Gnome 2.14 Review 208
An anonymous user writes "Linux.com (a Slashdot sister site) has up a review of Gnome 2.14. The piece touches on usability improvements, as well as the new administration and configuration tools included with this release." From the article: "GNOME 2.14 continues the steady improvement visible in the last few releases. It is an incremental upgrade, consisting largely of tweaks and the filling in of gaps in functionality. If few of these changes are major by themselves, the overall result is welcome. Perhaps the best way of looking at the release is not as an end in itself, but as a milestone on the road to desktop usability in free operation systems. From this perspective, GNOME 2.14 is a sign that much of the journey is already over -- and that the remaining distance is less than many observers think."
Thank you very much for Gnome Terminal improv. (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's to being one step closer to switching from aterm. Not that I don't like aterm. But, ya know. And don't anyone say Konsole damnit.
Re:Thank you very much for Gnome Terminal improv. (Score:2)
Re:Thank you very much for Gnome Terminal improv. (Score:3, Funny)
oh, wait. this is linux. sorry...
Re:Thank you very much for Gnome Terminal improv. (Score:5, Informative)
To anybody out there: give it a shot, I bet you'll like it
Re:Thank you very much for Gnome Terminal improv. (Score:2)
Re:Thank you very much for Gnome Terminal improv. (Score:2)
Re:Thank you very much for Gnome Terminal improv. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Thank you very much for Gnome Terminal improv. (Score:2)
Re:Thank you very much for Gnome Terminal improv. (Score:2)
Re:Thank you very much for Gnome Terminal improv. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Thank you very much for Gnome Terminal improv. (Score:2)
It's faster? (Score:5, Informative)
Let's say we use 8 point Bitstream Vera Sans Mono, and a terminal size of 80x24. Prepare the test data:
$ dd bs=1M count=1 if=/dev/urandom | xxd > data
To run the test:
$ time cat data
The results:
xterm -fa mono -fs 8 (209)
The window is drawn very flickery. I couldn't use this for day to day use.
real 1m28.686s
user 0m4.370s
sys 0m0.371s
gnome-terminal (2.12.0)
The smoothest and fastest of the lot!
real 0m6.401s
user 0m3.425s
sys 0m0.208s
rxvt-unicode -fn xft:mono:size=8 (5.3)
Smooth but slowish
real 0m41.071s
user 0m0.871s
sys 0m0.182s
konsole (3.3)
Scrolling is jerky/stuttery, but not flickery.
real 0m10.337s
user 0m0.003s
sys 0m0.091s
Not faster (Score:3, Informative)
gnome-terminal (no transparency)
real 0m2.756s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.105s
aterm (no transparency)
real 0m0.861s
user 0m0.001s
sys 0m0.105s
gnome-terminal (with transparency)
real 0m2.954s
user 0m0.001s
sys 0m0.109s
aterm (with transparency)
real 0m3.027s
user 0m0.001s
sys 0m0.105s
Re:Not faster (Score:3, Informative)
As I said to the AC who replied to me, aterm can't be compared against the other terminals since it only uses bitmapped fonts.
Finally, several years ago gnome-terminal was the slowest terminal emulator; however my testing of 2.12 shows that it is the quickest! Also, I just installed 2.13.93 and ran the test, and it takes 4.5 seconds to cat the data file; so it seems that gnome-terminal 2.14 is indeed yet faster than the already fast 2.1
Re:It's faster? (Score:3, Informative)
I suspect one of those matters of programming honour, once someone pointed o
Re:It's faster? (Score:3, Interesting)
foo@bar:~$ time for a in $(seq 1 10); do gnome-terminal -e "exit"; done
real 0m2.065s
user 0m0.396s
sys 0m0.076s
foo@bar:~$ time for a in $(seq 1 10); do xterm -e "exit"; done
real 0m2.211s
user 0m0.397s
sys 0m0.077s
This is 2.12, mind.
Re:It's faster? (Score:3, Informative)
For comparison, xterm using the default bitmap font takes 4.5 seconds to cat the file.
