Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st Sep 2007 14:45 UTC, submitted by thebluesgnr
SuSE, openSUSE "OpenSUSE has been driving innovation on the Linux desktop, and in today's serial we'll be discovering just what has been happening on the GNOME front. Among other things, openSUSE 10.3 is set to contain, and be among the very first to have, the new GNOME 2.20. We'll see what new things you can expect from this version, what additional polish openSUSE brings to the desktop, and finally we'll be talking to JP Rosevear, an openSUSE and GNOME developer, to find out a little more."
Order by: Score:
v10.3 RC1
by Barnabyh on Fri 21st Sep 2007 15:07 UTC
Barnabyh
Member since:
2006-02-06

Ah yeah, nice one, downloaded the Gnome liveCD yesterday late evening GMT. It certainly looks stylish and professional with it's sharp and clear, clean design.
Booted up quite fast and without any other setup routine like configuring ethernet or video hardware from a choice of options as is common. On boot up though it only came to the Gnome splash and then froze, network showing disabled sign and mouse inactive, also not reacting to keyboard input.

It's always the same, great looks but fails to deliver. Guess I'll rather stay with Slackware and Debian.

Reply Score: 4

RE: v10.3 RC1
by apoclypse on Fri 21st Sep 2007 15:27 UTC in reply to "v10.3 RC1"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

It does look rather pretty. I'm a sucker for looks.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: v10.3 RC1
by Joe User on Fri 21st Sep 2007 17:39 UTC in reply to "RE: v10.3 RC1"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

Mee too. When you look at these screenshots: http://news.opensuse.org/?p=264 it clearly stands out from the crowd.

Reply Score: 2

RE: v10.3 RC1
by Joe User on Fri 21st Sep 2007 22:15 UTC in reply to "v10.3 RC1"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

I just wish they offered a screaming fast Fluxbox version for my old computer as well.

Reply Score: 1

v Oops! I had to fix that for you...
by bornagainenguin on Fri 21st Sep 2007 16:05 UTC
spikeb Member since:
2006-01-18

not really, though. nothing innovative in what ubuntu does. they just try and do what they do very very well.

Reply Score: 3

cmost Member since:
2006-07-16

Umm, I didn't use SuSE back in the days of version 4.2, but I did use Windows back then. I can state with full certainty that SuSE 4.2 contained a helluva lot more applications back in the day than did Windows of the same era. I don't know why you're acting retarded!

Edited 2007-09-21 18:23

Reply Score: 3

bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

Maybe try to re-read what I actually said please?

SuSE came with seven cds--which is exactly what I said isn't it?

I also said that I was unable to use it for much as a desktop, simply because I didn't have ANY internet connection at the time. I used the local library's connection (all three of them!) and then from there I began frequenting various cybercafes in the area. Given most places didn't have cd-burners and iomega drives were just coming into fashion most of the time I was stuck ferry my files around via sneakernet....

When's the last time you were able to install and run a distro with all videohardware drivers, all your basic codecs for audio and video, and all the applications (plus their dependencies and the dependencies' dependencies...) right out of the box?

Given THAT and the fact it was easier to get software with installers back then, can you try to understand I'm not "acting retarded" I'm just telling it the way it was.

As it was, SuSE was the best Linux install at the time IMHO. They always made deals with various *nix companies to get the best software deals and bundled them with the boxed distro for their customers to enjoy. I still remember how I'd buy each new release hoping to get better at using Linux or manage to stay with it before I'd get stumped by something I didn't know how to do in Linux.

At only $30.00 a box (with SEVEN cds!!) SuSE made it easy to experiment with Linux! The fact they included that huge book with every box really helped me along when it came to troubleshooting my hardware... I had one of the first SCSI iomgea zip drives, and that involved reading the manual and lots of print out from the library on isapnp, etc... Good times!

If nothing else I'd remember them for being the first software installer I could run from a cd, back when everything else at the time demanded a floppy be used first to initialize the cd drive and making bootable cds was the blackest of black magic.

I was a rabid SuSE fan. Don't make me out to be a troll just because I no longer am one.

--bornagainpenguin

EDIT- Fixed stupd spelling error, changed 'rapid' to "rabid"

Edited 2007-09-21 23:41

Reply Score: 2

netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes the good old days of big boxen with multiple CD's and heavy manuals ;)

Reply Score: 5

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

I didn't start as early as you did, but certainly a lot of time before SuSE was bought by Novel. I was quite suspicious of Novel to start with. The great 9.0 was the last release by the old ownership, and from there on I felt that SUSE was going downhill somehow.
However 10.2 is my main OS and I expect 10.3 to really rock.
Besides I'd almost say that SUSE/openSUSE isn't just a desktop distro. It can be used for many purposes, almost like Debian.

Reply Score: 4

BryanFeeney Member since:
2005-07-06

SuSE 6 came with four CDs and a big manual written in Latex in German, and then translated for us Englishers: I know because I bought it. I doubt very much SuSE 4.2 came with more than 7 CDs, in fact I suspect it was less than four. Indeed, when 4.2 was released in 96, KDE had only just been proposed by Matt Ettrich: without KDE or Gnome (which came after 6.0) there was little need for so many CDs. No-one would have used it expecting to get a great desktop experience, the best you could hope for was fvwm95, and the lack of desktop applications meant it was only good enough for people who wanted to use the Unix console.

