Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 21st Dec 2006 11:38 UTC
X11, Window Managers In 2002, both KDE and GNOME released their last major revisions; KDE released KDE 3.0 on 3rd April, while GNOME followed shortly after with GNOME 2.0 on 27th June. For the Linux desktop, therefore, 2002 was an important year. Since then, we have continiously been fed point releases which added bits of functionaility and speed improvements, but no major revision has yet seen the light of day. What's going on?
Order by: Score:
Works fine
by Kwitschibo on Thu 21st Dec 2006 11:49 UTC
Kwitschibo
Member since:
2006-01-17

Gnome 2.* works fine... no Problems... i use Gnome for my business Workstations since 4 years and i like the stable development. So... why u need 'the next big thing'? I also have OS X and... no... its not very big... and Leopard... same thing... no big revolution... just slow Evlotution... and Vista? 1 Step forward, 3 Back.

Edited 2006-12-21 11:53

Reply Score: 5

RE: Works fine
by SeanVernell on Thu 21st Dec 2006 11:59 UTC in reply to "Works fine"
SeanVernell Member since:
2005-08-06

I feel much the same way. I use Gnome every day and I can't think of much more I would want from it really. I'm probably just a luddite. ;)

Having said that, I would also like to see GNOME 3.0 have bit more of a direction.

Edited 2006-12-21 12:01

Reply Score: 3

RE: Works fine
by gmlongo on Thu 21st Dec 2006 13:55 UTC in reply to "Works fine"
gmlongo Member since:
2005-07-07

Why is Vista 3 steps back? Amazing how people just flame because they feel like it, especially after having never used the software in question.

-G

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Works fine
by Kwitschibo on Thu 21st Dec 2006 13:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Works fine"
Kwitschibo Member since:
2006-01-17

Why 3 Steps back? A new DE witch can only offers new features and designs with MORE and MORE Hardware Power is no Evolution, its just 3 Steps back. PS: I've installed Vista and its _S_L_O_W_.

Edited 2006-12-21 14:00

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Works fine
by BluenoseJake on Thu 21st Dec 2006 15:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Works fine"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Vista is more than just a DE, it's an entire OS, with change made throughout. if you think it's just a DE, please stop commenting on something you know nothing about

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Works fine
by Kwitschibo on Thu 21st Dec 2006 15:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Works fine"
Kwitschibo Member since:
2006-01-17

The one thing in Vista which make the most change is the DE. And it is crap. If you are just another ms fanboy on Vista LSD, please stop commenting and go.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Works fine
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu 21st Dec 2006 17:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Works fine"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

I have used nothing but Linux and OS X for the last 5 years and I must say you have no idea what you are talking about. Vista is probably the first version of windows that one can consider to be usable. I plan to use the 64 bit version simply because MS has made all nice security bells and whistles available to it due to the cutting off legacy support.

It is making use of intel's hardware buffer overflow protection, It will not allow unsigned drivers to load into the system (XP allowed user override), and best of all... the system files will load at random offsets at each boot which will make remote attacks nearly impossible.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Works fine
by twenex on Thu 21st Dec 2006 18:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Works fine"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21


It is making use of intel's hardware buffer overflow protection, It will not allow unsigned drivers to load into the system (XP allowed user override),


Well that'll go a long way to making Linux driver support as good as Windows, without a single line of code from Messrs Torvald or Cox! ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Works fine
by Gooberslot on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 04:19 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Works fine"
Gooberslot Member since:
2006-08-02

It is making use of intel's hardware buffer overflow protection, It will not allow unsigned drivers to load into the system (XP allowed user override)

I like control of my system and if I want to override something I don't want the OS telling me no. Besides, I believe the real reason for not allowing unsigned drivers and kernel patches is due to DRM. If you could easily load a hacked video driver then I bet HDCP wouldn't last to long.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Works fine
by twenex on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 10:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Works fine"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Every version of Windows gets the praise "the first version of Windows that one could consider to be usable". And then 6 months down the line everyone's complaining about the viruses, the spyware, having to reinstall because it's slowed to a crawl due to the registry being full of crap, etc.

Why should it be different this time? It isn't. except that it's 7 times as big, MS in their wisdom have not only kept the registry but extended it (boot settings used to be in boot.ini, now they're in a registry hive), they wrote this "great new secret security API" which they have now been forced to open, OEM's aren't interested, and MS aren't bothering to market it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Works fine
by BluenoseJake on Thu 21st Dec 2006 19:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Works fine"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Actually, I use FreeBSD and XP at home. They rewrote the TCPIP stack, updated all the bundled apps, rewrote the security subsystem so user accounts are more secure, rewrote IE, created an entirely new graphics subsystem, rewrote the audio stack, you name it, it has been updated/rewrote/fixed.

Obviously you have no idea what Vista is and isn't, so feel free to do some research before you start mouthing off

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Works fine
by Feanor on Thu 21st Dec 2006 20:55 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Works fine"
Feanor Member since:
2006-12-21

The TCP/IP stack rewrite alone is enough to upgrade. Remember those file transfers and downloads on XP? Vista does a MUCH better job.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Works fine
by wargum on Thu 21st Dec 2006 15:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Works fine"
wargum Member since:
2006-12-15

So? The upgrade from XP to Vista happens mostly through bying a new machine. And those machine handle Vista easily. Most PCs of, say, the last 3 years can handle Vista pretty good, some may need more RAM though, but it's not as big of a problem as you say.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Works fine
by renox on Thu 21st Dec 2006 15:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Works fine"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

>Most PCs of, say, the last 3 years can handle Vista pretty good,

Most? 50% of the PC sold are laptops which usually have not too powerful videocards, plus a non negligible percent of desktops have also low-end videocards.
--> I really doubt that your assertion is true.

That said, I agree with you: Vista 'upgrade' will happen mostly by buying new machine.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Works fine
by vegai on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 07:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Works fine"
vegai Member since:
2005-12-25

Looking at Microsoft's OS releases, it is more an exception than rule that their new OS releases take steps backwards instead of forward.

(The obvious exceptions being Windows NT and 95.)

So, it's a pretty good guess.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Works fine
by HappyGod on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 00:20 UTC in reply to "Works fine"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

If everyone had this kind of attitude we'd still all be sitting in front a single-tasking command prompt.

I mean hey, why did we need the upgrades, we had Pong and 1-2-3, and WordPerfect ...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Works fine
by Nathan O. on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 00:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Works fine"
Nathan O. Member since:
2005-08-11

There's a hair to be split here. Yes, progress is good. No, inefficiency isn't good. Progress can be made efficiently. OS X and free software packages have shown that. Vista has a lot more features than XP, but its basic requirements are awfully high for just an OS.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Works fine
by Kwitschibo on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 20:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Works fine"
Kwitschibo Member since:
2006-01-17

You miss the point... we need no new major version to have a modern system. Every 2.* Version of Gnome brings many improvements, Features and Apps. This is not Windows where new apps, features and improvements came only ever 5 years. Windows XP and Gnome 1.4 came both in 2001. Gnome 1.4 to 2.18 ... BIG Evolution... but XP to Vista... oh please... If you like big app numbers... ok... then use another system... like... Mac OS... its by 10. MUCH bigger the crappy XFCE which is by 4... or Gnome *OMFGLOL* only 2... so... the BEST will be Windows Server __2_0_0_3__ what a great number. ;-)

Reply Score: 2

very interesting
by jango on Thu 21st Dec 2006 11:50 UTC
jango
Member since:
2006-11-22

i must disagree that the Kde desktop is stagnating, true we are facing problems but we are doing much better than others, look at the mess vista is

it is quite difficult to find devels for kde after all C++ is in my opinion the most difficult language

but KDE has qt4 behind it and its proceeding quite nicely, dont scold the community for being late on releases, Microsoft pays people to do that and even they cant get it right

Reply Score: 5

RE: very interesting
by l3v1 on Thu 21st Dec 2006 12:22 UTC in reply to "very interesting"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

I'd add that KDE has seen more polishing and development between e.g. 3.0 and 3.5 than Gnome has between the releases from v2.

In the FOSS world it's more important to release good than to release fast. Especially when both Gnome and KDE are at a level of usefulness that doesn't life-threateningly demand a new release for tomorrow.

We also shouldn't forget features that Gnome and KDE have for ages which certain other OSes still don't have (I won't list, I don't want a fight here, I just want to point out that even though releases seem to come slower these days, they have a fairly good position in features, usefulness and stability, which is not a bad position to be at).

Edited 2006-12-21 12:25

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: very interesting
by BluenoseJake on Thu 21st Dec 2006 14:10 UTC in reply to "RE: very interesting"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

and what features would those be? Seems to me all the desktops are pretty feature rich right now, including 6 year old XP

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: very interesting
by redtux on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 14:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: very interesting"
redtux Member since:
2006-12-04

Multiple desktops
Sensible Home directory (as opposed to My documents)
Memory Protection

Reply Score: 2

RE: very interesting
by diegocg on Thu 21st Dec 2006 13:04 UTC in reply to "very interesting"
diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

after all C++ is in my opinion the most difficult language


I hope you're not suggesting the C mess that gnome desktop is today is "easier". C is a great and simple lenguage good for many things, but not for building a desktop. Even the gnome developers (silently) agree in that, by searching an alternative in java/C#. It's a sad thing that one of the reasons why gnome choose C was to make easier to use other languages, and then most of the gnome desktop "environment" (evolution, nautilus, gimp, gaim, xchat, etc) has been written in C.

If you had to rewrite Evolution from scratch, you'd do it in C + gtk + glib or C++? Personally I'd choose C++, or even C# or Java (even if the last two eat quite a lot of ram being vm-based)

Edited 2006-12-21 13:10

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: very interesting
by angryrobot on Thu 21st Dec 2006 13:49 UTC in reply to "RE: very interesting"
angryrobot Member since:
2006-04-26

Actually, the reason they chose C was because it is fast, compiles on just about every platform, and allows them the make bindings for just about every language easily.

If you want to program for Gnome in C++, use http://www.gtkmm.org/

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: very interesting
by boudewijn on Thu 21st Dec 2006 15:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: very interesting"
boudewijn Member since:
2006-03-05

Actually, it's a fallacy that it's somehow easier to produce bindings for C libraries than for C++ libraries: in actual fact, tools like sip, swig or smoke use the extensive information that's available in C++ headers but not in C headers to do most of the binding automatically.

And it works: see the complete, up-to-date, high quality bindings of Qt and KDE for Python, Ruby, Java, C#.

There used to be others, like Perl, Objective C, plain C and more, but nobody seemed to need those (given that it's pretty easy to code in C++ with Qt already) and it wasn't worth keeping them up-to-date for no users.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: very interesting
by icasty on Thu 21st Dec 2006 21:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: very interesting"
icasty Member since:
2005-08-26

Hey, are you the guy starring in Tremulous? Cause i've seen you there ;)

Sry, ot.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: very interesting
by jango on Thu 21st Dec 2006 22:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: very interesting"
jango Member since:
2006-11-22

don't start everyone knows that C is a clumsy language, C++ is far superior,

C++ is the most difficult to learn, but once you learn it you can can wield a power far greater than just simple C


Gnome devs chose C out of ignorance, there i said it
luddites

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: very interesting
by Hugo on Thu 21st Dec 2006 14:47 UTC in reply to "very interesting"
Hugo Member since:
2005-07-06

"look at the mess vista is"

the mess works fine IMO

Reply Score: 4

RE: very interesting
by Ultimatebadass on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 08:40 UTC in reply to "very interesting"
Ultimatebadass Member since:
2006-01-08

" look at the mess vista is "

And where is that mess, excactly, in Vista? As someone above said - it works just fine.

"Microsoft pays people to do that and even they cant get it right"

Again - are you talking about Vista? What's so wrong with it?

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: very interesting
by jango on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 12:40 UTC in reply to "RE: very interesting"
RE[3]: very interesting
by Ultimatebadass on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 20:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: very interesting"
Ultimatebadass Member since:
2006-01-08

"go suck Redmond"? You are giving FOSS people a bad name.

Reply Score: 1

Haste makes waste
by anti on Thu 21st Dec 2006 11:56 UTC
anti
Member since:
2006-02-01

I know that we've been hearing loads and loads about how the linux desktop is going to rule everything soon, but we can't really expect huge jumps.

First off, as others have pointed out, it's useful as it is now, and all the small additions and improvements ALL make it better, all the time.

I'd rather have slower development and better features, than large steps that are rushed in, and then not working properly.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Haste makes waste
by spikeb on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 04:18 UTC in reply to "Haste makes waste"
spikeb Member since:
2006-01-18

I second your post.

Reply Score: 1

Quiet before the storm
by Bringbackanonposting on Thu 21st Dec 2006 11:58 UTC
Bringbackanonposting
Member since:
2005-11-16

What I mean by that is the quiet before the Gnome vs KDE vs OSX war about to fire up here again. Here we go again.
That GTK+ news is disturbing yes. KDE stuck at 3 for 4 years - who cares, it works. Obviously the XGL novelty has worn off already and many are looking for the next new thing to brag to their friends. We are talking about open source here. People working for free. All this crap talk trying to ruffle feathers must be a real kick in the guts to developers working on these projects for free. I still think attitudes like Thom's here suck and should be posted on Windows and OSX forums with all the other junk. OSX eh? Talk about ever changing inconsistant rubbish. Apple has you right where it wants you - emptying your wallets. If you like fancy GUIs then go right ahead buy Vista and OSX - leave Gnome/KDE and free software alone. Do us all a favour.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Quiet before the storm
by PowerMacX on Thu 21st Dec 2006 13:08 UTC in reply to "Quiet before the storm"
PowerMacX Member since:
2005-11-06

"We are talking about open source here. People working for free. All this crap talk trying to ruffle feathers must be a real kick in the guts to developers working on these projects for free."

Are you saying that the end product should be judged against different standards, just because it's "free as in freedom"? I think that's a very naive point of view...

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Quiet before the storm
by macisaac on Thu 21st Dec 2006 14:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Quiet before the storm"
macisaac Member since:
2005-08-28

no, I think his point isn't idealogical, as your painting it (like that'd be a bad thing...), but the simple fact that unlike osx/windows, where you're paying for the "priviledge" of using them and hence can expect a certain amount of return for your investment, with gnome/kde you generally aren't.

think of it this way, you pay somebody a thousand dollars to do some type of work on your house for you, painting it, constructing a deck, whatever. you can reasonably expect, and even if need be demand, a certain amount of quality for what you're giving all done in an agreed amount of time. on the other hand, let's say your buddy, purely as a favour to you, says he'll do the work for free. just being a nice friend and all that. what type of ***hole would then chew the guy out if he'd missed a spot in painting the wall, or the work wasn't done absolutely perfectly, or in this case, if instead of getting the work all done in 2 days, it took him a month. you may decide next time you'll pay for the work instead, but any reasonable person wouldn't be judging the two types of work by the exact same standards.


(note: I'm responding to your comment, not thom's article.)

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Quiet before the storm
by evangs on Thu 21st Dec 2006 15:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Quiet before the storm"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

As the FOSS proponents are so quick to point out, Free means libre not gratis. There are companies who do get paid for developing Linux DEs, like Novell/SuSE, RedHat, Mandrake, etc. As such you can and should expect a certain amount of return for your investment.

Your argument which essentially boils down to "Hey, it's free. Don't knock it" doesn't hold water.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Quiet before the storm
by macisaac on Thu 21st Dec 2006 16:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Quiet before the storm"
macisaac Member since:
2005-08-28

And how much did you pay for the distos you've used? And what percentage of linux users do you expect did so as well?

(not to mention the vast majority of what goes in any said distro isn't actually done by the distro maintainers themselves, but is largely just packaged up and customized by them to whatever degree. add to that the fact that even with the paid-for distros out there, most of them do in fact provide their distribution (in some form or other) free as in gratis for those who don't care to shell out for support contracts.)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Quiet before the storm
by evangs on Thu 21st Dec 2006 17:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Quiet before the storm"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

In the 3 year period from 2000 - 2003, I spent about ú300 on Linux distros. This wasn't because I couldn't burn ISOs from the internet, but I chose to buy the boxed versions to support the distros financially. Not all Linux users are cheap bastards who are in it only for the gratis aspect of things. Some of us do believe in the libre software philosophy and have no issues with paying for software that could be downloaded for gratis.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Quiet before the storm
by macisaac on Thu 21st Dec 2006 21:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Quiet before the storm"
macisaac Member since:
2005-08-28

that's nice, I've paid before too. that said, most folks haven't, and there's _nothing_ wrong with that, they're not being "cheap bastards" in doing so. being freely re-distributable (meaning you the distro provider can charge all you like, but I can make a copy of my buddy's copy without guilt) is an explicit part of the whole free software idea, not a loophole that leeches are taking advantage of.

anyhow, my original point was simply that as the software is free it should not be held to the same criteria and in the same light as proprietary software that you've paid for and which a single company owns and controls. much of, if not most, of the developpers that actually are writing the code have done so gratis. now, in the case where there's some company paying them for it, then (if the software is gpl'ed/bsd'ed) the company itself is giving it for free (at least in source form) for anybody, paying customer or otherwise to benefit from.

what's annoying to me is not that somebody will criticize a particular piece of free software (preferably in a helpful, constructive way), rather it's the whiny sense of entitlement that some folks seem to have about the whole thing. that's where you'll see the "did you pay for it? did you write any code/send patches? etc" type responses from the developers and such, I think.

Edited 2006-12-21 21:11

Reply Score: 2

RE: Quiet before the storm
by archiesteel on Thu 21st Dec 2006 16:43 UTC in reply to "Quiet before the storm"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Obviously the XGL novelty has worn off already and many are looking for the next new thing to brag to their friends.

I'll have to disagree with this. Xgl/Aiglx/Compiz/Beryl development is in full swing, and new plugins are still being developed. I think we're only at the beginning of what this new technology will provide. By the same time next year the Linux eye-candy will have left Vista and OSX in the dust.

(Note to Windows and OSX fans: this is good, at least if you like eye-candy, because it will prompt MS and Apple to turn up the development of new eye-candy features. This is why competition is *good*!)

Reply Score: 4

Bringbackanonposting Member since:
2005-11-16

You have misunderstood my sentance. I did not claim XGL is not in "full swing" or a problem at all. My comment is directed at the readers here that sit back and continue to use Windows/OSX/Whatever and load Linux/OS-whatever from cd/dvd to see what's "new". They just want to be impressed by something. They download the Mandriva DVD and look at the wobbly windows for 2min and rotate the cube for 1 minute then conclude that "KDE hasn't changed for 4 years" etc etc like Thom here infers. I personally think XGL and derivatives are definately on the top 5 developments in 2006. I don't understand this "competition" concept either. It's not a game/war/fight/race. The thousands of developers working on OS software are not competing against anyone and if anyone ever sat back and heckled me to hurry up and add this/that feature so they can stop using their favourite win/OSX app...I would give them the bird and encourage them to go elsewhere. We don't need the attitude.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Quiet before the storm
by archiesteel on Thu 21st Dec 2006 22:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Quiet before the storm"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Sorry, I completely misunderstood what you had said in the first post. I pretty much agree with all you've said.

Reply Score: 2

Applications need to be improved...
by miketech on Thu 21st Dec 2006 11:59 UTC
miketech
Member since:
2005-07-21

Hi,

well imho both desktop environments work really fine. In my view the problems are more the applications, I have to use. E.G. syncing with mobile devices could be improved. And another (often mentioned) problem are the missing applications. Openoffice is really great, but here we use a couple of macros and other special things, that doesn't work well with openoffice. Or the adobe products and so on. The huge application are not available for the linux desktops.

