Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

GNOME 2.30, End of the (2.x) Line

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the are-you-a-version? dept.

GNOME 276

stovicek writes "GNOME 2.30 was originally intended to coincide with GNOME 3.0 — a massive cleanup and rethinking of the popular desktop. However, GNOME 3.0 is delayed for at least another release, which leaves GNOME 2.30 as most likely the last version in a series stretching back almost a decade. [...] 2.30 will probably be the final version of the 2.0 series. For those who were around for GNOME 2.0 back in 2000, the 2.30 release stands as evidence of how far GNOME in general and the free desktop in particular have come in the last decade in usability and design. If you do a search for images of early GNOME releases and compare the results with 2.30, you can have no doubt that, although GNOME sometimes tends to over-simplify, its improvements over the last decade remain unmistakable."

cancel ×

276 comments

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

This PsOt is brawt to u by iAds (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31783026)

TOY STORY 3!! NIGGERS!

Uhmmmm (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31783048)

I think like 99% of linux users use kde, so what's the point?

Re:Uhmmmm (1)

Jon.Laslow (809215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783366)

Because some of us don't like KDE4, and prefer the simplicity of Gnome.

Re:Uhmmmm (4, Interesting)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783678)

There are a lot more things I don't like about KDE4. It tries to be all integrated, with a common notification daemon for example, so that status messages can appear with a consistent look in the corner of the screen. The problem is that virtually nothing supports it except for KDE apps that start with "K". If you want that sleek, consistent QT4 look, you're limited to a small subset of free software - there are a lot more GTK applications than QT applications. And I'd prefer to be able to use, for example, a different file manager. Without dolphin, you're unable to take advantage of KIO and whatever search index thing that KDE uses. KDE as a whole seems really tightly coupled - I regularly use gnome apps on my XFCE system without having the gnome libs installed. That's unheard of for KDE.

A particular barrier for me to use KDE is a decent web browser. I've used Konqueror for a few months and it's OK, but KHTML became intolerable. Arora (webkit powered) is good but incomplete. I have similar complaints about the usual KDE chat programs, music players, and Konsole.

Re:Uhmmmm (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31783700)

You can run Firefox on KDE.

Re:Uhmmmm (3, Informative)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783810)

It looks like it's theoretically possible [mozilla.org] to build firefox with Qt widgets thanks to Nokia, but it's difficult and unstable.

And yes obviously you can just load both Qt and GTK libraries but it's ugly and memory-inefficient.

Re:Uhmmmm (0, Offtopic)

celibate for life (1639541) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783870)

RAM is cheap today. Just throw a couple 2GB sticks and you won't notice.

Re:Uhmmmm (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783690)

KDE lost me as a user when they took away the ability to have a different background on each desktop (yeah, petty point, but it was still a really neat feature in my opinion.) That did cause me to take a closer look at KDE4 before I dropped it, and I found myself not liking the feel of that environment overall. Then I took a look at Gnome and tried it out briefly, but didn't care much for that either (plus, still no multiple backgrounds).

That was when I finally started taking a more in depth look at alternate desktop environments, which led to me settling on Enlightenment. It is definitely very different from what I have been used to (still have a lot to learn and unlearn), but the more I work with it, the more I like it. And the only annoyance thus far is the inability to have both an image as a desktop wallpaper and a different background color (either solid or a pleasant gradient) other than painful white if the image does not fill the screen.

I still use various Gnome and KDE based apps as required (K3B, Nautilus, GDM, and assorted others), but for the overall environment, I am converted over completely to Enlightenment.

Re:Uhmmmm (1, Interesting)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783724)

I'm really tired of the trade-off between simplicity and functionality. This trade-off should not be inherent to either windowing system. Rather, the variety of options presented to the user should be configurable. Each distribution should be able to decide how simple or how configurable they want to make their windowing environment when it is first installed.

A great windowing environment would be able to be made to look very similar to Gnome, KDE, Windows, Mac OS, etc. I don't just mean superficially similar - it should be configurable down to the menu options presented and the types of configuration options presented in dialogs. All of this presentation of options and behaviors should be managed in a special layer, much like CSS is used to configure the presentation of a website.

