Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

GNOME 2.16 Released

samzenpus posted about 8 years ago | from the upgrade dept.

473

Kethinov writes "The GNOME Project has just released version 2.16 of their popular *nix desktop environment. Among many snazzy new features, is lots of new eye candy, including an experimental compositer in Metacity, feature enhancements, usability improvements, and much, much more. Ars Technica has a review."

cancel ×

473 comments

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

Awful default "X" icon (1, Interesting)

Andrew Tanenbaum (896883) | about 8 years ago | (#16057188)

I really hope that they got rid of the awful, childish default "X" (for cancel buttons) icon. It just screamed "zonk".

GNOME (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057280)

GNOME is my favorite GUI. My dream system is Linux + ARM-based notebook built by Sony + GNOME + AOL client.

Is there any chance that Sony will build and sell such a dream system?

Re:GNOME (5, Funny)

Stormwatch (703920) | about 8 years ago | (#16057421)

Built by Sony? That'd be a blast!

Sourceforge? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057190)

Ugh, who wants to use a desktop environment that has a stinky foot as its logo/mascot?

Re:Sourceforge? (-1, Flamebait)

Kesch (943326) | about 8 years ago | (#16057214)

The same poeple who are apt to run linux

Re:Sourceforge? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057222)

I think you mean "The same poeple who are apt-get to run linux"

Re:Sourceforge? (0)

htnprm (176191) | about 8 years ago | (#16057259)

I saw that coming, and I still LOL'd...

Re:Sourceforge? (0, Offtopic)

Jerk City Troll (661616) | about 8 years ago | (#16057337)

Oh my fucking God! Laughing out loud out loud out loud explanation point explanation point explanation point one one explanation point.

Re:Sourceforge? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057464)

I sense a bad joke about to emerge...

Re:Sourceforge? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057381)

My love for you allows me to pray to the spirit of eternal beauty and tenderness mirrored in your eyes or fling you down under me on that softy belly of yours and fuck you up behind, like a hog riding a sow, glorying in the very stink and sweat that rises from your arse, glorying in the open shape of your upturned dress and white girlish drawers and in the confusion of your flushed cheeks and tangled hair. It allows me to burst into tears of pity and love at some slight word, to tremble with love for you at the sounding of some chord or cadence of music or to lie heads and tails with you feeling your fingers fondling and tickling my ballocks or stuck up in me behind and your hot lips sucking off my cock while my head is wedged in between your fat thighs, my hands clutching the round cushions of your bum and my tongue licking ravenously up your rank red cunt. I have taught you almost to swoon at the hearing of my voice singing or murmuring to your soul the passion and sorrow and mystery of life and at the same time have taught you to make filthy signs to me with your lips and tongue, to provoke me by obscene touches and noises, and even to do in my presence the most shameful and filthy act of the body. You remember the day you pulled up your clothes and let me lie under you looking up at you while you did it? Then you were ashamed even to meet my eyes.

Re:Sourceforge? (1)

Eideewt (603267) | about 8 years ago | (#16057543)

"(Score:1, Interesting)"

Isn't Slashdot wonderful? Although I would have marked it insightful myself.

Memo to text-porn writers: (5, Funny)

patio11 (857072) | about 8 years ago | (#16057615)

Nothing says "sexy" like paragraph breaks.
    Its not hard. No, no, that's not what I meant.

Re:Sourceforge? (ugh) (1)

darkonc (47285) | about 8 years ago | (#16057605)

Somewhere, in Texas, A moderator is missing it's funnybone.

So what? (1)

RLiegh (247921) | about 8 years ago | (#16057200)

As someone who is currently running 2.14.2; what does this mean to me?

Probably that you're running Ubuntu, like me. (1)

khasim (1285) | about 8 years ago | (#16057240)

So the question becomes ... when will this be an Ubuntu automatic upgrade and will it be for Drake or Eft or even later?

Re:Probably that you're running Ubuntu, like me. (1)

telchine (719345) | about 8 years ago | (#16057263)

I hope it'll be for Drake. I must say the last update was a step backwards in my opinion, but hey, I'm getting used to running Lynx.

Re:Probably that you're running Ubuntu, like me. (5, Informative)

Hikaru79 (832891) | about 8 years ago | (#16057266)

It's not a coincidence that Ubuntu's release cycle is the same as Gnome's -- six months. That's the defining feature of a new Ubuntu release: a new Gnome release. It was especially designed to be this way.