Re:It's faster? (Score:2)
Also if you have the time, and if your UTF-8 file does not contain sensitive information, please file a bug at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/ [gnome.org] and attach the file.
Re:Thank you very much for Gnome Terminal improv. (Score:2)
I use gnome-terminal (2.12) and mutt (1.5.11) and they work fine with each other. I can see all sorts of characters.
Re:Thank you very much for Gnome Terminal improv. (Score:2)
Re:yeah (Score:2)
Re:Thank you very much for Gnome Terminal improv. (Score:2)
last I checked on it, gnome-terminal was terrible in it's tab shifting ability requiring either some awkward key combo or moving via your mouse, which just sucks.
Re:Thank you very much for Gnome Terminal improv. (Score:2)
ctrl+tab and ctrl+shift+tab would sure be more consistent with all the other gnome apps and firefox, though.
Re:Thank you very much for Gnome Terminal improv. (Score:2)
shift + arrow keys I meant.
Re:Thank you very much for Gnome Terminal improv. (Score:2)
In Five Years.... (Score:5, Funny)
A review of a GUI without screenshots :-( (Score:5, Informative)
So, what options does this release remove? (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately for GNOME, they can't remove all choice; I can still choose to use KDE, because KDE chooses to let me customize it any way I want instead of being forced into the defaults GNOME
Re:So, what options does this release remove? (Score:5, Insightful)
Usability. Clearly it means something different to you than it does to me. Usable software is not software that requires drilling through hundreds of contradictory, confused or utterly irrelevant options before one can get anything done.
And note, here, I'm not pointing an accusing finger at KDE here; the problems with KControl are well known and have been dealt with.
The point I'm trying to make is that we here utter so much gibberish about usability because we're not users, we're computer experts. We're used to thinking like computers.
You don't really appreciate what usability really is until you observe somebody who isn't a propellerhead, struggling over your code, confused and baffled by your lovingly hand-crafted user interface, in all its customizable glory.
Usability isn't about too many or two few options, it's about several things.
1) Do What I mean, having sure I have the capability to express what I mean.
2) Know your target audience. No software can be all things to all people, and it is foolish to try. Pick sensible defaults for your target audience. Provide user interfaces to allow that audience to configure that which they might reasonably be expected to need to change.
3) Don't add complexity for the sake of Geek Machismo.
4) Don't remove useful functionality for the sake of keeping it simple. As simple as possible and no simpler
5) Have a consistent set of guidelines for your user interface, in pursuance of the needs of your target audience.
6) Challenge your assumptions; WATCH THEM. See what your target audience doesn't understand that you thought was obvious. Fix it.
7) Don't sneer at KDE or GNOME or Ion because they have different target audiences, different philosophies. Praise them when they are consistent with their goals, guidelines and audience, politely suggest improvements or proffer patches where they fall short.
Have KDE got it entirely right? No, but they're getting there.
Have GNOME got it entirely right? No, but they're getting there.
I guess what I'm saying is, usability doesn't mean what you think it does. Not all software is targetted at geeks, not all people think like geeks.
And frankly, we should thank the Lord Xenu that this is the case.
Re:So, what options does this release remove? (Score:2)
I don't think it's that we're 'experts' as much as it is that we are, in general, comfortable with the interface.
For myself, I would rather have a lot of options that I can set because I like complete control of my computer experience. I understand that someone who's never touched a mouse before would probably be intimidated by that kind
Re:So, what options does this release remove? (Score:2)
I swear, every release of GNOME adds to the eye candy, and removes from the usability. And to think I once advocated GNOME over KDE.
