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!

Mozilla Foundation Meets The GNOME Foundation

Hemos posted more than 10 years ago | from the working-together-for-bettering-us-all dept.

Mozilla 380

An anonymous reader writes "The board of directors of the GNOME foundation recently met with a few representatives of the Mozilla foundation - discussing how they could collaborate a little closer in future. A number of interesting things were discussed, including XAML/Avalon and the future of Firefox in GNOME/Linux. Check out the minutes of the meeting on the Gnome mailing list."

cancel ×


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

I don't care. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973737)

Really, I don't.

Re:I don't care. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973750)

nor do I... really a big bunch of no news

Re:I don't care. (-1, Offtopic)

Rick the Red (307103) | more than 10 years ago | (#8973806)

These comments are most definately ON topic. Meta-moderation, here I come!

RUNNNNN!!!! (-1, Offtopic)

flewp (458359) | more than 10 years ago | (#8973746)


I apologize, I have nothing.

WOO! HEY, play "FREEBIRD"!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974003)

Ohhhhh nooooo, they say it's bloated and slow... GNOMEZILLA!!!! /BOC

Yawn...Next story, please. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973758)

Who cares? I mean really....

they don't have anything (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973771)

they're from the moon

Be careful how close you get to Mozilla (0, Troll)

SimianOverlord (727643) | more than 10 years ago | (#8973774)

I've used Firefox before and think its a great browser, but I have a number of worries about it. I mentioned a few of them before [] . I've looked into it a bit more now, and the more I discovered the more worried I've become. Basically Firefox has the capacity to give very bad press to many more Open Source products, to tar them with it's dirty brush, should certain features of the browser be publicised widely.

That's a contentious point, so before you moderate me as flamebait please give me an opportunity to explain. My previous post on this subject resulted me in getting terrible karma because people unfairly called me a troll. If it is trolling to point out potential problems that we should all be wary of then, yes, I am a troll.

A brief summary of my previous post would be to say that certain features of Firefox make it too easy to misuse the web browser to surf for pornography. It was rightly pointed out at that time by respondants that the power to misuse came from the individual, not the computer program. But I've since discovered that actual Mozilla supported extensions such as this one, "Magpie" [] or this one "Prev/Next image" [] , which are actually given web space and bookmarked by default by the Mozilla developers themselves can only be useful in the context of searching for and downloading hardcore or violent pornography . For the Mozilla developers to support these two extensions is similar to them offering a "Porno" button theme. If they would not support a sexually explicit theme on their homepage, why are they giving space to extensions which allow you to easily fetch pornographic pictures? Let me reiterate: these extensions are only useful in that context. What is the difference? Does this not give indirect approval of these activities? I think it does.

Pornography is destroying the Internet and the moral health of this nation. By offering openly these functionalities, by publicising and supporting them as mainstream, the Mozilla Developers are commiting a grave moral error. How long is it until some paid Microsoft shill notices them and publicly calls Firefox "the browser of the perverted"? That would be an entirely supportable conclusion. And it would reflect badly not only on Mozilla, but other Open Source projects too.

Check out the extensions for yourself and try to justify them as anything other than porn gatherers. Then join me in mailing the Firefox team, to help them back on the right path (No reply as of 04/24, and it has been about a month). Having a major open source project associate itself publicly with perversion and pornography, with the exploitation and degradation of women, is no way to gain respect.

Article text pasted, mod down (-1, Offtopic)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 10 years ago | (#8973804)

This post appeared within minutes of the story posting, complete with links and proper formatting, so it is quite probable that this is a karma whore.

[O/T] Defending my post (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973921)

Indeed, as parent poster, I must admit I had written this down as some thoughts for inclusion in my journal [] at some point. But when I saw the front page, I felt I could post this as a warning, where it might be more visible. Is this a crime?

I am surprised you say it is a karma whore. In fact, I expect I will take a karma HIT for saying what is a contentious point. It's something I feel strongly about, so I post whether you approve or not. But next time think more carefully before branding me as a "whore" please. The term Karma solicitation should be used anyway, as it doesn't have such woman-hating connotations. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Re:[O/T] Defending my post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974145)

Zealots suck, no matter how noble their cause. Lighten up, get a life and stay out of mine.

Re:[O/T] Defending my post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974327)

So, from whore to zealot? This isn't about my opinion. This is about how Mozilla will be talked about, and played to conservative middle America.

Whether you download pornography or not, if you love Open Source, you should look out for these pitfalls. It isn't about surpressing your freedom to look at what you like, you IDIOT. It's about a major success story in the Open Source world setting itself up for a fall. If you have nothing to add but whining about me being a "karma whore" or "zealot" then please do us all a favour and keep your opinions to yourself. This is a suggestion only. Please do not start shrieking "I'M BEING REPRESSED!! COME AND SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM!!!" as you have in your last post.

Re:Be careful how close you get to Mozilla (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973826)

I agree. No sooner have I downloaded and installed Mozilla browser that I have noticed by 17-year-old son looking at pornography and the images of filthy women on the Internet. Plus he started talking somce Communist manifesto stuff and once said he was going to install Lunix on our home machine.

I am not a violent man, but from good father's perspective I had to whip out my belt and show him that's the road to hell. That changed his perspective entirely, so right now he's quite happy using Internet Explorer 6 on Windows ME and paying for all the applications he uses except some cheap crap, that's so bad they have to give it away for other people to pick up.

I also own 100 shares of Microsoft stock in my portfolio, and so does my wife, so no Lunix talks are permitted in my house, since we are all planning for happy retirement.

Re:Be careful how close you get to Mozilla (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974030)

Slightly amusing, but incredibly stupid.

Re:Be careful how close you get to Mozilla (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973947)

And he even doesn't know about this awfull thing [] .

Re:Be careful how close you get to Mozilla (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974020)

Guess which "extensions" I'll be installing ASAP. Thank you oh prudish one for expediting my porn searching.

Re:Be careful how close you get to Mozilla (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974060)

dude... note that your sig doesn't get indexed by google, which archives only the comment text with sigs stripped out. To get "hacker chick" google bombed, put it within the comment itself and hope your post gets modded up to where the big G will index it.

Re:Be careful how close you get to Mozilla (1)

BW_Nuprin (633386) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974174)

Who wants pornographic pictures anyway? I think by now we've all graduated to movies. Firefox is way behind the porno movie technology curve, and I think thats a serious issue!

Re:Be careful how close you get to Mozilla (5, Insightful)

The-Dalai-LLama (755919) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974326)

I hate to feed the trolls but criminy...

can only be useful in the context of searching for and downloading
hardcore or violent pornography

The emphasis is in the original post and it's an utterly ridiculous claim. Trust me, these fantastic features are every bit as useful and functional for downloading and cataloging even low-key, family-friendly porn that has nothing to do with whips, chains, or farm animals in leather pants.

Besides which, your cheap attempt to inject a little extra hype carries a distinct tone of shrill hysteria, which detracts from any attempt at a more reasoned argument. Your attempt to use one narrow aspect of the whole broad, rich spectrum of glorious pornography is misleading enough that it probably has its own latin name.

I guess it also goes without saying that the uses for tabbed browsing are limited only by the imagination and intelligence of the person who browses.

Consequently, your options may be severely limited. Let me help you get started.

  • The glorious power of tabbed browsing:
  • Allows you to open up every category of the Chadwick's Catalog [] at once
  • You can do a Google search for "Moral Purity" [] and open each result in its own tab
  • Each article on the American Family Association's Website [] can be opened in its own tab. You can read the current article while the others load.
  • You don't have to use Firefox's handy extensions on pictures of porn. Because Satan and his Mozillian Minions made them available through the GPL for free, you can use them to collect and trade pictures of Jesus [] or even pictures of beautiful cathedrals, [] without ever worrying that your licensing fee will be used to fund sex-correction surgery for a 16-year old Taiwanese lady-boy.
  • If you have Bible questions [] , you can open a tab for each answer, drastically reducing the amount of time it takes to hide those words in your heart.
  • Tabbed browsing is so useful that you can go to the Anti-Porn Guy [] 's website and open each of his informative links [] in its own window to find others who will help you with your crusade against tabbed browsing.