For example, Ubuntu might choose to ship with a very simple, user-friendly interface. In the system administration, this interface could be changed to a more configurable preset if the user so desires. It wouldn't be a matter of switching from Gnome to KDE. Visually, the change might be as dramatic as a switch from Gnome to KDE, but the basic windowing system would just be running with an alternate configuration.

Re:Uhmmmm (1)

IMightB (533307) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783814)

Correct. I need to get work done, not play around with the GUI all day.

Re:Uhmmmm (1)

bolthole (122186) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783928)

"simplicity"? SIMPLICITY???!

"xfce" is simple.

GNOME, on the other hand, is now a more bloated pig than CDE ever was.. which is amusing, because one of the gnome1 boasts was that it was much lighter than CDE.

Re:Uhmmmm (1)

bragr (1612015) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783390)

Trolling? I think so. If not: [Citation Needed] I very rarely see someone using KDE. In fact, its a bigger surprise, to me, to see someone using KDE than Linux itself.

Re:Uhmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31783444)

It should not be a surprise to you that there are less KDE users than linux users. Because only a subset of linux users can use KDE.

Re:Uhmmmm (2, Insightful)

bragr (1612015) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783578)

You miss-understand me, I was implying that I see plentiful of Linux users around here, but that KDE is still so uncommon that it invokes surprise on my part.

I think a lot of KDE users disappeared with KDE4. (4, Interesting)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31784210)

I used KDE from KDE 1.0, when I switched away from TWM. I was fully integrated into the KDE "way of life," and reliant on lots of KDE apps.

I tried to use KDE4.0 but after about two weeks it got the boot. Though it has theoretically improved and I keep a KDE 4 installation on my Fedora 12 personal machine, logging into KDE thus far provides no incentive to switch back, despite updates.

Dolphin is still intolerably slow. Important apps still don't share a consistent appearance; Firefox, Chrome, and OpenOffice in particular look good in GNOME but are full of distracting artifacting and other appearance problems in KDE. GNOME apps in general don't mix well with KDE themes right now. The graphics still don't work right. A notification balloon is likely to take out half the taskbar, etc. They blame this on the radeon driver and I believe them, but that's the hardware I have, and GNOME shows none of the same problems. Desktop management for multiple monitors doesn't behave as I expect it to, and it's difficult to create a configuration that jostles well amongst varying configurations of external, internal, or both, monitors without taskbars disappearing or desktops shifting from display to display unexpectedly. The default icon theme is far too colorful and luminous for focused desktop work of the kind that I do (lots of writing, editing, and calculating) but there are few replacement icon sets to be found. The wireless connectivity manager seems incapable of working with my simple home WiFi installation without needing constant reconfiguration and tinkering, while in GNOME it "just works."

Yes, some of these things could be fixed, but to trudge through each one of them would require rather a lot of time and effort that I just don't have to spare. So despite the fact that I'm still not wild about GNOME either, KDE4 is simply not on the cards in the near future for me. What's missing everywhere is polish. Not the kind that makes widget corners have a "glass" appearance, but the kind that keeps widgets from disappearing or artifacting unexpectedly, or the kind that doesn't leave you wondering why the hell the widget doesn't work, or there isn't a widget for that at all, in the first place. Details work. Not big thoughts. KDE needs to cut out the innovation for a while and patch roof leaks.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that many other KDE users right up through KDE 3.x switched to GNOME with the KDE4 release.

Re:Uhmmmm (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783452)

I think like 99% of linux users use kde

Don't think so.

The latest figure is 98.9%

Re:Uhmmmm (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783504)

Because no one who uses Linux uses the default install of Ubuntu... got it.

Re:Uhmmmm (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783528)

GNOME is just jealous that they could be more popular if they just made it look and work more like KDE [slushdot.com] .

Seriously ... look at the difference between the fugliness that is Ubuntu (even with the new "blight" look), and the KDE variant. If they want to fix Ubuntu's visual problems once and for all, they should just do this [slushdot.com] . Because going from Halloween Orange-and-Black to "Rotting Eggplant" might be a change, but it's not much of an improvement

Re:Uhmmmm (1)

celibate for life (1639541) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783734)

Do you really think Kubuntu looks good out of the box? I mean, I get it, it's not brown, but it's still ugly. Just a different kind of ugly: blue retard instead of poop brown. The fact is, if you want a tasteful desktop, you have to customize it yourself.