So to answer your question, 2.16 will be in Edgy. And 2.18 will be in whatever comes after Edgy. And so on.

Re:Probably that you're running Ubuntu, like me. (0)

SP33doh (930735) | about 8 years ago | (#16057472)

new ubuntu release will basically be the next news post. xD

Re:Probably that you're running Ubuntu, like me. (2, Insightful)

ZakuSage (874456) | about 8 years ago | (#16057497)

No, Ubuntu 6.10 "Edgy Eft" isn't coming out until October. However, right around the time the new GNOME gets released, each Ubuntu's pre-release set gets stable enough to be usable. I think I'll still wait for an RC to be released, but it is just about time to upgrade.

Re:Probably that you're running Ubuntu, like me. (1)

Grey Ninja (739021) | about 8 years ago | (#16057612)

Well, you're partly right. Ubuntu was intended to be synched with the Gnome releases... but the versioning system works like this:

date is in format: yy/mm/dd
Ubuntu yy.mm

Re:So what? (1)

babbling (952366) | about 8 years ago | (#16057463)

It means that you could now upgrade to GNOME 2.16... duh.

Re:So what? (2, Informative)

hdparm (575302) | about 8 years ago | (#16057473)

You may want to read release notes for 2.16. BTW, since last night this version is included with Fedora rawhide (just updated FC6, test2).

candy (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057203)

Bring on the eye candy! There'll be heaps of complainers who say its unnecessary... but sorry, its necessary to bring linux gradually mainstream.

Re:candy (5, Interesting)

Jake73 (306340) | about 8 years ago | (#16057471)

I basically agree with this, but think the developers should find some real designer talent to bring it about. For example, the screenshots are horrible. They took window shots, then faded the borders to white, then added a drop shadow. If you can't tell that this doesn't look right, you're in the wrong league.

Don't fade borders if you're compositing a complete window. Faded borders are the graphical equivalent of an ellipsis.

And definitely don't add a drop shadow to something you've already faded to white. It looks ridiculous.

Re:candy (0, Redundant)

PeelBoy (34769) | about 8 years ago | (#16057586)

I'm going to have to completely agree with everything you just said.

Re:candy (1)

anagama (611277) | about 8 years ago | (#16057477)

Eye candy would be nice -- I've been using gnome for about a year now after I burned out on having to relearn where a particular setting control was in KDE whenever I sought to change something. But one thing that really bugs me about the gnome organization is how damn hard it is to find screenshots. Go to the main KDE site and you see a link for "screenshots" in the sidebar. Go to the main gnome site and you have to hunt far and wide for screen shots -- darn annoying.

Re:candy (1)

grcumb (781340) | about 8 years ago | (#16057573)

I posted some first impressions about running GNOME on Compiz here [livejournal.com] .

The bottom line is that not all eye candy is created equal, but some of the features really have a positive effect on the user experience. I for one (heh) am looking forward to seeing a compositing window manager integrated tightly into GNOME.

Almost sounds like KDE 3... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057224)

I know I'm going to get modded Troll for this, but looking over the feature list, it really sounds like it's gained a lot of KDE 3 features. The GNOME webbrowser can now spellcheck. (Big deal, Konqueror has done this for ages.) There's now a method for visually displaying disk use in GNOME. (Again, Konqueror has done this for ages.)

You can now add items to the programs menu (this is NEW?!), you can now set file permissions on multiple files (again, this is NEW?!). All in all it sounds like stuff that should have been there for ages.

And, as always, I can't help but wonder what options got removed and now are permentantly set to "sensible defaults" because, as everyone knows, customizability is "confusing". Really an underwhelming release based on the articles. (Yes, I did read them!)

Re:Almost sounds like KDE 3... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057424)

I think your opening sentence needs a bit of modification. It would probably be a lot better if you had written, "I know I'm going to get modded troll for this blatant troll post, but what the hell, I'll post it anyway."

Re:Almost sounds like KDE 3... (4, Informative)

cloricus (691063) | about 8 years ago | (#16057426)

You're not a troll. You are stating the clear to see and the only problem with your post that I can find is that you don't think it is a good thing. Note Gnome had perms and the ability to add to the menus beforehand, just no where near as easily/well. Out side of the childish flame wars between kde and gnome the devs and community are getting on with life and taking features off each other while implementing new ones independently. Also moving into line with freedesktops specs. I think this is great for Linux desktop interoperability and really does allow people to use what they want with little hassle and not missing the features and functionality they really need.
 