To sum up: tabbed browsing is your friend. Whether you are cruising or, tabbed browsing can make your internet experience faster, easier, and better.

The Dalai Llama for the children...

P.S. - I gather that your tirade against tabbed browsing is a recurring theme. Feel free to bookmark this post and refer to it as needed.

Mozilla meets Gnome. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973777)

Does Tokyo get stomped?

Re:Mozilla meets Gnome. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973920)

Dammit... you stole my troll!

I'm a Republican! (A poem) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973778)

Oh, I'm a Republican
I got a small schling
I like to bomb niggahs
and make a lot o' bling

I got a bunch o' friends
in high up places
They helps me get dem
government graces.

You think I'm smart
I just know who's who
I couldn't run a fruit stand
without the red white & blue

I fancy myself
A brilliant tactician
But neither me nor m'buddies
Could even pass basic trainin'

See, I'm above all that
A fightin' and shootin'
I just say "Sic em!"
Then run the other direction

Don't need no history
Don't need no schoolin'
I got my ideology
To keep me a shootin'

If I get caught screwin'
Or tellin' wicked lies
"Hypocrisy!" I holler
And that justifies the crimes

Liberals! Faggots!
Commies and queers!
Socialist hippies
Full o' pussy tears!

I'll drop some crap
about Jesus the Christ
You'll buy it all
and vote for me twice

'Fact, Jesus is comin'!
Real soon, now!
So we gotta prop up Israel
That ol' sacred cow

Propaganda's m'friend
But I calls it "fact"
Even though I don't read
'Cept for Chick tracts

Facts? No! Don't need em here!
We're conservatives! We work on FEAR!
Don't like what we say?
Well FUCK YOU, bud!
We'll shove it down yer throat
and tell ya it's good!

Do not annoy the Stallman (4, Funny)

Rick the Red (307103) | more than 10 years ago | (#8973781)

the future of Firefox in GNOME/Linux
Isn't that "GNU/Linux"? Has GNOME taken over GNU?

Re:Do not annoy the Stallman (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973819)

Nope its GNOME on Linux. The KDE folk do not seem to be very interested with a companionship with Mozilla (probably due to KHtml).

This is hopefully going to combine the best of both technologies into something that could defeat XAML, etc...

Re:Do not annoy the Stallman (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973837)

GNU is already represented in the G in GNOME, getting greedy eh?

Re:Do not annoy the Stallman (4, Funny)

ajs (35943) | more than 10 years ago | (#8973866)

Stallman is a jelous developer, and you shall have no others before him!

Re:Do not annoy the Stallman (4, Funny)

Simon Lyngshede (623138) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974162)

Soon it will be FireGNOMEGNU/Linux.

Gnome browser (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973782)

Gnome let post first. Or not.

And today (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973783)

I met my friend Bob. Didn't discuss much, I was in a hurry, but we agreed we should get together for a beer some day.

Any news outlet wants to publish that? Both Bob and I are available for interview and TV appearances.

Re:And today (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973811)

Maybe Timothy will post a book review of the proceedings if we are lucky. Makes me long back for a nice day of typical slanted RIAA/SCO/Microsoft postings.

It'd be nice (5, Insightful)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 10 years ago | (#8973799)

Better to standardize on Firefox rather than have the desktop environment people keep churning out half-assed browsers like Konq and Nautilus.

Re:It'd be nice (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973834)

yet the engine for konq is used by apple.

and nautilus isnt even a web browser. (it has html capabilities, but so do lots of apps)

Re:It'd be nice (1)

zowch (552785) | more than 10 years ago | (#8973867)

I think the grandparent was probably referring to Epiphany [] rather than Nautilus.

Re:It'd be nice (1)

fr0dicus (641320) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974079)

I think the grandparent was probably referring to Konqueror rather than Firefox. And Firefox rather than konq.

Re:It'd be nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974223)

I think not. Konqueror IS half-assed. It doesn't even have type-ahead find. And I don't even want to get started on its crummy rendering.

Epiphany at least has type-ahead find and a good rendering engine. It's just missing some of the little things from Firefox, mainly user interface details. Add those and it'll be all good.

Re:It'd be nice (5, Insightful)

BuddieFox (771947) | more than 10 years ago | (#8973907)

Konqueror, Nautilus, Epiphany, Galeon, Firefox, Mozilla et etc.. I have to agree that its getting kind of ridiculous.
Ok, choice is nice and all, but this duplication of functionality and work is probably extremely unproductive as a whole for the progress of open source software. It should be enough with 2-3 choices for browsers instead of 20: one or two lightweight ones á Firefox, and one or two "fully featured" like Mozilla.

Re:It'd be nice (4, Interesting)

Malc (1751) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974098)

Firefox is based directly on the Mozilla browser, and it's almost as fully-featured as Mozilla Seamonkey. Unless you're referring to all the other non-browser bumpf that's ignorantly part of the same process space as the Mozilla Seamonkey browser... but Firefox is closing that gap too when it's bundled in a like-feature suite including products such as Thunderbird, Sunbird, etc.

I wish they would stop wasting their time with Seamonkey and put their efforts in to closing the gap more quickly.

Anyway, I know what you're saying, but there's got to be a reason why KDE developers chose to write their own from scratch rather than integrate Gecko.

Re:It'd be nice (1)

molarmass192 (608071) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974351)

I think (not know) that it has something to do with leveraging the QT framework for widgets and themes. Don't quote me on this though.

Re:It'd be nice (5, Funny)

jdifool (678774) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974192)

The socialists, the communists, the social-democrats, the conservatives, the libertarians, the absenteists.. I have to agree that its getting kind of ridiculous.
Ok, choice is nice and all, but this duplication of thinking and criticism is probably extremely unproductive as a whole for the progress of democracy. It should be enough with 2-3 choices for political parties instead of 20: one or two lightweight ones as the libertarians, and one or two "fully featured" like the democrats and the republicans.

oh wait...

Overlap in functionality != unproductive effort (3, Insightful)

Ride-My-Rocket (96935) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974200)

Konqueror, Nautilus, Epiphany, Galeon, Firefox, Mozilla et etc.. I have to agree that its getting kind of ridiculous.
Ok, choice is nice and all, but this duplication of functionality and work is probably extremely unproductive as a whole for the progress of open source software. It should be enough with 2-3 choices for browsers instead of 20: one or two lightweight ones á Firefox, and one or two "fully featured" like Mozilla.

Isn't the whole point of open source that there's as many choices as there are people to invest the time and energy? Shouldn't that broaden the possibilities of a given piece of software, if each is trying to bring something new to the table?

That being said, I agree that it would probably be best to focus efforts on the more mature technologies. But I wouldn't go so far as to say it's unproductive: rather, they're producing something, but there may be a lot of overlap between it and any other browser-type app out there.

Re:It'd be nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974208)

While I can't speak about the rest of them, Konqeror has an certain nitch. It's basically a front end for a framework that's already there. Now despite the fact that it does in fact replicate functionality, I certainly don't see why I would have to yank all sorts of dependancies like gtk and such just to install KDE because it happens to use Mozilla as the browser to read the help files.

If people want to work on different browsers, then that's fine. Mozilla (or firefox) is for the most part the standard browser in the OS world. KDE and Gnome both have different browsers for their own reasons (although I don't see why Gnome doesn't go with Firefox) - and that's fine since most people couldn't really name what browser their using, and those that do will usually seek out the browser they want.

Which brings up another point, that just because everyone works on a single project, that every feature magically gets implemented. Many projects just don't like some ideas, and while one camp may reject something, another might think it's great. If it pans out, then others may impement it as well. It's called innovation, and it tends to work well with multiple competing groups with different ideas on how things should be done.

