Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 10th Oct 2005 17:23 UTC
X11, Window Managers Tango is a project to create a new icon theme for all f.d.o-compatible DEs, using a standard style guide. Regarding the BetterDesktop, there are over 200 usability test videos in ogg and mpeg format.
Order by: Score:
Oooh!
by jeffbax on Mon 10th Oct 2005 17:43 UTC
jeffbax
Member since:
2005-07-27

Just what the OSS world needs ;)

KDE's icons just look too ridiculous, and Gnome's look too dull.

I have a lot of hope for this ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Oooh!
by Anonymous on Mon 10th Oct 2005 17:56 UTC in reply to "Oooh!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Yeah, these are both very encouraging projects. I'm really looking forward to watching them grow and mature. Tango has some great talent involved (the Novell design team, Steven Garrity of Firefox icon/Silverorange fame). Really great stuff. And these usability testing videos are invaluable.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Oooh!
by Guppetto on Mon 10th Oct 2005 17:58 UTC in reply to "Oooh!"
Guppetto Member since:
2005-07-06

Many people share your oppinion, but thats the beauty of the open source community. Becuase they don't the default look and feel of both desktops (which is designed to appeal to a multitude of people - so your bound to offend someone) artist have created a multitude of alternative icon sets and themes. Why keep the pissing contest of bashing the default looks of Gnome and Kde, when we all know very well that the entire look and feel can be modified to suit your taste in three mouse clicks. This project is interesting, but ultimately, it will be copied to both desktops by Icon and theme porters, and rendered marginally useless.

Reply Score: 0

v RE: Oooh!
by Guppetto on Mon 10th Oct 2005 18:00 UTC in reply to "Oooh!"
RE: Oooh!
by Anonymous on Mon 10th Oct 2005 18:49 UTC in reply to "Oooh!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

What is also cool is that this is pushing forward the shared icon names spec. This will make it much easier for everyone. People who like dull of ridiculous icons will have a much easier time changing themes across both gnome and kde.

Reply Score: 0

Sexy
by Anonymous on Mon 10th Oct 2005 17:57 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Direct link to the icons: http://tango-project.org/Tango_Icon_Gallery

I like 'em!

About KDE, though: There's a new default icon set for KDE4 called "Oxygen" in the works that will be a lot more consistent, subdued and elegant than Crystal.

Reply Score: 0

Good
by sappyvcv on Mon 10th Oct 2005 18:02 UTC
sappyvcv
Member since:
2005-07-06

Good! I'm glad someone is taking the initiative to do this in the *nix community.

Coders and designers simply do not think the same way as end users. What makes sense to them does not neccesarily make sense to an average user.

Good luck to Novell on this project (BetterDesktop).

Reply Score: 1

Good
by sappyvcv on Mon 10th Oct 2005 18:05 UTC
sappyvcv
Member since:
2005-07-06

Good! I'm glad someone is taking the initiative to do this in the *nix community.

Coders and designers simply do not think the same way as end users. What makes sense to them does not neccesarily make sense to an average user.

Good luck to Novell on this project (BetterDesktop).

Reply Score: 0

Neat.
by Anonymous on Mon 10th Oct 2005 18:46 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The color of green used in the icons looks a bit sickly, but on the whole they don't look so bad... it's like a cross between the Gnome, KDE, and Firefox-on-Mac icon styles ;)

Reply Score: 0

Reality Check
by Mystilleef on Mon 10th Oct 2005 18:48 UTC
Mystilleef
Member since:
2005-06-29

I have to mock the individuals who say Linux is not ready for the desktop. If you haven't watched the usability videos, please do so. Very interesting stuff. And for all those who says GNOME folks are wasting their time on usability, simplicity and ease of use, well, the videos will prove you wrong. One lady couldn't figure out how to change the desktop on KDE. Now that's sad. All in all the videos are revealing and they seperate the myths from reality.

I'm glad because whenever the "Linux is not ready for desktop" articles and trolls appear on osnews, I have a repository of videos at my disposal to baptize their ignorance.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Reality Check
by Anonymous on Mon 10th Oct 2005 19:33 UTC in reply to "Reality Check"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I think all the usability tests were done using gnome, if I'm not mistaken. Are you talking about the one mac lady who tried clicking on a picture of the control panel?

-bytecoder

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Reality Check
by Mystilleef on Mon 10th Oct 2005 19:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Reality Check"
Mystilleef Member since:
2005-06-29

There are a few done using KDE, I can't remember which link it is. I think it is in the changing the wallpaper section.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Reality Check
by Vanders on Tue 11th Oct 2005 07:00 UTC in reply to "Reality Check"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

There is a huge difference between "Linux is ready for the desktop" and "GNOME/KDE are ready for the desktop". The usability videos do not show Linux being used; they show GNOME and KDE.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Reality Check
by renox on Tue 11th Oct 2005 21:10 UTC in reply to "Reality Check"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

>I have to mock the individuals who say Linux is not ready for the desktop.
OK, let's see a configuration I had to do: I have a QWERTY keyboard and I want to use the right Win key as a 'compose key' to make French accent, how do I do?

Answer: I spent two who days on the net trying to find correct documentation, doesn't find anything remotely understandable and everything in English of course, I finaly gave up and used the AltGr key instead.
When I used KDE to change it, sometimes the keyboard configuration didn't change as expected, so finally I added a line directly XF86Config and restarted X.

Quite often, the icons disappear (about one time per month), sometimes the process which lock my station has a problem and I have to kill it otherwise only the commandline works to lock the station, the GUI does not.
This is with a fully patched RHE3.

Is-it usable as a desktop? Yes, I'm using it.
Is-it a good desktop? No!
Frankly having a process as simple as the lock which is buggy..
Is-it stable?
Not really: the Java plugin crash the PC sometimes (and yes I need it for my work, stupid Java web interfaces), granted this is Sun's fault not Linux's fault, but nonetheless this is *very* annoying.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Reality Check
by Anonymous on Wed 12th Oct 2005 14:49 UTC in reply to "Reality Check"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I checked the 3 largest files in the wallpaper section (because I assume the person who failed would play around longer than those who didn't) and all of them are Gnome. So I call bullshit on your claim until you provide us with a link

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Reality Check
by Mystilleef on Wed 12th Oct 2005 16:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Reality Check"
Mystilleef Member since:
2005-06-29

http://betterdesktop.ximian.com/video/changedesktopbackground/Subje...

There are more. If only you'd actually download and watch them.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Reality Check
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Oct 2005 00:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Reality Check"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I've got better things to do with my time than downloading hundreds of megs and watching people change the background on their desktops. I still think that watching the three largest is enough when it is really your job to support your arguments.

That said. I watched that video (no audio, very suspicious, see below) and because there is no audio I don't really see the problem of that woman. She reached the desktop background settings via the context menu which shows some kind of sophistication, then used the dropdown to switch to another wallpaper (and then she was finished,... no wait), which she apparently didn't like, then she opened the file selection dialog (which Novell configured to open in the home directory (I think, better video quality would've been nice) and without the preview pane, great thinking boys, that helps...) which due to the reasons in parenthesis didn't help her either and then she went off to do,... something I don't understand.

So I d/led another video of her, the one where she should change the time. And if that doesn't convince you that that woman is functionally retarded I don't know what does. She seems to have a compulsive disorder that forces her to find the solution and then to wander off or give up before actually implementing the solution to solve her problem.

Now I don't say this to defend KDE, because imho the clock configuration dialog is the worst KDE has to offer. So when I read the task I actually felt some sympathy but by god that woman is stupid.
I would have understood if it took her some tries to find the correct menu entry. Even though it says what it does ("Adjust Date&Time") most people's first instinct is to choose "Configure Clock" due to its position and because that's what you're used to from other apps and she did that. Now that was understandable but she tried every fscking entry in the menu, some even twice, before she tried Adjust Date&Time, then she got the root pw prompt (apparently a problem in GNOME too, at least that's what the summary said). Now if my Computer prompts me for a pw I at least read what it wants and why it wants it - that seems to be the exception.

Ok, she logged out, logged in as root, in Gnome got to the yast menu (no confusing root pw prompt here and the context menu is better, ais I hate the KDE one), were once again she managed to look at every single option before she tried the button confusingly named "Change" in the "Date&Time" section. Then she got the screen were you can change the time...and she closed the window without doing so and gave up. WTF?!

I think the reason her clips got no audio is either
a) She doesn't know English. They sat her in front of a Computer with an interface in a language she doesn't speak and looked how she struggled
b) The person conducting the survey was changing the goals every time she came close to solving the old one
c) The person conducting the survey was deliberatly misleading her to advance the cause of his dark master.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Reality Check
by Mystilleef on Thu 13th Oct 2005 07:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Reality Check"
Mystilleef Member since:
2005-06-29

Well at least I'm not bullshitting. You can find all the excuses in world for her confusion, and as you claim, "stupidity." But the reality remains that the interface is broken and needs to be fixed. They are other issues, but I'm not in the mood to haunt for videos, or argue about the retardness of other people.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Reality Check
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Oct 2005 09:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Reality Check"
Anonymous Member since:
---

How can you say that the interface is broken, if it was offered broken to her on purpose by those who made the tests, but are known to be GNOME fanboys ? The default behavior of KDE was changed on purpose only to irritate those who wanted to accomplish the tasks.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Reality Check
by Mystilleef on Thu 13th Oct 2005 10:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Reality Check"
Mystilleef Member since:
2005-06-29

Will this thread ever die? I don't see any changes in the interface. I've used both KDE and GNOME. The interface seem to be exactly what is in KDE last time I checked. Novell seems to have even cleaned up some of the KDE mess. Anyway, it's time for this thread to die.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Reality Check
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Oct 2005 10:44 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Reality Check"
Anonymous Member since:
---

> I don't see any changes in the interface.

What interface, the code technical one, or the interface to a printer, or the serial port, or the interface to some hardware or are you refering to the graphical user interface ?

