Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 17:45 UTC
X11, Window Managers Apparently, my article a few days ago caused a bigger stir than I had anticipated, not at all unrelated to the fact that my wordings may not have been optimal. So, let me clarify things a bit.
Order by: Score:
On bias
by Priest on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 18:25 UTC
Priest
Member since:
2006-05-12

There is so much bias in IT that sometimes people don't even recognise what it looks like not to be.

This has got to be the only industry where the products you use and your religion are one in the same.

Reply Score: 5

RE: On bias
by ronaldst on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 18:59 UTC in reply to "On bias"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

@Priest

This has got to be the only industry where the products you use and your religion are one in the same.

If that were only true. ;)

*cough* cars *cough*

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: On bias
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 19:50 UTC in reply to "RE: On bias"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Not to mention gaming consoles.

Reply Score: 4

RE: On bias
by twenex on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 23:30 UTC in reply to "On bias"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

This has got to be the only industry where the products you use and your religion are one in the same.

For which you can blame on two things, IMO.

1. Computer and OS vendors have historically kept all their eggs in different baskets - thus choosing another hardware vendor meant choosing another OS, other software and perhaps even different peripherals. In fact DEC used to support more than one proprietary OS on one architecture - the PDP-11 - and no more than two PDP architectures were ever compatible with each other (e.g. PDP-6 and -10). By contrast, even though people argue about cars, choosing Ford over Toyota this time round has never meant ditching your Toyota-shaped bottom for a Ford-shaped one. Even when DOS and Windows PC's came along, you still couldn't buy more than one or two architectures (depending on how you count) to run them on - at first by design, and then by default.

2. AT&T are the only people who (grudgingly or accidentally) created an open platform - which, until the advert of Linux, STILL got proprietarized. IBM, of course, accidentally did it in hardware too.

The only reason that Linux (even more, Linux or BSD) is the only game in town for many people who run FOSS is that it's the only mature/maturing technology based on a sort-of-open one. To the casual user, even certain aspects of BeOS/Zeta/Haiku look more "Unixy" than (say) "Windowsy" or original(-y?!).

Reply Score: 4

RE: On bias
by rayiner on Sun 24th Dec 2006 00:48 UTC in reply to "On bias"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

The whole idea of being unbiased is a load of bull crap. The only people who are unbiased are the blissfully ignorant. Try finding an engineer who thinks that all designs are equally valid! Competent people have opinions, and are thus biased. A good reporter isn't unbiased, but simply honest and open-minded about his opinions.

"Unbiased" reporting is the drivel you see on CNN, where the anchor spouts off about a topic with which he's unfamiliar, unbiasedly regurgitating whatever he's fed from his teleprompter. Of course he's unbiased, because he doesn't know enough about the subject to have formed an opinion! It's the crap you see where every viewpoint is presented as equally valid, despite the fact that some things are clearly better than other things.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: On bias
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 24th Dec 2006 01:12 UTC in reply to "RE: On bias"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

There's a difference in calling a website "unbiased" and a person "unbiased". As a person, nobody is unbiased. Neither am I.

I can, however, say that I do not select stories on OSNews based on my personal opinions about the content of the article. It's not a factor involved in the process. I decide whether it fits our scope, whether the English is of acceptable levels, more of that stuff. For rare type of articles (i.e. a review of SkyOS) these criteria are more loosely applied than for i.e. another SUSE review.

A good reporter isn't unbiased, but simply honest and open-minded about his opinions.

Yes, but only if he constraints his opinions into separate, clearly marked as such stories. You will not see me take a stab at project Xyz in its release announcement on OSNews (save for the few feeble attempts at humour); however, I might write a review of Xyz two days later in which my opinion is clearly visible.

It is this separation that leads to me saying that OSNews is unbiased. My own personal opinions on things are not reflected in OSNews' overall content, and hence OSNews is unbiased.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: On bias
by Priest on Sun 24th Dec 2006 08:24 UTC in reply to "RE: On bias"
Priest Member since:
2006-05-12

The whole idea of being unbiased is a load of bull crap. The only people who are unbiased are the blissfully ignorant.

Not true! Bias is a prejudice, not an opinion.

A bias person says they like the design of the Ford Taurus becasue they happen to like Ford.

An unbias person says they hate the car, and they don't care who produces it.

You are basicially a genius rayiner, your bias is what limits you.

Reply Score: 1

GNOME 3
by sukru on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 18:28 UTC
sukru
Member since:
2006-11-19

The problem, as you've said in your article, is it's not easy to define the requirements of GNOME 3.

As seen on http://live.gnome.org/ThreePointZero there are actually no plans for GNOME 3.0.

But this is not because GNOME is out of ideas. It's actually because every evolutionary, or even revolutionary idea has been implemented in a dot point release of 2.X series.

For example, we had our desktop's memory usage cleaned, font system changed, rendering system changed, hardware accelerated composition enabled, file managing metaphor replaced (spatial view, but actually involving tons of discussion) to name a few.

And the API and technical specs have made stiders as well: The HAL/D-BUS stack, beagle (desktop search), mono, FUSE, new power management system, NetworkManager are the ones that come to my mind at the moment.

If we were to compare this progress to the Microsoft's XP to Vista changes, GNOME should've been around 4.0 now.

Unfortunately I cannot comment on KDE, but I believe they've made similar progress as well.

Not releasing a major release is only because there is not pressing need for big API restructuring at the moment. It's not a deficiency.

Reply Score: 5

RE: GNOME 3
by superstoned on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 19:04 UTC in reply to "GNOME 3"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

it's indeed the case Gnome seems willing to do much deeper architectual changes within it's 2.x release. KDE commits to binary compatibility in it's X.y releases, so it is much more restricted (unless Gnome also keeps binary compatibility with 2.0, but i guess they would need a 3.x release to really fix/refactor stuff, and would have released such a thing already). Gnome sure has added big stuff, like cairo, which will in time bring it on par with Vista...

Reply Score: 5

RE: GNOME 3
by kaiwai on Sun 24th Dec 2006 00:41 UTC in reply to "GNOME 3"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Thats a good reply *adds a point to sakru post*

Alot of features I hear about get labled 'for 3.0' then after investigating, there is a realisation that the change isn't so radical as to break compatibility so they can actually merge it into the GNOME 2.x series without major issues.

What I think the issue should be is comparing the different methods of development between Microsoft and the Opensource/Sun/others models.

Opensource make small incrimentalc hanges at rapid pace; in the case of GNOME, new features are added every 6months, not big radical, but small, those that need more time, can be added at the next release.

In the commercial world, Sun do the same thing with their maintanance releases; a release every 6months involves rolling up the tarball with all the fixes they released till that point plus added features - in one of the releases, they made ZFS available for non-root partitions.

Microsoft on the other hand have bundled all their 'new features' into one big release - or more importantly, they'll release' incrimental updates' like IE 7 and Mediaplayer, which would have a negliable impact on their next operating system release, but don't expect incrimental features and improvements over the lifetime of the product - you'll have to wait till the next release of Windows - which is where Vista came unstuck.

Microsoft tried to bolt too many new features onto it, and with something being in development for so long, things outside a company change - security has become the hot topic online now; its now no longer stability as Windows XP already addressed that with the migration to the NT line of kernel - the issue is security and Microsoft is squarely in the lime light, hence the reason they had to start again using the Windows 2003 SP1 codebase rather than continuing on using a bastardised Windows XP one.

For me, I'd sooner see incrimental improvements - ultimately the issues with GNOME and KDE, and *NIX on the desktop have to do more with small niggling problems that can be corrected via small and incrimental updates - it isn't as though *NIX on the desktop is so fundamentally broken that the baby has to be thrown out with the bathwater to actually improve the over all environment.

Reply Score: 5

GNOME Dev's turn to yell
by lazywally on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 18:37 UTC
lazywally
Member since:
2005-07-06

So now its Gnome thats in deep trouble, not KDE.

from the article :
. . .GNOME is in far bigger trouble than KDE

Does this sequence of words reflect your thoughts correctly? :-)

Reply Score: 5

Version numbers
by tux68 on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 18:54 UTC
tux68
Member since:
2006-10-24

Another often heard complaint about the article was that I supposedly only cared about version numbers, and that open source software does not use version numbers for marketing purposes. This is an irrelevant complaint, as I only used the 'GNOME 3' and 'KDE 4' designations ...

But by focusing on _next_ generations you completely ignored what's going on in the current generation. You failed to take stock of where the open source desktops are today.

Instead you insisted that the lack of a new version on the horizon _meant something_. You drew the conclusion that a lack of new major version number (3.0/4.0) was a _problem_. By focusing on the next generation you failed to show that specific features were lacking today. Instead you concentrated on imaginary process problems and supposed stagnation.

Which is a shame.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Version numbers
by castleinthesky on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 20:48 UTC in reply to "Version numbers"
castleinthesky Member since:
2006-02-08

Here here.

My thoughts exactly (but better worded).

Reply Score: 2

It all boils down to...
by danieldk on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 18:55 UTC
danieldk
Member since:
2005-11-18

"I see no roadmap for the next major version." Frankly speaking, both articles are not of a good quality. Not having a roadmap for the next major *revolutionary* release is a not a sign of problems. As various reactions to your previous article stated, the thing is that many major opensource projects changed from revolutionary to evolutionary development cycles. It is a sign that the projects have matured. Release engineering is under control, and most of the infrastructure is working well. At least try to counter or acknowledge these arguments.

