PDA

View Full Version : Should GNOME Fork?



brentoboy
July 25th, 2006, 10:18 PM
I am continually noticing blogs and forums where, in casual conversion, one man says:

I wish that GNOME would add such and such a feature.

and another man says:

Why donít you use KDE?

and the first man replies:

I donít like KDE. I really like GNOME, I just wish it did __ a certain way.

--
Then the posts start following saying that the GNOME project is too big, and it is not going anywhere, and lots of the DEVs who used to work on it are disenchanted because the project is too stubborn to add new things, yadda yadda yadda.

I donít care how much of that is really the case.

But I am curious, would you try a GNOME fork (we could call it "Second Foot" for the sake of argument, GNOME being the first "Foot")

It would still be based on GTK+ but it could focus on attractive usability. Probably have different goals... but it would start by simply taking an entire snapshot of GNOME as it is, and analyze which parts are important, and which parts need a re-implementation.

What do you think? Would the world benefit from a "Second Foot" desktop? Why? or Why not?

mips
July 25th, 2006, 10:20 PM
Would it not be easier to make KDE4 look like Gnome and retain the functionality people seek.

brentoboy
July 25th, 2006, 10:26 PM
I dont think that it is that people want it to be more like kde, they like the simple design of gnome, they really dont like kde (for whatever religious reasons they have) but dont feel 100% at home in GNOME.

aysiu
July 25th, 2006, 10:31 PM
In my experience, people who say "I don't like KDE" but want KDE features just don't like the default blue theme. If you customize KDE, it can look like Gnome and behave like KDE, which is really what these people want.

tseliot
July 25th, 2006, 10:35 PM
You forgot XFCE. And Enlightenment

ahaslam
July 25th, 2006, 10:43 PM
I think that a 'left foot' of Gnome would be a great idea, I'm all for more choice.
I like some of KDE's features like transparent menus (also available in xfce) and I like how responsive it feels.
My reasons for not using KDE is the heavy konqueror integration, the bloat, the higher use of resources & I pretty much solely run GTK apps.

Tony.

brentoboy
July 25th, 2006, 10:47 PM
I might as well post some refernces to my claim that people like to bash gnome, even though they like it.

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=9933
says:
A few days ago I was in the middle of a cyclone in the desktop-devel-list gnome mailing list asking the gnome devs to include the Gnome users in the process of evolving Gnome (because currently feature requests are getting very much ignored on their bugzilla). I just wanted the Gnome users to be asked (whatever the way, not just by using a poll) what are their most needed features and having the Gnome devs implement the ones that makes sense to implement. This way, more users would be happier about the apparently "closed" nature of Gnome's development.

I got the answer I expected from the Novell/Sun/Red-Hat people: "regarding market research, we care about it only when happens from our marketing department and to our customers". They don't care about the "generic" Gnome user. That's ok. Understandable. These guys have a business to run.

----------
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=15266

The Mono/GNOME debate. What bothers me most about this debate is, well, that the debate even exists at all. Let's face it, boys and girls, the applications that currently make GNOME a usable home desktop are Mono-based. What is GNOME without F-Spot? Without Banshee? Without iFolder? And, most importantly, without Beagle? If I were a normal user, without all the knowledge (no arrogance intended, this time) I have now, I'd be amazed to hear the technology that powers these applications is not part of the GNOME Desktop/Development Environment!
...
That is what GNOME needs too: an elected someone or team who makes the final decisions in important matters, after weighing the pros and cons as discussed on the various mailing lists. That is the only way a large project like GNOME can be run effectively. Someone who is above the politics, someone who does not care about the origins of a project, someone who is not related to any of the three big companies sponsoring GNOME. Now, the developers behind GNOME discussing this issue, feel a lot like those politicians to me. They appear out of touch with what the ordinary user wants.

----------
http://www.guistyles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=457

[Feature X] will never happen.

I would mostly agree. At least, as long as Red Hat maintains its strangle hold on gnome Tongue ...but then again, gnome 2.12 was released with a horrid, slow dog cairo, so, who knows anymore. I never thought I'd see something so silly, but then I'm reminded of the gnome 1.4 days

---
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=190994

just read through any gnome kde discussion on these forums, there are a few who like it but hate it at the same time.

garba
July 25th, 2006, 10:50 PM
yep gnome should fork and its output be sent to /dev/null

;)

aysiu
July 25th, 2006, 10:52 PM
If you have people available who aren't doing anything else, why not create the fork? If it's successful and people use it, great. If it tanks, it tanks.

Such is the nature of open source.

garba
July 25th, 2006, 10:56 PM
If you have people available who aren't doing anything else, why not create the fork? If it's successful and people use it, great. If it tanks, it tanks.

Such is the nature of open source.

yep, and pollute the linux desktop environment even further? no thanks, sometimes NOT doing something is the best thing to do

brentoboy
July 25th, 2006, 10:56 PM
Why I am happier with gnome, but dont really like either.

I think that desktops need to focus on the environement and not try to offer applications. Applications need to become desktop agnostic, and offer the ability to compile for either gtk / qt / fltk / what-have-you. Certainly that is less work than having a seperate text editor for each desktop.

Koffice, gnomeoffice, why do these need to exist? I dont disagree with the need for lighter office apps, I only disagree with making them "go" with a particular desktop.

kwrite, gedit, mousepad, wouldnt we be better off if there was one really good one -- maybe two, a full featured one and a light weight one, and then all the desktops just use what they want.

gcalctool, kcalc?

what a waist of time having desktop specific apps. how much of gnome and kde projects are for developing their apps instead of maintaining the true features of the desktop?

I dont see either GNOME or KDE dropping all the extra projects and focusing their efforts on the User Interface.


Those are the primary reasons I got to thinking that maybe gnome would be better if its core was forked to a project that focused entirly on attractive usabiliy. And let the user select which applications they want to run for each function of thier system.

brentoboy
July 25th, 2006, 11:02 PM
yep, and pollute the linux desktop environment even further? no thanks, sometimes NOT doing something is the best thing to do

have you considered that the only way to unify the linux landscape is to have one desktop that shows it is superior through survival of the fittest.

neither GNOME nor KDE have taken a clear lead. This is becuase both of them have things that people dislike.

It is the same with linux distros. Ubuntu wouldnt exist if they hadnt started a branch from debian. It is now quite popular, and it is surpassing a lot of other distros.

in this case, adding one more (ubuntu) has acutally consoldiated the linux user base so that more and more are using the same thing rather than a fragmented user space.

sometimes, over the corse of evolution, a mutation occurs which creates an entirly new species, which may or may not outperform its pre-species. If it is superior, it becomes dominant.

There is no reason that a fork should be discouraged, unless there is not a "market" for linux users who want gnome but want it a little different.

blackdahliamurder
July 25th, 2006, 11:02 PM
In my experience, people who say "I don't like KDE" but want KDE features just don't like the default blue theme. If you customize KDE, it can look like Gnome and behave like KDE, which is really what these people want.

Which theme are you talking about? I've checked kde-look.org and can't find what you're mentioning.

blitzd
July 25th, 2006, 11:03 PM
Why would you need a forked Gnome to do what you want? Isn't it fairly modular anyways?

In any software project there is going to be disagreement about features and direction. Doesn't mean the dev community should splinter because of it though - that's typically a good way to decrease overall progress. Sometimes it's neccesary when a project becomes particularly stagnant and a mass of other software depends on there being a standard (XFree86). But with Gnome I would think it would be easy enough to just modify the parts you don't like - unless their drastic changes, and at that point wouldn't you just be introducing breakage into any other Gnome based apps anyways?

tageiru
July 25th, 2006, 11:05 PM
There was a fork of GNOME some years ago called GoneME (in fact, it had similar goals to your proposed fork). Not all that surprisingly it failed horribly, and I am guessing that any other attempt at doing the same will also fail. GNOME is not just some random window manager, the scale of the project is massive and it has strong relations with companies like Sun, Red Hat and Novell. The amount of manpower and time needed do not justify a fork just to squeeze some more functionality into it.

And by the way, what functionality do you think is missing? When I compare GNOME to KDE or even Windows and Mac OS X I think it is providing a fairly complete environment with the added bonus of focusing on people which are not interested in their computer the way that Linux users traditionally have been.

aysiu
July 25th, 2006, 11:08 PM
Which theme are you talking about? I've checked kde-look.org and can't find what you're mentioning.
http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=42746
http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=42016

aysiu
July 25th, 2006, 11:11 PM
And by the way, what functionality do you think is missing? How about changing what folder your GLSlideshow screensaver looks at? Making a slideshow on the desktop? Having one wallpaper per workspace? Turning numlock on by default? Viewing music ID3 tag metadata within the file browser? These are things that get frequently requested by these "I hate KDE but why can't Gnome do..." people. The answer is usually "Use KDE" or "Install this helper application."

blitzd
July 25th, 2006, 11:26 PM
Why I am happier with gnome, but dont really like either.

I think that desktops need to focus on the environement and not try to offer applications. Applications need to become desktop agnostic,
There are desktop agnostic applications - they're called console apps. :D

and offer the ability to compile for either gtk / qt / fltk / what-have-you. Certainly that is less work than having a seperate text editor for each desktop.
I challenge you to take the smallest Gnome app you can find and make it cross-toolkit compatible for just ONE other toolkit that it was not natively written for. Good luck.


Koffice, gnomeoffice, why do these need to exist? I dont disagree with the need for lighter office apps, I only disagree with making them "go" with a particular desktop.
Maybe because someone at some point said 'Hey, I don't like the way gnomeoffice/Koffice works - lets fork it!'? Just a wild guess ;)

kwrite, gedit, mousepad, wouldnt we be better off if there was one really good one -- maybe two, a full featured one and a light weight one, and then all the desktops just use what they want.
Isn't it the users who are using what they want? If there wasn't a demand for these apps they wouldn't be there would they?


gcalctool, kcalc?

And you want to add secondfootcalc to the list?


what a waist of time having desktop specific apps. how much of gnome and kde projects are for developing their apps instead of maintaining the true features of the desktop?