> I've used both KDE and GNOME.

Used in terms or truly using it ? Or in terms of have installed both for 5 mins but then sticked back to GNOME ?

> The interface seem to be exactly what is in KDE last time I checked.

That's why it's called KDE, because it offers a consistent clean, intuitive and responsive graphical user interface.

> Novell seems to have even cleaned up some of the KDE mess.

Novell hasn't cleaned up anything, but I think you are refering to the handful of people who's resources has been made available to work on some fixes. SUSE otoh is still an own institution working autharc even if they are bought up by Novell. It's known that SUSE still works and still are committed to KDE. Some of KDE's most brilliant developers are under direct contract of SUSE and probably the key horse behind KDE to push it forwards and dimensions ahead of GNOME.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Reality Check
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Oct 2005 23:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Reality Check"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I repeat: I don't think the interface was the problem in this case. Watch it again, watch the date&time video. In the background picture video she was in the correct dialog after a few seconds, she used the dropdown to change the wallpaper all she had to do was click apply just like in Windows (and she must have had ample Windows experience because she reached the config dialog via the context menu) but instead she went off on an Odyssey.

In the date&time video she actually failed in Gnome after logging in as root (?) and again finding the correct dialog.

So as I don't want to indulge in conspiration theories like the other reply I have to say that without audio, which would answer some of the more obvious questions about what they told her and what she said about her reasons for doing what she did, I don't see how you can use her video to draw any conclusions about the usability of KDE (and once again: I specifically d/led the "change the system time" video *because* I think that the KDE way of doing this is horrible)

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Reality Check
by Anonymous on Fri 14th Oct 2005 04:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Reality Check"
Anonymous Member since:
---

@Anonymous (IP: 82.135.78.---)

I don't think you can convince Mystilleef in any ways, regardless what you write. All he did in the past 10-15 replies was discrediting people, the reason why I started to call him an Idiot. He seems to be on some sort of own crusade because he can't accept the truth (somehow it hurts). He doesn't even have the skill to talk about the things he is criticising or the things he call good because some of the replies he gave have shown this. Lack of fundamental knowledge about both architectures doesn't make a good conversation partner but then, he most likely trolls anyways. What a poor GNOME drone.

Reply Score: 0

lots of usability focus this week
by Anonymous on Mon 10th Oct 2005 19:13 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

sounds like a nice project, but i have to say I dont really like the look of the icons much. <http://tango-project.org/Tango_Icon_Gallery>

Maybe its more for a corporate settings then for my tastes but they look too overly realistic. I like the way everything gnomeish (i know this isnt exclusively) this week is focusing on speed and usability. Gnome 2.14 (and KDE 4) are looking very promising already.

Reply Score: 0

More than just Desktop Managers.
by Corey on Mon 10th Oct 2005 19:13 UTC
Corey
Member since:
2005-08-03

I really like this idea! I hope that at least the icon set doesn't just focus on Gnome and KDE. It would be wonderful if Rox and XFCE support the new icon spec as well.

Reply Score: 1

RE: More than just Desktop Managers.
by JonO on Tue 11th Oct 2005 00:15 UTC in reply to "More than just Desktop Managers."
JonO Member since:
2005-09-23

I could see myself using these in Rox. They look good.

Reply Score: 1

mouse icon
by AdamW on Mon 10th Oct 2005 19:34 UTC
AdamW
Member since:
2005-07-06

The mouse icon looks rather like a Microsoft Intellimouse, doesn't it? I wonder why they didn't base it on a Logitech mouse instead...:)

Reply Score: 0

Icons
by Anonymous on Mon 10th Oct 2005 19:43 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Looking at what they have so far, I'm not impressed at all. Too many different colors and too many small details. Just look at address-book-new and multimedia volume-control, for example.

When designing icons, you should always keep in mind what you'll get at a small size - and if there are too many colors and details, you're gonna get a mess. Firefox icons can be a great source of inspiration here and an example how icons should look.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Icons
by remenic on Mon 10th Oct 2005 20:20 UTC in reply to "Icons"
remenic Member since:
2005-07-06

What do you base this on? Research? Real world examples?

Personally, I think that using the same colors for every icon makes it difficult to distinguish them. Especially at small sizes, you'll want an icon with great significance to stand out. And what's a better way to do that than using colors?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Icons
by Anonymous on Mon 10th Oct 2005 20:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Icons"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Personally, I think that using the same colors for every icon makes it difficult to distinguish them. Especially at small sizes, you'll want an icon with great significance to stand out. And what's a better way to do that than using colors?

Having distinct silhouettes. Using colors is next to useless for low-vision and color-blind users. And that's a significant percentage of your potential users.

This isn't to say that colors can't be used as an effective additional cue, but it should never be relied upon as the sole means of distinguishing things.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Icons
by Anonymous on Mon 10th Oct 2005 21:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Icons"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Notice that one of the frequent mistakes on the bottom of the Tango style guidelines is a difficult to distinguish silhouette. http://tango-project.org/Tango_Icon_Theme_Guidelines

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Icons
by Anonymous on Mon 10th Oct 2005 22:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Icons"
Anonymous Member since:
---

What do you base this on? Research? Real world examples?

Personally, I think that using the same colors for every icon makes it difficult to distinguish them. Especially at small sizes, you'll want an icon with great significance to stand out. And what's a better way to do that than using colors?


Common sense and my own experience. Do look at the examples I provided.

You're right in that all icons shouldn't be of the same color, because they would be hard to distinguish then. Instead, a palette of a few colors (three, maybe?) is chosen and all icons in the set (or at least in a subset containing functionally related items?) are made using that palette. That way you can have a coherent look that doesn't distract you. Moreover, color should have a certain meaning - for example, red means you should pay special attention to the operation this item performs. This is used in Gnome default theme (as dull and sometimes ugly as it is, it does serve its purpose well). Tango uses colors pretty randomly as far as I can judge.

Many details can render an icon incomprehensible at small sizes (especially if these details are defferently colored - this way the icon becomes just a motley spot).

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Icons
by Anonymous on Mon 10th Oct 2005 23:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Icons"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Did you even look at the Tango site? They have a very clearly defined color palette.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Icons
by jeffbax on Mon 10th Oct 2005 22:32 UTC in reply to "Icons"
jeffbax Member since:
2005-07-27

As an OSX user, its the small details on everything that make things so great.

Gnome is so "blah" and KDE is a big punch in the eye.

I think these icons look VERY nice.

Reply Score: 1

Doooh!
by Morty on Mon 10th Oct 2005 19:52 UTC
Morty
Member since:
2005-07-06

As a icon theme Tango does not look too interesting really. Even if some may like the look of them, personally I thought lots of them had bad usability. It was hard to make out their meaning, specally the small ones. And the need to have different versions for svgs and the smaller sized icons are problems already discussed on artist mailinglists.

Making a Icon Naming Specification sounds good, but I haven't seen much discussion and colabration from the different desktops on the issue on mailinglist and such. Hopfully it's not another case of someone declaring something a fd.o "standard", whitout actually involving other relevant projects.

As for BetterDesktop it's a classic NIH. Rather than joining the Open Usability initiative, start your own. Sad really.

Reply Score: 1

Appeal + Better desktop ?
by Anonymous on Mon 10th Oct 2005 20:31 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Will the Appeal project merge with Better Desktop ? I think they should do.

Reply Score: 0

2 Things
by Sean Parsons on Mon 10th Oct 2005 20:51 UTC
Sean Parsons
Member since:
2005-09-11

1.) Usability I've looked at some of the lower rated user experiences on the usability testing, and still thought that KDE/GNOME looked very good. They are good examples of how easy they've become. Currently I would rather teach a new desktop user GNOME than MS Windows. Its logical layout and strong adherence to its HIG make it very easy to teach, and I waste infinitely less time cleaning up various forms of malware. The next hurdle for F/OSS is an easy package installer for newbies. Apt-get, yum, synaptic, drakconf, etc., is easy if you know what programs you're looking for but we need something more like Linspire's CNR.

2.) Tango Icons I realize that this may be a taste issue, but the Tango Icons are really terrible looking. They look even worse than the default GNOME icons which were never good, but now look very deprecated when compared to many of the other icon sets out there. I do like the idea of creating a unified format for the icons amongst KDE and GNOME (hopefully Xfce will agree to do the same). Over all a good idea, but please do not let Tango be the default (it may make many newbies say blehhh on first boot). We need to do like Aaron Seigo has suggested and create a visually breathtaking desktop (eye candy counts, especially to new users).

Reply Score: 2

RE: 2 Things
by bogomipz on Tue 11th Oct 2005 07:23 UTC in reply to "2 Things"
bogomipz Member since:
2005-07-11

In my view, the most important thing here is the standard, not the theme. I don't even think Gnome nor KDE wants to have the same default theme as the other one has. The ability for the end user to download a theme and use it in all his applications is what will make life on the desktop better. Sure, the icons need tons of improvement (the small scale icons inherit too much details from their big brothers, many people don't like the overall look of the theme), but that will come with time.

Reply Score: 1

A good start...
by JCooper on Mon 10th Oct 2005 21:11 UTC
JCooper
Member since:
2005-07-06

I actually like the tango icons so far - they're not too dull (a common generic gnome complaint), they're not too shiny and blue (a common generic kde complaint), and they're "next gen" enough to have the wow factor. I am very impressed by the talented artists we have in the OSS world generating these sorts of things.

As far as the desktop testing site - I'm glad the videos have finally been posted. I just hope that people can somehow put together usability labs of their own and further contribute. There's nothing better than actually being able to see users' reactions to software whilst trying to perform specific use cases.

