×

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

Thank you!

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

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

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

292 comments

I support this! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36179776)

I support this because it can only help to make Gnome more irrelevant.

Re:I support this! (2, Insightful)

rjmx (233228) | more than 2 years ago | (#36179838)

Agreed. Even as it becomes less customisable (so as not to frighten the less-experienced, apparently), Gnome gets ever more bloated as time goes by.
Methinks the Gnome developers have totally lost the plot.

Re:I support this! (2, Insightful)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180370)

I was waiting to see if they screw up the 3.0 branch and piss everyone off like kde4 did, but I guess the anticipation was killing them so they had to find a way to start alienating users now, in spite of having no newly-designed crappy interface yet.

Good time to be a wmaker and openbox user...

Re:I support this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36179852)

Gnome already dropped support for sanity, so this sounds like an appropriate change following the same trend.

Re:I support this! (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#36179856)

I'm guessing that there's going to be a backlash from the various people that are writing programs using GTK+. Seriously, I'd be thrilled not to have to choose between the best utility of a type and not having to install GTK. It's a serious pain that one almost inevitably ends up with both kdelibs and GTK installed because there's invariably that one application which uses the other set of libraries for which there is no suitable replacement that uses ones preferred set of libraries.

Re:I support this! (4, Informative)

Aighearach (97333) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180430)

Gnome isn't the controlling factor for Gtk+, and that support would never have OS lock. We're only talking about "Gnome" here, not Gimp or the Gimp ToolKit (Gtk). Gnome is just another user of the widget set that happens to share a first letter.

We're actually not even talking about most of Gnome. Just Gnome Shell.

Re:I support this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36180642)

I did flub that, didn't I? And I thought that I had looked that up properly.

Re:I support this! (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180940)

Oh wow, because GTK+ is so huge!

Really, it's something along the lines of 30mb. It's all the other Gnome crap that makes it look like bloat incarnate.

Just remember - Gnome depends upon GTK+, but GTK+ most certainly does not depend upon Gnome.

Dumb Idea (4, Informative)

Perl-Pusher (555592) | more than 2 years ago | (#36179836)

Since developers from other OS's have contributed to Gnome. KDE would then be the only recourse for them. I think gnome would quickly lose support based on the ill will that would generate alone.

Re:Dumb Idea (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36179966)

This is a dumb idea for software architecture reasons, too. I'll explain.

When writing a Windows application, you must recognize that the interface between your application and TODAY'S version of Windows must remain fluid such that you can support changes delivered by patch or by OS release. This is known formally as "decoupling" and it is necessary to isolate big systems that need to communicate. Decoupling is important for unix applications as well, because kernels change over time and APIs vary slightly between unixes.

If you truly believe your application gains anything by eliminating a decoupling library/layer, you have missed the point of the past few DECADES of object-oriented programming.

Re:Dumb Idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36179974)

Since developers from other OS's have contributed to Gnome. KDE would then be the only recourse for them.
I think gnome would quickly lose support based on the ill will that would generate alone.

Exactly that.

KDE needs all the support it can get and it's time for GNOME to step up and provide it.

Re:Dumb Idea (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36180028)

And KDE is a ugly mess of a turd as well right now.

Why cant we get a nice polished and WORKING desktop UI group of programs that has a full click and drool interface that is complete and working? Why is it that every time they get close, KDE or Gnome, they decide that a radical change is needed that utterly breaks everything?

Gnome3 is complete fail because you have to revert to 1998 and editing text files to configure it. WTF is that?
KDE on the next release is looking to be the same. Hello? release it as early beta and do NOT call it a release until all the tools that are used to make it useful to noobs are ported to the changes.

Instead we get a mature interface that is abandonded and will not support it anymore because they all moved to the new shiny.

Re:Dumb Idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36180132)

What? When is the last time you even used KDE?

Apparently never, because the thousands of KDE users out there can attest to the 4.x series being very well polished and stable.

Re:Dumb Idea (1, Insightful)

sarhjinian (94086) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180770)

1. Resize Konsole on Nvidia. Kernel panic.
2. Change network config, watch kded consume 100% CPU.
3. Unplug, go to power saving profile, watch panel lose transparency, have to clean out /var/tmp/kdecache
4. Connect to an SMB share with Dolphin and watch it crash every single time.

I found those in the first half-day with KDE4.6. And that's my best track record with KDE4.