Re:Uhmmmm (0)

TiberiusMonkey (1603977) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783468)

Given the popularity of Ubuntu I find that hard to believe.

Re:Uhmmmm (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783516)

Not to mention Fedora's default is Gnome too.

Stop ignoring my posts. (0, Redundant)

Singularity42 (1658297) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783028)

I want replies.

Re:Stop ignoring my posts. (2, Funny)

lolwhat (1282234) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783106)

Is this some kind of reverse psychology? Well it will never work.

First for the first time! (-1, Troll)

skywatcher2501 (1608209) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783062)

Yayyyy! ;D

Re:First for the first time! (-1, Troll)

skywatcher2501 (1608209) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783084)

OK after this moment of glory let's RTFA...

Re:First for the first time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31783760)

Epic fail.

Re:First for the first time! (1, Informative)

lolwhat (1282234) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783088)

Fail.

Re:First for the first time! (0)

confused one (671304) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783118)

Damn dude. Sorry. I accidentally stole your moment of glory. : (

Re:First for the first time! (4, Funny)

sayfawa (1099071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783440)

Good thing you didn't waste it.

I got first post once, but I didn't even say "first post" or any other misspelled incarnation of it, as I assumed (incorrectly) that someone else would have gotten it by the time my comment went up.

But there it was, at the top of the pile.

Now, when I hear someone say they have no regrets in life, I can only sigh and sadly look down at my feet.

early gnome (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783092)

I remember gnome when it first arrived on the scene. I seem to recall testing it around late 1998 on a workstation. Definitely not the same as current stuff.

Re:early gnome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31783174)

Definitely. Early gnome was definitely snappier to use. I migrated away from Gnome in the 2.28 release due to lag in Alt-Tab'ing. Moved over to fluxbox-based environment. Couldn't be happier.

Re:early gnome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31783350)

In many ways it was better; people don't use desktops, they use applications. I suspect that many of the early users stopped using Gnome after suffering 2.0. I switched to blackbox, flux and even enlightenment for a period. Finally I settled on XFCE4 and though heavyweight for my needs (terminal, web browser and graphics apps) I can at least configure it to get the hell out of my way.

Some of the Gnome libs are useful but GConf, GStreamer and the other interdependent crud are simply an annoyance.

Re:early gnome (1)

Homburg (213427) | more than 4 years ago | (#31784046)

GConf, GStreamer and the other interdependent crud are simply an annoyance.

Unless you want to write apps that store a configuration, or handle sound or video.

Re:early gnome (4, Insightful)

jonadab (583620) | more than 4 years ago | (#31784066)

Not the same, that's for sure.

Personally I liked Gnome 1.x a good deal better than I like the 2.x series.

Except for gnome-terminal. The newer versions of gnome-terminal are better.

But everything else is worse. More dependencies that shouldn't be necessary, worse performance, more emphasis on completely pointless features like the ability to use the file manager as a web browser (WHY would I EVER want that?) but fewer *useful* features (like, the ability to have an always-on-top panel of a particular size in a particular position, which was great for stuff like having a clock just to the left of where the minimize button was on maximized windows), more gratuitous bug-the-user annoyances (like dialog boxes asking you stupid questions and/or unasked-for windows popping up voluntarily every time you connect a USB device or insert a disc), more undesirably arcane Windows-esque stuff (like gconf), more effort required to get the theme the way you like it, and some things you just plain *can't* do, or I have not figured out how (like, changing the icons on the built-in feature buttons on the panel for things like logging out; in 1.x this was as easy as changing the icon on an app launcher).

If Gnome 1.4 were compatible with modern software (both directions: modern versions of the software it requires, like libraries, and, going the other way, modern versions of applications), I'd still be using it. It was good. I have no idea why they decided to screw it up so much. Gnome 2.x comes across as a bad sequel or a poor remake. It is inferior in nearly every respect.