And when you create your Gnome fork that makes everything desktop agnostic, what use will it be with no Apps? So far as I can tell you want to make a desktop environment in which you can't actually do anything. Or are the apps going to just appear by some divine coding intervention?!?

brentoboy
July 25th, 2006, 11:40 PM
And when you create your Gnome fork that makes everything desktop agnostic, what use will it be with no Apps? So far as I can tell you want to make a desktop environment in which you can't actually do anything. Or are the apps going to just appear by some divine coding intervention?!?

first off, I loved your post. Very nice, just what I needed. A little lighthearted releaf from the potential flamers.


anyway, it would be gtk based, it would mirror gnome in many ways, even keep compatibiliy with it in many ways. but who needs epiphany? and evolution? (if you want them, add them) use firefox and thunderbird -- if you want.

A new foot wouldnt remove the ability to use any particular application, it just wouldnt imply that gnomebaker is for some reason superior to k3b simply becuase you are running on gnome.

---
actually, it would be cool if this g-new desktop supported QT and GTK toolkits, and had themes that could use either and have them look the same, so that one control panel selection for themes would make k-apps and g-apps look harmonious.

Jucato
July 26th, 2006, 12:19 AM
I don't hate GNOME. I just don't like what I can't do with it. It just occurred to me that if GNOME had the same level of customization features that I've found in KDE, I would have been a GNOME user from the beginning, regardless of default color schemes. Customization is a big, big thing for me, as it is one of the primary reasons I opted to use Linux over Windows.


have you considered that the only way to unify the linux landscape is to have one desktop that shows it is superior through survival of the fittest.

That's only one way. Another way is freedesktop.org (http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/). Having one DE to rule them all sounds too much like Windows. Linux is, and has always been, about choice. Survival of the fittest is evolutionary. Evolution is gradual, not abrupt. Abrupt changes are disruptive and destructive (Dinosaurs anyone?)

I'm not sure how easy or difficult it is to make DE-agnostic apps. The most important question probably would be: what toolkit will you use? Will you support both Qt and GTK (I think VMWare Server does that)? Or will you use another toolkit? All GUI apps need a toolkit, AFAIK.

However, I don't think that a fork is good right now. At least not yet until the Portland project is well on it's feet. Or not for the current reasons available. I think that only a very radical and drastic reason would justify forking GNOME.

brentoboy
July 26th, 2006, 01:14 AM
wow,

25% agree that there is potential benfit to be had from forking...

that is a huge number.

we know from another poll (if you trust it) that about twice as many ubuntu users stick with gnome instead of kde, and if 25% of them would like a "left foot" alternative to gnome. then that is still more users than xubuntu (or so I figure -- based on no data at all except my own speculation).

that's a lot. I figured I'd be strapped to get 5 or 10% of users to say it could be a good idea.

Jucato
July 26th, 2006, 01:22 AM
wow,

25% agree that there is potential benfit to be had from forking...

that is a huge number.

we know from another poll (if you trust it) that about twice as many ubuntu users stick with gnome instead of kde, and if 25% of them would like a "left foot" alternative to gnome. then that is still more users than xubuntu (or so I figure -- based on no data at all except my own speculation).

that's a lot. I figured I'd be strapped to get 5 or 10% of users to say it could be a good idea.

Hmm... 25% out of 39 votes = 10 votes. Not really that big considering there we have lots of members. Not to mention that 23% says that GNOME and KDE (and Xfce, too, I guess) are enough.

The problem about the other poll that you mentioned (about people sticking to GNOME instead of KDE) is that it was asked in a place that is more GNOME-based than KDE-based. It's like asking here whether they think Fedora Core is better than Ubuntu. You're bound to get more Ubuntu/GNOME answers. Let's face it. Most Kubuntu users don't hang around. And most of the users that do hang around here (where polls are made) are GNOME users. You're bound to get those results.

Stormy Eyes
July 26th, 2006, 01:33 AM
What do you think? Would the world benefit from a "Second Foot" desktop? Why? or Why not?

Whether the world would benefit or not means absolutely nothing. If a group of GNOME users wants GNOME to work in a certain manner or is displeased with the direction in which GNOME is heading, then that is reason enough to fork GNOME.

After all, forking XFree86 proved to be the right thing to do. If a GNOME fork is a bad idea, then it will eventually die.

Jucato
July 26th, 2006, 01:42 AM
I think that there's another "factor" (or 2) that we have not yet considered: GTK+ and Metacity.

Much of what GNOME can do, or what some GNOME users want to do, is limited by developments on GTK+ and Metacity. I'm not sure if Metacity is developed separately, but I'm sure GTK+ is. AFAIK, GTK+ is not part of the GNOME project, but of the larger GNU project. So a forking GNOME would not entirely be practical/useful, without a forking of GTK (and Metacity), too. Unless of course the "fork" is really more concerned about the development process rather than some features.

sapo
July 26th, 2006, 01:48 AM
What i really think is, if we had just ONE Desktop from the start, linux would be in place of Windows today and would be the most used OS, freedom of choice is a two sided sword and sadly we were killed with our own sword.

brentoboy
July 26th, 2006, 01:55 AM
as this thread progressed, I was thinking that what we need isnt necessarily a fork of gnome, but more of a "Unified Linux Desktop." ULD

It would be toolkit agnistic by supporing all popular toolkits nativly and try to have themes for each that look like each other.

It would focus on those portions of the desktop that honestly are "desktop" apps and not the ones that are applciations. for instance, it would have a fork of file manager (forked from an exsiting popular one) a menu system ... and all that stuff.

it would eliminate bloat (in spite of installing significant portions of other existing desktop dependancies) by avoiding excess applications.

if you want apps, install them yourself.

we provide system settings apps, and other core functionality, you choose your own torrent client, IM client, email client, browser, ... etc. Whatever toolkit it uses, it will still look nice on the ULD.

Jucato
July 26th, 2006, 02:01 AM
What i really think is, if we had just ONE Desktop from the start, linux would be in place of Windows today and would be the most used OS, freedom of choice is a two sided sword and sadly we were killed with our own sword.

Taking your logic a bit further...


What i really think is, if we had just ONE distribution from the start, linux would be in place of Windows today and would be the most used OS, freedom of choice is a two sided sword and sadly we were killed with our own sword.


Yes, freedom is a scary thing to wield, if you don't wield it properly. But must the answer to that involve removing the blade? Okay, enough metaphors.

I think we have to take into consideration more than just the present "concerns" of Linux, but also its history and its lineage, why things are so. Linux was never started to replace Windows in the first place. It was actually meant to be a UNIX clone. It was only later on, when Linux began gaining popularity that the "trend" of trying to oust Windows started.

Also, back then there was only one DE: KDE. But the FSF people were not happy with it. So they decided to make another one (rather than use their resources to convince Trolltech to release Qt with a more GPL-friendly license, which it eventually did anyway): GNOME. But competition between the two was good, anyway. At least we get to see things that we want/don't want, and evolve.

Then we also have to consider Linux's lineage: the world of Free and Open Source Software. It's a world were no one shoves things down your throat, where you are free to go where you want to go, where you have a choice.

Choice is scary. But it is good.

Personally, I don't think that Linux should focus on really trying to outseat Microsoft. I think it should focus on being the best of what it can become. If by being the best of what it can be would eventually lead to Microsoft being "defeated", then well and good. It's should be a side effect, not a goal.

Jucato
July 26th, 2006, 02:09 AM
@brentoboy: freedesktop.org, specifically the Portland project, seeks to do that, but on a more fundamental level. AFAIK, toolkits don't only differ in the looks and some features, but in API calls as well. I think that's one thing that the project seeks to solve.

I'm also not sure how much toolkit-agnostic an app could be. So far, VMWare Server is the only one I've seen that changed appearance when I'm logged in GNOME and when I'm logged in KDE.

That ULD concept really sounds like a new Desktop Environment in the end.

aysiu
July 26th, 2006, 02:11 AM
What i really think is, if we had just ONE Desktop from the start, linux would be in place of Windows today and would be the most used OS, freedom of choice is a two sided sword and sadly we were killed with our own sword.
http://www.psychocats.net/essays/unifiedlinux.php

KaeseEs
July 26th, 2006, 03:54 AM
I've ghosted on this thread since the beginning, from the initial fork discussion to the turn towards a 'unified desktop' argument. There are a few points to be made:

- nothing will stop someone from running KDE apps in GNOME, or vice-versa, provided that they have the necessary libraries installed ( not a worry if the software in question was installed w/ apt[itude] ). For instance, back when I used GNOME, I ran Ksirc as my irc client with no issues.

- having a plurality of applications per task is a net positive. Certainly there will be some duplication of effort ( due mostly to 'not invented here' syndrome ), but on the whole, competition is good for software development, as it provides choice and allows developers to feed off each others ideas without as much bloat as exists in a monolithic environment.

- a 'unified' desktop is both impossible and undesirable.

This last point requires some explanation. When one refers to a 'unified' desktop, they refer (generally) to a single desktop environment that will run both GNOME and KDE apps ( those that refer instead to a 'new standard' can search Wiktionary for 'momentum' ). However, as explained above, a 'GNOME app' is merely an application that uses GTK+ as its graphical API, whereas a 'KDE app' is merely an app that uses Qt as its graphical API. Thus, the difference is in the source code. This is similar ( though not perefctly analogous ) to the DirectX and OpenGL APIs used in game programming. Thus there are three possible ways to unify:

1) Install both GTK+ and Qt libs by default and run programs depending on both simultaneously.

2) Have developers code the same interface with both GTK+ and Qt and provide some toggle in the app as to which to use.

3) Provide some wrapper API which calls whichever library the user has installed for graphical functions.


Now, #1 is inefficient ad extremis; it both requires twice the disk space on the user's system for graphical libs, and also is a memory hog, as it will generally require twice as many graphics libs be loaded into memory at any given time. Also, it will often slow the loading of programs, as the situation will often arise where a program must load a lib into memory from the disk ( very slow ) rather than utilizing the copy of its each of its libs already in memory from other apps using the same API running that have already loaded the necessary libs. Of note, this approach is basically how Microsoft solved their pre-Win2K 'DLL hell' issues.

