Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 ×

149 comments

Wow (1, Flamebait)

n1ywb (555767) | more than 9 years ago | (#11808715)

It looks just like KDE now.

Re:Wow (1)

corrosive_nf (744601) | more than 9 years ago | (#11808720)

How so?

Re:Wow (1)

RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) | more than 9 years ago | (#11808726)

It looks a bit like Plastik (which I like), but not at all like the butt-ugly Keramik theme.

Re:Wow (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11808808)

Look -- if you don't like the way the theme works, just say so. Don't be mean.

Re:Wow (1, Interesting)

Quattro Vezina (714892) | more than 9 years ago | (#11808912)

Well, it looks somewhat like Plastik, but you can still tell it's GNOME because of all that ugly extra padding and spacing [sourceforge.net] they stick into all their buttons, listviews, and many other widgets.

It one of the main reasons why GNOME visually irks the hell out of me, regardless of the theme.

Re:Wow (1)

dont_think_twice (731805) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809024)

Thats funny. KDE drives me nuts because they cram the icons so close together. GNOME looks so much more pleasant with plenty of space between icons.

To each his own, I suppose.

Re:Wow (2, Insightful)

DaveJay (133437) | more than 9 years ago | (#11810291)

Funny, when I run KDE I feel like there are so many toolbars, and the icons are so big, that it takes up too much real estate...and when I use gnome (debian), I feel like it's simple and small and tidy.

Doesn't it make you wonder if each of us is missing some obscure setting somewhere?

Re:Wow (0, Troll)

Synbiosis (726818) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809676)

It's because GTK eats balls. Gaim has the same problem, too.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11810299)

Gaim has the same problem, too.

No, Gaim has a different problem. The developers are assholes.

Gnome's problem if anything is lack of focus.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11809766)

Whateverdo you

mean? The Apple [apple.com] HIG says
blind people should be able to use it!

Re:Wow (1)

oldwolf13 (321189) | more than 9 years ago | (#11810935)

You know what's weird? I find gnome/gtk apps to have that extra padding and spacing you talk about... except with the taskbar buttons... for some reason they scrunch the words onto a too short (IMO) button!

All in all, I prefer the extra padding, except things like in GAIM... I mean, why are the buttons so huge, but the icons on them take up so little?

Correction (1)

youknowmewell (754551) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809075)

It looks better than KDE.

Re:Wow (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#11810143)

It looks just like KDE now.

Actually, my first thought was Windows XP...

Re:Wow (2)

Will2k_is_here (675262) | more than 9 years ago | (#11810248)

At the risk of being modded redundant, my first thought was bluecurve.

Allmost noone ... (2, Interesting)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 9 years ago | (#11808718)

Uses the default theme anyway, that the beautiness of having themes, but for those that hasn't used gnome or gnu/linux at all, the first impression will be important ...

KDE made a good job choosing Keramik as the default theme, before that, they allways shipped the ugliest one.

ALMAFUERTE

Re:Allmost noone ... (5, Funny)

croddy (659025) | more than 9 years ago | (#11808762)

what? there are ones uglier than keramik ???

Re:Allmost noone ... (2, Insightful)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 9 years ago | (#11808785)

Ok, Keramik is ugly, and it's not something one would call ellegant, but it's rounded and has some nice effects, like alpha-blending, and that's what people want to see. It may not be the most beautiful thing out there, but it's better than the default square gray buttons.

Re:Allmost noone ... (2, Insightful)

Narchie Troll (581273) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809829)

No. No, it isn't.

Keramik is ugly and nearly unusable, and makes KDE look like a big piece of shit.

Re:Allmost noone ... (2, Interesting)

Quattro Vezina (714892) | more than 9 years ago | (#11808968)

The theme they used before Keramik (in versions 2.x and 3.0.x) was pretty good. I like it a lot, though I prefer the Light Style 2nd Revision widget style (NOT 3rd revision) and the Pale Gray colour scheme.

Keramik, on the other hand, was a massive mistake that seriously damaged KDE's reputation. I've heard on various boarda about how KDE looks like a hyperactive 12-year-old girl drew it. That's only half-true. Keramik looks like a hyperactive 12-year-old girl drew it. KDE can look incredibly good if you're not using Keramik, and it's a damn shame that Keramik is so ugly that it turns people off to KDE as a whole. I'm still pissed at whoever developer had the braindead idea of making Keramik the default style.

Plastik is a dramatic improvement on Keramik, but it's still a tad too flashy for my tastes, and the bloody huge window decorations are just a waste of space.

Re:Allmost noone ... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11809521)

Plastik is a dramatic improvement on Keramik, but it's still a tad too flashy for my tastes, and the bloody huge window decorations are just a waste of space.

Reduce the font size for the title bar text. The only reason the buttons are that big is because the title bar has to be enlarged for the text.

I knew it wouldn't take long... (2, Interesting)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 9 years ago | (#11810170)

... for the flames to get fanned back and forth between Gnome and KDE.

The whole point of themes is that you customise them to how YOU want them to look.

So if you think it's fugly, change it. :-)

I've been a big fan of Gnome since ~1997 and used to hate KDE with a passion, but recently as an experiment I took the time to customise a KDE desktop to look almost identical to my Gnome desktop, and found it actually wasn't that bad (in some respects superior to Gnome), so I actually now use KDE more often.

Re:Allmost noone ... (1)

Curtman (556920) | more than 9 years ago | (#11810369)

KDE can look incredibly good if you're not using Keramik, and it's a damn shame that Keramik is so ugly that it turns people off to KDE as a whole

Even Keramik would be tolerable if they switched to Bitstream Vera fonts by default.

Re:Allmost noone ... (2, Interesting)

vrt3 (62368) | more than 9 years ago | (#11811129)

I don't understand why everybody seems to love Bitstream Vera. It doesn't look nice to me, though I can't explain exactly why. It's also less easily readable compared to, for example, Georgia. See this example [roelschroeven.net] : on the left is Bitstream Vera serif, on the right is Georgia, both the same size. Despite the Bitstream letters being larger than the Georgia ones, I find the text on the right *much* easier to read.