All of which makes me wonder if you really did use SuSE 4.2, or if you dragged out an obscure reference to back up a somewhat weak, and definitely inflamatory assumption.

Qt and Intel sponsor huge amounts of work in X11; RedHat leads the way in desktop standardisation, and has developed a number of configuration utilities; Novell, with Mono, have done a lot of work in apps like Banshee and others, and Ubuntu have done a lot of work creating configuration utilities (like RedHat) and packaging all the software in a manner conducive to use by non-technical users. They currently lead the pack in that regard, but are by no means the only game in town.

Reply Score: 2

bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

SuSE 6 came with four CDs and a big manual written in Latex in German, and then translated for us Englishers: I know because I bought it. I doubt very much SuSE 4.2 came with more than 7 CDs, in fact I suspect it was less than four. Indeed, when 4.2 was released in 96, KDE had only just been proposed by Matt Ettrich: without KDE or Gnome (which came after 6.0) there was little need for so many CDs.

Well I know I bought at least one version of SuSE with that many cds...

I don't remember which window manager was default but I know it wasn't KDE or Gnome. KDE at the time I used my first copy of SuSE was still in beta on release and I don't remember seeing Gnome at all until a later release. I recall using fvwm95 and playing with afterstep--which lead me to Litestep and back to Windows with the whole shell replacement scene for awhile. In fact my first glimpse of BeOS was through an early Litestep theme that intrigued me enough to start hunting down more information about them and to my purchase of BeOS 5.0....

All of which makes me wonder if you really did use SuSE 4.2, or if you dragged out an obscure reference to back up a somewhat weak, and definitely inflamatory assumption.

I'm not here to measure e-penises with you; I only mentioned SuSE 4.2 in the context of having been a long time user and fan. It's possible I may have used the wrong version number--maybe it was actually 5.2?

The point is I'd been using SuSE for a long time, and I think it's hilarious so many people were modding me down who'd probably not even heard of the distro until the 8.x or 9.x days...

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 2

hibridmatthias Member since:
2007-04-11

You are officially the most macho SuSe user of all of these SUSE 10.3 articles; before you the earliest user was 6.0. I was a 6.4 guy, but now I bow to you :-)

Reply Score: 1

systyrant Member since:
2007-01-18

I've always viewed ubuntu as a slimmed down version of Linux. I don't mean featureless, but rather they don't try to install a bunch of crap by default and instead opt for more of a minimum.

I don't view Ubuntu as being any better or worse than any other distro. The one thing I've always like about ubuntu is that it comes on one CD. I've also found synaptic to be a good package manager. And over all easy to use. I think ubuntu has good direction, simply put.

However, I think openSuse has the ability to steal some thunder from ubuntu. I haven't used openSuse since 10.1, but I have every intention of trying out the final release of 10.3.

openSuse 10.3 seems to have some very positive buzz around it. I look forward to trying it out.

Reply Score: 8

JMcCarthy Member since:
2005-08-12

And what exactly can we thank Ubuntu for?

Mono? Beagle? Xgl? Compiz? F-Spot? Tomboy?

Ubuntu doesn't try and innovate so much as it does polish.

Reply Score: 2

KDE?
by rx182 on Fri 21st Sep 2007 16:07 UTC
rx182
Member since:
2005-07-08

Too bad they didn't invest as much time on KDE. Anyway, wasn't OpenSUSE a more KDE-centric distribution (even if SLED adopted Gnome as its default DE)?

Gnome 2.20 looks nice (true). Unfortunately, the Gnome/GTK community fail to deliver rich applications for simple tasks like listening to music (Amarok) and burning cds/dvds (K3B). All you get are basic frontends to command line tools (duh).

Reply Score: 4

RE: KDE?
by starnix on Fri 21st Sep 2007 16:27 UTC in reply to "KDE?"
starnix Member since:
2006-05-12

KDE takes on the philosophy of Windows in the apps department. Throw in everything and the kitchen sink and make it as complex as possible because that means it is good.

Gnome on the other hand sticks with the UNIX philosophy. Make small apps that do one or two things and do them well.

I much prefer quickly starting up a small app and doing what I need and then being done. With KDE you have to start a huge app (Rich?)and then configure it for your specific circumstance.

For music, whats wrong with Rhythmbox or Banshee or Listen or Exaile?

For CD burning I will admit that nothing beats K3b. But there are plenty of full featured tools for gnome that expand upon the defaults like Graveman or Gnomebaker or even NeroLINUX.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: KDE?
by shykid on Fri 21st Sep 2007 16:59 UTC in reply to "RE: KDE?"
shykid Member since:
2007-02-22

I know this is likely going to turn into another GNOME v. KDE flamewar, but I'll just throw in my two cents before it gets too hot for me.


Gnome on the other hand sticks with the UNIX philosophy. Make small apps that do one or two things and do them well.

Not necessarily. What you're describing is more akin to Fluxbox or something similar. When compared to KDE, this might hold some water, but some GNOME-centric apps like Evolution have multiple functions. Hell, Kmail and KAddressBook and friends are also standalone programs in addition to offering integration into Kontact. Also, for some, not offering sufficient preferences or features means the app doesn't do its thing well.

KDE takes on the philosophy of Windows in the apps department. Throw in everything and the kitchen sink and make it as complex as possible because that means it is good.