#2 is attractive, as it is efficient from a user's perspective, by requiring just one set of libs installed and loaded in memory at any given time and maximizes resource re-use. It is also a pipedream, as few devs want to take the time writing ( and debugging! ) all their interfaces twice, and maintaining both versions synchronously, especially when they get nothing in return. Of note, this is the approach some Windows games take to the DirectX vs OpenGL issue.

#3 is perhaps the most attractive solution, as it maintains all the benefits of #2, without requiring devs to write, debug and maintain all their GUI code twice. It is also, unfortunately, next to impossible. You see, if GTK+ and Qt handled the work of constructing a GUI identically, it would be trivial to write such a wrapper for devs to use. If they handled it similarly, it would be easy to write such a wrapper. However, the structures each use are not even close in many areas ( at times, functionally identical code can be 200% longer or shorter, depending on which API is used to write it! ), and thus the construction of such a wrapper API is a pipe dream.


As such, any 'unified' desktop setup faces a rather disappointing array of choices as to the details of its implementation. Note also that, at one point, 'n*x had but one graphical API - Motif. This failed ( or, more accurately, was made obsolete by Qt and later GTK ) for reasons too complex and boring to delve into here.


Finally, if one examines the lesser issue of a 'single desktop to rule them all' without the issue of the API/application set, one is still confounded by the first two unenumerated points near the top of the post, as they apply equally to window managers & desktops as they do to any other software. Your best bet is to pick whichever wm/desktop suits your fancy ( I like Fluxbox, personally ), pick either GTK+ or Qt apps to use ( generally ), configure Readahead properly, and run Prelink at boot and after installations/upgrades. This will give you choice, configurability, and a minimum of overhead.

Stormy Eyes
July 26th, 2006, 04:29 AM
What i really think is, if we had just ONE Desktop from the start, linux would be in place of Windows today and would be the most used OS.

People keep saying that, and I keep trying to figure out where they got such a harebrained idea. Microsoft got a lock on the market because they had an OS to offer (DOS) when IBM needed one for its new line of PCs. Perhaps if Linus had been hacking Linux back in 1980 and had something to show the suits at IBM, perhaps we'd all be bitching about how Linux is tool the "evil empire" instead of Windows.

IYY
July 26th, 2006, 04:35 AM
I don't think we need a fork, but I do think Gnome should stop removing features. The key to user-friendly design is to make more obscure features harder to find, and commonly used features easily accessible, but removing features is just plain stupid! ](*,)

blitzd
July 26th, 2006, 04:43 AM
first off, I loved your post. Very nice, just what I needed. A little lighthearted releaf from the potential flamers.Glad you liked it. ;) But there were a few points buried deep beneath all that sarcasm.

Mainly I don't think starting another desktop effort is going to help 'unify' the linux desktop world.

You say you would maintain compatibility with gtk, and maybe add native support for qt and a few other toolkits - but that would just introduce bloat and more complexity (a.k.a. code that is difficult to maintain and slow). With every external piece of code your project is dependant on you also become that much more restricted in what you can actually do in your own efforts - I don't see how you could accomplish much of anything without breaking compatibility with the toolkits. If you did manage, you'd be introducing a whole new level of dependancy hell - or, you'd pretty much have to start your own distro and compile every app / game to work with your new desktop environment.

And I realize you're talking about all of this at a very high level - the devil is always in the details with software projects though.

neither GNOME nor KDE have taken a clear lead. This is becuase both of them have things that people dislike.
You could also look at that another way - neither Gnome nor KDE have fallen behind, because both of them have things that people LIKE. The reason why there are so many distros, so many different versions of a simple calculator app, etc - is because at some point in time people wanted them! A native calc for this DE, or a GTK text editor for that. But it's not just because of linux desktop environments supporting different toolkits natively - look at emacs, vi, vim, pico, nano... People like choice.

It is the same with linux distros. Ubuntu wouldnt exist if they hadnt started a branch from debian. It is now quite popular, and it is surpassing a lot of other distros.But can you honestly say the umpteen different linux distros based off of debian/slackware/redhat/etc have unified the linux world? Why would another desktop environment be any different? Sure Ubuntu has a large user base, but look at how many people there are in the forums struggling to get this or that package working on it still... That's because apps have to be specifically compiled to a Ubuntu environment, and I don't see how it would be any different with a DE that contained significant changes.

I'm not saying I don't have issues with certain parts of Gnome (metacity = :evil:). I just don't think another desktop environment is the answer to what you're saying the problems are.

brentoboy
July 26th, 2006, 04:50 AM
well, dont worry too much about it, I dont have the time to do it myself, nor do I have that kind of long term commitment to a simgle project.

not only that, but it would be a huge huge undertaking that I dont have the resources to fund.

it was more of a question.

deep down, I am just curious about whether or not people think that gnome is starting to get in its own way.

everything else posted here is just me wandering around the possiblities looking for input so I can gather a decent opinion on the subject.

fuscia
July 26th, 2006, 04:51 AM
isn't his how World War I started?

Jucato
July 26th, 2006, 05:42 AM
Just give me a desktop environment with the "freedom" (EDIT: free as in "more-compliant-with-GPL-and-FSF-moral/legal-standards-just-to avoid-any-moral/legal-debates-on-the-morality/legality-of-the-toolkit/desktop") and cleanliness of GNOME, the "customizability" of KDE, and the speed of Xfce, and you've got me hooked, no matter what the name is (as long as it's not something vulgar, demeaning, etc.), no matter what the programming language it's based on (even BASIC :p).

That's my dream desktop. If anyone knows something like that, feel free to contact me. :D

(Or maybe I'll try making my own... after a few years of studying :D)

ubuntu_demon
July 26th, 2006, 09:03 AM
No I don't want gnome to fork. Some time into the future they are going to do a clean break to ThreePointZero. IMHO the gnome developers should decide when they want to do that. Maybe this will mean mostly security updates and just a few new features for the 2.x series for a while.

from http://live.gnome.org/ThreePointZero :



There is currently no timeline for GNOME 3.0, but whenever it happens, it will be our first opportunity to make a clean break from the 2.x series, which has a number of compatibility concerns. This page should serve to document and remind us of all the things we want to rectify, but won't be able to do without breaking compatibility with 2.x.

Topaz comes from 'Three Point Zero', or TPZ, with some vowels.

croak77
July 26th, 2006, 09:16 AM
NO to a GNOME fork. YES to a new window manager. Can't stand Metacity.

beniwtv
July 26th, 2006, 10:04 AM
Turning numlock on by default? Viewing music ID3 tag metadata within the file browser?

Gnome does both for me. Without helper apps. OOTB.

asimon
July 26th, 2006, 11:09 AM
I miss the "I don't care but if you have great ideas and resources to put behind them, and they can not go upstream, just fork and let's see what your result looks like" option.

ubuntu_demon
July 26th, 2006, 11:22 AM
Gnome 2.16 will be a nice improvement :
http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointFifteen/ReleaseNotes
http://ubuntudemon.wordpress.com/2006/07/26/216-release-notes-work-in-progress/
http://digg.com/linux_unix/2_16_release_notes_work_in_progress

Bezmotivnik
July 26th, 2006, 12:02 PM
Forks are the cancer of open source and Linux.

Virogenesis
July 26th, 2006, 12:04 PM
Sure why not fork it, xfce is gtk based and no one has a problem with it, fact remains some do prefer gnome apps to kde apps I use to love kde but konqueror sucks big time.
I would love to see some added features to gnome for example being able to have my menu within the title bar of the window like how macs do, this would help me get the most out of my screen.
gnome has such much potential but because of the goals they can't.
I cannot see gnome switching over from metacity to compiz for example.

Virogenesis
July 26th, 2006, 12:04 PM
Forks are the cancer of open source and Linux.
Since when?
Please explain yourself because I think you'll find that many including linus would disagree.
If it wasn't for forks ubuntu wouldn't exist remember that

asimon
July 26th, 2006, 01:01 PM
Forks are the cancer of open source and Linux.
Then Ubuntu must be the the cancer of Linux distributions in your eyes. What treatment do you propose? Start from scratch and base everything on propritary software? Such a thing already exist and many people came to the conclusion that it's not the best development model.

The possibility of forks is good because they let you improve things which already exist instead of starting from scratch. They are a natural result from the freedoms granted by Free Software. The right to modify software and redistribute this modified software is very fundamental to Free Software.

xtacocorex
July 26th, 2006, 01:17 PM
On Lack of Gnome Customization:
One thing I've noticed about Gnome users is that they sometimes complain about lack of customization. I have recently switched to Gnome, and although it does lack some features I would have wanted in KDE, I've been able to adapt to how Gnome does things and can now live without them.

If you want a feature, get the source, and write a patch. A developer is more likely to include something if you send them a patch, instead of complaining about having them add a feature. File a wish list item and attach the patch. If you don't know how to program, think of it as an opportunity to expand your knowledge base, it may be hard initially, but it can be quite enjoyable.

KDE was started with the customization in mind, hence why there is so much to it.

On GTK & Qt:
When it comes down to the nitty-gritty, both toolkits do the same thing, they just draw stuff a little differently.

Fork Issue:
Should Gnome fork? I've been following this thread and have still to come to a decision. I'm leaning towards not forking Gnome and seeing what the developers do with Gnome 3.0. Sometimes a complete re-write of a code is necessary.

kabus
July 26th, 2006, 01:31 PM
Sometimes a complete re-write of a code is necessary.

http://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html

xtacocorex
July 26th, 2006, 01:58 PM
I retract my statement on the complete re-write, thanks kabus for pointing this out to me.

kabus
July 26th, 2006, 02:03 PM
It was a joke, mainly. :)
I'm sure a rewrite is perfectly ok in some in situations (not that I would know, since my biggest project ever was "Hello, World").

asimon
July 26th, 2006, 02:04 PM
If you want a feature, get the source, and write a patch. A developer is more likely to include something if you send them a patch, instead of complaining about having them add a feature. File a wish list item and attach the patch. If you don't know how to program, think of it as an opportunity to expand your knowledge base, it may be hard initially, but it can be quite enjoyable.
Yes, and the wonderful about Free Software is that if you want to do something the upstream maintainer doesn't agree with or you want to shift the whole thing into a new direction, you can! The right to do so is even guaranteed by the license.