Of course, Bitstream is Free and Georgia is not, but that doesn't change the fact that I find Georgia much prettier.

Re:Allmost noone ... (1)

daniel borgmann (679904) | more than 9 years ago | (#11811356)

I don't think the Vera Serif font is so hot, but Sans and Sans Mono are excellent (and that's all I ever need).

Re:Allmost noone ... (1)

stuuf (587464) | more than 9 years ago | (#11810440)

for that matter, who uses the default window manager with Gnome? I once saw someone on #gentoo say "I wouldn't widh Metacity on my worst enemies." So the window border theme doesn't affect everybody. It's mostly new users who will see the default theme. I think it would be cool if Gnome made it easier for new users to select a different theme immediately, like the theme selection in the KDE setup wizard. Also, a completely new user will be subject to any changes their distributor might make to the theme settings.

hmmm (1, Troll)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 9 years ago | (#11808727)

Yes, make it look more like Windows XP, that'll make it "prettier!" *sigh*

Re:hmmm (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11808834)

The main Windows-ness seems to be the use of the Tahoma font for menus. However, this font can't be shipped with Linux distros, only downloaded by the user, so the actual defaults will be have to different. Too bad the normal set of X fonts don't look all that great at lower resolution.

Re:hmmm (1)

youknowmewell (754551) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809046)

It is only vaguely similar to the WinXP default theme. Clearlooks looks alot better than the current GNOME default, no doubt about it. Do you have a theme you think would be better for the default GNOME theme?

Re:hmmm (1)

typhoonius (611834) | more than 9 years ago | (#11810408)

The bottom screen shot here [sourceforge.net] even uses Microsoft's Tahoma font.

Re:hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11811106)

Gotta love the copy of Windows style floppy disc = save.

I know people who haven't used a floppy disc in their life to know what the icon means. Hell, I started computing in the 1970s and the disc icon has always seemed counterintuitive to me.

"Why does the little house icon mean save?"
"what house icon?"
"the one with the silver door and big square roof"
"oh. see back in the day we had things called floppy discs..."

Re:hmmm (1)

daniel borgmann (679904) | more than 9 years ago | (#11811315)

Well, I think it fits well. The manual save function is at least as antiquated as floppy discs. ;)

Oh, big news here (2, Insightful)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 9 years ago | (#11808746)

Gnome is made to look like whatever windows currently looks like? Unheard of!

Copying windows will not get you anywhere. Innovate, damnit!

Re:Oh, big news here (2, Informative)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 9 years ago | (#11808771)

Actually, GNOME had Themes when windows hab static GUI, Microsoft introduced a theme engine in 2002, but Gnome had one way before, and had pretty good themes at that time. In this case, M$ coppied GNOME/KDE.

Re:Oh, big news here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11808817)

Reading com-pre-hen-sion... it's important, look it up.

What the grandparent was commenting on was the similarity between ClearLooks and Luna, not on whether or not one or the other hand themes.

Re:Oh, big news here (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 9 years ago | (#11808857)

I understood perfectly what he was saying. I just pointed out that the hole concept of HAVING themes at all, is a more important breakthrough than the colours or shapes of a particular theme. And that that feature was in the Free Desktops long before it reached the propietary ones.

Re:Oh, big news here (0, Flamebait)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809083)

So you couldnt refute my comment but felt bad about it, and decided to bring up an unrelated point instead? Go you! Did you know Microsoft didnt make the first optical mice??

Re:Oh, big news here (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809170)

I didn't felt bad about your comment, or anything related to it. Actually, i agree with it. Gnome and KDE try to simulate windows and i don't like it, but your comment was just flamebait, because of the way it was written, it's objective was just to try to prove that m$ innovates, and free software copies. So i replied to you pointing that in this subject, the actual concept of having a theme with rounded buttons is not an m$ idea, it comes from the free desktops, and so m$ is copying free software. That's not a bad thing for m$ either, i'm just pointing that copying is part of developing, and it shouldn't be used to flame a particular software like you did.

Re:Oh, big news here (0, Offtopic)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809889)

please re-post your comment without the use of the "$" character and I may be able to read it

Re:Oh, big news here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11810257)

Actually, GNOME had Themes when windows hab static GUI, Microsoft introduced a theme engine in 2002, but Gnome had one way before, and had pretty good themes at that time. In this case, M$ coppied GNOME/KDE.

Meanwhile, Mac OS X has no theming support, and is a better GUI than any of those. Kind of makes you wonder how important crap like themes really are.

Re:Oh, big news here (4, Insightful)

theantix (466036) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809418)

Gnome is made to look like whatever windows currently looks like? Unheard of!

Copying windows will not get you anywhere. Innovate, damnit!


So uh, what version of windows does that look like? The one with the hideous malformed "start" button, the one with a cartoonishly unprofessional colour scheme, or the one that doesn't exist yet?

To me it looks a hell of a lot more like OSX than it does Windows, if you get beyond the widget set. But there is a hell of a lot more to Gnome than the maximize window widget, for example the open/save dialogs and desktop preferences are quite different from the windows methodology. To judge a desktop entirely by three widgets is just foolhardy...

Re:Oh, big news here (1)

mickyflynn (842205) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809640)

There are only so much that can be done as long as people expect that computes should have "windows" and that they should be hovering over a "desktop" Personally, I think what we really need is just some very, very good speach recognition systems. Just about everything should be able to be done without typing or using a mouse. For things which need to be displayed (layouts and things for documents), maybe some sort of touch-screen for draging images or whatever. maybe displaying text instead of reading it back, but ideally the system should be able to read words back and not sound like a Macintosh still does. Personally, I think the PC is stupid. Whether I want to admit it or not, wearable is probably the future. I'm still a vintage fanatic and think centralization is the key. Maybe that's why I liked Star Trek so much. One computer, everyone can use it, and no one really /needs/ a "terminal." The computer is around them. it's like a cross between the centralization and the wearable without much of the wearable.