KDE is a lot more complex and offers a lot more options compared to GNOME; however, they are usually intuitively presented (minus Konqueror, the panel, and the god-awful Kopete), unlike how things are in Windows. KControl does a reasonably good job of sorting the plethora of customizations available for KDE itself.

Each KDE app has its settings and customization dialogs in the same menu. While that's true for GNOME (Edit menu, IIRC) as well, it's not for Windows; I've seen Options dialogs stored in everything from File to Help. I prefer the dedicated Settings menu that lets you customize everything and the kitchen sink, to GNOME's minimalistic approach.

That's the thing, though: "I prefer". Neither elegant minimalism nor endless customization are better than the other. One may be better for certain people or certain circumstances, but one is not definitively superior for everybody. That's the beauty of having the two major desktop environments in Linux so contrasting in philosophy and approach.

Edited 2007-09-21 17:03

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: KDE?
by segedunum on Fri 21st Sep 2007 17:25 UTC in reply to "RE: KDE?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

KDE takes on the philosophy of Windows in the apps department. Throw in everything and the kitchen sink and make it as complex as possible because that means it is good.

Nope, never really seen evidence of that philosophy. You'll get features that actually make using a Unix/Linux desktop useful over anything else, such as your middle mouse button being able to do something. Despite some better organisation being needed, I have never seen a feature thrown in that didn't turn out to be a gem at some point.

Gnome on the other hand sticks with the UNIX philosophy. Make small apps that do one or two things and do them well.

On the other hand, if you want to run an application as another user like every other desktop can do, or if you actually want to make your middle mouse button do something like all Linux/Unix desktops have traditionally been able to do then you're going to have to turn to something else.

With KDE you have to start a huge app (Rich?)and then configure it for your specific circumstance.

Hmmm. I'm not entirely sure how I had to configure Amarok the last time I used it, other than adding the location of my music collection and letting it add away. I also have great stuff like album covers, support for lyrics, Magnatune and other things that are great if I want, but don't have to configure.

If your favourite application just simply doesn't have the features, it's always easy to use simplicity as an excuse ;-).

Reply Score: 9

RE[3]: KDE?
by apoclypse on Fri 21st Sep 2007 17:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: KDE?"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

I don't about amarok. When I use a music player I want it to be simple and to work. Amarok works, but I'm not sure its simple. Its interface is cluttered (as are most KDE apps) and there are things that Rhythmnox and Banshee do in much impler ways that I like. That's not to say that Amarok is bad, far from it actually.

Its easy to have bad UI design and clutter and call it a feature. Simplicity is a lot harder to achieve, imo.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: KDE?
by Erunno on Fri 21st Sep 2007 18:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: KDE?"
Erunno Member since:
2007-06-22

I slightly disagree. Having a lot of features and still retaining a simple interface is hard to achieve. Cutting features and making a GUI for the few remaining or obscuring them in GConf is much more easier.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: KDE?
by apoclypse on Fri 21st Sep 2007 19:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: KDE?"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Yes, that is true, but I hope you are not suggesting that that is what KDE is doing, because its far from accurate.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: KDE?
by segedunum on Fri 21st Sep 2007 20:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: KDE?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, that is true, but I hope you are not suggesting that that is what KDE is doing, because its far from accurate.

Well, it's certainly what they working towards. Trying to retain all the features they have now, but organising things in a better way. Retaining all the powerful file management features in Dolphin from Konqueror, and adding a few more, is an example.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: KDE?
by Hiev on Sat 22nd Sep 2007 14:33 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: KDE?"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Excuse me but that's not accurated, Dolphin is now as Klutered as Konqueror, 5 diferent views, an embebed console, stupid kluter you don't need.

And that's a shame because it looked like a good project, but now, is just another example of a bad and klutered UI.

Edited 2007-09-22 14:44

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: KDE?
by manjabes on Fri 21st Sep 2007 19:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: KDE?"
manjabes Member since:
2005-08-27

I was not going to flame, but this is too much even for me.

If you are THAT easily intimidated by a button or two then you shouldn't use computers AT ALL. Amarok is just about the cleanest as it gets UI wise. Damnit, even OSNews has gazillion more distracting elements on their site than 'Rok has in its interface. Pry tell me, how DO you manage to browse OSN? Don't you feel a bit scared? Y'know with all them buttons n'stuff?

I know that idiots prefer to have a single big button labeled "do stuff" that they can click to DO STUFF(tm) and get confused when there's a second button added so they have a *gasp* CHOICE!!!!
Fine, have it your way but do not squeak about programs that are actually usable instead of "simplistic" and with "no clutter".

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: KDE?
by apoclypse on Fri 21st Sep 2007 19:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: KDE?"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

First of all stop being an ass. I just happen to like well designed interfaces. Amarok is a hodgepodge of every bad UI design decision ever made in KDE. In-terms of interface Amarok is inferior because the developers don't know or didn't bother to actually learn how to put a functional UI together. I was being nice about it and not pointing out that I think Amarok is a piece of shit in-terms of Ui design, but I guess the KDE fanboys want to start the flameage. Learn how to put together a f--king UI then you tell me why I have this button that does everything I want it to do and you have 3 that basically the same thing but call it a "feature".

