GNOME 2.16 Released 473
Kethinov writes "The GNOME Project has just released version 2.16 of their popular *nix desktop environment. Among many snazzy new features, is lots of new eye candy, including an experimental compositer in Metacity, feature enhancements, usability improvements, and much, much more. Ars Technica has a review."
Sourceforge? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sourceforge? (ugh) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sourceforge? (Score:4, Funny)
Here's another problem with Gnome branding (Score:5, Insightful)
Alacarte, Menu Editor
Baobab, Disk usage analyzer
Totem, Video player
WTF???
Why not call the Notes application "Gnome Notes", the menu editor "Gnome Menu Editor", the Disk usage analyzer "Gnome Disk Usage Analyzer" and the video player, you've guessed it, "Gnome Video Player".
I know developers like to give their applications noteworthy and unique names, but to a user this is only confusing and unnecessary. Especially considering all these are part of Gnome and will most likely not be used outside the Gnome environment.
Re:Here's another problem with Gnome branding (Score:5, Informative)
Totem is 'Movie Player'
Baobab is 'Disk Usage Analyzer'
Alacarte seems to be 'Menu Layout', although Ubuntu might have changed something here.
Tomboy is unfortunately 'Tomboy notes'
So overall they've managed to use fairly clear and simple names for these programs, much as you were hoping for.
Re:Here's another problem with Gnome branding (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it. If you run GNOME on a distro that uses the default GNOME applications, you'll see this on your menu item:
Epiphany Web Browser
but if you run Ubuntu, you'll see:
Firefox Web Browser
These are *different* apps with different features and limitations so they should not be given the same name (i.e. GNOME Web Browser) even if the naming convention is consistent within a distribution. By force-fitting the branding, you're eliminating the possibility that GNOME can change its mind about web browsers and you're making it difficult to support GNOME. And it confuses novices who buy "GNOME for dummies" books and expect one thing to work and has a different result because they're getting another app.
Let's extend this a bit further. Suppose I want to run Firefox, Epiphany, Opera, and Konqueror. My menu would look like:
Epiphany Web Browser
Firefox Web Browser
Opera Web Browser
Konqueror Web Browser
All these options are available and even a new user on my machine that only knew one of these browsers would see that they are all web browsers.
What's wrong with unique names anyway? Is Excel any more descriptive than iLife or OpenOffice? None make sense, but all are well known. People like unique names since they're easy to remember. And for people who don't know what these apps mean, the old "OpenOffice Word Processor"/"OpenOffice Spreadsheet"/... menu items should give them all the information they need to know.
Re:Sourceforge? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sourceforge? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't Slashdot wonderful? Although I would have marked it insightful myself.
Memo to text-porn writers: (Score:5, Funny)
Its not hard. No, no, that's not what I meant.
So what? (Score:2)
Probably that you're running Ubuntu, like me. (Score:2)
Re:Probably that you're running Ubuntu, like me. (Score:5, Informative)
So to answer your question, 2.16 will be in Edgy. And 2.18 will be in whatever comes after Edgy. And so on.
Re: (Score:2)
date is in format: yy/mm/dd
Ubuntu yy.mm
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've used Ubuntu for around 9 months and had no problems at all with the Hoary-to-Dapper upgrade.
When I use Debian, I just select "testing" or "unstable" and continously update to the latest packages, which gets rid of the annoying version-lag that Ubuntu has. On the other hand, Ubuntu's big all-at-once upgrades makes quality assurance easier and so I expect Ub
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
candy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:candy (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't fade borders if you're compositing a complete window. Faded borders are the graphical equivalent of an ellipsis.
And definitely don't add a drop shadow to something you've already faded to white. It looks ridiculous.
Re:candy (Score:4, Interesting)
I think one visual design principle is this: if visual differences carry information, then pointless visual differences convey spurious information.
The screenshots in question also seem to me to be a bit of a mixed metaphor. The drop shadow makes the things stand out from the page. This, I think, is an OK idea; it's not so much that the drop shadows tend to draw the eye to the screenshots (which they do), but it also conveys the messaage that these are concrete examples we are discussing; that is to say if we're looking at a screenshot of a graph, it's the window we are paying attention to, not the graph inside. By contrast, if there a graph that showed something like the lines of code in Gnome vs. time, you wouldn't expect it to get the drop shadow treatment.