As someone mentioned above, a lot of the Gnome camp appear to be focusing on refinement (and I'm sure this is true of KDE too) which is a really good thing in the move towards a top-notch 'End Product'. I think we'll be seeing some very polished UI's and user experiences before the "next generation" x.0 DEs come along.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Sean Parsons
by Anonymous on Mon 10th Oct 2005 21:33 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

On your first comment, an Ubuntu community member has created an application similar to CnR called EasyUbunutu:
http://placelibre.ath.cx/keyes/index.php/2005/09/29/45-easy-ubuntu-...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Sean Parsons
by Sean Parsons on Mon 10th Oct 2005 22:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Sean Parsons"
Sean Parsons Member since:
2005-09-11

Thanks for the link, but it's not quite what I'm looking for. CnR has a nice web-style layout with easy to navigate categories, download rankings, screenshots, short and long descriptions and thousands of apps. I realize that veteran Linux users (including myself) would rather run sudo apt-get install foo, but this is not the solution to what ESR calls the Aunt Tillie test. Granted Aunt Tillie probably has issues with MS Windows as well, but we shouldn't be short sighted and only look upon Redmond for usability.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Sean Parsons
by Anonymous on Mon 10th Oct 2005 22:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sean Parsons"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Ever heard of the internet? If you want features like that, you might as well just move to the easier to use, and more powerful, no-install application approach and use the internet as your repository.

-bytecoder

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Sean Parsons
by Anonymous on Tue 11th Oct 2005 03:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sean Parsons"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Ever heard of the internet? If you want features like that, you might as well just move to the easier to use, and more powerful, no-install application approach and use the internet as your repository.

-bytecoder


The idea of a CnR-esque front end for Apt-get is what I'm suggesting. If you leverage Mozilla's XUL interface it essentially would be very similar to using the internet like a repository. I'm not stating that is the only way to go, but CnR is very easy and nonintimidating to newbies and nontechnical end users. Just because of responsiveness and availability when you are offline, your tools should be installable.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Sean Parsons
by Anonymous on Tue 11th Oct 2005 11:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sean Parsons"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I think that the new ubuntu (5.10 breezy badger) has something pretty similar to what you're talking about. It's called the "Add application" program.

You can browse through a bunch of categories and there are descriptions of what the programs do and you can just install them from there. It's like Synaptic for new users, which (although I haven't used cnr) is what your talking about.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Sean Parsons
by Sean Parsons on Wed 19th Oct 2005 21:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sean Parsons"
Sean Parsons Member since:
2005-09-11

Thanks,

It's not quite advanced to the level that CNR is at, but it is absolutely a step in the right direction. I will recommend this app to all my new installations from now on. Between 'Add Application', my own repository, and a customized 'Easy Ubuntu', I think application installation (and deinstallation) is becoming very newbie friendly.

cheers

Reply Score: 1

I like this!
by Anonymous on Tue 11th Oct 2005 01:53 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This is a big step forward for Desktop OSS.

I personally like the icons. You want something that looks professional for a default theme. The current gnome icons are dull and KDE is too busy IMO.

Of course, some people like that but they can change the theme anyway.

Reply Score: 0

perfect to a default theme!
by JrezIN on Tue 11th Oct 2005 02:18 UTC
JrezIN
Member since:
2005-06-29

Well... I like them!
(What else could I say? well... seriously, they're very well designed and look nice enough to almost everyone. It's perfect for a "default" theme! Keep the good work! =] )

Reply Score: 1

Better Desktop
by Anonymous on Tue 11th Oct 2005 04:08 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

It's always eye-opening to see how some users interact with their computer. Things that seem intuitive to those brought up with various OS habits are often quite non-intuitive to new or unfamiliar users.

Watching these videos shows just how far we can go on improving some tasks.

Reply Score: 0

GNOME stuff for GNOME people
by plfiorini on Tue 11th Oct 2005 07:35 UTC
plfiorini
Member since:
2005-06-30

Yes, as always this is GNOME stuff!
Yeah I know, KDE icons are a punch in the eyes and GNOME icons are dull but these are really GNOME icons with a different palette.

Reply Score: 1

RE: GNOME stuff for GNOME people
by Anonymous on Tue 11th Oct 2005 07:56 UTC in reply to "GNOME stuff for GNOME people"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Well, here and there you do see signs of that Apple/KDE-ish gloss ;)

Reply Score: 0

Icons for applications?
by Anonymous on Tue 11th Oct 2005 08:07 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Does that mean that with tango all applicaitons, irrespective of libraries (i.e qt or gtk) use the same icons. For example will Kontact with Tango look similar to Evolution ?

Reply Score: 0

Boring
by Anonymous on Tue 11th Oct 2005 09:13 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

What they have at the moment is pretty boring. I find the icons i use quite good "nuoveXT".

Reply Score: 0

My opinion is...
by dylansmrjones on Tue 11th Oct 2005 09:31 UTC
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

that the icon set seems reasonable.

Only negative is the small icons. They inherit too many details from the larger sizes.

Perhaps I would also prefer 128*128 as the large size with 48*48 as medium, but this means very little when using vectors. So it's a non issue.

Reply Score: 1

Better Desktop?
by Anonymous on Tue 11th Oct 2005 09:39 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

1. To find out which parts of a given design work well for our target audience and which parts don't. For example, we ran general tests on the F-Spot photo organizer because we wanted to gain an overall understanding of what its interface did well, and what it did poorly.

If they want a better desktop, maybe they should consider digikam instead of F-spot?

Reply Score: 0

v Fix GNOME
by Anonymous on Tue 11th Oct 2005 10:22 UTC
v Fix GNOME and a few comments about MONO
by Anonymous on Tue 11th Oct 2005 11:30 UTC
Anonymous Member since:
---

You again!

Dunno if you can change the mess found in the GNOME architecture by using new Icons ?

The GNOME framework is not broken. If it was, there will be no GNOME desktop environment or GNOME applications. Do you know what the meaning of "broken" is?

Nothing really works inside GNOME, even core applications are not following the HIG v2.0 (Toolbar of Gnumeric doesn't follow the Toolbar & Menus capplet), Evolution is broken because it crashes during startup and trashes all syncfiles for local mailboxes, Nautilus still not usable, copying files using Nautilus is still broken, DIA is not usable, Abiwords toolbar is by far 5 pixels bigger than the rest of GNOME's toolbars, Evince is permanently crashing and quite unusable because of this.

The GNOME HIG is set of guidelines. The guidelines are not laws or rules that developers are obliged to follow. Developers should know when and when not to follow the HIG. Sometimes the HIG could be blatantly wrong with regards to the design of a particular behavior in my application.

Regarding the issues you are having with those applications, can you point me to the bug reports you filed? I'd have to call you a troll if you can't.

It also shows empty white pages and printing will result in printouts getting different fonts (reported bug), Rhythmbox crashes with GStreamer, Rhythmbox is quite immature compared to KDE's amaroK.

Yes, and monkeys have wings.

MONO will split the entire GNOME community, not to mention that MONO is not portable to any other architecture such as PowerPC, SPARC and so on, so most MONO apps are quite useless.

Mono is not as popular as Python among GNOME and free software developers. The only people mildly interested in Mono are windows developers interested in developing cross platform .NET applications. They are a niche. The future of GNOME is Python, period.

So howto solve this ? Paint a few new icons... how pathetic.... Btw: The icons are butt ugly...

You solve this by whinning less and contributing more. You can begin by showing us your less ugly icon set.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Your reply was way too long. As usual you are just whining. Readers hate to read whiners. And I am no different. I enjoy constructive criticisms. I can't stand whiners. They are no good. They are ungrateful, and they contribute almost nothing to any cause. They are usually armchair critics who see faults in everything, and have as much faults themselves.

No user I know of ever complains about the looks of the toolbar. You are intentionally being pedantic and you are annoying in the process. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a limited mind." It is foolish to limit the creativity of developer to superficial qualities in a specification such as the look of a toolbar. The brightest minds and developers are creative. And they will never let something as superficial as the GNOME HIG limited their creativity.

The HIG clearly states it is a guideline. If you had read the HIG, you'd have realized this. No one advertises the HIG. If there are opposing views on how the implement a particular behavior, the HIG can serve as a reference and a standard for implementing said behavior. If you do not know how to word a tool tip, the HIG can come to your rescue. If you want to place a non-standard item in a menu, and you do not know where, look into the HIG. That's the purpose of the HIG. I have applications that intentionally disobey some guidelines set forth in the HIG because it just doesn't fit the design goals of the app. I'm I wrong? Nope. Is the HIG useless? Nope. The HIG serves its purpose as a reference material and guide. If you want to design good applications read books on interface design, watch users use applications, and test your applications. Whether or not the toolbar has text is largely irrelevant in the real world.

All large projects have problems and GNOME is not without exception. However, I disagree with your assessment of GNOME problems. Not only are your assessments intentionally inaccurate, they are fueled by seeds of hatred, bias and disgust. How do you expect me or anybody to take you seriously. Your reputation for trolling GNOME threads doesn't help. And your GONEME failures have shown you are as incompetent as the GNOME developers with regards to broken ideas and vision. So before you call GNOME developers names, look into the mirror. GNOME today is a successful project. You tried to fork it and failed. Yet you have the nerve to school us about successful and broken projects. Who do you think you are?

If you really loved GNOME, you'd be doing all you can to make it look and work better. In every comment you have written, you've done all you can to destroy the image of the GNOME community and contributors. I have never read you say, GNOME does something right. It's always insults, negative retorts, ceaseless whining, childish rebuttals, outright lies, mindless name calling and so on. Why do you act like you know the solution to all the problems when you records have clearly shown, you do not possess that quality?

Reply Score: 0

StephenBeDoper
Member since:
2005-07-06

I like the visual style of the icons; slightly cartoonish, but clean and simple. And a big PLUS-PLUS on the comments in their style guides about glossy icons:

"Use glossy reflection only on objects that have a reflective surface in real life (plastic, glass, some metal, et cetera). A paper sheet certainly doesn't have such attribute."

When looking through the icon gallery itself though, IMO some of the icons are a bit too stylized and I couldn't tell what they were supposed to be without reading the description. I also prefer the perspective on icons to be from a 45 degree angle (a la the BeOS icons) - I find it makes the icons look less flat, but that's just my personal aesthetic preference.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

As usual your retorts are all baseless and mindless. Why the heck should I use bonobo in my app if it doesn't need it? Just because I can? That's stupid.

