If this means being conservative in package selection then so be it.

Re:Don't include Gnome 3 in the next LTS (4, Insightful)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673847)

Long Time Service release. They have to support it for 4 years, fixing bugs, preventing security problems etc. That would be more difficult to do if the LTS ships with Gnome 2 but Gnome 2 isn't being actively supported by its developers (who are working on Gnome 3).

Re:Don't include Gnome 3 in the next LTS (1)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674229)

The same metrics will apply to RHEL 6. If this comes out in the same timefram as the next Ubuntu LTS then I would be willing to bet that they won't include Gnome 3.0 in release.
RHEL 5 has a service/support life of 7 years so RedHat are in the same boat and manage quite well to keep support going.
If Canonical are going to get into long term support on a serious basis then they need to adopt the same sort of conservatism in package selection as RedHat do. Perhaps getting burnt by Gnome 3 might be a lesson worth learning in the long term but I certainly would not want to be one of their paid for support customers.

Ok, this is very much crystal ball gazing but if you can't learn from your and others mistakes then don't even try. KDE 4.0 was released and picked up by various Distros with the consequences we all know about. All I'm saying is please Canonical, be careful about using Gnome 3.0 in the next LTS release.

Re:Don't include Gnome 3 in the next LTS (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674245)

Sometimes you just have to suck it up and do the work, distros maintain stuff, thats what they do! The problem with kde4 is at the time canonial only had a couple of dedicated kubuntu devlopers so couldn't do kde3 and kde4, with gnome this isn't the case and they will likely support both 2 & 3 for a while

Re:Don't include Gnome 3 in the next LTS (1)

FrostDust (1009075) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674211)

Beyond stability, also consider the category of the release, "Long-Term Support." Not nessicarily "most stable," but "most usable for the next five years," is what is being prioritized.
If you remember back to last year, there was debate over whether it was right to put Firefox 3 Alpha in the 8.04 LTS. The few holdouts still using Firefox 2 seem to mostly be people who dislike the awesome bar; even Mozilla's dropped support for Firefox 2 last year. Imagine if Canonical had kept with the "more stable" version of Firefox, they'd have to support FF 2 until 2013.
While stability is important in an LTS, it is also foward-looking, trying to predict the future of open-source software a few years down the road.

GTK (4, Insightful)

Haiyadragon (770036) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673825)

Well, GTK+ is due for an overhaul. Fix the damn file picker. Get rid of all that excessive padding, maybe by making it themeable. Some consistency in menuitem dimensions would be nice.

Also, either give Metacity some features, at least the bare essentials, or switch to another window manager. That non-optional minimize effect is cringe worthy.

Re:GTK (1)

Homburg (213427) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673959)

Jesus, the GTK file picker is not what people should be spending time on - it's already much, much better than the file picker in any other GUI framework.

Re:GTK (5, Insightful)

marcansoft (727665) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673995)

The GTK file picker is quite possibly the worst file picker I have ever seen. Even Windows 3.1's crappy stuff was better - it might not support long filenames, but at least it didn't require one extra click in order to do anything useful.

Seriously, "browse for other folders"? I still maintain that the genius who thought that up needs to be shot.

Re:GTK (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674037)

Seems like it's a big divide. Personally I much prefer the Gnome file picker over any other, but it has been ages (seems like years) since I last had to use "browse for other folders". No, that's not because I only ever dump stuff in a single folder, that's just because it's always expanded on my machines. I've got a couple of QT apps installed on my home machine and the file picker in their feels like a big step backwards to the old Windows days. The "places" and the cookie crumb for location can be very useful.

Re:GTK (1)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674161)

Seems like it's a big divide. Personally I much prefer the Gnome file picker over any other, but it has been ages (seems like years) since I last had to use "browse for other folders". No, that's not because I only ever dump stuff in a single folder, that's just because it's always expanded on my machines. I've got a couple of QT apps installed on my home machine and the file picker in their feels like a big step backwards to the old Windows days. The "places" and the cookie crumb for location can be very useful.

If you have Jaunty and Gnome, the Qt apps (not KDE apps) use the Gtk file dialog by default. Try it out.

Re:GTK (5, Insightful)

qupada (1174895) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674207)

People who modded this troll really need to stop and think about it - parent is just about spot on. The look and feel of the vast majority of GTK apps is frankly awful.