But this is not the fault of the desktop environments. Gnome and kde work good and I don't see anything, that needs to be changed.

Greetings

Mike

Edit: Crossover office is imho not the solution for this ;)

Edited 2006-12-21 12:00

Reply Score: 5

shufflingBuffalo Member since:
2006-01-13

I don't think you've ever tried making commercial software for Linux ...

Speaking as someone who's involved on a day to basis with trying to develop and test commercial closed source desktop (and non) applications for Linux and other OS's. It's true that it's not totally the fault of the Desktops, they're just another part of the general mess that makes the overall development cost vs. size of potential reward equation seem pretty unfavourable to a commercial company. I personally like Linux (used it for years), and I just wish it'd pull it's bloody socks up and sort out the inter operability between distributions, window managers and do something about backward binary compatibility, that'd go along way to improving the equation.

All the best

Reply Score: 5

wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

You'll never get backwards binary compatibility. Open source, remember? If you want backwards compatibility than either open your formats and code, or keep updating your closed drivers and closed applications.

I'm trying not to be an extremist so I won't say "everybody should open up their code, death to binary blobs". But if you want to hold back all the rest of the ecosystem, which is mostly open and evolving freely, just because you don't want to open up your small part... Sorry, that's asking too much. That's where the line is drawn.

Reply Score: 3

shufflingBuffalo Member since:
2006-01-13

Which is the unfortunate reason why we're never going to get much in the way of native applications from commercial companies for the various flavours of Linux whilst it persists (I'm not holding my breath whilst Linus is in charge).

Personally I think it's an approach that made sense when things were just starting out and changing a lot. Now it just smacks of poor design and makes the development and support more difficult and costly for both open and closed source developers alike.

All the best

Reply Score: 5

wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Commercial companies want to do things that way because they want to make more money. The community wants to do things this way because the people making it up believe in freedom. If there's anybody who should compromise it's not the free software community.

Free software was never about the money, marketshare and all that. It's about people doing things they like to do and offering them to others along with a set of fundamental freedoms.

The community, as a whole, simply doesn't care about the money side of things, there's no central roadmap for all things FOSS, no ultimate goal, no plans to take over the world or stiffle competition, or marketing and so on.

If the corporations don't want to port their drivers and applications properly, let them be. It takes years sometimes, but one day they look around and see 3 different FOSS projects more or less successfully replacing their product completely. Which means they missed the train.

Reply Score: 4

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Take a look at the auto package page. Even if you're not going to use the format they have made quite a bit of the grunt work necessary to make cross distro binaries a reality.

Reply Score: 2

shufflingBuffalo Member since:
2006-01-13

I'm afraid we've looked at Autopackage and other similar things in the past and found they only partially help. What they do do is make it a bit easier to produce a single installable package that's more likely to work on a variety of different Linux's. However in order to make up one of these packages you've still got to generate and test the different binaries that go into it for each of the various different flavours of Linux you're going to attempt to support, and that's the bit that unfortunately costs.

All the best.

Reply Score: 1

collinm Member since:
2005-07-15

you mean ms macro don't alway work under openoffice?

does openoffice macro work under ms office?

we have done a lot of macro under openoffice that work fine

if you don't use crossover office forget adobe product

alternative to adobe product exist
if some movies artist use tool like gimp, scribus.... a lot company can do it

Reply Score: 2

Brmbolec Member since:
2005-07-23

Regarding Adobe products, do not expect their releases for Linux anytime soon. Rather check out something similar, like Pixel - http://www.kanzelsberger.com

Reply Score: 1

KDE 4...
by fpbecker on Thu 21st Dec 2006 12:00 UTC
fpbecker
Member since:
2005-07-08

... might as well become the F/OSS community's Longhorn: Full of great and innovative visions while the only available prototypes are not even close to usable or showing any of the promised innovations, its schedule keeps slipping behind.

Time will tell I guess.

Reply Score: 3

RE: KDE 4...
by getaceres on Thu 21st Dec 2006 12:36 UTC in reply to "KDE 4..."
getaceres Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree with you. KDE4 is a bunch of promises and good intentions just like Longhorn was in 2003. Look at Plasma, for example, nobody in the KDE development team knows exactly WHAT is plasma beyond the merging of KDesktop, Kicker and Superkaramba, which isn't very innovative. If you ask they may say that "it's a new concept of desktop" or that "It will be revolutionary" but at the end of 2006 nobody has a clear idea of what they want to implement and there's no much to see in the SVN regarding Plasma right now. If they don't even have now a stable Kdelibs release, then I don't think in 6 months we may see something revolutionary. Maybe a QT4 port of KDE3 with a better infraestructure but I don't think we may see something spectacular at least until KDE 4.2 or 4.3 or even KDE5.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: KDE 4...
by abhaysahai on Thu 21st Dec 2006 13:54 UTC in reply to "RE: KDE 4..."
abhaysahai Member since:
2005-10-20

I think the problem with KDE is lack of funds and manpower. As clearly stated in the article itself

"KDE's biggest problem is a lack of manpower and financial backing by big companies. In the past, both Mandrake and SUSE were the major driving forces behind KDE development, but now, SUSE is part of the GNOME-centric Novell family, and Mandrake Mandriva has been delegated to the sidelines. "

Todays leading Distro's are all GNOME based, be it the ultra popular Ubuntu or the enterprise class RHEL, SLED.
No doubt plasma as an idea is too good, but what good an idea is if it is not implemented ?

However, I always believed in KDE folks and will still count on them. There have been some changes lately, Mark Shuttleworth became the first Patron of KDE.
http://dot.kde.org/1160932072/
He says, I quote
"With the growing importance of Kubuntu within the Ubuntu family, the time is right to support the project that makes Kubuntu possible - KDE."
With more people joining KDE project and enhancing it with money power, I think that KDE is on its way to fulfill all the promisses it made.

Reply Score: 2

RE: KDE 4...
by npang on Thu 21st Dec 2006 13:55 UTC in reply to "KDE 4..."
npang Member since:
2006-11-26

The proposed KDE4 system is indeed grandiose. Such a system requires much work into making sure the foundation is correct; otherwise the resulting system is flawed.

All features that KDE4 is promising us will depend on the KDE core library (kdelibs). The kdelibs are in the process of being rewritten and you will find no shortage of activity in this area of development. The KDE4 kdelibs are not yet complete. The specifications of the core technologies for KDE4 (such as Phonon and Solid) are not yet completed so work is still being done on them to get them to be correct.

Would you start building onto the build site before the foundations are firmly in place? If not, why would anyone do the same for KDE? The foundations required for KDE4 are not solid at this point in time. Be assured that there is work being put into KDE4. The people working on building a solid foundation for KDE4 before major work can done to bring the system together.

Reply Score: 5

Version numbers don't matter
by tux68 on Thu 21st Dec 2006 12:02 UTC
tux68
Member since:
2006-10-24

Just because other O/S's increment their version numbers more often does not mean that they've somehow cornered the market on major improvements. Look at the Linux kernel, still at version 2.6.. it could just as easily be justifiably at version 12+ if a marketing department controlled the version number scheme.

Major things are going on behind the scene in the Linux desktop world, look at the offerings from freedesktop.org for instance. You could write many full articles on things that have advanced in the Linux desktop, spending more than a paragraph worrying about releasse 3.0 or 4.0 is a waste of time.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Version numbers don't matter
by libray on Thu 21st Dec 2006 15:45 UTC in reply to "Version numbers don't matter"
libray Member since:
2005-08-27

Absolutely version numbers have nothing to do with milestones of an application. NetBSD, for a number of years, released 1.0-1.6 before using the first number to denote a major release (2.0).

But I fail to see why the future of the Unix desktop relies on GNOME or KDE, both of which I have never used more than a few hours before installing my own choice for my desktop.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Version numbers don't matter
by subterrific on Thu 21st Dec 2006 16:30 UTC in reply to "Version numbers don't matter"
subterrific Member since:
2005-07-10

Agreed. Does Thom honestly think, because we haven't seen another major version number release that nothing major has been going on? This article is pure FUD. GNOME 2.12 is more different from GNOME 2.0 than 2.0 was from 1.0. Just look at the list of new applications and features since 2.0, not to mention all the freedesktop.org work (cario, dbus, avahi), UI improvements (svg icons, clearlooks, tango). GNOME also finally has a decent multimedia framework with GStreamer. The "incremental" improvements are a good thing. It means the code is stable and maintainable. I am way more happy now using GNOME/Linux than OS X, and I've been a Mac user since 1987. Personally I'd rather read an article about what major features or changes you must have in mind that we're all missing.

Reply Score: 3

I don't see the difference
by djst on Thu 21st Dec 2006 12:03 UTC
djst
Member since:
2005-08-07

In the meantime, the competition has not exactly been standing still. Apple has continuously been improving its Mac OS X operating system, adding new and sometimes even innovative features, while also increasing the OS's speed with every release.

Gnome has done the same thing: continuously improving its desktop system, adding new [1] and sometimes even innovative features [2], while also increasing the speed [3] of the desktop with every release.

[1] http://www.gnome.org/start/2.14/notes/en/rnusers.html
[2] http://www.gnome.org/start/2.14/notes/en/rnusers.html#rnusers-deskb...
[3] http://www.gnome.org/start/2.14/notes/en/rnusers.html#rnusers-perfo...

Reply Score: 5

RE: I don't see the difference
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 21st Dec 2006 12:07 UTC in reply to "I don't see the difference"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Deskbar innovative? Deskbar is very nice, do not get me wrong, but it is nothing more innovative than the search field of i.e. Spotlight which also allows you to launch applications and search for things. Heck, even Google Desktop and Windows Desktop Search on Windows XP allow you to do this.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: I don't see the difference
by Endica on Thu 21st Dec 2006 12:19 UTC in reply to "RE: I don't see the difference"
Endica Member since:
2006-07-07

Deskbar innovative?

Maybe Deskbar isn't innovative, but Tomboy sure is.

Edited 2006-12-21 12:25

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: I don't see the difference
by tmack on Thu 21st Dec 2006 12:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I don't see the difference"
tmack Member since:
2006-04-11

How the hell is tomboy innovative? It's a freaking sticky note program, EXACTLY like the 10000 sticky notes program before it.

I could barely tell the difference between tomboy and the other sticky note program for GNOME.... except the GNOME sticky note program loaded and ran faster.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: I don't see the difference
by Endica on Thu 21st Dec 2006 12:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I don't see the difference"
Endica Member since:
2006-07-07

How the hell is tomboy innovative? It's a freaking sticky note program, EXACTLY like the 10000 sticky notes program before it.

The innovation in Tomboy, if you didn't know, is the Wiki-like linking system to connect notes together. If you find programs like that useful or not is up to you.

Reply Score: 5

RenatoRam Member since:
2005-11-14

...and if you know of a windows equivalent that is both free and as comfortable as Tomboy, please, share: my girlfriend would sorely need it ;)

Reply Score: 2

JamesTRexx Member since:
2005-11-06

I can't vouch for comfort, but this is my choice of notes app for Windows; http://atnotes.free.fr/
(doesn't do links, but it's simple and very easy to use)

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: I don't see the difference
by diegocg on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 00:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I don't see the difference"
diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

tomboy? It's mono....

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: I don't see the difference
by cpchan on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 17:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I don't see the difference"
cpchan Member since:
2006-12-22
RE[6]: I don't see the difference
by cpchan on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 17:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I don't see the difference"
cpchan Member since:
2006-12-22

Wiki like notepads are not an innovation. They exist on a lot of platforms. My personal favourite cross platform ones are:

planner-mode: http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/emacs-en/PlannerMode

and

org-mode: http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/emacs-en/OrgMode

Charles

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: I don't see the difference
by monkeyhead on Thu 21st Dec 2006 12:23 UTC in reply to "RE: I don't see the difference"
monkeyhead Member since:
2005-07-11

So to sum up your argument:

OS X - Lots of incrimental point releases
Gnome - Lots of incrimental point releases

Too bad, Gnome is stagnating and OS X is blazing new trails into the future!

---

You may have some valid points, but you used some pretty weak arguments to make them.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: I don't see the difference
by evangs on Thu 21st Dec 2006 15:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I don't see the difference"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

I'd mod you up higher if I could.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: I don't see the difference
by sbenitezb on Thu 21st Dec 2006 12:39 UTC in reply to "RE: I don't see the difference"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

" than the search field of i.e. Spotlight"

You meant e.g.?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: I don't see the difference
by djst on Thu 21st Dec 2006 12:40 UTC in reply to "RE: I don't see the difference"
djst Member since:
2005-08-07

Deskbar innovative? Deskbar is very nice, do not get me wrong, but it is nothing more innovative than the search field of i.e. Spotlight which also allows you to launch applications and search for things. Heck, even Google Desktop and Windows Desktop Search on Windows XP allow you to do this.

To be fair, I actually agree with you on most parts of the article. I just think the use of Mac OS X as an example of the much more innovative competition was weak. The Gnome 2.x point releases don't seem to be much about innovation, but more about evolution and refinement. I see the same thing with the Mac OS X releases.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I don't see the difference
by somebody on Thu 21st Dec 2006 15:16 UTC in reply to "RE: I don't see the difference"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Spotlight which also allows you to launch applications and search for things. Heck, even Google Desktop and Windows Desktop Search on Windows XP allow you to do this.

Well, you don't really know what you talk about:)

Deskbar was first made for all other actions you named, except search. It was later that search plugin for Deskbar got into the wild.

Look at the history of deskbar, you might learn something new.

btw. This is the first disappointing article from you. Usually I really enjoy your writings, but this one wasn't worth the time to read.

It could be summed into few question backfired at you.
Something not getting flashier from version to version makes no progress? What? Now new theme is called progress?
Something not releasing new version numbers makes no progress? Ok, Bump version for one single patch to 32435452546564.0, is that called progress?
Improving speed, memory efficiency is not called progress? I would never trade those for "just flashy".
Since when do things like XGL, AIGLX have something to do with desktop? In closed world, they are treated like that, in OSS they are underlaying structure of Window Manager where on top of it it resides something called desktop.

KDE has vision, they just weren't thinking in public a lot.
Gnome has vision too, read project Topaz notes. They will try to incorporate as much technology as possible in 2.x and then if (and only "IF") it shows that as mission impossible start reinventing the wheel. Same logic is used in kernel, 2.8 will only be used for really large structural changes. One time you cry for lack of stability, and the next time because there is? Don't get this logic. In Gnome, large structural changes would be treated as First Class Citizen objects. But, is that impossible to have in this structure? I think not.

Reply Score: 5

RE: I don't see the difference
by diegocg on Thu 21st Dec 2006 12:15 UTC in reply to "I don't see the difference"
diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

while also increasing the speed [3] of the desktop with every release


I'm sorry but that is not a "feature". Those are fixes to architectural problems that weren't done right during the development of gnome and now they need to be fixed because people couldn't stand the resource usage. If gnome developers could spend their time improving the desktop with real features instead of fixing things, it'd be much better for everyone.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: I don't see the difference
by Endica on Thu 21st Dec 2006 12:23 UTC in reply to "RE: I don't see the difference"
Endica Member since:
2006-07-07

I'm sorry but that is not a "feature". Those are fixes to architectural problems that weren't done right during the development of gnome and now they need to be fixed because people couldn't stand the resource usage. If gnome developers could spend their time improving the desktop with real features instead of fixing things, it'd be much better for everyone.

Neither is it a feature in Mac OS X.

Edited 2006-12-21 12:26

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I don't see the difference
by monkeyhead on Thu 21st Dec 2006 12:36 UTC in reply to "RE: I don't see the difference"
monkeyhead Member since:
2005-07-11

Whatever... One thing that I like about Linux is that my computer gets better with age because speed improvements are made with every release.

Personally, I think it's a lot better than some other OS's that just seem to bog the computer down more and more when you upgrade software.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: I don't see the difference
by wargum on Thu 21st Dec 2006 15:47 UTC in reply to "RE: I don't see the difference"
wargum Member since:
2006-12-15

I disagree. On my old iMac G3 500MHz OS X runs a lot faster than current Versions of Ubuntu. Even GNU/Linux gets more bloated (I don't think more bloat is bad, I think it is necessary) over time.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: I don't see the difference
by collinm on Thu 21st Dec 2006 17:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I don't see the difference"
collinm Member since:
2005-07-15

how many ram do you have?

i have a g3 450mhz and use X and is slow with 512Mb
os 9 was not so bad

Reply Score: 1

RE: I don't see the difference
by Kwitschibo on Thu 21st Dec 2006 12:34 UTC in reply to "I don't see the difference"
Kwitschibo Member since:
2006-01-17

Between the versions 2.12 to 2.14 or from 2.14 to 2.16 there are much little steps... but if i look at the en wikipedia page about gnome... from 2.0 to 2.16 many performance improvements, apps like Epiphany and Evolution... and many more. From Step to Step its just an Evolution... from 2.0 to 2.16 its a great work with many many improvements and features. And the KDE Development will shows the same Steps.

Reply Score: 3

RE: I don't see the difference
by djame on Thu 21st Dec 2006 13:52 UTC in reply to "I don't see the difference"
djame Member since:
2005-07-08

"while also increasing the speed [3] of the desktop with every release. "

I'm sorry but that's simply not true. They haven't catched up the overall speed and reactivity of gnome 1.4 on a pIII 500 mhz with gnome2.X on any 2 or 3ghz machine I have used.

Reply Score: 3

Evolutionary v revolutionary development
by britbrian on Thu 21st Dec 2006 12:04 UTC
britbrian
Member since:
2005-07-06

Just because Windows is suited to revolutionary product development, does'nt mean a Linux Desktop Environment should be.

Personally, I'm quite happy with mere pt releases to pretty stable DEs/WMs. IMO KDE,Gnome, XFce & others I know less well have made very consistent evolutionary progress.
Plus the kernel, GNU tool chain and various other components required of a complete desktop have all similarly improved over the years. So the combined improvements hang together pretty well considering.

Reply Score: 4

walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

Exactly. F/OSS progresses using a different system.

Unlike msft, that has a major hand-waving "change everything in the world" campaign every 5 years; foss developemnt is more incremental.

Reply Score: 3

HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

I would have to disagree.

I use linux, at work and at home and it's great. But frankly it needs a major face-lift and fast.

I know what everyone will say, in that you can customise it to death and make it look however you like. But there are lots of people who don't know how to do this, and they will just accept an operating systems defaults when they install it.

And the defaults for both Gnome and KDE are starting to look very old in comparison to OSX and Vista.

GLX has so much potential, but it just isn't being developed fast enough.

Reply Score: 2

Slow release cycle a sign of maturity
by egarland on Thu 21st Dec 2006 12:06 UTC
egarland
Member since:
2005-08-05

These two products are stabilizing and maturing. The lack of someone coming along with a must-have update to the systems just indicates they've tackled most of the important problems.

My windows UI looks and works very similar to how it did in 1995. That doesn't mean the Windows bubble has burst.

Reply Score: 5

RE
by Kroc on Thu 21st Dec 2006 12:15 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

If Linux is going to change it needs to evolve in other matters; not just release numbers. They need open source graphics drivers quite badly, they also seriously need to get out of the North-America-only mindset. Shuttleworth (with Ubuntu) has been successfully putting linux into markets where Microsoft don't exist, and don't matter. There is nothing /wrong/ with linux in this regard at all. These markets don't need/want a Vista clone.