Sticking a pretentious "Has the Desktop Linux Bubble Burst?" on an article does not make it a good article. Good arguments do. So far we have not seen any arguments besides "there is no roadmap for the next revolutionary version". People have shown that there has been a steady stream of improvements, and that active development has been going on. So, it is your turn once over again, come with *good arguments*. Where is the desktop lacking? Where are the Qt/KDE and GNOME/GTK+2 APIs lacking? What changes are needed to get both desktops forward? That's good journalism.

At any rate I hope everybody has a good Christmas. And don't take my criticism to heavily ;) , it's just my humble opinion.

Edited 2006-12-23 18:57

Reply Score: 5

RE: It all boils down to...
by LB06 on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 19:18 UTC in reply to "It all boils down to..."
LB06 Member since:
2005-07-06

Not having a roadmap doesn't really matter, indeed. A roadmap is just some very vague schedule that show when some things may be done.

Having no plan or goals like Thom said, however, is far more severe. A plan is like a strategy. When a certain amount of complexity has been reached (both KDE and Gnome *are* complex), a project needs people who coordinate it, whether you like it or not.

So if there really is no goal or plan set for the future I believe Gnome is a sinking ship. I doubt however, that that really is the case. For example, they still have their philosophy and HIG to give them at least some direction.

And while it may indeed be true that Gnome has no concord innovations on the roadmap like KDE has, I believe that those will appear bottom-up, and be given some structure by the HIG and by their philosophy. Its success however, will largely depend on the people who are at the helm of the project.

Reply Score: 5

Incremental releases vs. drastic changes
by franz on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 19:06 UTC
franz
Member since:
2006-07-26

As you already pointed out in your article, Gnome 2 provides a very consistent interface, with many gradual improvements.

Drastic changes, like the one from Gnome 1 to Gnome 2 are not a good thing. With open source, there's no need to justify a $100 (Apple) $250 (Vista Pro) upgrade fee.

You seem to prefer a long-expected, secretly developed, dramatically changed new release over a constantly improved, consistent open development model. Within the open source development model, that is not realistic. XGL/Compiz is an example, but it served more as a seed-project and a way to flesh out the specs before releasing it to the open source community.
Over time, projects like Beagle, D-BUS, Cairo and Compiz have been/will be incorporated into the mainstream Gnome Desktop. This only testifies to the well-designed framework that Gnome has become.

Reply Score: 5

v Worship?
by tyrione on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 19:11 UTC
Well...
by somebody on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 19:12 UTC
somebody
Member since:
2005-07-07

Apart from the responses from the tiring anti-Microsoft camp (I wrote a fairly positive review of Vista hence I have no credibility?

99% of arguments was not based on you liking Vista like you say. They were based on you not being adequately informed to blog on thing like that.

I hope this clarified things up a bit.

Posting news about seigos answer was enough if you wanted to show your self as impartial. This one is just another BS session starter. Sometimes it pays to STFU and not correct what is not broken.

Reply Score: 5

journalistic credibility
by historyb on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 19:13 UTC
historyb
Member since:
2005-07-06

I wrote a fairly positive review of Vista hence I have no credibility? The logic fails to dawn on me

You didn't lose journalistic credibility than, you lost it when you let through a totally bogus article. At least you did allow a rebuttal to it though.

Reply Score: 5

good
by superstoned on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 19:28 UTC
superstoned
Member since:
2005-07-07

i think it's a good think you cleared the air a bit. not everyone might agree with you, but at least they should understand your ideas a bit better ;-)

prettig kerstfeest en gelukkig nieuwjaar, thom...

Reply Score: 2

How about some integrity?
by johndaly on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 19:32 UTC
johndaly
Member since:
2006-01-16

Thom you write crap like the previous article on a regular bases, and when you get called you get indignant every time. Face the facts, you have no credibility and you have done nothing to earn any. You need to show some journalistic integrity and do some research before you write an article, end of story.

Reply Score: 5

RE: How about some integrity?
by spikeb on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 23:15 UTC in reply to "How about some integrity?"
spikeb Member since:
2006-01-18

better yet, not write at all. that'd be better.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: How about some integrity?
by t4inted on Sun 24th Dec 2006 01:13 UTC in reply to "RE: How about some integrity?"
t4inted Member since:
2006-11-24

why the hell are you even visiting this site? If all you long for is totally unrealistic articles stating "desktop linux is here, ms is a sinking ship" go to digg.com.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: How about some integrity?
by sbergman27 on Sun 24th Dec 2006 01:53 UTC in reply to "RE: How about some integrity?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
better yet, not write at all. that'd be better.
"""

Stated in a confrontational way... but a valid suggestion.

I could do without the OSNews provided opinion pieces.

(Do they really generate valuable discussion? Or are they just stirring the pot?)

The more concrete factual stuff, I enjoy. The OS Essay contest (can't remember exactly what it was called) was fantastic. Some of the entries were absolutely excellent.

More of that and less of OSNews staff on the soap box (and the associated turmoil) would get my vote as a reader.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: How about some integrity?
by ronaldst on Sun 24th Dec 2006 02:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: How about some integrity?"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

@sbergman27

I could do without the OSNews provided opinion pieces.

It's what made OSNews popular. Only Eugenia could piss off the devs like that. lol

Reply Score: 5

so, we meet again! ;)
by aseigo on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 19:56 UTC
aseigo
Member since:
2005-07-06

hi thom..

thanks for posting a series of follow ups on this that give voice to other viewpoints and ideas. takes a big person to do that. dialog is the all important equalizer and tool in the community.

Reply Score: 5

RE: so, we meet again! ;)
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 20:20 UTC in reply to "so, we meet again! ;)"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Thanks.

I'm not here to promote my view alone; OSNews has always been about discussion and alternative viewpoints, whether they be the editors' or someone else's. This is something the team and I value a great deal (and hence when we are accused of being biased or hidden agendas, we generally tend to get really pissed off).

Hey, at least I got your name right this time 'round ;) .

Edited 2006-12-23 20:22

Reply Score: 2

Thom, you remain with your position...
by ciplogic on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 20:34 UTC
ciplogic
Member since:
2006-12-22

Thom, is strange the first article which is the "outside point of view", like any MS based person that makes studies about KDE and GNOME and their evolutions, and goes to the first site that brings google, and if the sites aren't updated to the real life, you may surpose that nothing happend.

Vista makes it's features public from 2002 (I tell you that because my faculty is a member of MS Academic Program), but the real life prooves that they implement almost all in 5 years!

Only about Topaz, first news starts from GNOME 2.8 (at around 4 years from the start of GNOME 2.0) and some things that it stats: posibility of using Luminocity (a X-GL based server which start in a window) - right now we have XGL or AIGLX, queriability: we have beagle/tracker, and probably tracker will be included by default with GNOME 2.18, posibility of supporting Mono, and cause of Tomboy it has mono inside, nautilus has a lot of improvements, the same with GTK (did you remember if you used the OpenDialog of GKT2? It looks similar with Win3.1 because you have two lists: one of folders, one of files, and two buttons (OK and Cancel) to select them. Right now is a completly better designed, with posibility to integrate for instace beagle (if you sow Novel Desktop Enteriprise 10), did you know that you can setup SVG wallpapers in GNOME? How about antialiasing used at every line that you draw on a widget? Can you imagine that GNOME changes the entire infrastructure of comunicating applications using D-BUS (messaging server for IPC/RPC) and HAL? That in only two years!? Do you know that GNOME supports zeroconf/avahi/apple's bonjour? Do you know what is gstreamer? Is a video framework on FreeDesktop. All future standard codecs,etc. should be made aviable for that platform. Because in the past GNOME uses in specially Xine and as sound Daemon uses Enlightment Sound Daemon (esd), right now everything was moved to GStreamer! Did you remember Galeon? Right now was replaced with Epiphany because it respects better the GNOME's 2 HIG! Did you sow first versions of Totems (which was based on Xine, as it was at that moment)? Right now they integrate in the browser and makes preview of movies in nautilus! Did you sow how beagle works? Even with deskbar or not? GNOME 2.0 never imagine of that! And another small visible changes were: Clearlooks default theme, tangoifing icons, etc.

If we state that gcc doesn't change at all because is compatible as command line, that doesn't mean that the evolution is not inside.

Do you know what is badly for you, in my point of view? Around a half in the uppser list were at one moment in the page of Project Topaz. Did you read that Project Topaz (Gnome 3.0) expects only to be a smooth upgrade to the GNOME 2.0?

For me remains your articles as one person that looks from outside and say how bad is the evolution of the project.

About KDE, the changes was amasing too, but I haven't notice all because I am not a member of KDE groups, but support for Cairo, Hal-DBUS, etc. were emerged with using of QT4 as a base.

KDE 4 strides to change the metaphor of their DE mostly cause KDE wants to be more abstract in programming, use-cases and in everything that were in the past. Probably to face Vista approach, I don't know and care.

The GNOME as KDE has a lot of metaphors and for now I cannot compare the Mac OS X finder with Vista's Explorer as capabilities, because they are starting to became similar, but they find different solutions of the same problem, of browsing your computer.

If you put GNOME + Ubuntu or SLED, they offer better functionality/usability that offers Vista at the moment. When we talk about features, I think that they don't matter, because Microsoft will try to share as huge improvements things that other have for a lot of time. I remember that restricted acounts that Vista offers, is a weaker (for my humble opinion) implementation than Linux or Mac OS X sudo command. But that is a matter of taste.

Does it offer Vista as kernel level something similar with SELinux or Kernel level virtualisation? How can you add a new binary format to Vista's kernel? Like double click on a .NET executable (that already exist, I know ;) ) and to be a custom loader for a .NET application. That exist for 11 years in Linux kernel, at the age of 4 year old project (if I remember well the moment of supporting ELF formats instead a.out format).