I can't say I'm very excited at the prospect of Gnome 3.0. What features are they going to take away now, the foot menu and the ability to have a clock on the panel? And what are they going to add? A useless 3D "walk through" filesystem animation like in Jurassic Park, which activates automatically every time a filesystem is mounted? Fixed-size desktop-bound "gadgets", like in Windows Seven, which are strictly inferior to panel applets in every way? Take your time, guys, take your time. I'm in no hurry to upgrade.

thats right folks (1)

chibiace (898665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783130)

this could be the last good release if it goes bad. i didnt like some of their ideas for 3 but im sure they will try to please us.

isnt gnome smth like dead technology?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31783142)

bonobo is dead... they are using spinoff of kde tech (dbus, khtml, etc)..

Re:isnt gnome smth like dead technology?? (2, Informative)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783306)

I remember using GNOME in the late 90s, and if bonobo is dead than it's a good thing. That was a nightmare to mess with.

Re:isnt gnome smth like dead technology?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31783508)

Bonobo, Miguel's OLE knock off.

That guy just can't get enough Ballmer cock.

Re:isnt gnome smth like dead technology?? (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783610)

Like I said, good riddance to bad rubbish.

To be honest I really don't care anymore. I've been using Windowmaker for about 5 years now.

Re:isnt gnome smth like dead technology?? (1)

Homburg (213427) | more than 4 years ago | (#31784148)

dbus was actually initially developed for GNOME; other GNOME-originated libraries that are still in use include GVFS, gconf, and gstreamer. And GTK, though of course not originally developed from GNOME, is now developed in parallel with GNOME (much of the stuff in the depracted GNOME libs is no longer needed because GTK itself provides solutions for the same problems). So I think GNOME is still a pretty vibrant development platform.

Sounds like a KDE-type cleanup (5, Insightful)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783160)

If this is done properly, I think it'll be good for GNOME. From where I sit, they sound like they're shooting for a major architecture redesign. In other words, this 2.30 release is analogous to the 3.5 releases of KDE.

And I think starting largely from scratch will be a net benefit. I've never personally used GNOME (though I've recommended it to others) and I've found it to be technologically lacking compared to KDE (KParts and KIOSlaves are awesome, and while there are GNOME counterparts they aren't as used).

One thing I think GNOME does very well is their HIG - probably the best outside of Apple. The new release is very simple - dump a lot of legacy code and keep the HIG. Maybe drop the old-fashioned look too.

Though my fantasy is to see them use Qt.

Re:Sounds like a KDE-type cleanup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31783314)

Gnome using Qt? My bet is that pigs evolve into flying creatures long before that happens, even though Qt is far supperior technically. Back when they started, the Gnome guys didn't have a lot of choice. Qt had its own license so it was either this not quite free stuff (in the old millenium) or gtk+, which was LGPL from the start. They took the later and now they're stuck with it for better or worse.

Well, if Gnome ever does switch, maybe I'll seriously give it a try then, though.

Re:Sounds like a KDE-type cleanup (4, Insightful)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783492)

It's a matter of taste. Personally I hate Qt's slot mechanism. And Moc. IMO the problem with GNOME is not GTK+, it's Mono.

Re:Sounds like a KDE-type cleanup (4, Interesting)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783718)

I love signals and slots. They require a bit of a different way of thinking, and a semi-proprietary compiler (it's open source but still).

It's really the first time since Visual Basic where I think a language has really 'gotten' event-driven programming. Everything else has you writing your own event loops to switch on a message type. Signals/slots let you use a single statement as a patchboard. It's the reason they can have an example where a slider changes a text box in one line of code.

Is it different? Sure. It's slightly different than straight C++, but not by much. It definitely demands a new way of thinking about how to program graphical applications. But if you can manage it, I think it's far superior.

Though I'd also agree that Mono's crapulence is Gnome's biggest problem. I don't want the whole damn framework for some note-app

Re:Sounds like a KDE-type cleanup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31783830)

I love signals and slots. They require a bit of a different way of thinking, and a semi-proprietary compiler

I'm not a C++ programmer and not very familiar with Qt, but is MOC really needed when there's something like this [sourceforge.net] available?

Re:Sounds like a KDE-type cleanup (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#31784154)

Did you read the "Credit where credit is due: QT" paragraphs?

I think you should.

Without Qt's moc, she would have never been inspired to make her own version of moc.