It's interesting: KDE4 looks fundamentally strong, but seriously lacks polish and has serious usability trouble. GNOME gives the opposite impression: a kludge of technologies underneath the hood, but polished mercilessly. The two projects could really teach each other a a thing or two, and a combination of the best of each would give MacOS and Windows serious discomfort.

Such a system doesn't exist ANYWHERE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36180154)

So why are you complaining about it not existing here?

NO SUCH INTERFACE EXISTS.

Re:Dumb Idea (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36180394)

KDE on the next release is looking to be the same. Hello? release it as early beta and do NOT call it a release until all the tools that are used to make it useful to noobs are ported to the changes.

Instead we get a mature interface that is abandonded and will not support it anymore because they all moved to the new shiny.

The "mature interface" was quite frankly the result of years of hacks, that were somehow superglued together.
The most basic change sometimes involved rewriting major subsystems, and tons of projects ended up being abandoned because they were practically impossible to incorporate into KDE 3.5.

The real problem with KDE 4 though, was distros making it default AGAINST THE WISHES OF KDE DEVELOPERS.
KDE Developers has specifically stated that distros looking for stability and feature-parity should wait until later KDE 4.X releases, but distros wanting to be "cutting-edge" forced it on users.
KDE 4.0 was intended as a call to developers to port their applications over with a promise of relative stability in the KDE libraries from that point, and a call for theme developers and the like to do the same, and a chance for the morbidly curious or advanced users to get used to the new system, it was never intended to be "finished".
I won't say I agree with their decision to bump the version number, but it was already delayed and they decided that to not put it off further would speed up the porting of applications and the finishing of the DE, and they were very clear about what the release was and wasn't.

Re:Dumb Idea (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#36181072)

It could all be pressure from the Android/Chrome world creeping into Linux GUI landscape.

Lateral thinking would be to start openly reviewing what really works in Android/Chrome and start shifting what can be shifted to Linux/Gnome/KDE.

Thta is the whole principle of open source and creating choice, whilst allowing for forks and feature mergers.

Android/Chrome will have an impact on Linux distributions not a severe as the impact on windows (slow creeping death) but more GUI, feature set and, some core functionality. Interesting times coming up for the desktop and consumer computer devices.

gtk is buggy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36179858)

on windows. haven't tried it on linux, though.

Abandoned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36179874)

Hasnt GNOME already been abandoned and replaced by Unity ?

Re:Abandoned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36179982)

Only in Ubuntu afaik.

Re:Abandoned (2, Interesting)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180088)

This is about the GNOME Toolkit (GTK) rather than the GNOME shell itself (which doesn't run on Windows AFAIK). The Windows port allows applications like GIMP to run on Windows.

Removing support for other environments would be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it would allow you to concentrate more efforts on making the Linux features better. On the flipside, it could really hurt open-source adoption - if GTK apps become unavailable on Windows, you obviously can't try them out without running Linux, which is a bridge too far for many people. If you try out GTK apps, and like them, they become a bridge to adopting Linux ; you can be sure that the apps you found useful are available to you on your new platform.

I'd probably not have too many qualms about dropping support for OS/X - after all, they are in a minority. But I can't help but feel that dropping support for Windows is a mistake.

Re:Abandoned (4, Informative)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180228)

Or maybe I'm talking out of my butt, and it IS about the shell. Should RTFA.

Re:Abandoned (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180980)

BTW, the G in GTK does not stand for Gnome. It stands for "GIMP Tool Kit" - and really has no dependence upon Gnome at all.

Re:Abandoned (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180350)

Are you calling GTK a gateway drug? Next you'll be having Windows users smokin' that marajew-wanna and dancing to that shakin' rock and roll music.

Re:Abandoned (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180494)

This is about the GNOME Toolkit (GTK) rather than the GNOME shell itself (which doesn't run on Windows AFAIK). The Windows port allows applications like GIMP to run on Windows.

GIMP Toolkit, actually.

Re:Abandoned (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180604)

Apologies, I thought they'd backronym-ed it by now.

Re:Abandoned (3, Informative)

Filip22012005 (852281) | more than 2 years ago | (#36181092)

GNU's not Unix Image Manipulation Program Toolkit is the foundation fro the GNU's not Unix Network Object Model Environment. So getting that wrong isn't really your fault.

Can they do that? (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 2 years ago | (#36179908)

Sun has invested truckloads of money and man-hours into Gnome, adopted it as the default Solaris UI. I don't follow things very carefully regarding Gnome and Sun(/oracle) lately, so it may be that Solaris doesn't use Gnome animore, I don't know, but after all the investments that Sun made into Gnome, I would be surprised if it would be so easy to just make it for Linux. There's lots of code to support other platforms, in Gnome.