If my application needs to communicate with another application then I can worry about that. But if it doesn't why should I? And even if it does, the correct way to go about it is to use GTK+ plugs and sockets with Dbus. If you understand bonobo, then go ahead and use it. But using Bonobo and Kparts just for the heck of it premature and poor design. It is no wonder KDE apps look bloated and constipated.

GNOME architecture is solid. Very powerful applications are written everyday using GNOME. I have used it myself and it impresses me beyond words. In fact, my only complaints is better documentations, examples and tutorials. But that has nothing to do with a broken architecture. In fact the general consensus among most users in the GNOME is the easiest free software desktop. The usability videos I watched yesterday also prove that.

In the real world nobody gives a flying f--k about toolbar consistency. All they care about is getting their job done. Abiword, GNUMERIC, Evolution, Epiphany, to mention a few allow people to get their work done. We leave people like you to waste their time looking for consistency in toolbars. If your application is useful and easy to use, people will flock to it anyway.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous' bugs
by Anonymous on Tue 11th Oct 2005 16:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Anonymous, you never posted any links to your bug reports, but rather offered some vague suggestion to "search for keywords".

Anyways, let's start looking at these bugs. First, we have the bug that was closed "as not a bug and no further comments have been given to it":
http://bugs.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=311349
It would seem to me that there was lots of discussion about it.

Now let's take a look at the other bugs you filed... Search for your email...
http://bugs.gnome.org/buglist.cgi?short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&sh...
It would appear you didn't file too many bugs, especially for those programs you were just previously complaining about.

One for gnome-terminal was reopened. An old GRecord bug was fixed. You filed a Dia bug, not sure if that was fixed (it's 2 years old, I'm sure the fonts got better). A bug against gnumeric (which I think is a valid bug), which resulted in another bug to get rid the "Menus & Toolbars" capplet (which I think is an invalid bug), both of these were closed as invalid. And finally, a bug for nautilus which was fixed in 2 days.

Hmm.....

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

All your points are invalid and rebuked. When you fail to understand the purpose of a human interface guide, how can you understand the purpose of a development architecture or framework?

You claim GNOME is broken because developers don't follow the HIG. Well, let me spell it out for you. Developers do not have to follow the HIG. It's a f--king guideline.

You claim GNOME is broken because different applications use different widgets. No shit! I didn't know all applications were supposed to use the same widget. The goal is to design good applications that simple and easy to use. The goal is not to pointlessly masturbate of toolbar widgets and intentionally broken HIG suggestions.

If an application does not need a toolbar, why should HIG instruct a the developer to add one? If application does not need a menu, why should I even read the menu section in the HIG? I can sight more examples, but I'm wasting my time.

You clearly do not understand the wisdom behind developing good applications. It has nothing to do with the HIG or toolbars, or different widget sets. It has everything do with the problem the user is trying solve and how the user can most effectively interact with the application. I'm sorry, but contrary to your misconception, a nice HIG, and an unbroken framework doesn't automatically buy that.

Wisdom, creativity and talent buy you that. And I strongly believe the GNOME community has all these resources and more. In other words, the framework doesn't matter, the HIG doesn't matter, only contributors matter. There is a reason Balmer was jumping all over the stage chanting "developers... developers...developers..." If you have nothing to contribute, please step aside.

If you have nothing better to say, just shut up!

Reply Score: 0

RE: Anonymous' bugs
by Anonymous on Tue 11th Oct 2005 17:04 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The email address you have used to search for things is dead for many years now. But thanks for confirming that these bugreports do exist.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Anonymous' bugs
by Anonymous on Tue 11th Oct 2005 17:08 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Try this one (doesn't include all of the search possibilites)

http://bugs.gnome.org/buglist.cgi?short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&sh...

If you sort for the bugs that are still open then you find reports to all the bugs that I was complaining here.

This at the end confirms that basic tasks don't work as expected.

Now that everything has been proven to be truth, what else would you add ?

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

> Why the heck should I use bonobo in my app if it
> doesn't need it? Just because I can?

No, you don't and I didn't said you must. Please don't turn my words in a way as I haven't said it.

But I believe that a good plugins system is necessary because it's easier to share stuff with other applications. Don't you think ? People in the GNOME camp write new libraries and requires those who wants that feature to use the libs instead of providing plugins that might have solve the things easier. Wasn't that the aim of Bonobo in the past. I recall a document and big announcements with bells and whistles some years back

"Bonobo, write objects in any language you want and have your app use them"

Or something like that. The idea was good and even came from the GNOME camp. It's called:

GNU Network Object Model Environment

On purpose!

> GNOME architecture is solid. Very powerful
> applications are written everyday using GNOME.

Such as Nautilus for example or the great Filechooser that still annoys most of the users who still use GNOME ? But fun asides.

> The usability videos I watched yesterday also prove that.

If you are refering to the Novell videos then please allow me to ask where the KDE tests are ? I've only seen GNOME stuff there but their site refers to KDE and GNOME and yet I haven't seen one single KDE app or the KDE desktop getting the same attention. For me as user and someone who's watching the show from a sidepath it looks like there are some weak attempts trying to talk KDE to death because there is no other way for GNOME to survive rather than killing it off that way.

> All they care about is getting their job done.

Same here, all I care is getting my work done. But I'd like to get them done without getting pissed off and without the need to fix stuff that I consider basic tasks under GNOME.

Getting my work done like:

- Permanently having desynced mbox index files with Evolution that starts up with Annoying dialogs,
- Permanently having my emails being popped even if I don't want it,
- Getting black paper printouts from GThumb while all I wanted was to print a few copies of my dead grandpa's pictures for my family,
- Trying to copy stuff from FTP using Nautilus, which ends up in random lockups and 0 byte files,
- Trying to print out some documents using Evince which ends up in fonts looking differently,
- Trying to listen to some music with a bad music player.
- Trying to make some UML diagrams in DIA ends up in corrupt saved data or permanent crashes.

... comeone, what kind of work is this that I should be getting done ... The toolbar issue was just one example of how much GNOME's architecture sucks and yes it's a valid one because if the toolbar is not obeying to GNOME's general settings then it's considered to be broken. End! It's a key jerkyness inside GNOME.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

But I believe that a good plugins system is necessary because it's easier to share stuff with other applications. Don't you think ?

No, I don't. In fact, I think it is overrated and misguided. It's only useful if you need it. 99% of apps don't. So trying to find excuses for you app to use a library is silly. And that's why KDE apps look like they are designed with no purpose.


People in the GNOME camp write new libraries and requires those who wants that feature to use the libs instead of providing plugins that might have solve the things easier. Wasn't that the aim of Bonobo in the past. I recall a document and big announcements with bells and whistles some years back

"Bonobo, write objects in any language you want and have your app use them"


Many GNOME developers realize bonobo for what it was and stayed away from it. It was a good idea at the time, I believe. But now developers are waking up to the reality that application do not always need to be embedded in each other or interact with each other. So trying to have all GNOME apps use Bonobo without reason is shortsighted. It is a damn stupid idea. I'd rather applications interact with each other via the desktop than via some stupid MS inspired convoluted mechanism. I'm not saying IPCs are bad. I'm saying they should only be used when it makes sense to use them.

Such as Nautilus for example or the great Filechooser that still annoys most of the users who still use GNOME ? But fun asides.

Nautilus is a fine piece of work. The filechooser is a lot more usable than the hideousness on KDE or Windows.


If you are refering to the Novell videos then please allow me to ask where the KDE tests are ? I've only seen GNOME stuff there but their site refers to KDE and GNOME and yet I haven't seen one single KDE app or the KDE desktop getting the same attention. For me as user and someone who's watching the show from a sidepath it looks like there are some weak attempts trying to talk KDE to death because there is no other way for GNOME to survive rather than killing it off that way.

The KDE tests are there, if you actually took the time to watch them. You should the look on the users face when the KDE filechooser is launched. Oh, I didn't see any apps crashing, or exhibiting any of the behaviors you mentioned. How come you are the only person Evolution, Nautilus, and all of GNOME crashes on?

... comeone, what kind of work is this that I should be getting done ... The toolbar issue was just one example of how much GNOME's architecture sucks and yes it's a valid one because if the toolbar is not obeying to GNOME's general settings then it's considered to be broken. End! It's a key jerkyness inside GNOME.

The toolbar issue is invalid and repugnant. See my previous comment above. And why do you think your printing issue is a problem with GNOME and not with your drivers? GNOME has nothing to do with printing. Cups and your drivers has everything to do with your printing eating your documents or wasting paper. Again, you are ever looking for an excuse to expose your ignorance and insult the efforts GNOME contributors, for problems that don't even exist to begin with.

Toolbars! Give me a f--king break!

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

No! I claim GNOME to be broken because it is broken. If you would actually read what I write and if you would please stop behaving like an idiot then you would actually understand what I write.

It sucks because it sucks. That's called tautology.


- Permanently having desynced mbox index files with Evolution that starts up with Annoying dialogs,

How do I reproduce this problem?

- Permanently having my emails being popped even if I don't want it,

Where is the bug report for this?

- Getting black paper printouts from GThumb while all I wanted was to print a few copies of my dead grandpa's pictures for my family,

And this is GNOME's fault? What about cups and your driver?

- Trying to copy stuff from FTP using Nautilus, which ends up in random lockups and 0 byte files,

I do that all the time here. Is there a particular site that gives you problems?-

Trying to print out some documents using Evince which ends up in fonts looking differently,

You really have printing issues.

Trying to listen to some music with a bad music player.

WTF? What's that supposed to mean?

- Trying to make some UML diagrams in DIA ends up in corrupt saved data or permanent crashes.

I'm have DIA installed, how do I reproduce this problem?

Everyone would call this BROKEN!