Reply Score: 5

What people want from desktop Linux
by Rlwimi on Thu 21st Dec 2006 12:15 UTC
Rlwimi
Member since:
2006-11-02

A few months ago I was reading through one of the major distro's community discussion board trying to track down yet another sound issue with my biannual give Linux a try attempt. Along with the usual numerous "Why doesn't my WiFi connection work?" or "Why is my screen stuck at 640x480?" posts, there was one GIGANTIC thread with huge numbers of that distro's users trying to get their desktop to look and act like this:

http://images.apple.com/macosx/leopard/images/indexdesktop20060807....

That pretty much sums up all there is to say about the home user desktop Linux situation - IMO.

Edited 2006-12-21 12:30

Reply Score: 5

danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

Along with the usual numerous "Why doesn't my WiFi connection work?" or "Why is my screen stuck at 640x480?" post,

If, say, Red Hat would dictate we could only use one of few machine models that would not be a problem either. The other approach takes a bit more work, but you can run it from low-power ARM machines to high-end PowerPC and IA64. A bit of comfort vs. choice. That said, most of my machines are on the Red Hat (and possibly other vendors) HCL lists, and work perfecly out of the box.

That pretty much sums up all there is to say about the home user desktop Linux situation - IMO.

And there's another contigent who avoids their desktop to look like that, including me. In my opinion their desktop is ugly and would obstructs me in doing my daily work.

That's all a matter of taste, basic aesthetics ;) .

Reply Score: 2

angryrobot Member since:
2006-04-26

Actually, I'm one of those people. My Gnome desktop looks pretty much indistinguishable from a Mac. It's a nice visual design. That said, it only looks like it. It's still the Gnome desktop running on a Linux box. And I like it that way.

It may seem strange to you, but I actually prefer Gnome to the Mac environment, and it's not like I couldn't get a Mac. I like Linux *because* I can make it look just like a Mac, or however I want. I'm not limited to a single desktop environment.

As for the "desktop situation", I've been using it as my workstation day in and day out since before 2000. I considered it usable then and since then it's been improved exponentially. Whether it is for you depends on what you use it for. I use it for doing programming work, not games or graphic design. So if "usable" means it has to run Photoshop and World of Warcraft then no, it's not "usable". If usable means "I need an IDE, source control, web and database servers to build my application", and 30 seconds later they're downloaded, installed, and running, then yeah, it's usable.

Fortunately, I've never had any problems like wifi connections or screen resolution, but then again, I made sure that all the hardware I bought was supported. BTW, which distro were you checking out the discussion on? I'm curious to see the problems people were having with their systems. I can probably offer some assistance.

Reply Score: 5

smittal Member since:
2006-02-03

So if "usable" means it has to run Photoshop and World of Warcraft then no, it's not "usable".

This is a little off-topic, but both Photoshop 7.0 and World of Warcraft run very well under Wine. So a Linux desktop is not necessarily unusable even if you require these applications ;)

Reply Score: 1

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

This is a little off-topic, but both Photoshop 7.0 and World of Warcraft run very well under Wine. So a Linux desktop is not necessarily unusable even if you require these applications ;)

That's nice to know. Unfortunately CivII doesn't :-(

(If you have ever read any of my comments on this site, you KNOW I'm not trolling.)

Reply Score: 2

angryrobot Member since:
2006-04-26

Hah! You see, it's usable after all!

Reply Score: 1

mark_in_rdjbrasil Member since:
2005-11-30

check out dream linux from brazil, it has the option of xfce or engage style panel. english version is available for people that don't know portuguese.

Reply Score: 1

looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

Heh.. my BeOS install ( compiled Nov 15, 2001 ), with all of the little goodies I have done/added, looks and feels nicer than any other system I have USED.

I say 'used' over 'tried', as I must exclude systems I have only 'tried' to be fair.

If tripod didn't suck so much now, I'd give some screens.

--The loon

Reply Score: 1

blitze Member since:
2006-09-15

Loon, stop teasing you naughty person you. Must stay with the well trodden path of Windows/OS-X/Linux ... must ... stay .. on . paTH! LOL

BTW waiting anxiously for Haiku to get to beta state.

Reply Score: 1

chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02


http://images.apple.com/macosx/leopard/images/indexdesktop20060807....


Ugh! what an ugly counter-intuitive desktop. Who would ever want to configure their Linux desktop like that - except for the reason "because I can".

Edited 2006-12-22 16:15

Reply Score: 2

danieldk
Member since:
2005-11-18

When KDE and GNOME were new, development was revolutionary. This often happens with new opensource projects -- different approaches are tried, and there was a lot of missing groundwork. These days GNOME and KDE are mature desktop environments, and are used for production work. This requires a different approach to development: namely evolutionary development. Every release improves steadily, without breaking too much with the previous version. And you can't, because it will drive users away.

The same thing can be observed with the Linux kernel. Where there used to be revolutionary new releases, new features are integrated in a much more streamlined process now.

However, this doesn't mean that less progress is made. Linux 2.6.19 is miles ahead from 2.6.0, GNOME 2.16 miles from 2.4. Heck, even when I fire up my CentOS 4.4 desktop, which is GNOME 2.8, it looks arcane compared to GNOME 2.16 in Fedora Core 6 (though, I don't care, because it works).

Linux (and BSD) on the desktop has moved forward in a lightning pace. To name a few improvements:

- Remember that Xgl development was only opened up in January 2006. Nowadays we have stable and usable 3D desktops. In 2006 Cairo has been integrated at many places.
- HAL and d-bus have moved forward at steady rates.
- GNOME now includes support for automounting of encrypted storage devices through HAL.
- Ahavi has been integrated in many systems, facilitating easy discovery of network resources (which is relevant for the desktop).
- Red Hat had developed GTK/GNOME-oriented management tools for Xen virtual machines, making them usable for the average end-user.

And the list goes on ;) . Anyway, to wrap it up: to be a serious candidate for production environments, you need evolutionary development.

Reply Score: 5

The Oracle!
by diegocg on Thu 21st Dec 2006 12:21 UTC
diegocg
Member since:
2005-07-08

KDE4 is more likely to see release somewhere in 2008-- Q3/Q4 rather than Q1/Q2.

Yeah, we all know you're absolutely right Thom, nobody like you to predict future events after showing you've zero idea of what's going or not going on in the KDE4 world....if you visited http://commit-digest.org/ you'd know KDE4 is far from stagnated - it's true that kde development would be much faster with some corporate support - not that kde is different from other os projects in that regard, but it's not dead, and your predictions look...pure bullshit. "Hey, KDE4 has not released screenshots that I can look at, so the final release will by in Q3/Q4 2008"

Edited 2006-12-21 12:36

Reply Score: 5

KDE 4 development
by dark child on Thu 21st Dec 2006 12:24 UTC
dark child
Member since:
2005-12-09

I don't think KDE development has slowed down at all. I actually think the pace of development has increased over the last few months. If you take a look at the weekly KDE commit digest thats usually available on a Monday morning at http://dot.kde.org , you will notice a lot of work going on and quite a lot of that development work is for KDE 4.

The kdelibs 4 are more or less complete so many people are working to port their apps to KDE 4. Some of those frameworks the author says have not emerged are still being worked on, or are already complete. There is a lot of work going on building new apps, removing old ones and updating others. All this makes me positive that there will be a KDE 4.x release sometime in 2007.

Reply Score: 5

Er?
by boudewijn on Thu 21st Dec 2006 12:35 UTC
boudewijn
Member since:
2006-03-05

If people would only speak about things they know about, the world would be a better place... Thom, in this case you're complete off-base. I don't know about Gnome, so I won't talk about that, but there's a lot of progress from KDE 3.0 to KDE 3.5.5. Try going back to KDE 3.0. Just give it a try... We like to keep our version numbers in synch with the Qt version we use, so there's your reason for "only point releases".

And it's not just the basic desktop that was getting smoother, more usable and more feature-full, the KDE applications have made huge strides since KDE 3.0 was released. Look at K3b, Kpdf, Amarok (magnatune integration!), KOffice, Konqueror, Digikam, KDevelop. Sure, some applications lagged behind a bit, like Kontact, but even there, lots of good work and lots of progress. We couldn't have written all those applications against a continuously changing set of foundations, so stability is good.

And if you are in the thick KDE 4/KOffice 2 development, then it's clear that a lot is happening right now. It's not just the hundreds of daily commits. Qt4 was a little unstable to begin with, and porting to Qt4 was harder than we'd thought, with more to relearn, and a couple of ideas needed a bit more time to crystallize. We needed to experiment with the best way of keeping the libraries stable enough for the app developers to port while still having enough opportunities for refactoring and redesign. And of course, coding the foundations takes time, too, and aren't any too interesting for glitz-hungry outsiders. If you want to know what's going on subscribe to the KDE svn commit mailing list -- but don't do that if you cannot handle a serious amount of email.

Is KDE4 as a goal in trouble? Definitely not. We're having fun and are making amazing progress. Are we going to make our first optimistic estimations? Of course not. We're software developers. Ever had a reliable estimate from a software developer at the beginning of a large project? It simply can't be done. Read you Steve McConnell. Are most of us volunteers? Yes, and that's a good thing, and it has always been that way, even in the days when SUSE was still SuSE. And don't forget Mandriva: without their employee Laurent Montel we would have been in trouble.

Don't be so impatient: you will get your glitz and glitter. I think, personally, that we'll be making quite a splash at the next aKademy.

Reply Score: 5

Stupid article
by tmack on Thu 21st Dec 2006 12:35 UTC
tmack
Member since:
2006-04-11

If the OSS desktop needs one thing, it's definitely a complete rewrite from the ground up!

I mean OS X has had like ten major updates since 2000, they're practically on OS X by now.

Why do non developers write stupid articles like this? Oh, because they don't know what they're talking about.

Reply Score: 5

v name
by vermaden on Thu 21st Dec 2006 12:47 UTC
REMF
Member since:
2006-02-05

Gnome has always appeared (in the 3 years i have followed Linux) to follow an evolutionary path, and likewise has KDE appeared to prefer revolution.

I really really really would like to see a SUSE 10.3 with a KDE4 desktop in June 07, that would be super, but i have no idea how realistic a hope that is..........

Reply Score: 1

collinm Member since:
2005-07-15

surely you will see suse 11 with a kde 4 desktop in decembre 2007

Reply Score: 1

No Problem With Either Desktop
by pfsams on Thu 21st Dec 2006 13:14 UTC
pfsams
Member since:
2006-01-05

I started with KDE in 2003 and now use Gnome mostly, I still have WinXP on one partition, mostly I log into it once weekly to update my virus, spyware and Windows update when available. While doing that "house keeping," I find that the KDE and Gnome Desktops are more user friendly by far. It's the little things, such as multiple desktops, and "peace and quite,"(no annoying pop-ups), I'm not a programmer, but I know that both desktops(Gnome,KDE) "just work." While there is always room for improvement, neither desktop needs to apologize for it's functionality. My opinion, for what it's worth.

Reply Score: 4

Ringheims Auto Member since:
2005-07-23

Yep, mine too.

For example: The Windows programsmenu used to be sorted by developer name (is it still in Vista?) rather than category as it is typically sorted on a KDE/Gnome desktop. Now, how the f... am I supposed to know who made Photoshop? I mean, I know for sure, but how does MS think I'm *supposed* to know this? Does my intuition tell me that Adobe made Photoshop, and that it lies under "Adobe" in the menu? For me I think it should be under "Graphics".

Reply Score: 5

Alleister Member since:
2006-05-29

No, you are mistaken. Windows startmenu is sorted alphabeticall, not in order of vendors. You usually can choose where an installer places the startmenu entry. You don't have to live with "Adobe>Photoshop" you can have "Graphics>Photoshop" or even "Graphics>Imagemanipulation" if you like. If you don't want that, then it is your own choice.

If you already made a mess of your startmenu it isn't even difficult to fix, just sort it using drag&drop + renaming.

I have been sorting in categories since Windows 95, so please don't blame the os for your own homemade chaos.

Reply Score: 3

jaylaa Member since:
2006-01-17

If you already made a mess of your startmenu it isn't even difficult to fix, just sort it using drag&drop + renaming.

I have been sorting in categories since Windows 95, so please don't blame the os for your own homemade chaos.


If it were the other way around, Windows automatically sorting apps into categories and Gnome/KDE making the user sort things out, it would be complained about and cited as another example of how everything has to be tweaked in Linux.

Reply Score: 5

Alleister Member since:
2006-05-29

Only trolls would argue that way and trollpostings are not relevant.

Besides that, this doesn't works well on linux either if you install apps that are not part of your distribution. Skype, BlueJ and other apps that i installed where placed in "Unknown" in my Ubuntu startmenu.

Reply Score: 2

unapersson Member since:
2005-07-19

Linux has a freedesktop.org standard for menu entries, and if those apps had followed it they'd be on the menu in a proper location. I've installed plenty of non-Ubuntu apps that have installed in the proper place. Ubuntu follows the standard.

It may just be that the apps you mentioned haven't been updated yet. I'd report it as a bug if I were you, as we don't want to wind up with the mess you get on Windows.

Reply Score: 3

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Besides that, this doesn't works well on linux either if you install apps that are not part of your distribution. Skype, BlueJ and other apps that i installed where placed in "Unknown" in my Ubuntu startmenu.

I agree this is a pain - but the OP *does* have a point. I think Windows gets away with a lot just because it's the de-facto standard. The people who already use Linux are probably more inclined to judge something on its merits, rather than on the basis of whether it's like what's been done before.

Reply Score: 3

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

It is not sorted alphabetically unless you right click on the Start-button after the installation of an application.

Choose "properties", choose the "Start Menu"-tab, click on "Customize", click "Sort", click "Ok", click "OK".

And now it is alphabetically sorted. In Windows applications are listed according to the installation pattern. The first installed is no. 1 and the last installed is in the bottom.

Reply Score: 2

Ringheims Auto Member since:
2005-07-23

@Alleister:

Yeah, but I'm mostly talking about the default layout. Of course you can modify the menu, but that's not what you'd like to instruct your dumb users to do.

Reply Score: 1

unapersson Member since:
2005-07-19

"Does my intuition tell me that Adobe made Photoshop, and that it lies under "Adobe" in the menu? For me I think it should be under "Graphics"."

It's even worse when you sit down at someone else's machine and try and sort through the chaos that is the Windows start menu.

Reply Score: 2

wargum Member since:
2006-12-15

Vista brings you a faster way: Just click to open the start menu (or press windows key) and start typing the name of the app you want to launch. There you got. Much faster than in XP (although Dock+Spotlight is faster in average).

Reply Score: 1

Vista...?
by Ringheims Auto on Thu 21st Dec 2006 13:15 UTC
Ringheims Auto
Member since:
2005-07-23

I think you're having a sort of pessimistic view afterall, and quite an optimistic one when it comes to Vista. I've just installed me the latest Ubuntu, with all Beryl/Emerald goodness, and having just seen screenshots and videos of Vista, I do feel that my desktop already outshines anything in Vista.
Of course if Gnome and KDE are stagnating this is troublesome, but I just can't see where a well-setup current Gnome or KDE desktop falls short of Vista as of today.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Vista...?
by Alleister on Thu 21st Dec 2006 13:52 UTC in reply to "Vista...?"
Alleister Member since:
2006-05-29

I agree, desktop is not only desktop environment. Beryl/Compiz/etc are doing those features that Apple and Microsoft are doing as desktop enhancements.

Howerver this creates some problems as well. Integration isn't done properly yet, so configuration done in Gnome or KDE partly aren't applied anymore, because Beryl/emerald of course has precedence.

And let us not forget that Beryl/Compiz is not yet usable. It is far to unstable yet to be usable and it doesn't support Java applications with GUI right now.

Edited 2006-12-21 13:56

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Vista...?
by Ringheims Auto on Thu 21st Dec 2006 17:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Vista...?"
Ringheims Auto Member since:
2005-07-23

And let us not forget that Beryl/Compiz is not yet usable. It is far to unstable yet to be usable and it doesn't support Java applications with GUI right now.

....hu? I've got azuerus, various applets and eclipse wobbling all over the place! What do you mean?

I agree on you about Beryl/Compiz not being integrated into gnome/kde, maybe that's a good point on to start working.

Stable...? While compiz always crashed when I ran out of memory, I've found Beryl/Emerald to be as stable as any MS software might be.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Vista...?
by elsewhere on Thu 21st Dec 2006 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Vista...?"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

I agree on you about Beryl/Compiz not being integrated into gnome/kde, maybe that's a good point on to start working.

I see Beryl/Compiz as being stop gap solutions for now, particularly because they are not integrated, but I'm not sure integration makes sense long term because of the work involved (and by integration, I don't just mean desktop-native config panels).

Kwin already has compositing support built in for KDE4, and Aaron Seigo has said that KDE4 won't support the "fake" translucency etc. type effects, it's either true compositing or standard graphics. So plasma to one extent or another will become it's own composited window manager. Given a choice, I'd probably choose KWin over the beryl/compiz options, and I'm sure many other users would too.

What I'd like to see is the Beryl/Compiz teams come to peace in terms of architecture and plugin development; it would be great to see some sort of a standard plugin format developed or co-developed under the auspices of fdo so that both Gnome and KDE could leverage unified third-party support for graphical effects for their respective and integrated WM's.

I know in KDE's case, although the compositing support is there, nobody has really had time to start working on actually implementing effects beyond simple experimental work. This would be a great opportunity for the Beryl team to maybe step up and work on a common approach; it doesn't have to mean the end of Beryl, just an evolution of Beryl's mission.

Just my 2c...

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Vista...?
by iiifrank on Thu 21st Dec 2006 18:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Vista...?"
iiifrank Member since:
2006-05-18

"And let us not forget that Beryl/Compiz is not yet usable. It is far to unstable yet to be usable and it doesn't support Java applications with GUI right now."

Compiz supports GUI Java applications just fine now with JDK1.6.0u1.

http://download.java.net/jdk6/binaries/

Reply Score: 1

Pure Flaimbait - no substence
by searly on Thu 21st Dec 2006 13:28 UTC
searly
Member since:
2006-02-27

Just another clueless flaimbait article - aren't you supposed to be the editor in command of this site ... maybe you should do some research before posting cluesless articles.

Reply Score: 1

What??
by Almindor on Thu 21st Dec 2006 13:38 UTC
Almindor
Member since:
2006-01-16

What is the guy talking about? Lack of innovation? Lack of development?

I don't get it? Right now Linux desktop is the 1st place when it comes to bells and whistles. You can't even compare how far in front Beryl/AIGLX is from eg: Aero. I can't compare MacOSX but afaik they don't even have 3d support properly yet?

So wtf is this about? Personal rant? Do you want the number of releases to go up all the time or what?

Windows gui hasn't changed in ages, it took 5 years for one change now, how's that for slow moving?

Reply Score: 5

RE: What??
by wargum on Thu 21st Dec 2006 16:05 UTC in reply to "What??"
wargum Member since:
2006-12-15

> You can't even compare how far in
> front Beryl/AIGLX is from eg: Aero.

How is it better? Aero is nor limited to only a number of compatible graphiccards, is stable and some apps that are incompatible make it go into fallback mode, wothout restarting the WM. Yeah, it hasn't the ExposÚ clone, granted, but I guess thats because Steve Ballmer fears to get beaten up by Steve Jobs.

> I can't compare MacOSX but afaik they don't
> even have 3d support properly yet?