The biggest advantages of Vista will not be the look, even for enterprises, even for home. For enterprises will be better deployment mechanism than XP has in the past and a somehow more secure implementation, and for home that DirectX 10 which will be Vista only, making the users to be forced to upgrade to play the next hit from Blizzard or from Valve. And of course, the advantage over Linux will be in some time: the preinstalled on Dell, etc. PC, more applications that will run (some of them at least) than Linux and that some hardware will run only with it (because most producers doesn't drivers or support or both).

Reply Score: 4

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

The biggest advantages of Vista will not be the look, even for enterprises, even for home. For enterprises will be better deployment mechanism than XP has in the past and a somehow more secure implementation, and for home that DirectX 10 which will be Vista only, making the users to be forced to upgrade to play the next hit from Blizzard or from Valve. And of course, the advantage over Linux will be in some time: the preinstalled on Dell, etc. PC, more applications that will run (some of them at least) than Linux and that some hardware will run only with it (because most producers doesn't drivers or support or both).

Actually, the biggest hold back is the lack of support by commercial application vendors - there are two ways around this; improved wine support with support by the commercial software vendors so that they can help Wine get up to speed with compatibility whilst at the same time supporting those users who choose to run their applications under wine.

The other alternative is for these vendors to come to the party and port their application natively to *NIX and use the prior wine experience as a benchmark to the popularity for native support that end users need.

Sure, there are desktop applications like Nero that can be replaced quite easily with opensource counterparts, but there are commercial applications like MYOB and Peachtree, which no opensource application can hold a candle to.

Once you get those applications on *NIX, the reason for staying with Windows will be gone - unlike MacOS X, which has cost AND compatibility, the only thing in the way of *NIX is simply compatibility via the need for applications to be ported.

Now, Novell may *think* that if they offer a 'compelling environment' companies will port - that isn't the case, its the old Jerry Maguire of "SHOW ME THE MONEY!" - and thats what they want; these companies want to see a return on their investment, and simply saying, "it might take a while" won't satisfy their bean counters - hence, my constant push for over 6 years that the *NIX community need to pool their resources, and start PAYING vendors to port their applications - show up at their door step, find out the cost, and cut the company a cheque; get the bally moving, it might end up costing $200million, but once you have that ball moving, more vendors will come onboard without the need of enducements.

Reply Score: 3

e
by pfortuny on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 20:36 UTC
pfortuny
Member since:
2006-02-05

enlightenment

(talking of bias ;)

Just kidding.

Reply Score: 4

bubble?
by molnarcs on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 20:52 UTC
molnarcs
Member since:
2005-09-10

The problem with your article is that you take the expectation of a vocal minority - that linux desktop adaptation will happen suddenly and en masse - and then you set on to disprove that. In other words, your article is simply silly.

There is not linux desktop bubble - so there is nothing to burst. It was a sensationalist article, and like all sensationalist, badly written articles on osnews, it generated lots of comments.

2002 wasn't the year of the linux destkop. Neither was 2003, 2004 ... 2006. And yet ... they all were years of the linux desktop, because on hand hand, desktop environments became mature and the credibility and viability of linux has grown, and on the other hand, the application stack became almost complete, with filling in important holes (with openoffice, scribus, koffice, etc.) 2007 will be the year of the linux desktop as well, because we shall witness the same growth - and more importantly, the same acceleration of growth that we saw in the past few years.

Reply Score: 5

RE: bubble?
by spikeb on Sun 24th Dec 2006 17:28 UTC in reply to "bubble?"
spikeb Member since:
2006-01-18

aye. well said.

Reply Score: 1

RGCook
Member since:
2005-07-12

As a KDE enthusiast, many of the points Thom made in his original article rang true in terms of not having a clear understanding of where KDE is headed, development progress, etc. I'm not intimate with the development process so I tend to visit KDE.org and Plasma mainly, to get a feel for where things are at. One need only view the user links at plasma.kde.org to see that there is not a lot of content there.

I don't necessarily believe that KDE needs a major overhaul to "Keep up with the Jones" but it is exciting for me to know what is happening. So in that vein, I had the same feeling that KDE development seemed to be stagnating. Just my ignorance of the status, not a criticism at all. I just didn't understand what was happening and no, I don't think it is up to the developers to keep me apprised! So I am not pointing any fingers here!

Now Thom's article was very pointed and perhaps he purposely made his points strong to drive it home, and so it is that when you critique the passion of others, they are apt to take it personally. However, I didn't see any malice or intent to be personal in Thom's remarks. His apology shows that he is of good character and values his prominent responsibility in this community. I don't know him and I have no reason to defend him other than to say osnews is a great site and I feel it is run and populated mostly by sincere folks of high character sharing common passions.

Despite the ruffled feathers, in the end, this has provided me with a great deal of information on the state and direction of KDE. Do the ends justify the means? Probably not - I'd rather see less infighting and more statement of opinion based on interpretation of the facts. We might not all reach the same conclusions when we stare at data, that's what makes us unique. Its best to forgive and forget when this happens because I think its safe to say we are all in this together and there is no desire to set back the progress of KDE (or Gnome) whatsoever.

Happy Holidays or Merry Xmas and Happy New Year OSNews. I look forward to another great year!

Reply Score: 5

Huh?
by AdamW on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 21:15 UTC
AdamW
Member since:
2005-07-06

"Other than that, KDE and GNOME developers themselves are never shy of referring to GNOME 3 and KDE 4 in a positive context"

Uh? You make it sound as if GNOME developers are enthusiastically chatting about GNOME 3 at every opportunity. Most of them never mention it - I bet on most days you could read through the whole p.g.o and never see a single mention of GNOME 3. When it IS brought up, it's frequently in posts with names like "Do we really need GNOME 3?" I think this statement is, to put it simply...not true.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Huh?
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 21:25 UTC in reply to "Huh?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I think this statement is, to put it simply...not true.

"Other than that, KDE and GNOME developers themselves are never shy of referring to GNOME 3 and KDE 4 in a positive context" does NOT mean: "talking about it every possible moment".

It just means what it says right there-- that GNOME 3 and KDE are often used in a positive context without ANYBODY ever bringing up the argument that version numbers mean nothing-- however, as soon as I use the designations in a negative context, everybody is up in arms about the version numbers. That's rather hypocritical. That's all.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Huh?
by ciplogic on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 21:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Huh?"
ciplogic Member since:
2006-12-22

Taking about GNOME 3, it already exist in GNOME. As you can imagine, Project Topaz page evolve, and most of it's ideas were put inside of the "old gnome" at the moment that were time and posibility to make them available (and were good ideas).

KDE 4 is on time on evolving, even right now it looks even uglier than KDE 3! Did you sow a build of Longhorn in 2003? That which looks as XP + a sidebar? And asks 384 RAM with doing nothing? I think that is the same as you count down.

GNOME or KDE hipocrisy is the same as you say the Vista is better as much as features, when of course they implement something in that two years, but from the articles it seems that GNOME and KDE doesn't evolve. That is the outside view.

Numbering in linux DEs, different from Windowses service packs which add mostly fixex and no visible update, the GNOME and KDE evolves a lot (look on screenshots on KDE page, and see some of them).

Edited 2006-12-23 21:36

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Huh?
by Daniel Borgmann on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 21:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Huh?"
Daniel Borgmann Member since:
2005-07-08

But what are you talking about? Nobody is raving about how great GNOME 3 will be and it's never brought up as an excuse when GNOME is to be compared with Vista or OSX. Topaz is purely playground, it's neither used to make GNOME look good, nor should it be used to make GNOME look bad. There is plenty of good innovation that can and will still happen in the 2.x line.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Huh?
by tux68 on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 22:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Huh?"
tux68 Member since:
2006-10-24

It just means what it says right there-- that GNOME 3 and KDE are often used in a positive context without ANYBODY ever bringing up the argument that version numbers mean nothing-- however, as soon as I use the designations in a negative context, everybody is up in arms about the version numbers. That's rather hypocritical. That's all.

Bzzzzt... Nobody was up in arms because you dared use version numbers in a negative context. People rejected your use of them in such a simple minded way. You used the lack of major new version numbers as "proof" of stagnation. People have tried to explain to you in post after post, why you are wrong.

Imagine when KDE 4 is fully released, someone writing on OS/news: "version 4 of KDE is out now and Microsoft won't have anything to replace Vista for 2 or 3 more years! That means they're in trouble!!" You'd think that person was smoking something illegal. Yet that pretty much sums up your entire article, except the names were reversed.

If you want to compare desktops, compare FEATURES, not major version release dates. And stop calling other people hypocrites because they took you to task for the conclusions you drew from the fact that Gnome and KDE aren't going to release major versions soon.

Reply Score: 5

Is this a news site anymore?
by exigentsky on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 21:26 UTC
exigentsky
Member since:
2005-07-09

I wasn't expecting a blog war on OSNEWS.COM and frankly, I don't like it. I hope OSNEWS stops being Thom's blog and once again becomes a credible news site.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Is this a news site anymore?
by asupcb on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 21:50 UTC in reply to "Is this a news site anymore?"
asupcb Member since:
2005-11-10

If you don't like the opinion pieces that are being written by Thom and the other OSNews writers why don't you submit your own opinion piece/story/whatever on topics relating to Operating System news. In general Thom seems to be very good about letting OSNews forum readers and others have opinion articles shared here, if they are submitted.
I think people are being too harsh with Thom. He does have a tendency, in my opinion, to write in a sensational way. That's not necessarily bad but it reminds me of how John Dovark writes. Besides it is merely an opinion piece and he didn't state any of it as fact. Also I have gained a lot of knowledge about the actual place that KDE 4.0 is at now. I have been very interested but it is hard to gather news about KDE 4.0's status at the moment because there are so many different sub-projects for KDE 4.0 and it promises so many great things that when you are coming from the Windows world where such promises tend to be vaporware you can become rather cynical.
I have also gained more perspective with regards to the GNOME project and their position on whether or not they will be moving to a 3.0 release soon. I consider myself a Linux hobbyist because I used to try different flavors of Linux (although I have recently decided that I would rather use the room on my hard drive for other files) and I mostly just try Linux on the various Live CD's now.
Personally I use Windows XP because I know how to use it properly and it meets all of my needs, including games. I'm sure that I could get along well in Linux except for the lack of games support because while I do enjoy the new game consoles they just don't offer the support for the kind of games I like such as strategy games like Civ 4, Black and White, etc.