The mixed metaphor comes in this way: by fading the borders, the windows become less solid, yet they are still casting a shadow. The shadow appears to be cast by a sharp edge from a diffuse light source, but there is no sharp edge.
What does it mean? It means nothing. Therefore it's poor communication because, unlike the drop shadows, it detracts from what is being said.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I posted some first impressions about running GNOME on Compiz here [livejournal.com].
The bottom line is that not all eye candy is created equal, but some of the features really have a positive effect on the user experience. I for one (heh) am looking forward to seeing a compositing window manager integrated tightly into GNOME.
Re:candy (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance the support for consistent cut & paste, consistent support for keyboard shortcuts and a focus on providing functionality akin to the spirit of *NIXs "everything is a file" metaphor.
For instance "all text should be accessible". In other words whereever I can see some text in GNOME I should be able to copy & paste that text (using the standard selection methods and Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, Ctrl-Ins, Shift-Ins, menu items etc. etc.) This functionality should be available no matter whether the text is being displayed using a widget such as a list, button, status bar or text area etc. etc. Any application that displays a list should also allow me to save that list as a plain text file seperated by something like commas (anyone for CSV ?)
And this functionality should be provided in the widget set itself so that simply by adding a widget to a GNOME application the features get built in without the developer having to realise why they're required or, if they've got any sense, eventually getting round to adding them after complaints from irate users.
Any application that displays a list of files should allow me to double click on a file (or press "carriage return" or enter) and launch the default application associated with that file. Any application whatsoever. If I can't do this why is it showing me the file list anyway ? In exactly rhe same way I should always be able to select file(s) from that list and use copy & paste etc. Going back to my previous point I shuld also be able to save that file list in CSV format.
Wherever there's a right mouse button menu this should also be available by pressing the right mouse button on the keyboard. Maybe a MAC keyboard doesn't have a "right mouse button" (don't kno never used n one
On another note then for gods sake stop messing around with the right click menus. Using Nautilus you can select "paste" from the "edit" menu. But you can't right click in the file area and select "edit" > "paste" as doing so selects the nearest file to the cursor and removes ("greys out") the paste option.
Personalised, "intelligent" menus are simply crap. Look at Microsoft Office or XP hiding things away etc. If there's data on the clipboard that can be processed by the application then paste should be available. Hiding the option is simply dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
Personally I use GNOME because I use Ubuntu but I find it so bloody hard to do anything productive due to it missing so many simple, easy to implement, features that it usually send me swearing back to Windows to get things done. I'm so fed up with Nautilus that I now share my home folder on the network and do all my file management from Windows Explorer.
So enough with the eye candy already. Get the cake properly baked before you start adding fancy icing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. I wish windows had this too. Nobody has it now though. It would be great if Gnome was the first windowing framework in the world to give us this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, all you have given us is a rant and
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I agree, I struggle with this all the time - on Windows XP
Any application that displays a list should also allow me to save that list as a plain text file seperated by something like commas (anyone for CSV ?)
How would you trigger it? A shortcut? An item in t
Almost sounds like KDE 3... (Score:4, Insightful)
You can now add items to the programs menu (this is NEW?!), you can now set file permissions on multiple files (again, this is NEW?!). All in all it sounds like stuff that should have been there for ages.
And, as always, I can't help but wonder what options got removed and now are permentantly set to "sensible defaults" because, as everyone knows, customizability is "confusing". Really an underwhelming release based on the articles. (Yes, I did read them!)
Re:Almost sounds like KDE 3... (Score:5, Informative)
For the record I use Gnome, Enligthenment (DR17), and Blackbox and I refuse to even touch the peice of bloated crap that is KDE.
Re:Almost sounds like KDE 3... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Almost sounds like KDE 3... MOD INSIGHTFUL (Score:3, Interesting)
Why has it taken this long to be able to set recursieve file permissions ?
Why has it taken until now to be able to edit the menu (smeg notwithstanding) ?
These features should have been in from release 1.0
Sorry but GNOME really does suffer from some pretty basic usability problem which, as the parent posints out, could mostly be fixed by taking note of some of the good aspects of GUI design that hav
GNOME logo (Score:3, Funny)
Does it work on Windows 95? (Score:3, Funny)
I use Windows 95 and I'm finding it quite difficult to use. Can somebody please instruct me on how to install this GNOME on Windows 95?
Re:Does it work on Windows 95? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I followed your instructions. However, I got the following message:
Drive C: is currently in use by another process.