On GTK & Qt:
When it comes down to the nitty-gritty, both toolkits do the same thing, they just draw stuff a little differently.

But only if you regard only the GUI part of Qt. Qt is a much bigger framework, it does also offer functionality for database programming, XML processing, file handling, networking, threading, and more which GTK+ itself doesn't offer. GTK+ software uses various seperate libraries for these things.

xtacocorex
July 26th, 2006, 02:21 PM
It was a joke, mainly. :)

Sorry for not recognizing the joke, it's early where I'm at and the brain isn't functioning fully yet.


But only if you regard only the GUI part of Qt.
That's sort of what I was referring to.

I'm not against a fork at all if someone chooses to do it, I will probably try it out and give feedback.

If I didn't have so many other ideas for stuff I want to program and build, I might even help out.

blitzd
July 26th, 2006, 02:31 PM
Since when?
Please explain yourself because I think you'll find that many including linus would disagree.
If it wasn't for forks ubuntu wouldn't exist remember that

I think there is some difference of opinion here as to what 'Forking' implies. In my mind when a software project forks it is because there are two groups of contributors who have similar goals and vision of direction that just don't mesh together. It typically means one or the other of the projects is most likely going to die (xorg/XFree86).

Ubuntu is not a 'fork' of debian. It is debian based. If the debian team up and vanished one day then the Ubuntu team would have a hell of a lot more work on their hands maintaining all of the upstream code that debian provides (upon which Ubuntu is based). Xorg on the other hand (a fork), is not dependant on XFree86 - it's a snapshot of that codebase at a point in time that went off in a different direction (thus the term 'fork'), but it's not reliant on any newly produced XFree86 code (whether there is any or not).

Anyways, here is a good description (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_fork) of the difference between a 'fork' and a 'branch' (which I think is where the confusion is coming from here). Coincidentally, it also leads to this wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoneME). And there is another good article here (http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/forking.html).

Jucato
July 26th, 2006, 02:32 PM
On Lack of GNOME customization:
So let's say, if I want to be able to force a window to open at a specific location with a specific size, I have to learn how to code in order to do that "natively" in GNOME? If I wanted to have different wallpapers per workspace, I have to learn to add that in Metacity? I do realize your point. But do you also realize how many "regular" users will be willing to do that? I mean, really, zealously, willing to do that?

On GTK+ and Qt:
As asimon pointed out, the difference between the two are more than just appearances. If it were, why then would there be even a need for something like the Portland project. I'm not sure about specific details, but I think API calls are one of the major differences between the two.

@Virogenesis: Xfce isn't really a fork of GNOME. (EDIT: removed the forking reference). Xfce is a totally different DE which uses GTK+ as it's toolkit. That's about the only similarity they have. But the fact that they're using the same toolkit makes them seem to be so similar.

Again, I don't believe a fork of GNOME is necessary. But perhaps a change of pace or development or HIG (human interface guidelines) would be nice.

Virogenesis
July 26th, 2006, 02:47 PM
Ok heres....a fork for you gaim-vv... gaim-vv filled the gap which gaim never did lets remember where gaim-vv is now.... yes inside gaim.
This is what could be considered a successful fork IMO its a shame GoneME never took off

blitzd
July 26th, 2006, 04:08 PM
Ok heres....a fork for you gaim-vv... gaim-vv filled the gap which gaim never did lets remember where gaim-vv is now.... yes inside gaim.
This is what could be considered a successful fork IMO its a shame GoneME never took off

Thats really more of a 'branch'. The aim was not to create a different IM to compete with Gaim, it was to add video and voice support (something Gaim didn't do) with the intention of them being backported into the original codebase. 'A friendly fork' according to their own website, but never with the intention of replacing Gaim.

Here is another good article I found on forking of desktop environments: http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT3601556298.html

Bezmotivnik
July 26th, 2006, 05:11 PM
The possibility of forks is good because they let you improve things which already exist instead of starting from scratch.
Conceivably, we are talking about two different things; to me, forks are development schisms.

To that extent, forks are to successful software development precisely what divorce is to successful marriage.

Considering that the biggest problem with Linux and open source generally is a poverty of development funding and management, bifurcating a project is clearly a bad thing that retards overall progress. You don't win battles by splitting your command & forces.

I've seen this happen plenty in Linux projects. It's what happens when immature, insecure people with big egos (usually unjustified by their abilities) are working for free.

Perhaps you are using "fork" in another sense.

brentoboy
July 26th, 2006, 05:16 PM
I retract my statement on the complete re-write, thanks kabus for pointing this out to me.

windows NT was a complete rewrite.

and the nt series doesnt have the blue-screen-of-death plauge like the 3.1 / 9x / me group does.

complete rewrites are necessary when the origial is hard to maintain becuase it's original design is no longer expandable without more work just to keep it from crippling existing code that needs the old way in order to work correctly.

in my own coding and design style, I find that I get 3 to 5 reworks on an original design before I know more than I did in the beginning, and could get a lot more done by redesigning from scratch without reworking the existing design again -- of course you then steal the original source code and plug chunks of it into the new design.

Virogenesis
July 26th, 2006, 05:42 PM
Thats really more of a 'branch'. The aim was not to create a different IM to compete with Gaim, it was to add video and voice support (something Gaim didn't do) with the intention of them being backported into the original codebase. 'A friendly fork' according to their own website, but never with the intention of replacing Gaim.

Here is another good article I found on forking of desktop environments: http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT3601556298.html

Friendly forks are fine, who said replace gnome, most have just stated things could be better for example the ubuntu control panel within darkmatter's sled package is fantastic improvements like this are welcomed by many.

Many would like to have global menus like mac you'll find if you do a google search the results show its a requested enough feature.

http://www.carcosa.net/jason/software/obsolete/gnome-globalmenu/

Could it be done without taking away gnome's ease of use?
Yes it could you could have a option to change to a mac os layout within themes and appearance.

Forks don't have to be bad forks can act as branches, things can be picked out and added nothing wrong with that.

xtacocorex
July 26th, 2006, 05:55 PM
windows NT was a complete rewrite.

and the nt series doesnt have the blue-screen-of-death plauge like the 3.1 / 9x / me group does.

complete rewrites are necessary when the origial is hard to maintain becuase it's original design is no longer expandable without more work just to keep it from crippling existing code that needs the old way in order to work correctly.

in my own coding and design style, I find that I get 3 to 5 reworks on an original design before I know more than I did in the beginning, and could get a lot more done by redesigning from scratch without reworking the existing design again -- of course you then steal the original source code and plug chunks of it into the new design.

Good points brentoboy, it's been a long morning here at work so I'm trying to stay sane and in the meantime, forget to fully think stuff out.

I haven't fully re-written any of my programs since most of them are short and for a specific problem, but I do see where you are coming from.

Sorry for my lack of consistency today, I should return to normal by tomorrow.

Iandefor
July 26th, 2006, 06:22 PM
Forks are the cancer of open source and Linux.
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/forking.html

Forks are *extremely* necessary to keep unhealthy projects from dominating the field.

Stormy Eyes
July 26th, 2006, 06:22 PM
Forks are the cancer of open source and Linux.

If everybody believed that, we'd still be stuck with XFree86.

asimon
July 26th, 2006, 06:51 PM
Conceivably, we are talking about two different things; to me, forks are development schisms.
They are. But this doesn't mean that it's bad. Something better can come out of it.



To that extent, forks are to successful software development precisely what divorce is to successful marriage.

Considering that the biggest problem with Linux and open source generally is a poverty of development funding and management, bifurcating a project is clearly a bad thing that retards overall progress. You don't win battles by splitting your command & forces.

I've seen this happen plenty in Linux projects. It's what happens when immature, insecure people with big egos (usually unjustified by their abilities) are working for free.

Perhaps you are using "fork" in another sense.
Of course most of the time it's better to be able to push the patches upstream but the possibility of forking is a valuable right. You are not dependent on the goodwill and dicisions of upstream maintainers, your are not imprisoned in their ways and their goals. If you disagree and don't find an other solution you can fork. I think having this option is great and very fundamental to Free Software.

Forks are usually no problem, we don't see many different incompatible Linux kernels or different Gnome or KDE environments with splitted developer groups. I don't see that the possibility for everyone being able to fork any Free Software project is a bad thing. We don't see much problems because of this. Sometimes we see that a fork can be very good in that for example it preserves freedom. Good examples in this regard are Sourceforge and Savane, or Joomla! and Mambo.

Or take the forks of gcc around 1998 (FSF's gcc development was dead back then). They really fanned new development and then later egcs brought it all together again. It was progress! Also xorg and Xfree. See also the sane'98 paper from Ian Jackson (in PS format) (http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/sane98-talk.ps).

HeavyAl
July 26th, 2006, 07:07 PM
Ok, I'll bite.

I voted for the fork, but thats only in lieu of the current devs modifying their approach to how they feel gnome should be presented. This may call for some lengthy explanation.

From what I have seen so far, the Gnome devs seem bent on making gnome extremely simple at the cost of configurability. There are a lot of things that can be modified in Gnome but most of the functionality for it is hidden by default, as if the devs are afraid that it is going to overwhelm the user in some manner. This is what I see to be the primary problem.

I think KDE got the configuration stuff right from the beginning when they made a unified 'control panel' of sorts that allows you to change just about every aspect of the KDE interface and experience from one central location. In Gnome we have the system menu which allows some measure of control, but much of the underlying system is still masked unless you know how to add in some of the more esoteric tools (most of which can be gotten through synaptic but why they aren't there by default is a mystery to me).