Re:It'd be nice (1)

jmauro (32523) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974255)

Nautilus, Epiphany, Galeon, Firefox, and Mozilla are all the same browsers with different front ends. They all use the same Gecko rendering engine.

Re:It'd be nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974349)

Snore. Been said before, and better.

Re:It'd be nice (4, Insightful)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 10 years ago | (#8973946)

Half-assed browsers like Konq?! It may be hard for you to believe, but some of us actually find Konq better to use than Mozilla.

That's certaintly true for APPLE, as Safari is based on kparts as well. Because of that alone, it wouldn't seriously surprise me if KParts browsers have a higher marketshare than mozilla.

Re:It'd be nice (4, Interesting)

Abjifyicious (696433) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974100)

Yes Safari is based on the same HTML rendering engine as Konquerer, but the user interface is completely different. On the surface, Safari is far more similar to Firefox than Konquerer.

Wheel 2.0 (1)

Micro$will (592938) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974232)

And I prefer Stan Wagon's new invention, the xheel [] over the old wheel. Sure, they're square, and new roads will have to be build to accomodate them, but think of all the new jobs that will be created. I can't wait for the IPO.

Re:It'd be nice (5, Interesting)

Bricklets (703061) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974000)

I use Firefox when I'm working in Windows and Linux, but I use Safari when working on a Mac. Safari uses KHTML (developed for "Konq"). Different strokes for different folks. Just because you don't like a particular browser does not mean others feel the same.

And by standardization, that does not mean the elimination of all other browsers. It just means basing multiple browers on the same standard (i.e. user interface, rendering of pages, etc.)

Re:It'd be nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974279)

Now does Safari or Konqueror have type-ahead find?

If the answer is no, I'm not even going to consider using them.

Last time I used Konqueror (after the KDE 3.2), I was disappointed with its strange font rendering and lack of type-ahead find. I could get used to the rendering, but type-ahead find is a must-have. Hopefully someone adds (or has added) this to these browsers, because I really would like for them to be an option.

Insightful? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974128)

You must be kidding. While replacing epiphany (the current gnome-browser) with firefox would be a good idea imho, calling the filemanager Nautilus a browser simply is anything but insightful.

Oh, and Konq is pretty awesome as a file-manager and has greatly improved as a web-browser.

Best Point Raised in the Meeting (0, Offtopic)

PhilippeT (697931) | more than 10 years ago | (#8973807)

has to be this:

"We need to slow the upgrade to Longhorn, and since that is relatively costly to businesses, if we can make cross platform applications work well, there is an opportunity for Linux migration"

Preliminary list of agreements (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973809)

The GNOME people have agreed to cooperate subject to the following conditions:
  • The organization name "Mozilla" must be changed to "GNU/Mozilla".
  • The project name "Firefox" must be changed to "GNU/Firefox".
  • The technology name "XAML/Avalon" must be changed to "GNU/XAML//GNU/Avalon".

Moderators, wakey wakey! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974248)

Funny, yes. Informative, hardly.

The double-slash in 'GNU/XAML//GNU/Avalon' should have tipped you off even if the rest didn't. ... just wait until I metamod this.

Re:Preliminary list of agreements (1)

jdifool (678774) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974296)

Can please someone explain me in clear and sound terms the recurrent FSF bashing ? And especially, why it is regularly modded up ?

There's definitely something I don't get here.


GNONE-ME (-1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973810)

That's quite an facile editorial but you can't expect better from normal users. My screenshot looks better than yours. Evolution is better than KMail, GNOME looks more polished than KDE and so on. I do use XChat, Abiword, Rhythmbox.... ...usually you get stuff like these from normal users. And this is ok since you can't blame them for stuff they simply don't know about or don't have a slighest knowledge about.

Such editorials are hard to take serious since they are build up on basicly NO deeper knowledge of the matter. Most people I met so far are full of prejudices and seek for excuses or explaination why they prefer the one over the other while in reality they have no slightest clue on what parameters they compare the things.

If people do like the gance ICONS over the functionality then it's quite ok but that's absolutely NO framework to do such comparisons.

I do come from the GNOME architecture and spent the last 5 years on it. I also spent a lot of time (nearly 1 year now if I sum everything up) on KDE 3.x architecture including the latest KDE 3.2 (please note I still do use GNOME and I am up to CVS 2.6 release myself).

Although calling myself a GNOME vetaran I am also not shy to criticise GNOME and I do this in the public as well. Ok I got told from a couple of people if I don't like GNOME that I simply should switch and so on. But these are usually people who have a tunnelview and do not want to see or understand the problems around GNOME.

Speaking as a developer with nearly 23years of programming skills on my back I can tell you that GNOME may look polished on the first view but on the second view it isn't.

Technically GNOME is quite a messy architecture with a lot of unfinished, half polished and half working stuff inside. Given here are examples like broken gnome-vfs, half implementations of things (GStreamer still half implemented into GNOME (if you can call it an implementation at all)) rapid changes of things that make it hard for developers to catch up and a never ending bughunting. While it is questionable if some stuff can simply be fixed with patches while it's more required to publicly talk about the Framework itself.

Sure GNOME will become better but the time developers spent fixing all the stuff is the time that speaks for KDE to really improve it with needed features. We here on GNOME are only walking in the circle but don't have a real progress in true usability (not that farce people talk to one person and then to the next). Real usability here is using the features provided by the architecture that is when I as scientists want to do UML stuff that I seriously find an application written for that framework that can do it. When I eye over to the KDE architecture then as strange it sounds I do find more of these needed tools than I can find on GNOME. This can be continued in many areas where I find more scientific Software to do my work and Software that works reliable and not crash or misbehave or behave unexpected.

Comparing Nautilus with Konqueror is pure nonsense, comparing GNOME with KDE is even bigger nonsense. If we get a team of developers on a Table and discuss all the crap we find between KDE and GNOME then I can tell from own experience that the answer is clearly that GNOME will fail horrible here.

We still have many issues on GNOME which are Framework related. We now got the new Fileselector but yet they still act differently in each app. Some still have the old Fileselector, some the new Fileselector, some appearance of new Fileselectors are differently than in other apps that use the new Fileselector code and so on. When people talk about polish and consistency, then I like to ask what kind of consistency and polish is this ? We still have a couple of different ways to open Window in GNOME.

- GTK-Application-Window,
- BonoboUI Window,
- GnomeUI Window,

Then a lot of stuff inside GNOME are hardcoded UI's, some are using *.glade files (not to mention that GLADE the interface builder is still not aware of the new Widgets in GTK and even not aware of the deprecated ones), then we have *.xml files for BonoboUI windows etc. As you can see it's a pain to maintain all this junk. These are just a little spot on the entire Mountain. I can countless bring up more stuff. Sure these things are being worked on. No doubt but as I said they WORK on it this means that there is NO real progress for the future since people write new apps for GNOME and probably use old API and then they need to change huge parts of their code only to adopt the new API rather than working on the application itself to bring it forward with better features the user needs.

Why do I say these things in public and still use GNOME. Well when I started, I was developing stuff using the Motif widgetset and during that time around 1999 KDE and GNOME were looking quite similar from features and stuff. So I decided to work on and for GNOME although I am not quite happy with many so called 'solutions' inside GNOME and I think that we need to discuss them (on whatever place it is) to make people who like to contribute to GNOME know where the problems are and how we can solve them (if possible).

From my person experience KDE is far far superior of the inferior GNOME when it comes to technical aspects. Even if there are a few Menu entries to much or the Toolbar is overblown in Konqueror these are all cosmetical things that can be changed if needed (and if the developers think it's a good thing) but looking at the amount of KDE users and applications that got stomped out of nothing I do believe that there are a lot of people simply happy how KDE is as it is now.