Not that I would mind, to be honest. I couldn't stand Gnome back in the 1.x days (it was really a lump of caca), and for a brief period I thought that it may become a usable GUI - but with the "novel ideas" of Gnome 3.x, I really don't care animore. Becoming Linux-only is just a tiny step towards further irrelevance.

Re:Can they do that? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36180042)

FYI, it's "anymore"

Re:Can they do that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36180224)

FYI, it's "any more".

Re:Can they do that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36180764)

FYI, its "nemoar"

Why? (1)

AntEater (16627) | more than 2 years ago | (#36179912)

I'm not sure what benefit we'd see from this. Unless they want to tie metadata in the file system with the user interface (like OS/2 had with HPFS extended attributes) I don't see what would be gained. Maybe I'm being short sighted.

Either that, or it is another move by the Gnome folks to remove features. Being multi-platform was a feature. We also know that too many features confuse the user. Therefore removing this feature helps reduce confusion. Personally, I'm waiting for Gnome to reduce itself to a short, generic series of animations that requires none of this confusing and stressful interaction on the part of the user.

Oh look, it's in relationg to systemd (2)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#36179914)

And therefore Lennart Poettering, who has said this sort of stuff A LOT.

I have no major objection to change, or to things like PulseAudio (not that I use it on many systems). However the "leave it all behind, let's do cool stuff with the advanced features of the linux kernel" argument is an odd one.

For an init process like systemd, sure, I can see that. For a desktop manager/wm/application suite? Not so much.

I vote no. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 2 years ago | (#36179922)

Really folks I know that Linux right now is the big users but there are BSD and Solaris users out there as well. Not to mention the tech unicorn HURD. Gnome is GPL so it could still be ported but I think just requireing a Unix Like OS should be good enough.
Anyone know how xfce is doing these days?

Re:I vote no. (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180122)

Its doing great. It still runs like top even on the underpowered netbook, and its every bit as pretty and functional as Gnome and KDE. Try it I think you will like it very much.

Re:I vote no. (2)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180230)

Xfce seems great to me. I dumped Gnome3 for it, and haven't looked back. I still do not see the logic of taking Gnome 2 and just throwing it away.

Re:I vote no. (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#36181078)

Me too... I hate the trend of making new UIs more candy and less functional. I was hoping someone would buck the trend.

So what? (3, Insightful)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 2 years ago | (#36179938)

It's open source. If there are people who want it on other platforms, they can just fork it. Right?

Lets look at it (1, Interesting)

ADRA (37398) | more than 2 years ago | (#36179956)

BSD: Pretty much super niche. Gnome is probably too bloated for their lean and mean servers anyways
Solaris: Only got support because Sun dumped a pile of money to replace CDE? Maybe not but none the less, the dream of thin client computing in the form of remote desktops seems a distant dream that is thankfully dead.
Linux: The duopoly of desktop environments means that Gnome needs to be very competitive here
Windows: On windows, the gnome support helps port over many familiar Linux based apps to a windows world which is great for Linux people who are forced to work in a windows world, but the apps have little to zero adoption from 'Windows users' themselves, or so I've noticed
OSX: I can't really say much about it. Are OSX Gnome apps considered first class citizens or are they marginalized much the same way it is in windows?
Embedded: Well, as long as its embedded Linux, I guess it wouldn't be a problem

Other OS? Opinions?

Re:Lets look at it (2)

sremick (91371) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180044)

Gnome works wonderfully on my (and others', including other posters in these comments) FreeBSD desktops. I can't stand KDE.

Re:Lets look at it (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36180084)

In the BSD community, there is a desktop movement (PC-BSD, several smaller forks out there). While I haven't seen a lot of support behind Gnome (most BSD desktop projects default to KDE or something even leaner), Gnome going Linux only would force the desktop movement in BSD to pretty much go KDE.

Frankly Gnome is too bloated for most users at this point. Going Linux only wouldn't fix Gnome's problems, their projects are much, much bigger.