Re:Oh, big news here (1)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809729)

I personally dont use Gnome or KDE because I think the concept of a "Desktop" is stupid. I only put up with "windows" because (unlike a desktop), there's not really a choice in the matter. If you want to use an application, it defines its interface as a window and projects that information into a window manager.
I certainly dont expect my "Windows" to hover over a "Desktop". "Windows" only exist because everyone expects them and everyone expects them only because they already exist.

When you get down to it, Windows are holding us back. They're putting everyone in the mindset of "this is one program, the data within it belongs to this program". That's really a poor mindset to have in this age. Everything is data, and there should be no boundaries between the data in one program and the data in another. (*security notes being a seperate issue with its own considerations, talking strictly about interface here)
Yes, data should have the ability to be logically grouped together, but if you ignore the concept of windows, the ways you can use that data expand greatly.
"Clipboards" are a cruel bastardization of this concept which poorly hack small portions of it onto the flawed concept of "Windows".

Windows were a great idea 20 years ago. Copying the look of MSWindows is not a good place to start if you want to do something better. Copying the usability of windows might be a good start, but the Open Source community seems somehow (contradictory to logic) opposed to interoperation between applications- I know that's not strictly true, but it does feel that way to me, and this whole post, (as it seems people need this explicitely stated) is just me stating my opinions.

Great Windows... (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 9 years ago | (#11808754)

Great widgets...

When do they ditch the muddy, dull and visually abhorrant icons? Look at the dialog for Keyboard Preferences. The red/white "Help" next to the Avacado/Harvest Gold [newsday.com] horror that is "Accessibility". The moldy folders...

It doesn't have to look "flash". Garrett LeSage did a half-decent job with the Bluecurve icons.

Re:Great Windows... (3, Informative)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 9 years ago | (#11808775)

It now appears -after digging through the linked announcement - that SUEDE [gnome-look.org] is the candidate for default icons.

A great step up.

Re:Great Windows... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11809186)

I hate to say it, but that doesn't really do it for me. It looks... muddy, with all that grey and beige.

Sure, Microsoft's Fisher Price approach at the other end of the scale is even uglier, but there must be a pleasant middle ground somewhere... surely?

Re:Great Windows... (3, Insightful)

Sentry21 (8183) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809761)

Wow, I've never seen well-done ugly icons before. The attention to detail in these icons is great (much better than Windows), but the icon design I have to say is ugly, blocky, and uninspired. It reminds me of the icons from System 6-7 & MacOS 8, which were great for their time compared to Windows, but are boring now. Why on earth would Gnome go from a blocky squared-off theme to a smooth, contoured one, and then go and make a blocky squared-off icon set the default?

If these are set as the default icons, I will swiftly change them.

Re:Great Windows... (1)

oldwolf13 (321189) | more than 9 years ago | (#11810967)

I like them... kind of remind me of smoother BeOS icons..

I loved BeOS tho , and still kind of like their pixelated icons anyways.

I gotta say (3, Insightful)

ZosX (517789) | more than 9 years ago | (#11808791)

From what I've seen of the gnome project, everything in the UI is too pronounced. For example, does the menu bar need all of the icons with a bold highlight around them? Why does the title/menu bar have to take up 25% of the window? Small subdued cues would be grand in a UI. We all eventually know where to click anyways right? For as much as I dislike the classic Windows 2000 UI, it still is not nearly as intrusive as gnome or kde as far as I am concerned. I guess there are some skins out there that probably give me what I want, but we really need something that is slick out of the box, something that doesn't work just like Windows. The Mac GUI creator just passed away (God bless his soul) and we haven't really come up with anything better in the last 30 years? Hell, even Nextstep and OS/2 were steps in a better direction.

If you ask me, there will never be a year of the Linux desktop until somebody creates a Linux desktop environment that is at least as rich as Windows. When is cut and paste going to be even supported across applications in KDE or GNOME? Oh, text works ok? Well what about a piece of a picture or a clip of a wave? What about drag and drop? Can I just drop any document onto a printer icon and have it spit out the result? Without configuring 20 various text files?

When the big boys like Adobe start releasing Photoshop for Linux, then perhaps there will be some sort of market, but until then I hear that the GIMP is fine as long as you don't need to work in CMYK.

Re:I gotta say (4, Insightful)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 9 years ago | (#11808841)

"Can I just drop any document onto a printer icon and have it spit out the result?"

Can i just make a few modifications to the windows source and pass it over to a friend?

Compared to the scope of the second question, the first one is irrelevant.

Not everything is about functionality, remember, it's not called "Faster Software", nor "Slicker Software", it's called "Free Software", because it's goal is to bee Free to all it's users, and let the users be free to do whatever they wan with they computer without relying on big corporations managing their lifes and ideas.

Would you trade your freedom for nice icons?, I value my freedom a lot more than that.

Re:I gotta say (2, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809028)

"Can i just make a few modifications to the windows source and pass it over to a friend?

Compared to the scope of the second question, the first one is irrelevant."
No not really. Maybe to you but to most people software is a tool not a religion or a political statement.
Even now what percentage of Linux users will ever compile a program much less modify the source code to the kernel?
Software that is hard to use no matter how "free" is still bad software.

Re:I gotta say (5, Insightful)

nathanh (1214) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809994)

No not really. Maybe to you but to most people software is a tool not a religion or a political statement.

Maybe to you software is just a tool but to many others it's a core component in their business.