Reply Score: 4

Yes
by tmack on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 21:43 UTC
tmack
Member since:
2006-04-11

Which leads us to the next point kids...

Don't smoke crack.

Reply Score: 1

v You are all such drama queens!
by ple_mono on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 22:27 UTC
Wowee
by moleskine on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 22:29 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

Hey, someone writes a short, very short opinion piece here and suddenly they're all piling in, including linuxdesktop.com and KDE. Reactions seem, erm, just a little overblown to me. I mean, this is 2006 and we don't have to carry on like Victorians roaring "scandalous!" when shown an uncovered piano leg. They are many perfectly legitimate questions to ask about the future of the Linux desktop whatever side you're on. Trying to shout down the other lot ain't helpful though at least no one has stooped so low as to say that Thom has "pulled the cat out of the bag and put it among the pigeons", one of the really dire stand-bys on these occasions.

Me, I'm waiting looking forward to a Merry Christmas. Absolutely no computers at all. Just family. Wishing the same to everyone else.

Reply Score: 4

Scary..
by devnull on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 22:30 UTC
devnull
Member since:
2005-07-06

Not that i believe one thing you say to make up for your stupid articles Thom but what's even more scary is that there are other Osnews related people that support your way of journalism.

"Well said Thom. The bubble has burst."
Comment by Eugenia — December 21, 2006 @ 12:12 am

I will leave this place for now which is a pity because i like reading about Operating Systems and their news.

Edited 2006-12-23 22:41

Reply Score: 5

Mhh...
by jon1012 on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 22:36 UTC
jon1012
Member since:
2005-07-19

Wow Thom... No Comment ;)

(I think I may as well stop reading osnews. Oh that's what I'm going to do :-))

Reply Score: 5

SEJeff
Member since:
2005-11-05

@Thom:
Gnome is in bad shape? Why are Sun Microsystems (Linux or Solaris JDS), Redhat, Novell (SLED), and the latest version of Debian (Etch) all defaulting to it? Since these companies together encompass a large majority of the corporate gnome backing they might have a better idea than you do.

This is not a flame or a poke against KDE, but come one Thom... Gnome 3 is more of a concept than anything. Take a look at how many things have moved *from* the gnome Topaz page and are now fully implemented and *working* features. Gnome developers are taking the stance of solid incremental progress instead of something radically different.

Sorry, gnome is doing fine as long as there are companies willing to hire people to work on it full time.

Reply Score: 5

v Article + KDE + Gnome
by xzgv on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 22:47 UTC
RE: Article + KDE + Gnome
by Doc Pain on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 23:01 UTC in reply to "Article + KDE + Gnome"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"I can't understand why the main object is to offer similar things Windows offers, instead of being innovative, they are copycats."

The answer is simple (and maybe stupid): Linux desktops want new users and those who still use MICROS~1 products to use a Linux desktop instead. Their question is: "Oh erm Linux? Is it like 'Windows'?" or "Can it do everything 'XP' can do?" So they usually think about offering the same functionalities as "Windows" does. In the second stage, they innovate and bring new features to the community. Sad to say, usually the answer is "Uh, that's to complicated for me!" or "But is it available in German (or any other non-english language), too?" When it comes to innovations, it usually takes a longer time for people to use it; as I mentioned in another discussion posting before, can you imagine how many people are unable (or not willing) to use document templates? And they've been innovated years ago.

"Me? Ratpoison is all i need."

Take 'xzgv -tzf rat*' instead. :-)

"Keep It Simple, Stupid (KISS)"

Most users don't want it simple, they just want it stupid (and complicated). Just imagine how difficult it is for some to tell what hardware they are running, what IP they currently have assigned or how the name of their word processor is.

Reply Score: 3

protagonist
Member since:
2005-07-06

Too many people take themselves much too seriously these days. It is amazing to see how people can spin someone's words into a meaning entirely different from what was intended. I really don't see that you owe someone an apology because they read something into your remarks that wasn't there to begin with.

Reply Score: 2

You're not seeing the big picture
by arbour42 on Sat 23rd Dec 2006 23:31 UTC
arbour42
Member since:
2005-07-06

What a lot of commenters aren't seeing is that Linux desktop really has no "traction", as us old Be'ers used to say. It has not been widely adopted. To get widely adopted (if that's your wish) demands major major improvements to the overall user experience. And these improvements don't appear to be on the near-term horizon, nor even the medium term. Like it or not, Apple and Microsoft are dramatically ahead of Linux desktops.

Since '99 I've been following these bitchfests, everyone saying how close Linux desktops are to widespread use. What a joke. This splintering between Gnome and KDE, and the fragmentation between different distros, is a disaster - and many of us knew it 7 years ago, but you always have people saying "more is better" - well it isn't - neither desktop can keep up with Apple or MS, and frankly, it's a mess.

App vendors and users want ONE set of desktop API's, not multiple, constantly moving targets. At this point, I never see Linux going anywhere on the desktop. The only hope for open source desktops will have to come from newcomers like Syllable, or hopefully Haiku/Be.

Edited 2006-12-23 23:35

Reply Score: 5

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Congratulations on saying nothing new, and nothing right.

If new users were so bothered about consistency they wouldn't download Ubuntu and then immediately download kde-desktop.

Indeed Kubuntu/Xubuntu wouldn't exist at all.

Reply Score: 5

D3M0N Member since:
2005-07-09

I couldn't agree anymore with you. Linux needs to standardize to go anywhere. Every year has been deemed "The Year of Desktop Linux" since the early 2000's, and yet all I see more and more every day are just politics with Linux.

Don't get me wrong, I love Linux and the idea of it; however, it needs to unify. Choice is good, too much choice is just confusing. "Desktop" Linux OSes try to do things right, but are often rejected because they typically employ proprietary technologies to get the job done.

Your mom and pop new users are NOT going to download Ubuntu and then fumble around trying to install "kde-desktop". I was around Lycoris for a couple of years, which developed a now defunct Desktop Linux distribution that *really* tried with unification of the UI and applications. It was also KDE centric. There was no GNOME libriaries, let alone the desktop. The only people asking in the high active community for GNOME libs was really only the "power users". The new users had enough trouble without having to worry about which desktop to use.

Sorry for taking this even further off-topic than it already is.

Reply Score: 5

tux68 Member since:
2006-10-24

What a lot of commenters aren't seeing is that Linux desktop really has no "traction"

The big picture is that the Linux desktops are developing very nicely. Let's be frank, if mass adoption ever happens it'll be years down the road, there's no reason to panic.

How many years did it take Apple to get wide adoption? The Apple Macintosh had a better desktop than Windows for _years_ and still didn't get much traction. Proving I think that the Desktop is not the end all and be all.

Nevertheless, there are great things happening in the open source desktop world with many unification projects and such, some of which are hosted on freedesktop.org if you want to check them out.

Apple and Microsoft are dramatically ahead of Linux desktops.

Would you _please_ list a few areas where you think this is true? It does no good to just keep repeating that over and over.

App vendors and users want ONE set of desktop API's, not multiple, constantly moving targets.

LoL, you just got done explaining how _TWO_ different API's are surviving and thriving (Apple & MS). Perhaps there's more room for API's than you imagine? Besides, with more cross platform programming tools being offered all the time; this is becoming less of an issue.

Edited 2006-12-24 00:06

Reply Score: 5

The Money is gone
by arbour42 on Sun 24th Dec 2006 03:49 UTC in reply to "You're not seeing the big picture"
arbour42 Member since:
2005-07-06

Also, Linux has had its chance to build a desktop - it had a chance with literally tons of Venture Capital thrown its way, and now the money is gone.

There's not going to be any more money to throw at it. The stock market/dot com boom is gone. The housing bubble is currently imploding. The U.S. is already in a recession (as long as you aren't a Government economist). The money is gone, and Linux could never get its act together. If there's no money now for developers to keep these projects going, there sure isn't going to be any more money coming in the next 3 years.

Linux had its chance - noone wanted to listen to adults and standardize on one desktop environment. Noone wanted to standardize on one distribution layout, and then have companies form services around THE STANDARD. If that had happened, you would be light years ahead in terms of desktop development now, and would actually have more than a miniscule share on the desktop.

Remember the insane VC's actually funding Nautilus, for millions? Insanity over a lousy file explorer! Novell wasted millions on Ximian! Now it's gone, and there's no more money. That's the reality. The debt overhang in the U.S. is unreal, and it's all coming down. Imagine what you will, but in the end money talks, and the bubble money (meaning phony Fed-created money) is history, and after every phony boom is a horrifying debacle. And people don't volunteer during debacles - they just try to feed their kids.

This might be a good essay topic: How the collapse of the housing and dot.com bubbles and the resulting recession will impact open source development over the next 5 years.

Reply Score: 3

spikeb Member since:
2006-01-18

users don't care about APIs. vendors, however, do. and can choose one.