Imo, Gnome should have a central control panel that gives you control over every aspect of the gnome experience. And to address the fact that certain apps are more KDE-based, and others GTK-based it should have the ability to choose a particular interface style for those non-gtk apps so that they integrate at least visually with Gnome. For example, I cant stand the current batch of Gnome media players - I prefer Amarok, but I hate the KDE interface so right now I have to use the KDE control panel to setup the look of KDE apps to be similar to the GTK apps that I normally run just for this one app. That means installing a bunch of KDE-centric stuff that I dont need other than for making this one app look good on my primarily Gnome-based desktop.

Then there is Nautilus. I like Nautilus, but I find that it is severely lacking many times in functions that other file-browsing tools include by default. Actually, the first complaint I have about it is that its rather slow even on higher-end machines. I like list views - Icons are nice, and for listing movies or images large icons are great, but for managing system files its just clunky. Coming from an old DOS and 'Commander' style background I like my files to be more 'textually' listed rather than 'drawn' as they seem to be made to do in Nautilus. There are also lots of little bugs in it such as renaming a file - try right-clickign a file and hitting rename .. you get the first two letters of the original filename and then the filename in full listed next to it .. I cant imagine this was intentional. And whats up with showing the path? Unless you set your behaviour to 'always open in browser windows' there is no path bar. Sure, its got the little popup at the bottom left of the window which will give you the parent dirs but if your working between a console and an open folder its a bit of a pain to have to use the drop down to see where you are in the path. Just put a stinkin path bar at the top of the window for cryin out loud! That would also make it easier just to type in the path of where you wanted to be so you could just go there instead of clicking around to get to a location.

Ok, there are dozens of other irritations I could list but the bottom line is that they aren't enough for me to move from Gnome to KDE or any other environment (including XFCE, Enlightenment, et al). If the devs could address these things it would be great but if not then maybe a fork would be the way to go.

egon spengler
July 26th, 2006, 07:37 PM
There are also lots of little bugs in it such as renaming a file - try right-clickign a file and hitting rename .. you get the first two letters of the original filename and then the filename in full listed next to it .. I cant imagine this was intentional. And whats up with showing the path? Unless you set your behaviour to 'always open in browser windows' there is no path bar. Sure, its got the little popup at the bottom left of the window which will give you the parent dirs but if your working between a console and an open folder its a bit of a pain to have to use the drop down to see where you are in the path. Just put a stinkin path bar at the top of the window for cryin out loud! That would also make it easier just to type in the path of where you wanted to be so you could just go there instead of clicking around to get to a location.

With renaming what happens is that a small text box opens above the selected item, you type in the new name, click enter and it closes so yeah, it is intentional.

As far as the path thing the non browser nautilus is the spatial version and you seemingly want to use it in a way completely at odds with the spatial concept. There's been endless discussion on the merits of the system which I think are better to avoid getting into here but the long and short of it is that spatial mode is not designed to work with traditional directory heirarchies and so if you want the path you need to use browser mode which IS designed to work like that

win_zik
July 26th, 2006, 07:44 PM
Ok, I'll bite.

From what I have seen so far, the Gnome devs seem bent on making gnome extremely simple at the cost of configurability.

I think some concrete examples would make discussing this point a lot more interesting.



Imo, Gnome should have a central control panel that gives you control over every aspect of the gnome experience.


You mean like the gnome-control-center that has been part of Gnome from the beginning but that Ubuntu chose to hide by default?

Iandefor
July 26th, 2006, 08:23 PM
You mean like the gnome-control-center that has been part of Gnome from the beginning but that Ubuntu chose to hide by default? Have you ever used it? Try configuring your screensaver via gnome-control-center. See how much control you have over your GNOME experience with gnome-control-center. It's just a window with icons to the crippled configurators already installed. If you want anything approaching configurability, you have to hack gconf.

aysiu
July 26th, 2006, 08:26 PM
There are two issues here--Gnome and Ubuntu's implementation of Gnome.

For example, Ubuntu no longer defaults to spatial mode. Browser mode is the default for Ubuntu.

win_zik
July 26th, 2006, 08:35 PM
Have you ever used it?

Yes, I have.



Try configuring your screensaver via gnome-control-center. See how much control you have over your GNOME experience with gnome-control-center.

I'll have as much control about it as I now have choosing the corresponding item in the system menu. Did I claim otherwise?

And if I may be so frank, this constant whining about gnome-screensave is starting to get on my nerves.



It's just a window with icons to the crippled configurators already installed. If you want anything approaching configurability, you have to hack gconf.

It simply exposes the configuration tools in a different way, yes. Again, I didn't claim otherwise.
What I did do however was ask what options specifically were missing.

Finally, you don't have to hack gconf, there's a nice graphical editor for it. But in all my years running Linux and Gnome, I never really needed it, that's why I was asking about the missing options.

As a final thought:
How come your read these same complaints again and again and again on any website remotely discussing something Gnome related, yet there aren't enough people to keep the development of something like gnometweakui up?

This keeps amazing me, if there are so many people who have to apperently suffer so terribly because some options are only exposed in gconf, why on earth isn't there anyone who writes a little program exposing them in a nicer way? My programming skills are limited, but I'm pretty sure this shouldn't be to hard.

brentoboy
July 26th, 2006, 08:36 PM
There are two issues here--Gnome and Ubuntu's implementation of Gnome.

For example, Ubuntu no longer defaults to spatial mode. Browser mode is the default for Ubuntu.

pardon my flame, but here goes... take it with a grain of salt, it is meant as a side remark, not the gosple truth...

Microsoft was even smart enough after giving the world spatial view by default to drop it in favor of browser mode in windows 98, and no one complained. I cant believe that spatial view is even an option in gnome, much less the default. I thought gnome had fixed that, but I guess it was ubuntu who made the change.

was it also ubuntu that gave me the option in nautilus to use location view by default without having to use gconf? or was that the folks at gnome who realized that the old way did have some merit?

aysiu
July 26th, 2006, 08:39 PM
Some people really like spatial view. I believe there was a thread around here where I argued the case that spatial view is impractical, while others argued that it theoretically "made sense." After someone posted a few keyboard shortcuts for spatial view, a lot of others converted over to it. I still favor browser mode, and I have no idea how spatial view makes any sense.

Edit: I found that thread (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=182400).

I think someone else put it best earlier in the current thread (I forget where): that Gnome should keep the options simple but every preferences dialogue should also have an advanced button where you can make other GUI changes. gconf-editor is kind of a mess and doesn't cover everything.

Having no GUI for recursive permission changes is unforgivable. I love Gnome (in fact, I'm using it now--just switched back from KDE), but there are some things it does that are just plain dumb. When I wanted to change my GLSlideshow folder, I didn't have any option for it... at all. So what did I end up doing? I backed up my /usr/share/backgrounds folder and then symlinked from the real folder I wanted for my screensaver slideshow to /usr/share/backgrounds. That's insane!

There is no perfect desktop environment, and it's sad. That's why I'm constantly switching. Some days, I'm XFCE. Some days, I'm KDE. Some days, I'm Gnome.

win_zik
July 26th, 2006, 08:41 PM
I cant believe that spatial view is even an option in gnome, much less the default.


I can because I actually like and use it, as others do too. Any reason you want to take this option away from me?



was it also ubuntu that gave me the option in nautilus to use location view by default without having to use gconf?

No, that's upstream.

Anyway, as a wise man said:

There's been endless discussion on the merits of the system which I think are better to avoid getting into here

brentoboy
July 26th, 2006, 08:45 PM
wait, that cant be true.

If I like something a certain way, certanily everyone else wants it that way too! right. c'mon

blitzd
July 26th, 2006, 08:46 PM
Forks don't have to be bad forks can act as branches, things can be picked out and added nothing wrong with that.

I guess it really comes down to what you think of as a forked project. I'm not going to get into that any more here as I've already posted it numerous times. Brentoboy has already said that this is all theoretical in the first place, so it seems kind of pointless to argue about semantics.

mips
July 26th, 2006, 08:49 PM
If you are not happy with Gnome move to KDE, simple as that.

aysiu
July 26th, 2006, 08:53 PM
If you are not happy with Gnome move to KDE, simple as that.
That's what I've told people in the past, but they have this weird insistence, "But I love Gnome. I don't want to switch."

If you "love Gnome" but want a GUI for changing the screensaver slideshow window, a GUI for turning numlock on by default, a built-in way to have a separate background for each workspace or a desktop slideshow, a GUI way to set recursive permissions on a directory, and the ability to view ID3 tag content in the file browser for all files at once... then you don't "love Gnome"--you think you love Gnome, but you really should be using KDE instead.

blitzd
July 26th, 2006, 08:54 PM
I think some concrete examples would make discussing this point a lot more interesting.

One particular example that bugs me to no end: Metacity window placement algorithms. They're a pain in the *** on a multi-head setup. Windows open wherever there is free space and THEN from top left cascading down if they can't find any free space. Even on a single display system I found several apps that fall victim to the top left cascade (Firefox for one with a 'slideshow' type website - the window often cascades each time you hit next.. could be a FF issue, but I haven't seen it in other environments).

Iandefor
July 26th, 2006, 08:55 PM
I'll have as much control about it as I now have choosing the corresponding item in the system menu. Did I claim otherwise? It was implied, since you recommended the gnome-control-panel in response to someone who asked about a configurator that controlled every aspect of the GNOME experience.


And if I may be so frank, this constant whining about gnome-screensave is starting to get on my nerves. You know what? I was only using it as an example. I couldn't care less about gnome-screensaver.


It simply exposes the configuration tools in a different way, yes. Again, I didn't claim otherwise.
What I did do however was ask what options specifically were missing.
No, you didn't ask what was missing.



Imo, Gnome should have a central control panel that gives you control over every aspect of the gnome experience.

You mean like the gnome-control-center that has been part of Gnome from the beginning but that Ubuntu chose to hide by default?