Software is not really like a tool at all. No other tool integrates so tightly with your business processes, your other systems, your data, and your policies. Consider all the companies that have found themselves stuck with Exchange, or Notes, or Groupwise, and due to the lock-in nature of the software they are unable to migrate to anything else. This isn't a "tool". It's a system with hooks into almost every aspect of the enterprise. Tugging at even the slightest part of the system causes breakage elsewhere, often in non-obvious locations. Those hooks might be a tiny programming language that HR decided to use to implement their timesheet system (Notes), or it might be the calendaring system that has turned into a building meeting room manager (Exchange). Whatever the hook, it ties you to that product and becomes a core part of your business. Changing it isn't easy. Sometimes changing it is impossible.

The reality is that it's pragmatic to use and only use free software. Putting your business software in the hands of a proprietary software vendor is naive. You are hoping that the vendor doesn't screw you; either by deprecating the softare, or breaking it, or raising the price, or whatever. But to the very nature of capitalism, the vendors are constantly thinking of new ways to screw you!

Even now what percentage of Linux users will ever compile a program much less modify the source code to the kernel?

Irrelevant. How many people will run for local office? Very few, but that doesn't mean democracy is a failed concept. The benefit of free software isn't that I personally can modify the source, but that anybody is free to do so.

Software that is hard to use no matter how "free" is still bad software.

Yes, but like the grandfather poster, I often use "bad software" that is free in preference to "good software" that is not free, for certain values of "good", "bad", and "free". For example, I use Linux and GNOME instead of MacOS X as my desktop. As a counter-example, I use IOS instead of Linux for my routers.

It's a balancing act. For my desktop I'd been burnt so often by vendor lock-in and forced upgrades that I finally got sick of it and migrated to Linux (back in 1992). Now MacOS X is tempting, but not tempting enough that I'll give up the freedom I enjoy with Linux. However with routing the value of IOS so exceeds the potential value with Linux that I'm willing to compromise freedom, secure in the knowledge that IOS is at least standards compliant.

nah, linux isn't there yet (1)

N3wsByt3 (758224) | more than 9 years ago | (#11811006)

"Maybe to you software is just a tool but to many others it's a core component in their business."

I'm sorry, but I disagree. I understand you can see things both ways, but if you are speaking of 'Linux on the desktop' then the above poster is right. Most people (as in non-tech-savvy joe doe users) just use their puter as a tool; to chat, to work, to download, etc. Some basic tasks is all they need, and they need it in a clear and user-friendly way.

They do not want, nor need nor even would like to try 'compiling' things or having to install some obscure libs just to get something running. They need something simple and easy to use to get what they want, and political, ideological and tech-savvy issues are not a prime concern for them. I think the Linux crowd, being tech-savvy themselves, all too often fail to realise this truth.

And, frankly, while Linux came a long way, they are still not there. I myself, for instance, while I'd consider myself more tech-savvy then most joe doe users, am a newbie at linux, and the last week, I have tried to download firefox on my mandrake box. After a week, I still don't have it installed and ready to use. Sure, I've searched for help, and (linux)people are mostly willing to help me out, but I just don't seem to get it working. It's download a lib here and a lib there or it doesn't work, use apt-get or urpmi or something else, use the commandline and fill in commands I never heard before...but all to no avail, as yet. I just need a simple, clear klick-and-install thingy, goddamnit. Which would be an rpm, I heard, but somehow, my standard KDE browser doesn't want to d/l the only place I could find one, probably because it was ftp. And I could use another browser, if that weren't exactly what I was trying to d/l and install.

Compare that with surfing to the firefox-site, and klick on the exe on the site, and all is done automatically, with windows.

THAT is the sort of ease-of-use that Linux needs, before it ever is going to have a chance to break through on the desktop.

Re:nah, linux isn't there yet (1)

nathanh (1214) | more than 9 years ago | (#11811151)

They do not want, nor need nor even would like to try 'compiling' things or having to install some obscure libs just to get something running.

No modern Linux desktop requires the user to compile things. You are being dishonest.

And, frankly, while Linux came a long way, they are still not there. I myself, for instance, while I'd consider myself more tech-savvy then most joe doe users, am a newbie at linux, and the last week, I have tried to download firefox on my mandrake box. After a week, I still don't have it installed and ready to use. Sure, I've searched for help, and (linux)people are mostly willing to help me out, but I just don't seem to get it working. It's download a lib here and a lib there or it doesn't work, use apt-get or urpmi or something else, use the commandline and fill in commands I never heard before...but all to no avail, as yet. I just need a simple, clear klick-and-install thingy, goddamnit. Which would be an rpm, I heard, but somehow, my standard KDE browser doesn't want to d/l the only place I could find one, probably because it was ftp. And I could use another browser, if that weren't exactly what I was trying to d/l and install.

Well, don't take this the wrong way, but you might be retarded. Installing FireFox is as easy as following the instructions on the FireFox website [mozilla.org] . I can't even begin to comprehend how you managed to fail at this simple task despite trying for an entire week. I strongly recommend you seek professional help.

Compare that with surfing to the firefox-site, and klick on the exe on the site, and all is done automatically, with windows.

THAT is the sort of ease-of-use that Linux needs, before it ever is going to have a chance to break through on the desktop.

Nonsense. Microsoft achieved desktop dominance without any such ease of use. MS-DOS was so difficult to use that it single-handedly created the PC desktop support industry.

My strong belief is that price is the single greatest factor in winning the PC desktop. While there are many reasons why Windows beat GEM, GEOS, MacOS and OS/2, cost was the reason that mattered most.

Final point...

Most people (as in non-tech-savvy joe doe users) just use their puter as a tool; to chat, to work, to download, etc. Some basic tasks is all they need, and they need it in a clear and user-friendly way.

If that were true then they'd all be buying Macintoshes. Ease of use is clearly overrated; it is only ever trotted out as an argument against Linux, but the same argument applies back in spades against Windows.

ahum... (1)

N3wsByt3 (758224) | more than 9 years ago | (#11811230)

"No modern Linux desktop requires the user to compile things. You are being dishonest."