I'm saddened to hear of the suffering th
This makes me wonder... (Score:2)
Between KDE and GNOME, GNOME has always (and still is) more polished and less buggy, but at this point GNOME is so crippled that given a choice between all of the missing functionality that was removed from GNOME and KDE's minor annoyances,
In the eye of the beholder (Score:2, Interesting)
You are also right, that the new screensaver dialog is not as advanced as the old one, but that's not because anything has been removed, that's simply because it is a whole new screensaver, native to gnome, enabling gnomeprogrammes to interact with it, and making it tran
Re:In the eye of the beholder (Score:5, Interesting)
I take it you've not read the comments from the developer in bugzilla, where requests for the ability to set options and for full-screen preview are marked WONTFIX. Quotes:
"My view is that any screensaver theme that requires configuration is inherently broken."
"I don't think [full-screen preview] solves any real problems."
Yes, there are valid concerns about random people setting GLtext to display [insert obscenity here] or pointing the slideshow screensaver at their pr0n collection on a computer in a government office or business. That said, that problem has been "solved" in a manner inconsistent with the rest of GNOME. pessulus and sabayon (or however those are spelled) is supposed to be able to set limits of that sort, but the author of gnome-screensaver has unilaterally hard-wired it into police state mode, regardless of how the system administrator (who, for most of us, is us) wants it.
How much $$$ do you suppose one would have to put up to get a reasonable version of gnome-screensaver forked that allows, under pessulus control, the system administrator to either allow or deny option setting on an individual screensaver basis, allows full-screen previews, and allows the individual user to indicate for each screensaver whether it should be in the pool for random selection for that user? gnome-screensaver is, IMHO, sufficiently fundamentally WRONG that I'd contribute to a fund for a version that does it right.
Sorry to go on repeatedly and at length about what is perhaps a trivial issue, but for me it's the proverbial last straw.
Re:In the eye of the beholder (Score:3)
Re:So, what options does this release remove? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So, what options does this release remove? (Score:2)
See if there are any supportive comments on this app in these forums and bug reports (besides the developers of course):
Thread [ubuntuforums.org] where early 2.14 users first noticed how lacking this thing is.
Bug report [gnome.org] where the developer dismisses any screen saver that needs configuration as broken, despite the arguments given here [launchpad.net] and here [ubuntuforums.org].
And since the soluti
Usability Comments (Score:5, Informative)
Some of the interface changes in the new version, such as the addition of icons to dialog windows, are the equivalent of the gingerbread on the gables of Victorian houses -- decorations that do nothing for functionality.
Well, that may be somewhat true. Of course, there have been studies showing that people work more efficiently, with less strain, in an "attractive," work environment. This holds true in everything from adding plants to offices to adding "gingerbread," to a GUI. And in this case, it sounds as if they do provide functionality as well since I'd be very surprised if these icons weren't context-specific in some form or fashion. But even if they provided no direct benefit, they probably do something for functionality.
Two of the new tools, Pessulus and Sabayon, help administrators limit what users of everyday accounts can do on the system
Whoa. We're talking about usability, and we're not going to comment on "Pessulus" and "Sabayon"? Don't get me wrong, those are great project names. Really great. But as new tools (and therefore not projects like Apache that everyone is familiar with), those names stink.
From a security perspective, Sabayon and Pessulus are complementary tools, differing mainly in approach. They are joined by the Power Manager, used to control how a computer is suspended or hibernates when inactive.
Now, "Power Manager" is far from sexy, but without ever using it I could have guessed what it did. And I'd say that most people could have done as well. When software behaves as you expect it to, without changing your mental map from "solving a problem" to "using the software," that's usability.
A desktop tool for changing window managers would also be welcome.
Allowing the users to focus on their work or, failing that, their desktop environment, without ever having to stop and think about their choice of window manager, would be a welcome usability enhancement. The fact that, as evidenced by earlier comparisons of SawFish and Metacity, not only can the users not ignore their WM but are indeed actively encouraged to become involved, seems unfortunate.
Re:Usability Comments (Score:2)
Ekiga, formerly known as GNOME Meeting, is GNOME's voice and video-over-IP client.
That's going the wrong way, guys. Long live usability indeed.