Finally, you don't have to hack gconf, there's a nice graphical editor for it. But in all my years running Linux and Gnome, I never really needed it, that's why I was asking about the missing options. If you want to see missing options, look around gconf. There are options all over the place that you don't find in the configurators. Just look at the "Window" configurator, and then look at the Metacity options in gconf. Check the "Desktop Background" configurator, and then compare it to the Background options in gconf.

win_zik
July 26th, 2006, 09:05 PM
No, you didn't ask what was missing.

You know, I feel rather stupid quoting myself, but then again:


Ok, I'll bite.

From what I have seen so far, the Gnome devs seem bent on making gnome extremely simple at the cost of configurability.

I think some concrete examples would make discussing this point a lot more interesting.




If you want to see missing options, look around gconf. There are options all over the place that you don't find in the configurators. Just look at the "Window" configurator, and then look at the Metacity options in gconf. Check the "Desktop Background" configurator, and then compare it to the Background options in gconf.
But that's not what I was asking for but I was wondering what options should be expossed in the apps by default. Now you solution seems to be to simply dump everything in there, which imho doesn't make a lot of sense.

And thank you very much btw., contrary to what you want to imply I'm perfectly able to take a look around gconf and know that you'll find more options there than the ones exposed outside gconf.
You know that was the reason why I wrote (ah, I really start to get the hang on quoting myself):


As a final thought:
How come your read these same complaints again and again and again on any website remotely discussing something Gnome related, yet there aren't enough people to keep the development of something like gnometweakui up?

This keeps amazing me, if there are so many people who have to apperently suffer so terribly because some options are only exposed in gconf, why on earth isn't there anyone who writes a little program exposing them in a nicer way? My programming skills are limited, but I'm pretty sure this shouldn't be to hard.

win_zik
July 26th, 2006, 09:07 PM
One particular example that bugs me to no end: Metacity window placement algorithms. They're a pain in the *** on a multi-head setup. Windows open wherever there is free space and THEN from top left cascading down if they can't find any free space. Even on a single display system I found several apps that fall victim to the top left cascade (Firefox for one with a 'slideshow' type website - the window often cascades each time you hit next.. could be a FF issue, but I haven't seen it in other environments).

Valid point, though I can't really comment as I don't have a multi-head setup. But is this really a case of missing options or rather a case of metacity being not all that good?

richbarna
July 26th, 2006, 09:27 PM
Just give me a desktop environment with the "freedom" (EDIT: free as in "more-compliant-with-GPL-and-FSF-moral/legal-standards-just-to avoid-any-moral/legal-debates-on-the-morality/legality-of-the-toolkit/desktop") and cleanliness of GNOME, the "customizability" of KDE,....

Yup, sign me up for one of those !! :)

win_zik
July 26th, 2006, 09:33 PM
Just give me a desktop environment with the "freedom" (EDIT: free as in "more-compliant-with-GPL-and-FSF-moral/legal-standards-just-to avoid-any-moral/legal-debates-on-the-morality/legality-of-the-toolkit/desktop") and cleanliness of GNOME,

I know it was meant as a joke, but I just wanted to point out that Qt has been licensed under the GPL for several years now, while GTK is LGPL. According to the FSF, the GPL is the freer and prefered license.

Iandefor
July 26th, 2006, 09:40 PM
You know, I feel rather stupid quoting myself, but then again: Bah. Me and my ability to serendipitously miss stuff like that. Well, now you've pointed me to the spot I asked, let me respond with (hooray, you're going to hate me for this :p): gnome-screensaver. In the gnome-screensaver faq, they cite as their first reason for crippling the configuration dialog:

There are advantages for the user. It demands that themes simply work and that the defaults make sense.

But that's not what I was asking for but I was wondering what options should be expossed in the apps by default. Now you solution seems to be to simply dump everything in there, which imho doesn't make a lot of sense. Then I misinterpreted your request. Sorry. And no, I wasn't proposing just dumping everything there. But I was saying how lots of useful options get orphaned in gconf, never to be changed. For instance, in /desktop/gnome/lockdown, you have to install pessulus separately to even get a configurator for those options. If you want to get rid of that annoying 6-pixel cap on hidden panels, welcome to /apps/panel/toplevels/[panel of your choice]. And how come I can't add the location bar to Nautilus without futzing with gconf? These are all perfectly reasonable configuration options, yet they have all been eshewed from the configurators. Why is it that something so trivial as a location bar has been completely left out of the Nautilus configurator?


And thank you very much btw., contrary to what you want to imply I'm perfectly able to take a look around gconf and know that you'll find more options there than the ones exposed outside gconf. I didn't, in fact, intend to imply anything. I simply said that if you bothered to look in gconf, you would have seen all these options that are conspicuously absent from the configurators. The only implication there was that you had yet to look. I'm also offended at the implication that I am of such low integrity to try to imply something like that.

mips
July 26th, 2006, 09:54 PM
That's what I've told people in the past, but they have this weird insistence, "But I love Gnome. I don't want to switch."

If you "love Gnome" but want a GUI for changing the screensaver slideshow window, a GUI for turning numlock on by default, a built-in way to have a separate background for each workspace or a desktop slideshow, a GUI way to set recursive permissions on a directory, and the ability to view ID3 tag content in the file browser for all files at once... then you don't "love Gnome"--you think you love Gnome, but you really should be using KDE instead.

I follow you, human nature is a strange thing. I used Gnome up to midway through Breezy, never saw the light until then ;)

Iandefor
July 26th, 2006, 09:55 PM
I follow you, human nature is a strange thing. I used Gnome up to midway through Breezy, never saw the light until then ;) Them's fightin' words ;)!

*Adorns armor*

win_zik
July 26th, 2006, 09:59 PM
Bah. Me and my ability to serendipitously miss stuff like that. Well, now you've pointed me to the spot I asked, let me respond with (hooray, you're going to hate me for this :p): gnome-screensaver. In the gnome-screensaver faq, they cite as their first reason for crippling the configuration dialog:

Lol, gnome-screensaver again.
As I already stated, I can't really understand why people get so upset about some screensave options and I reall think what they write makes sense. Having good defaults that work and not to many useless options can be a very good thing.



Then I misinterpreted your request. Sorry. And no, I wasn't proposing just dumping everything there. But I was saying how lots of useful options get orphaned in gconf, never to be changed. For instance, in /desktop/gnome/lockdown, you have to install pessulus separately to even get a configurator for those options. If you want to get rid of that annoying 6-pixel cap on hidden panels, welcome to /apps/panel/toplevels/[panel of your choice]. And how come I can't add the location bar to Nautilus without futzing with gconf? These are all perfectly reasonable configuration options, yet they have all been eshewed from the configurators. Why is it that something so trivial as a location bar has been completely left out of the Nautilus configurator?

Sorry, then I didn't understand you correctly.
Personaly, I don't think having to install pessalus seperately is such a bad thing. The vast majority of users will probably never need it, so why install it by default? And those who need it should be able to install it.

About the panel stuff, I never noticed this problem, so it's hard for me to comment, but I do get the feeling that this is a more esoteric wish and I really think that having a seperate app that people can install who want to really tweak Gnome would be a better option then having options like this in the normal config dialog. Those configs really get confusing for many people very fast (as everybody who ever had to support someone like my father and some of my friends should know ;) )

I think very much the same thing applies to your last point, though having an option in nautilus might make sense as I see this complaint very often.



I didn't, in fact, intend to imply anything. I simply said that if you bothered to look in gconf, you would have seen all these options that are conspicuously absent from the configurators. The only implication there was that you had yet to look. I'm also offended at the implication that I am of such low integrity to try to imply something like that.
If I offended you, then I'd like to appologize. I obviously misunderstood you and felt attacked, though this wasn't your intention. Sorry again.

Iandefor
July 26th, 2006, 10:19 PM
If I offended you, then I'd like to appologize. I obviously misunderstood you and felt attacked, though this wasn't your intention. Sorry again. No problem :). Sorry if I worded my posts in a way that led to you feeling attacked (I can do that if I get annoyed).

At this point, I've articulated my argument as clearly as I have the patience to do so, so I'm done at this point in time.

Jucato
July 27th, 2006, 12:09 AM
I know it was meant as a joke, but I just wanted to point out that Qt has been licensed under the GPL for several years now, while GTK is LGPL. According to the FSF, the GPL is the freer and prefered license.

It was meant both as a "joke" and not as a "joke". It seems that even if Qt has been released under a dual GPL/QPL license, it just wasn't enough to satisfy some camps. I think that a few years ago, RMS wanted KDE to apologize to some copyright holders for the "sins" they committed while Qt was not yet GPL. I'm not sure about the exact details, but that issue was enough to solicit heated remarks from different people.

Man, I missed so much discussion while I was away. I hate having to sleep. :D

Jucato
July 27th, 2006, 12:28 AM
If you "love Gnome" but want a GUI for changing the screensaver slideshow window, a GUI for turning numlock on by default, a built-in way to have a separate background for each workspace or a desktop slideshow, a GUI way to set recursive permissions on a directory, and the ability to view ID3 tag content in the file browser for all files at once... then you don't "love Gnome"--you think you love Gnome, but you really should be using KDE instead.

I partly agree, and I partly don't.
It's like saying that "I love Ubuntu but I want/need an easy way to support MP3s, Flash, etc." means that I don't love Ubuntu, that I just think I love Ubuntu, that I should be using something else. What if I love Ubuntu "in general" but just want some "specific" stuff. That's why Automatix and EasyUbuntu came up, to be able to still love Ubuntu and at the same time get those things that Ubuntu didn't support (a fast and easy way to install propriety/restricted packages).

Is it not possible to like something, and at the same time wish that that something could do a few things more? Some things aren't so simple as "you like A but want some features of B, so just use B instead". No offense meant, but it's that line of thinking that leads to statements like "just go back to Windoze if you want this/that feature."

aysiu
July 27th, 2006, 12:37 AM
Sometimes an additional helper program (like Easy Ubuntu or Automatix) can help. There are helper programs for Gnome, too (numlockx, for example), but that's what people are complaining about--why isn't that functionality built in?