--
BMO

Re:Sounds like a KDE-type cleanup (3, Informative)

Homburg (213427) | more than 4 years ago | (#31784284)

is MOC really needed

No, basically. But back in the early nineties, when Qt was first developed, the various C++ features that make these pure-C++ signal and slot libraries usable weren't widely available.

Re:Sounds like a KDE-type cleanup (4, Insightful)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783764)

It's a matter of taste. Personally I hate Qt's slot mechanism. And Moc. IMO the problem with GNOME is not GTK+, it's Mono.

I'd say it's Mono, to a lesser extent GTK+, and to a greater extent the fetish of removing any and all features.

Re:Sounds like a KDE-type cleanup (1)

Mr Thinly Sliced (73041) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783334)

Though my fantasy is to see them use Qt.

I take it you've never compiled any KDE applications .-)

I'm kinda joking, but the compilation time for complex kde stuff is humongous. It's one of the few things I quite like about Gnome stuff - it's pure C and is real rapid to build.

Hehe, yes, I'm a gentoo ricer.

Re:Sounds like a KDE-type cleanup (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783668)

I much prefer working with Qt on my little projects, so I don't mind the longer compile times so long as they save me some dev time. Except when I run Gentoo. Then it matters a lot.

Re:Sounds like a KDE-type cleanup (1)

nxtw (866177) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783996)

I'm kinda joking, but the compilation time for complex kde stuff is humongous. It's one of the few things I quite like about Gnome stuff - it's pure C and is real rapid to build.

Is that the fault of KDE/Qt or is it a result of a slow C++ compiler?

Re:Sounds like a KDE-type cleanup (2, Informative)

neiras (723124) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783534)

KIOSlaves are awesome, and while there are GNOME counterparts they aren't as used.

One neat thing about GVFS, the GNOME abstraction, is that part of it wraps FUSE filesystem modules. Any application, not just GNOME applications, can use filesystems mounted with GNOME's 'connect to server' feature, for instance. I think it's more desirable to write a FUSE module than a KDE-specific KIOSlave.

GNOME sometimes comes across as a hodgepodge of bindings and semi-coherent libraries, but there has been a great deal of work to consolidate [gnome.org] and even eliminate [gnome.org] core libraries, tighten up [gnome.org] coding standards, get rid of deprecated [gnome.org] symbols [gnome.org] in GTK+ and GLib... At least they're trying to get things right, right up and down the stack.

GNOME 3 will be a big shift. I can't say I'm crazy about the new shell, and the Task Pooper [arstechnica.com] scares the shit out of me (ha ha).

They'd have to screw it up really badly to make me go back to KDE. Even then, I'd go to 3.x.

Re:Sounds like a KDE-type cleanup (1)

Rozine (1345911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783832)

Any application, not just GNOME applications, can use filesystems mounted with GNOME's 'connect to server' feature, for instance. I think it's more desirable to write a FUSE module than a KDE-specific KIOSlave.

You say that, but if you look at the apps on the ground, most, well, don't. For instance, I can mount my network drive using GVFS all I want, but I still can't watch anything on it, since VLC has no clue about it. A nice idea, but it would be preferable if they integrated it into the rest of Linux too. That said, I use Gnome every day.

Re:Sounds like a KDE-type cleanup (4, Insightful)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783654)

The KDE type cleanup is what they did for 2.0, which was what made Linus Torvalds say "fuck this shit, I'm switching to KDE" (and, incidentally, what made him say "fuck this shit, I'm switching to Gnome" after trying KDE4). It pissed off a lot of other users as well. Of course, Gnome 2.0 was a bit more stable and less bug-ridden than KDE4, but on the other hand it had almost no features you'd expect from a computer (which was supposedly 'good for you', according to the HIG apologists, pretty much like the absence of multi-tasking on the iPad until yesterday), and took several years before it was as useful as 1.4 (the last version I used).

I forget. Did I have a point with all this? Oh, yes, the cleanup: it sucked the last time, and I hope they manage it better now, or they will probably hear it until the next time some huge project mismanages a major revision. On the other hand, maybe a botched Gnome3 release will help KDE get the recognition it deserves again.

Re:Sounds like a KDE-type cleanup (0, Troll)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783710)

"Over stupidify" defines guhnome but it's not as bad as KayDeeE

Re:Sounds like a KDE-type cleanup (3, Funny)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783786)

Looks like it over-stupidified your comment as well. Tough luck!