For the record I use Gnome, Enligthenment (DR17), and Blackbox and I refuse to even touch the peice of bloated crap that is KDE. :)

GNOME logo (2, Funny)

youknowmewell (754551) | about 8 years ago | (#16057241)

Nice logo :)

Does it work on Windows 95? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057251)

This all sounds very exciting!

I use Windows 95 and I'm finding it quite difficult to use. Can somebody please instruct me on how to install this GNOME on Windows 95?

Re:Does it work on Windows 95? (1)

htnprm (176191) | about 8 years ago | (#16057276)

Ummm...I'm afraid I can't tell if this AC is serious or not...@_@

Re:Does it work on Windows 95? (2, Funny)

Shadyman (939863) | about 8 years ago | (#16057536)

I'm not sure I want to know. *is scared*

Re:Does it work on Windows 95? (1)

PeelBoy (34769) | about 8 years ago | (#16057595)

Let me answer that for you in a word: maybe.

Re:Does it work on Windows 95? (5, Funny)

i3iz (982752) | about 8 years ago | (#16057373)

it's easy to install. Type Format C: at the command line. Then hit Y

Re:Does it work on Windows 95? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057438)

Thank you very much for your help i3iz,

I followed your instructions. However, I got the following message:

Drive C: is currently in use by another process.
Aborting Format.

Have you any ideas on how I should proceed from here?

Re:Does it work on Windows 95? (1)

buey10 (933360) | about 8 years ago | (#16057439)

I tried installing another linux on a windows 95 and the graphical user interface did not work on the vectra hp computer. The version was ubuntu and it did work on my newer windows xp computer that is an a500n hp computer. It worked as a dual boot.

C# App (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057252)

Is it just me, or does the default binding and replacement of standard apps with C# apps a concern? It feels as though we are providing marketing materials for the competition.

Re:C# App (3, Funny)

telchine (719345) | about 8 years ago | (#16057329)

>Is it just me, or does the default binding and replacement of standard apps with C# apps a concern?

Not at all. I think this is a good strategy for GNU. First they embrace c#, after that they should extend it and then extinguish it!

Windows risks becoming less relevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057387)

Personally I think that having all the bindings and support at the OS level for .NET helps drive for a more neutral base. If done quickly and well enough, it makes Windows less relevant because the same App will Just Work(TM) no matter if it's on *nix+GNOME/KDE/whatever or MS Windows.

Re:Windows risks becoming less relevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057625)

[...]it makes Windows less relevant because the same App will Just Work(TM) no matter if it's on *nix+GNOME/KDE/whatever or MS Windows.

Didn't the Mono guys take all the Windows compatibility stuff out because they were afraid of getting sued?

Re:C# App (4, Insightful)

Almahtar (991773) | about 8 years ago | (#16057405)

I don't think it'd be wise to mess with it at all. If there's one thing Microsoft is good at it's treachery, not technology. Rather than attempting to beat them at their own game (treachery), it'd be best to overcome them with merit (technology). In terms of ease-of-use and speed, C++ with STL and BOOSt, Ruby, or Python have C# whipped -- and they're totally free.

Visual Improvements? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057271)

I don't know, maybe it's because I'm a visual person, but those screenshots look kinda unimaginative and dull. I realize eye-candy wouldn't make it a better desktop, but it really looks a decade old and gray. But then, I don't use Gnome, so...

But does it have a useable file-save dialogue? (4, Insightful)

j1m+5n0w (749199) | about 8 years ago | (#16057284)

I use gnome regularly, but am always momentarily confused by the file-save dialogue no matter how many times I see it. Gnome is very nice in a lot of ways, but I think in terms of decent interface design, it needs a lot of work.

Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue? (0)

scotch (102596) | about 8 years ago | (#16057375)

How is the parent post "Insightful"? Where are the specific complaints? What is confusing? Even the current version?

Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue? (4, Insightful)

grumbel (592662) | about 8 years ago | (#16057411)

What is confusing?

In its default look it doesn't show where it is going to save the document, but instead only the name of the very last folder (so if you have foo/images/ and bar/images/ you can't tell the difference), I'd call that pretty confusing, a click on "Browse for other folders" of course changes that, but fullpath somewhere visible would be quite usefull. Beside from that however I am very happy with the filedialog, simply, clean and effective.

Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue? (3, Insightful)

cloricus (691063) | about 8 years ago | (#16057443)

This was basically taken wholesale from the way macs save files...I hated it to start with though using my mac daily along with gnome I really wouldn't trade it. It's just got this easyness to it that sucks you in and hey...even my mother likes it/can use it.

Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue? (1)

tulare (244053) | about 8 years ago | (#16057412)

How about the idiotic part where you go to save a file with the picker, create a new folder, and then the moment you give this new folder a name, the 50-char filename of the .deb you were trying to save gets wiped? Not to mention the acres of wasted space in that picker. What a turd that thing is. At least they put back the location bar, sort of, in this release.

Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue? (1)

terminateprocess (812697) | about 8 years ago | (#16057459)

To specify on what I believe the grandparent was trying to say: Whenever you try to save something in a Gnome-based app, the Save As... dialog that pops up only gives you a few options for the folder to save in: your Home directory, the Desktop, or the root of a mounted partition. If you want to save it anywhere else, you have to click the "Browse for other folders..." option or click the dropdown button below the box, similarly named.

Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue? (5, Insightful)

j1m+5n0w (749199) | about 8 years ago | (#16057532)

When I do a save-as in gnome, I get a window that asks for a name and a folder. So far so good. Unfortunately, the "folder" selector is not a filesystem browser, but a list of "shortcuts". These are named after the last part of the path name - unfortunatly, this gives absolutely no insight as to where in the filesystem tree this folder is. They could show the full path name, or have a tooltip pop up if the mouse hovers over, or something. There are also some default shortcuts with ambiguous names: Desktop and Filesystem. The former, I happen to know through corresponds to ~/Desktop (and no, I don't use nautilus*, so it doesn't show up on my actual desktop). The latter is a mystery, but apparently I don't have permission to save there, wherever it is.

Now, if I haven't configured a shortcut for the folder I want (and this is done manually - for some reason gnome doesn't just remember my most recent folders), I have to click on "browse for other folders". Since this is usually what I want to do anyways, it's a little tedious to have to go looking for it every time. Here it gets downright confusing. On the left is a pane that looks like the contents of a current working directory, but is actually just the same list of shortcuts I had just a moment ago decided I wasn't interested in; double clicking one of these entries does, however, navigate the real filesystem browser to that shortcut. The real list-view filesystem browser is on the right. With this I don't have much complaint, except that there isn't an obvious way to paste a path in from somewhere else.

The lack of full pathname plagues other parts of gnome as well - consider the "save screenshot" window, invoked with [printscreen]. It remembers where I last saved a screenshot, but where is the full path? I have to select "other" from the dropdown list to find out where it is.

*An observation: if you disable nautilus, gnome won't set up your wallpaper when you log in. You can still set it *manually* from the preferences/desktop background dialogue, but it will revert to default after login out and back in.

Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue? (1, Insightful)

darkmeridian (119044) | about 8 years ago | (#16057461)

"Gnome is very nice in a lot of ways, but I think in terms of decent interface design, it needs a lot of work."

It's a windowing environment whose purpose is to provide a GUI. I don't use Gnome because I want my Graphical User Interface too have a decent interface design. Otherwise, I'm better off with a command line.

Chicken (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057293)

I like chicken and I ate a brownie once.

Brownies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057600)

I like brownies and I ate a chicken once.

Re:Chicken (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057613)

*phew* glad i'm not a chicken holding a brownie.

So? It still sucks. (-1, Troll)

bmo (77928) | about 8 years ago | (#16057304)

Seriously, KDE _owns_ Gnome in every way. It's more modular and more useful. It's easier for the user to tweak. It's faster. It would be helpful if the desktop authors simply wrote for KDE instead of having all this duplication of effort. Indeed, the basic reason for Gnome's existence disappeared when Trolltech dual licensed QT under the GPL and their own licenses. The only reason why Gnome is still around is spite fostered by the _KDEMustDie_ extremists who are never willing to ever forgive or forget that Trolltech offended their sensibilities.

I could have posted this anonymously and I will be modded down for this by the GnomePolice, but I really don't give a damn.

--
BMO

Re:So? It still sucks. (5, Funny)

dcapel (913969) | about 8 years ago | (#16057322)

You know, I once heard a wise man tell a parable:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off.
I immediately ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said.
I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
"Like what?"
"Well ... are you religious or atheist?"
"Religious."
"Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish?"
"Christian."
"Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
"Protestant."
"Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
"Baptist."
"Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
"Baptist Church of God."
"Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of God."
"Wow! Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed
Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"
To which I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.