WTF??? The Mac Desktop is an OpenGL scene for YEARS! It's the gold standard for 3D accelerated WMs.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: What??
by collinm on Thu 21st Dec 2006 17:54 UTC in reply to "RE: What??"
collinm Member since:
2005-07-15

you forget that before os X, macos was very bad

that take how many years to apple to have a solid os?

too much time

new release of os X will have multiple desktop...
linux have that since begining

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: What??
by wargum on Thu 21st Dec 2006 20:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What??"
wargum Member since:
2006-12-15

> you forget that before os X, macos was very bad

Oh, trust me, I know that ;)
I tried to switch in the early iMac days, but OS 9 was a nightmare to me an so I switched back to Windows. With Mac OS X 10.3 though I felt the OS is much more robust, stable and of course I wanted this sweet ExposÚ thingy ;)
So I bought a Mac and since then I never look back. It's totally irrelevant how crappy OS 9 was, what's your point here?

> new release of os X will have multiple desktop...
> linux have that since begining

I did use Linux as my primary OS (an Win for games) in 2003 for half a year and never got used to virtual desktop, it was not appealing to me, just confusing. Also, OS X had ExposÚ since 2003 and I tell you that the need for virtual desktops is not that strong when you have ExposÚ. I personally look forward to Leopard because Spaces is the only implementation of virtual desktops that has ever attracted me. It is not just a rip-off, Apple took the concept and made it, well, perfect, IMHO. But I wait with my final verdict until I've used it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: What??
by Isolationist on Thu 21st Dec 2006 20:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What??"
Isolationist Member since:
2006-05-28

"I did use Linux as my primary OS (an Win for games) in 2003 for half a year and never got used to virtual desktop, it was not appealing to me, just confusing. Also, OS X had ExposÚ since 2003 and I tell you that the need for virtual desktops is not that strong when you have ExposÚ. "

Can you explain what is so confusing about virtual desktops? They are just switchable desktops - what could be confusing about that? Your need for virtual desktops might not be that strong, but don't assume it is the same for everyone else. I like to uses multiple desktops for different types of work, e.g. communication, office, development, browsing, etc. ExposÚ does not really address that, so should i say that the need for ExposÚ is not that strong unless you like eye candy?

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: What??
by Morin on Thu 21st Dec 2006 21:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What??"
Morin Member since:
2005-12-31

The bad thing about virtual desktops (at least IMO) is that I'm expected to use them *instead of* exposÚ. On the other hand, with exposÚ alone, my desktop gets cluttered with windows, like you said, from different types of work until it's hard to navigate even with exposÚ.

So why can't we have the best of both worlds? Virtual desktops for different kinds of work, and exposÚ to navigate within one virtual desktop.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: What??
by twenex on Thu 21st Dec 2006 21:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: What??"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

The bad thing about virtual desktops (at least IMO) is that I'm expected to use them *instead of* exposÚ. On the other hand, with exposÚ alone, my desktop gets cluttered with windows, like you said, from different types of work until it's hard to navigate even with exposÚ.

I wouldn't be so sure that you're "supposed to use them *instead of* expose". It may be that it's not implemented yet.

After all, Mac OS didn't implement preemptive multitasking until OS X - Windows had it in 95!

Edit: We do now in fact have Kompose. So the above arguments do not hold.

Edited 2006-12-21 21:23

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: What??
by twenex on Thu 21st Dec 2006 20:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What??"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

never got used to virtual desktop, it was not appealing to me, just confusing.

I like virtual desktops, but you do realise you can turn them off, don't you?

Virtual desktops are not as nice as on-the-fly virtual screens, but they are better than nothing.

As far as I can see Expose is just Alt-Tab with a flourish.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: What??
by collinm on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 22:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What??"
collinm Member since:
2005-07-15

> what's your point here?
if mac os is't better now why that could not be the same thing for other os?

more you have windows more the need for virtual desktop and exposÚ like is usefull

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: What??
by Almindor on Thu 21st Dec 2006 17:46 UTC in reply to "What??"
Almindor Member since:
2006-01-16

How is it better? Aero is nor limited to only a number of compatible graphic cards, is stable and some apps that are incompatible make it go into fallback mode, wothout restarting the WM. Yeah, it hasn't the ExposÚ clone, granted, but I guess thats because Steve Ballmer fears to get beaten up by Steve Jobs.

What has that got to do with being better? Aero is very simple compared to beryl. Beryl is simly further along the line and moving steadily forward although I admit it has it's quirks.

Your hw point is worthless since it has nothing to do with either of them.

WTF??? The Mac Desktop is an OpenGL scene for YEARS! It's the gold standard for 3D accelerated WMs.

Hardly the "standard" since almost nobody uses it but perhaps it was the first? Dunno, but I tought it doesn't have the bells and whistles. As I sayed I never even touched a mac.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: What??
by godawful on Thu 21st Dec 2006 19:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What??"
godawful Member since:
2005-06-29

here is a fine place to learn a little
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/quartzextreme/

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: What??
by wargum on Thu 21st Dec 2006 20:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What??"
wargum Member since:
2006-12-15

> Hardly the "standard" since almost nobody uses it

Yeah right, every Mac user uses it, that really is 'nobody' :-P

Reply Score: 1

Remember...
by twenex on Thu 21st Dec 2006 13:39 UTC
twenex
Member since:
2006-04-21

Looking Glass took /3 years/ to come to version 1, and people are still going GUI over that. in fact I had assumed the project was dead. DEAD!

There's no need to panic over KDE4.

Reply Score: 5

KDE or GNOME or ..is just a Face Mask.....
by rakamaka on Thu 21st Dec 2006 13:46 UTC
rakamaka
Member since:
2005-08-12

KDE or GNOME or any other DE is just a facemask. The problem for average user lies in underneath system.
How many times there are problems with tweaking of KDE or GNOME desktop itself? How many times i have to edit kderc or similar config file? none.

But average user do have to edit many config files for wireless, printer, camera, sound..and setting of many peripherals...at some or other time in the process setting of their desktop...don't tell me every peripheral works smoothly on ubuntu or mandriva or others...

KDE or GNOME gives opportunity to tweak config files by kedit..Nothing more..They are just good as a nice looking windows theme... Users problems will remain same no matter they use KDE or GNOME or any other DE.....

Reply Score: 4

KDE 4 is gonna be great
by Ben Jao Ming on Thu 21st Dec 2006 13:47 UTC
Ben Jao Ming
Member since:
2005-07-26

Yes, it isn't ready. But hey, there are SO much being developed that whenever it's done it's gonna kick major Vista/OSX ass.

Just look at the new icons:

http://www.oxygen-icons.org/?cat=3

I think the "problem" right now is that the developers are developing and not updating their websites.

Reply Score: 3

moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

I think what Tom has picked up is a general whiff that the early promise of desktop Linux has not panned out.

Step back from the details for a moment. Where I live, Linux is no more available in retail or shops than it was in 1999 (availability is non-existent).

The same is 99 per cent true for buying a new PC with Linux preloaded - you will have a heck of a job finding anywhere that does it.

And the same is largely true about Linux's generally poor ability to connect seamlessly to peripherals - phones, cameras, consoles, media players, wifi, etc, etc - which is one of the big essentials in consumer IT over the next few years.

The Linux desktop is about delivering these things because without them KDE 4 or looking ahead KDE 96 or Gnome 263 is meaningless and will never happen anyway.

The general consensus seems to be that fragmentation has proved the kiss of death. It's prevented the emergence of standards (look at Linux audio, e.g.), duplicated effort and put off OEMs who have no Linux or commonly accepted Linux branding to sell.

Imho, only two companies are in a position to change all this: Novell-SuSE and Ubuntu, since Red Hat is out of the desktop. Either of them could articulate a like-it-or-lump-it vision of desktop Linux and go hell for leather to impose it as a standard and a widely recognized brand. It would cost them a lot of money and they would have to stop being Mr Nicey Nicey and all things to all people. Hard choices. But if these choices are ducked for another year in favour of fundamentalist turmoil and general iconoclasm, then, yes, it will become high time to start saving the pennies for a Mac.

For myself, I'd say that I'd given Linux my best shot for 6-7 years but in the end it was just too much hassle and the problem was that it was always going to be too much hassle. Just my 2 cents.

Reply Score: 5

Bastian Member since:
2005-07-25

The particularly sad thing about how poorly the Linux-on-the-desktop movement has panned out is that the stagnation is starting to cause even geeks to leave the platform.

I don't particularly care that Macs might cost a couple hundred more; to me that's an investment in my continuing sanity. It doesn't take a whole lot of sessions spent getting a new piece of hardware working or wading my way through dependency hell while trying to get some software installed before I've eaten up well more than a few hundred dollars' worth of my time. And I'm far from the only person who has made this decision; at least in my neighborhood, Linux is beginning to suffer a serious exodus to OS X, and several of the people I know who are jumping ship, myself included, decided to do so after years and years of using it as their primary OS.

I know what Linux needs for me to decide that it's usable again - some standards that all the distros comply to, an agreed-upon packaging tool that all the major distros support, and more effort put into getting things to @#$@#% work instead of more time wasted writing 50,000 different text editors, and the distros spending more time getting hardware support in working order and less time doing various application developers' work for them by getting everything working with their distro. (ie, if GNOME wants their desktop and libraries used on a distro, GNOME can do the work. That's the way it works in the rest of the computing reason, and there's a reason for it.)

But I have no idea how to get all that going. These all seem to be obvious to me from a practical level, but as far as I can tell the only source of pragmatism in the Linux developer community is a few corporations who are only interested in Linux as a server OS. All the desktop people seem to be hopelessly mired in philosophy.

Reply Score: 4

arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

yeah I think that way too but every time I think about Mac, I stop myself and think "how am I going to afford several thousands of dollars just so i can get a mac that I can upgrade?"

Reply Score: 1

v unqualified BS
by jensa on Thu 21st Dec 2006 13:53 UTC
I'm happy..
by gothic on Thu 21st Dec 2006 14:01 UTC
gothic
Member since:
2005-07-06

I use Ubuntu (Gnome) and I'm happy with that since I choose Linux and not Windows. I've Vista installed and so what? still doesn't like it. I still prefer my Linux, I do my work more fast than Windows.. like web developing.

About improvements.. check Notepad at Windows, still the same as Win95. I prefer stability/performance than big features that doesn't work or make my computer unusable.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Various
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 21st Dec 2006 14:12 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

You guys are missing the point. I am not talking about the past, I am talking about the future.

Like I said in the article, KDE and GNOME are perfectly usable desktops that will cater to most needs today. The problem, however, is that if you want your platform to *shock gasp horror* grow, you'll need to provide (possible) users with more than just mediocracy. Of course, KDE and GNOME have improved over time since 2002, but what has been added to either of those that was REALLY new? So, GNOME got itself a mail client. Revolutionary! Wow, KDE got Amarok-- marvelous, a music player! GNOME got Tomboy-- great, a sticky note app with automatic links between notes. Surely now, users will flock to the platform en masse!

The changes between 2.0 and 2.16 (GNOME) and 3.0 and 3.5 (KDE) are not the kinds of changes that will bring new users to either platform. What they do is consolidate what you already have.

The future is what counts. Besides continuing its path of incremental updates, GNOME is, and I will put it this extreme, dead in the water. There is NOBODY working on the future of GNOME; all they have been doing for years now is consolidate what they already have, doing nothing too radical-- exactly, everything so many people like to hate Microsoft for doing since the release of XP.

KDE's story is different, but the outcome for KDE is the same. KDE actually has a vision and a plan for the future, that's not KDE's problem. KDE's major problem is the fact that NO major distribution, and hence NO major company is backing its development.

Windows Vista and Leopard will arrive at the scene in the coming months, and esp. Vista (for Leopard we really cannot tell, actually) simply is a major step up from Windows XP-- whether in reality (my opinion) or perceived as such, the end result is the same: people will see that Vista is different from XP, and that in itself is a buyer's argument.

KDE and GNOME will not have anything like that change to offer in the coming two years. THAT is a MAJOR problem.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Various
by twenex on Thu 21st Dec 2006 14:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Various"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

You're trolling. Linux always has depended on more than bling for its growth, and there's no reason to stop now - if bling were the thing, we (not to mention Microsoft, and Serenity Systems, and...) might as well just stop, because Apple will *always* concentrate on bling *as well as* being able to come up with the usability/functionality goods.

If you think there's something wrong with KDE, then what are you proposing to do instead?

The users who people hear of coming to Ubuntu don't come to Linux from Windows because it's got bling, they come because it *works*. Without viruses.

As for why people hate MS, it's not because "they're not doing anything radical", it's because their solutions to fix Windows problems are never radical, are always half-assed and usually late.

Vista, despite your trolling, is NOT a major step up from XP except in the hardware needed to install it. There are already Vista-like themes for KDE, so they probably exist for XP too. Not even MS seem interested in promoting it - in the UK, their latest (several months-old) advertising campaign is about "software". "Software that runs on Windows". Well, guess what? Adobe software runs on Windows, too! Any Windows! And so does IBM software. And Corel software. And shareware.

Even Cygwin runs on Windows. How fascinating.

If you think Linux relies on the kind of people who buy things because of bling, you've been watching too much Vicky Pollard. Yeah but no but yeah but yeah but no I don't remember her like EVER mentioning Linux, right?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Various
by t4inted on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 07:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Various"
t4inted Member since:
2006-11-24

I think you missed something. This is not about geeks, this is about Joe Sixpack. There seems to be a consensus that we want Linux to be a widely used Desktop Operating System. And this means "Joe" has to use it.

Problem is that "Joe" has no clue Linux even exists, and the only way to attract him is by:
- having "bling"
- having near-perfect hardware support
- having easy management tools (no, CLI does not qualify)
- being good (stable, fast, sexy, basically what ppl like about OSX)

Right now the only distro that comes anywhere near this is SUSE (because of YaST).

Why don't we see stuff like YaST in other distros? This is precisely what computer illiterate users need! You simply cannot expect any normal user to even enter one single line in a terminal. You need to provide them with a button that enters this line in the terminal (behind the scenes). And they don't care that they can look at the source. They don't know what source is nor why they should look at it (well, ok, maybe they do, but you get the idea)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Various
by DrCurl on Thu 21st Dec 2006 14:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Various"
DrCurl Member since:
2006-01-17

I have to agree... I've been a Linux user for several years and I'm a kinda minimalist guy, I prefer something like E17 or even afterstep. But I've been forced to use XP pro and OS X recently cause my hd broke and I use the computers of my lab until mine is repared... I must say that KDE and GNOME aren't yet competitive with the proprietary desktops, from a regular user point of view. And if I look at the future, I'm actually affraid that KDE and GNOME will have a lot of difficulties to match the OS X experience especially. Lets just look at iLife, that is the kind of thing that will attract the regular guy who likes to have fun with is computer, mixing various medias featuring is family. The third party commercial applications is another example. You can enhanced xp considerably with things such as yahoo widget, music subscription services (yahoo, rhapsody) and google desktop (again, from the casual guy point of view). I don't see the day were those kind of apps are ported to Linux.
P.S. Sorry for my poor english.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Various
by Kwitschibo on Thu 21st Dec 2006 14:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Various"
Kwitschibo Member since:
2006-01-17

"The changes between 2.0 and 2.16 (GNOME) and 3.0 and 3.5 (KDE) are not the kinds of changes that will bring new users to either platform. What they do is consolidate what you already have."

Aha... Since 2.0 Gnome Users have Evolution, Tomeboy, better Nautilus, better CD/DVD Burn Utilities, Totem, Evince, Ekiga, Clearlooks, manny new Applets, many many Performance improvements... what do you want in a new version? Flying Cows which sorts your documents in a 3D way of new LSD feeling?

Since 2.0 the User became more and more great Applications and many improvements on many Sides of the Enviroment.

Edited 2006-12-21 14:51

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Various
by segedunum on Thu 21st Dec 2006 14:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Various"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

So, GNOME got itself a mail client. Revolutionary! Wow, KDE got Amarok-- marvelous, a music player! GNOME got Tomboy-- great, a sticky note app with automatic links between notes.

Windows Vista doesn't have any of those things, and Windows Media Player can't do half of what Amarok can do.

The future is what counts. Besides continuing its path of incremental updates, GNOME is, and I will put it this extreme, dead in the water.

I have to agree unfortunately, but it's because they just don't have the development base to build on. It's not because no one is thinking of the future. The Topaz ideas are quite interesting.

KDE's major problem is the fact that NO major distribution, and hence NO major company is backing its development.

It's never been a problem for KDE in the past, and there are many distros that ship KDE. The free distros are what matter.

You're probably thinking of all those corporate desktop Linux distributions, which are dead in the water.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Various
by BluenoseJake on Thu 21st Dec 2006 15:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Various"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I use both, and WMP11 is just as capable, and feature rich as Amarok, and can do somethings that Amarok can't, like stream video to an xbox 360

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Various
by segedunum on Thu 21st Dec 2006 16:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Various"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I use both, and WMP11 is just as capable, and feature rich as Amarok, and can do somethings that Amarok can't, like stream video to an xbox 360

One thing that Amarok has is links to song lyric sites which give you a wide range of song lyrics, you can get a huge amount of info from Wikipedia and the Muscibrainz integration allows you to get tagging information for all those lost tracks you have lying around, whether they be MP3s OGGs or whatever. Whatever Microsoft does, they can't match any of those services for their content. I don't see WMP doing that.

As for streaming, there are umpteen pieces of open source software like Myth that will do that for you to any device, without the DRM getting in the way.

DRM kills off any hope that Microsoft or anyone else has of a connected, digital home stone dead.

As soon as someone's film that was recorded digitally expires, or as soon as someone realises they're renting their music collection or as soon as someone realises they can't borrow a film from a friend or neighbour then it's adious.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Various
by BluenoseJake on Thu 21st Dec 2006 19:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Various"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I beg to differ on all counts, there isn't too much that can stream Video to an 360, but wmp11 can. I have never had anyu problem streaming video from my 2k3 server to anything, but then again, I use mp3 and avi files, no DRM to be found. Just because it is on Windows does not mean there is any DRM. I play all my media off it. Nice try though

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Various
by segedunum on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 12:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Various"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I beg to differ on all counts, there isn't too much that can stream Video to an 360

Of most can't - yet. The 360 is closed. Besides, I find it funny that an awful lot of Microsoft fans seem to think that streaming to a Microsoft device like a 360 is the be all and end all of everything.

I can grab any HPTC device, shove it under the television and stream anything I like to it in any way whatsoever, and run any plugins I like.

Just because it is on Windows does not mean there is any DRM.

There certainly will be if people like you continue to use it and increase its popularity. Thankfully, there's little chance of that.

Nice try though

It was more than just a try mate - it's fact.

WMP still can't offer what Amarok or Myth can.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Various
by tuxerware on Thu 21st Dec 2006 14:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Various"
tuxerware Member since:
2006-12-21

I'm not sure what you are looking for in gnome 3.0. I mean GNOME is about to get integrated search (Beagle or Tracker), Iphoto-like application(F-Spot), integrated support for VPN and multiple network connections(network manager), new printing architecture, Ekiga for Ichat like functionality and much more. I mean the changes from GNOME 2.0 to GNOME 2.18 are enormous, but hey if version numbers is what matters for you the clearly Gnome or KDE isn't the thing for you.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Various
by alucinor on Thu 21st Dec 2006 15:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Various"
alucinor Member since:
2006-01-06

You only innovate to solve a problem. Occasionally, an innovation may solve a problem people didn't realized they had, and they say, "Aha! This is so much better!" That's more rare, though.

I don't see how not having a radical new change for Gnome or KDE is a major problem. Even the Linux kernel doesn't work this way -- Linus is extremely conservative. ZOMG, Linux is still only version 2! lol

Gnome has a future planned -- it's just that a lot of Topaz features keep getting backported into 2, which is what will happen until they decide a new version of GTK is needed.