Reply Score: 2

What is this all about?
by phoebus on Sun 24th Dec 2006 00:57 UTC
phoebus
Member since:
2006-12-24

I don't understand what the fuss is about. Thom (and Eugenia) say that Gnome is in trouble because (1) GTK+ needs more maintainers, and (2) the Gnome folks don't have a clear idea what Gnome 3.0 will be.

Let's take these criticisms one by one. (1) isn't exactly a new problem, nor is it isolated to Gnome. Aaron Seigo said in his blog that kdelibs are in a similar boat. Most free software projects could use more developers; Gnome is no exception. The GTK+ maintainers have identified a problem and are working to rectify it. I don't see how the need to have more maintainers puts Gnome in trouble, at least any more than any other free software project, including KDE.

Criticism (2) is so vague as to be unanswerable. (Admittedly, that is a convenient type of criticism to make.) What does Gnome 3.0 mean, and why is Gnome 3.0 important? As many others have pointed out, Gnome has made many radical changes since 2.0 came out in 2002. It has changed window managers. It has changed panels. It has changed its panel layout to the two-panel format. It has change themes. It has changed the default Nautilus profile. It has changed the button order. It has adopted a new IPC mechanism. It added a new Graphical 2d library (Cairo). It has adopted a new menu specification. It has added many new applications into its recommended configuration. It has added network awareness framework. It has added a hardware awareness layer in HAL. It recommends a new audio format (GStreamer). Looking back from today, the current Gnome might as well be Gnome 3.0 compared to the Gnome put out in 2002. If Microsoft were to make such radical changes in its interface, it would be considered a major overhaul-- much like Vista is to XP. Gnome did all this in 4 years. Microsoft has done much less for Vista in 5.

So, Gnome is changing at a nice pace. There is no hint, moreover, that these changes are slowing down. Thom, if you can point to anything concrete that suggests that the Gnome developers are slowing down in this regard, we would be welcome to hear it. I would suggest you look at the new ideas in Project Topaz, where Gnome devellopers test out new ideas, sometime radical ones (check out Gimmie as an experimentation, for instance).

So, "Gnome 3.0" is really a red herring, a marketing stunt, if you will. What does it mean? Gnome continues to make strides and changes, whether it calls it Gnome 3.0 or Gnome 2.20. Those changes come in little by little so as not to disrupt the core. That sounds like good engineering to me, not a failure in thinking. What is clear that Gnome does change radically over time. If you think Gnome is stagnating, you are simply not paying attention.

Reply Score: 5

RE: What is this all about?
by Eugenia on Sun 24th Dec 2006 02:52 UTC in reply to "What is this all about?"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

>There is no hint, moreover, that these changes are slowing down

Gnome's progress at the last 2 years is very slow. To me it feels that it stays behind, just like one time CDE stayed behind Windows, and another time that WindowMaker stayed behind KDE 2.0.

As I wrote in my blog, the only NEW things in the Gnome platform are random stuff that third party developers are proposing every now and then. There is not major new code coming from the main maintainers of the project. There is a huge list of things that need fixing or adding, and yet no one is working on them. For example, where is my Bluetooth INTEGRATED support? Where is the Sync support with mobile devices? Where is FULL resolution independence (not just SVGs)? Where is a *home* video editor that works (now part of both the desktops of Windows and OSX, not just third party apps). Where is the fix for gnome-panel's architecture so its applets don't eat so much RAM? Where are other Nautilus fixes and features? Where is backup functionality integrated for some Gnome apps (instead of a third party generic app)? Where are the preferences that make sense about input devices (3 applets for keyboards, come on!!). Where is the applet for mouse that also supports configuring touchpads? Where is Jabber support? Where is handwriting support? Where is API documentation that it's full and up to date? NOWHERE.

Remember, I am not talking about third party random apps. I am talking about important pieces of a modern desktop that need to COME by DEFAULT *integrated* with the desktop. Sure, there are 100 Jabber apps out there, but IMHO, one of them should come with Gnome and be maintained accordingly, because IM is part of a MODERN desktop. It is about offering to the OEMs a FULL SOLUTION, not bits and pieces. This is how Gnome must function, as a good modern source of a platform to OEMs and distros.

So, based on these NEEDS that I have as a user, and seeing how Gnome is progressing the last 2-3 years (slow, minor upgrades), I find the whole Gnome future DISAPPOINTING and UNexciting.

This is my first and LAST comment on the subject. I won't reply to any of the replies that will be fueled by this comment of mine.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: What is this all about?
by tmack on Sun 24th Dec 2006 05:12 UTC in reply to "RE: What is this all about?"
tmack Member since:
2006-04-11

You clearly have no idea how the "supply chain" for modern Linux desktops work. The source projects themselves do not distribute and configure for end users (at least not in a practical sense).

The distro decides which parts of GNOME and which applications to bundle for the end user. The DISTRO is the OEM. Not the people who design pieces of the software that will be used in a distribution.

These are the things that you should know, before you being to speak about what's going on.

You really don't have a clue.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: What is this all about?
by Eugenia on Sun 24th Dec 2006 06:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What is this all about?"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

I have a much bigger clue than you think I do. But you don't understand what I am talking about. I am talking about INTEGRATION. And in order to do real integration with a DESKTOP SYSTEM, then Gnome/KDE themselves must do this job, to tie a new feature or application with the REST OF THEIR SYSTEM.

This is NOT what an OEM does. This is what the source does (in this case Gnome/KDE). The OEMs simply put things together in a manner that the source allows them to do so, and strap a logo on top. That's not what I am talking about. I am not talking about "adding a jabber client to a random desktop". I am talking about integrating IM to the whole system. I am talking about integrating Bluetooth to the rest of the system.

And besides, adding resolution independence OR handwrite support it is NOT what an OEM/distro does, this is a job for Gnome/KDE themselves.

So, before you come out so rude and tell me that I don't have a clue, please read more carefully as to what I am talking about.

Sorry for not keeping my promise to not reply to this, but your reply was very rude and took the very "simplified" way out. Instead of combating what I AM REALLY talking about, you just came out with a kind of reply that makes you look like you are defensive and you are avoiding the real issue. The real issue is not about "adding an application to the platform", it's about ADDING AND BUILDING AROUND IT. There is a huge difference right there. The one is called OEM'ing (as you correctly stated), and the other one is called ENGINEERING. I am talking about engineering.

> I don't believe GNOME should have a video editor, bluetooth gadgets or Jabber client installed by default. If users need these tools, then they should install it themselves.

You are very wrong here. You are a geek. Geeks don't always want all that, but the point of the matter is, the years pass by and new users need more things. OSX is that great BECAUSE it has a good video editor, integrated AIM and Bluetooth. In fact, ESPECIALLY for Bluetooth, it NEEDS integration with the system, otherwise it just does not work well and usability sucks! Heck, even on Windows third party driver providers integrate their Bluetooth stack with MS Explorer! Integration is KEY for Bluetooth and many-many users NEED it. It's not 1999 anymore.

Edited 2006-12-24 06:08

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: What is this all about?
by tmack on Sun 24th Dec 2006 07:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What is this all about?"
tmack Member since:
2006-04-11

Let me just say: WTF.

Before I thought you didn't have a clue. Now I know you have -1 clues.

You are bouncing all over the place, bitching about random things. Not all of them are unwarranted, but it's still stupid in this context.

"integrating IM to the whole system"

What the hell is the point in saying this? Seriously? Does the volume control applet need to have IM integration functionality? The applications can talk to each other on D-Bus. So if one app needs to have IM integration functionality, it can communicate that way. They're integrated. I'm not sure what you are looking for with this, but it sure as hell sounds retarded.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[5]: What is this all about?
by tmack on Sun 24th Dec 2006 07:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What is this all about?"
RE[4]: What is this all about?
by smitty on Sun 24th Dec 2006 08:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What is this all about?"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

I think there is a real split in the Gnome community these days. Some think that Gnome should stay as lean as possible by not adding anything, while others are more like you. I'm afraid those people may be better off moving to OSX or KDE or even Vista because I doubt Gnome will make significant progress in that area when half of it's users don't even want it to.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: What is this all about?
by tux68 on Sun 24th Dec 2006 08:23 UTC in reply to "RE: What is this all about?"
tux68 Member since:
2006-10-24

Gnome's progress at the last 2 years is very slow. To me it feels that it stays behind, just like one time CDE stayed behind Windows, and another time that WindowMaker stayed behind KDE 2.0.

Oh, if it _felt_ that way to you it _must_ be true. Even though all the "evidence" provided by the article that started all this falls apart under inspection.

For example, where is my Bluetooth INTEGRATED support?

http://live.gnome.org/GnomeBluetooth

Where is the Sync support with mobile devices?

On Windows isn't the sync software supplied by the mobile device vendor? Anyway, in Gnome you'll find support built into Evolution, and also gnome-pilot. http://www.gnome.org/projects/evolution/

Where is FULL resolution independence (not just SVGs)?

What kind of geekiness is this? What normal user says, OMG i need FULL resolution independence? Gnome works at any resolution i've ever thrown at it, which resolution are you having trouble with?

Where is a *home* video editor that works (now part of both the desktops of Windows and OSX, not just third party apps).

There are a few that come bundled with any good distribution, although it's still in development here's a decent one (comes with Fedora for example): http://www.pitivi.org/

Where is the fix for gnome-panel's architecture so its applets don't eat so much RAM?

Geeky request, but okay: http://www.gnome.org/projects/gst/index.html

Where are other Nautilus fixes and features?

You're piling on more geekiness now... This is just a small sampling but: http://tinyurl.com/y43w9j

Where is backup functionality integrated for some Gnome apps (instead of a third party generic app)?