No, only retards and psychologically challenged people would. These, if at all, they are problems are extremely minor. And hardly broken. And they having nothing to do with toolbars, HIG or frameworks.

And you are a clown. Do you know Amarok uses gstreamer? And do you know gstreamer was originally a GNOME technology. I thought GNOME's architecture is broken? If Amarok rocks, you can thank the GNOME and Gstreamer folks. Wake me up when KDE have something like gstreamer. And if you don't like Rythmbox, use the million and one music players available for GNOME sheesh.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

And GNOME is broken because of these minor bugs? Many of them which have been fixed or resolved.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

Personally I have big issues using the GTK+ filechooser because the first few clicks I usually do are clicks into nirvana before I realize that I wanted to find some files on my directory. The filechooser is unintuitive and confusing. The KDE one I consider far better, easier to get used to and straight forward. I am used to the up, left, right refresh buttons and that's what I preferabely click. Symbols are usually by far more intuitive than Text. It's easier for human beings to identify stuff by looking at small pictures than reading text. Symbols can even be pressed by iliterate people who can not read (as example).


So much for a usability pedant. From an accessibility and usability point of view the GTK filechooser is a lot more superior and might I add better laid out than the junk on KDE. You don't even need to click on stuff to get to a deeply nested folder. Just start typing! And if you want to save some clicks, bookmark the folders you use regularly. Sheesh


Example: Evince and Epiphany offers a self itched Toolbar editor, other GNOME apps don't have one and if someone wants to edit the Toolbar in Nautilus for example he or she get's confused why this is not possible. And having Toolbars with drag handle and other Toolbars without a drag handle is confusing and irritating, as well as having Toolbars with different heights. It feels unnatural and unaesthetical. What you replied only proves that you have no sense of quality assurance - just slam together the app so it works how it works. Now lets view this aspect from a different side. We wouldn't be flaming ahead about this topic if there wasn't 20 different ways of developing these things. If there was one Toolbar widget that embedds a Toolbar editor and all the things required ready to go then we would see more apps using it.


This is bordering on stupidity! Did it every occur to you that some developer might not want users to configure the toolbar for a million and one reasons. I have an app, and I really don't want the user to configure, move or drag and drop the toolbar. And I have very good reasons for that. Because other GNOME apps are doing that does not mean I should mindlessly follow them. I want twenty ways of doing things, because in the world on programming there is no one way of solving a problem.

It's the same in all other freaking OS, Window/Mac. Some apps let you configure things that will be dangerous to configure in other apps. What's so hard to grasp about this?

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

> Did it every occur to you that some developer might
> not want users to configure the toolbar for a
> million and one reasons.

That's the problem! Developers usually don't know what users want. But then would it have been so difficult providing this feature even if people don't use it ? There might be the other 50% of people who want to do so.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

That's a myth. In reality users don't know what they want. Developers have a better grasps of the problem users are trying to solve, and have often thought about it longer and deeper than users have the patient for. As a developer, it is my job to make all the hard and crucial decisions for the user. It is the users job to focus on their tasks.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Ah, now you know how to quote GNOME developers. A few minutes ago they were stupid and clueless eh?

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

Maybe you stop behaving childish and get the facts straight. Until now you and the other few here were provoking me all the time.

a) I have been writing some lenghtly comments about why I think that GNOME is broken.
b) I have provided the stuff that I consider broken.
c) On request I have published link to the bugreports of open bugs on these things.
d) I keep talking to some wannabe experts who claim that GNOME developers know better what users want while this articles Nat Friedman (This is ontopic now) said exactly to oposite of what you claim.

"As a programmer, it's sometimes difficult to know how ordinary people with no technical experience are reacting to your software. Linux people tend to know other Linux people."

Which means with easy words that a developer usually don't know what a user wants.

I have shown and proven my credibility more than one time here. That GNOME is a broken desktop has been proven through the requested bugreports that I have given. Those reports have been confirmed to be true and even the part of where I say that GNOME developers (plural) usually don't know what users want has been proven through this articles initiator from Novell. This is most valid in the GNOME area because everyone does some sort of patchwork and hack there and here without getting anything finished entirely.

So what's wrong ? Why can't you simply accept (and the others too) that I might be right with what I say ? Even after I have proven to be right (more than one time) you still try to make it look differently.

And how comes once (again) you people get proven to be clueless and wrong, you start acting strange and go the insulting path to diffamate people ? Is that necessary to show your coolness in the public or is this just another face of the GNOME world (which I also know it really is).

I mean we can continue, I bet there are still dozens if not hundrets attentive readers who keep reloading this thread only to see what's written. Above there are also a few guys who keep moderating my replies up - which of course makes sense to me.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

You are wrong, and you have always been wrong. GNOME is not broken because of your silly bugs. I bet KDE has similar bugs. Does that make KDE broken? Users don't know much about software design or programming. Telling me a user knows what he wants out all the time is like telling me a I know more than a doctor about my anatomy. Very few users understand the complexity involved in designing good software. Very few appreciate the tedious tradeoffs in writing software that is without flaws. That's why it is so easy to whine about GNOME been broken. But based on your flawed arguments, if GNOME is broken, then so is KDE, Windows, OS X and BeOS and many others. Have a look at the printing issues in KDE, is KDE broken because of that? Kopete crashes has crashed on me several times. Is KDE broken because that. Konq doesn't render some sites well. Is KDE broken because of that. Kword won't open Word documents well. Is KDE broken because of that. I can go on and on and on. Is KDE broken because a KDE or library has a few bugs?

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

GNOME has established itself as a project committed to creating an enjoyable user experience for all. It will and has attracted contributors, both small and big, on its on merits. Your attempts to disparage the GNOME community has been foiled and will continue to be. I will be on every GNOME thread to ensure this happens.

Reply Score: 0

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

What are "ignorants," stupid ants?

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous
Member since:
---

Of course KDE is not free of errors, nor is BeOS or OSX or anything else and we all know this.

But the problem of GNOME is it's architecture that is broken - this said again for the 50'st time today.

Getting back to the old Toolbar issue.

If we had one Toolbar object with included Toolbar editor then we only need to fix that one in case it breaks. And if it breaks then it breaks for all applications equally and can equally be fixed by just focusing on this one Toolbar object.

This is now irrelevant if your app needs a Toolbar or not. It's just the theoretical thing I try to explain to you.

If there was one Bookmark object for your applications then you only need to fix that one in case it breaks. Same stuff like the Toolbar object.

Now with KDE we have a box full of objects that we can grab and create applications with. We can take the KHTML object and we can browse pages, we can open a Fileselector object which inherits it's network, samba, etc. objects so we can deal with files all over the world or locally on our drives.

Sounds pretty straight forward and logical to me and probably to you too.

On GNOME otoh the things look totally different. While there are a lot of libraries offering things like Fileselectors, Toolbars, Windows etc. GNOME still offers different approaches to achieve this task. The old legendary bonoboui, gnomeui and gtkui, through glade files and and and. There is no common nominator to achieve this task.

Now assuming we have 5 different applications that require a Toolbar and we now would chose one way of doing the Toolbar then we wouldn't be sitting here discussing how unaesthetical GNOME apps are. If we had only that one choice doing a Toolbar then everything would look correctly, we would automatically inherit a Toolbar editor, we only need to define the symbols that we like to see in the Toolbar itself and attach a shitload of accelerators to it.

But here is still a problem, the creativity of developers who don't follow any guidelines or styles start to mix around in things, some attach a draghandle to the Toolbar others make a bigger frame around a Toolbar (more padding) and even others do other nasty things to it. This is a big problem.

Same applies with GNOME's filemanagement. Some get the file from GTK+'s filechooser and put the uri in a buffer as is, others use gnome_vfs to deal with the uri, others concatenate the strings to make the full filename out of it and others use the correct way of using glib's file concatenation and dir concatenation functions and provide it to gnome_vfs afterwards.

This is a big problem if you want to port applications to other architectures such as Windows specially if you need to deal with slashes vs. backslashes for pathing.

Am I too technical ?

How about the cool KDE's dynamic prefix object that exists. However they've done it, it's great. You can compile and install KDE in /opt/kde3 and then move the entire thing to /usr/local/kde3 for example without keeping symlinks or recompiling things. The files don't hardcode paths as GNOME does (which is weak and really unthought behavior).

Or how about the dozen ways of keeping bookmarks in GNOME, GThumb has its own, Nautilus, Epiphany, Galeon, <add your app here> everthing has its own bookmarks editor dealing with these things, own propritary bookmarks format and so on. KDE has a default bookmarks editor object and a default bookmarks object that you can easily embedd in your application.

Using 20 lines of code you can easily nail together a basic application under KDE that does some stuff, while you need ten times the lines of code (200) to achieve the same or similar things inside GNOME.

Now look over to KDE's printing dialog compared to GNOME's printing dialog. There are worlds between them. I can print as Fax, I can print as Email, I can print as PDF or PS and even more if I would add plugins.

Now look over to amaroK for example and compare it to Rhythmbox there are dimensions and worlds between them.

Now I tell you, what do the amaroK developers do differently than the Rhythmbox developers (giving one example here). They are both cooking with water, Rhythmbox is probably 2 years older and amaroK matured into a brilliant media player in a short time. How comes ? Better plattform, better architecture ? Of course.

For example look at this poorly designed crap tool called DIA for GTK+ and now compare it to things like Umbrello or Kivio. There are worlds between them, how comes the KDE derivates are more mature than the other one ?

For example look at Planner and compare it to TaskJuggler, how comes TaskJuggler is miles ahead of Planner, same applies for Ktechlab and other nice apps that no derivates for GNOME exists. Now assuming that GNOME is not broken, how comes there are no such applications existing with same quality and same functionality ?

GNOME is so weak in all areas, for example Security is an important thing, Certificates trusts and so on. How do I deal with certificates when using gnome-vfs ? Is this thing even handled ? What if I want to keep a pool of certificates for security related things KDE offers me all this ability.