If they change the Fileselector in KDE then it's inherited by other applications. So the author doesn't need to change huge leaps of code since they simply inherit it. If someone changes the Addressbook object then it's being inherit in other applications, same for Clock, Bookmarks etc. The Fileselector looks similar in all apps, the Toolbars and Menu look similar in all apps etc. They have quite nifty features that I am missing in GNOME. Even nowadays I ask myself if the developers working on GNOME are still on track of what the user really wants or if they are not caught in a tunnelview here by doing something no-one can really use.

When I hear people talking about all these cool usability studies SUN made then I need to smile here since this thing is laying back a few years now. And SUN already started working on their GLASS Desktop based on JAVA (no it's not GNOME based). The reason why SUN still works on GNOME is as far as I was told is that they had a 5 years contract with GNOME to do so. Anyways you can't depend on old usability tests. To warranty true usability these tests needs to be re-done every now and then so you can guarantee some sort of quality assurance that the stuff is still on track and truly usable for people.

Usable not as in which button to press, usable as in 'can I find the apps I need to do my business work'. or 'can I copy files and subdirs from FTP and have the stuff arrive correctly on my Desktop' (gnome-vfs still horrbly fails here).

Well I think people should really do an article based on these things since they are elementary for a Desktop. Neverthless I do believe that both sides KDE and GNOME do work hard on their Desktop but truly I believe that KDE makes better steps forward and imo in the right direction too. Even alternative stuff such as MorphOS or XFCE are far more useroriented and friendlier to use than what GNOME offers today.

> Perhaps GNOME is a bloody mess inside and KDE is a
> masterpiece, but does that really matter to the user?

Yes it does matter. We today place the stones for the road tomorrow. And we should decide wisely which stones we lay on that road. Should be go for an inferior Desktop which stagnates because developers are messing around in the Framework or should we go for a technical supperior Desktop ? Yes USERS do care a lot and it matters a lot of them as well. Since these users want to use polished applications, applications that are tightly integrated, that share one database for their Addressbooks, one database for their Bookmarks, they simply want to put all their Addresses in one database and be sure they can use these things in their Word like application (serial letters) in their Cellphone syncing app, in their Palm or PowerPC syncing app, in their Email client and so on. It matters a lot for the user if he can reliable use a FTP client or Filemanager to copy a bunch of files from A to B without worrying whether the stuff appeared correctly or not. And yes it matters a lot for the user whether he can be sure that new applications can rapidely be developed (even by himself) in a short time due to taking objects. And yes it also matters for us all whether a nice Desktop is being used which works reliable in all areas and guarantees new applications since we wanted to demonstrate outside world (non Linux people) how far Linux and the Desktop really are. How can we demonstrate the world outside that KDE is in many areas even far supperior over WindowsXP (in Desktop functionality) if we show people how nice icons GNOME has and as soon they start using it figure out that it's a mess ?

And yes, there is nothing wrong for KDE being similar to Windows. I want Windows for Linux. At least it offers me a cool Desktop with similar functionality and cool stuff. Hell I don't even come from Windows I used to be an AmigaOS person before that.

Better a Windows look and behave like rather than a Desktop that fit's nowhere where people and industry needs to spend hours and probably millions of Dollars into teaching their people how to do simpliest things. Now tell your customers who pay for your service how to use gconftool-2 for example. They will chop your testi**es off and put them in a glass with alcoholics.

> the difference is that Gconfig it is aimed for advanced
> users and Kpanel for general use.

And here is the problem. GNOME these days aims for the unexperienced users. Quite a contradictorily to the aims of GNOME don't you think. Most important settings are simply hidden behind GConf (and not Gconfig better you get off and learn some basics before teaching knowledged people what the differences are).

> I don't want I windows on Linux, the reason I use Linux is
> to get off MS, and what about Mac users who don't like
> Windows and want something else?.

Honestly, KDE is closer to both of them than GNOME. KDE offers the MacOSX way of Menu system (Top Menu), KDE has a cool Liquid Theme, KDE can look quite close to anything you like. It can even look like MorphOS.

But back to a normal conversation. You should look back in the mid 80's and compare the things today. Most Desktop solutions are all the same.

- Window
- Window can be moved,
- Icon on Desktop,
- Icon on Desktop can be moved,
- Filemanager,
- Filemanager can do things,
- Panel, Toolbar, Top Menu

So saying that Mac Users won't like KDE is plain stupid, the same stupid way saying Windows users don't like KDE etc. There can also be people who do like GNOME, there is no problem. But we should clearly look for the superior Desktop solution and it should be even clear to you that KDE is technically FAR superior. It's so much superior that comparing KDE and GNOME is plain wrong. It's like comparing a Ferrari with an Austin Mini.

> I do feel that Gnome is more likely to be successful on
> the corporate workstation than KDE

I don't believe so. Even corporate people have eyes in their head and a brain they can use. When they spent some time into Linux and know more about the technical stuff and probably the two desktops they then will decide wisely. I recently had a conversation with someone who wanted to change his entire company (1200 Desktops) to GNOME but then they decided to use KDE after they figured out how messy GNOME really is.

> because there are less option to fiddle around with and it
> seems simplier to get things done

What things do you think they get done that simple ? I would know a couple of examples of the things you can do simplier on GNOME than e.g. KDE ? But ok be it like that, this still doesn't change the broken Framework issue which is basicly the all and everything for a Desktop. No matter how less options you have, no matter how clean you assume the desktop to be, no matter how polished or nice you find it yourself. It still won't change the broken junk inside it. As many people already explained (since they elaborated correctly) GNOME will take years (IF EVER) to reach quality of KDE.

Forget the ugly icons, forget the bazillion of Menu entries and forget all the tons of Options. These are all things you can change easily and quickly. Unfortunately you can't easily change the broken stuff in GNOME that quickly. I wish it would be possible but as sad and realistic it sounds, it won't happen.

> sure stock Gnome isn't as polished as KDE, but Ximian
> Gnome is. Gnome 2.6 looks like it might just Gnome that
> extra bit of polish that it needs as well.

Yeah but thre rest remains GNOME, the same incomplete and unfinished Framework. Ximian GNOME may be a name in the public, but new apps need to be developed as well and that's still the same problematic issue than using stock GNOME. You still deal with the problems I have described above.

We need a stable desktop, a desktop with good framework, nice applications and where we can be sure that rapid application development is possible. A Ximian GNOME won't change anything here.

> Computer users usually don't know much about computers, I
> can't imagine a customer trying to find and specific option
> here.

Excuse me, but why do these people want to use Linux then ? If they have no clue what they are doing they better head off using Windows. Every farmer can give help with Windows, every neighbour can and even every WalMart store can help these people in Windows related questions. Why do they want to bother with Linux then ?

New people unfamilar to computers make their first touch with Windows. They learn to use it, they using it fine and they strangely get their stuff done the way they like and Windows is overblown with configuration options.

Even my sister is far better in Microsoft Word than I ever was or ever will be (not to mention that I am not interested either). But you see that people as unexperienced they are are usually willing to learn and do it. They learn by mistakes and don't make them again the next time.

Every now and then my sister comes up to me and tells me that her printer doesn't work. Hell it's even easier for me as Administrator and even as long years of Linux user to fix her 1 second problem with the printer on Windows rather than on Linux. Windows is dead simple but yet full of configuration stuff. People not interested in config stuff won't fiddle with the things either.

Even cars, videorecorders, cellphones, pda's, dvd burners, mp3 players are getting more features and things. And when I see people talking about technical stuff they usually go for the things with many options because they think it's correct with their price.

Anyways you should clearly read my comments. All the options, icons and much menu entries you can IGNORE since these are things you can easily CHANGE. Changing all the stuff in KDE is far easier than fixing the broken Framework in GNOME.

> Yes people are willing to learn, but they are more worried
> aboyt getting their work done as fast as posible, less
> clicks, less options, just do what they need.

Ok and what WORK do these people get done with GNOME they can not get done with KDE ?

For my knowledge they can get the same work done with KDE as they would get done with GNOME. So far we hopefully agree.