As a matter of fact, if easy support for MP3, Flash, etc. was your thing, I would say to use Mepis, as it's now based on Ubuntu.

You kind of have to weigh out how different it is. If someone seems to like everything about Gnome but one thing, I think it's legitimate for her to complain about that one thing... or maybe even two. But if it's a whole slew of stuff that KDE has... well, maybe she should use KDE.

I don't take offense to your statement at all. I think my "line of thinking" is nothing to apologize for. There are many people who should "just go back to Windo[w]s." People who post and say they must have AIM (not GAIM), Photoshop (not GIMP), Dreamweaver (not NVu), and Windows games... but they don't want Cedega or Crossover Office. Well... if you must have those programs, and you're going to complain about software installation and complain about the command-line and complain about just about everything... then, yes, you should just stick with Windows.

Likewise, people who want KDE functionality should use KDE. If they want to help Gnome develop, they can contribute code or file bug reports or donate money and hope the developers will incorporate that stuff. Otherwise, you choose from what's out there.

The only time I don't agree with this line of thinking is when it comes to countries. People who say, for example, of those who criticize America, "If you don't like it here in America, just leave!" aren't justified in saying that. Where you're born (or have citizenship) is where many of your friends are and you have an emotional and cultural attachment to that place. It's also not a trivial matter to immigrate to another country. (Never mind the fact that most of what people complain about in America applies to other countries, too... except maybe for universal health care.)

On the other hand, it's quite easy by comparison to switch operating systems or desktop environments--and your friends will still be around regardless of what operating system or desktop environment you use... I hope.

richbarna
July 27th, 2006, 12:55 AM
The only time I don't agree with this line of thinking is when it comes to countries. People who say, for example, of those who criticize America, "If you don't like it here in America, just leave!" aren't justified in saying that. Where you're born (or have citizenship) is where many of your friends are and you have an emotional and cultural attachment to that place. It's also not a trivial matter to immigrate to another country. (Never mind the fact that most of what people complain about in America applies to other countries, too... except maybe for universal health care.)


I agree and disagree, you're correct, it's not a trivial matter to emigrate to another country.
However I firmly believe that if there is something that you can't change to suite you, change it completely. That goes for desktops, distros and countries.
I will always respect somebody who changes something completely for the better as opposed to continually whinging how bad something is.

I could not file a bug report to Blair's English government, so I moved to Spain. England is a great country and so are the English people. The government's idea of running a country however, were not to my liking.

I wasn't happy with Windows internet security, so I dual-boot linux for that purpose. Again bug report probably a no go with Gates.

Jucato
July 27th, 2006, 01:17 AM
You kind of have to weigh out how different it is. If someone seems to like everything about Gnome but one thing, I think it's legitimate for her to complain about that one thing... or maybe even two. But if it's a whole slew of stuff that KDE has... well, maybe she should use KDE.

That's exactly my point. It's a case to case basis. We can't always make a general statement that if a person wants this/that feature from KDE, therefore he/she should use KDE. That's why I used the word "some features". Of course, if that person wanted "most" of the features of KDE, then he/she should consider switching to KDE.


don't take offense to your statement at all. I think my "line of thinking" is nothing to apologize for. There are many people who should "just go back to Windo[w]s." People who post and say they must have AIM (not GAIM), Photoshop (not GIMP), Dreamweaver (not NVu), and Windows games... but they don't want Cedega or Crossover Office. Well... if you must have those programs, and you're going to complain about software installation and complain about the command-line and complain about just about everything... then, yes, you should just stick with Windows.

Again it's a case to case basis. If a person is willing to use Cedega/Wine/VMWare or some other workaround, then it's fine to stay in Linux. But if not, then he should really stick to Windows. Unfortunately, sometimes you would see some general reactions to people asking for that feature to just go somewhere else. Of course, not so much in this forums.


Likewise, people who want KDE functionality should use KDE. If they want to help Gnome develop, they can contribute code or file bug reports or donate money and hope the developers will incorporate that stuff.

Coding, specially donating, is a sure way to get devs' attentions. But I'm thinking how much bug/wishlist reporting has been effective in that aspect. I've seen suggestions/bug reports that have been almost untouched for years. Sometimes the only comments there are "this bug is a duplicate of this bug", and looking at the other bug, you won't see any progress either. I'm talking more about wishlists rather than actual bugs. I'm thinking that maybe there should be a different place to file wishlists rather than using the general bug tracker.

aysiu
July 27th, 2006, 05:04 PM
Lol, gnome-screensaver again.
As I already stated, I can't really understand why people get so upset about some screensave options and I reall think what they write makes sense. Having good defaults that work and not to many useless options can be a very good thing. Except that the defaults do not work (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=223933).

Virogenesis
July 27th, 2006, 05:53 PM
aysiu, you mentioned if you don't like the configuration options within gnome use kde, what happens if you don't like konqueror and prefer gnome because that is the case with many including myself.

aysiu
July 27th, 2006, 05:55 PM
aysiu, you mentioned if you don't like the configuration options within gnome use kde, what happens if you don't like konqueror and prefer gnome because that is the case with many including myself.
There are ways to run Nautilus or Thunar in KDE. I'm sure there are better hacks than this, but you could always...
sudo dpkg-divert --divert /usr/bin/konqueror.old --rename /usr/bin/konqueror
sudo ln -s /usr/bin/nautilus /usr/bin/konqueror

mips
July 27th, 2006, 06:55 PM
Them's fightin' words ;)!

*Adorns armor*

Lol, I take it you like it then. Maybe one day in the future I'll be quoted on the internet like some of the big shots ;)

Iandefor
July 27th, 2006, 07:05 PM
Lol, I take it you like it then. Maybe one day in the future I'll be quoted on the internet like some of the big shots ;) lol. I like it better than KDE. QT and the way it handles fonts have always felt klunky.

Wolki
July 27th, 2006, 08:24 PM
Except that the defaults do not work (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=223933).

The unchangeable user icon (sometimes "bearded man") in xscreensaver also did not work for many people.

The solution to the "I want to change which pictures to display in the screensaver graphically" is the f-spot screensaver included with f-spot. It even allows more configurability, since you can choose exactly which pictures to display, and not only which directories.

brentoboy
July 27th, 2006, 08:32 PM
oh,

and whatever happened to the checkboxes that let me check the screensavers that I like and still be *random* but not use all the ugly ones.

sometimes I feel like we are digressing in order to remove features that not everyone needs. if we eliminate the features used only by the minority, we will discover (like in politics) we are all minorities in some area or another.

aysiu
July 27th, 2006, 08:39 PM
The solution to the "I want to change which pictures to display in the screensaver graphically" is the f-spot screensaver included with f-spot. No, the solution is not to take away functionality you already had put in. "If it ain't broke..."

win_zik
July 27th, 2006, 08:43 PM
No, the solution is not to take away functionality you already had put in. "If it ain't broke..."
Ehem, afaik gnome-screen-saver is a very new program. I doubt they actually droped features they already had put in...

Iandefor
July 27th, 2006, 08:43 PM
No, the solution is not to take away functionality you already had put in. "If it ain't broke..." Problem was, gnome-screensaver never had that functionality. Semantics, though.

aysiu
July 27th, 2006, 08:45 PM
Problem was, gnome-screensaver never had that functionality. Semantics, though.
Really? I could have sworn that Breezy did. Was I imagining that?

win_zik
July 27th, 2006, 08:48 PM
Really? I could have sworn that Breezy did. Was I imagining that?
I think breezy was still using xscreensaver.

Iandefor
July 27th, 2006, 08:52 PM
Really? I could have sworn that Breezy did. Was I imagining that? Breezy was using xscreensaver, not gnome-screensaver.

aysiu
July 27th, 2006, 08:53 PM
Breezy was using xscreensaver, not gnome-screensaver.
Ah, gotcha. But to the end-user (i.e., me), all she sees is the lack of something that was there before. She doesn't care whether it was x-screensaver or gnome-screensaver...

Wolki
July 27th, 2006, 08:55 PM
and whatever happened to the checkboxes that let me check the screensavers that I like and still be *random* but not use all the ugly ones.

Why even keep ugly screensavers in your list?

http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2006-April/msg00066.html

Just cause something is not implemented yet does not mean that there are no plans of such a functionality. Sometimes you have to make decisions which goals to achieve first.

(note that you can select which screensavers to use when choosing randomly, it just involves fiddling and is overwritten when using the screensaver gui. yes, this is kind of annoying)


sometimes I feel like we are digressing in order to remove features that not everyone needs. if we eliminate the features used only by the minority, we will discover (like in politics) we are all minorities in some area or another.

Lowest common denomiator vs greatest common benefactor, likely.

Gnome is released time-based every six months. Sometimes things that go in will not have everything ready by then, and in the case of difficult things maybe not even for some releases.

Rarely do things get removed without a plan how to achieve the same things in a better way.

Iandefor
July 27th, 2006, 08:55 PM
Ah, gotcha. But to the end-user (i.e., me), all she sees is the lack of something that was there before. She doesn't care whether it was x-screensaver or gnome-screensaver... I agree that the end product (GNOME) lost functionality by having gnome-screensaver instead of xscreensaver. I was just pointing out that, in gnome-screensaver itself, there never was any such functionality.

brentoboy
July 27th, 2006, 09:00 PM
Just cause something is not implemented yet does not mean that there are no plans of such a functionality. Sometimes you have to make decisions which goals to achieve first.

(note that you can select which screensavers to use when choosing randomly, it just involves fiddling and is overwritten when using the screensaver gui. yes, this is kind of annoying)


Instead of saying "whatever happened to..." I should have said "breezy did it right, why doesnt dapper have the checkboxes?"

no need to remove perfectly functional stuff just to dumb it down -- if the functional stuff is desirable!

win_zik
July 27th, 2006, 09:05 PM
Instead of saying "whatever happened to..." I should have said "breezy did it right, why doesnt dapper have the checkboxes?"

no need to remove perfectly functional stuff just to dumb it down -- if the functional stuff is desirable!