Re:Lets look at it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36180096)

BSD: Pretty much super niche. Gnome is probably too bloated for their lean and mean servers anyways
Solaris: Only got support because Sun dumped a pile of money to replace CDE? Maybe not but none the less, the dream of thin client computing in the form of remote desktops seems a distant dream that is thankfully dead.
Linux: The duopoly of desktop environments means that Gnome needs to be very competitive here
Windows: On windows, the gnome support helps port over many familiar Linux based apps to a windows world which is great for Linux people who are forced to work in a windows world, but the apps have little to zero adoption from 'Windows users' themselves, or so I've noticed
OSX: I can't really say much about it. Are OSX Gnome apps considered first class citizens or are they marginalized much the same way it is in windows?
Embedded: Well, as long as its embedded Linux, I guess it wouldn't be a problem

Other OS? Opinions?

Linux Zealots: Smarter than Mac Zealots, but still zealots.

Re:Lets look at it (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180128)

You do realize that some people do use *BSD for a desktop, right? It's stable, flexible, and with the coming of projects like PC-BSD and DesktopBSD, it's more or less trivial to get it running for a user. As trivial as it is to get some of the more consumer oriented Linux distros up and running.

Personally, I'd shed no tears at all if both KDE and Gnome were to disappear, the environments seem to want to install all sorts of things which I may or may not want, and while they are useful for some people, it's annoying to have to install them just for a couple of irreplaceable applications.

Re:Lets look at it (2)

he-sk (103163) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180294)

Most Gnome apps require an X server under OS X meaning they suck donkey balls. They don't use the global menu, copy-and-paste works differently, and they generally don't "look right." I have seen GTK-applications compiled natively for Aqua and while the situation is better from a UI point of view, the build process is the worst thing I've ever encountered. For instance, Gnucash requires to be installed into /opt and insists on starting its own dbus instance (even though there's already one running) and doesn't bother to terminate it when finished.

Having said that, I love the Unix support that comes with OS X. I get much of my work done on the command line (mutt FTW) or in programs that started out on Unix and were adapted to the OS X GUI such as MacVim and Aquamacs (an Emacs clone).

Re:Lets look at it (4, Informative)

fusiongyro (55524) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180454)

I think you're missing out on PC-BSD [pcbsd.org], which is a more desktop-oriented FreeBSD. There's also DragonflyBSD which was developed to improve SMP support, again largely for desktop performance.

If you'd run CDE, you'd be in a better place to appreciate GNOME's usability on Solaris. I don't see what this has to do with thin clients either.

Gtk support on OS X has traditionally been kind of iffy. I haven't had luck running Haskell + Gtk on OS X. I am not aware of any apps that use it. It doesn't help that Qt supports OS X natively.

Ultimately, I think the question is whether or not the loss is worth the gain. I don't personally use GNOME but I also don't see the potential gain here as being worth the loss of community. It's not a great idea to abandon any segment of your userbase, because the rest of your userbase will get skittish. Not something you need with a combination of high-profile competition (Unity) and consistently eroding support. I don't think this is likely to go through, but if it does, I'd say you can expect GNOME to be dead within two or three years.

WTF? (4, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#36179976)

Gnome is supposed to be written to support X Windows.

I currently use gnome on my Linux and FreeBSD platforms, and have for quite some years. Now they're looking to tell the rest of us to PFO because they've tied themselves too tightly to Linux ... why is it even tied to the kernel anyway?

The end result will be that I and others won't use Gnome at all (not even on my Linux installs) ... but, hey, if your "be all you can be" plan is all about working on only one system, that's fine. Just don't be surprised when the number of people who use it drops off.

Re:WTF? (3, Insightful)

FooBarWidget (556006) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180176)

The days that desktop environments are only GUIs and only consisted of a bunch of windows that paint stuff on the screen are long over. These days desktop environment handle a lot more lower-level stuff, and users rightfully expect them to do so. Think for example user interfaces for managing hardware, system settings (user accounts, security, firewall, wired and wireless network), etc. GNOME depends on various background daemons that must be started at boot. All of these things have system-dependent mechanisms. Configuring the wireless network is completely different between FreeBSD, Solaris and Linux. All 3 of those OSes have a completely different init system, completely different firewall system, etc.

Re:WTF? (2)

qpqp (1969898) | more than 2 years ago | (#36181012)

I have to disagree. I believe, it would be possible to work with a common configuration api (e.g. what the user sees and interacts with) with modules for each OS; much like the webhosting control panels do. Configuring wireless parameters can also be brought to a common denominator.

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36181116)

The problem with that reasoning is that different Linux distributions provide different init systems, etc. Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. In order for Gnome to really benefit from limiting itself to a single operating system, it really does have to limit itself to a single operating system and not just to a single kernel.