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: KDE?
by Archangel on Fri 21st Sep 2007 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: KDE?"
Archangel Member since:
2005-07-23

"I think Amarok is a piece of shit in-terms of Ui design"
Care to give even one concrete example backing that up?
I'm finding it a bit hard to figure out what this "one button that does everything I want" would be vs. the "3 that basically the same thing" in Amarok - unless you've somehow merged play, pause and next...

Back on topic, that SUSE design is nice. My only minor nitpick would be to lose the brackets on the taskbar - they're just distracting noise.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: KDE?
by apoclypse on Fri 21st Sep 2007 23:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: KDE?"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Yeah. My f--king opinion. I said clearly I THINK that it has a pice of shit UI design. What's you point?

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: KDE?
by segedunum on Fri 21st Sep 2007 21:11 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: KDE?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Amarok is a hodgepodge of every bad UI design decision ever made in KDE. In-terms of interface Amarok is inferior because the developers don't know or didn't bother to actually learn how to put a functional UI together.

And yet, Banshee and Exaile are trying to be exactly like Amarok in terms of features and Amarok is still more functional. Can you care to give me an example of what you mean by this, given that I've never seen anyone have any real problems using Amarok when compared to something like Windows Media Player.

Yet again, it's easy to liberally throw around words like hodgepodge, clutter, simplicity and usability (and they're thrown around a lot), but if you can't explain them up then they're pretty meaningless.

I was being nice about it and not pointing out that I think Amarok is a piece of shit in-terms of Ui design

Can you give us an itemised list to back that up?

but I guess the KDE fanboys want to start the flameage.

No. If you're going to liberally throw around meaningless words such as simplicity and phrases like 'good UI design' without knowing what they mean then you're going to get people calling you on it.

then you tell me why I have this button that does everything I want it to do and you have 3 that basically the same thing but call it a "feature".

Can you give us an example of of where Amarok has three buttons to do the same thing, whereas the oh-so well designed Banshee, Exaile and Rhythmbox only have one button (or none, because they don't do what Amarok does)? I mean, it's always been an easy and casual thing to throw around stuff like 'clutter' and 'three buttons when one will do', but without telling us what you mean it's simply meaningless. I have my playlist, I have album art, I have support for lyrics and Magnatune, and I don't see them repeated all over the place.

Like I said, if you don't have the features people like then don't start throwing around words like simplicity in order to make up for it. I can't think of any piece of software in history, or of Microsoft or Apple marketing Windows and OS X on the basis that they are better because they have less features and therefore more simplicity.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: KDE?
by apoclypse on Fri 21st Sep 2007 23:55 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: KDE?"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Listen pal, I probably know more about what simplcity and cklutter means than you. Go read a book use something other than windows and KDE and then come back and clutter and simplicity will smack you in the face. I have no idea why you are acting liek this f--king news. In-fact the KDE4 devs are trying to remedy some of this clutter and to simplify the interface for their apps. Its hsould be obvious just by looking at the difference between Konqueror and Dolphin, guess which one is default.

The three button is an exageration based ont ha fact that some idiot was ranting about the all powerful super button but if you must know go to settings in any KDE app and you will see three different options there to do something that could be done with one. This is almost universal across all KDE apps.

Amarok doesn't have features it has clutter. Banshee has only a passing resemblance to Amarok but that is it, in-terms of functionality it resembles Rhythmbox and Rhythmbox resembles Itunes, Again you guys keep ranting about features while, I can give a rats ass about features I can't find because there are 3 other "features" getting in my f--king way. If I remember correctly I said very little about features other than that little one button quip. Instead I focused on the absolutely inane UI design and yet I have like 3 KDE guys ranting about features. f--k the features I want to use my application without it screaming at me and showing off. Rhythmbox doesn't have all those "features" but who cares, its a music player. I pick a song I want to play then minimize the stupid thing, that's all I want from my music player. I don't need a telegraph from it telling me how great it is. Its a music player, shut the f--k up and get the f--k out of the way, is how I like it and most KDE apps don't do that. Its like in the movies where you have that guy who has all the skills in the world and can do incredible backflips and high kicks and can even break out the nun chucks, but at the end of the day a simple kick in the groin would be more effective, or a shot in the chest like Indian Jones.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: KDE?
by thebluesgnr on Sat 22nd Sep 2007 00:45 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: KDE?"
thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

throw around meaningless words such as simplicity


Spoken like a true KDE zealot. "Simplicity" is not a meaningless word to any person who knows a little bit about HCI.

And yet, Banshee and Exaile are trying to be exactly like Amarok in terms of features


Exaile's mission is to be as messy as Amarok, but Banshee not at all. It's quite more usable than Amarok.

I can't think of any piece of software in history, or of Microsoft or Apple marketing Windows and OS X on the basis that they are better because they have less features and therefore more simplicity.


Simplicity doesn't equal less features, but whatever.

On www.apple.com/getamac they use the word "simplicity" once and "simple" four times.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: KDE?
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 21st Sep 2007 20:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: KDE?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Amarok is just about the cleanest as it gets UI wise.


Amarok uses vertically labeled tabs for crying out loud. Any UI with vertical text is a down-right abomination to UI design.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: KDE?
by kungfooguru on Fri 21st Sep 2007 21:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: KDE?"
kungfooguru Member since:
2006-11-01

Explaining to a KDE user how bad the design is is like trying to explain how stupid the theory of Intelligent Design is to a "believer". Its just SO obvious and right in front of your face its hard to put into words. Especially when they don't understand simple words like "clutter", or "natural selection". I believe it is a choice if you want a lot of features visible at all times, or only the necessary features for use visible and the others placed elsewhere. I'm no GNOME user, I use Xfce. I was under the impression that KDE users knew this and just liked the clutter... only recently found out that they deny it.