Re:Usability Comments (Score:2)
Re:Usability Comments (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Usability Comments (Score:2)
And, yeah -- Sabayon and Pes
Re:Usability Comments (Score:2)
TFA is really missing the point on that one by calling this feature "the equivalent of the gingerbread on the gable
GNOME vs KDE (not flamebait!) (Score:5, Insightful)
Within my local LUG over the last year or two opinions on GNOME vs KDE have become increasingly polarised. Personally I love GNOME and I think it's getting better every release. I have nothing bad to say about KDE but it just doesn't interest me.
Some of the KDE fans among us though seem to be starting to dislike GNOME more and more.
I don't know what it is but perhaps it's a good thing? A few years back it was my perception that both desktops were aiming for the same thing. Now though I think there is a clear and emerging idealogical difference between the two. While seen as bad by some (the desktops should be converging!), it at least presents more of a choice.
Anyone else noticed this or am I just going (even more) mad?
Re:GNOME vs KDE (not flamebait!) (Score:5, Interesting)
It goes both ways, though - I spend a lot of time on the Ubuntu forums, and KDE receives more than its fair share of either contempt or shallow dismissal.
Re:GNOME vs KDE (not flamebait!) (Score:2)
Forums for a Gnome-based distribution has drawn in the Gnome-preferenced crowd. Suprise, surprise.
Re:GNOME vs KDE (not flamebait!) (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:GNOME vs KDE (not flamebait!) (Score:2)
Dance around in a tutu and videotape it to get attention, too. The difference is that I have self-respect, as do the KDE developers.
Re:GNOME vs KDE (not flamebait!) (Score:2)
Gtkapitalism vs. Kommunism, with the Third World being a dumping ground for dangerous poisons [nongnu.org] ;).
Re:GNOME vs KDE (not flamebait!) (Score:5, Insightful)
I definitely agree with you on the fact that they now aim at completely different things.
I have been using KDE since KDE 3.0 (before that it was windowmaker), and love it. I especially like the fact that I can customize it to my exact (RSI-suffering) needs, and the absurdly powerful tools it ships with (Konsole, Konqueror). However, I do not dislike GNOME at all, quite the opposite.
The story of my "conversion" is simple : I was looking for a linux distribution for my computer-illiterate mother, and ended up installing Ubuntu , which ships with GNOME . While initially dismissing GNOME as "You can't do anything productive with it", I came to understand that from a usability point of view it was far better than KDE : while having no previous experience with it (apart from a quick go at 1.4 and 2.4), by just clicking where it seemed logical, I got what I wanted. The UI never got in my way, and it felt... strangely perfect. This has never happened with KDE. The GNOME UI is very simple, there are very few options - which suits my mother perfectly, she even told me she found it very easy -, and the menus and toolbars are not cluttered with lots of scary options. On the contrary, KDE is filled to the brim with options - which is what I need, but which my mother doesn't - which can be pretty confusing for a first time user.
The bottom line for me is that both are excellent products, they just don't seem share the same goal. I'm happy with KDE (and need the configurability , my mother is happy with GNOME and is a linux convert (she now advocates it to most of her friends).
Isn't Free Software all about choice? I'm glad we have both GNOME and KDE.Re:GNOME vs KDE (not flamebait!) (Score:2)
For instance, to burn a music CD, she inserts a blank CD. Gnome pops up and asks her what she wants to do with four simple buttons. She clicks the Create Music CD button, which opens a window. She drags mp3s into the window, and hits a button, and voila.
The audience for KDE is not the population at
Re:GNOME vs KDE (not flamebait!) (Score:2)
Yes, it _is_ all about freedom and choice. In the begining it didn't matter to me, but now...if you will take it away, you will suffer me
Re:GNOME vs KDE (not flamebait!) (Score:2, Interesting)
The story of my "conversion" is simple : I was looking for a linux distribution for my computer-illiterate mother, and ended up installing Ubuntu , which ships with GNOME . While initially dismissing GNOME as "You can't do anything productive with it", I came to understand that from a usability point of view it was far better than KDE : while having no previous experience with it (apart from a quick go at 1.4 and 2.4), by just clicking where it seemed logical, I got what I wanted. The UI never got in my wa
Re:GNOME vs KDE (not flamebait!) (Score:2, Interesting)
The KDE project started off as a modern/nice looking replacement for CDE. The problem was that it used QT, which was only available under the a crappy license[0], the QPL, that made it impossible to distribute KDE in binary form. The GNOME project was started to provide a Free alternative to KDE.