I'd say that improving 3rd party application support for Linux should be the most important focus right now.

Linux desktop doesn't have a chance in the Western market for dominance (if that should even be a goal). I think where Linux will thrive will be in the developing markets, and different forces come into play there than killer apps.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Various
by ImpIO on Thu 21st Dec 2006 17:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Various"
ImpIO Member since:
2006-09-12

> I think where Linux will thrive will be in the developing markets, and different forces come into play there than killer apps.

Unlikely as long as Linux keeps on relying so heavily on always-on broadband connection to download stuff, download it again because it was for the wrong distro or perhaps wrong version. Then go google around trying to figure how the hell you can install the damn thing. Browse through endless English howtos (assuming knowledge of English) that tell you to open a shell (assuming some shell knowledge), modify repositories file, apt-get/update, rpm, $DISTRO_TOOL_OF_THE_DAY stuff (again downloading) with cryptic names and when (and it will) everything fails due to broken/missing dependencies you are told to download sources and compile it yourself (assuming waaaay too much, read make errors, compilation errors and such). Should Linux be less geek-only, more compatible with itself and less tied to a connection, we would be in a mauch better position.

My 0.0000002

Reply Score: 2

RE: Level 3 Troll
by iangibson on Thu 21st Dec 2006 16:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Various"
iangibson Member since:
2005-09-25

I'm not missing your point. Your point was that GNOME and KDE have had only incremental improvements over the last few years, and you implied that this hasn't been the case for OSX and Windows. Then when it is pointed out that this isn't true (since OSX and Windows have "only" had incremental improvements as well), you state that it's the future that's important, and that by gazing into your crystal ball, you can tell that GNOME and KDE, despite their continuous improvements thus far, are doomed (doomed, I tells ya!). The rest of us will just have to take your word for it, as our psychic powers are as nothing compared to yours. All we have to go off is what has happened thus far, and on this score things don't seem quite so bad after all.

It shouldn't need pointing out that if KDE had waited until 3.5.5 before releasing an update to KDE 3.0.0, this would have constituted (putting it mildly) a huge improvement, and that this timespan is less than that from XP to Vista. So the secret is to simply not release incremental improvements - that way, every time you do release an update, it's automatically a major release! Genius!

Alternatively, GNOME and KDE could move to an Ubuntu-style release numbering system - that way, they're guaranteed a major version number change every single year! Hurrah!

Further, it's interesting you point out that KDE and GNOME are struggling for manpower and cash (whilst their rivals at Apple and Microsoft clearly are not), because they are still able to compete very effectively with their rich cousins. Imagine how far ahead they'd be if they had squillions of dollars to throw around at developers too! They don't, and yet they still consistently produce excellent DE's.

Windows Vista and Leopard will arrive at the scene in the coming months, and esp. Vista (for Leopard we really cannot tell, actually) simply is a major step up from Windows XP-- whether in reality (my opinion) or perceived as such, the end result is the same: people will see that Vista is different from XP, and that in itself is a buyer's argument.

So as long as Vista is perceived as being a major step up, that's all that matters? That people can 'see it's different from XP'? I've just realised I've been wasting my time here. Well done, you got me.

KDE and GNOME will not have anything like that change to offer in the coming two years. THAT is a MAJOR problem.

Of course they won't - because of all their point releases! Aaarghh!

Reply Score: 5

How about Mark Space-Shuttleworth!?
by mcmv200i on Thu 21st Dec 2006 16:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Various"
mcmv200i Member since:
2006-12-14

KDE's major problem is the fact that NO major distribution, and hence NO major company is backing its development.

I have no clue about how many KDE developers are employed at a company, but I know that Mr. Shuttleworth (The (K)Ubuntu guy) "at least" contributes to KDE by providing financial support: http://dot.kde.org/1160932072/. As already mentioned, I don't know how many KDE-developers work at, let's say, Canonical.

Reply Score: 3

elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

I have no clue about how many KDE developers are employed at a company, but I know that Mr. Shuttleworth (The (K)Ubuntu guy) "at least" contributes to KDE by providing financial support: http://dot.kde.org/1160932072/. As already mentioned, I don't know how many KDE-developers work at, let's say, Canonical.

As far as I know, Canonical still officially only employs one KDE dev, Jonathan Riddell, but he's a significant participant.

Novell still supports the most number of paid KDE devs and sponsored the KDE4 kickstart meeting a while back. As Adam pointed out, Mandriva is a substantial supporter as well. Then there's guys like George Staikos who are not funded by a distro but make a living on consulting and development and contribute to KDE. Even Xandros kicks code up to the KDE team.

And recently there was a code dump from Red Flag linux for many of the modifications and improvements they've made to KDE for their own distribution and Asian-specific markets. People often forget to think about the Asian markets when considering linux desktops, but KDE is the desktop of choice for Red Flag and the Asianuxes. The KDE team has recently begun building bridges with these developers as well.

So KDE doesn't suffer from support compared to other similar sized projects, although more support is always better.

Personally, I prefer the KDE community method of development and Trolltech's backing of Qt certainly brings sustainability and development to Qt, at this point Qt appears to be developing faster than KDE can keep up. I also think that KDE4's cross-platform capabilities and the potential for building high-quality applications across not only the nixes but OSX and Win, will ultimately broaden it's appeal to developers and users alike, both commercial and community.

All good things take time.

Edit: typo

Edited 2006-12-21 19:20

Reply Score: 4

Nice troll
by Sphinx on Thu 21st Dec 2006 14:25 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

And a very well fed one too.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Nice troll
by Rehdon on Thu 21st Dec 2006 14:50 UTC in reply to "Nice troll"
Rehdon Member since:
2005-07-06

I loved this truly telling bit " Has the desktop Linux bubble burst? I would not go as far as saying that": sure, he "wouldn't go as far as that", he's just sticking it in the title to maximise the trolling effect. Nothing like a good old flame-mongering article to raise webclicks, eh? Why I bothered answering this hypocrite FUD, that's the disturbing question ... I suppose Thom is really good at trolling.

rehdon

Reply Score: 5

KDE's major problem ........ rubbish
by rtfa on Thu 21st Dec 2006 14:34 UTC
rtfa
Member since:
2006-02-27

KDE is doing just fine with no Proprietory company offering it. Trolltech pays a lot of the major developers of KDE. Think of the wider world not just the one you inhabit, it runs on more than just Linux and soon it'll run on the MS platform when KDE4 is done.

Here's a list of KDE centric distributions....

http://www.kde.org/download/distributions.php

KDE's problem is that there are too many software code leeches out there. They are the cheapskate coders who want everything for free to sell i.e. they wont buy Trolltech's licence to code programs they want to sell. And those cheapskate coders can't tell a superior development kit if you slapped them in the face with it.

Reply Score: 3

jango Member since:
2006-11-22

dude you are so right, i wish everyone had the clarity you are gifted with

dont anyone think that Gnome is superior or more popular,

thom is renowned for his KDE bashing, rememeber his article "GNOME won the desktop battle, will Linux lose the war" he is just one of those people who picks on KDE because it is so ambitious, he expects releases to pop out like newborns.

i repeat Microsoft pays people for that and even they can't get it right.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You mean this article?

http://www.linuxboxadmin.com/articles/gnomewon.php

Not written by me, but by someone else, completely unrelated to OSNews.

Reply Score: 1

jango Member since:
2006-11-22

oops sorry thom,,my mistake

Reply Score: 1

smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

I don't think Thom is particularly anti-KDE. I do think he likes GNOME better and that comes through in his writing, but I think he at least tries to be impartial which is about the most you can expect on a site like this.

Reply Score: 1

No software maker sticks with it
by Southern.Pride on Thu 21st Dec 2006 14:42 UTC
Southern.Pride
Member since:
2006-09-14

Red-Hat, to SuSE to name it they never put forth the effort to stay with it. I use Fedora Core 6 at work, just upgraded my laptop from FC5 and I support RedHat 7.3 to RHEL3 & 4 Enterprise at work. I do not know why they do not push the desktop Linux in any arena. It is a forgotten thought and now the only contender is Ubuntu which I would prefer SuSE over it.

It would be nice if SuSE would really market SLED since the desktop is really slick and RedHat would market RHEL releases on the desktop and stick with it than quitting.

KDE has a better desktop management solution than Gnome IN my own opinion because of the user interface and cleaner looks.

And lastly, when a vendor decides to stick around longer than a few years I can see no reason why any end user will ever want the option to change.

Reply Score: 2

Some Corrections
by segedunum on Thu 21st Dec 2006 14:44 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

Gtk+ has an alarming shortage of core maintainers, and you do not need a degree at MIT to understand what that means: less quality assurance, and a slower bug fixing pace.

This is the one single pragmatic reason why I prefer KDE to Gnome, and why I believe KDE is the only major desktop with any kind of chance of gaining popularity and being a replacement to Windows.

To develop graphical, and user facing applications, you need the right development base that is sustainable. This development base will be used by open source and commercial programmers to produce applications for your desktop which is its lifeblood, and those applications need the right infrastructure to depend on for people to use and rely on them.

You only need to look at GTK, Cairo, their dependencies, Mono, Java, Python on top of those and the amount of bugs in SWT's Bugzilla for GTK to get a picture of just how incredibly complex creating that infrastructure for desktop programmers is. As I see it, it just isn't sustainable, and it's where KDE really scores with Qt and then kdelibs built with it.

I doubt whether Gnome 3.0 will ever see the light of day because GTK 3 needs to happen first to give Gnome 3.0 any sort of development base. Without that base then the things they want to achieve are going to be highly difficult, if not impossible.

KDE developers are indeed planning big things for KDE4-- but that is what they are stuck at. Show me where the results are. KDE4 was supposed to be fleshed out by now, with a release somewhere early 2007.

Yer. And a Microsoft representative told me point blank and with a straight face that Longhorn would be out in 2003. At least there is code and development that you can see happening with KDE 4, and it has a development base with Qt 4 that is complete.

KDE's biggest problem is a lack of manpower and financial backing by big companies. In the past, both Mandrake and SUSE were the major driving forces behind KDE development, but now, SUSE is part of the GNOME-centric Novell family

Not a problem for KDE at all. Things are the way they have always been. There are still some KDE developers at Suse, and it is still the most popular desktop at OpenSuse, some are employed by Trolltech and a great deal aren't employed by anyone. If you want people to pick something up and work for fun, you'd better give them the right tools ;-).

Many people have tried to insinuate this with KDE over the years (I remember a laughable interview ESR gave once), mostly for their own motives, but the fact is that any perceived Earth shattering "move to Gnome" isn't making one iota of difference to KDE's development and never has done.

There are no development builds that truly show these ideas in a usable state. KDE4 is supposed to be released in the first half of 2007

Yet another paragraph about KDE. You did have something to say, right?

Apple has continuously been improving its Mac OS X operating system, adding new and sometimes even innovative features, while also increasing the OS's speed with every release.

Well that's not hard, is it? OS X is terribly slow at times.

Steve Jobs has promised us some 'top secret' features. I think Apple's recent track record in delivering allows us to believe his words.

Do they have a code repository where I can verify all those promises, and that they might have a chance of actually fulfilling them?

Microsoft has not been resting on its laurels either. Windows Vista is already available to some people (including me), and by the end of January

And it took how long? They didn't even have a usable release candidate until a few months ago - after four years of nothing whatsoever. That doesn't fill me with confidence about what they've released as gold.

anyone with an open mind who used it for an extensive period of time (including me) realises this is absolutely not the case

I have used Vista, and I'm confused. They could have taken Windows XP and simply built on top of it to get the features they wanted inside a year. I really don't know what they've spent five years doing.

I would not go as far as saying that; however, it is certainly about to, and unless the KDE and GNOME team get a move on

You miss the point. The desktop is more than just KDE and Gnome. There are shortcomings such as the development base and tools, documentation for developers and creating an adequate installation system for third-party software. Those are distro things, and many people miss the point that a desktop to a use is the whole distro.

I would imagine that another new distro would come along in the next few years that would incorporate these, that will be freely given away. When it does you'll see it create it's own userbase niche that will grow and grow and create it's own ISV community.

That's the only way desktop Linux is 'going to happen', as some people put it.

Reply Score: 5

Interresting Modding
by searly on Thu 21st Dec 2006 14:57 UTC
searly
Member since:
2006-02-27

Anybody else realize that any comments questioning Thom's competence are modded down straight away to -5 ...

Reply Score: 1

You took offense at my remark Thom?
by Rehdon on Thu 21st Dec 2006 15:03 UTC
Rehdon
Member since:
2005-07-06

How comes my comment was censored? Sorry, but when you say "Has the desktop Linux bubble burst? I would not go as far as saying that" after using that very words in your article's title that's flagrant hypocrisy IMHO. Look in the mirror from time to time.

rehdon

Reply Score: 5

Usability and stability over scifi, thanks
by irbis on Thu 21st Dec 2006 15:04 UTC
irbis
Member since:
2005-07-08

I don't think that some revolutionary plans for new GNOME/KDE releases have so much to do with the popularity of desktop Linux. Emphasizing new features and bling for their own sake is a geek point of view, but masses don't see things from that perspective. Masses just want to get their tasks done, and preferably as easy and cheap as possible.

Take Ubuntu, for example, its popularity is not based on the the revolutionary looking new radical desktop features (basically just plain GNOME) but there are other much more important things that make it the (probably) number 1 desktop Linux distribution nowadays.

When there will be real need for some radically new changes, they will be made, no worries about that. But the need must be something else than just a few geeks wishing to see some new bling on their desktop. I would rather see that my current desktop gets even more stable and maybe gets some new smaller improvements than that the developers go very scifi (Enlightenment DR17 anyone...?) and care for future more than for the real life now and here.

If when there'll be real need for more radical changes, I'm sure they will happen in due time. Is there any need to make strict detailed future plans now for something that might not even really be needed, ever? If you disagree, I would encourage you to name some specific new radical changes that you see would be needed instead of just hoping for a big jump in version numbering for its own sake.

Reply Score: 2

Very Interresting
by searly on Thu 21st Dec 2006 15:10 UTC
searly
Member since:
2006-02-27

It seems that Thom's thoughts are not even original ...
http://eugenia.blogsome.com/2006/12/20/the-slowdown-of-gnulinux/

He is in good company with Eugenia.

Isn't there are copyright issue ???

Reply Score: 1

RE: Very Interresting
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 21st Dec 2006 15:13 UTC in reply to "Very Interresting"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

He is in good company with Eugenia.

Isn't there are copyright issue ???


Me and Eugenia decided to put our combined thoughts into one article today, and she asked ME to do it. We both blogged on this issue, you see.

If you'd taken the time to look at Eugenia's blog post, you'd notice that little link at the bottom pointing to my blog post on the issue.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Very Interresting
by dylansmrjones on Thu 21st Dec 2006 15:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Very Interresting"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Yup. And both of you show how ignorant you are.

Gnome 2.16 is a major step over Gnome 2.0 - you might as well call it 3.0 if you want to.

Rather than releasing revolutions KDE and Gnome are releasing software according to the much better philosophy of releasing often. An evolutionary approach instead.

The fact you do not "perceive" the changes as big compared with earlier versions is merely evidence for the twisted mind, some people have.

You can perceive what you want, Thom - but it doesn't make you right.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Very Interresting
by Rehdon on Thu 21st Dec 2006 16:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Very Interresting"
Rehdon Member since:
2005-07-06

Careful about what you're saying, this is my original comment about Thom Holwindows' trolling title

http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16783&comment_id=195005

and it got modded down from +2 to -5 in the blink of an eye! Yup, if they criticise you, mod 'em down until nothing is left. Sad.

rehdon

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Very Interresting
by twenex on Thu 21st Dec 2006 17:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Very Interresting"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

That's a good point. I've seen some flameful posts directed at persons other than moderators (usually @ Linux users, actually) that that were more asbestos-underpants-warning-worthy than that one, in my time, and they got modded up.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Very Interresting
by searly on Thu 21st Dec 2006 17:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Very Interresting"
searly Member since:
2006-02-27

Hmmm. same happened to me, critizised Thom for not doing proper research and got modded down to -5 within 30 sec. I think it was actually Thom sitting there and "manipulating the moderation system". Hmmm i guess this is one way of dealing with "unwanted" comments ... isn't there a word for it ...

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Very Interresting
by Rehdon on Thu 21st Dec 2006 19:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Very Interresting"
Rehdon Member since:
2005-07-06

He did it again: the comment you were replying has been modded down to -5. What can I say, it's not even worth replying to the guy: he doesn't seem able to answer or exercise any of his (supposedly) editorial duties.

I'm confident you'll grow up, though, Thom. Eventually.

rehdon

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Very Interresting
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 21st Dec 2006 19:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Very Interresting"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Get over yourself. Personal attacks [1] on the editorial staff are AGAINST our rules. That's CRYSTAL CLEAR. You are on OUR website, so you behave to OUR rules. There is absolutely no justification in calling me a troll [2] [3] just because I happen to dare to criticize KDE and GNOME. I have not attacked anyone personally, and yet you feel the need to do so against me.

YOU need to grow up and learn that NOT everyone who criticizes Linux/KDE/GNOME is a troll.

[1] http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16783&comment_id=194973
[2] http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16783&comment_id=194963
[3] http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16783&comment_id=195005

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Very Interresting
by superstoned on Thu 21st Dec 2006 23:19 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Very Interresting"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

well, Thom, i agree with you as far as the comments on your work are personal attacks and flames, but i do agree with some posters on this topic that the article you wrote was a bit... overdone. i could understand if you exaggerated to get the message over, hoping to shake some things up - but imho it was *over-exaggerated*.

i won't argue over the contents, i guess some reading (and i'm rather sure you can do that yourself, if you didn't already) would make my point clear.

it's not that i entirely disagree with the point you make - that the linux desktop is behind the competition. it is, yes.

but i do think it's a weird point in time to come up with such a conclusion. Microsoft JUST released 5 years of work, and the major linux desktop is approximately 6 months from a major release. obviously, linux is behind - for now. but Vista will stay here for several years, while the linux desktop progresses rapidly.

Ok, i might expect more from KDE 4 than you do, but seriously - saying it won't be released before Q3 2008? you can't believe that for real, right? i think that statement (and others) simply made many people feel bad - they might be working on great stuff, and i guess it's sure not their reality that there is almost no progress.

i respect you a lot, but i think you should've known this article would invite some flaming responses...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Very Interresting
by superstoned on Thu 21st Dec 2006 17:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Very Interresting"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

still, you both seem shockingly uninformed. KDE has had the 'we'll release first half of 2007' for a long time as their target, and are working on a more precise release schedule right now. they're quite on track, so why would they release in q4 2008?
and the comment about plasma is just plain stupid. development on plasma could only start after the building blocks (solid, phonon, Qt4.2) where there - they now are, and work has started. see the first things here: http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2006/12/screenshot-wednesday.html

also, the differences between KDE 3.3 and 3.5 (eg a little over a year's work) are larger than the difference between XP and Vista (5 years work) so i'd say Vista's release is just the proof that microsoft is unable to bring any significant changes to it's OS... actually, i'd even say KDE 3.5.0 -> 3.5.6 is very much comparable to XP -> Vista ;-)

Ok, the mostly commercial-developed Gnome might not have much of an vision for the future, but as always - KDE will drag the linux desktop forward ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Very Interresting
by t4inted on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 08:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Very Interresting"
t4inted Member since:
2006-11-24

"also, the differences between KDE 3.3 and 3.5 (eg a little over a year's work) are larger than the difference between XP and Vista (5 years work)"

Because a DE and an OS are the same thing ....

edit:
How the hell does this guy get +5? This is complete bullshit, you can't even make a comparison.