Have you ever tried KDE in the past 1 year or so - do you seriously want to make me believe that KDE is so bad as you claim, that it's overloaded, bloated etc. All these features are important parts and urgent requirements. Maybe not for you but for the corporate being it is.

Please understand that this is just a few examples so please don't fix me on them, there are dozen of other parts that totally rock. The cool objects system that KDE offers, I can cut out a picture from a PDF file and have it embedded anywhere else, be it in Krita, KWrite, KSpread, Kolourpaint, I can cut out chunks of Texts in PDF files and have it pasted everywhere else, I can use my addressbook inside all my applications and and and.

But this is possible because of a clean design. Because there is one addressbook object that handles with all the stuff and applications can inherit that object in their apps and use it too to share with the same base, without the need to care hows it done, you simply pass attributes over to it.

That's something you need to understand and I believe my technical explaination will be overwhelming complex to you. Reading a book how stuff should be done is one thing, own experience and healthy brainworks is better here. Many books are written with the primary intend to make money, not to give correct informations. A lot of books has copied informations that someone or the author has cut out of other books and so on and if you put a book over your own personal skills then you shouldn't be working in the IT sector.

Sure not all in KDE is good (currently I am a bit upset about the bookmarks editor) but the overall desktop that KDE makes and the powerful applications it has (and still get) searches aequivalents on GNOMEs side. I really wonder what keeps GNOME developers developing on GNOME since it's always in poor shape and not correctly working.

It's not that the ideas behind GNOME are bad or people not being creative enough or that the intentions behind it are wrong or right. Sure I don't agree with quite some stupid decisions GNOME developers made and that's what I and most others need to deal with. But I am quite fed up seeing that someone set down a new dump somewhere and all the flies show up how great the ideas are and that it's a must for GNOME to have and then two weeks later some halfassed solution has been slammed into GNOME and then left that way in hope some poor guy shows up fixing the leftovers of said developer.

Sorry to say that but I make the bad framework of GNOME responsible that the majority of GNOME apps remain in a weak and unusable shape. Maybe good enough for the hobbiest or zealots, but not good enough to stand commercial alternatives.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

My experience differs. I find GNOME applications to be solid, well designed, clean and robust even when compared to KDE counterparts. Epiphany, Evince, Abiword, GNUMERIC, Nautilus, Inkscape, Beagle, ifolder, the Gimp to mention a few are unrivaled in the open source world. Not even KDE technology can produce anything close to them.

The GNOME infrastructure is very powerful. Even Amarok uses a GNOME technology, gstreamer because KDE multimedia libraries suck! GNOME's focus has always been the user first. The technology is worthless if the user interface is polluted, like in KDE.

GNOME apps are years ahead of KDE, in terms of usability, design and productivity. It is no wonder GNOME is the corporate desktop of the free software world. More and more companies are beginning to realize this. The three biggest distros on Linux are GNOME oriented. GNOME is successful not only because its applications are robust and powerful, but also because it's infrastructure is accessible and open.

KDE applications are bloated, poorly designed, crash prone and drowning in needless features and complexities. When a user can not figure out how to change the wallpaper on a KDE desktop, you know KDE has big problems.

GNOME is a wonderful technology bed and it only keeps getting better. It keeps getting better because GNOME contributors are visionaries and designers first, before they are geeks and technologists. What makes a great product isn't technology. What makes a great product is people. When you begin to realize that, you'll begin to understand why having 1000 different widget libraries is irrelevant.

Reply Score: 0

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Do you realize that you've posted as much to this thread as I've written all day? And I was transcribing today.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous
Member since:
---

> My experience differs.

This sounds more like a provocation rather than constructive opinion. What you wrote does in no way reflect the reality in any parts and I doubt you are doing any good with such kind of zynical reply. It only makes you sound more unserious and my stuff about GNOME being broken (and proven with links) to be more rock solid.

Oh, the broken KDE audio stuff you refer to 'arts' was primarily written by a GNOME guy for the intent to include inside GNOME (look in the code - for at least one time). So far, shot your own neck here.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

You are the person living in dream land. GNOME works and works well. If you want to argue bugs, then I bring up a whole lot of embarrassing bugs in KDE.

GNOME is not obsessed over technology. GNOME is obsessed over users. And users appreciate that. Unfortunately, people like you who have nothing better to do other than to mock the hard work of the GNOME community do your best to expose your ignorance.

If KDE has nice frameworks, then why do they use GNOME frameworks like gstreamer? It most be because GNOME frameworks are well designed and powerful. Or because KDE just doesn't have anything that can compare to it. I can go on and on.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

> I bring up a whole lot of embarrassing bugs in KDE.

Of course you can, but you should take into consideration that KDE is about 5 times bigger than GNOME. This means, more applications, more complex applications, more complexity in general, a lot of different translations (which makes up more than 600mb on its own) more code and more stuff to care about. All this also carries double till three times as many users with it and thus makes reporting bugs become more noisy - while having less resources at hand to deal with all the bugreports. Of course KDE does have embarrassing bugs no doubt, but the overall impression, feel, integration, polish, consistency and framework simply rocks.

> If KDE has nice frameworks, then why do they use
> GNOME frameworks like gstreamer?

They don't and that's the thing. They still use that broken arts which was initially written by some GNOME guy for inclusion into GNOME years back and this can be considered an broken obstacle that followed KDE for years. It will be replaced by kdemm for KDE 4 which will use Xine, MAS or other stuff as backend (including GStreamer). amaroK is temporarely offering GStreamer as an option for playing music but it causes the developers a lot of problems and this is understandable since the integration of GStreamer into GNOME itself is quite poorly done. GStreamer was started around 1999 and till now 6 years passed and GStreamer is still nowhere good enough, not even good enough that GNOME related tools such as Totem or Rhythmbox default to it (at least it was so not long ago - may have changed to optionally take GStreamer).

Sure, there are gaps in KDE no doubt but you should investigate into KDE's framework for quite a bit so you understand the big differences that GNOME and KDE have. It's not just the multimedia architecture, there are many more things.

Look the ideas behind GNOME are not bad, a lot of intentions are good and the publications made by the GNOME developers (which I consider myself being part) are of course making sense. But the problem is that as soon as it comes to the implementation of these ideas the stuff starts to fail. The implementation of most things are usually half hearted, not really working, crashing etc. But KDE has an easier move here since their entire architecture is based upon OOP, they use C++ for rapid application development and the resulting applications are far more professional, far better thought through.

Now what benefits does a GNOME desktop give me if the applications are poorly written or lacking all the features needed. I don't have any issues with poor and crappy tools. I do have issues if crap is being declared as corporate solutions which it clearly isn't. I think GNOME should step back from this corporate nonsense and concentrate on fixing the issues around GNOME.

Polishing up GNOME by giving it new icons or counter react with this new desktop project just because KDE made such an announcment some weeks ago is going nowhere. GNOME is only setting peoples expectations higher, pushing the developers to limits and then once a new version of GNOME is dumped to the users all the pressure is being pulled back to them and at the end the users need to pay for bad promises and broken software.

I still haven't found acceptable counterparts like amaroK, KStars, KPresenter, Umbrello, TaskJuggler, Kivio and many other cool applications for GNOME. This speaks for itself if we compare that GNOME was started one year later than KDE but KDE by now offers 5 times more software than GNOME. Sure not all software for KDE is good enough, there is a lot of nonsense that you find on http://kde-apps.org but there is also a huge amount of good quality software that you find nowhere else, not on GNOME and not on Windows.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

GNOME is a well designed framework with smart and forward thinking people. Little wonder most of the technology of the future of the Linux desktop is designed by GNOME folks. Just have a look at the freedesktop.org.

Have a look at gnomefiles.org. You'll see equivalents of all the KDE apps you mentioned and more. Might I add they are better, well designed and polished. KDE has a lot for learn from GNOME. KDE folks are just mad the GNOME gets the news because it is better.

Wake me up when KDE has something like Inkscape or the GIMP. Haha, so much for their supper technology they can't even design a kickass multimedia framework that they have to borrow GNOME's to do that.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

> GNOME is a well designed framework with smart and
> forward thinking people.

Well unfortunately GNOME has no well designed framework and the people aren't that smart as you want to make them look. They are making the same mistakes that others have done 20 years ago with similar approaches and it astonishes me all he time how people can re-invent the same mistakes that others have done over and over again.

> Have a look at gnomefiles.org. You'll see
> equivalents of all the KDE apps you mentioned and
> more.

gnomefiles.org is full of applications, no doubt! But the majority of these apps are in no ways better or more useful than the KDE counterparts.

> Might I add they are better, well designed and
> polished.

How can you design an app better if the groundlaying technology behind it (GNOME) is broken ?

> KDE folks are just mad the GNOME gets the news
> because it is better.

This is also not entirely true. The news that GNOME gets is a two side coin. We all know that OSNews.com's editors are GNOME drones and they usually report 5 GNOME articles to 1 other article and they keep skipping and ignoring good KDE related articles. That's not because KDE is poor, no that's because those drones fear that KDE would gain even more popularity than it already has.

> they can't even design a kickass multimedia
> framework that they have to borrow GNOME's to do
> that.

I think I have mentioned it quite a dozen of times now, even GNOME's GStreamer isn't that kickass since even GNOME apps avoid using it and default to Xine engine. So far for the kickass. 6 years of GStreamer hacking and it's still useless and broken.

Besides this, how comes that - after I have proven the bugs of GNOME, all the problems I mentioned also proven, shown my credibility and seriousity - people like you start acting childish and give stupid comments. Your comment and the ones from the few others (after all my proves) sound so embarrassing wrong and artificial that it makes me (and probably hundrets of readers) wonder if you believe your own writing.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

> Nautilus is a fine piece of work.

I recall having other opinions of real life users in mind. Not to mention the spatial mode that scared away many people but ok I don't want to dive deeper into Nautilus here. Personally I avoid using Nautilus because I don't trust it by any means.