At this point, GNOME's only reason for existing is to be a free alternative for K
Another perspective (Score:2)
Anyway back to my point, there is a million other facets
Re:GNOME vs KDE (not flamebait!) (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:GNOME vs KDE (not flamebait!) (Score:2, Interesting)
1. It handles USB hotplugging better than KDE (at least on my system), and I use USB devices a lot. This will probably improve over time
2. KDE just feels cluttered. Gnome stays out
Re:GNOME vs KDE (not flamebait!) (Score:2)
strange, I have seen some GNOME-users start to dislike KDE more and more. Hell, I have seen that trend is some of the GNOME-developers as well (*cough*Luis Villa*cough*)
Re:GNOME vs KDE (not flamebait!) (Score:2)
sri
Still looking and waiting for download (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Still looking and waiting for download (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Still looking and waiting for download (Score:2)
My take on this (Score:3, Insightful)
The biggest change for me is probably how much better Epiphany is getting. I was getting tired of Firefox freezing for few seconds every now and then so I switched and love it! There are few issues with it but overall, very nice!
There is an overview of Epiphany here: http://ploum.frimouvy.org/?2006/03/15/100-why-you
and here: http://raphael.slinckx.net/blog/2006-03-15/epipha
I also love Deskbar integrated with Beagle! I've just stopped hunting down directories. I search for folders, documents, tomboy notes, web history, bookmarks, applications etc. with Deskbar.
This plus Xgl and all the Mono stuff is making my desktop really good
Windows Vista has a really good competitor when it comes out.
I like Gnome's Top-down Approach (Score:5, Interesting)
With KDE, a more bottom-up approach is taken: the integration has been done at the level of the core libraries, QT, as well as the core KDE libraries that build on top of that. Above this level, things build in a sporadic nature that some would argue is more healthy for open source development (such as Linus Torvalds opined a few months back).
All in all, I welcome both Gnome's top-down and KDE's bottom-up approach to integrating the components of a complete desktop environment. Since KDE's integration does come from the bottom, KDE feels more integrated to me on the architectural front, whereas since Gnome's integration comes from the top, it feels more integrated in the look & feel, menus, etc.
Both projects have a lot to learn from each other; therefore, a lot to share. But really, the big experiment is to see which way builds a more successful desktop, or if the different models just result in desktops that serve different needs or different kinds of users.
Cool new features (Score:4, Funny)
* Removal of the mouse pointer in favor of the "spatial mouse", where the user determines
what they are pointing at by the location of the mouse itself on the user's desk.
A moving arrow on the screen was too distracting for the average user.
* The rollout of the new "one monitor, one application" paradigm, wherein the user can
only run as many apps as they have monitors. This avoids confusing the average user,
who needs each application to show up in its own unique monitor location in the user's office.
I kid, take it easy.
What about what is now broken? (Score:3, Insightful)
God, that was stupid. Please change it back!
Re:What about what is now broken? (Score:4, Informative)
Enhanced performance? (Score:3, Insightful)
Profundity through obscurity? (Score:3, Funny)
I think Pessulus is some bit of turkey anatomy, and Sabayon is an Italian dessert. So, like, is there an official dictionary of rarely words to consult for naming Gnome applications?
Gnome better for productivity. (Score:3, Interesting)
Better, but still a long way to go (Score:3, Insightful)
However, there are still a lot of things missing before it is ready for the Enterprise desktop.
For one thing, usermanagement seam to be for local users only. There is no way to manage users over LDAP. The same thing is true for sabayonne.
Another problem is the tools in the System->Administration menu. They all requires you to enter a root password to be used. This makes it impossible to have many people perform limited adminstrative functions. They should really use sudo for this. (I think Ubuntu allready do that).