Re:WTF? (3, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180264)

Because it's claimed that systemd will provide "better user experience" as espoused here [wordpress.com]. I don't really buy most of the arguments like since many them don't seem to be things that should require a dependency on an init system to fix.

XWindows doesn't do CORBA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36180688)

So how are you going to get objects moved around. The problem is that the "Desktop application" has to have a lot of stuff that isn't do to with display and everyone and their dog ALWAYS complains "it's too slow", therefore you need to write to the OS, not an abstraction.

This is why this question is raised.

Whether it's good or not, I can't say, but there IS a reason.

So stop whinging, OK?

Re:WTF? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#36181152)

Gnome has not supported BSD in a very long time. The one included with FreeBSD (Keep in mind I quit using it when 5.x came out) is heavily patched as Gnome only works with ALSA and not OSS and other weird Linux specific things. It is heavily patched to even compile yet run on non Linux platforms for these reasons.

LINUX Only (1)

hackus (159037) | more than 2 years ago | (#36179996)

I am not so sure this is a good idea.

I want GNOME to be a competitor to KDE, and I want it to work on a variety of platforms or the KDE guys could get complacent.

It might also complicate the idea of a Universal Desktop standard API. Essentially, the direction I think the open source community is heading with KDE, which would mean GNOME would have potentially a lot more work to do themselves reinventing the wheel.

I also don't like the packager ramifications of GNOME desktops existing with KDE in the future where is GNOME sets out by itself could put it against the freedesktop.org guidelines.

-Hack

Redhat devs going for the kill (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36180010)

That's their vision... One Linux OS, running on only Redhat technology. Distros become nothing more than different flavors of Fedora with their own wallpaper theme. Other OSS communities, startups, and distros with different platform architectures, get ready to be royally screwed over by the Microsoft of the opensource world

Non-Linux? What's that? (2, Informative)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180016)

As a dev of Dungeon Crawl [develz.org], I see that systems that smell like Unix these days are a monoculture of Linux and Linux only. Even though you'd expect roguelike players to be biased towards obscure systems, I don't recall a single bug report from a *BSD or Solaris user. Even Hurd had one. Big-endian systems are dead too (two distinct users, one with an old MacOS X, one with Debian on powerpc).

Everyone these days uses either Windows, Linux or x86 Mac.

Re:Non-Linux? What's that? (0)

empath (44572) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180164)

Everyone these days uses either Windows, Linux or x86 Mac. ... to play dungeon crawl.

Re:Non-Linux? What's that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36180234)

That's cause BSD users fix the code on their own.

Re:Non-Linux? What's that? (0)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180276)

Everyone these days uses either Windows, Linux or x86 Mac.

Just because you aren't aware of it, doesn't mean it's not happening. The BSD's are alive and well, thank you.

Re:Non-Linux? What's that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36181246)

As a dev of Dungeon Crawl [develz.org], I see that systems that smell like Unix these days are a monoculture of Linux and Linux only. Even though you'd expect roguelike players to be biased towards obscure systems, I don't recall a single bug report from a *BSD or Solaris user. Even Hurd had one. Big-endian systems are dead too (two distinct users, one with an old MacOS X, one with Debian on powerpc).

Everyone these days uses either Windows, Linux or x86 Mac.

It's nice that you have your pet OS in that list and suddenly you've developed the same attitude you likely despised from windows devs ten years ago.

Time for a Fork (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36180026)

If I were a non-Linux dev who'd contributed to Gnome, I'd be seriously considering a fork no matter what the outcome of this is. If there's one thing I've learned from working on open-source projects, it's that once the Linux Zealots' radical proposals start gaining real traction it's time to bail.

Re:Time for a Fork (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36180196)

These changes are not being proposed by zealot's. These changes are being made through corporate decisions. Almost every single gnome dev in favor of this move works for Redhat. It's an effort will eventually shut out competing companies like Canonical and Oracle unless they either fork the project, or switch to another DE. Oracle has the money to throw developers at it, but they only care about their hardware. Canonical is way too small to do it, barely breaking even in revenues (if even that).

Re:Time for a Fork (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180724)

Well, Canonical is already in favor of that unpolished turd that is Unity, so, they're not going to be hurt by this particular move. They just haven't yet removed Gnome.

Re:Time for a Fork (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36181252)

Shells have nothing to with it. This is about systemd being a required external dependency to gnome. It's about fracturing the Debian support for Ubuntu provided tech like Upstart. It's about making sure that only Redhat tech is dominate on Linux platforms.