> The filechooser is a lot more usable than the
> hideousness on KDE or Windows.

Personally I have big issues using the GTK+ filechooser because the first few clicks I usually do are clicks into nirvana before I realize that I wanted to find some files on my directory. The filechooser is unintuitive and confusing. The KDE one I consider far better, easier to get used to and straight forward. I am used to the up, left, right refresh buttons and that's what I preferabely click. Symbols are usually by far more intuitive than Text. It's easier for human beings to identify stuff by looking at small pictures than reading text. Symbols can even be pressed by iliterate people who can not read (as example).

> The toolbar issue is invalid and repugnant.

It's not. I think the Toolbar issue is quite correct and valid.

Example: Evince and Epiphany offers a self itched Toolbar editor, other GNOME apps don't have one and if someone wants to edit the Toolbar in Nautilus for example he or she get's confused why this is not possible. And having Toolbars with drag handle and other Toolbars without a drag handle is confusing and irritating, as well as having Toolbars with different heights. It feels unnatural and unaesthetical. What you replied only proves that you have no sense of quality assurance - just slam together the app so it works how it works. Now lets view this aspect from a different side. We wouldn't be flaming ahead about this topic if there wasn't 20 different ways of developing these things. If there was one Toolbar widget that embedds a Toolbar editor and all the things required ready to go then we would see more apps using it.

This also doesn't mean that every application should have a Toolbar or Bonobo as you said but then I believe explaining this to you is pointless because you don't understand the problem anyways. It's not the fact to support Toolbars or Bonobos in every application - no, it means that if (in case you need) to supply support for it - that you don't slam together you own junk of code or use deprecated or broken ways to provide one.

And in case you do understand what I write but don't really care then you just confirm why I believe that GNOME is broken - because everyone is cooking it's own soup without the picture as a whole in mind. The results is what we are seeing here.

> See my previous comment above. And why do you think
> your printing issue is a problem with GNOME and not
> with your drivers? GNOME has nothing to do with
> printing.

Because it has been confirmed to be a GNOME bug by three people now ?

http://bugs.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=312757

>>> This is a repost because someone modded it down on purpose. Instead wasting my modpoints it's easier that way. <<<

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

> - Permanently having desynced mbox index files with
> Evolution that starts up with Annoying dialogs,
>
> How do I reproduce this problem?

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=315531
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213072

Confirmed bug!

> - Permanently having my emails being popped even if
> I don't want it,
>
> Where is the bug report for this?

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=312106

Confirmed issue!

> - Getting black paper printouts from GThumb while
> all I wanted was to print a few copies of my dead
> grandpa's pictures for my family,
>
> And this is GNOME's fault? What about cups and your
> driver?

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=316011
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=316018
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=312757

Confirmed bug!

> Trying to print out some documents using Evince
> which ends up in fonts looking differently,
>
> You really have printing issues.

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=312757
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=317957

Confirmed bug!

>>> This is a repost because someone modded it down on purpose. Instead wasting my modpoints it's easier that way. <<<

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

> You claim GNOME is broken because developers don't follow the HIG.

No! I claim GNOME to be broken because it is broken. If you would actually read what I write and if you would please stop behaving like an idiot then you would actually understand what I write.

One part of what I complain about:

- Permanently having desynced mbox index files with Evolution that starts up with Annoying dialogs,
- Permanently having my emails being popped even if I don't want it,
- Getting black paper printouts from GThumb while all I wanted was to print a few copies of my dead grandpa's pictures for my family,
- Trying to copy stuff from FTP using Nautilus, which ends up in random lockups and 0 byte files,
- Trying to print out some documents using Evince which ends up in fonts looking differently,
- Trying to listen to some music with a bad music player.
- Trying to make some UML diagrams in DIA ends up in corrupt saved data or permanent crashes.

Everyone would call this BROKEN!

The other thing I complain about is that the bad architecture that GNOME offers is the cause that so many applications misbehave and that GNOME doesn't offer applications that could do competition with KDE's aequivalents. Say amaroK for example (this is one example in case you don't get it) is by far more mature than Rhythmbox because of the fact that KDE's architecture is better than the one from GNOME. It's easier to program working applications. Something that even Novell (former Ximian) has realized otherwise there wouldn't be a need to invent MONO for RAD.

Now stop braging about the toolbar thing, since it's just one part (it was one exaple in case you don't get it) of many issues. The HIG is just another example. But you keep riding on these things as if it's the main stuff that I complain about which is not the case. Why don't you use your brains and keep reading what I actually write before replying and showing yourself clueless in the public ?

>>> This is a repost because someone modded it down on purpose. Instead wasting my modpoints it's easier that way. <<<

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

> Your reply was way too long. As usual you are just whining.

Again it's the fault of the user isn't it ? It's easy for you and your likes to give make the user responsible for the misconcepts of GNOME and the ignorance of GNOME developers. This is the usual approach to get rid of people like me. I consider my writings to be my very own opinion. People can read them or they can go wherever they want and read whatever they think is right. If they prefer being lied then it's also ok with me. But do me a favor and stop blaming the users for the mistakes of developers.

> No user I know of ever complains about the looks of the toolbar.

The toolbar is just one example of many examples that I could mention. The problem I see here is that you don't understand what I was trying to explain and I think you should solve this issue quickly in case you are a developer you should by now have realized the problems behind it. The different toolbars are usually inherited by different approaches of giving applications a mainwindow. There are still dozens of people outside using deprecated stuff (since in my opinion the deprecation process is going on too slow) and thus results in applications behaving differently. But then maybe it's not the fault of the third party application writers, maybe its the fault of the GNOME developers who implemented those things in the 'lick my butt' way.

> The HIG clearly states it is a guideline. If you
> had read the HIG, you'd have realized this. No one
> advertises the HIG.

You are wrong, well not entirely, you might be right that it's a guideline but then what intention does a guideline have if no one gives a flying damn for it ? I think you wouldn't require a HIG if the bottom architecture of GNOME wouldn't allow developers to nail together trash applications that looks like it's done by a 7 weeks hobbiest hacker.

> All large projects have problems and GNOME is not without exception.

Of course all large projects have problems, but the amount of problems found inside GNOME is overwhelming big and complex and not solvable.

> And your GONEME failures have shown you are as
> incompetent as the GNOME developers with regards to
> broken ideas and vision. So before you call GNOME
> developers names, look into the mirror.

Before calling me to be inaccurate and incompetent please look in your own mirror first. Project GoneME was in no means a fork. It was announced as such on OSNews.com due to bad investigations and bad research of the former chief editor. Project GoneME started as a set of patches and was meant to be just a set of patches. We had the luck that the acceptance and needs for Project GoneME was so big and the reaction of the folks outside was so overwhelming that the project got it's own legs and moved forward. People saw it as a fork (thanks to the bad research of the chief editor). But at the end I must thank all of you from the #gnome and #gnome-hackers channel to join the #goneme channel on freenode.net and harrass the hell out of the people by querying them (I have proven logs that shows this) and scareing them away. So much from Project GoneME - it has basicly been talked to death. But it was fun as long as it lasted. I saw a lot of GNOME people going nuts and mad walking up and down in their rooms and had sleepless nights. The best payback for the years of hate and shit that I received.

> GNOME today is a successful project.

Yes of course it's - successful. Depends how much money has been wasted for false marketing, false public relations and all the bullshit and TRUE LIES that got spread.

> In every comment you have written, you've done all
> you can to destroy the image of the GNOME community
> and contributors.

I doubt a single person can destroy the image of the GNOME community. That's something you people perfectly have done on your own. The only minor contribution that came from my side in this area is to remind people of the real face of GNOME.

> I have never read you say, GNOME does something right.

They don't thats the problem. But maybe it's the american way of handle things (as they handled the war in afghanistan and iraq) with pride, with selfish overassessment of the situation and by simply ignoring the competition or trying to talk them to death.

> It's always insults, negative retorts, ceaseless
> whining, childish rebuttals, outright lies,
> mindless name calling and so on. Why do you act
> like you know the solution to all the problems when
> you records have clearly shown, you do not possess
> that quality?

Yes yes yes, the one who is not guilty should pick up the first stone and throw it to my head. See, that's the things I always said about GNOME.

a) the architecture is broken.
b) the community is just wrong,
c) at the end it's always the users fault,
d) good members has been scared outside and declared enemies or trolls.

How often did you people attack various individuals, how many times did you offend and insult users, how many times did you ignore their requests. It happened countless of times.

Here I primarly wrote about the bad architecture as you can read above and all the other articles that I commented because I think it's correct to point people to the flaws and issues around GNOME. I also pointed out some internal issues inside the community without diving into it much deeper and I definately didn't called anyones by names. Just said how much GNOME as architecture sucks and that people can't expect anything serious out of it.

You need to live with the fact that as long as I spent time with open source that I do all my best to convince people that GNOME is going nowhere and till now most people who I was able to talk with understood the issues. But face to face talk is usually better and more serious than writing or having a conversation over Internet because it's not so easy to explain the things I'd like to explain. Maybe everything isn't that bad as you and probably some other morons want to make it look like. Not to mention that I receive by far too much shit by clueless morons to what I actually write or want to say.

Besides this, I bet that even you agree that most of my points are valid, I do understand that you don't want to confirm them in public.

>>> This is a repost because someone modded it down on purpose. Instead wasting my modpoints it's easier that way. <<<

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

> The GNOME framework is not broken. If it was, there
> will be no GNOME desktop environment or GNOME
> applications. Do you know what the meaning of
> "broken" is?

Yeah, the meaning of broken is meant for things that don't really work - like most of the stuff that comes shipped with GNOME or which makes the GNOME plattform. I gave plenty of examples of what I see as broken. If applications are not working properly (crash during startup like Evolution) or f--king up the index files for mbox data then it's broken. If you can't use Nautilus to do basic stuff such as copying large chunks of data from FTP to somewhere else without getting 0 byte files for files that usually are > 0 bytes then it's considered to be broken. If applications are not behaving to global preferences changes such as 'Show my Toolbar in ICONS only' then I consider this as broken too. If the provided applications for GNOME are weak hacks and not really improveable if you don't re-write them from scratch over and over again then it's a broken framework that causes this. If the default audio and multimedia framework provided for GNOME doesn't do what it was claimed for and instead of seamles integrated into GNOME only hacked the way so it operates halfway then it's broken.