To each is own... but at least admit its cluttered and bad design... but just that you like it that way.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: KDE?
by segedunum on Fri 21st Sep 2007 21:35 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: KDE?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Its just SO obvious and right in front of your face its hard to put into words. Especially when they don't understand simple words like "clutter", or "natural selection".

Some specific examples would be nice, but you know, the intelligent design people can't give us that either. It's just so obvious.

I'm no GNOME user, I use Xfce.

Which doesn't do a tenth of what KDE does. Go figure that one out.

Edited 2007-09-21 21:36

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: KDE?
by segedunum on Fri 21st Sep 2007 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: KDE?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Hmmmmmm, I can never understand what any of this means.

When I use a music player I want it to be simple and to work. Amarok works, but I'm not sure its simple.

What do you mean by simple?

Its interface is cluttered (as are most KDE apps)

I don't really understand what this means either. You've got Banshee and Exaile that look very similar to Amarok, and Exaile is basically a clone of Amarok in GTK and Python.

Its easy to have bad UI design and clutter and call it a feature.

What do you mean by bad UI design, and that immortally meaningless word, clutter? Amarok has good, powerful features and people can name them one by one.

Simplicity is a lot harder to achieve, imo.

What do you mean by simplicity?

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: KDE?
by apoclypse on Fri 21st Sep 2007 23:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: KDE?"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

I don't happen to like Exaile either. Banshee may look like Amarok on the surface but on that note so does Itunes, and WMP11. Banshee and Amarok have very little in common. My biggest gripe with the UI design in some KDE apps are the side tabs, that is the most awful design choice ever made, imo. Besides that I use Rhythmnox for the most part and if they would work on better ipod management I wouldn't even bother with Banshee either because I don't like mono.

As for simplicity this is Rhythmbox:

http://www.gnome.org/projects/rhythmbox/screenshots/rhythmbox-main....

and this is Amarok:

http://amarok.kde.org/amarokwiki/images/2/2f/Amarok_14_main.png

I don't think I can get clearer than that. Rhythmbox (and Banshee) gives me everythign I need without needing tabs and with very little clutter. But to each his own I guess.

Edited 2007-09-21 23:31

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: KDE?
by CowMan on Sat 22nd Sep 2007 16:56 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: KDE?"
CowMan Member since:
2006-09-26

If I could add to your list, I'm a staunch supporter of the depreciated Yammi:

http://yammi.sourceforge.net/pics/goto-album.png

The fuzzy search is invaluable, and it handles tens of thousands of files gracefully where aforementioned programs tend to choke.

Using XMMS as the backend (also depreciated these days), it still supports everything: the LCD, remote control, video (well, with mplayer), etc.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: KDE?
by Luminair on Fri 21st Sep 2007 18:26 UTC in reply to "RE: KDE?"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

That is some serious philosophical perversion you're promoting there!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: KDE?
by cg0def on Fri 21st Sep 2007 19:18 UTC in reply to "RE: KDE?"
cg0def Member since:
2006-02-12

apparently you know absolutely nothing about application development and what kde does. Noone makes you use the kde libraries if you don't like them and as far as the qui is concerned you can just used qt and skip the other stuff. As far as OS/DE design goes both KDE and Gnome provide libraries only gnome is written in plain C with structures that behave much like object ( gobject ) while KDE is written in C++ with all the benefits that come from using a newer language with a higher degree of abstraction. But there are ways of using other languages than the basic ones and especially with gnome you see a lot of stuff like that.


Also I really fail so see how openSuse has a better and more polished gnome distribution than they do kde. Both are quite polished and pretty much look the same. I personally like the KDE start menu better and also KDE has a lot better front end to beagle and every configuration tool ( at least the major ones ) is integrated into yast. The same cannot be said for the gnome version. Overall I find both the KDE and the gnome versions to be of equal quality which is a surprise for people coming from ubuntu.

Most notable feature in 10.3 is that the update manager works a lot faster than in 10.2 and now is on eaqual speed to aptitude. A welcome and much awaited change if I might say so.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: KDE?
by ghostX on Fri 21st Sep 2007 20:51 UTC in reply to "RE: KDE?"
ghostX Member since:
2007-09-13

Best combination ever Gnome WM + a lot of KDE Applications + CLI

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: KDE?
by Chipper on Fri 21st Sep 2007 23:54 UTC in reply to "RE: KDE?"
Chipper Member since:
2005-12-27

I don't know anything about Banshee, Listen or Exaile, but for me, Rhythmbox doesn't cut it. Close, but not there.

First, one can't sort a playlist. You can sort in the library, but not the playlist. I have a long playlist I like to listen to but I want it sorted so I can add new songs without duplicates, or to find a song in it.

Second, I couldn't figure out how to create a playlist on an iPod. I would like to think it is there, but I couldn't do it. I also had to copy the songs to the iPod and then move them to the playlist for it to work.

Amarok makes both of these simple. Even though I typically use almost all Gnome applications, I still have to install a KDE one.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: KDE?
by dagw on Sat 22nd Sep 2007 20:38 UTC in reply to "RE: KDE?"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

For music, whats wrong with Rhythmbox or Banshee or Listen or Exaile?