Incidentally, I use KDE ;)

Re:So? It still sucks. (3, Interesting)

subxero37 (985222) | about 8 years ago | (#16057352)

KDE has many things going well for it. This'll sound weird, I'm sure, but I like Gnome better because it feels better. KDE has a weird feel to it that I can't get over. It's the same feeling I get when I use Opera, I don't quite like it.

KDE also seems very thrown-together, and there are icons for almost every single menu item in almost every single menu -- it makes the entire desktop look extremely cluttered. Some lines and shapes (in some dialogs, some programs) are off by just a single pixel from where they should be, but because of that small error, it makes the desktop look slightly askew, and adds to the screen clutter appearance.

Other than appearance and "feel" I have no problem using KDE.

Re:So? It still sucks. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057582)

Dude... you can turn off the icons! You can configure most of the defaults away and end up with quite an uncluttered look and feel. Try it out, run KDE and play a couple of hours with the settings. I'm sure something interesting to you will emerge.

Re:So? It still sucks. (1)

advocate_one (662832) | about 8 years ago | (#16057614)

Dude... you can turn off the icons! You can configure most of the defaults away and end up with quite an uncluttered look and feel. Try it out, run KDE and play a couple of hours with the settings. I'm sure something interesting to you will emerge.

GP is trolling...

Re:So? It still sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057368)

And then there are people like me who have used both but always return to Gnome. *shrug* I use heaps of KDE apps, but the KDE desktop itself I just can't live with.

reasons to use gnome (1, Informative)

j1m+5n0w (749199) | about 8 years ago | (#16057378)

I may be incorrect about either of these points, so someone please say so if I am wrong, but I can think of two reasons to prefer gnome over kde:

1) gtk is written in C, whereas QT is C++, making it less easy to use from C programs.

2) gtk is licensed as lgpl, whereas qt is gpl. This means that a non-gpled program (such as a commercial application) can be linked with gtk with no problems, but with qt the developers must pay licensing fees.

Re:reasons to use gnome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057388)

1) Qt has many language bindings, including C, Perl, and Python, just to name a few.

Re:reasons to use gnome (2, Informative)

Almahtar (991773) | about 8 years ago | (#16057491)

You're correct about licensing, first off. Honestly I think that's a good thing - if someone wants to make money off their app they should kick back money to those whose work on which they are capitalizing.

As far as C vs. C++: Qt is C++, yes. GTK is C, yes. But there's also GTKMM, the C++ bindings for GTK. So this makes Gnome more flexible because it has both C and C++ bindings. I'm not sure if this is a win for Gnome or not, because I don't think any GUI C app could be more maintainable, flexible, and stable than a GUI C++ app, so I find it best to discourage the use of C in a GUI app. I have no grounds to back that except experience, and I admit it.

Re:So? It still sucks. (1)

cool_arrow (881921) | about 8 years ago | (#16057382)

While I prefer KDE it seems Gnome could be gaining ground as it has recently become the default desktop for SUSE 10.1. Many new users go with the defaults and people tend to stick with what they know.

Re:So? It still sucks. (1)

tulare (244053) | about 8 years ago | (#16057389)

Like Windows, for example. It's just another case of "Shit wins not because it smells nice, but because everyone sees it." So much for the meritocracy of geekhood...

Re:So? It still sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057395)

I will be modded down for this

Holy crap, this man speaks prophecy!

by the GnomePolice

Ah, nevermind, it's just ordinary crazy. Everyone knows there's no such thing as the GnomePolice. ... They're named the GPolice, and they're quite nice. It's the GGestapo you have to watch out for. *adjusts tinfoil hat*

Re: So? It still sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057404)

Yup. It's all the license extremists fault. Nothing at all to do with personal preferences. Certainly no merit to that story that Gnome's base technology (written in plain C) is much much easier to integrate into other projects than KDE's stuff (written in something mostly like C++, but with an extra "meta-object compiler" pass to turn it into code that g++ can deal with) and that's why it's so popular...

Dell Notebook Batteries (-1, Offtopic)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 8 years ago | (#16057313)

The new version claims to stretch notebook battery performance. I know it's not GNOME's fault, but my Dell Inspiron 8000's two batteries seem to be nearly dead and not charging. GNOME says they're charging, but they stay at "15 hours until charged". Their HW lights show blank on one, and 3 spaced lights blinking on the other.