There's no reason to demand that it not be a "third party generic app" on the Linux desktop, since distributions deliver it all in one shot. To the naive user, it all looks "integrated".

Where are the preferences that make sense about input devices (3 applets for keyboards, come on!!).

System -> Preferences -> Keyboard

Where is the applet for mouse that also supports configuring touchpads?

Don't know, however my touchpad just works out of the box with no configuration.

Where is Jabber support?

http://gaim.sourceforge.net/

It comes bundled with all modern installs of Gnome. Just like MSN chat client comes with Windows. Except it addition to Jabber it supports Yahoo, MSN, AIM and a bunch of others.. pretty slick.

Where is handwriting support?

It would seem that Windows has Linux beat here.

Where is API documentation that it's full and up to date?

http://gtk.org/api/

So, based on these NEEDS that I have as a user, and seeing how Gnome is progressing the last 2-3 years (slow, minor upgrades), I find the whole Gnome future DISAPPOINTING and UNexciting.

I see, and from that we should conclude that Gnome is doing something wrong? Because it doesn't make _you_ feel a certain way?

This is my first and LAST comment on the subject. I won't reply to any of the replies that will be fueled by this comment of mine.

That's the mark of a zealot, state your case and refuse to discuss anything that might be contrary to the view you hold...

Reply Score: 5

Straw Man
by Snifflez on Sun 24th Dec 2006 18:19 UTC in reply to "RE: What is this all about?"
Snifflez Member since:
2005-11-15

Eugenia's "argument" is a classic example of a Straw Man, plain and simple:

"Because this $DESKTOP lacks these non-third-party $FEATURES, its progress had slowed down!"

Instead of establishing a carefully selected set of criteria for determining a slow-down in development, she sets the avobe straw man up, tears it to shreds, and arrives at concusion she has reached before all this mess even started: GNOME's progress it slow.

As anyone can see, using this kind of "argumentation", one can accuse any desktop of slow development, its actual pace of development notwithstanding. For example: "Mac OS X development is slow because even today they lack a CAD development tool!" Or, "Windows Vista has been developed at a glacier pace 'cause they still don't have ProTools built-in!"

Such arguments look ridiculous, don't they? They do. Which brings me to my next point: Eugenia exacerbates the basic dishonesty of her Straw Man by naming $FEATURES the necessity of which on a modern desktop is rather disputable. Again, citing no presmisses and providing no valid evaluation criteria, she simply postulates these features as being "important pieces of a modern desktop that need to COME by DEFAULT *integrated* with the desktop". Bluetooth? Questionable. Mobile devices? Not all of us have them. Video editing? Too niched. And so on. Eugenia insists that a modern desktop needs all of these. Using her method -- that is, arguing without facts or logic -- I can insist as vehemently that it doesn't.

* * * *

"I won't reply to any of the replies that will be fueled by this comment of mine."

Ah, but that makes it so much easier to debunk that verbal tosh she's trying to pass for arguments. At least, she won't be posting lengthy Thom-style backpedaling articles.

Reply Score: 5

The english isn't a problem at all.
by Phloptical on Sun 24th Dec 2006 02:02 UTC
Phloptical
Member since:
2006-10-10

Not for nothing, Thom, but your grammar is leaps and bounds better than 95% of the population I reluctantly call "my fellow Americans".

You have to definitely give yourself more credit. If you hadn't have said anything, I would have thought that english was your primary language.

All I can say is that all the zealots need to chill the f' out and realize there are multiple negative issues on both (or all) sides of their OS coin. Especially the linux guys....community in-fighting over stupid <expletive deleted> like "Your (insert window manager here) sux!" is no way to further adoption of the product as a whole....which is the whole point of Linux to begin with. The last thing the pro-linux PR camp wants to do, to convert the Windows masses,is to start airing out the very extensive list of "dirty laundry", and then ridicule people for using what they use.

Linux has to be presented to the public as a "choice", not as gospel truth. Adoption is going to be a slow process.

Reply Score: 3

More info
by Mystilleef on Sun 24th Dec 2006 02:40 UTC
Mystilleef
Member since:
2005-06-29

You still failed tell us why you feel Vista's user interface is better than GNOME's. What can GNOME do to "catch up"? Criticisms are valuable only when they are constructive.

GNOME Roadmap:

http://live.gnome.org/RoadMap

Reply Score: 4

Decision
by youknowmewell on Sun 24th Dec 2006 03:07 UTC
youknowmewell
Member since:
2005-07-08

I've made a decision. I'm deleting my osnews bookmark. Enough is enough, this site has become uninteresting and flamebaitish. I'm not sure whether it is better or worse since Eugenia stopped being the main editor for the site.

Bye bye.

Reply Score: 3

RE: What is this all about?
by Mystilleef on Sun 24th Dec 2006 03:10 UTC
Mystilleef
Member since:
2005-06-29

Eugenia,

Your needs to do not represent the needs of most users. I don't believe GNOME should have a video editor, bluetooth gadgets or Jabber client installed by default. If users need these tools, then they should install it themselves. Otherwise, GNOME will become bloated with tools that are useless to majority of users. For instance I don't do video editing or bluetooth, and I see no reason why GNOME should have it installed by default. In my opinion, GNOME should come with no applications other than a web browser, text editor, and configuration/system utilities.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: What is this all about?
by D3M0N on Sun 24th Dec 2006 06:17 UTC in reply to "RE: What is this all about?"
D3M0N Member since:
2005-07-09

Your needs don't suit me, nor most users. Bluetooth is much more common than you think it is. Now-a-days its on many, many cell phones and PDA/PDA-like devices. It is extremely useful and to not have an application for that built in would be a "con". All modern operating systems need bluetooth easily acceessible.

Video editting is used quite a bit by mom and pop. They go to a wedding, or film their kids first birthday. They are most likely going to wnat to do something with it.

Unfortunetaely, just taking your examples, you are not most users in my opinion. Just by your seemingly minimalist wants, makes me think you are a "power user".

As long as there are not 10 different applications for one task, I don't see how GNOME would be getting bloated by including applications that have tons of possibility to be useful.

EDIT: Agree with you 100% Eugenia. Unification/Integration is key, which is why I moved to OS X and a Powerbook.

Edited 2006-12-24 06:24

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: What is this all about?
by raver31 on Sun 24th Dec 2006 10:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What is this all about?"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

No-one is saying bluetooth should not be available. They are saying it should not be installed by default.

How easy is it to click Gnomebluetooth in synaptic, then click apply ?

Using your logic, you want bluetooth enabled out of the box.
OK, and I want gkrellm, gps, gaim to be installed out of the box.

do you want them too ?
no...
then you would class that as bloat.

keep it basic and install the missing parts yourself

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: What is this all about?
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 24th Dec 2006 10:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What is this all about?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

keep it basic and install the missing parts yourself

Yet one of the most heard complaints heard when talking about Windows is that it comes with little pre-installed...

hy·poc·ri·sy
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: What is this all about?
by tux68 on Sun 24th Dec 2006 11:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What is this all about?"
tux68 Member since:
2006-10-24

Thom,

This kind of post is far beneath anyone who wants to present themselves as a reasonable person who wants to have intelligent discussions about OS related news. It looks petty.

Are you calling the O/P a hypocrite? Do you know for a fact that he or she has ever complained about Windows at all? Or are you trying to label an entire group of people as "hypocrites" because some member of that group have conflicting opinions? You really need to stop slinging that word around. It's rather sad.

By the way, you're confusing the usual complaint. It's not that Windows comes with so little pre-installed. It's that it's not even an _option_ to install it. MS Windows doesn't have the _option_ of installing a Yahoo client for instance, the way any Linux distro does. Instead you have to find a random third party web site and install it yourself. The difference on Linux is that you open up your software-installer app and choose whatever pieces you want from a large selection of sorted options; click and your done. On top of which, many Linux installs actually do just install a huge number of packages for you to use, way more than you get with Windows out-of-the-box.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: What is this all about?
by raver31 on Sun 24th Dec 2006 11:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What is this all about?"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Such a pity we cannot mod you down Thom....

People are not complaining that windows has little preinstalled, compared to linux.

They are complaining of a few things;

1: Limited choice of installed applications
2: Nothing "useful" installed by defauls
3: System bloat

Lets look at point 3

Windows 98 basic install, you get Wordpad, notpad, media player, ie, solitaire..... approx 100mb
Windows ME same basic install..... approx 400mb
Windows XP, yepl exactly the same stuff.... roughly 1GB
Windows Vista..... 4gb for the equivilent of 100mb ?

Now, I will restate,

KEEP IT BASIC AND INSTALL THE MISSING PARTS YOURSELF

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: What is this all about?
by D3M0N on Sun 24th Dec 2006 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What is this all about?"
D3M0N Member since:
2005-07-09

Why? XP has it, OS X has it. People moving from those OSes would be expecting it. Something as trivial as bluetooth *should* come with it.

People complain that Windows doesn't come with enough applications, yet it comes with every single example that was listed. It comes with a video editor (Windows Movie Maker), Windows Messenger, and bluetooth. How is that bloat? They're all usable features. Now, if there were 7 applications that did the same thing in a default gnome install and WEREN'T usable for a vast majority of users, THAT would be bloat. The thing is, you're not an average joe user.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: What is this all about?
by Toad on Sun 24th Dec 2006 22:35 UTC in reply to "RE: What is this all about?"
Toad Member since:
2005-11-27

I agree with you, due to working requirement I am using mostly Windows XP, but I have also Debian/Gnome installed, and using it somewhat.
While newbie at Linux, I love Debian's minimalistic approach about installed applications. And to be frank, I don't think Gnome has either the resources nor the financial backing to produce 100+ killer applications.
Let it focus on the core:
1. A user friendly working desktop/notebook environment.
2. A software developer friendly environment.