I can't speak for everyone, but I'll tell you what I think is wrong with them. They're kind of a worst of both worlds approach. On the one hand they're more complex and cumbersom than an mp3 player needs to be (think winamp 2), on the other hand they're lacking some features of the more rich and complex players. If you're going to try to be feature complete then be feature complete, if you're not then try to be a simple clone winamp. As far as I'm concerned they fall into some kind of limbo.

Reply Score: 2

RE: KDE?
by SlackerJack on Fri 21st Sep 2007 16:33 UTC in reply to "KDE?"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Whats wrong with Banshee, rhythmbox and all the other music players for GTK/GNOME?, K3b is a frontend to cdrecord.

I dont understand where you get this idea that SUSE dont invest time in KDE, kickoff menu, YaST, kontrol with Yast built in. Infact it's GNOME that SUSE left without much new and only the lest few releases have seen new GNOME features.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: KDE?
by bornagainenguin on Fri 21st Sep 2007 17:01 UTC in reply to "RE: KDE?"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

I dont understand where you get this idea that SUSE dont invest time in KDE

People say that because time was SuSE was known as being the KDE distro with Gnome only getting basic support, much like Red Hat has become known as being a Gnome distro...

It's also worth noting SuSE never put much effort into Gnome until they purchased Ximian....

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: KDE?
by SEJeff on Fri 21st Sep 2007 20:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: KDE?"
SEJeff Member since:
2005-11-05

Maybe that is because Nat, Miguel, and Federico are ximian monkeys. You know that those 3 are the *founding fathers* of gnome, right?

http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/gnome-history.html

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: KDE?
by bornagainenguin on Fri 21st Sep 2007 23:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: KDE?"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

You know that those 3 are the *founding fathers* of gnome, right?

Yes I knew that. I was being slightly sarcastic. OF COURSE a formerly KDE centric distro is going to pursue improvements in their Gnome installation after purchasing those guys!

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: KDE?
by elsewhere on Sun 23rd Sep 2007 03:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: KDE?"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Maybe that is because Nat, Miguel, and Federico are ximian monkeys. You know that those 3 are the *founding fathers* of gnome, right?

http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/gnome-history.html


And it's certainly sad that Novell allowed that little startup to erode the $210M they paid for Suse. Which I'm going to go out on limb and assume was much more than they paid for Ximian, due to the fact that Suse had actual revenue and marketshare.

Fortunately, saner heads prevailed, the primates have since been kept in check, and KDE remains a strong focus from Novell... ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: KDE?
by Googol on Sun 23rd Sep 2007 10:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: KDE?"
Googol Member since:
2006-11-24

Humans ARE primates ;) Well, I hope you are not a creationist ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: KDE?
by KugelKurt on Fri 21st Sep 2007 21:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: KDE?"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

It's also worth noting SuSE never put much effort into Gnome until they purchased Ximian....


SUSE never bought Ximian. Novell bought Ximian, then made the Ximian managers the head of Novell's new Linux department. Later SUSE was bought by Novell.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: KDE?
by bornagainenguin on Fri 21st Sep 2007 23:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: KDE?"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

Same difference.

Like Apple buying Next, and Palm buying Be the purchase of Ximian resulted in the people from SuSE who made their product so great leaving and the people from Ximian taking more of a controlling interest. Check the archives, I know I wasn't the only one outraged by SuSE's sudden shift towards more of a Gnome centric desktop....

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 2

RE: KDE?
by shykid on Fri 21st Sep 2007 16:35 UTC in reply to "KDE?"
shykid Member since:
2007-02-22

Too bad they didn't invest as much time on KDE. Anyway, wasn't OpenSUSE a more KDE-centric distribution (even if SLED adopted Gnome as its default DE)?

To me, it seems like they're going both ways and supporting both GNOME and KDE equally. A lot of improvements have also been made to the KDE side of openSUSE (which I'm still wanting to call 'SuSE'--old habits die hard).

GNOME's just getting all of the attention because, in the opinions of many (including myself), GNOME support on SUSE has been abysmal at best. Sure, GNOME was there and worked just fine, but it wasn't as polished as KDE on SUSE.

Reply Score: 5

v RE: KDE?
by Super King on Fri 21st Sep 2007 16:45 UTC in reply to "KDE?"
RE[2]: KDE?
by leos on Fri 21st Sep 2007 17:10 UTC in reply to "RE: KDE?"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

Gnome's applications are arguably better at doing their designed "simple tasks" than Amarok and K3B are.


The keyword here being arguably. But lets not denigrate this into another KDE/Gnome flamewar.

What I really don't understand though is the GTK frontend to Yast. Yast, a system tool that you really don't use often. Why does there need to be a GTK frontend? What a colossal waste of time to develop this, and in the future, even more waste of time maintaining it. This philosophy of "everything in the system must be GTK" is insane. It goes both ways of course, kynaptic is a good example of stupid cloning using Qt. Some apps, like Exaile, even blatantly state that fact. "like amarok, but for GTK".

I think distro's should force people to install both the qt/kde and gtk/gnome libs. Then people will have less of a phobia of "if I install this app, I'll bring in tons of libraries!" Who the hell cares! Since when is disk space at a premium? How about we don't waste time making two copies of every application and instead make those applications BETTER.