Edited 2006-12-22 08:15

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Very Interresting
by superstoned on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 12:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Very Interresting"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

yes, a DE is different from an OS. but come on, everybody can see that, so everybody can come up with the idea to just compare the desktop environment part of those two... i guess most ppl did do that, and came to the conclusion i was right.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Very Interresting
by t4inted on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 16:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Very Interresting"
t4inted Member since:
2006-11-24

Could you please provide some evidence that you are right? My guess is you're just talking out of your ass. But I'd love to be proven wrong.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Very Interresting
by superstoned on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 17:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Very Interresting"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

well, i haven't used Vista very much, but from what i see, KDE 3.5 is still ahead of it in several areas (try to find a photoeditor in Vista's menu - unless you know company and title, you'll spend a lot of time. at least the KDE menu is organized...), tough vista has many things 3.5.5 misses. KDE 3.5.5 is definitely ahead of XP in most area's, GUI-wise (and what more is there to see for a common user?). many things are easier and faster (ever tried a scrollwheel in windows? doesn't do much, does it?), and much more configurable. try to have focus follows mouse, it can be very usefull in certain situations. oh, no, can't do that under XP. like a million other things. i've got a file to upload to a website, so i drag'n'drop the file from the filemanager in the upload inputline. works... only in KDE. i've had spellchecking in the webbrowser, chatapplication and email app long before anyone at MS even thought about that. should i go on?

you probably don't notice things like these, if you've been using windows for years, and try linux. there are even a few things in windows that don't work in linux. and you won't try all these easy and usefull things, thus not discover them - used as you are to not being able to do them in windows (and Gnome, btw).

But after a few years with KDE, being forced to use windows is pretty hard. many things don't work the way you expect, it's not intuitive at all. many times i try to drag'n'drop something somewhere - no result. or i'm looking for a network setting - and have to go through what, 3 seperate configurationwindows with a gazillion options, without any search.

yes, vista fixed a lot of these things, but not all. still a pain in the ass, imho. it's ahead of KDE, sure. but not that much.

So KDE 3.5.x is way ahead off XP, and a little behind on Vista. i'd say, KDE 3.3 was aprox equal to XP (having some things XP didn't have, while missing a few things XP does have as well). KDE 3.6 (out by now, if there was no KDE4) would be Vista's equal, my guess again.

in other words, KDE 3.3 -> 3.6, from august 2004 to lets say now is equal to XP (2001) to Vista (now).

And the development of KDE4 is really getting up speed, i see developers joining all over the place. they are improving an already great architecture even more, while MS has spend 5 years to clean up a total mess a little...

Now who has the best cards? KDE, a great foundation, no big money behind it - but many enthusiastic and don't for get very smart volunteers working on it. Versus a big pile of spaghetti-like code with a lot of money being thrown at it. well, we'll see. i think it depends more on governments and corporations choosing for Free Software than technical or financial stuff, but again - we'll see.

Reply Score: 3

who cares
by alucinor on Thu 21st Dec 2006 15:17 UTC
alucinor
Member since:
2006-01-06

I personally could care less. All I need a desktop for is to launch Firefox, which is pretty much my "desktop" these days.

Reply Score: 2

RE: who cares
by trenchsol on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 01:06 UTC in reply to "who cares"
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

You don't need a desktop for that. At least, not under UNIX. Just put Firefox command in .xinitrc file and remove everything else.

DG

Reply Score: 2

Already?
by bogomipz on Thu 21st Dec 2006 15:18 UTC
bogomipz
Member since:
2005-07-11

Microsoft has not been resting on its laurels either. Windows Vista is already available to some people

Considering that the next version of Windows was supposed to ship a couple of years ago, I don't think the word "already" belongs in that sentence.

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2003/09/02.4.shtml

Reply Score: 5

RE: Already?
by Rehdon on Thu 21st Dec 2006 16:33 UTC in reply to "Already?"
Rehdon Member since:
2005-07-06

Bzzzt ... wrong!!! You're proposing facts and logical analysis to our egregious editor, while he manages so successfully to avoid both at all costs. Next time we'll be forced to call the OS Inquisition Police on you. Self-censorship is appreciated, thank you.

rehdon

Reply Score: 5

Rubbish
by AdamW on Thu 21st Dec 2006 15:45 UTC
AdamW
Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree with the many other posters that the assumption that a "big new release" is somehow necessary is broken. GNOME has evolved hugely from 2.0 to 2.16 - the fact that it's happened in small steps doesn't make the changes any less valuable. There have been many discussions about 'GNOME 3.0' and every time it's been clear that the only reason anyone had for doing it was 'just for the sake of doing it', which is not a valid one. All the important changes people have actually wanted to work on have been possible within the framework of 2.x.

I also take offence at the suggestion that Mandriva is no longer involved in KDE development. Our KDE team is still heavily involved in upstream KDE work, particularly the team lead, Laurent Montel. In fact, he won an award for his KDE work at the latest aKademy conference.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Rubbish
by boudewijn on Thu 21st Dec 2006 16:22 UTC in reply to "Rubbish"
boudewijn Member since:
2006-03-05

Without Laurent (and thus Mandriva), KDE4 (and KOffice 2) would be many months further away -- as any KDE developer knows.w But hey! Why should actual knowledge hinder any ignoramus who feels the desire to cry wolf?

Reply Score: 5

v RE: Rubbish
by Rehdon on Thu 21st Dec 2006 16:35 UTC in reply to "Rubbish"
more than kde & gnome
by KLU9 on Thu 21st Dec 2006 15:46 UTC
KLU9
Member since:
2006-12-06

Since then, we have continiously been fed point releases which added bits of functionaility and speed improvements, but no major revision has yet seen the light of day
errr... how about Xfce 4.x?
the world's bigger than just KDE & gnome, you know.

Reply Score: 1

e
by pfortuny on Thu 21st Dec 2006 15:59 UTC
pfortuny
Member since:
2006-02-05

16.8.5 and forget anything else.

Happy Christmas.

Pedro.

For the unenlightened:
enlightenment.org

Reply Score: 3

I disagree with the article
by smitty on Thu 21st Dec 2006 16:54 UTC
smitty
Member since:
2005-10-13

Is OS X 10.0 - 10.4 really that much more innovative than KDE 3.0 - 3.5? KDE even has more "releases" since you seem to think that is important. Or I guess that's bad, since it means they weren't quite as big. To be honest, I'm a little confused about your position on this Thom.

Anyway, looking forward I do see some long term problems with GNOME. It's a shame, because they've recently improved enough that I actually like GNOME and consider it a great alternative to KDE. Still they seem to be doing well enough with smaller updates for now. Isn't that similar to what MS is planning? I've heard that they had so many problems with Vista that they are thinking about never doing a major release again. Instead they would just do updates to Vista, like service packs or use a subscription model. Isn't that exactly the type of release plan GNOME is already using? How is MS's future any better than GNOME's?

For KDE, I think the future is actually looking brighter than it has for a while now. Sure, 4.0 is going to be late and some features are going to be stripped, but I certainly expect both problems to be less severe than what happened with Vista. There's no question that porting to QT4 took longer than expected, but now that the porting is going full swing new stuff should start popping up. I think 4.0 will be released before the end of 2007 and be in all the early 2008 distibutions, which is only 1 year after Vista. Not too bad.

Edited 2006-12-21 16:57

Reply Score: 2

Riiight thom
by ma_d on Thu 21st Dec 2006 16:58 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

Cairo -- Vector graphics, last two years.
AIGLX, and others -- compositing, last two years.
e17 -- oy I wish it'd release already
x.org -- huge refactor of xfree, which actually did stall for years.

Just because Gnome (which has had 2 major releases in 5 years, so I'm not worried about 6 years between 2 and 3) and KDE (which I think was planning for 3 to stick around for a long time, where 3.0 to 3.4 had more improvements than 2.0 to 3.0 had).

Both have an interesting non-point convention: KDE I think makes the release based on compatibility breakage (which they've done on point releases too). Gnome does it on Gtk releases, and there's a reason Gtk3 is slow coming: There aren't many strong complaints with Gtk2, and the next big things in graphics didn't require a compatibility breakage.

But yes, there are too few Gtk maintainers, waay too few! There are also too few people working on a native OS X version (it's really about time this happened, although I realize just how hard it's going to be given the nature of Gtk's menus and toolbars).


Besides, had there been a bubble before we'd have to see a mass amount of some resource that suddenly dropped out. What's the resource? Is it major releases?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Riiight thom
by Ookaze on Thu 21st Dec 2006 17:30 UTC in reply to "Riiight thom"
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

I'd like to add to your excellent piece, that I was part of the people that disagreed with the GTK+ going to Windows was any benefit.
What was the benefit exactly ? More developers ? No.
Look at the state of the GTK+ tools on Windows too !
GIMP is called by all kind of bad names just because of this Windows port and the lacks of Windows are blamed on GIMP. The apps don't get half the features they have on Linux too.
Most are just GTK+ projects ported to Windows anyway, Gnome is rather for cygwin.
The latest excellent books on Gnome development should be freed one day, if nobody buys them anymore because there are no more people interested in it.
Thus, it would lower the barrier of entry to Gnome 2 development. Really !

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: gimp
by arielb on Thu 21st Dec 2006 18:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Riiight thom"
arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

gimp is called bad names because of its terrible UI on Windows. On linux it doesn't matter what UI it has because the linux world doesn't seem to appreciate the benefit of having 1 consistent UI for all apps.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: gimp
by twenex on Thu 21st Dec 2006 20:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: gimp"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

gimp is called bad names because of its terrible UI on Windows. On linux it doesn't matter what UI it has because the linux world doesn't seem to appreciate the benefit of having 1 consistent UI for all apps.

Right, so Windows XP, Windows Media Player 10, Windows Vista, WMP11, IE6, IE7, Office XP and Office 2007 all have consistent GUIs.

Not.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: gimp
by dylansmrjones on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 00:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: gimp"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Actually it's quite good. Ever used Photoshop on Mac? Probably not, since you cannot see the similarities with the real Photoshop ;)

There is a very high level of UI consistency in Gnome and KDE. Probably higher than on Windows or Mac OS X. There has been said a lot of bullshit about lack of consistency - especially from Thom and Eugenia, and neither have been factual correct in most of their critique (like Eugenia claiming that X.org doesn't have a native tool kit... puhlease...)

Take a look at IE7, MS Word 2003, Publisher 2002/XP, Visio 2007 and WMP and MSN Messenger 7 (or Live Messenger).

Now that's what I'd call inconsistency.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: gimp
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 00:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: gimp"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

There has been said a lot of bullshit about lack of consistency - especially from Thom and Eugenia, and neither have been factual correct in most of their critique

In an article not too long ago I actually PRAISED GNOME for its consistency. PLEASE get your facts straight.

I have NEVER said Windows has a highly consistent interface. Prove me that I did.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: gimp
by arielb on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 02:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: gimp"
arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

gnome apps are consistent with kde apps? what about gnome apps with gnome apps

http://img234.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshot34ji.jpg

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: gimp
by dylansmrjones on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 03:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: gimp"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, Gnome and KDE apps are not that consistent, but yes, they are quite consistent, though there are differences.

What's the problem with the image? The apps are very consistent. The Toolbars are different, but not that much, and only because the applications are very different.

It's quite obvious that the toolbar of a mail application will be different than the toolbar of a textwriter, but more important is the same look and feel (behaviour) in all applications.

Now, try WMP, MSN Messenger, Office XP and IE7 and see how different they are in look and feel (behaviour)

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: gimp
by DeadFishMan on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 11:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: gimp"
DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

Has been some time since I┤ve seen someone complaining about GNOME consistence using that screenshot... ;)

arielb, are you oGALAXYo?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Riiight thom
by ma_d on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 04:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Riiight thom"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Yea. But I think an OS X port makes a lot of sense. Sure, Gtk isn't cocoa (is that the new one or is it carbon?) but OS X does have the nice feature of implementing Unix API's. You get things like pthreads and dlsyms which are missing from Windows and make it more difficult to port to that platform from Unix.

But yet Windows gets a mediocre Gtk port and OS X is left using a bad X11 port to run Gtk apps (and yes, it's really bad and really annoying, you can't ever quite get your app to behave in a NeXT'ish manner). And I think Apple users would be more likely to appreciate GIMP (not everyone has $500 for Photoshop) and other programs like Ethereal or one of the ones you see listed on the left side of this page.

If I've peaked anyone's interest there is a partially done port to OS X. It appears to have been someones thesis work, and I don't think it's being worked on still (it's on imendio I think).


Generally speaking the way to attract developers is with developer tools. Having Gtk on Windows is nice, I almost used it once for Windows dev but ended up using Windows forms for various reasons (we have high hopes of reworking it in wxnet, which is also abandoned ;) ).
If you want Windows devs to use Gtk you need a Gtk studio. Basically, Anjuta tied well with Glade and a manual/book with a nice easy to do mingw install (one installer for everything) with Gcc (c++, c, java) and mono's compilers (you can use the Microsoft runtime, it's better anyway).

Reply Score: 3

Vista in 7 years...?
by Ringheims Auto on Thu 21st Dec 2006 18:16 UTC
Ringheims Auto
Member since:
2005-07-23

So where's Vista's gonna be in 7 years? We probably ain't gonna see any revolutionary updates to their graphical user interface, it's pretty much written in stone, and already, in many people's opinions, it falls short of both GNU/Linux and Apple OS X. And it isn't even out yet. Evolution like Beryl/Compiz and Looking Glass will mostly happen on GNU/Linux, and of course on Apple's software, as it has for at least the last 2-3 years.

Reply Score: 2

want innovation?
by arielb on Thu 21st Dec 2006 18:27 UTC
arielb
Member since:
2006-11-15

just have 1 download for all linux distros instead of the 54 downloads of Opera. Get that straight before gee whiz tricks.

Reply Score: 1

RE: want innovation?
by archiesteel on Thu 21st Dec 2006 19:52 UTC in reply to "want innovation?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

ust have 1 download for all linux distros instead of the 54 downloads of Opera.

You realize that's for Opera developers, and they alone, to take care of, right?

Get that straight before gee whiz tricks.

I imagine that you're talking about Xgl-like eye candy. Let me explain how wrong your approach is:

- Packaging software is up to the developers/distro makers.

- The people working on Xgl/Beryl are not the same that work on packaging software. Their expertise is not the same, and neither are their personal inclinations.

- Just because some people spend time on one part of a *nix system (such as Beryl) doesn't mean that this prevents development of other parts of the system.

It seems you don't understand how FOSS development works...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: want innovation?
by jbauer on Thu 21st Dec 2006 20:59 UTC in reply to "RE: want innovation?"
jbauer Member since:
2005-07-06

It seems you don't understand how FOSS development works...

What he understands very well is that Linux will never happen on the desktop if situations like that remain like they are today. The issues that keep holding Linux back have little to do with the desktop these days. I would even say KDE is ahead of Windows in many areas, but it is the underlying platform what still needs lots of work and, above all, unification and standards.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: want innovation?
by twenex on Thu 21st Dec 2006 21:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: want innovation?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21


What he understands very well is that Linux will never happen on the desktop if situations like that remain like they are today. The issues that keep holding Linux back have little to do with the desktop these days. I would even say KDE is ahead of Windows in many areas, but it is the underlying platform what still needs lots of work and, above all, unification and standards.


That's the "problem", but that's exactly what it is - a "problem" in inverted commas.

Case in point - I hadn't even heard of "rar" files in 95, now I find I'm having to download them all the time - even for Windows. I don't see why we couldn't have kept to one of a million compressed-file standards that already exist. Don't even get me started on moving .doc files between versions of Word.

The perception that fragmentation, disunity and most of all, non-adherence to standards is a Linux-only problem is one that does not have a basis in fact.

Edited 2006-12-21 21:10

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: want innovation?
by archiesteel on Thu 21st Dec 2006 21:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: want innovation?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

What he understands very well is that Linux will never happen on the desktop if situations like that remain like they are today.

I disagree. Package managers are *not* the reason Linux' market share on the desktop remains modest.

What keeps most users away from Linux is:

a) Inertia
b) Lack of marketing
c) Lack of games

The first item is inevitable. It also explains why so few people migrate from Windows to Apple, despite the fact that the second is a household name. That category also includes people who stick with MS Office when OpenOffice might be enough for them (i.e. not because of features, but because of habit). Note that I am not saying that OpenOffice is enough for everyone, I personally need the Outline feature in MS Office, however I understand that it's a good alternative for many users.

The second one could be adressed by Linux companies, as well as Linux-friendly ones (Novell, IBM, Oracle) except that these companies do not care about the home desktop.

The third issue, lack of games, is becoming increasingly irrelevant as more and more developers leave the PC platform entirely to focus on console gaming. As a member of the game industry, I can tell you that this trend is very real, and shows now signs of reversing anytime soon. Basically the only companies keeping PC gaming alive these days are Valve, iD, Blizzard and Microsoft...

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: want innovation?
by arielb on Thu 21st Dec 2006 23:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: want innovation?"
arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

"What keeps most users away from Linux is:

a) Inertia
b) Lack of marketing
c) Lack of games "

a and b are related. In order to get people to switch, linux has to be better than Windows. Its apps have to be better. But that's not going to happen with everyone going in their own direction.

lack of games...well why is everyone going to console? because it's simpler to develop for. Linux doesn't make it simpler to develop for any kind of app

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: want innovation?
by archiesteel on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 06:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: want innovation?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

a and b are related. In order to get people to switch, linux has to be better than Windows.

That's one opinion, though personally I think it's already better.

Its apps have to be better.

Some are. Some are better on OS X. Some are better on Windows. An increasing number is available multi-platform.

But that's not going to happen with everyone going in their own direction.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. One thing is certain, the *nix world is not going to become one big monolithic entity. It will always be a bit of cathedral and a lot of bazaar.

lack of games...well why is everyone going to console? because it's simpler to develop for. Linux doesn't make it simpler to develop for any kind of app

That's not true. Linux is *very* easy to develop for. Why do you think there are so many programs for it? I think you're confusing developing with packaging.

The reason there are few games for Linux is the same reason there are few games for Mac: it's not an attractive market for game developers. Even the PC market is not very attractive except if you're one of the key players.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: want innovation?
by arielb on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 09:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: want innovation?"
arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

Linux is better than windows in many ways. But linux will have to change if it wants more than 2% of the market. I don't think the linux community wants to make those changes which is why I'm looking at other OS's.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: want innovation?
by archiesteel on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 15:24 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: want innovation?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Linux is better than windows in many ways. But linux will have to change if it wants more than 2% of the market. I don't think the linux community wants to make those changes which is why I'm looking at other OS's.

I do agree that Linux needs to improve - all OS do. In fact, it *is* constantly evolving and improving. The progress over the last two years has been phenomenal (despite Thom's opinion on the matter).

However I disagree with you in the sense that I don't believe that this is directly linked to market share numbers. After all, few people would debate the quality of OS X (nor the ease of software installation, since this was the topic we were discussin), and yet look at its market share...it's not much bigger than Linux's...

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: want innovation?
by wargum on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 00:01 UTC in reply to "RE: want innovation?"
wargum Member since:
2006-12-15

> Packaging software is up to the developers/distro makers.