Anyone know how to revive these batteries?

Re:Dell Notebook Batteries (0, Offtopic)

shellbeach (610559) | about 8 years ago | (#16057452)

Anyone know how to revive these batteries?

(I'm assuming that they don't charge under Windows either? i.e. it's nothing to do with software ...)

In which case, it sounds like either the batteries have been discharged too much in the past, so that there's not enough power to activate the protection circuit (yep, I'm serious: never fully discharge a laptop battery!) ... or alternatively, the charging circuitry has died. There's nothing you can do in either case.(*) I've had both situations happen to me in the past - but thankfully in the latter situation my battery just scraped in under the 1 year warranty and I was able to get it replaced for free.

http://www.google.com/search?q=laptop%20battery%20 charge%20protection-circuit [google.com] should direct you to some more useful information ...

(*) well, for the first instance you can in theory recharge the battery using some types of battery analysers, which are able to reactivate the circuit, but it's recommended not to do this if the battery's been dead for more than a month or two (as the battery could explode!). You'd also have to have access to one of these battery analysers, which are quite expensive. I've never tried it myself ...

Re:Dell Notebook Batteries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057453)

Hack a Day suggests putting the battery in the freezer [hackaday.com] as a resurrection method.

The fonts look like ass... (1)

kcbrown (7426) | about 8 years ago | (#16057316)

...at least in the first couple of screenshots in the "feature enhancements" section.

That's probably because of regressions or other bugs in the Freetype library. See, for instance, Debian bug #367593 [debian.org] .

I've reverted back to 2.1.10-1 on my system for now, in order to avoid those issues. I can only hope that the API doesn't change before they fix the rendering issues...

Damnit! (5, Funny)

suso (153703) | about 8 years ago | (#16057319)

Just emerging 2.14 now.

Re:Damnit! (0)

CelestialWizard (13685) | about 8 years ago | (#16057416)

if it moves, compile it :)

Re:Damnit! (1)

bunbuntheminilop (935594) | about 8 years ago | (#16057513)

It won't take long to appear on ~x86, and about 2 months for x86. It seems it will be worth a little wait. I'll finially be able to edit the main menu. Its only taken 5 release cycles or so.

Not bad, except (3, Interesting)

subxero37 (985222) | about 8 years ago | (#16057323)

I really wish they wouldn't use JPEGs for computer screenshots -- the lossy compression makes straight lines and text look terrible. PNG (or possibly GIF, depending on the number of colors used) is much more reasonable.

Other than that, I don't understand why the --enable-compositor compile-time option isn't included by default. Logically, if the support is there, but the hardware isn't up-to-par or the X composite extention is not loaded, then the compositor just won't do anything. If everything is A-OK, then the compositor works as expected. For example, I compile support for my sound card directly into my kernel. One day, if I suddenly remove the sound card, my kernel will still work. So why not just turn stuff on by default?

On the other hand, I can understand why some things aren't compiled in sometimes, due to size, but a compositor can't be more than, what, 100k of actual code? Anyway, I'm sure someone's gonna fire back at me.

For the PNGurists, rejoice!!! (1)

Browzer (17971) | about 8 years ago | (#16057500)

On arstechnica, in the thread http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f /174096756/m/298008880831?r=298008880831 [arstechnica.com] segphault is your hero... (post Posted September 06, 2006 13:16)

http://www.cixar.com/~segphault/tmp/drafts/img/ [cixar.com] -> contains PNG screenshots.

Re:Not bad, except (1)

afd8856 (700296) | about 8 years ago | (#16057506)

I thought Gnome only ships source, while distributions ship binaries. So it's a distribution's job to enable that option at compile time.

The important part: Mono (5, Informative)

kestasjk (933987) | about 8 years ago | (#16057347)

This release is very important because Mono is now a dependency! This single move pretty much moves Mono from an interesting project into mainstream OSS.

As a C# fan, and knowing how much of a pain GTK was in C, I think this is a very good move. KDE has always had a better API, official Mono support with GTK reverses that! This could really clear up GNOME, and the Linux desktop generally.

Re:The important part: Mono (0, Troll)

kcbrown (7426) | about 8 years ago | (#16057386)

...or it could kill it, depending on whether or not Mono is vulnerable to patent infringement lawsuits from Microsoft....

Quite a few people are still nervous about Mono for that reason. I can't say I blame them.