How the community wants to do things (3, Interesting)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180030)

Outside a few egomaniacs with a one distro to bind them all mentality, this is not how things have been done up till now. I don't think the larger community wants to change either.

FreeDesktop.org has turned out some nice software but I don't like what they doing. Its one thing to suggest some high-level standards and try to create some consistency among projects that are already tied to a set of core libraries, its another to have to assume your specific daemon systemd or whatever is running. There is no reason to require something like that when it would be simple enough to abstract things in away that highlevel stuff like a gtk dialog can start an stop services in whatever way a particular distro wants to set things up.

Taking Gnome entirely Linux specific is the same deal, it means you have to accept a whole heap of stuff and conventions or you can't use it all. Thats dumb, ultimately its going to make distributions more varied not less. As a few core decisions will determine the entire software stack.

Over the short term it will enable people to polish up somethings and make them work real nice, as time marches on though its going to mean that something written for a Debian based distro wont be portable at all to something based on REHL or Slackware, or any of the BSDs. We will all end up with few software choices not more.

Re:How the community wants to do things (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#36181240)

something written for a Debian based distro wont be portable at all to something based on REHL or Slackware, or any of the BSDs.

In this case, it wouldn't inside of Debian itself, since there is Debian/kfreebsd.

Can you get Gnome to replace X? (2, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180056)

The problem is that Gnome has always fit in an odd spot. Above X11 (which is OS/Hardware Dependent's) and below the Windows Manager (In which GNOME often lets you choose who you want, to an extent). I would think Gnome Development if becomeing a Linux-Only product should be used to help remove X11 from Linux.
X11 has become Linux's problem.

The XWindows system was designed as a way to view a GUI over a network. For its time it was quite good at what it needed to do. Sending vector images, common commands to the X Server to display the images worked wonderfully in a world of simple graphics and low bandwith. Today it is becoming extra overhead. Performing rather slow over the network compared to newer tools even RDP is fast compared to X11. And more time is being spent to make it perform well. Problems with trying integrate Open And Closed source drivers and stability issues. Have made the need for X11 out of date. Gnome having a large applicationbase already using its API could create a situation where it can replace X11 and give Linux a Modern approach to the UI. Much like how Apple did it with OS X over a decade ago. Being able to Give Linux a GUI that is more advanced the Windows or OS X because its new core for UI is based on the 21st century technology vs. 20th century. Things like Resolution independent displays, better integrated 3d, and multi-touch. Many things we have now but are made as a hacked add on vs a core development of the UI.

Linux should no longer bother wining the desktop. Let Microsoft keep the desktop, Linux need to win Mobile, and Touch pads. Otherwise Linux will win the desktop space only after the desktop is irrelevant. Although much of us Old Fogies will fight against the idea of the Desktop demise, I doubt it will die but it will become like the mainframe a generation ago, moved from a needed device for computing to reserved for functions that it is really good at. We still have mainframes new ones running and selling but not for every company. Just as with desktops/laptops it will move to software development and CAD firms. Pushing other companies to go with more mobile devices, and perhaps like the iPad with an optional external keyboard just for writing letters.

Re:Can you get Gnome to replace X? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36180314)

Linux need to win Mobile, and Touch pads

Perhaps mobile; I mean, Android and all. Pads? You've already lost to Apple, and no, you're not going to unseat them.

Linux needs to do nothing more than what it actually is decent at: Servers.

Re:Can you get Gnome to replace X? (5, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180432)

"Sending vector images, common commands to the X Server to display the images worked wonderfully in a world of simple graphics and low bandwith. Today it is becoming extra overhead. " says the man who does not manage a large deployment...

Sorry but MOST linux enterprise installs used X heavily. it's call thin clients and the biggest selling point to get Linux in the door.

$250.00 per user cost with no per seat costs and a reduction of IT staff by 50% is HARD to ignore..... X is what delivers that ability.

Re:Can you get Gnome to replace X? (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180840)

This is what Wayland is for. Not some desktop environment specific rendering subsystem that will require drivers built custom for it. We'd run into the same disaster we have with Android, where no video drivers built for it work with anything else.

Re:Can you get Gnome to replace X? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#36181158)

The faults of X are grossly overblown and mostly made moot by modern systems that are vastly more powerful than what existed when X was first created.

People like to whine about X but it's by no means the worst thing out there.

Infact, Apple is a great example of a GUI that actually sucks more when put to use rather than just held up as some academic ideal dissasociated from the real world.