Aborting Format.
Have you any ideas on how I should proceed from here?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
But does it have a useable file-save dialogue? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a windowing environment whose purpose is to provide a GUI. I don't use Gnome because I want my Graphical User Interface too have a decent interface design. Otherwise, I'm better off with a command line.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Try this:
Make a
Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue? (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, there was a moment of genius from the designers. "hahaah! we'll make viewing hidden files a HIDDEN feature!!!"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Beautify_GNOME#Save_
Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue? (Score:5, Insightful)
In its default look it doesn't show where it is going to save the document, but instead only the name of the very last folder (so if you have foo/images/ and bar/images/ you can't tell the difference), I'd call that pretty confusing, a click on "Browse for other folders" of course changes that, but fullpath somewhere visible would be quite usefull. Beside from that however I am very happy with the filedialog, simply, clean and effective.
Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue? (Score:5, Insightful)
When I do a save-as in gnome, I get a window that asks for a name and a folder. So far so good. Unfortunately, the "folder" selector is not a filesystem browser, but a list of "shortcuts". These are named after the last part of the path name - unfortunatly, this gives absolutely no insight as to where in the filesystem tree this folder is. They could show the full path name, or have a tooltip pop up if the mouse hovers over, or something. There are also some default shortcuts with ambiguous names: Desktop and Filesystem. The former, I happen to know through corresponds to ~/Desktop (and no, I don't use nautilus*, so it doesn't show up on my actual desktop). The latter is a mystery, but apparently I don't have permission to save there, wherever it is.
Now, if I haven't configured a shortcut for the folder I want (and this is done manually - for some reason gnome doesn't just remember my most recent folders), I have to click on "browse for other folders". Since this is usually what I want to do anyways, it's a little tedious to have to go looking for it every time. Here it gets downright confusing. On the left is a pane that looks like the contents of a current working directory, but is actually just the same list of shortcuts I had just a moment ago decided I wasn't interested in; double clicking one of these entries does, however, navigate the real filesystem browser to that shortcut. The real list-view filesystem browser is on the right. With this I don't have much complaint, except that there isn't an obvious way to paste a path in from somewhere else.
The lack of full pathname plagues other parts of gnome as well - consider the "save screenshot" window, invoked with [printscreen]. It remembers where I last saved a screenshot, but where is the full path? I have to select "other" from the dropdown list to find out where it is.
*An observation: if you disable nautilus, gnome won't set up your wallpaper when you log in. You can still set it *manually* from the preferences/desktop background dialogue, but it will revert to default after login out and back in.
Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue? (Score:4, Interesting)
Documentation is what always sucks in Linux desktop. Check out for once M$Windows one.
I loved GNOME 1.x for it was lean and clean - with most of the little bits been documented. I hated KDE1 precisely because it had only dummy automatically generated documentations. Many years have passed and situation reversed 180 degrees: KDE is documented and GNOME documentation is dumb-down to complete unusability level.
I'm given myself a word to not use GNOME until its developers would not document all the magic behind .gtkrc and .gnomerc files - and how the two are interconnected. It was safe bet - no documentation in last 3-4 years emerged and I do not use GNOME anymore ;)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
so:
1: let me type in the name of the file I want (including path name)(It looks like they may have done that)
As somebody
Re:But does it have a useable file-save dialogue? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Damnit! (Score:5, Funny)
Not bad, except (Score:3, Interesting)
I really wish they wouldn't use JPEGs for computer screenshots -- the lossy compression makes straight lines and text look terrible. PNG (or possibly GIF, depending on the number of colors used) is much more reasonable.
Other than that, I don't understand why the --enable-compositor compile-time option isn't included by default. Logically, if the support is there, but the hardware isn't up-to-par or the X composite extention is not loaded, then the compositor just won't do anything. If everything is A-OK, then the compositor works as expected. For example, I compile support for my sound card directly into my kernel. One day, if I suddenly remove the sound card, my kernel will still work. So why not just turn stuff on by default?
On the other hand, I can understand why some things aren't compiled in sometimes, due to size, but a compositor can't be more than, what, 100k of actual code? Anyway, I'm sure someone's gonna fire back at me.
Re: (Score:2)
The important part: Mono (Score:5, Informative)
As a C# fan, and knowing how much of a pain GTK was in C, I think this is a very good move. KDE has always had a better API, official Mono support with GTK reverses that! This could really clear up GNOME, and the Linux desktop generally.