Well, make it yourself easy then, and say I'm dishonest about all the rest I said. I do not know what you read into it (I didn't say people had to compile anything to install Firefox, for instance), but my statement as such remains valid, whether you 'require' compiling or not, let alone installing libs. That would depend entirely on what you try to do on your box, or what you are trying to run.

"Well, don't take this the wrong way, but you might be retarded."

Well, don't take this the wrong way, but you might be the typical smug and arrogant bastard who thinks he has to insult people - while at the same time acting as if he doesn't - to try to make some point.

"Installing FireFox is as easy as following the instructions on the FireFox website. I can't even begin to comprehend how you managed to fail at this simple task despite trying for an entire week. I strongly recommend you seek professional help. "

Indeed, one would think so. Alas, the instructions did not work. As for that matter, in theory, it would have been even more simple to get it with urpmi and apt-get, but those failed too.

"Nonsense. Microsoft achieved desktop dominance without any such ease of use. MS-DOS was so difficult to use that it single-handedly created the PC desktop support industry."

Dude, there wasn't much of a choice back then. Do you actually think people would want to go back to DOS-commands, now that they are used to GUI? I don't understand your argument: what was enough to create a monopoly 20 years ago, isn't enough anymore today. That's why all major linux-distro's bring out GUIs too, you know.

"My strong belief is that price is the single greatest factor in winning the PC desktop. While there are many reasons why Windows beat GEM, GEOS, MacOS and OS/2, cost was the reason that mattered most."

Ofcourse cost is an important factor too; did I claim the contrary? But, in reality, many people make use of an illegal copy, or have win pre-installed, so they don't have or perceive the cost of it. Thus, while it's an advantage that Linux can be free (beer), it's not ALL that great an advantage compared to windows, in reality.

"If that were true then they'd all be buying Macintoshes. Ease of use is clearly overrated; it is only ever trotted out as an argument against Linux, but the same argument applies back in spades against Windows."

Macs cost too much for the ordinary users. And even if it were at exactly the same price today, the ease of use in win is good enough for most ppl, so they wouldn't change anyway, unless some other reasons prevail (such as looks/design). If the Macs had been allowed to be cloned in mass, and become as cheap as the other PC at the time that it first had a GUI, there is little doubt THEY would dominate the market today. But they missed that chance.

Now, it's all too easy to claim a person is dishonest and retarded, but rest assured it doesn't change the fact that Linux is not ready for prime time. It's the easy way out, isn't it? Don't acknowledge Linux is not as user-friendly as yet, just say the users giving critique are retarded.

No doubt that will bring Linux to the desktop much sooner.

Re:ahum... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11811395)

It really is true that MS-DOS achieved dominance despite being a piece of crap in every measurable way to both tech-savvy users and retards. It's really amazing to think that 15 years ago, there were plenty of people, including many who knew nothing about computers, using computers on a command line (and not just any command line, but the crappy MS-DOS, no history, no line editing command line!). Today users would be scared to death of a command line. Why? I don't really know. People are weird.

I use Mac OS X primarily, and I have a PC next to my Mac that dual boots Windows XP and Ubuntu Linux. I really honestly think all the crap about "Linux isn't usable enough for the desktop" is just nonsense. It's more usable than Windows is. Windows is a nightmare. I temporarily put Ubuntu on my non-tech dad's computer for a week and a half. He was fine with it, and actually said he liked it a lot. Click on the icon for the mail program, you can read mail. Click on the icon for the browser, you can browse. Exactly how is this difficult again? He went to Windows XP because he is completely addicted to Delta Force: Land Warrior and wanted to be able to play it again. And THAT is the hurdle for Linux on the desktop - not usability.

Re:I gotta say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11811364)

I agree with you. I started using a non-free multitrack recorder program on windows and now I can not export the files to something I can use on Linux.

I should have used Audacity, even when it requires a bit of work on my behalf...

Re:I gotta say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11809202)

"Can I just drop any document onto a printer icon and have it spit out the result?"

Can i just make a few modifications to the windows source and pass it over to a friend?

Compared to the scope of the second question, the first one is irrelevant.


Printing is something at least 99% of computer users do. Modifying operating system source code is something less than 0.001% of computer users do. The scope of one question does indeed make the other irrelevant, but I think you have them the wrong way round.

Re:I gotta say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11810176)

Not everything is about functionality, remember, it's not called "Faster Software", nor "Slicker Software", it's called "Free Software", because it's goal is to bee Free to all it's users, and let the users be free to do whatever they wan with they computer without relying on big corporations managing their lifes and ideas.

So, instead of being reliant on corporations (not all of which are big, mind you) or private individuals that don't want to share their source code, you're reliant on unaccountable masses of developers that may or may not have your interests in mind.

You claim that Free Software is about allowing me, the user, to do everything I want to do with the computer, but *I can't* do everything I want with Free Software. That's why I use Mac OS X -- because it lets me do what I want to do, which includes developing and using free software. GNOME and KDE might be Free, but at the expense of not being able to do what I want them to do. And I don't want to spend all my time hacking GNOME to catch up to Mac OS, just so that I can devote what remains of my time to developing the software that I actually want to develop.

Would you trade your freedom for nice icons?, I value my freedom a lot more than that.


You're making the baseless, stupid, and generally fraudulent assumption that the only thing proprietary solutions over over free software is "nice icons". This is the attitude that causes so many free software advocates to spend time developing "nice icons" instead of useful software.

Re:I gotta say (1)

nathanh (1214) | more than 9 years ago | (#11811173)

So, instead of being reliant on corporations (not all of which are big, mind you) or private individuals that don't want to share their source code, you're reliant on unaccountable masses of developers that may or may not have your interests in mind.

Yeah, what an alien concept. It's like relying on unaccountable masses of citizens to determine the leadership of a country. That idea will never take traction!

It is far easier to let the monarchy make all the decisions. Why should we spend all our time playing "catch up" to Britain? I'd rather get on with my life!