Re:Sounds like a KDE-type cleanup (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31784082)

When I read your comments I think lavender peril!

Re:Sounds like a KDE-type cleanup (1)

d-Orb (551682) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783998)

Though my fantasyThough my fantasy is to see them use Qt.

Well, you already have KDE for that don't you? :-) What I really wish they sussed out once and for all, is freedesktop.org, so you can use whichever desktop you want with whatever tools you want, and it all works. They already co-operate a bit, but I'm not entirely sure how deep it goes in many ways.../p

Gnome Desktop (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783168)

You can try it out without any harm. It's ... interesting. It is actually quite usable and does give a lot of features that will be quite nice for people that use multiple desktops. I tend to use a single desktop and gnome-do to provide quick access, so I find it gets in the way a bit. There's a few things I don't like about it that I can't change, like the panel at the top of the screen. I prefer it at the side instead, as my netbook and laptops both have decent horizontal resolution but crappy vertical. Perhaps they'll fix that.

I haven't tried 2.3, but I'm sure it will be minimal incremental improvement over the previous version. Nice to see that they're trying new things ... as long as they leave the damn window controls where they belong.

Re:Gnome Desktop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31783228)

ummm.... you can put the panel where ever you want.

Please upvote.. The panel can be everywhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31783474)

See subject: The panel can be rearranged to to the side, bottom, whatever. On my netbook I tend to delete the top panel and add the things I need (task switcher, main menu, clock) to the bottom panel.
Right or left should be no problem either, though.

Re:Please upvote.. The panel can be everywhere (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783546)

In 2.3 yes, in 3.0, no, or not last time I checked.

Re:Gnome Desktop (2, Informative)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783488)

Not in 3.0 from what I've seen. Likewise with the sidebar ... it's currently locked in position as well.

Re:Gnome Desktop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31783590)

2.30 and 3.0 (using gnome-shell) are still quite different, right?
I'm not sure about the plans for 3.x, but before that the panels should not be locked.

Re:Gnome Desktop (1)

bragr (1612015) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783530)

The wonders of click and drag. I usually keep it at the top and the windows taskbar at the bottom. I'd get confused otherwise because if I am using one of them, I have the other open in a VM or remote session.

Re:Gnome Desktop (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783616)

I should have been more specific in the parent post ... I was referring to Gnome Shell.

pffft... fvwm is 2.4.x already... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31783194)

2.30 is totally overrated... 3.0 would be buzz...

Oh good! (-1, Troll)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783240)

Can we kill off Gnome 3.0 too? How about getting rid of GTK+?

We especially need to get rid of Mono. Funny how Gnome is less free than KDE now.

Admiral Ackbar says "It's a trap!"

--
BMO

Re:Oh good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31783298)

Your official freetard party line bleatings are tired.

www.tmrepository.com

Re:Oh good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31783412)

I resemble that remark.

Powered by Django

Heh. Freetard win.

Re:Oh good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31783524)

DjangoIsFreetardTechnology(TM) [tmrepository.com]

Re:Oh good! (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#31784022)

Tmrepository is entirely unfunny and a lame ripoff of Adequacy.org.

Get some better writers.

--
BMO

Re:Oh good! (1)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783472)

TM Repository is officially the saddest, most pathetic website I've ever seen: A tiny community of people who get together just to snark at Linux propaganda. It's like setting up a site to mock the CPUSA [cpusa.org] .

Re:Oh good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31783714)

Your site is a close second.

Re:Oh good! (2, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783364)

LGPL is less free than GPL, really?

Re:Oh good! (1, Troll)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783434)

It's called the "Lesser" GPL for a reason.

Also, unless you get mono exclusively from Novell, you are (potentially) infringing on Microsoft intellectual property. And Gnome has been adopting mono like it doesn't matter.

Yes, Gnome is less free now. Gnome fans totally miss the irony.

--
BMO

Re:Oh good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31783536)

Sorry sir, but clearly you have never read the LGPL. The "Lesser" part refers to less rights being retained by the granter. The license gives MORE freedom to the users.

Re:Oh good! (-1, Flamebait)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783554)

Oh look, it's a BSD troll.

How cute.

*pats on head*

Now run along!