That is true for free (as in beer) software. But I think Linux can only take off with more standards for the gazillion different distros. The current situation is, compared to other platforms, a nightmare for developers of commercial software.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: want innovation?
by archiesteel on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 06:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: want innovation?"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

That is true for free (as in beer) software. But I think Linux can only take off with more standards for the gazillion different distros. The current situation is, compared to other platforms, a nightmare for developers of commercial software.

Actually, that's not true at all. There are standalone installers for all distros, which are used by such programes as Google Earth, OpenOffice, Adobe Acrobat, Crossover Office, etc. Often these are statically linked so there's no dependency issues.

Packaging a set of debs and rpms isn't that hard, either. If software hobbyists can do it on their free time, I don't see why paid developers would have such a hard time.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: want innovation?
by twenex on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 10:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: want innovation?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Packaging a set of debs and rpms isn't that hard, either. If software hobbyists can do it on their free time, I don't see why paid developers would have such a hard time.

Because they've standardised on Microsoft Click 'n' Drool Basic!

Reply Score: 2

Some valid things
by microFawad on Thu 21st Dec 2006 19:37 UTC
microFawad
Member since:
2005-12-09

"Many anti-MS fanboys complain that Vista is nothing more than XP with a new coat, but anyone with an open mind who used it for an extensive period of time (including me) realises this is absolutely not the case"
^
^
I agree at this point with the author. Yes Vista is really a big improvement over XP not just in interface but also many other things.

GNOME and KDE may need many improvements but the biggest improvement that they need is performance. I hate Linux's performance in GUI. Windows and MAC are so fast if compared with KDE and GNOME. The only reason I use Linux is because of its reliability.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Some valid things
by pergite on Thu 21st Dec 2006 19:56 UTC in reply to "Some valid things"
pergite Member since:
2006-12-21

I agree, at least KDE is dead slow on my computer. Unless I use NVIDIA drivers... but on the other hand performance and reliability rarely goes hand in hand, and I prefer the later one...

I have also found that some distros is faster than other. KDE in Slackware is quite a bit faster than KDE in Kubuntu.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Some valid things
by microFawad on Thu 21st Dec 2006 23:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Some valid things"
microFawad Member since:
2005-12-09

"but on the other hand performance and reliability rarely goes hand in hand, and I prefer the later one..."
^
^
^
No buddy, both of them are important. No like to use a software which has poor performance and similarly no likes to use a software which is not reliable. So there must be balance.

"I have also found that some distros is faster than other. KDE in Slackware is quite a bit faster than KDE in Kubuntu."
^
^
^
This is true that GNOME/KDE in some distros perform better than other. It's because how the developers integrate and optimize GUI's code with there distros. But still GNOME/KDE are far slower than Windows and MAC even if compared with the fastest distro.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Some valid things
by Anonymous Penguin on Thu 21st Dec 2006 23:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Some valid things"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"This is true that GNOME/KDE in some distros perform better than other. It's because how the developers integrate and optimize GUI's code with there distros. But still GNOME/KDE are far slower than Windows and MAC even if compared with the fastest distro."

That sounds to me like a big mess.

Putting Windows and OS X ("MAC", as you call it) on the same level? Probably you never tried OS X.
Gnome and KDE "far slower" than Windows/OS X?
Do you have some benchmarks to prove such a preposterous claim?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Some valid things
by microFawad on Thu 21st Dec 2006 23:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Some valid things"
microFawad Member since:
2005-12-09

I was not saying that by my own. Of course I read all the benchmarks. Once osnews themselves gave the full comparison b/w the interface of Windows, MAC OS X, Linux(GNOME/KDE). Windows was 1st, MAC OS X was just fraction behind and GNOME/KDE were far behind. Go and ask osnews about that article.

By the way I am power user of both Linux and Windows. I know Linux sucks in performance which really makes me angry. Redrawing of objects on the screen are damn slower than Windows.

And yeah you are right that I never used Apple's machine but I was including MAC OS X in the comparison because I read about it on osnews. But about Windows and Linux, I am sure that I am right because I am using both Windows and Linux. I do all of my filesystem browsing using CLI in Linux because I hate Linux's GUI (all of them).

And yeah, I more thing. The way you said about Windows, it seems like you had never tried it. Because if you have tried then you can feel the difference yourself...

Edited 2006-12-21 23:50

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Some valid things
by Anonymous Penguin on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 00:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Some valid things"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"And yeah, I more thing. The way you said about Windows, it seems like you had never tried it. Because if you have tried then you can feel the difference yourself..."

I use daily all of them. For me the fastest is OS X. Linux comes as a close second (depending on the distribution). Windows is a slow, bloated pig. Or at least XP can't take advantage of a fast, dual core CPU and plenty of RAM.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Some valid things
by microFawad on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 05:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Some valid things"
microFawad Member since:
2005-12-09

How can you say that Linux's GUIs are faster than Windows? Honestly saying I am using both Ubuntu and WinXP. The performance of GNOME in Linux sucks. I also used MEPIS having KDE. Performance is fine but still slower than Windows.

Actually Windows is not bloated pig. The problem is that as you install more apps, it gets more slower. No doubt this is big problem with Windows but you can't say that Windows is slower. I am also a fan of Linux but I am always open minded person and I always accept good features in other Operating Systems.

There are technical reasons why Windows GUI runs faster than Linux. Actually the GUI of Windows runs in kernel mode or other words you can say that the GUI of Windows is integrated with the kernel so it executes much faster. Linux's GUIs runs in user-mode. X Windowing system has to communicate with the kernel to perform the required operations which take a little longer to execute.

Both of these methods have its own pros and cons. But I think implementing GUI in user-mode is better but you have to sacrifice performance for it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Some valid things
by twenex on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 10:24 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Some valid things"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Actually Windows is not bloated pig.

Fifteen GIGABYTES for Vista?! Great Scott! Is too!

Reply Score: 3

RE[8]: Some valid things
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 11:12 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Some valid things"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Fifteen GIGABYTES for Vista?! Great Scott! Is too!

Mmm, odd then, that my Vista install is about 5 GB...

Don't spread lies, Twenex.

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Some valid things
by microFawad on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 18:33 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Some valid things"
microFawad Member since:
2005-12-09

"Fifteen GIGABYTES for Vista?"
^
Hain????? lol

Reply Score: 1

Linux Desktop
by Rallavagu on Thu 21st Dec 2006 19:43 UTC
Rallavagu
Member since:
2006-12-09

I have been using Linux as the only OS on my laptop for the past 6 years. I have witnessed it evolving and getting better. Today, i run FC6 with AIGLX and Beryl on my laptop which costs <$1000. I am very happy with it. Yes, i use it primarily for business purpose as i am a consultant traveling across the country to different customers and i use the same laptop to get my work done more effectively.

Reply Score: 1

quo vadis "desktop"
by Oliver on Thu 21st Dec 2006 19:44 UTC
Oliver
Member since:
2006-07-15

They are in desperate need of new applications and desktop environments to play copycat :o)

>gimp is called bad names because of its terrible UI on Windows.

Because majority of people is acquainted to copies of Photoshop and so on. Open source is an alternative, not a copycat of Windows and it's bewildering applications. "terrible UI" is a common term in Windows, compare it with MacOS, they know what UI really means ;)


"All I want for christmas" is a Windows that's secure, stable and fast, so build me one. That's the greatest joke of all time. Learn to know how to get acquainted with the new environment, otherwise stick with Windows and be happy.
Open source is about the freedom of choice, take it, help, do whatever you want, but don't demand something. Or maybe use the magical word >>please<<.

@OSNews, do you need hits for advertising? Or why are the "news" filled with buzzwords and no content at all (more frequent than ever before).

Reply Score: 1

comparing apples with oranges
by miro on Thu 21st Dec 2006 19:46 UTC
miro
Member since:
2005-07-13

How can you compare vista with KDE? I mean vista does bring a lot new features, but how many of them could possibly have a counterpart in KDE? KDE is a desktop, while vista is a complete OS.

So it is more like Linux/Xorg/Alsa/.../KDE <-> Vista.

I really cannot see any major updates in vista on the desktop layer, except for better graphics, so what?
WHERE is the innovation? thumbnails, live preview of minimized windows... please.

Reply Score: 1

RE: comparing apples with oranges
by ronaldst on Thu 21st Dec 2006 20:27 UTC in reply to "comparing apples with oranges"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

@miro

WHERE is the innovation?

Innovation died back in the late 70ies. At least the real definition that is... Now innovation's usually buying out the competitors (think google's "increasing the scale of innovations" when they bought their competitors namely YouTube). Or re-implementing some old concept (like Apple's widgets).

Sometimes I wonder if the Internet never made it out of the military would have it been better for breeding new ideas.

Reply Score: 2

RE: comparing apples with oranges
by Oliver on Thu 21st Dec 2006 20:27 UTC in reply to "comparing apples with oranges"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

You have to compare it, there is no usable Windows possible without gui, but it's possible to use something other than KDE, Gnome and so on in Linux/BSD ...
So in the end you are comparing Windows Vista<>KDE(Gnome)/Linux or nothing at all. And I don't see innovation in KDE/Gnome, of course they are playing copycat of Windows and not to forget MacOS X.

>So it is more like Linux/Xorg/Alsa/.../KDE <-> Vista.

Something which doesn't matter for the common KDE/Gnome user.

Reply Score: 1

Isolationist Member since:
2006-05-28

I think you make a very good point here, but don't understand why you got modded down. I guess there are some people on here who take Vista as their religion.

Reply Score: 1

Whatever Gnome and KDE do is irrelevant...
by h3rman on Thu 21st Dec 2006 20:32 UTC
h3rman
Member since:
2006-08-09

... when it comes to the "desktop Linux bubble" (I guess the "hopes" of adoption of Linux by the masses is meant).
No revolution needed.
All that's needed is OEMs preloading Linux on machines that you can buy around the corner, and that requires (a.o.) polish, not revolution.
It's as prozaic as that, sorry.
But I guess that's less interesting matter to build an article on.

Reply Score: 4

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

All that's needed is OEMs preloading Linux on machines that you can buy around the corner, and that requires (a.o.) polish, not revolution.

As things stand now, I don't think it even needs that. Even the most damning review of Linux could not possibly conclude that Linux 2006 is better than Windows 1995 - and since I didn't have a very good experience with it, probably Windows 1998. Those both got preinstalled without a hitch.

And don't give me anything about how people run apps, not OSes. We know. The gap between what's available off-the-shelf for Windows and what's available off-the-repo for Linux is closing all the time, and bespoke applications can choose any OS with the facilities.

Edited 2006-12-21 20:48

Reply Score: 2

KDE problem
by trenchsol on Thu 21st Dec 2006 21:10 UTC
trenchsol
Member since:
2006-12-07

Perhaps KDE people should focus their efforts. Along with a desktop environment, they seem to be involved in many application projects. What about KOffice ? It is not regarded as a top product, but it probably diverts some efforts. Every project is supposed to have priorities.

To be honest I am using IceWM on FreeBSD, and I am not much into either KDE or GNOME. I tried GNOME couple of times, but I have an impression that it gets more and more, somehow, strange every time. I have an impression that they are rewriting everything each time.

Perhaps a a bit of project management could help both products.

DG

Reply Score: 1

My thoughts...
by melkor on Thu 21st Dec 2006 22:51 UTC
melkor
Member since:
2006-12-16

Interesting. I don't think the Linux desktop bubble is bursting, it's more maturing. It's almost caught up to OS X and Vista, by the time KDE 4 is released, it will have caught up and, I think, surpassed its opponents. Gnome, I cannot comment on as I do not use it.

For those that are worried about KDE, my suggestion is to be patient, it will be ready when it's ready. All good things take time, and good things happen to people who wait. I'd rather that they do not rush it, but do proper investigations on the UI, usability, and of course release quality code. Most of all, let it be innovative.

Dave

Reply Score: 2

About names
by Anonymous Penguin on Thu 21st Dec 2006 22:57 UTC
Anonymous Penguin
Member since:
2005-07-06

Thom,

Let's be honest: it is true that KDE 3.0 and Gnome 2.0 were released in 2002, but they weren't anywhere near to the functionality of KDE and Gnome today.
With other words what we are discussing here is only naming conventions.

Edited 2006-12-21 23:15

Reply Score: 3

Here's a thought....
by Phloptical on Thu 21st Dec 2006 23:45 UTC
Phloptical
Member since:
2006-10-10

Maybe it's because KDE and GNOME are under the idea that "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Which I applaud them for.

Microsoft gets criticized for trying to fix "it" too often and usually falls short. The same people that complain about them, are now complaining that KDE/Gnome aren't releasing enough.

Seriously, the whole notion that the OS GUI should be this all-encompassing awe-inspiring thing is getting pretty old. I mean, how many more ways do you people want your apps and files presented?

Just another addition to the almost 200 gripe-fests in here.....

Reply Score: 1

Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

...the article should not be comparing KDE and GNOME to MAC OS X and VISTA. The former are DEs, the latter are complete operating systems.

The linux kernel itself has undergone drastic changes since I started experimenting with linux in the late 90's. The UI's have come along way, but how much innovation can you have with a UI alone?

Linux-based operating systems are keeping up fine with Vista and Mac OS X. The beauty of open source is that even if one DE fails, another will step up and take its place... perhaps enlightenment, who knows. But at this point in time, what is the big need for GNOME 3.0 and KDE 4.0? Do they not already do as much as Explorer and Finder?

Reply Score: 2

Well, Look At It This Way --
by mattv427 on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 01:13 UTC
mattv427
Member since:
2006-04-19

It amazes me that there is so little enthusiasm on the part of open source developers when it comes to the desktop aspect of the operating systems they are trying to promote as an 'alternative' to windows. What are these people thinking? That users will simply just pretend that Gnome and KDE look and work better than OS X or Windows XP (or Vista)? Give me a break. What todays open source desktop developers need is a good, sharp kick in the hind quarters! I mean, really!

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"What are these people thinking? That users will simply just pretend that Gnome and KDE look and work better than OS X or Windows XP (or Vista)?"

Actually KDE and Gnome look (and work even) a lot better than XP.
And I must reluctantly admit that KDE has quite a few features that OS X is missing by default.

Reply Score: 2

Ideas
by twenex on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 02:00 UTC
twenex
Member since:
2006-04-21

All these people who think the Linux desktop is dead/crap/stone-aged...What exactly do YOU think should be done, then?

Yep, I said it. Put up or shut up!

Reply Score: 3

Gee I thought
by blitze on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 02:18 UTC
blitze
Member since:
2006-09-15

Linux was standardising an many fronts:

UI standardisation, Gnome under Ubuntu seems better than anything else I've seen recently in this regard.

File System, Are not major distros working to deal with this issue?

I'm working with Feisty 64 on my home system and I think that on the whole it is shaping up to be a nice desktop system. Sure not all the apps I want are available on Linux.

My only real grevance is in the audio department. Linux needs some serious help there and standardisation.

Reply Score: 1

Oh Mary!
by Sphinx on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 03:39 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

This troll has really taken off, I'd have it bronzed and mounted.

Reply Score: 2

What bubble?
by Soulbender on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 06:46 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

There needs to actually be a bubble first before it can burst. Now, I'm not saying that Linux isn't good on the desktop (I think it is) but just that there hasn't actually been a *bubble*.

Also of note is that the time between Windows XP release and Vista is longer than the time that has been between KDE 3.0 and, as of yet, KDE4. Not that this is important in any way, people read too much into "major" releases. Mature software don't need "major" releases every other month.

All in all, a rather boring piece of whining and unsubstantiated claims about how neither KDE nor GNOME is going anywhere.
Bah, humbug.

Reply Score: 5

fudge
by netpython on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 06:53 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft has not been resting on its laurels either.

Well we have been waiting for 5+ years on Vista.But the same analogy of it doesn't matter because it is installed and getting used anyway applies here too.Regardless wether uncle fudge can handle the two major DE┤s or not both KDE and gnome can and will be used.

It's not that KDE for instance has promised us golden mountains and instead after a significant delay scrapped more than delivered.

Edited 2006-12-22 06:54

Reply Score: 4

all hype
by computrius on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 08:05 UTC
computrius
Member since:
2006-03-26

What you have neglected to point out is that it has been 6 years since the last windows release, and about 6 and counting years since the last major apple release. If your not counting incremental releases, leapord is not a new major release since it is still part of the 10 line of the mac OS.

I dont think the issue is that everyone else is releasing faster than linux. I think they are all just releasing at different times.

Reply Score: 3

Release times
by ciplogic on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 08:30 UTC
ciplogic
Member since:
2006-12-22

It is an amazing compare:
- MS develop for 5 years Windows Vista and in the free time fix their bugs in Win XP (there was for 9 months known critical bugs in IE with no fix!)
- Apple gives from 2000 only revisions to the Mac OS X
- KDE from 2002 develop until 2006 revisions (there was gone the main development) of one desktop that look marvelous and at the end (for maximum one year) start develop the KDE4 foundations.
- GNOME starts from 2002 and only polish their desktop (some key releases that are in GNOME: moving to freedesktop standards, tango icons, better menu organisation, improoved speed, cleaning it's APIs with project Redly, usability study made by Sun and Novell, standard theme, cairo drawings, support of composite extension, Unicode 5.0 support, HAL infrastructure and notification + printing dialogs, has support of applets that permits to make your desktop queriable liek TomBoy and Deskbar + tracker or beagle, support of mono and java infrastructure), and yes, they don't have for now a big major implementation of GNOME 3.0 If you ask about some lines of code written only for GNOME 3.0, look in Gimmie project, which probably will not satisfy you because works already (as in beta stage) in GNOME 2.0. The TOPAZ desktop (GNOME 3.0) has targets queriability, 3D desktop, etc. and intends to be an incremental, smooth pass to that version. Which means that GNOME 2.24 or GNOME 2.26 probably will became by convention GNOME 3.0.

Sorry that I say more about GNOME, because I was interested in it's evolution. The single part I must agree, is that GTK+ is not as stable as you want, but when you will write a line of code to fix that? Or write some documentation to help it? Or define some use-cases that makes their work smooth?

About Vista? It looks right now, like a new OS, but you know if you used it, at least that is like a Mac OS X rip-off, and XGL+Compiz, or AIGLX+Beryl looks better.
Apropos: do you like in your "new OS" that it force to you to have restricted rights (DRM) ? Or that you must update a lot of software for the new OS, to not say nothing about hardware.

Another question: does Vista and Mac OS X are paying you to present them so shiny? Don't you see the Linux innovation? Take any distro, I preffer Ubuntu (if you preffer Mac OS X) or one KDE centric distro (if you enjoy more Windows) and see that they has a lot of features that yet Windows doesn't think about: did let the Windows installer to disable DRM in Vista, or let you to remove DirectX in XP? A cause to want that are your rights and another better solution, as OpenGL. For me is a waste of show-off for one OS (is about Vista) which was made in a slow manner (18 mounts of beta-testing! with 100.000 testers!) which in the same conditions, makes another Linux company to develop a better product (Linux kernel has around 3500 developers, GNOME desktop has 200 full-time developers, KDE around the same numbers (and add QT ones), which makes me think that an entire Linux ecosystem has around 10.000 developpers and makes for me a too great desktop, comparing to MS team of 50 people which writes 200 lines of code in an year).

I think that the missinformations of yours is simple: you see from outside, from time to time install a Linux which "sux" and say lately amazed of "how great MS works", that they do a lot better product.

Probably is time to you to say how great Windows Vista is, but I really believe that Linux desktop will have without a huge marketing as MS does, to have around 10% of the world desktops.