Source would still available I assume? (1)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180082)

So... not a big deal.  you can always build it yourself (if you have the skills).  I would bet a third party would come along and pick up the task of porting if there is enough interest. 

Re:Source would still available I assume? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180644)

So... not a big deal. you can always build it yourself (if you have the skills). I would bet a third party would come along and pick up the task of porting if there is enough interest.

Except, those 3rd parties have already been contributing to it ... as has been pointed out, Solaris has adopted and invested time and effort into it ... it's been ported to the BSDs and likely has benefited from some bug fixes from them ...

This more or less throws away the fact that people who aren't tied to Linux have been contributing to Gnome for as long as it's been around. Hell, Gnome originated [ximian.com] as a cross-platform toolkit -- to suddenly pretend otherwise is self-serving.

Why isn't this a good idea? (1)

WarlockD (623872) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180178)

Not to say there isn't a few good ones. They wouldn't have to worry about cross platform library's and focus more on core functionally. Lets face it, we are never going to see Gnome on windows, Apple uses their own thing and Google is going with the whole web thing.

Why not just make the gnome project its own distro? I mean seriously, this is the first project that has the momentum and even the people to make linux a decent desktop system where I don't have to go into command line evey time I want to use the thing. Hell, maybe even get rid of the X11 layer and really give it that performance boost.

And as everyone is so willing to say in opensource, if you don't like it go fork (it) yourself:)

Re:Why isn't this a good idea? (1)

outZider (165286) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180262)

There are other operating systems beyond Windows and OS X. Linux is one of many with a miniscule desktop market share. FreeBSD is another contender, and to drop support completely is short sighted with little benefit. Interface with abstractions, maybe create the Linux interface to that abstraction, and allow others to interface to those abstractions. Two birds, one stone.

Lets get out my Desktop OS checklist: (-1)

Burz (138833) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180246)

Does Gnome becoming Linux-only provide:

1) ...an SDK and IDE designed to make it easy to get started with coding on the so-called platform?

2) ...a tool, integrated with the above, to create single package files that can install even a complex application onto any 'Linux' released within the last file years?

3) ...a GUI that contractually forbids major changes by the distributor, to provide a consistent and recognizable UI?

4) ...a quick and effortless way to determine if a piece of hardware is fully supported?

Let's see, No, No, No and No? OK then, 'Desktop Linux' will continue on its current path.

Very funny (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180332)

Excuse me, i don't write code for non-cross platform software environments. For a long time. Being single platform by definition excludes an environment from the list.

Isn't Gnome a X11 window manager? (1)

shoppa (464619) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180448)

Wow, I thought Gnome and KDE etc. were X11 Window Managers.

I go look at how people talk about them, and they seem to be lifestyle choices now.

Re:Isn't Gnome a X11 window manager? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36180572)

When your window manager project needs a foundation set up to support development, you're doing it wrong.

Re:Isn't Gnome a X11 window manager? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36180858)

KDE and Gnome are Desktop Environments, not Window Managers.
Gnome for instance, uses Metacity as its default window manager.

Re:Isn't Gnome a X11 window manager? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36181156)

Nope. Neither GNOME nor KDE are "X11 window managers" by the accepted use of the term.

You may want to look through this website
http://xwinman.org/
to get a better idea of what distinguishes a window manager from a full fledged desktop

The proposal is nothing of the sorts! (5, Informative)

tvelocity (812600) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180504)

This "GNOME to drop non-Linux support" sensationalism on the net is ridiculous. There has been no such proposal! Yes, I RTFA and the full mailing list discussions.

The proposal in GNOME's desktop-devel-list was by the author and maintainer of systemd to let GNOME adopt systemd as the mechanism to configure certain system-wide settings, like locale and timezone data. This would be implemented as a dbus interface which would spawn a mini-daemon via systemd when that was required. This would solve the age old problem of every distro having their own slight variation on how to configure these things.

Notice the key part of the proposal: the dbus interface. This is the proposed dependency, and not the whole of systemd which, yes is Linux only, but in reality is just a reference implementation for this dbus interface which can be VERY easily reimplemented on any system (the minidaemons themselves are very trivial, porting systemd to other platforms however is not).

What this proposal ACTUALLY means: (a) Non Linux platforms, or Linux distros not yet using systemd, would initially have grayed out certain configuration options in the control center, like locale for example. (b) These settings can be made available just by implementing a trivial dbus interface.

Nothing of this dropping non-Linux OS support nonsense. Hope this clears up the nonsense somewhat

Re:The proposal is nothing of the sorts! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36181164)

Someone mod this guy up - the only person who appears to have actually read the damn thread.