NB: Why is it that Americans seem to have the greatest difficulty in understanding the importance of Free Software?

Re:I gotta say (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11808859)

> everything in the UI is too pronounced.

Well of course, they want you 100% aware that you are running Gome. So every interface detail has to scream GNOME APPLICATION all the time. Then you will LOVE GNOME and RECOMMEND IT TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS. GNOME GNOME GNOME!! (To be fair, KDE does the same kinds of stuff).

A "desktop environment" is a nice thing to have for programmers, but ideally it should be something that be nearly invisible to the end user. Unfortunately the X GUI world has decided to place a big marketing emphisis on KDE versus Gnome, that means very pronounced visual cues in your face.

Re:I gotta say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11808860)

Well that sure was a well informed and enlightening comment, please don't bother in future, mmmKay?

Re:I gotta say (2, Informative)

webfiend (112579) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809082)

If you ask me, there will never be a year of the Linux desktop until somebody creates a Linux desktop environment that is at least as rich as Windows.

That's okay. I use Linux on my desktop and have for most of the last five years. I don't really need a "year" of the desktop. All I needed was for it work on my desktop and it's been doing that quite nicely for some time.

When is cut and paste going to be even supported across applications in KDE or GNOME?

Well, text works okay...

Oh, text works ok? Well what about a piece of a picture or a clip of a wave?

Well, um, text works okay. I haven't tried anything else so I couldn't really tell you. Then again, my only exposure to pictures or sound clips in my clipboard was when Windows tried to tell me that I had a huge lump of something in my clipboard whenever I tried to quit Photoshop. So you and I definitely don't have the same needs for this particular item.

What about drag and drop? Can I just drop any document onto a printer icon and have it spit out the result? Without configuring 20 various text files?

I never dig figure out the 20 various text files to configure, but I've been able to drag a file icon onto my printer icon and have it print (correctly, even!) since around Fedora Core 2, so yeah, that works now.

... then perhaps there will be some sort of market ...

There already is a market, it's just not people stuck on waiting for Photoshop to come out for a particular platform. Besides, the words "Linux" and "market" just don't seem to go together in my mind. One doesn't really seem to need the other, and both will do quite nicely if they never meet each other. But maybe that's just me. I know Redhat and SuSE and Mandrake (and so on) must see some sort of market in Linux geeks, or they never would have bothered trying to make money from us in the first place.

But hey, I'm not going to tell you that you need to use Linux if what you really need is a platform that can run Photoshop natively. You and me, we're different markets.

Re:I gotta say (3, Informative)

Mornelithe (83633) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809096)

When is cut and paste going to be even supported across applications in KDE or GNOME? Oh, text works ok? Well what about a piece of a picture or a clip of a wave?

I just went into kview, copied part of a picture, and pasted it into the GIMP. Then I went into kpdf, copied part of a page, and pasted that into the GIMP. Then I copied part of a page in kpdf, and pasted it into a konqueror window, and it asked me what filename I'd like, and turned it into a PNG image.

I don't have any sound editing software, so I can't test anything there.

Without configuring 20 various text files?

I haven't used text files to configure printers in a long time. With CUPS and KDE, you can just use their printer install wizard. It's about the same as installing a printer on Windows.

Re:I gotta say (3, Funny)

the_womble (580291) | more than 9 years ago | (#11810512)

I do not think you understand where the parent post is coming from. The basic idea is it did not work in Red Hat 1 so therefore it does not work in Linux, at all, ever.

Re:I gotta say (1)

Mornelithe (83633) | more than 9 years ago | (#11810584)

Well, then. I stand corrected. :)

I know it's just personal preference... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11808851)

...but it looks really "flat" to me. Maybe that's not a bad thing ... but it doesn't come off as anything special.

Re:I know it's just personal preference... (1)

Quattro Vezina (714892) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809036)

...but it looks really "flat" to me.

You're not the only one to be annoyed by this.

Overly flat themes have always bugged the hell out of me. I like lots of bevels and hard edges, and anything other than that tends to annoy me.

Why this is usefull: (1)

students (763488) | more than 9 years ago | (#11808855)

1. Bootable CD-ROMS. They don't remember that you changed the theme. They might not even give you a choice.

2. Public teminals. Hopefully these do not let you change the theme.

3. Other people's computers. Not everyone will have the sense to change a theme.

Hehe (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11808865)

and if you run Ubuntu Linux, you're already using the theme.

Re:Hehe (2, Informative)

JamesHenstridge (14875) | more than 9 years ago | (#11810405)

Actually, the "Human" theme that Ubuntu uses as default is based on Industrial (slightly different colours, and square corners on the windows). This may change in the future though.

Can't Gnome just die? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11808919)

Gnome2 was an act of utter contempt against end users, it's still better than KDE but that's not exactly saying much is it? fluxbox, icewm & xfce4 are where it's at.

Re:Can't Gnome just die? (1)

rk87 (622509) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809262)

Currently KDE has to be the best desktop environment (looking at 3.4rc1, I'd have to say they did a really good job). Theres several problems though, its slow , bloated, and still not completely integrated. Mac OS X does a much better job.

And my reasoning for slow: What exactly you have here is Application on top of KDE lib on top of Qt lib on top of X11 lib on top of X11 server on top of Linux, 5 steps. Windows? Application on Windows API on Win32 GUI on Win Kernel, 3 steps. Mac OS X? Application on Cocoa/Carbon/Whatever on Quartz on Darwin, 3 steps. See my point?

Re:Can't Gnome just die? (1)

moria (829831) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809359)

Gnome applications are on top of GNOME lib on top of Gtk2+ on top of X11 lib on top of X11 server on top of Linux/FreeBSD/..., but are, most of the time, faster than counterparts in KDE. I personally prefer Gnome for the simplicity, but sometimes would suggest others to use KDE instead. I would not agree to let Gnome die. And if it dies, I would go for XFCE instead of KDE.