Reply Score: 4

I am not sure.....
by raver31 on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 09:57 UTC
raver31
Member since:
2005-07-06

that the desktop linux bubble has burst.
I am continually amazed by the amount of co-workers, who I had previously classed as Windows lovers, come up to me and say,
"Dave, I installed Ubuntu last night, how do I get divx to play ?", or "Dave, I downloaded that PCLinuxOS and tried it, can I install that alongside Windows ?" or "Dave, can I get this game/app/codec for linux ?"

This has been happening with increased frequency since news channels like BBC have articles that show Vista in a bad light.

I have asked a few people why they are even trying linux, here is a few answers...

1: Malware on Windows
2: DRM on Windows
3: Percieved speed slower than hardware capability
4: Not wanting to use pirated software
5: Cost

Reply Score: 3

RE: I am not sure.....
by twenex on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 14:39 UTC in reply to "I am not sure....."
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

That's great. I just hope they stick with it.

Reply Score: 2

Leaps and bounds...
by exigentsky on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 10:34 UTC
exigentsky
Member since:
2005-07-09

Two years ago, Linux was a fun desktop experiment, but I never gave it any serious thought as an alternative. Now, I'm using it at least as much as Windows. For me, the improvements have been gradual, but no less impressive. This is a byproduct of the OSS philosophy of "release early and release often." It is natural to have incremental improvement due to the nature of the release cycle, but progress is not slow.

Reply Score: 2

About trolls and editors
by Rehdon on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 13:02 UTC
Rehdon
Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm posting this here as I think it might be of interest to other OS News readers (although the thread is quite stale at this point).

Thom Holwerda wrote:
Get over yourself. Personal attacks [1] on the editorial staff are AGAINST our rules. That's CRYSTAL CLEAR. You are on OUR website, so you behave to OUR rules. There is absolutely no justification in calling me a troll just because I happen to dare to criticize KDE and GNOME. I have not attacked anyone personally, and yet you feel the need to do so against me.

You call it "personal attack", I call it "critique" Thom: you can't hide behind the slim finger of DA RULES to bury critical opinions with a -5 mod. But I wonder why you picked on me, instead of the parent post (who bluntly called you a troll), or all the other people who attacked you in a harsh way; here's a little selection:

This article is pure FUD

nobody like you to predict future events after showing you've zero idea of what's going or not going on in the KDE4 world

Why do non developers write stupid articles like this?

The fact you do not "perceive" the changes as big compared with earlier versions is merely evidence for the twisted mind, some people have.

All in all, a rather boring piece of whining and unsubstantiated claims about how neither KDE nor GNOME is going anywhere.

There's more, but I'll spare you that. The fact is, you were irked specifically by my comment: why? As a tentative answer, I think it's because I exposed your game: publishing a flame-bait article with a trollish title to boost clicks. And it worked, so many people fell for it, look at the number of comments. So, Thom, where's the personal attack here? I'm questioning your editorial practices, not your opinions: is that forbidden by DA RULES? is it fair that criticism be trounced by means of manipulating the modding system?

And what's more: was it a GRATUITOUS attack? are you sure that that title was appropriate? This is the question you're dodging, which I hoped you'd address when I posted again asking for clarification. Again, no answer, just brute force censorship.

YOU need to grow up

"No, you SO DO NEED to grow up!" "No, you're the brat here!" "No, you grow up!" Any hope to raise the level of the discussion Thom? Less capital letters, more opinions.

and learn that NOT everyone who criticizes Linux/KDE/GNOME is a troll

It should be clear by now, but I'll repeat it again: that is not the point! The point is that trolling and FUDding is bad: twice as bad when the editor does it. You could actually say that I never discuss with people who think like me: I never discuss politics with my wife, f.i., because she more or less shares my opinions, I like discussing with people who think completely different than me. Same goes with technology: I can argue with Windows fan boys here, and with GPL cultists on Groklaw (you can look for yourself, that's another case of occasional editorial failure IMHO ... sorry PJ!). This is not about the technical merits of Vista or Linux: this is about discussing with civility, in the right way. Because if you publish flame-baits, you'll have flame-threads, as simple as that. I have no fun in "Linux sucks" "No, Windows sucks" discussion. If you'd published a "Windows Vista linked with child molesting" article I'd be as much as offended (well more, considered the topic).

So, Thom, IMHO it all revolves around one central question: what kind of discussion do you want on OS News? Because if the answer is "whatever, provided we get enough coverage" you're doing a fine job; if, OTOH, you think it would be nice that this site be an island of passionate but civil, hot but correct discussion, well, there's something you have to rethink about the ways to foster it.

The sky is not falling down if someone criticizes you, Thom. I don't do it out of malice or because you like Vista, hope you believe my word on that. Peace, and merry Christmas to all.

rehdon

[1] http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16783&comment_id=195005

Reply Score: 5

RE: About trolls and editors
by ArchVile on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 14:38 UTC in reply to "About trolls and editors"
ArchVile Member since:
2006-07-23

rehdon, thank you for that post! I don't have much to add to the specific point (i.e. "Who said that editors cannot be trolls?"), but I want to take the opportunity to express my utter disappointment with OSNews. It was once recommended to me as a really neutral link site, which links interesting blogs, articles, etc. And it seemed to be exactly that.

Now, as for the 'editors' who are in fact just amateur bloggers who give themselves big titles and have obviously turned their blog site into a company: They are problematic in the following ways:

1. They have no background in real journalism (but run a site which requires at least one member with profound experience in that area). And yes, I do think that a 2-year carrer at BeNews does not compare to an internship at the Guardian or the NYT.
2. They have no profound knowledge in system programming or hard core application programming (but keep commenting on matters which are related to those).
3. They obviously do not have the time and resources to actually use (not 'try') all the OSes and distros out there (but keep publishing profound comments on the OS world/market).
4. Some of them (ok, I mean Thom Holwerda) are very young.

When it comes to linking articles from other sites, these points don't really matter that much. I mean, E. Loli-Queru has unnecessarily linked some technical articles from people's blogs which were seriously lacking technical background (I remember some inadequate stuff about why Ext2 is better than NTFS etc. -- If anyone wants to seriously challenge me, I can search through some months of OSNews and come up with the real examples). But that does no harm, really.

However, the editorials, mainly written by Thom Holwerda, are (given the 4 problems mentioned above) under-informed outbreaks of raw personal opinion.

I have gathered T. Holwerda's editorials from the last months. They are all arrogant blown-up proclamations of how things should be, how other people will fail utterly, how other people should do their jobs... by someone who is just NOT QUALIFIED IN THE RESPECTIVE FIELDS (only caps in this post - promised). Honestly, why should I expect a person with this profile:

http://www.osnews.com/editor.php?editors_id=11

to tell me anything interesting about something requiring as much deep knowledge in OS development as the monolithic kernel/mirokernel debate?

http://www.osnews.com/story.php/14353/Why-I-Like-Microkernels/

Here are the other abovementioned 'editorials'. Looking at them again, I noticed that they all annoyed me at the time they were first published - notice the general tone of these articles, and keep in mind the question "Who said that editors cannot be trolls?":

http://www.osnews.com/story.php/16582/The-OLPC-Sugar-Interface-Dont...
http://www.osnews.com/story.php/16284/A-Call-to-Distros-Give-Users-...
http://www.osnews.com/story.php/15266/On-Politics-GNOME-and-Mono/
http://www.osnews.com/story.php/14927/What-Sucks-About-DEs-pt.-III-...
http://www.osnews.com/story.php/14353/Why-I-Like-Microkernels/
http://www.osnews.com/story.php/14118/Amiga-Get-Your-Head-Out-of-th...
http://www.osnews.com/story.php/13568/UNIX-Security-Dont-Believe-th...
http://www.osnews.com/story.php/11085/Editorial-Why-New-Operating-S...
http://www.osnews.com/story.php/14412/Why-I-Am-Indifferent-About-Vi...

Grrr, honestly, the Gnome/MONO question, for example, is (or was) a very serious one for the free software world. I, after intense study of the problem, could never really make up my mind about it. Mr 'look how pragmatic I am' Holwerda can really keep his simplistic opinion on such matters for himself. Then the stuff about UNIX and security - even the opening comment "UNIX is geared towards server use" is so suggestive (considering the many UNIX-derivatives running as desktop OSes these days), that one can stop reading right there. Etc.

A clarification: I know an editorial always expresses an editor's opinion. But I prefer editors who have the necessary background and tone.

Finally, to those who are going to say "Nobody forces you to read OSNews if you don't like it" I want to quickly answer: "I've just explained why I don't read OSNews anymore."

See you elsewhere
A/V

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: About trolls and editors
by ciplogic on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 15:48 UTC in reply to "RE: About trolls and editors"
ciplogic Member since:
2006-12-22

The articles you show are amazing, really amazing for all points of view. Is like we may say that Firefox, with it's versions wasn't ready to face IE, because Firefox made incremental updates. There is not taken of scenarios, only by personal consideration or by amazed of the skins that IE/Vista or Leopard has. Strange for me that one people/editor can describe by itself the OSes/Desktop Environment that they are as good as version show to them. For me is more amasing when KDE/GNOME has virtually almost all features that one Vista/Mac OS X has right now, including widget/gadgets, a better explorer/finder, improved dialogs to find files, more widgets, advanced browsers (based on Mozilla widgets or KHTML), a good office tool, great PIM applications, a lot of options in sound, video and photo management, an amasing good package management. In some places it outshines the "commercial offering" mainly based of open standards, posibility to remove things that you don't need, like DRM, or to add things that you really need for your computer: you don't need Media Player to run movies, you have to choose from three big engines of playing video: ffmpeg/mplayer, xine and gstreamer. Why you don't state that SELinux or Novell Armour gives some things that even Vista doesn't offer to you. Do you know first distro that gives that to you for free? Fedora Core 2! Did you heard about virtualisation at kernel level projects like Xen or more newer IKVM!? You tell in the past that the Vista doesn't impress you much, but it seem that you sow a good facade, and doesn't see the new problems that it will have. Anyway people will choose Vista as a must, because is preinstalled with their computer, not by technical merits. I may say next: finally the Vista catch-up the Linux, Mac OS X world.
On OSNews was said that Vista's NTFS will support symlinks as a big feature, userspace GUI (does vista support text mode as unixes, when the video driver does not enable the operations, I don't know and care). The OS that probably will make inovation in the next year will be Mac OS X, adding for first time virtual desktops, not as funny as the cube and Time Machine. Does Time Machine is a great frontend for ZFS? I don't know, but a good frontend (which probably Thom has seen in Vista) is not a measure that the OS is so amasing.
How Gartner recommends Vista after first service-pack? Is not made with "security in mind" as Microsoft say? Let's make FUD that Windows Vista may be attacked every time based on that saying!
I really sow and believe that GNOME has a fast development as the KDE has too. The thing that GNOME strides is to make their APIs consistent and prepare a good foundation for GNOME 3.0 (Topaz) and KDE has a part of the foundation (QT 4.0) and they made first the increase of version. May we compare the results? KDE 4.0 will run as much applications as KDE 3 does, but Vista doesn't! GNOME 3.0 which will have as a foundation GNOME 2.0 ultra-polished, will run consistent all old applications when changed to Topaz. The Leopard very probably will not run all the old applications (to not say nothing about a lot of PPC applications which need to be recompiled to universal binary/x86).

Conclusion for me? Mine as your opinion maybe was partisan, but my wants is to say: right now the desktop Linux on Desktop with a proper hardware (which should be Linux compatible) and with a new distribution is at the same level with Vista and when KDE 4 will appear, will be in front of it as technology. I think that even at the moment the Linux is more better with both KDE or GNOME that Windows Vista, but a bit lower as value as Mac OS X, because that OS is preinstalled in configurations that behaves good with that OS, by design.

For me was as the ArchVile a Good Bye and my wanting is to became for future a professional place of articles.

Ciprian

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: About trolls and editors
by chemical_scum on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 16:10 UTC in reply to "RE: About trolls and editors"
chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

Finally, to those who are going to say "Nobody forces you to read OSNews if you don't like it" I want to quickly answer: "I've just explained why I don't read OSNews anymore."

I am staying but I am just not bothering to read any article Thom writes. They are just not worth the effort.

Reply Score: 5

Thom, read this
by dumbkiwi on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 18:17 UTC
dumbkiwi
Member since:
2006-01-02

I'm hoping you've already seen this, but if not, please read the blog post from someone who actually knows what they're talking about:

http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2006/12/website-does-not-make-you-smart....

Reply Score: 3

RE: Thom, read this
by Rehdon on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 20:14 UTC in reply to "Thom, read this"
Rehdon Member since:
2005-07-06

That's the bad thing about reality, sooner or later it catches up with you. Nice that Seigo defended GTK+ developers together with the FOSS developing method, it requires courage to expose publicly your own weaknesses. Way to go guys.

/me imagines Thom trying to mod down Seigo's own blog ... ;)

rehdon

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Thom, read this
by searly on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 20:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Thom, read this"
searly Member since:
2006-02-27

As i said in a post before, Thom (and Euginia) both obviously do not know what they are talking about, or they can't be bothered to do proper research for their editorials ... but what is new, it seems much easier to just spout off some uninformed drivel than put work behind an article. Sadly there is no real point in arguing a point, because one just gets modded down and accused of "personal attacks", when in reality the article was nothing more than a troll, void of any reality ... me looking forward to KDE4

Oh by the way even if Thom reads this (that is Seigo's blog), he won't change his position. It is just easier to write drivel and it obviously helps the click rate as this thread proves, maybe Thom you should take a course about "Ethics in Journalism" ... you never know it might help!

Edited 2006-12-22 21:03

Reply Score: 4

I don't see FUD in the article...
by m1cro on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 19:44 UTC
m1cro
Member since:
2006-12-22

...but there's too many people here who think that "troll" is a word for people who critize Linux, or like Windows.

Reply Score: 1

Development Tools
by sweiss on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 20:19 UTC
sweiss
Member since:
2005-10-01

First of all, I am a Linux user, and have been such since 2002.

Anyway, Steve Balmer said it perfectly: "Developers, developers, developers."

I won't talk about OSX as I lack the knowledge, but what makes a desktop great is its applications. To build applications, you need tools.
C and C++ are languages which are difficult to develop in. They are not as productive as the .NET framework, for instance.

Open source leads to choice, and sometimes choice is a double-edges sword. So you get plenty of tools - Perl, Python, Ruby, Mono etc.
And also there's GTK and Qt.

On Windows, you have just one viable option - .NET framework. Everyone is using it, testing it, improving it. There are a lot of tools for .NET, and very good ones at that.
.NET is a good tool, it is productive, and has become a standard in Windows development.
I'm afraid I can't say the same about the environments mentioned above, from various reasons (mainly good and complete development tools).

I might have gone a bit off topic, but this is what I have to say about Linux Desktop in general - There are no complete standards yet, and there are many, many duplicated efforts.
That's the open source anarchy.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Development Tools
by archiesteel on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 22:17 UTC in reply to "Development Tools"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

On Windows, you have just one viable option - .NET framework. Everyone is using it, testing it, improving it.

I doubt that you could say that there "just one viable option"...that seems a little extreme.

You also seem to confuse frameworks, toolkits and languages.

They are not as productive as the .NET framework, for instance.

There are rapid application development tools available for Linux. Kdevelop and Qtdesigner are very productive tools in their own right.

BTW, starting a post by saying "First of all, I am a Linux user since etc..." is akin to saying "I'm not a racist, but..." The fact that you use Linux or not will not affect the quality of your argument. Either what you say and valid, or it isn't. It's any more or less true because you happen to use the platform.

I've been using Windows since 1990, and I disagree with your assessment... :-)

Reply Score: 3

The Best Answer to the Article I read so far:
by camel on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 21:06 UTC
camel
Member since:
2005-06-29
Article in Linux Format..
by devnull on Fri 22nd Dec 2006 21:42 UTC
devnull
Member since:
2005-07-06

I am getting tired of OSnews editors (Eug, Tom etc.) and there "we know best" and "this is how a gui must be" bla bla attitude. I bet not one of them can write one single line of decent code themselves.

Anyway...There is a nice article about the development/state of KDE 4 in Linux Format. It really shows you a different story than this badly written/reseacherd article.

Reply Score: 5

devnull
Member since:
2005-07-06

http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/category/linux/

I have just read this blog....amazing.

Someone who cannot even set the right permissions on
his drive [files and directories] in Unix is spewing dirt at open-source and Linux while not even understand the fundamentals of Linux and open-source..pitty.

Its good the be critical but please do more research and do not just write some biased and misinformed/untrue articles.

Edited 2006-12-22 22:37

Reply Score: 4

Vista will drive people to desktop Linux
by Bergen2 on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 02:43 UTC
Bergen2
Member since:
2006-12-23

The train wreck that Vista is is not a threat to Linux, indeed it is what will get people to switch to Linux. Vista is the retarded brother of XP. Most computers in the wild will not run it well or at all because it has huge system requirements. In order to try to prevent the constant security holes of XP, it warns you whenever you try to do anything. When people see how poorly Vista runs, they will consider Linux. And in 2011, when Microsoft holds a gun to your head and says "no more security for XP, you have to buy Vista", many of you will refuse and switch to Linux.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Development Tools
by sweiss on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 08:55 UTC
sweiss
Member since:
2005-10-01

Heh, I believe you are correct. I did feel awkward to submit the original comment, as I did feel I was kind of getting lost.

I'll now try to sum it up:
In Linux, you have plenty of technologies available, nothing more mainstream than the other. And so you end up with a lot of competing technologies, which are likely to include duplicated efforts, no massive testing to any of them.

On Windows, Microsoft keeps it so that at a given time there's only one mainstream technology, which is massively promoted. That yields into a lot more usage of this particular technology, which results in fixing and improving it even further.

In short, I think it makes Windows development easier.

P.S.
I guess this is a "to each his own" statement, but I really think VS .NET 2005 is a superb development environment, and I was not able to find a true equivalent for it in the open source world.

Edited 2006-12-23 08:56

Reply Score: 1

I Just read some of Thom's blog also....
by aking469 on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 14:34 UTC
aking469
Member since:
2006-01-16

I cannot believe that with your extensive knowledge and expertise you cannot get at your various partitions. I do not expect everyone to be an expert, but you do edit a very popular website about.....Operating Systems!!! I am a constant perveyor of OSNEWS. I enjoy the interaction between the people here....and, I often struggle with the concepts that they discuss...I am a humble science teacher (biology...not technology). I am learning though. I have had the same difficulties, but I expected more expertise of you...sorry, I shouldn't have done so. I cannot believe that everyone cannot see the beauty of the desktops available in Linux/BSD. I think they are much better than Windows, and better in some ways than OSX. I love being able to modify them completely. I was the one who had changed the start buttons on my XP boxes to "stop" "go away", so I have learned some of the ins and outs of the GUI. I have changed things in Linux too...so much easier...and....wait....wait....FREE!!!!I for one do not complain..I learn. If I don't like the way it is done, I learn to change it myself...oh yeah, that is the Open Source way isn't it?

Reply Score: 1

server OS
by osgeek on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 18:47 UTC
osgeek
Member since:
2006-12-23

Linux is more suitable as a server OS, but it has a big competitor there in Solaris, specially after the release of Solaris 10.
http://osgeek.blogspot.com

Reply Score: 1

re
by mattgeb84 on Fri 29th Dec 2006 14:34 UTC
mattgeb84
Member since:
2006-12-29

i dont think that linux is in trouble. the good thing about open source software is that no matter what there will always be somebody working on making improvments.
linux is already better than windows, but dont compare it to mac osx, beating osx is a tough thing to do.

Reply Score: 1