Re:The important part: Mono (4, Insightful)

Almahtar (991773) | about 8 years ago | (#16057398)

GREAT! Now The most popular OSS desktop is tying itsself to a Microsoft controlled standard! Sweet! Let's persue that further!

C++ with use of the STL and a few BOOST libraries is still more powerful than C# (let's see you do inline grammar parsing with C#!) - and it's not under the control of a corporation that's proven it can't be trusted.

Re:The important part: Mono (5, Informative)

benplaut (993145) | about 8 years ago | (#16057617)

Regardless, it is still an accepted standard (ISO/IEC 23270)

Re:The important part: Mono (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057427)

The first thing I did after I installed GNOME 2.16 was to remove every C# app and Mono itself. Thank god they're not using it for any applications that really matter. The day it's used for anything that matters is the day I switch to something else permanently and never even consider using GNOME again. The fact that they even put it in as a dependency makes me want to go back to Xfce.

Re:The important part: Mono (1)

gradedcheese (173758) | about 8 years ago | (#16057433)

I'm not fond of the standard-issue GTK C API but gtkmm provides a nice wrapper for C++ and, with Glade, it can be pretty painless to build GTK applications. pygtk is also very nice.

Re:The important part: Mono (2, Insightful)

jeswin (981808) | about 8 years ago | (#16057531)

Not only C#, it could be just about any language which has a .Net compiler. Iron Python 1.0 [codeplex.com] just got released, which works with Mono as well. There are many others too, including Boo, Nemerle, an experimental Ruby.Net. Mono+Gnome might eventually be the reason for mainstream Linux desktop acceptance (with applications being compatible on Windows and Linux), as .Net apps get more popular. In the MS world, the .Net Framework is now the sole platform to build new apps.

Well, doesn't Gnome have some nerve? (-1, Troll)

tulare (244053) | about 8 years ago | (#16057362)

First of all, calling anything they do a "usability improvement" is a bald-faced lie. I'm awaiting with bemusement the moment when all of Gnome is reduced to one single button (that you have to double-click, naturally) with a picture of a brain-dead monkey on it, that launches an xterm.

More to the point of why I accuse them of having nerve, behold:
The file chooser dialog has also been improved: the location entry (previously opened by using Ctrl+L) has been integrated...
So, in other words, Gnome put back what they idiotically took out in the first place - for the sake of "usability" naturally - and then have the balls to call this fix an "improvement."

Suffice to say, I'm solidly in agreement with Torvalds on this issue. Gnome is dumbed down to the point where I begin to wonder whether most of the UI team suffers from some condition or another which causes them to abhor visual complexity, preferring instead to cover their screens in acres of brown, unused, empty space. I would say "wasted space" but I think I've wasted more than enough space making this post. Cheers.

Re:Well, doesn't Gnome have some nerve? (0)

timeOday (582209) | about 8 years ago | (#16057425)

Some "designy" people think the simpler the better, but I'm with you... it's frustrating when expected functionality is lacking. I can't stand the more recent link target save as dialogs for firefox... they don't let you type in a path, and in one version you can't even specify a location! It just saves everything to ~/Desktop. But it changes so frequently, I don't know how long it was like that. (Or maybe it adapts to the Gnome / KDE environment?)

Re:Well, doesn't Gnome have some nerve? (1)

shellbeach (610559) | about 8 years ago | (#16057486)

So, in other words, Gnome put back what they idiotically took out in the first place - for the sake of "usability" naturally - and then have the balls to call this fix an "improvement."

Well, to be fair, it's a GTK thing not a GNOME thing. (If it was only a GNOME problem we could have happily ignored it ...) But yes, that's pretty funny - I recall the bitter argument a few years ago about the removal of the path from the chooser, and more than that, the ability to use tab completion when navigating paths in the file chooser.

It was a shockingly stupid omission in the first place - I'm glad it's back! Let's hope real tab completion is back too (but I bet it won't be - I mean, who uses tab completion in these heady GUI days?? *sarcastic grimace*)

Re:Well, doesn't Gnome have some nerve? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057541)

ffs make up your mind..
is it an improvement or not in your opinion?

God help Nautilus (2, Insightful)

postmortem (906676) | about 8 years ago | (#16057446)

Looks as bad as ever. Is there a single 'power' user that likes Nautilus?

It is not customizeable -can't change single thing on the toolbar.

Default view is useful for home directory only.

Location bar (can be changed) is annoying with buttons instead of link.