Re:The important part: Mono (Score:4, Insightful)
C++ with use of the STL and a few BOOST libraries is still more powerful than C# (let's see you do inline grammar parsing with C#!) - and it's not under the control of a corporation that's proven it can't be trusted.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If you an truly cross-platform, go for a technology that is developed by a company that is actually committed to the idea. From everything Microsoft's done I have no reason to believe that they really want
Oh, and I think of it less as
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's see you do a remote method invocation on any object of a non-specialized template class (which is what most of STL and Boost are) in C++. Or even simply dynamically load a template class from a shared library (you know, plugins and all). Heck, if you promise to not cheat, and not rely on everyone using a single C++ implementation (read: GCC), let's see how you're going to
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
God help Nautilus (Score:2, Insightful)
It is not customizeable -can't change single thing on the toolbar.
Default view is useful for home directory only.
Location bar (can be changed) is annoying with buttons instead of link.
Re:God help Nautilus (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Konq. actually does a decent job of showing directories with loads of images (8+ Mpixel jpegs/tiffs) as thumbnails. Something bash doesn't (yet) do well.
The much cooler feature is, that the *same* file browser component is used in every KDE app - so when you want to burn a CD or whatever, K3B shows you the *same* thumbnail-view of your image catalogue as you used in Konq before when sorting the images. This may sound simple but it is such a basic necessity that it is beyond me why neither
Technically great (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want to do flat shadows, cool, do them, they're easy and effective. If you want to do three-dimensional shadows, cool, they look even better but take a bit more work. But don't drop the same blurry ellipse at the bottom of every object and think that you're making a three-dimensional shadow, you just make everything look like it's standing on a blurry gray oval, and users really do recognize the less professional look, consciously or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Technically great (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't waste time critiquing an icon set, but if Gnome really is planning on following these guidelines and the Tango crew really intend for them to be comprehensive and used by all the major open source interface developers, it would be a good idea for their flagship example to be as professional as possible. The lousy shadows were literally the first thing I noticed when I opened the page.
In any case, it's just an icon! It's not even 3D. At 128x128 it's not going to matter that much. I think you're just being pedantic.
I'm sure the Tango folks will be thrilled to learn you really don't care about any of their work. They built a whole group, an extensive web site and extensive guidelines along with the hundreds of icons in the set, I should think they care about the work they're doing and want it to be more than just "good enough". If they want to produce results that are comparable to professional software, then they have to hold themselves to the same pedantic standard that professionals do. It's like building a house and not having the corners be square -- one of the subtle differences that separates most $100k homes from most $500k homes. The average person doesn't consciously notice all the little fit and finish details as they walk throught the house, but they do recognize that there is a difference in quality.
Your professional help would be greatly appreciated if you feel inclined.
These comments are my professional help, I charge for this stuff in real life. Shadows have shapes that relate to the shape of the object. A sphere, a file folder, and a box don't all produce the same shadow shape when illuminated. Shadows are darker at the center and where they meet the object, and then lose density and definition as they reach the outside edges. You can make a pretty good flat shadow by just shading two sides of an icon, but if you want to do a projected floor shadow then you have to represent the silhouette of the object as transformed through space.
Doing a bad floor shadow is more work for worse results than doing a flat shadow. So my professional advice would be that if they are low on time, they should just do flat shadows, but if they want to spend the time, they should think more about how to achieve good projected shadows.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Pretty easy, actually. Using Inkscape, for example, if you already have the main icon drawn:
Usability improvements on the application level (Score:5, Insightful)
Usability is always measured in a greater context, a context which goes far beyond the Gnome desktop but spans any desktop used. Just think how an American driver feels when he drives in England or vice versa. You might interrupt that's rather seldom the case but not with computer desktops. Almost each Gnome users uses a KDE application and even 60% use a Windows application (http://www.desktoplinux.com/cgi-bin/survey/surve
Sure application developers don't want to lose much time with usability they want to concentrate on functionality. So they can't follow multiple separate usability guidelines they simply don't have the time. Yet usability is a very important part in the acceptance of an application. To circumvent this, application developers should follow cross-desktop or cross-platform guidelines (http://wyoguide.sf.net/ [sf.net]).