> The GNOME HIG is set of guidelines. The guidelines
> are not laws or rules that developers are obliged
> to follow. Developers should know when and when not
> to follow the HIG. Sometimes the HIG could be
> blatantly wrong with regards to the design of a
> particular behavior in my application.

Now what ? Today it's just a guideline and another day it's the key selling thing you tell other people. Just as you wish it or ? Either HIG is part of GNOME and should be considered as some sort of rule so application developers follow it so the apps don't look like ass or as you correctly say it's just a guideline - but then please stop making a marketing gimmick out of it.

> Regarding the issues you are having with those
> applications, can you point me to the bug reports
> you filed? I'd have to call you a troll if you
> can't.

Look inside bgo simply enter the correct search criteria for the stuff I mentioned and you will be directed to my bugreport including my name, the date of the reports and many more.

> Yes, and monkeys have wings.

GNOME was never about monkey you moron. It was primarily about dwarfs, elfs, trolls .. and the full Tolkien charakter sets. Some small messican company started with bonobos (sexual addicted dwarf chimps).

> Mono is not as popular as Python among GNOME and
> free software developers. The only people mildly
> interested in Mono are windows developers
> interested in developing cross platform .NET
> applications. They are a niche. The future of GNOME
> is Python, period.

Reading planet.gnome.org gives me a different impression.

> You solve this by whinning less and contributing
> more. You can begin by showing us your less ugly
> icon set.

You don't solve this by contributing. I contributed enough to GNOME and all I got as return was inflamatory craptalk from the key developers. You are usually stuck in hours of debatting how much GNOME's framework sucks, how it should be improved, including patches and all you get back is inflamatory shit, namecalling and other crappy thing. Everyone who wanted to contribute to GNOME figured out already or will figure out one day. Just a matter of time. Now stop defending GNOME if your brain's not able to handle the key problems.

>>> This is a repost because someone modded it down on purpose. Instead wasting my modpoints it's easier that way. <<<

Reply Score: 0

v INFO
by Anonymous on Wed 12th Oct 2005 11:43 UTC
RE: INFO
by Anonymous on Wed 12th Oct 2005 13:09 UTC in reply to "INFO"
Anonymous Member since:
---

The only ignorant person I see is you. You have no understanding of what makes a good software framework or product. Neither do you appreciate the complexities involved in managing them. If you did, you'd have realized how foolish you are to say something like "GNOME is broken."

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: INFO
by Anonymous on Wed 12th Oct 2005 13:22 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

> The only ignorant person I see is you.

I doubt this to be the case. I am no ignorant since I am not moderating other people's own opinion down for no reason. Strange that exactly my comments are victim of being moderated down. But not because I might be right or wrong, no because I mentioned earlier that most of these comments have had been moderated up to +2 and better and this was the reason for people to moderate them down because for the sake of it.

> You have no understanding of what makes a good
> software framework or product.

I think I have a very complex and good understanding of good software framework and software design since programming is what I do for my living (over 23 years now + probably a few years longer dunno). I gained my experience by having seen good programming solutions over these years as well as having seen a lot of crap produced by people too. My experience comes from seeing things, from long years practice, from using good human visdom, reading lectures too. The GNOME camp seem to base everything they do on some books they have been reading recently.

> Neither do you appreciate the complexities involved
> in managing them. If you did, you'd have realized
> how foolish you are to say something like "GNOME is
> broken."

So how's KDE less complex than GNOME if we use an example ? Somehow they get their homework done correctly, the code, data, translation and other stuff they need to maintain is by far 5 times more than what GNOME offers and still they made a powerful desktop environment and this is no secret at all. The part where I said that GNOME is utterly broken has been demonstrated with bugreports showing trivial tasks that can not be achieved correctly.

Maybe we simply do have a different understanding about proper software development but then diversity of opinions is a good thing.

Now GNOME and KDE somehow started close together (only a few months (till one year)) difference and now compare today, years after where KDE is and where GNOME is. What kind of applications KDE can offer and what exists for GNOME. Not that GNOME lacks a lot of really professional applications which can be considered ready for production, it also lacks basic functionality in what makes the whole desktop experience.

You might have a different opinion than I have but then I base my opinion on practical experiences and have demonstrated quite a dozen cases and scenarios of what my personal tasks where and where GNOME has shown to totally fail. You only need to read what I have written previously within this article's comment section.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: INFO
by Anonymous on Wed 12th Oct 2005 13:34 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Your arrogance knows no bounds. Now you claim to be smarter than the GNOME developers and contributors. I'd like to see the software you have written that contains no bugs.

Someone already posted a long list of embarrassing KDE printing bugs. Following immature logic, I guess "KDE is broken" too.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: INFO
by Anonymous on Wed 12th Oct 2005 13:54 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

My apologizes but I don't have time to play with you atm. Need to buy new jogging shoes since my 13 years old military sport shoes start to suck for longer courses.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: INFO
by Anonymous on Wed 12th Oct 2005 14:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: INFO"
Anonymous Member since:
---

What you fail to understand is that software is about people. Not stupid APIs, HIGs, or frameworks. GNOME gets this, KDE and their proponents such as yourself don't.

Reply Score: 0

The site
by Anonymous on Wed 12th Oct 2005 14:59 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I've been trying to access the Tango site for at least 2 days. Has the address changed? I can't find the server anywhere.

Reply Score: 0

RE: The site
by Anonymous on Wed 12th Oct 2005 17:39 UTC in reply to "The site"
Anonymous Member since:
---

There have been some hosting issues that came up. Give it a day or so.

Reply Score: 0

GNOME
by Anonymous on Fri 14th Oct 2005 09:26 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Now people, that's the wonderful world of GNOME. Not that GNOME is an awfully broken architecture (which is one part of what I critizise) it also has a bad community of mainly slandering and evil people.

To understand GNOME, you need to split GNOME into two parts. First the part that makes the desktop (which we know good enough doesn't work good enough to be ready for production) and the second part which (as I mentioned a dozen comments earlier) is full of really insulting people.

If you contribute to GNOME then you are a good person (while there are still people disrespecting your contributions where envy and nepothism is on the daily schedule).

I was told that if I dislike GNOME then I should file in bugreports (as proven above) and then I was told to talk with the developers about the stuff that doesn't work. You can be sure that in all the years I have tried to do this thing but all I earned was the same ignorance that people have shown here.

a) They talk all the critics to death
b) Or they go the dead friendly way, so friendly that it's not normal anymore. A wrong thing fo friendlyness in the replies which of course ends immediately after that which wasn't meant to be serious reply at all only demonstrating that they are no jackasses while replying to you.
c) Critics are usually talked to death by giving dozens of replies to you without any offer for solutions or replies without much value.
d) Those who get elected from the foundation members into the board are usually abusing their powers to diffamate other contributors, who permanently violate the foundation charter's rules.
e) A bunch of GNOME developers have scared away a lot of fine contributors to the GNOME architecture such as Star (long time artist for GNOME), Dr. Frickle (who initially maintained the old GNOME pages), Mr. Baulig (the guy who initially worked his ass off on libgnome/ui and other parts) and many others.

The GNOME crowd can't live with critics, they can't professionally deal with critics and not that they can't deal with critics, they also need to totally kill off those who criticise. That's why GNOME makes no real progress, that's why the majority of stuff feels so broken. Because it's impossible to set through changes inside GNOME, first of all changes of the foundation board, of the release team and other parts of GNOME because it's always set by the same people. You can't have anything changed and thus GNOME is full of stuff that is totally horrible - under control of companies like RedHat and Novell.

Not long ago a good friend of the german GNOME community team had the idea (together with his girlfriend) to open "Gnome Girls" the domain was bought the idea was brought up in the GNOME camp and he was pissed off for this because the GNOME people said that the idea sucked, that it was a bda idea and that something like this was not wanted.

A few months later a few girls who work for RedHat have shown up the scene (no one heard of them before) and they wanted to open (yes you guessed) "Gnome Girls" and something must have happened, it's like a switch you must have turned in the heads of these people. In no time it was a great idea, the best idea that existsted and they got immediately support. Web space has been given, access to CVS has been given and all the other requirements within hours.

Same for the ordinary user, someone who asks for CVS access or for a mailinglist, webspace etc. will be placed on schedule or simply the request is ignored (as usually) but as soon as a new company joins the GNOME scene the resources are given instantly. The people who give all the resources are so what euphoric, they even blow more sugar in the ass of those companies who join that you need to ask yourself how they could hold all that sugar without getting a shock.

Some newcomer to GNOME asked in the channel, what he has to do to get his contributions accepted as part of GNOME. Now from my personal experience over the years I know that the answer must have been - No chance!. I queried him and told him that he probably had no chance that his contributions get accepted by GNOME. I told him a bit of my personal experiences over the years and how rude and egoistic GNOME developers are and that most of the stuff which makes GNOME today are nepothism software written by their own people. They keep ignoring other stuff even if it's better software. That's some sort of selfmarketing they do rather than creating a working desktop.

I am also a bit fedup about all the companies that have recently joined the GNOME foundation board. How comes that every company who shows interest in GNOME shows up as member of the GNOME foundation board ? Hell, every little small user who contributes to GNOME needs to pass the membership application, months passes, you get asked dozen of questions what you have done and then you might be lucky to get accepted (happened for me but I resigned from my foundation membership due to heavy abuse). But how comes all these new companies join in as if they were part of GNOME for the past 6 years or longer ?

GNOME, software only for the users ? Or GNOME, software for directmarketing and cash ? How illusionary!

Reply Score: 0