Now let's get a look beyond the tunnel (having a tunnelview is kinda pointless here).

Say that person wants to get REAL work done. Say he or she want's to do some astrological stuff. Where will he get the software to get the work done ? GNOME doesn't offer such a software so he or she can't even start to work.

Say people come in #gnome every day complaining there is no CD burning application like K3b now how can they get their work done if the application is missing ?

Say people want to do presentation stuff like PowerPoint, where is the application on GNOME so these people can get the work done ?.

Say people want to do 3D stuff for their mechanical course, where do they get the application for GNOME ?

Say people want to do UML for their university course, where do they get that program for GNOME ? DIA ? Hell I am a practical example here that DIA is unusable to do a shite.

Now where is the software on GNOME to get exactly that work done ?. Looking over to KDE the software is existing already.

Ok I am not blaming GNOME for not having all this. NO. But I wanted to make you understand that a good Framework is required to guarantee rapid application development. Rapid application development means that the users do not need to wait 2 years until they get the work done, since they already have the software today to get the work done. And this software is in a way to be improved. They have no problems changing huge parts of their Code to fit the fixed Framework since the Framework on KDE is already in a very good condition. The developers concentrate on the fun stuff improving and echancing their applications rather than fixing stuff or get their app understanding the new changed API.

You know, a good Framework means that you can quickly develop programs. Programs that people can use to get serious work done.

I always wished GNOME would have such a great development Framework like KDE has but it sadly hasn't and this is what I like people to understand. There is no point blaming one desktop and favoriting another one just for the Icons of for the Themes (as this editorial shows) it matters more that we have a good framework for the future and guarantee that apps are being written in masses.

This is all I wanted to say, nothing more, nothing less. If you are not willing to understand this (or not able to understand either due to limited knowledge) then this is your problem not mine. I took quite a lot of time to explain these things to you. By now everyone else reading this should have understood the points.

Let me give you a view examples of what I think of being a broken framework:

a) When I implment new features but do it just half. Adding GStreamer to GNOME for example which is indeed a nice thing but adding it only to half of the apps and skipping the others is a bug.

b) Fixing half of the stuff in apps. Say you committ a patch that fixes 2 dialogs in Nautilus but leaves the others as they were 2 years before is imo a bug. Makes using the app become, well ugly.

c) Offering multiple ways to open a Window in GNOME is a bug. GTK+, GnomeUI, BonoboUI. This leads to inconsistency and total clutter.

d) Writing a new Fileselector but have the default apps use a mixture of old and New Fileselectors is imo a bug. By the way why should a developer waste time fixing all old and new Filedialogs ? If the stuff is properly written then you simply inherit the new Fileselector without noticing it. It's simply there. Here is a proof that not everything in GNOME 2.0 is re-written. Much of the stuff is simply ported from 1.x.

e) When copying files via Nautilus (say and you copy a subdir which includes MORE directories and files from that FTP to your Desktop and you get stuff like

(copying file 98 of 23)

Or get 0byte files copied from that FTP to your Desktop then this is a bug.

f) Gnomifying OpenOffice is an even bigger bug. The entire OpenOffice framework is based on the Staroffice Foundation Class (Their own Widgetset). Gnomifying all this is simply an idiotic task and leads to fragmentation in the code. Again they will do this work only hal. Only what you see will be changed not the rest. So the result is a mixture of old code and new changed User Experience.

g) Hardcoded UI is a bug (at least under GNOME), it leads no space for UI designers to fix all the stuff without code skills. Where should they start ? In the Hardcoded stuff ? In the *.glade stuff ? In the .xml stuff ?

h) Having all apps do their own bookmarks system is a bug, There is no central bookmarks solution. Same for Addressbooks etc.

i) When I call out for a bounty and have people called up to 'tweak and fiddle' Evolution support into the Panel Callendar then this is a bug and not a feature. A feature would be if I changed the Callendar Object so when I inherit it into other applications that all these apps will benefit from the Evolution support and not just one.

And yes what you write is indeed also a big problem (at least your text is partially right). A lot of undocumented API changes. A lot of undocumented changes itself.

E.g. I wrote a little Application which uses a GtkCombo I was in the assumption to use a good API from GTK and then one day they changed the Widget and marked this one DEPRECATED and this in a new App that I wrote.

The changes are quite huge and I feel quite frustrated having this one changed to adopt the new Widgets. It's not just trivial changes these changes I have to do are quite huge and will take me a couple of days. The days I usually have to stay motivated to do the work. Now instead of improving my application I need to fiddle around to remove the old stuff, go through 10 source files and remove the stuff. Not to mention that I also need to re-write huge chunks of code only to fix the stuff.

While the old GtkCombo allowed me to simply attach a GList to it (my 'History' function is based on a GList which contains 5 Listentries which have Data applied) I now need to create an entire TreeModell again and populate that Tree with these values.

What I do here is changing a well thought interface (which I spent hours to figure out before) into a new interface and what I do is tweak and fiddle the stuff in a way to make it fit there. Which then leaves other parts of my code get slightly unoptimal as I used to have in mind before.

Why so frustrated and why attacking my person ? Do you fear that I could be right and you not ? Your reply is far to ridiculous and only a try to publicly destroy my creditibility rather than a sign of willing to accept the critics as I write them (since they are right) and start discussion with the community and have these problems solved. People like you are more up to attack those who bring up constructive criticism and feedback rather than true willing to change the true things.

> What are you actually trying to say. Does every
> application need to add GStreamer? Why don't you specify
> precisely what features are not implemented and state
> where GNOME has stated officially or unofficially not to
> implement it.

Not every application needs to embedd GStreamer that's pure rubbish. But the audio stuff should and should do that correctly. Right now in GNOME we deal with direct Xine calls and GStreamer calls. Developer have been chosing Xine in many tools (Totem and Rhythmbox) due to stability reasons because GStreamer still is unfinished, no stable API and no general stability. They do still offer the posibility to include the GStreamer stuff but what benefits does it give when it locks up during playback or simply doesn't play back at all. Go and get a look in the code yourself id you don't trust my words. Let's continue with the new GMixer, it was hyped that it now supports the GStreamer stuff but yet it doesn't. When I select 'alsasink' in GConf-Editor then I would like to be able to Mix the alsa stuff and not get a dialog that the sound devices an not be found. The reason why it can not be found is it still expects the OSS emulation in Alsa to be active so it just mixes the OSS part of alsa but not the native part. I thought it uses GStreamer here, so I do assume it to use the right sinks and right devices to Mix. Just one example.

> Still short on specifics. If you are such a great software
> developer and you claim to have been working for GNOME but
> yet you have not been able to solve even one of the
> problems you whine about years on end.

The problem here is you can't simply sent in bugfixes or patches when your innerst tells you that this is plain wrong and needs to be re-done correctly. See it like a house where you continue glueing stuff into it. A bit here, a bit there a bit in another place and you see how the stuff you are doing makes no sense but yet you continue because you can't convince the other owners that it would be better to trash the entire house and start from scratch.

> Where are all the bug reports you have filed? Where are
> all the patches you are submitted that the GNOME 'people'
> have refused to commit. Please give us more facts, and
> soon.

They are either on or made their way in the Applications in case they got accepted. I know you are trying to pick here but you won't be successful. For further information you can look into ChangeLogs. But this isn't your point at all, you will reply and tell me that you wasn't able to find a shit (many others have tried this before). I think you should get out of your tunnelview and your evangelism here and start looking into the real problems. Guess why there aren't any changes in GNOME because people and developers fear to do these changes or raise constructive criticism because it ends in things like this. Ignorance, Elitism, Tunnelview and even worse Namecalling.

> How about you give an example of the clutter that this
> causes. Are you complaining that GTK+ has only one way to
> open a window, or that GnomeUI has only one way to open a
> window or that GTK, GnomeUI and BonoboUI altogether have
> three ways to open a window?