GIT!

--
BMO

Re:Oh good! (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783542)

FUD, plain and simple... interesting coming from a *nix supporter though.

Re:Oh good! (2, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783584)

What's fud about it?

Novell signed a contract with Microsoft. It indemnified people who got mono from Novell from liability. It doesn't cover third parties.

You go find the clause that covers third parties and get back to me.

--
BMO

Re:Oh good! (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 4 years ago | (#31784186)

That may be true. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass because Microsoft will never, ever go after an insignificant, individual end user like me for patient infringement.

If you're thinking of GNOME in a business setting or are are distributing Mono, you may want to think twice. However, for as long as Mono exists under a free license, I'm happy to use it.

Re:Oh good! (1)

Mathiasdm (803983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783564)

Wait, what? The LGPL is less free because it's called that way? The LGPL gives me, as a developer, MORE freedom. It's all a matter of perspective.

Re:Oh good! (0, Flamebait)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783736)

It's called the "Lesser" GPL for a reason.

Yes, it has less restrictions. (ie, more freedom to do different things)

Also, unless you get mono exclusively from Novell, you are (potentially) infringing on Microsoft intellectual property.

/me rolleyes

Remember a while back they were claiming to have some triple-digit number of patents that the Linux kernel infringes on? Remember IBM warning off that mainframe emulator a couple days ago? I'm not convinced that mono infringes significantly more or stronger potentially-hostile patents than any other similarly complex piece of software.

And Gnome has been adopting mono like it doesn't matter.

I thought they only used it for a couple of trivial/perhiperal things?

Yes, Gnome is less free now. Gnome fans totally miss the irony.

Yes, true freedom is an OS that will refuse to run anything except locally-compiled programs, with a compiler which will only compile code that has the GPL licensing headers.

Re:Oh good! (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783972)

Remember a while back they were claiming to have some triple-digit number of patents that the Linux kernel infringes on?

Yes, how can one forget?

IBM and TurboHercules debacle

Yes. TurboHercules is suing IBM in a SCO-esque lawsuit. IBM is supposed to take it lying down?

I'm not convinced that mono infringes significantly more or stronger potentially-hostile patents than any other similarly complex piece of software.

It was enough to convince John Dragoon and Ron Hovesepian.

Given the choice between technology that is potentially more infringing than the other, which one would you pick?

I thought they only used it for a couple of trivial/perhiperal things?

For now. Perhaps you've forgotten Miguel's rantings about how it should be used throughout Gnome? Perhaps you forgot that Miguel works at Novell and that Novell has SuSE with which they can "differentiate their product" with mono (depending on how it's used) in a yet to be determined crucial application. This is not tinfoil. This is how companies work.

snippage of insult

Yeah, whatever. Perhaps you forgot that Qt is LGPL?

--
BMO

The mono trap and GNOME (3, Informative)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 4 years ago | (#31784174)

> And Gnome has been adopting mono like it doesn't matter.

You are out of date. Have Fedora 13 Alpha + all updates in a VM right now and behold:

[root@Fedora13 ~]# rpm -qa | grep mono
dejavu-sans-mono-fonts-2.30-2.fc12.noarch
liberation-mono-fonts-1.05.2.20091019-5.fc13.noarch

Everything works just fine. They ditched F-Spot for Shotwell and replaced Tomboy with the C++ port GNote. With those gone mono doesn't need to be installed. Somebody caught the cluetrain and stopped Novell from infecting GNOME with their patent poison.

Re:Oh good! (2, Informative)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783750)

Qt has been LGPL for a few years now, and KDE has always been part LGPL (like WebKit, a derivative of the old khtml).

Re:Oh good! (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 4 years ago | (#31784052)

Kill GTK+ off? Maybe when Qt has more than one decent theme that doesn't require installing half of KDE, or when Qt themes don't require a compiler to create. Until then, get lost.

Re:Oh good! (1, Insightful)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 4 years ago | (#31784252)

Oh, for Christ's sake. Mono is safe. Microsoft made a legally-binding promise not to sue. No judge would even hear the case if they attempted to bring a suit against <I honestly have no idea who they'd sue> unless the GNOME people managed to infringe upon something else in Microsoft's portfolio.