Again, that's not what happened.
The program which had the features was xscreensave. This program had its share of problems, it wasn't integrated into Gnome, the gui wasn't integrated and above all, it was unmaintained.

This lead to the development of gnome-screensaver, which is better integrated, has a better gui and above all, is maintained.

So what you are seeing is not someone removing features, but someone providing a program that may not (yet) have all the features the program it replaced had.


Btw., if you can't live without xscreensave and its options, why don't you simply install it?

brentoboy
July 27th, 2006, 09:13 PM
I'm living without it.

I just thought it was odd that a really cool feature was gone. It was the sort of feature that people couldnt say "windows does all this stuff, and you dont" instead I could say "linux does random screensavers with your choice of screensavers... windows needs to catch up"

I think it is great that gnome is picking up where xscreensaver left off. I just hope that that old feature gets put in someday rather than being left out becuase it is "hard" for people to understand.

aysiu
July 27th, 2006, 09:14 PM
Btw., if you can't live without xscreensave and its options, why don't you simply install it? Why don't we have just one version of Ubuntu, then that has nothing it? Then, you can just tell people, "Oh, if you want a working desktop, just install ubuntu-desktop." This kind of reasoning is silly. If you have something that works, why replace it with something that doesn't?

win_zik
July 27th, 2006, 09:19 PM
Why don't we have just one version of Ubuntu, then that has nothing it? Then, you can just tell people, "Oh, if you want a working desktop, just install ubuntu-desktop." This kind of reasoning is silly. If you have something that works, why replace it with something that doesn't?

Oh come on...
That's simply silly.

A default Ubuntu install provides a screensaver program that works. If you want to have a program with more features, simply install it.
How is that in any way comparable or equivalent to what you wrote?

And about the reasons for replacing xscreensaver, I thought I already mentioned some, didn't I?

fwilliams
December 3rd, 2007, 08:49 PM
Yes, it should be forked. Parts of it are being based on a clone of propriatary software. No matter how close the clone becomes it will never be fully compatible (Microsoft will see to that) and there will always be a shadow of Microsoft over any version of Linux that uses it. I will not continue using any distro that relies on mono and that is too bad for me, because I actually liked Ubuntu until they pulled this crap on the community. They may as well sign on for Microsoft patent protection as well.

igknighted
December 3rd, 2007, 09:34 PM
Yes, it should be forked. Parts of it are being based on a clone of propriatary software. No matter how close the clone becomes it will never be fully compatible (Microsoft will see to that) and there will always be a shadow of Microsoft over any version of Linux that uses it. I will not continue using any distro that relies on mono and that is too bad for me, because I actually liked Ubuntu until they pulled this crap on the community. They may as well sign on for Microsoft patent protection as well.

LOL! You pulled up a year and a half old thread to whine about mono? Let me guess, when gcj created an open-source implementation of java, were you up in arms then? Java was proprietary just like C#... oh yeah, but it's not made by microsoft. All you need to do to make a linux person angry is slap the "m word" on any software. Grow up.

julian.coccia
October 16th, 2008, 08:48 PM
GNOME is great. Mono-dependency is uncool.

I think a fork is necessary, as long as it forks away from Microsoft and Mono. I vote for YES!

julian.coccia
October 16th, 2008, 08:56 PM
igknighted, when you grow up you learn to listen and respect other people's opinions. Please share your opinions but also listen and respect. While you might be very happy about mono, a lot of other users are not. That's life and that's the beauty of free software. As mono gets into the guts of gnome, I think the fork will be inevitable.

Half-Left
October 16th, 2008, 08:56 PM
GNOME doesn't have a mono dep, tomboy does but that is optional on a gnome install.

gn2
October 16th, 2008, 11:39 PM
That's twice that this thread has come back from the dead, it's a zombie!

Frak
October 17th, 2008, 12:23 AM
Bum bum bum!!!!!



















Necromancing!!!
















































booga booga booga

directhex
October 17th, 2008, 12:41 AM
That's twice that this thread has come back from the dead, it's a zombie!

Zombie behaviour caused, both times, by the increasingly boring anti-Mono crowd

I could make a joke involving brains at this point, but that might be considered trite

Pogeymanz
October 17th, 2008, 12:51 AM
Since I've never seen this thread...

I would try a Gnome fork. I don't really like the Mono thing, but as far as I know, everytime I've used Gnome, I unistalled all the Mono stuff (just because I wasn't using it! Not for ideology).

Then again, I don't really like Gnome. I prefer pure WM setups.

But as long as the fork were pretty different, I would give it a shot.

directhex
October 17th, 2008, 12:55 AM
Thing is, what do people mean by "a GNOME fork" - a different layout & package selection is hardly a fork, it's ubuntu-desktop (Ubuntu does not ship an "official" GNOME desktop, the package selection differs)

And is making incompatible core changes to the heart of a major framework like GNOME going to achieve anything that couldn't be achieved with patches upstream?

Sponzenbroekske
October 17th, 2008, 01:00 AM
In my experience, people who say "I don't like KDE" but want KDE features just don't like the default blue theme. If you customize KDE, it can look like Gnome and behave like KDE, which is really what these people want.

There are certain KDE apps that are soooooooo good, thats just a fact, but you can say the same of gnome apps.

I started linux with gnome, went to KDE 3/4 for a while but I went back to gnome, just cuz I'm used to it, I know where to find certain apps or files, I know the interface better, I think its just a matter of 'used to'

chucky chuckaluck
October 17th, 2008, 01:28 AM
gnome should, at least, try for a right-click menu and scrollable workspaces (without compiz). jwm does both.

mrgnash
October 17th, 2008, 01:42 AM
GNOME already does everything I want.

julian.coccia
November 1st, 2008, 02:45 PM
Guys, gnome IS mono-dependent. You can remove your mono junk, which comes preinstalled with most distros, but then you loose f-spot and tomboy. That means that the default GNOME applications for handling pictures and notes are GONE. Give it another year and you will also loose your email, file manager and who knows what else. Perhaps then everyone will agree that Gnome IS mono-dependent?

Mono should be an optional add-on to those looking for .NET compatibility in Gnome, and not a core component.

billgoldberg
November 1st, 2008, 03:09 PM
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=15266

The Mono/GNOME debate. What bothers me most about this debate is, well, that the debate even exists at all. Let's face it, boys and girls, the applications that currently make GNOME a usable home desktop are Mono-based. What is GNOME without F-Spot? Without Banshee? Without iFolder? And, most importantly, without Beagle? If I were a normal user, without all the knowledge (no arrogance intended, this time) I have now, I'd be amazed to hear the technology that powers these applications is not part of the GNOME Desktop/Development Environment!



What is Gnome without F-spot, bansee, iFolder and beagle?

The only thing in Gnome of those is F-spot (in Ubuntu anyhow, don't know about the vanilla flavour). Another one is Tomboy Notes.

That's it.

They can easily replace it if they want or the user can remove it itself without any problem.

I myself don't give a damn if I use mono or not.

-------

On topic:

Sure I would give a Gnome fork a try. But I'm not going to build it (couldn't if I wanted).

billgoldberg
November 1st, 2008, 03:15 PM
Guys, gnome IS mono-dependent. You can remove your mono junk, which comes preinstalled with most distros, but then you loose f-spot and tomboy. That means that the default GNOME applications for handling pictures and notes are GONE. Give it another year and you will also loose your email, file manager and who knows what else. Perhaps then everyone will agree that Gnome IS mono-dependent?

Mono should be an optional add-on to those looking for .NET compatibility in Gnome, and not a core component.

Because two applications that come pre-installed in gnome use mono doens't mean gnome is dependent on them.

If you remove them and replace the apps (or not) you won't have any issues.

I myself don't use F-spot or Tomboy so I remove it.

You make it seem as those two apps are super important and not replaceable.

Frak
November 1st, 2008, 04:08 PM
Guys, gnome IS mono-dependent. You can remove your mono junk, which comes preinstalled with most distros, but then you loose f-spot and tomboy. That means that the default GNOME applications for handling pictures and notes are GONE. Give it another year and you will also loose your email, file manager and who knows what else. Perhaps then everyone will agree that Gnome IS mono-dependent?

Mono should be an optional add-on to those looking for .NET compatibility in Gnome, and not a core component.
Considering Gnome is originally and foremost office oriented, those two apps can be dropped easily.

t3chn0b0y
October 28th, 2010, 03:30 AM
Yes I think it should be forked, I can't get myself to like the gnome 4,
now I know there are those that will say why not go to KDE, but I have been comfortable with GNOME since the days of the dinosaurs and i think this unity
is far from unity, there are alot of people that simply dont like it, and I
am one of those people

ericdn
October 28th, 2010, 03:34 AM
Honestly, I'm completely undecided at this point. I guess I'll have to wait until 11.04 comes out for me to see what everything is like.

While I'm a creature of familiarity, I also agree that progress sometimes requires changes, and if the changes are largely beneficial, then I'm all for it.

As I said, I'll have to wait for the new version to come out before I can make a decision.

ronnielsen1
October 28th, 2010, 03:48 AM
Yes, forking GNOME and doing some refocusing would benefit the Open Source Landscape.

The reason I voted for this is because I used kde 3 for years until it became the resource hog that kde 4 has became. I think I like the new Unity look but I wouldn't be for Gnome OR Ubuntu to adopt this as fact yet. When I first started with linux I thought there were too many choices, I thought why don't they just pick the best audio player and select it for me? Now, I'm glad they don't. I love the choice. I might pick Unity. I might not

Simian Man
October 28th, 2010, 03:59 AM
Yes I think it should be forked, I can't get myself to like the gnome 4,
now I know there are those that will say why not go to KDE, but I have been comfortable with GNOME since the days of the dinosaurs and i think this unity
is far from unity, there are alot of people that simply dont like it, and I
am one of those people

1. This thread is ancient.
2. There is no Gnome 4.

KiwiNZ
October 28th, 2010, 04:37 AM
Someone has been disturbing the Garden Gnomes again. Let them sleep

Good night