Of course, I am a hypocrite, in that I try to use all KDE applications. With a bit more work into integration, I wouldn't be so adverse to GTK apps. The most important part is the open/save file dialogs. I find the Gnome/GTK dialogs incredibly crippled, and can't bring myself to use them. If the apps used native dialogs depending on the environment it would be much nicer. Can't be that hard, Openoffice does it very well.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: KDE?
by segedunum on Fri 21st Sep 2007 17:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: KDE?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

What a colossal waste of time to develop this, and in the future, even more waste of time maintaining it. This philosophy of "everything in the system must be GTK" is insane.

Yep. They seem to have had this paranoid trip where everything depending on Qt and kdelibs needed to be removed. GTK seem to get installed when I install KDE and no one cares. There is even a Bugzilla entry somewhere where someone complained that a fantastic bit of project management software called TaskJuggler had been removed. The answer was that they wanted Gnome and GTK everything, even if the alternative was woefully inferior.

Reply Score: 11

RE[3]: KDE?
by AdamW on Fri 21st Sep 2007 17:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: KDE?"
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

Disk space isn't the problem. Memory is.

A graphical toolkit takes up a significant amount of memory. If all the apps you're running only use one, you save that much memory compared to having both Qt and GTK+ in memory.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: KDE?
by leos on Fri 21st Sep 2007 18:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: KDE?"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

Disk space isn't the problem. Memory is.


Fine, if you have less than 256MB of RAM, go crazy with toolkit bias. For anyone else, it won't make a damn bit of difference. you're sacrificing maybe 10MB of RAM, and that's a one time cost, for the first application only. After that it gets shared. Big deal. How does that justify all the duplication? No other platform has this kind of irrational phobia.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: KDE?
by KugelKurt on Fri 21st Sep 2007 21:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: KDE?"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

It's not only Qt and GTK. Both KDE and GNOME ship with lots of libs and depending on the used app, a lot of libs have to be loaded into memory.

Reply Score: 1

RE: KDE?
by melkor on Sat 22nd Sep 2007 05:19 UTC in reply to "KDE?"
melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

I was thinking the same thing. This is a direct result of Novell owning Suse, and Novell employing lead Gnome developers. Favouritism? Yes. The same thing is happening at Suse as what has been happening at Redhat for years, and more recently at the recent darling of all things Linux, Ubuntu - blind favouritism of one particular desktop.

I prefer a Linux distro to include them all, tweak them all to be as good as possible, and then let the user choose. That's choice. Linux is supposedly about choice, but when you get a bunch of distros all favouring one desktop environment, that's bad imho.

I have a bone to pick with Debian 'etch' as well (slightly off topic) - it seems you cannot install KDE and XFCE together, at least not without removing several key components of KDE. Not very good, and what I consider a major bug. Said machine is not connected to the net, so it's only stuck at the DVD versions, so don't tell me to update it ;)

I used to like Gnome a long time ago, but circa v1.2 they lost the plot in all honesty, and with the advent of KDE 2.2 I started leaning in KDE's direction. KDE 3 just confirmed to me that KDE was heading in the right direction even more. I'm hoping that KDE doesn't screw KDE 4 by trying to copy the Gnome philosophies to appease potential Gnome converts etc.

Dave

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: KDE?
by sbergman27 on Sat 22nd Sep 2007 06:11 UTC in reply to "RE: KDE?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

I prefer a Linux distro to include them all, tweak them all to be as good as possible, and then let the user choose.

"""

I would disagree with that point. I prefer to see distros choose a desktop and run as far as they can with it, focusing their resources on making it the best it can be. We still get diversity, because other distros pick the other major desktop and do the same. And some others might pick lesser known desktops, or a newcomer.

Choices are great when those choices are upstream choices. But the downstream distributor should focus the QA efforts on a select set of components. In my opinion, of course. QA efforts are a scarce resource, and should be conserved. :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE: KDE?
by mwtomlinson on Sat 22nd Sep 2007 10:45 UTC in reply to "KDE?"
mwtomlinson Member since:
2005-11-06

Personally, I find my needs serviced quite well by Rhythmbox and Serpentine/Nautilus-CD-Burn. Simple apps for simple minds, I guess...

Reply Score: 1

Gnome!
by bornagainenguin on Fri 21st Sep 2007 16:49 UTC
bornagainenguin
Member since:
2005-08-07

Unfortunately, the Gnome/GTK community fail to deliver rich applications for simple tasks like listening to music (Amarok)...

Have you tried Floola, Exaile, Rythymbox yet?

and burning cds/dvds (K3B). All you get are basic frontends to command line tools (duh).

Have you considered trying Gnomebaker yet? I also hear Ahead (makers of Nero Burning Rom) have a GTK2 version out for Linux...

--bornagainpenguin

PS: Dang.. having to google the spelling to some of those apps has me trailing behind as the fourth response..

Edited 2007-09-21 16:56

Reply Score: 2

RE: Gnome!
by superstoned on Fri 21st Sep 2007 22:11 UTC in reply to "Gnome!"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

Those apps are poor in comparison to their KDE counterparts, so I guess that explains why he said the GTK part is failing to deliver rich applications. Note I don't agree with that, there are some nice Gnome apps out there, but I do think overall, KDE apps are better. Maybe not by much, but that makes sense, as they're mostly 2 years old (KDE 3.5) and are competing with stuff that came out days ago. Things might change when KDE 4.0 and shortly after that 4.1 get out...