Some consistency in menuitem dimensions would be nice.

Now admittedly maybe this only manifests when you're using small interface fonts (I'm using 7pt here, for reference). Taking GIMP's menus as an example, menu items with images are significantly larger than ones without - a full 25% larger (20 vs 16 px). I don't have a huge number of gtk apps on my system to check this in, but inkscape and wireshark seem to have the same issue.

Fix the damn file picker.

This is a pet peeve of mine too. Bearing a striking resemblance to one I remember from Apple Mac systems pre colour monitors, the current design of the filepicker was in no way an improvement.
For some reason or another the "location" text field is hidden by default (and even when shown, is oddly not populated by default with the path to the current directory). What could have been useful breadcrumb-style navigation buttons were added, except all but the one representing the current directory is hidden until you click a different button (this is despite there being the entire width of the file picker for them to fill). The lack of switchable view modes in the file listing is mystifying, it seems to display "thumbnails" of images when browsing, but it doesn't seem to be possible to make those thumbnails any bigger than 16x16px.

That non-optional minimize effect is cringe worthy.

Also the effect that draws big bold black rectangles on your screen to indicate the borders of hidden windows while alt-tabbing. Something regrettably KDE copied. I don't need this, if I wanted to waste my time with annoying and ultimately useless visual effects I'd install compiz.

In reality, once it has become difficult or event impossible to make the system behave in a manner conducive to it actually being useful for anything, it's time to look elsewhere. As I often have to remind people, just because they are happy with the default settings doesn't mean everyone will be.

Gnome 3 in LTS (0)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673923)

TFA:

Not sure if GNOME3 will make the next LTS

Interestingly, Shuttleworth didn't indicate in any way that Gnome 3 could have even a remote shot at getting into the LTS. Luckily, putting it in just after the release would be a suicide move.

Does Debian know about this? (0)

alfino (173081) | more than 5 years ago | (#28673963)

I cannot find any discussions that Shuttleworth would have had with the Debian release team on the release or project lists. I hope he's not just talking to himself or only with those people who are members of the Debian release team and on his payroll.

Gnome 3.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28673981)

Well... I for one look forward to Gnome 3.0 with just the same fondness that
I now look back to that spatial file management episode they had a while back.

Clearly, when these gentlemen of the Gnome Foundation advocate
sweeping user interface changes, they for sure know what the user wants.

And having all the support of Mark, they don't have to just restrain themselves to
what users want, they can actually afford to know better than them. Zooming out
of the desktop with an OpenGL effect every time you want to run an application
is just what the doctor ordered...

I just can't wait for Ubuntu to embrace it ASAP.

I admire spectacular failures.

Gnome 3.0? (0)

segedunum (883035) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674181)

As far as I know Gnome 3.x, and GTK3.x that it should be built on, are complete vapourware. I don't know why Shuttleworth is being asked about them.

GNOME 3.0 sneak preview (5, Funny)

a09bdb811a (1453409) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674191)

You login, which you don't actually have to do anymore because it was too complicated, and you're presented with a fullscreen dialog box that says:

"You are too fucking stupid to use this computer. You don't understand files and folders and things. Click OK to shutdown your computer. Your computer will shutdown in 28 seconds anyway, because you're probably too stupid to work the mouse. That's the thing underneath your hand. What? That's the thing attached to your arm. Ah, fuck it. 20 seconds."

That's pretty much the entire GNOME 3.0 experience. The dialog box has been in development for the last 18 months, but obviously there's still a lot of usability testing left to do, mostly by Redhat and Canonical "engineers". The OK button logic was originally written in C but they've redone that in C# running on Mono, and Miguel de Icaza is already calling the work "superb".

Meanwhile, the KDE people have been busy readying the next batch of widgets that you will never add to your exciting K desktop experience.

Future plans for GNOME involve reducing the 3.0 dialog box down to a single pixel, then translating the status of that pixel into the power LED on your computer. This will remove the need for a display, further simplying the desktop experience and reducing enterprise costs. KDE plans to turn its entire desktop into a widget of itself, allowing you to remove it entirely with a single right-click.

Yes, my friends: the future of the Linux desktop is no more fucking Linux desktop. What a relief.

Re:GNOME 3.0 sneak preview (1, Troll)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28674367)

... and it will still be better than Windows.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?