Yet another thing I would have like to see, is hiding of files like
You can test this for yourself by createing a
Re:It's a moving target (Score:5, Insightful)
If they maintain the current pace, sure Vista might be superficially nicer when it comes out. In a couple of releases or so GNOME will have caught up in the areas Vista is ahead, but there won't be a new W32 UI to catch up where GNOME is ahead.
I think the current GNOME pace is about right. There aren't huge advances each release, but each release does bring stuff worth having.
Re:It's a moving target (Score:2)
Re:It's a moving target (Score:2)
This isn't quite true. GNOME's doing a lot of stuff already that's in Vista and Mac OS X, like content searching and "smart folders", and hardware compositing (Xgl). In some places they're still behind even XP, but in others they're skipping the intermediate steps and going straight to the new way of doing things.
Re:It's a moving target (Score:2)
There are few UI improvements I can think of that Vista will bring. I suspect GNOME already has better search, a more consistent UI, etc. Probably, Vista has better admin UI, but there's not much else that springs to mind.
Microsoft wasted a lot of time re-spinning onto the W2k3 codebase after they chucked their WinXP-based work, remember.
DRM to be used in GNOME's multimedia backend (Score:2, Flamebait)
How long do you think GNOME will remain a "free desktop", when members of the GNOME Foundation's advisory board, such as Fluendo, are advocating DRM [slashdot.org] in GNOME's audio/video backend?
If they have their way, GNOME will end up just as shackled by draconian DRM as as M$ Vista [slashdot.org].
Re:DRM to be used in GNOME's multimedia backend (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sing Along (Score:2)
at home though, it's mainly
wmii (Score:2)
10 lines of code. I am impressed.
Re:Sing Along (Score:2)
"--
Tired of WIMP-y window managers? Try WMII: http://wmii.de/ [wmii.de]"
Re:It's a moving target (Score:4, Insightful)
-matthew
Re:It's a moving target (Score:2)
Re:It's a moving target (Score:2)
What would be the point? As it is, I turn off half the "features" that XP provides (if I am unlucky enough to be subjected to it for some reason). Everything goes back to "classic." If i have to use Windows, I'd rather deal with the awefullness which I am comfortable with rather than learning the new aweful ways MS thinks I should be doing things.
Most of them are targeted at everyday (ie non-tec
Re:It's a moving target (Score:3, Informative)
Did you mean:
1. performance meter? There were already zillion of "like-this" software-s. But most of the real problem lies in
- central registry, which is filled with too much non-sense that doesn't belong there and duplicated keys.
- the way windows accessed drives without a good scheduling
- implementing snail_speed_and_resource_hungry-technique like
Re:It's a moving target (Score:3, Insightful)
No kidding. What's more annoying that logging into XP and finding that you have to wait 30 seconds before the HD settles down enough to get any real work done. Great, they shaved some time off the bootup just to add it after login. Brilliant.
10. calendar, photo app? yeah, now name one system that didn't include those for a
Re:It's a moving target (Score:2)
Re:Gnome guys still unresponsive I see. (Score:5, Informative)
I believe it's called SMEG or gmenu-simple-edit. But Ala Carte works well.
sri
Re:Gnome guys still unresponsive I see. (Score:3, Informative)
Have you ever tried gmenu-simple-editor? It's amazingly useless.
It lets you hide existing menu items. That's it.
You can't create new menu items, and you can't edit existing ones. It's essentially worthless as a menu editor. Ala Carte does allow you to add, delete, and edit menu items, which is what most people would want. gmenu-simple-editor doesn't.
Re:Gnome guys still unresponsive I see. (Score:2)
So Ubuntu is using GNOME's menu editor, and it is fine. I just wish I could select it from anywhere in the menu, not just the menu button. Oh well.