Reply Score: 1

Bland preview
by ssa2204 on Fri 21st Sep 2007 16:55 UTC
ssa2204
Member since:
2006-04-22

I really do not care for this preview, if anything it just makes Suse look very bland. The color scheme is horrible. I hope this isn't the default for Gnome. I wish they would have tweaked a little before taking some screenshots, knowing that there are many that chose based solely on the GUI.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Bland preview
by IridiumAlly on Fri 21st Sep 2007 17:17 UTC in reply to "Bland preview"
IridiumAlly Member since:
2007-06-29

Well, I rarely stick with the default theme myself. Just head over to gnome-look.org and kde-look.org to get all the pieces & parts that will dress up the UI to your liking.

Reply Score: 2

"Start" menu
by sappyvcv on Fri 21st Sep 2007 17:30 UTC
sappyvcv
Member since:
2005-07-06

I really like the redesigned "Start" menu. Best I've seen in any OS/distro in a while.

Reply Score: 4

RE: "Start" menu
by brunascle on Fri 21st Sep 2007 20:10 UTC in reply to ""Start" menu"
brunascle Member since:
2006-12-18

it reminds me of the menu from Linux Mint:
http://linuxmint.com/pictures/screenshots/cassandra/2.png

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: "Start" menu
by IridiumAlly on Fri 21st Sep 2007 20:20 UTC in reply to "RE: "Start" menu"
IridiumAlly Member since:
2007-06-29

The menu in Mint is a rework of the SLED menu. An improvement in my opinion.

Reply Score: 1

v How many "patented" material from MS
by Ricardo_NY on Fri 21st Sep 2007 17:33 UTC
joeca Member since:
2007-09-06

How much patented material from MS has the Gnome/Novell team put into Gnome?

Oh please, do not go down this road.

If I can guess it's heading in this direction, so read this please if you haven't already and if you can still complain about Novell/OpenSuSE, I give up:

http://en.opensuse.org/FAQ:Novell-MS

The short answer is nothing.

Edited 2007-09-21 19:31

Reply Score: 2

Looking good
by bsharitt on Fri 21st Sep 2007 18:23 UTC
bsharitt
Member since:
2005-07-07

I've been looking to "refresh" my neglected PC currently running ubuntu, and I'm still torn bewteen Ubuntu Gusty Gibbon, The latest Fedora, and now this. 10.1 was problematic for me, but hopefully this will be a bit better, since overall Suse seems to be the most polished.

Reply Score: 1

Question about OpenSUSE
by hussam on Fri 21st Sep 2007 19:33 UTC
hussam
Member since:
2006-08-17

I've been wanting to try opensuse but I keep hearing they don't provide timely kernel security patches. Is that true?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Question about OpenSUSE
by sgibofh on Sat 22nd Sep 2007 11:14 UTC in reply to "Question about OpenSUSE"
sgibofh Member since:
2007-03-31

no it's in fact not. Unless you feel that a backported fix that takes maybe 1 or 2 days is too laten.

Reply Score: 1

Just curious...
by vondur on Fri 21st Sep 2007 19:36 UTC
vondur
Member since:
2005-07-07

As I don't use SuSE, but how easy is it to add support for patent protected stuff, ala restricted repository support like Ubuntu?

matt

Reply Score: 2

RE: Just curious...
by raver31 on Fri 21st Sep 2007 19:59 UTC in reply to "Just curious..."
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

It depends, how hard do you think this is ?

http://opensuse-community.org/Restricted_Formats/10.3

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Just curious...
by vondur on Fri 21st Sep 2007 21:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Just curious..."
vondur Member since:
2005-07-07

Awesome! I was far too lazy to actually do the searching for myself. ;)

Reply Score: 2

@ segedunum RE: Taskjuggler
by REMF on Fri 21st Sep 2007 22:49 UTC
REMF
Member since:
2006-02-05

I think it was me that complained about Taskjuggler being removed.

a great app that has no alternative in that GUI based management apps cannot be effective in sprawling projetcs that change on a daily basis.

i noted a factory news reference to Taskjuggler 2.4.0 as being in the factory. i was delighted that common sense has prevailed.

Reply Score: 2

On topic plz
by ssa2204 on Sat 22nd Sep 2007 00:38 UTC
ssa2204
Member since:
2006-04-22

lol..is just me or does the last 50 or so comments just seem like off topic cat fights? I think the solution is to take away everyone's computers and replace them with calculators (hmmm..people would probably find a way to fight then)

What I would like to know is this:

1.) Has wireless support been improved? I could never get any Suse to run with my old laptop and get wireless working (Broadcom chip). I have a new notebook now with an Intel wireless I hope either works out of the box or at least can find a driver somewhere.

2.) Is the set up process still the same? Same amount of steps?

3.) What would be the most significant visual changes from 10.0 - 10.1 if any?

Reply Score: 1

RE: On topic plz
by segedunum on Sat 22nd Sep 2007 01:15 UTC in reply to "On topic plz"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Has wireless support been improved? I could never get any Suse to run with my old laptop and get wireless working (Broadcom chip).

No.

Is the set up process still the same?

Pretty much.

What would be the most significant visual changes from 10.0 - 10.1 if any?

None. We're on 10.3 now.

Reply Score: 3