Re:Can't Gnome just die? (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 9 years ago | (#11810864)

They are nowhere near as fast, IME. Gnome apps are far faster if you are running gnome or xfce, simply because the libs you need are already loaded, but that's to be expected and the same is true in reverse when running KDE.

Re:Can't Gnome just die? (3, Interesting)

Mornelithe (83633) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809739)

And my reasoning for slow: What exactly you have here is Application on top of KDE lib on top of Qt lib on top of X11 lib on top of X11 server on top of Linux

Okay.

Windows? Application on Windows API on Win32 GUI on Win Kernel

Wrong. You left out MFC, or whatever equivalent overlay on top of the Windows API you're using. Most people don't program in the straight Windows API anymore, and even if they don't use MFC, they write their own wrapper around the Windows API.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of stuff in the KDE libs is just KDE standard widgets that aren't part of Qt. So it's more like kdelibs + Qt is one layer if you're developing KDE applications. It's just artificially split in some ways. It's a lot like how some widgets are in the Gnome libs, and others are in GTK+. In fact, I believe some widgets get pushed from Gnome libs into GTK+, because they are more generally useful.

The number of "layers" is irrelevant. For example, Qt can be split into a section that deals with GUI widgets, and a section that deals with making C++ programming nicer. If Trolltech chose to market them separately, would you call that two layers, and say that KDE must be even slower because of this?

By the way, was that your explanation of why you believe the slowness you have actually perceived is happening, or were you saying that "5 layers is too many, therefore it must be slow"? I'm unsure on that point. KDE isn't slow on my computer, and it's more than 3 years old (the computer, that is). What are you running it on?

Finally, I'm curious: What isn't integrated about KDE? And have you filed bugs/wishlists to alert the developers?

Re:Can't Gnome just die? (3, Insightful)

stuuf (587464) | more than 9 years ago | (#11810578)

How portable are the Windows or Mac OS X widget sets? The fact that they're both named for an operating system is a clue. Splitting into numerous layers is one of the ways that many open source projects are so portable. Gnome sits on GTK which uses Glib and GDK, on top of either X11/POSIX or Win32. On windows, there is almost always an extra layer such as VCL, MFC, or WxWidgets above the windows API, because it's so hideous to use directly. The layers don't necessarily have anything to do with speed. I think that the small slowdowns and large code size is a reasonably tradeoff for making applications more portable and easier to write. Sure, writing Mozilla in C++, Javascript, and several proprietary compatibility libraries makes it bigger and slower than a pure C application, but also much easier to port and maintain.

I use the Gnome desktop, file manager, and some small utilities, but third party apps for most work. Gnome has Epiphany; I use Mozilla. Gnome has Gcalctool, I use Qalculate. Gnome has gedit, I use XEmacs or Leafpad.

Indeed, Gnome seems... overrated (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 9 years ago | (#11811108)

ill bet that many gnome users who complain about the present state of gnome and kde haven't even tried the slimmer flavors of x. as ive noticed in these comments, people have complained about "intrusive decorations" and "excessive highlighting (like on the over-sized buttons and stuff)" both of which can be essentially non-issues in xfce. and all the slim x environments use their own unique interface features, each innovative in their own, whilst people complain about gnome's inherent similarity to ms windows.

i'd mod you up, but you really are kinda flamebait, sorry.

A Mac User's Perspective (1)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809078)

The semi-matte finish is nice. It's a very polished (heh) look when viewed on an LCD. Pity about the corners, though. Kinda distracting, at least at first glance.

rounded corners of the windows (2, Insightful)

eraserewind (446891) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809216)

Looking at those screenshots, one thing bugs me. Can't they do some anti-aliasing on the rounded corners of the windows? Those jagged edges don't look nice at all. Also the "X" button looks too big, and is too pointy for the rounded corners. Win XP has knocked the points off the 3 window control buttons, and it looks like a better match. The theme itself is ok, if a bit on the dull side.

Re:rounded corners of the windows (5, Informative)

daniel borgmann (679904) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809564)

No, the corners unfortunately can't be anti-aliased right now. That's one of the things we need composite for. :) I'm sure Havoc will support it quickly after composite becomes available by default.

Also I made the icons smaller in the latest release of the metacity theme, you can get it here:
http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?cont ent=212 37

I don't think it's perfect yet, the main focus has been on the Gtk engine.

Re:rounded corners of the windows (2, Interesting)

DaveJay (133437) | more than 9 years ago | (#11810304)

I guess I'm a freak. I -like- the aliased corners, because it reminds me of an old mac desktop. For me, anti-aliased everything is just blurry and overrated -- I'll take crisp well-defined edges any day of the week.

what's the difference? (1)

rritterson (588983) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809255)

I looked at the two linked screenshots of old vs new. Without a side by side comparison, i can't really tell the difference. Can anyone point out what the major differences are? Does it just look different, or is there new functionality.

It saddens me to think the announcement of the change was big enough to hit the slashdot front page.

It saddens me more to see they are only as original as Windows (which is only as original as Apple, ad infinitum). Doesn't anyone do innovative UI research? (Longhorn doesn't count. It's not functionally different, just prettier).

Re:what's the difference? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11809377)

Well, remember that this is for GNOME 2.12, which is still only a glimmer in the developers' eyes. GNOME 2.12 will doubtless contain new features and stuff.

This theme is different from the old one because:
Old: Kinda grey
New: Almost orange, yellow, and XP Green(TM)

Old: Lines and bevels
New: Curves and gradients. And lots of rounded corners.

darwinports (2, Informative)

OmniVector (569062) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809402)

if you're using os x, you can try it out in darwinports [opendarwin.org] by typing

port install gtk2-clearlooks

factoid (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11809444)

This news factoid is merely rumour.

Please read this [gnome.org] for more information.

Less is definitely more. (3, Interesting)

JPyObjC Dude (772176) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809503)

Personally, I would vote for Gnome over KDE. Gnome's strict adherence to GUI standards where less is more will get them to a lot more usage in the future. KDE, although very feature friendly, is not nearly as refined as Gnome from a UI perspective and this will bite them in the ass as it has bit Microsoft.