So much for the last great DE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36180652)

I hate KDE. I've tried it repeatedly with each new version and it simply does not work for me. I was really excited to see PC-BSD becoming more desktop-agnostic, because I love Gnome. It's simple, it looks professional, and it works. I've been trying to move to XFCE which comes close, and certainly works much better for me than KDE, but still isn't quite there.

I for one welcome my new GNOME overlords! (1)

greymond (539980) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180728)

Actually, for real I do. Let me explain...

So with that if Gnome wanted to make their own GnomeOS and then Fedora/CentOS/Ubuntu/whoever would have to do their own ports of the Gnome GUI who does it bother? No one. Sure at some point I'd have to reinstall my machine with GnomeXYZ instead of Fedora, but I have no invested interest in Fedora over CentOS or whoever. I use Fedora simply because I used to use RH and I prefer typing yum instead of apt-get, that's it. I don't really care about the various differences between flavors as all I use on my system is VI and BlueFish to edit various file types, Firefox, Chrome and Opera for Browser testing. My day job is managing Drupal/Wordpress sites so I'm rarely ever needing anything more than Firefox, Filezilla and my console to work in. If you broke into my home and swapped my Fedora OS with a CentOS one I probably wouldn't notice or care.

I've been very impressed with Gnome3 on my Fedora box as it's somewhat similar to my Apple machine with it's expose features, which is my favored environment. KDE has always just looked like a linux version of WIndows to me and sure you can configure it a gazilion different ways, but I don't enjoy fiddling with my computer. (Apple guy remember, I plug shit in and it works.) But more so Gnome3 has had my wife (a non techie person) feeling very comfortable using the machine as she bounces between my Apple and the Fedora laptop I bring with us on trips. That to me is a win - having my wife embrace an "alternative desktop".

So all that to say, if Gnome made their own distro, those who like Gnome would probably continue to use it, those who don't like Gnome probably won't. The end result is life moves on and causing all this internet ruckus just makes all you nerds look silly :P

Re:I for one welcome my new GNOME overlords! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36180914)

You work for Redhat, don't you?

Just Settle On Linux (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36180802)

Why not just, once and for all, shitcan BSD and Solaris and everyone move to Linux?

Gnome developers and mental disorder (1, Interesting)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#36180944)

Gnome has become a mental disorder. While I believe, as tvelocity has pointed out [slashdot.org], that the headline is not altogether accurate, still this is just one in a series of steps Gnome has staggered into, by which it is rapidly degenerating into a pool of crap. Witness: the train wreck of Gnome3 and Gnome Shell, which is complete garbage. Gnome2 should be forked and development continued by people with functioning brains. I'm not going to go ballistic, because KDE does not seem to be losing its mind, notwithstanding the strange preoccupation that was the pointless KDE4 re-architecting. And there is always Xfce and LXDE, though these are nowhere near as rich as Gnome2.

There is plenty of this madness going around, like ubuntu pushing Unity like a drug dealer, where there is no user demand at all to change from Gnome2.

Merge Gnome and KDE! (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 2 years ago | (#36181008)

Merge Gnome and KDE!

Too much low lever efforts in two places. XFCE and LXDE could merge too.

Gnome has dropped Unix more than 6 years ago (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#36181064)

I used to use FreeBSD and Gnome was becoming an annoyance back then. Gnome started doing things like dumping OSS for ALSA and using video standards taht only worked under Linux.

If you used Gnome 2.0 or 2.2 under BSD you are using a heavily patched version that grew more and more significantly different as Gnome matured. Sun called their gui the Java desktop as it was mere Gnome based for Solaris. I remember an interview with the FreeBSD team where they were clashing with gnome developers. The problem is KDE 4 was so aweful that many Unix users wanted to switch to Gnome as a result.

I have not ran FreeBSD in many years as I use Linux on a VM partition inside Windows 7 but it seems Unix is still more a server oriented platform anyway which is why I do not run it natively anymore. I do admit Gnome-Shell/Unity and KDE 4 is what made me dump Linux for good as my main OS so I am prejudiced agaisn't Gnome.

What are these guys smoking? (3, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36181150)

Gnome went from being the most usable, stable, "just works" DE for unix-like systems, to a steaming pile of crap, IMHO. I'm still in shock that they took a stable, functional foundation that was Gnome 2, and just literally threw it all away. I tried to give Gnome 3 a chance, but it's like a damned cell-phone UI.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...