The problem here is interoperability with the rest of GNOME. Try opening a couple of applications on your GNOME desktop. Say one program written using GnomeUI, one written in GTK+ one written in BonoboUI. Now go to:

Desktop-Preferences -> Menus&Toolbars

And fiddle around with the values there. You will see that some programs imidiately change the Toolbar and Menu behaviour, some not, some change their appearance after they got opened and closed and some even do not react on these settings at all. Just one example only to satisfy your questions here.

Technically they are a pain to maintain too. Specially for UI people, those who go from app to app fixing all the paddings, Layout of buttons and widgets etc. There is a big difference if you use one GUI designer or one system to change all this or need to learn 3-4 different but common used ways to change all this.

It is problematic having hardcoded UI in the code (which requires that an UI expert needs to learn to programm to solve these things) or if you use GLADE (which can create *.glade files or simply embeddable code) or if you use BonoboUI with it's *.xml files. They are all totally differently, different attributes, different behaviour etc. And yet I do see people using all these things in their own apps over and over again. Sure core developers may use the correct way for their upcoming products but not the new developers who start working on their apps. They use GLADE to build the interface but forget or don't know that GLADE isn't aware of all the new DEPRECATED widgets or new widgets that have been introduced lately. Go and look yourself.

> just tells me that you don't know or understand sh*t about
> things in GNOME as you claim all the time. It also brings
> doubt your claimed knowledge about software development
> because I don't need to remind you of what happens during
> API changes such as the one going on in the FileSelector.

No I was more demonstrating how good the KDE framework for these kind of things are. They change the Object Fileselector one time (regardless what changes they do) and it's automatically inherit into other apps. While in GNOME they now offer 2 Fileselectors the old and the new one. Different API is a problem here but this is a sign that the stuff is simply an artifact from GTK 1 and GNOME 1 times. If it was a total rewrite as you want to make me believe then this would have been introduced far earlier.

What I also speak about is the consistent look of these Fileselectors. The new Fileselector now offers this stupid 'expander' widget where you first get a locationbar (at least some apps show this) and then need to press the expander to get the rest of the files shown. To much magic and to much 'usability experts' have made a huge mess once again for a simply shitty fileselector. Jesus we use Fileselectors of 20 years and longer they do what the name says showing files and directories where we can simply dive in and do the task. No magic techno stuff that yet requires 3 mouseclicks to actually do what I want.

> This one and all the rest of your 'examples' are just too
> funny. You have just gone to 'bugzilla' and copied things
> over.

No I didn't copied them but it's ok for me that you confirm these problems to exist. Now we have GNOME 2.6 in a couple of days and these problems are still there since GNOME 2.0 or even earlier who actually knows. You seriously want to go enterprise with these problems ? And when will they get fixed ? Is it even possible to fix these issues ?

> Unless you can show an official or unofficial policy
> from GNOME not to fix these issues, they are moot. Just
> because they are not fixed when you want does not make the
> framework broken.

As long these things are not fixed and even unknown whether they can be fixed at all - yes I do have the tendency to say that these things are broken. People who write a FTP client for GNOME use an alternative library to do these things since they can not reliably use the ones offered in the GNOME framework due to these errors. People writing a Webbrowser for example can't use the HTTP backend of gnome-vfs due it not to work reliable not doing redirections for URL's etc. Sure there are always bugs in such projects. I am the last person admitting that there aren't bugs. Every bigger project has a lot of them and this is natural and just the way it is.

But here are the fundamental problems I do see in GNOME. They spent to much time rewriting stuff over and over again and want to do everything the right way (excuse me, there isn't something as the right way, there is just one way and another way but the right way doesn't exist). You need to finish a project and then head over to the other one and make sure that with increasing version of GNOME that the stuff you offer to the people is less painful and usable.

Nautilus used to show signals of becoming a well not as crappy Filemanager as it used to be and now it has been changed into a Spatial Filemanager. This is a drastical change for the Users. While they have done such drastical changes in the behavior of Nautilus they forget to fix the other things due to lack of resources. Imo it would have been better fixing gnome-vfs and all the other tiny bits and bytes rather than re-writing stuff that has been written before and has shown signal that they work. This is going over and over in GNOME and still no sign or signal where we as users can see (look here the evolution of the software is finished, we can have it stay that way and lets continue working on other bits). No they are busy throwing over concepts and re-write them over and over again. And all the developers outside who work on their own software need to play catchup to have their app following the new changes. Instead doing the funstuff to continue improving their app they stick into all these messy changes.

And hey, this is just my very own opinion. That's why I do fullheartly welcome the Quality and Assurance team in KDE. They will clearly signal the developers 'hey what are you doing now ?'.

> I'm sure I'm not the only one tired of seeing all these
> verbose spillage of fud from you every time a GNOME
> article shows up.

Whatever you think. There are people outside who agree with me there are people outside who agree with you. That's life but I do see a reason here to make people understand these things before writing editorials like these. A good solid framework and nice applications are important.

If people come over and over again with their counted Applications they like to use and others come over with the same old junk over and over. The same way I come over with the same stuff to make people understand the problems here.

GNOME has copied a lot of stuff from MacOSX and Windows in the past months and years. Sadly the wrong bits were copied.

A last thing to add from my side that people do not think about. KDE already offers all these things already. Two years ago when I used KDE 3.x I already noticed a lot of stuff in KDE that were missing and still are missing in GNOME.

I do know that one day someone will fix the broken gnome-vfs. But when ? As long as these things are not working properly people use other libraries to solve the solutions they need to solve. GNOME may (or may not) get all these things one day. Say in 2 years by now. But KDE had exactly all these things 2 years ago already. There is a development difference of 4 years between both Desktop solutions. While GNOME is catching up to what KDE offered 2 years ago KDE continues to quickly expand in all areas and the applications it offers are growing as well and new applications can easily be developed in a short timeframe.

These things you should take into account to when doing such editorials. Not just looking at fancy icons and compare two screenshots. I would say the same things about GNOME if GNOME were in the position to be much enchanced over KDE. Although even KDE is lacking a bunch of things that I would see more improved.

- Split out applications in own Modules like in GNOME rather than having all put into kdelibs, kdebase, kdeutils etc.
- More clean layout of includes in the includes directory like GNOME does (by default and not per distro excuse during install).
- Make sure the .po files come with the module rather than a separate huge translated tarball.

I here again do like the way GNOME does it. As you see neither of both are perfect.

Mods on crack?? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973852)

How is this informative???

This has nothing to do with this topic!

Re:GNONE-ME (5, Insightful)

ajs (35943) | more than 10 years ago | (#8973979)

Comparing Nautilus with Konqueror is pure nonsense, comparing GNOME with KDE is even bigger nonsense. If we get a team of developers on a Table and discuss all the crap we find between KDE and GNOME then I can tell from own experience that the answer is clearly that GNOME will fail horrible here.

What can you say... most of that isn't even coherent enough to be deemed english.

But KDE had exactly all these things 2 years ago already. There is a development difference of 4 years between both Desktop solutions.

And there's a development difference of 2-4 years in the other direction on other issues. What's surprising about one (very good) desktop system having different priorities than another (very good) desktop system?


Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974257)

> What's surprising about one (very good) desktop
> system having different priorities than another
> (very good) desktop system?

You probably mean KDE and Windows here. I certainly agree.


jdifool (678774) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974271)

Don't feed the fucking troll.

This is an endless variation of the same post, reposted every time there is the troll-luring subject about anything related to both Gnome and KDE.

The guy is actually glad that you (and therefore I) spent some time arguing with him. Let's stop it.


It's genius (5, Funny)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 10 years ago | (#8973821)

They're going to incorporate the browser into the OS. It's a sure sign that linux is ready for the desktop, because obviously you can't have an OS that isn't tightly integrated with the internet.

Vision like this could only come the linux community.