I don't even WANT a default web browser installed by default, what I want is a simple way to find,install, uninstall and administrate my software, regardless if I get it from the offical distrubution's repository(apt), or downloaded it from the manufacturers homepage.

Reply Score: 2

Backpedaling
by abraxas on Sun 24th Dec 2006 03:52 UTC
abraxas
Member since:
2005-07-07

This article seems like a lot of backpedaling if you ask me. I don't think Thom was taken out of context at all. He made a big stink about GTK and KDE specifically, despite the progress of development. It's not surprising he received the reaction that he did.

Another often heard complaint about the article was that I supposedly only cared about version numbers, and that open source software does not use version numbers for marketing purposes. This is an irrelevant complaint, as I only used the 'GNOME 3' and 'KDE 4' designations by lack of better names for both project's next generation versions (I could have called GNOME 3 'Topaz', but not everybody actually knows what Topaz refers to). I might have well called them Humpty and Dumpty. Other than that, KDE and GNOME developers themselves are never shy of referring to GNOME 3 and KDE 4 in a positive context, so I do not really understand why I cannot do so in a negative context.

Thom, have you ever thought for a second that maybe next generation desktops aren't anywhere on the radar regardless of distributor. That includes XP and OSX. Everything Apple has produced since the introduction of OSX has been a point release and everything released since Windows 2000 should really be considered a point release. Wake me up when OSX or Windows changes the desktop paradigm. Both KDE and GNOME have progressed rapidly in the past few years and there has been no need to artificially increase the version number.

As far as GNOME goes many of the projects planned for for 3.0 have been implemented in the 2.X series. 3.0 is only a collection of thoughts right now because no one knows what to expect from the next generation of desktops. When the ideas for GNOME 3.0 consolidate and it becomes obvious that the changes break the present API then work will begin.

KDE is a different story. I think the assumption that KDE 4.0 development is lagging based on KDE developers websites is a little ridiculous. A real journalistic effort requires investigation, not just opinion.

Reply Score: 4

Article + KDE + Gnome
by makkus on Sun 24th Dec 2006 07:19 UTC
makkus
Member since:
2006-01-11

>Ratpoison is all I need.

Off-course you do... But I do use Gnome, what does that make me, you word it: simple, stupid.

Is it simple stupid, that in the last year I changed reports/docs/mail writing that they contain some keywords so that my beagle enhanced desktop let me retrieve whatever I want in mere seconds? off-course your superduper tidy tree of directories does the same and better so you can look down at the simple and stupid Filemanager of Gnome, who doesn't let you do your browsing like you use to do it, structured and lots and lots of deep directories. Ratpoison and some leet filemanager (ncursus based off-course) let you.

Is it simple and stupid that when Gentoo finally had Networkmanager in portage I installed it in a second. Although I know at least 4 different ways I can do the same thing with the command-line/ifconfig/ifplugd/wpa-supplicant. But I can't live without it anymore, wpa wasn't that easy even on Windows XP. But off-course my leet factor is going down fast, now I don't have to fire up a command-line whenever I have to use a new access-point.

Cairo/dbus/gstreamer/networkmanager/beagle/
gnome-bluetooth/gamin/gnome-volume-manager And I'm sure I forget a lot!
This alone are the enhancements I came to rely on the last two years, and this is only Gnome.

Firefox with plugins/OpenOffice are a few more.

And don't forget the kernel itself. The gap was never this narrow before and this with a new release of
Windows, which was a kind of sad for my co-worker, because I installed beryll on my laptop the same day he got Vista, guess who got the attention. And this on a two year old HP nx9105 1280x800 with a 64Mb nvidia Geforce4 GO (but running a 64 bit OS) against a brand spanking new ASUS with dual core and ATI X1600 1600x1000 screen. I wouldn't switch them for twice the price of the Asus, to much hassle to get it to work with Linux at the moment.

Edited 2006-12-24 07:35

Reply Score: 3

RE: Article + KDE + Gnome
by andrewg on Sun 24th Dec 2006 08:12 UTC in reply to "Article + KDE + Gnome"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

I am sure Beryl got more attention, because everything about Beryl is in your face. It demands attention. Now when you actually want to use you computer its really annoying.

I used it for 15 minutes, desperately fiddling with the overwhelming control panel and decided that it was time to get rid of it. Compiz for me.

Reply Score: 1

IM and Bluetooth *are* being integrated
by jaduncan on Sun 24th Dec 2006 07:35 UTC
jaduncan
Member since:
2005-11-19

Look at the telepathy project. This is a project for GNOME, slated for inclusion in GNOME that offers a library to support IMs and voice/video communication over various methods - so far Jabber, MSN, AOL, Google Talk (including voice) and phone bluetooth control. This would seem to be exactly what you desire, and it is designed to make the process easy to integrate into other applications. What more could you want here, Eugenia?

Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.1; U; en-us) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413 es61

Reply Score: 3

Terracotta Member since:
2005-08-15

http://telepathy.freedesktop.org/wiki/

Freedesktop ain't gnome, it's as much kde as it is gnome as it is Xfce...

It's already being implemented into the new kopete of KDE 4. You're like the second person I see commenting about telepathy being for gnome, I wonder why?

Reply Score: 3

Freedom of speach, No?
by ple_mono on Sun 24th Dec 2006 09:32 UTC
ple_mono
Member since:
2005-07-26

You know, this is really sad to see. Every person who think the majority of you who post in this "thread", are overreacting a bit, get modded down. It's not OT, so _why_ is that? Can't take the truth, and therefore, take matters in your own hands and mod people down, for the _wrong_ reasons?
Stop attacking everything and everyone else. Go have a happy christmas instead!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Freedom of speach, No?
by raver31 on Sun 24th Dec 2006 11:28 UTC in reply to "Freedom of speach, No?"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

BAH HUMBUG !

Reply Score: 1

Thom's cool
by Mathman on Sun 24th Dec 2006 09:55 UTC
Mathman
Member since:
2005-07-08

Thom's cool. I mean, you gotta give the guy points for trying at least. Heck, I gotta give all the osnews guys credit for making this site. Of course it pretty much sucks having your rear handed to you by a hard core kde dev. That was brutal.

KDE and Gnome and Mac and whatever else flamewars aside, my take on the matter, all I can say is Linux and various other operating systems are odd. It's hard sometimes for me to understand why more people aren't using them. For one thing, the stuff is free for the most part. And no I don't mean free as in you can get the source code or whatever, not that source code isn't nice mind you, I'll kinda get to that later, no I just mean free.

Thinking it over, I can come to two conclusions as to why people don't run OS's like Linux. One, lots and lots of people pirate Windows and Windows applications. And two, most people don't care all that much about their computers.

Now, this isn't to say most people wouldn't purchase Windows and various other software if they were forced to. But then not all of them would, and however minor this effect might be it certainly couldn't hurt the adoption of alternative operating systems.

As for my second point, just knowing how to take decent care of a Windows system is hard enough. Linux, at this point in time, is arguably even harder. Granted it's cake for me at this point, but I'm somewhat nuts like that. But then there you go. Some of us are so in need of customization (or paranoid might fit too) that we do crazy things like run Linux. Linux pretty much gives us total control over our hardware and the software that runs on top of it. All you want is an Openmosix kernel, a shell, and a custom init script you say? Not a problem. A little router? A place to store backups? An ultra secure logging and monitoring machine? You got it.

Again, it's hard for me to understand why people don't use Linux more. But then yeah, not everyone is like me I guess.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Thom's cool
by h3rman on Sun 24th Dec 2006 10:35 UTC in reply to "Thom's cool"
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

Again, it's hard for me to understand why people don't use Linux more. But then yeah, not everyone is like me I guess.

Eugenia would say that Linux does not offer what people "need".
Such as blobs and closed codecs installed by default and all kinds of bluetooth, GAIM, video editing integration (in which Linux/Gnome/KDE should apparently beat OS X, with its iMovie and stuff).

She may have a point - if all you care for is market share.
Which I increasingly care less about these days. A few million happy desktop Linux users all over the planet may constitute only a tiny percentage of desktops, it is still a few million happy desktop Linux users.

But well, say we agree we go for Linux market share expansion.
I would say that it is, quite simply, for the OEMs to preinstall a nice Linux distribution on the hardware they sell. It is, imho, as simple as that (I'm sorry that things may seem so basic sometimes; try Occam's razor for a while. I'm just a simple person, you know).

In order to get the OEMs to do that, all kinds of people will demand Linux distributions/Gnome/KDE to be or to offer all kinds of things, otherwise no OEM will go for it. One thing it must be, it seems: better than the competition - in every respect. And all that, being cheaper too.
If the FLOSS people would manage that, it would be an embarrassment to MS/Apple.
If they would not manage, people would say: you see, gone is the bubble!
Either way, nobody really into FLOSS really cares.

Well, we won't know until it (this preloading Linux by OEMs, I mean) is tried, will we. Maybe they never will try?
Maybe fear and corporate conservatism have something to do with it?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Thom's cool
by Lava_Croft on Sun 24th Dec 2006 12:33 UTC in reply to "Thom's cool"
Lava_Croft Member since:
2006-12-24

Thom is indeed cool. His choice of words for his first article might have been questionable, his follow-ups have more than done the job of clarifying his views on the matter. What raises my eyebrows the most though, is the utter lack of competence from the Linux community in dealing with even the slightest criticism.