Re:Gnome guys still unresponsive I see. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Gnome guys still unresponsive I see. (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the problem appeared when the menu specification appeared on freedesktop.org. They had to change their way to do menus to the new specification and, due the timed released, there wasn't time to do the menu editor. That came on two releases, I believe: the first when the specification came in and the next, where all applications on the desktop released where reviewed to include their ".desktop" files (the ones used on menus).
Also, the
Re:Gnome guys still unresponsive I see. (Score:2)
If the devs had just admitted that it was a time constraint which kept them from giving us a menu-editor, there would have been less comp
Re:Gnome guys still unresponsive I see. (Score:3, Informative)
Yep (Score:3, Interesting)
I felt that method of advanced configuration was lame at first, but I'm getting used to it. I kind of prefer it over having every configuration item listed in the preferences dialog.
Anyway, that's how you turn on the location bar.
Re:Yep (Score:2)
Re:file browser? (Score:2)
You can hit '/' to start typing an absolute path
Re:Appearance (Score:5, Informative)
Why?
1. Looks
2. Now, Gnome's loosing in the raw "theme" eye candy category, but they have KDE crushed in eye candy. How? Some neat new features. For one, SVG themeing on GNOME is a lot further along than KDE. For two, Cairo-GTK. This means that your SVG themes become DPI indepedant, as well as antialiased. This is a vast visibility improvement. Three, XGL integration. XGL is beautiful. XGL makes your linux desktop feel greater. A double buffered openGL desktop really makes everything feel more tactile.
3. Search. Beagle works, Kat doesn't. Kat, in its current iterations, exhibits horrifying memory leaks. My 2 GB desktop system slows to a crawl after 8 hours of indexing. Beagle works perfectly. Maybe it's cause I'm used to spotlight, but good, real-time fulltext search of your system is an incredible thing. It really makes it far less necessary to organize your files, you can spend less time on maintenance and more time working, and that's a good thing.
4. Fit and Finish. Some of this is in themeing (Gnome's interface exhibits less 'mis-alignment' of icons/images in interfaces, and other little uglies), and some of this is in userspace utilities. Gnome's networking is more reliable than KDEs. For whatever reason, all kinds of browsing on my KDE setup are semi-broken. SMB doesn't always work, nor does a variety of other kio:// interfaces.
Of course, I'm happy about this stuff, and I can't say that I've switched to Gnome for good. The last time I experimented with Gnome, the printing interface, the file browser, the (lack of) a menu editor, and nautilus were all vastly inferior to their KDE counterparts. Now, Gnome's various dialogues and interfaces are pretty functionally similar to KDE and more reliable. Gnome's also got the eye candy factor going for it.
I will say, however, that if KDE 4.0 is 1/2 as good as it currently is specc'd for I'll be moving back. As it is, KDE 3.5 is looking awful long in the tooth compared to Gnome.
Really, though, its not a huge deal. Install both (you'll want the libraries anyways), and they interoperate just fine. Switch back and forth as needed, and as long as your distro implements the freedesktop specifications you'll get the same entries everywhere.
Gnome has come a long way, and I think it can finally satisfy it's goals: A simple, defaults-are-correct, easy to use Linux environment. It's not necessarily a powerusers environment, but come on, how many average users are going to be using KIO and the like. Gnome aims for the Mac OS X goals (which are _very_ good goals when you are going after Joe Blow) and does it WITHOUT ripping off OS X part and parcel. Sure, there's some duplication, but that's to be expected: Sometimes the other guys just "get it right". But Gnome definitely has it's own identity, and is now feature complete for "the average user".
Re:The things is you have a choice (Score:2)
Beyond this though, there is a complete application development framework. This provides a set of applicati
Re:XGL (Score:2, Interesting)
I sure don't! I got sick and tired of the proprietary driver that crashed my kernel and kept me from upgrading when I wanted to. So I dumped it for a Radeon. It ain't perfect, but at least the Open Source driver works and is stable, and I don't have to say "please, sir" before using it.
The new XGL and AIGLX stuff looks cools, but what we need much more than that is unemcumbered video hardware. If I need the proprietary Nvidia or