Re:It's genius (1)

dAzED1 (33635) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974033)

you do know that unix was tightly integrated with the internet (rather, the other way around...) long before MS, through Bill, decided that the internet was just a passing fancy? Were all versions of windows prior to win2000 not ready for the desktop? Because I was on the internet long before then, on linux. It wasn't until the broken standards with MS's net products hit the scene that I started having problems...

Of course, you're just trolling...which has nothing to do with a mystical creature, and is instead a fishing term...doesn't mean I won't bite anyway.

I find it odd indeed... (slightly OT) (4, Insightful)

henriksh (683138) | more than 10 years ago | (#8973830)

It is really odd that Gnome opted for Epiphany as a default browser in 2.x, when Galeon is a better and more featureful choice. I've read that the reasons were that Galeon did not follow some UI guidelines (this could surely be worked out?), and that Epiphany is simpler to use.

I just find it hard to believe than anyone would pick Epiphany over Galeon, even considering simplicity, since Galeon mostly works like Mozilla. Galeon seems simpler to use to me - Epiphany doesn't look or feel like any other browser I've used.

Re:I find it odd indeed... (slightly OT) (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973912)

How about Galeon developers not wanting to integrate with GNOME? While Epiphany has helped develop and test leading edge GNOME apis, like the toolbar editing feature.

Epiphany IS much more integrated into gnome, and is simpler to use. Those were the reasons. They are facts so its not really a matter of opinion.

Re:I find it odd indeed... (slightly OT) (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973950)

You got this wrong. It's not about Galeon not wanting to integrate into GNOME. It's simply the fact that GNOME has desintegrated it's users by alienating all of them. One day GNOME has desintegrated that much that Galeon wasn't conform anymore. And by the ways Galeon developers are most the same as Epiphany developers. It was just huge disagreement in the team because a lot of people didn't like the road GNOME has lead.

Re:I find it odd indeed... (slightly OT) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973980)

So Galeon didn't like the gnome route, and gnome opted for a browser that followed their same route.

It looks all fine and well, IMO.

Re:I find it odd indeed... (slightly OT) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974021)

Well the point is that there are a lot of people who don't like the GNOME route. Not to say that there is no particular route.

Re:I find it odd indeed... (slightly OT) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974071)

And there are people that like current gnome route, as there is people that was alienated by the change in gnome 2.0. But choice is there, and you can fork the project if you think it can be done better, or choose to use a project that goes the route you prefer.

It's free software, and the developers' freedom to decide what they want to do with the project they are working on.

Re:I find it odd indeed... (slightly OT) (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974124)

It's free software, and the developers' freedom to decide what they want to do with the project they are working on.

You are talking with one of the developers who do not like the way it goes. You should not forget that everyone working on GNOME shares the same view. It's not everything inside GNOME that goes into the wrong way. But there are certain people who contribute certain parts to GNOME that are misleading and going into wrong direction. We simply use these bits at the moment because there is no alternative. It's not because we accept or like it. It's because there isn't anything better. But that also doesn't mean we agree and accept these solutions. GNOME is full of crap and hacks that needs to get solved. But we fix one side and on two other sides new suckage show up.

Re:I find it odd indeed... (slightly OT) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974239)

You are talking with one of the developers who do not like the way it goes.

Oh, it's true. Hi oGalaxyo! Was your ban on the gnome irc over? It was sad, really. ;)

You should not forget that everyone working on GNOME shares the same view.

Oh, sure, *I* shouldn't forget that. Nice thing you do when posting these kind of things. When will you start the fork? Or is it better (and more productive) to annoy developers and troll on slashdot?

But there are certain people who contribute certain parts to GNOME that are misleading and going into wrong direction.

Yeah, evil, eviiilll people that ignore your precioussss cvsgnome build script. Shame on them!

But we fix one side and on two other sides new suckage show up.

That "we" is orgasmic! Last time I checked, damien sandras asked you to stop trolling and start coding and helping. Seems like you're still getting over it :)

So, no matter the positive reviews on gnome 2.6 like the one in eweek, remember that the holder of the unique truth disagrees with gnome dev team! It's all wrong!

Re:I find it odd indeed... (slightly OT) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974280)

pardon ?

Re:I find it odd indeed... (slightly OT) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973935)

I just find it hard to believe than anyone would pick Epiphany over Galeon, even considering simplicity, since Galeon mostly works like Mozilla.

I picked up epiphany and don't regret it. I use a browser to browse, I don't need features for webmasters. If I did, I'd switch or use the epiphany extensions.

Galeon seems simpler to use to me - Epiphany doesn't look or feel like any other browser I've used.

You know, that's the same argument my neighbours use when I tell them to switch to linux from Windows.

Re:I find it odd indeed... (slightly OT) (3, Insightful)

KingJoshi (615691) | more than 10 years ago | (#8973998)

The multiple choices are both the good and bad of GNU/Linux.

From the discussions, it's also evident. You have different distributions and you want and need some standards but then the more parties involved, the more difficult that can be. That's where Microsoft has an advantage.

Reading that, it was worrying more than anything else. GNU/Linux and FOSS can't always play catch-up to Microsoft. But you have all these different groups with their own agendas in GNU/Linux.

You know the saying, "United we stand, divided we fall." There has to be balance between unification and diversity and more importantly, there has to be initiative and goals from that unified group. I know some have tried and it's nice to see attempts at initiatives here. Hopefully, more progress is made.

Re:I find it odd indeed... (slightly OT) (5, Interesting)

13Echo (209846) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974133)

This topic about Epiphany really opens a new can of worms. Now, I'm going to go off about Gnome in general. Epiphany, itself, really is a good example of one of Gnome's major problems.

I'm finding that many Gnome developers are going with making things so ridiculously simple at times that it is almost getting stupid. I use Epiphany, but I prefer Galeon as well. Comparing Epiphany to more feature-rich browsers like Galeon/Konqueror/Firefox makes Epiphany seem almost like IE to some degree. I suppose that is the point. I can browse with Epiphany and still get a reasonably good experience, where if I am forced to use a Windows machine (and IE) I am greeted with a slow browser with no features, tons of pop-ups, lack of tabbed browsing, lack of middle click, etc. Sure, you can add these extensions, but that's not the point.

The Gnome project seems to be interested in keeping things as simple as possible without taking too many features away. There are some things about Galeon/Firefox that I never used. There are some things about Epiphany that I would love to have. Any choice is better than IE for most browsing. I guess that is the point.

What is really odd about Gnome's usability though, is that it is really inconsistent between apps. Even more annoying is that there are such major changes between different versions of Gnome, that really negate the "ease of use" concept that they seem to promote. For example, what in the hell is up with the new spatial Nautilus? Sure, it's fast. Sure, it works well in some respects. Sure, I'm getting used to it. Sure, I can enable "classic mode" and browse that way. But it seem to be *unfinished*. That's the big deal. Someone above mentioned that Gnome feels half-finished in many respects, and I tend to agree (in spite of it being my desktop of choice). Perhaps if they would stick to keeping major UI standards for major versions (between 2.x and 3.x, for instance), maybe someone could finish implementing a product or feature and make things consistent for once. Though I kinda like the new Nautilus spatial file manager, there are a lot of things that are missing that really make it difficult to use for certain things.

So, back to Epiphany... While I feel that it feels a lot like Galeon or Firefox in most respects, some design decisions are just weird! For example, the way that it manages tab organization, or the slim feature-set that give you the ability to customize it. I like the browser, but I feel that Marco is going way too far in some respects. I really appreciate his work; Don't get me wrong. It's just something that I'm seeing from many Gnome-centric projects as well.

It's just weird. You have an app like Evolution, which is kick-ass as far as mail apps are concerned, but other things seem to be broken or incomplete; Epiphany, Totem, (the new and improved) Nautilus in spatial mode, G-Streamer, etc. To the guy that posted that really long response of above; I feel your pain. I love Gnome, but I can't help but think that the head developers are a little lost at times. There really isn't a very good sense of group direction and planning... At least compared to KDE, in my opinion.