We have much bigger fish to fry. Squabbling about Theora and Mono isn't a productive use of your time, no matter how valid your arguments might be. The standards have been set.

Article is bogus, needs proofreading (2, Informative)

Peter Steil (1619597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783278)

I know it's sin to actually RTFA, but I've been a GNOME user since the 1.x days and figured I'd take a read. The author seems to use the number "3.30" to refer to the current release..

GUADEC (4, Interesting)

ReinoutS (1919) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783356)

The GNOME Conference (GUADEC) will be in The Hague (NL) this year from July 26-30. You can bet there'll be a lot of GNOME 3.0 hacking going on there. More information: see the GUADEC website [guadec.org] .

Not the same stuff - much worse! (5, Insightful)

_greg (130136) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783570)

Yes, I DO remember the early days of Gnome and how much better it was than now:
    - automatic save and restore of multi-workspace sessions
    - handy window operations like maximize-vertically and maximize-horizontally
    - easy to change settings like which app to handle movies, etc.
I remember when clicking on a menu button gave an instant response,
not a several second delay for the first time in a session.

Gnome has become bloated and slower while becoming less stable and less powerful.
It is neither easier nor harder for beginners. It has more eye candy.

Gnome clients have also gone downhill: Evolution used to support my mh mail folders.
Now it uses a database that crashes when I try to load my old mail and fails to work
with my rules. It still doesn't integrate the contact manager with the mail rules.

I'd switch to KDE but they've been destroying themselves even faster!

Re:Not the same stuff - much worse! (2, Insightful)

thoughtsatthemoment (1687848) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783740)

I have some similar impression even though I only use it occasionally. It seems the desktop itself is trying to match features with other desktops, but not much improvements on application development on the desktop.

Re:Not the same stuff - much worse! (1)

Arker (91948) | more than 4 years ago | (#31784006)

This is my impression also.

All the stuff you mention plus keybindings and WM choice. Once upon a time I was totally in love with Gnome. Unix keybindings and WindowMaker integration made it very useable and useful for me. Gnome2 took away all that - took away everything I liked about it - and to ad insult to injury the developers made it a practice to abuse anyone that didnt like the change. It's true I havent tried it recently, and it's also true I probably never will. I am not a masochist.

Gnome-screensaver still broken... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31783586)

Call me when the $%%&$%#^ that maintains that part of it allows people to actually tune the Gnome-screensaver modules without ripping it all out and replacing it with xscreensaver.

Mobius Story! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31783626)

If you do a search for images of early GNOME releases and compare the results with 2.30

Actually, now when I do a google search for "images of early gnome releases [google.com] ", every result on the first page is just a link back to this slashdot story.

Can anyone tell me what type of images I might have seen before this story was posted?

Why the hang-up with version numbers? (2, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783738)

"2.30 will probably be the final version of the 2.0 series"

I've noticed that open source software generally seems to be more hung-up and obsessed with version numbers than proprietary software. For example Linus Torvalds has said that there will never be a version 3.0 of the Linux kernel. So I guess 2.9.99.99.999 will be the end of the line.

I don't get the big hang-up with version numbers. Who cares if it is 2.30 or 3.0? My current nVidia video driver for Windows is 196.21 -- as long as it works, who cares?

Re:Why the hang-up with version numbers? (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#31784056)

So I guess 2.9.99.99.999 will be the end of the line.

With the current prohibition on a stable kernel/driver interface in the linux kernel, 2.9.99.99.998 drivers will be incompatible with 2.9.99.99.999

Re:Why the hang-up with version numbers? (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#31784122)

Before I get a bunch of "we don't care about binary only" drivers type responses: I'm talking about open source drivers, including those in the main kernel. The constant code churn means constant and frequent changes to driver internals are required just to keep up. New bugs are a frequent result. You are always chasing the latest change with bug fixes to compensate.

Honestly, a well defined and stable interface is sometimes useful.

key-bindings (2, Insightful)

smoothnorman (1670542) | more than 4 years ago | (#31783756)

Does this version of GNOME allow for easy global key rebinding? There was a version not long ago that sent me off to KDE that appeared to impose some rather autocratically determined key-bindings.

Helsinki Syndrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31783874)

HelsinkiSyndrome(TM) [tmrepository.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?