Re:God help Nautilus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057498)

Is there a single 'power' user that even uses a GUI file manager?

Re:God help Nautilus (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057519)

Is there a single 'power' user that likes Nautilus?
Yes, quite a few I'd guess with scripts and actions there is quite a lot of hidden power inside of Nautilus for those who can use it.

It is not customizeable -can't change single thing on the toolbar.
Are we talking about power users or power mousers here?

Default view is useful for home directory only.
Don't confuse opinion with fact.

Location bar (can be changed) is annoying with buttons instead of link.
Ctrl+L is a power users best friend, you save space by not having a location bar open (it's my hard drive, not the net, I know where I am).

Technically great (2, Interesting)

NMerriam (15122) | about 8 years ago | (#16057469)

I remember years ago when Gnome was the eye-candy window manager all the kids were showing off. In looking through the screenshots, the most surprising thing is to see that nobody involved with the Tango [freedesktop.org] interface has ever seen what an actual shadow looks like.

If you want to do flat shadows, cool, do them, they're easy and effective. If you want to do three-dimensional shadows, cool, they look even better but take a bit more work. But don't drop the same blurry ellipse at the bottom of every object and think that you're making a three-dimensional shadow, you just make everything look like it's standing on a blurry gray oval, and users really do recognize the less professional look, consciously or not.

Re:Technically great (1)

caseih (160668) | about 8 years ago | (#16057624)

Tango is just an icon set, done with SVG. They use an elipse as a shadow instead of a "real" shadow. Big deal. The icons still are a cut above XP's icon set. I dont't know much about the workings of SVG, but I'd say real shadows would be difficult but doable. In any case, it's just an icon! It's not even 3D. At 128x128 it's not going to matter that much. I think you're just being pedantic. You're welcome to submit better icon shadows to the project rather than complain about things being unprofessional. Your professional help would be greatly appreciated if you feel inclined.

5 Year Old 3D features... (0, Troll)

TheNetAvenger (624455) | about 8 years ago | (#16057481)

Ok, considering the 3D features require 5 year old video cards, does this mean we can officially give GNOME the 'boot' and move on to projects that are at least working with respectible interfaces and approaching 3D with modern hardware?

I read this release several times thinking it was a joke post...

The menu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057499)

Does it still take five seconds to see the content of the menu after you've clicked the foot?

Gnome looks great... (1)

cjkeeme (980951) | about 8 years ago | (#16057507)

Gnome looks great, but for some reason I can never get used to the interface. I'm so much more productive using KDE. Maybe it's just me.

Re:Gnome looks great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057567)

Maybe it's just me.


No, it is not just you. Gnome does in fact suck.

KDE isn't much better, although it's got heaps more and better apps.

My desktop environment needs to do 2 things, and 2 things only:

1. Give me some desktops to run my apps on.

2. Stay the fuck out of my way.

This is why I use WindowMaker.

Goddamnit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16057552)

It just took me a week to compile 2.14 :(

Usability improvements on the application level (4, Insightful)

wysiwia (932559) | about 8 years ago | (#16057608)

Usability improvements on the desktop are nice but when do people realize that usability improvements are desperately needed on the application level and only marginally on the desktop. What does it help if you have a perfect desktop but many of the applications one uses have a rather rubbish usability!

Usability is always measured in a greater context, a context which goes far beyond the Gnome desktop but spans any desktop used. Just think how an American driver feels when he drives in England or vice versa. You might interrupt that's rather seldom the case but not with computer desktops. Almost each Gnome users uses a KDE application and even 60% use a Windows application (http://www.desktoplinux.com/cgi-bin/survey/survey .cgi?view=archive&id=0821200617613 [desktoplinux.com] at the bottom) and everybody knows the easyness of MacOSX.

Sure application developers don't want to lose much time with usability they want to concentrate on functionality. So they can't follow multiple separate usability guidelines they simply don't have the time. Yet usability is a very important part in the acceptance of an application. To circumvent this, application developers should follow cross-desktop or cross-platform guidelines (http://wyoguide.sf.net/ [sf.net] ).

Yet Gnome might still follow the MacOSX way sticking to there own perfect way and be happy with a rather insignificant market share. Or they help working on fighting off the first "Top inhibitors of Linux desktop adoption" (http://www.osdl.org/dtl/DTL_Survey_Report_Nov2005 .pdf [osdl.org] ).

O. Wyss
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>