Re:I find it odd indeed... (slightly OT) (1)

p3d0 (42270) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974165)

Yikes. I have no idea what your point was, but I have the strong impression that you could have said it in a paragraph.

Re:I find it odd indeed... (slightly OT) (4, Informative)

Jameth (664111) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974267)

"I feel your pain. I love Gnome, but I can't help but think that the head developers are a little lost at times. There really isn't a very good sense of group direction and planning... At least compared to KDE, in my opinion."

What's really amazing is that KDE is the one with nothing even resembling central leadership, and GNOME is the one which is generally run by a group of core developers and decision makers. How did that happen?

By the way, you're completely right.

Re:I find it odd indeed... (slightly OT) (4, Informative)

akeru (15942) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974175)

"better" is a very subjective term, especially as far as Galeon and Epiphany are concerned. The reasons GNOME went with Epi over Galeon are essentially the same as why Marco (lead developer) left Galeon and started Epiphany: the (other) Galeon developers wanted to duplicate a lot of things that were already present in GNOME. The short list of duplication in Galeon/GNOME is MIME, Proxy and Mouse settings. The outcome of this is that there are (at present) 4 choices for a GNOME webbrowser, none of which are ideal.

I am an Aussie (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973848)

Jeff mentioned that Firefox and GNOME aren't perfectly integrated - in terms of user interface guidelines, preferences, .. Jeff suggested if it was possible for Epiphany to become the official Linux port of Firefox.

In Aussieland they integrate Jeff into the trash.

But where is.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973849)

KDE in all this?

Mozilla Foundation meets Gnome Foundation... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973853)

and sweaty man love ensues.

avalon? (-1, Offtopic)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 10 years ago | (#8973886)

isnt avalon the new windows Quartz extreme knockoff?

Re:avalon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973927)

No, it's a shitty club in NYC where the sound system's too loud and the people are total meatheads.

Re:avalon? (3, Interesting)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974087)

According to Google [] it's a lot of things, including a 3D image archive [] , a comic strip [] , an Apache project for service and component management [] or a Beowulf cluster [] .
However, there's no Microsoft stuff on the first ten hits.

I sense a dilema... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973896)

And I can't see it...

On one hand, it is good that open source foundations are meeting to discuss/set directions.

On the other hand, directions are typically acted upon by volunteers, at individual discretions.

Just how would this gap be matched, or even narrowed, puzzle me.

Grand plans can only work when there is a meeting of minds, isn't it?

Is OSS going the Microsoft route? (3, Interesting)

alen (225700) | more than 10 years ago | (#8973900)

Does this mean that Mozilla will be integrated into GNOME? If yes, then isn't this doing the same thing as IE into Windows which everyone on /. says is evil?

Re:Is OSS going the Microsoft route? (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 10 years ago | (#8973944)


IE is evil because it's buggy, non-standards compliant, and when it crashes, it crashes your "shell."

Gecko in Linux wouldn't be any of that.

Re:Is OSS going the Microsoft route? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974108)

no because its not microsoft, any linux distro except redhat is like heaven on earth, and if redhat was proposing this it would also suck. please give back your n00b pass now

Re:Is OSS going the Microsoft route? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974138)

when it crashes, it crashes your "shell."

Hey, it's nice that you used Windows 98 five years ago n all, but that doesn't really qualify you to comment on it in 2004. IE runs in a seperate process space in this century, doesn't crash the shell.

Also, there's no guarantee that any Nautulis/Mozilla integration will be bug-free.

Re:Is OSS going the Microsoft route? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8973966)

GNOME is a desktop manager not a kernel.

Re:Is OSS going the Microsoft route? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974023)

Does this mean that Mozilla will be integrated into GNOME? If yes, then isn't this doing the same thing as IE into Windows which everyone on /. says is evil?

It's not the same cause you still get choice when installing gnu/linux. You can opt for a gnome desktop that aims to integrate with mozilla technologies, a kde desktop, an xfce desktop, hundreds of WMs...

Basically, it'd be evil if every other choice disappeared. It's just a decission in gnome to collaborate more with mozilla and using their technologies instead of reinventing the wheel from a NIH syndrome.

Re:Is OSS going the Microsoft route? (4, Insightful)

dAzED1 (33635) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974081)

no one said integrating a web browswer into the desktop was evil.

one company controlling the browser, the desktop, the OS, the applications, the server apps, and...whatever else...that is what is innappropriate. Not having a choice - that is what is wrong.

Don't want your browswer to be integrated? Use KDE, or the gnome fork that won't be integrated. Take the source and do it yourself, if you'd like. Not that you're making a serious question...

Re:Is OSS going the Microsoft route? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974166)

I for one didnt know that gnome was an operating system, but thanks for enlightening me.

Re:Is OSS going the Microsoft route? (2, Interesting)

74nova (737399) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974230)

im not going to fault you for asking that question, first of all. on the surface, they seem similar. however, i dont have to install gnome at all. nor do i have to install X, for that matter. the point is that you cant have windows without IE. i can still have gnu/linux in a nearly-infinite number of other combinations with or without gnome if i dont like mozilla being integrated. not only that, but IMO, mozilla is much better software than IE.

Duhhh (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974002)

Hmmm interesting story, but this happened last year... Just check the date of the message and the members of gnome foundation...

Just a lil humor (3, Funny)

SavedLinuXgeeK (769306) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974012)

Does anyone else find it funny that A Dragon type creature, and that a gnome can end up being friends? This just keeps reminding me of shrek, and I hope that gnome never becomes an annoying jack-ass. I will leave that title for SCO.

Mozilla + GNome (2, Funny)

beatnitup (616700) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974127)

Gnomzilla! Everyone run for their lives!

Progress, but someone needs to lead (4, Insightful)

Ars-Fartsica (166957) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974136)

One inherent advantage Microsoft has over collaborative projects is that they don't need to persuade their own developers - they just point the boat and say "go here if you want to get paid". In the open source world, the consensus approach of feeding/starving projects based on their relative merits, and the unwillingness to leave anyone out in the cold definitely hampers major moves.

Such is the case here. The need to more closely integrate the web rendering model and the desktop model is clear, and Microsoft is probably on to something compelling with Avalon/XAML. ActiveX was a disastrous first brush with integration but its clear they see a need and there is a need. Safe local applications integrated with the network do make sense.

On the open source side someone will have to lead to get this done - and not be afraid to leave some groups out. Epiphany should be an early victim - a "default" app no one uses.

Re:Progress, but someone needs to lead (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974241)

ActiveX was a disastrous first brush with integration

You gotta be kidding, right? ActiveX was the most successful visual component integration model. In fact, JavaBeans tried to immitate its success in the VB component market world but they failed misrably.

In fact, ActiveX and OLE/2 are based on COM, and DCOM/COM+ are based on COM, and DotNET is based on COM+. All of these technologies were met with great success at their time.

If ActiveX wasn't successful, you wouldn't have ever ASP, and consequently JSP and PHP.

Recently Met? (-1, Informative)

Queuetue (156269) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974178)

GNOME Foundation / Mozilla Foundation Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 21 2003

This was last year!

'Proprietary' extensions (2)

The Original Yama (454111) | more than 10 years ago | (#8974184)

"Brendan spoke about the need for innovation, and not just clinging to web standards."

This is heading towards proprietary extensions territory, a la Netscape/IE. Even if the implementations are 100% free software, this might lock out other apps and projects. It would take a major undertaking for them to comply with the new 'standards'.

Re:'Proprietary' extensions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974285)

As it was posted to the gnome mailing list April 2004 I think one can assume that there is simply a mistake in the Subject line.

XUL desktop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8974355)

What's the chances of GNOME adopting XUL for interfaces? I mean, we've got SVG graphics coming down the pipe. Why not define our interfaces in XML, too?

This moving UI to XML can be a powerful concept that will make writing desktop applications easier and more robust putting Linux (at least GNOME) ahead of Microsoft in the development tools game.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?