Thom, although you probably don't give a monkey's behind about my writing, I think you wrote two perfectly fine articles, it is not your fault the community reacts in such a manner to it.

Best wishes for 2007.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Thom's cool
by tux68 on Sun 24th Dec 2006 12:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Thom's cool"
tux68 Member since:
2006-10-24

Very nice first post Lava.

But what raises my eyebrows the most, is the utter lack of competence from the anti-Linux community in dealing with honest discussion or even the slightest criticism of Thom's _ideas_.

Should Thom be free to speak unquestioned like a religious leader from the pulpit? Or should his articles create _debate_ and _discussion_, you know... on a discussion based site like this one?

Admittedly, the type of articles Thom wrote this time didn't produce wildly useful discussion; but that's as much his fault as it is the people who responded. Garbage in, Garbage out.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Thom's cool
by Lava_Croft on Sun 24th Dec 2006 14:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Thom's cool"
Lava_Croft Member since:
2006-12-24

Thank you, tux68.

The fact that Thom takes his time to write a clarification on his article, as well as post several follow-ups, clearly shows that he does not speak unquestioned at all, he even tones down on his first article a bit.

As a last note, something like a 'anti-Linux' community only exists in the minds of Linux-users.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Thom's cool
by tux68 on Sun 24th Dec 2006 14:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Thom's cool"
tux68 Member since:
2006-10-24

The fact that Thom takes his time to write a clarification on his article, as well as post several follow-ups, clearly shows that he does not speak unquestioned at all, he even tones down on his first article a bit.

For sure. But by the same token there's no reason to question the response of the Linux community is there? I mean, all they did was debate and discuss points where they felt Thom got it wrong. Isn't that the very point of a discussion board like this? In other words, which part of their reaction caused you to believe that they were overreacting and couldn't take honest criticism?

As a last note, something like a 'anti-Linux' community only exists in the minds of Linux-users.

Well calling it a "community" would obviously be a bit of a stretch, but I only did that because i was parroting your comment to try to make a point.

But make no mistake about it, there are quite a number of people who for whatever reason feel compelled to speak out against Linux whenever they get a chance. It's as childish as someone slamming Microsoft or Windows at every opportunity.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Thom's cool
by Lava_Croft on Sun 24th Dec 2006 14:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Thom's cool"
Lava_Croft Member since:
2006-12-24

In other words, which part of their reaction caused you to believe that they were overreacting and couldn't take honest criticism?

Browse through the comments to see my point proven.
Not to mention all the talk that has been going on outside of OSnews, concerning Thom and his article.

But make no mistake about it, there are quite a number of people who for whatever reason feel compelled to speak out against Linux whenever they get a chance. It's as childish as someone slamming Microsoft or Windows at every opportunity.

It just amazes me every time again, that whenever there is 'negative' news about Linux, the reactions are far more fiery, flaming even, than when there is 'negative' news about for example MicroSoft or Apple. This is not a view, or a opinion, but a simple fact, which I felt like pointing out.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Thom's cool
by tux68 on Sun 24th Dec 2006 15:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Thom's cool"
tux68 Member since:
2006-10-24

Browse through the comments to see my point proven.
Not to mention all the talk that has been going on outside of OSnews, concerning Thom and his article.


Well I would ask you to browse through those same comments and notice how many emotion filled and name calling (hypocrites etc) post there were from the other side. Some from Thom himself.

Since human nature is involved, there will be people on each side of an issue that fail to keep it civil. But that is _no reason_ to denounce an entire community. There were vastly more people from the community who didn't post at all, than who did. Are your comments about the community fair to them? Such comments just adds to the ill will and gets in the way of productive discourse.

It just amazes me every time again, that whenever there is 'negative' news about Linux, the reactions are far more fiery, flaming even, than when there is 'negative' news about for example MicroSoft or Apple. This is not a view, or a opinion, but a simple fact, which I felt like pointing out.

There's no doubt that many people do feel strongly about these issues. But if Thom had posted a rational article that discussed features that were lacking in Linux, and maybe had done some research (like interviewing a developer etc), it would have gone a long way to a more civil debate.

He even used the phrase "anti-MS fanboys" in his article. Do you think that is appropriate? Do you want to tell Thom that anti-MS fanboys only exist in the minds of his group? I didn't think so. Why do you think Thom felt compelled to make such provocative remarks rather than stick to the merits of his argument? Don't you think that maybe he _deserves_ some of the reaction he got? He still hasn't apologized for this part of his article. He went on in this thread to rant about people being hypocrites, instead of staying on topic about the merit of his case.

I guess the point i'm trying to make is that there is room on _both_ sides to reduce emotionalism and irrationality. I don't think there was a disproportionate donation of either from the people who spoke out against Thom's article, although regrettably there was some.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Thom's cool
by Lava_Croft on Sun 24th Dec 2006 15:57 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Thom's cool"
Lava_Croft Member since:
2006-12-24

But that is _no reason_ to denounce an entire community.

Yes, since the people who feel spoken to are the people who I was referring to.

He even used the phrase "anti-MS fanboys" in his article. Do you think that is appropriate?

Yes, because it is a simple fact that it is very, very common among Linux users, much more so than among Windows or Mac users.

He still hasn't apologized for this part of his article.

Maybe it's just me, but I did not find anything in either article that would justify an apology. Help me out here, if you will.

I guess the point i'm trying to make is that there is room on _both_ sides to reduce emotionalism and irrationality.

Absolutely right, until I read...

I don't think there was a disproportionate donation of either from the people who spoke out against Thom's article

Well, I think there was, and is, which is the reason I posted in the first place.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: What is this all about?
by MamiyaOtaru on Sun 24th Dec 2006 12:43 UTC
MamiyaOtaru
Member since:
2005-11-11

I think Thom is saying that people complain about stuff like IE and MSN and WMP being bundled (labelling it unfair), and then he deems it hypocritical when Windows is criticized for not including things like xvid or yahoo support.

He has missed the point though. Those two seemingly different positions aren't necessarily hypocritical at all. For me, it's not a matter of disliking Windows for including or not including software X. It's a lack of choice in the matter that bothers me.

You can't get Windows without IE. You can't get Windows with ICQ. Both are a complaint about lack of choice.

It is not hypocritical at all to wish I could dump IE, and wish I didn't have to hunt around various websites to get xvid, ICQ etc support, and I'm not alone in seeing both as (non fatal) failings of the Windows model.

Reply Score: 3

Tough Day
by aking469 on Sun 24th Dec 2006 13:13 UTC
aking469
Member since:
2006-01-16

Well, Thom has proven his ability to take punixhment, and appoligies well. It takes a lot to own up to a poor opinion piece. Tough to do at home, tougher to do on-line worldwide..... As for the desktops, the fact that Linux has two, or more, very viable desktops allowing it to contend for the desktop of even a minority of the computing world is quite amazing. I like KDE. I have used fluxbox and Gnome. While OSX and Windows get more press, they aren't that much better. OSX is extremely consistent. With a bit of work on our parts, as users, KDE becomes so too. But, I am very thankful for all the hard work by the devs to produce this for me. You guys are amazing. I and many others have benefitted from your efforts...thanks.

Reply Score: 1

v holidays
by deanlinkous on Sun 24th Dec 2006 15:13 UTC
Aussie_Bear
Member since:
2006-01-12

Seriously, why?

All this nonsense from the audience wouldn't have happened, if you bothered to spend time and researched a bit as to what's going on.

You had absolutely no feel for what either KDE or Gnome projects are doing currently, and what they were really planning to do. (Neither does Eugenia...Way to go with "arguing without facts or logic" approach!)

At best, the editorials are what's making OSNews becoming more annoying than anything else.

People like technical news. They like guides. And they also like a well-researched editorial. (It doesn't matter if they don't agree with it, as long as it was well informed with constructive criticism instead of delibrate taunts with words like "anti-MS fanboys" and poor criteria in their definition of slow or stagnated software development).

What they don't like is someone who puts their 2 cents into something they have absolutely no clue about OR haven't even bothered to do research on the subject at hand.

And now this follow-up article is nothing but backpedalling, because the first caused such a negative reaction.

Maybe you delibrately planned that to get more hits on your site? Maybe not. I don't know. I do know its a standard tactic by some journalists such as the likes of John C. Dvorak, and its becoming more and more common these days. Essentially, start contraversy for profit. (As well as always leaving a backdoor for yourself to backpedal your position, so you can keep people coming back).


Yes, I'm a Linux user. Yes, I don't like MS all that much. But at least I do look at why Vista won't suit my needs and what MS has done behind the scenes. (The various security features under the hood, the changes made to their protocols, the draft API that was recently released, etc). Essentially, I back up why I don't like MS or Vista with FACTS.

Does that make me an anti-MS fanboy? Apparently not, by your definition.


The overall point I'm trying to make is, both your site and its owners/authors are gaining a reputation of producting nonsense for editorials. (losing credibility and gaining a negative reputation)

Have a think about how much time and effort you and Eugenia spend in defending your position because of articles like these, when it could be better spent on further making the site even better.

But hey, its your time. Spend it how you like.

Reply Score: 5

Version Numbers and Next Gen releases.
by Best on Tue 26th Dec 2006 19:31 UTC
Best
Member since:
2005-07-09

So, if Gnome is dead in the water because its not moving towards breaking binary compatibility with a 3.x release, and KDE is slowly advancing towards a less impressive than previously thought, why are they in worse shape than the main commercial OSes?

Windows is still stuck in the 5.x release series when last I checked, and MacOS hasn't seen a major version revision in just as long.

Clearly revolutions in interfaces and the breaking of compatibility for the sake of it aren't things sought out very often by anyone.

Reply Score: 1