When I look at the latest screenshots, I am blown away with the finite details that the UI designers have gone through. Most importantly, they seem to have stuck with the minimal real estate impact that I have come to love with OSX.

Real estate is where Microsoft have failed in the past with XP sytles and from what I have seen with their replacements, they are only getting worse with tons of real estate taken up by oversized and over spaced text on pretty but poorly contrasted backgrounds.

Keep up the good work Gnome ... You are the best bet for me to move to Linus or *bsd besides OSX.

JsD

Side bit - L&M of car manufacturers.
Honda (Apple)
- Less but works more but better
General Motors (Microsoft)
- More but works less and worse.

Re:Less is definitely more. (1)

SewersOfRivendell (646620) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809779)

Keep up the good work Gnome ... You are the best bet for me to move to Linus or *bsd besides OSX.

Huh? If OS X doesn't do it for you, and your main beef with Windows is aesthetic, you're not gonna be happy with GNOME...

Re:Less is definitely more. (1)

DaveJay (133437) | more than 9 years ago | (#11810316)

Funny you should say that. I have a G4 tower sitting here that I just acquired, and it has OSX Panther on it. The first thing I did was install to dual-boot Debian testing (gnome) on it.

I played around with OSX for a while (I normally use an x86 box, so it was a novelty), then flipped over to debian with gnome. Honestly, and I'm as surprised as anyone else, I found that I liked it better. Obviously, being used to it has a lot to do with it, and compared to Windows 2000, OSX looks amazing, but...well...I guess everyone's taste is different.

Bluecurve... (1)

Satertek (708058) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809514)

...is still the best looking and cleanest theme I have ever seen.

Re:Bluecurve... (1)

dn15 (735502) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809750)

While like the new theme a lot, I certainly can't argue with you there. Bluecurve is among the best themes I've used.

Re:Bluecurve... (1)

daniel borgmann (679904) | more than 9 years ago | (#11809799)

Clearlooks is actually based on Bluecurve, because we'd agree.
I'm sad to hear if you think our changes are no improvement, but personally I'm very happy with it. :)

rounded windows (1)

CaptnMArk (9003) | more than 9 years ago | (#11810283)

yuck

No, not this way. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11810309)

Still, if you put a few random applications in a bundle, you won't get an INTEGRATED environment. Can I put my bookmarks/shell sessions in a dropdown menu in the panel, like in KDE? Do all apps have common file dialog, with ability to preview files using _external_ apps? GNOME isn't getting anywhere KDE been a long time. Sorry, mules.

WTF? You mean.... (4, Insightful)

Korgan (101803) | more than 9 years ago | (#11810446)

Okay... When did people stop using this great Emacs? I mean... Graphical interfaces? Wow! Who'da thunk it. Thats just a totally innovative and novel idea.

What? I can change the way my interface looks so it suits my own personal tastes and preferences? OMG! Someone get on the phone and tell Microsoft, they're gonna want to embrace that idea. They already do? Damn, they're on the ball. What? They got the idea from KDE and Gnome? OMG! Isn't that like stealing? Xerox? Apple Computer? Who are they again?

</>

It amazes me to see how so quickly the whole fight between KDE and Gnome sprang up over something as simple as the new DEFAULT THEME for Gnome being announced. Its not like people can't change the theme for either KDE or Gnome if they don't like the defaults. I thought the whole Keramilk issue was put to rest a long time ago. Guess not. Must've missed that memo. Sorry, didn't mean to stay out of the fight for so long.

Come one people. Get real. Personally, I think it looks good. Its clean, open, totally uncluttered (like some KDE shots I've seen recently) and its functional. Its pretty easy to navigate and it keeps with the K.I.S.S principle I have always liked in Gnome (KDE was always too cluttered with too many bells and whistles presented to the average end user. Might be fine for advanced users, but generally the newer users prefer not to get a whole heap of stuff thrown at them when all they want to do is configure their desktop).

But who cares? If you use Gnome and you don't like this theme, install a different one. There are so many available out there. Hell, I even went as far as making my own (*GASP*) so that my desktop looked and felt the way I wanted it to so I was more productive and it was useful to me.

Damn... Lets badmouth a clean and easy on the eyes interface simply because it bears some resemblance to Windows XP. Damn... Last time I looked, every Window Manager had 3 buttons at the top of their windows for minimize,maximize/restore,close. Even OS X.

If it really is that much of an issue, don't you dear look at FVWM. Maybe you should go check out Enlightenment again. Its not dead you know. In fact, some of use still use it every day. Then you can really make your desktop look any and every way you could possibly want it to. Amazing that.

Gotta love the fact that you can choose what interface your desktop has. In fact, if you really wanted to, you could set your .xinitrc to pick a different one at random every time you started X. Now theres a really far out idea.

Not to mention... (1)

hummassa (157160) | more than 9 years ago | (#11811346)

that this theme is not a lot different than the old one... it is different, mind you, just not a lot.

Re:WTF? You mean.... (1)

neglige (641101) | more than 9 years ago | (#11811392)

Gotta love the fact that you can choose what interface your desktop has.

Don't forget to love the fact that you can choose what desktop your OS has ;)

Now... you CAN choose your desktop, right?

Use the XFCE one (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 9 years ago | (#11810870)

They should use the theme that's default in XFCE4. It looks much cleaner (the gnome themes all seem to have too much colour in them) and still has good performance.

Eugenia jumped the horse! (0, Redundant)

Victor_Os (677960) | more than 9 years ago | (#11810895)

ClearLooks is only being proposed, and the default theme has not been chosen yet.

To quote Jeff:

""ClearLooks to be Default Theme on Gnome 2.12" is not even close to an accurate description of Seth and Diana's email, let alone the entire discussion so far."
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...