Yet Gnome might still follow the MacOSX way sticking to there own perfect way and be happy with a rather insignificant market share. Or they help working on fighting off the first "Top inhibitors of Linux desktop adoption" (http://www.osdl.org/dtl/DTL_Survey_Report_Nov200
O. Wyss
Gnome! (Score:5, Funny)
But does it feature... (Score:3, Funny)
*ducks*
New GNOME, even more easier! (Score:5, Funny)
FTFA : "Menu editing just got even more easier."
Woot! Sounds like a lot! I also heard it was even more betterly eye-candier!
Yet STILL... (Score:5, Interesting)
(I still use gnome every day.)
Ubuntu (Score:4, Funny)
Are the dependencies still growing like topsy? (Score:3, Interesting)
When the number of dependencies required to run Gnome on mainstream distributions DECREASES, that'll impress me. Until then I am unlikely to care what new eye-candy it's sporting.
GNOME (Score:3, Funny)
Is there any chance that Sony will build and sell such a dream system?
Re:GNOME (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You must be an experienced
Re:So? It still sucks. (Score:5, Funny)
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off.
I immediately ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said.
I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
"Like what?"
"Well
"Religious."
"Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish?"
"Christian."
"Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
"Protestant."
"Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
"Baptist."
"Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
"Baptist Church of God."
"Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of God."
"Wow! Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed
Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"
To which I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.
Incidentally, I use KDE
credit where credit's due (Score:3, Informative)
"My parents told me never to go through the cellar door because horrible things lay on the other side. But one day, curiosity got the better of me, and I went through the cellar door. On the other side, I saw strange and wonderful things, things I'd never seen before, like trees... and clouds..."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
KDE has many things going well for it. This'll sound weird, I'm sure, but I like Gnome better because it feels better. KDE has a weird feel to it that I can't get over. It's the same feeling I get when I use Opera, I don't quite like it.
KDE also seems very thrown-together, and there are icons for almost every single menu item in almost every single menu -- it makes the entire desktop look extremely cluttered. Some lines and shapes (in some dialogs, some programs) are off by just a single pixel from where
Re: (Score:2)
GP is trolling...
Re: (Score:2)
I'll just use gnome or instal xfce (gtk widgets just do look better to me)
reasons to use gnome (Score:2, Informative)
I may be incorrect about either of these points, so someone please say so if I am wrong, but I can think of two reasons to prefer gnome over kde:
1) gtk is written in C, whereas QT is C++, making it less easy to use from C programs.
2) gtk is licensed as lgpl, whereas qt is gpl. This means that a non-gpled program (such as a commercial application) can be linked with gtk with no problems, but with qt the developers must pay licensing fees.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As far as C vs. C++: Qt is C++, yes. GTK is C, yes. But there's also GTKMM, the C++ bindings for GTK. So this makes Gnome more flexible because it has both C and C++ bindings. I'm not sure if this is a win for Gnome or not, because I don't think any GUI C app could be more maintainable, flexible,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not at all. I think this is a good strategy for GNU. First they embrace c#, after that they should extend it and then extinguish it!
Re:C# App (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, there is no point in using C++ for UI driven programs anymore. If you really need to have minimal CPU and memory requirements then sure, but otherwise you're just making things hard for yourself.
Possibly the most important thing about moving to C# is that the level of entry is a lot lower than f
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be fair, it's a GTK thing not a GNOME thing. (If it was only a GNOME problem we could have happily ignored it ...) But yes, that's pretty funny - I recall the bitter argument a few years ago about the removal of the path from the chooser, and more than that, the ability to use tab completion when navigating paths i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds fine, but if you're used to using a shell for most of your work and very rarely branching into GUI filemanagers, you'd realise just how ineffective the GNOME implementation of filename completion is. The sad thing is that GTK 2.4 and below had a fantastic implementation of tab completion, and it was a joy to use ...
I do realise that accessibility is important, but consider how much more accessible the following setup would be: keyboard enters t
Re:5 Year Old 3D features... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:5 Year Old 3D features... (Score:4, Informative)
If you have a newer card or a nvidia card, the only option is XGL/compiz which has the same effects (and more) than the new Metacity. If you still want to use Metacity you will have to wait until Nvidia/ATI releases their drivers with texture from pixmap [freedesktop.org] support which could be 6 months to a year from now. XGL has tfp already built into its server which allows one to use accelerated 3d effects even if their driver does not support it.
Also I should note that one could use compiz with AIGLX (not sure if you can right out of the box or requires a patch).