Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 31st Mar 2008 19:28 UTC
Gnome Ars reviews GNOME 2.22, and concludes: "In version 2.22 GNOME continues to provide a high level of performance, functionality, and ease of use that contributes significantly to the viability of Linux on the desktop. Despite the numerous advances that are being made in GNOME technologies, there are still a few notable places where GNOME falls short of both open and proprietary competitors. GNOME application file dialogs, for instance, still lack basic support for file management operations such as rename and delete and don't provide support for viewing multiple file thumbnails."
Order by: Score:
Concentrate on the Basics
by BrendaEM on Mon 31st Mar 2008 19:57 UTC
BrendaEM
Member since:
2005-11-23

Gnome should work on the basic everyday meat-and potatoes GUI file manipulation needs, instead of being this Rogin-Z type program collecting monster.

Also, giving top priority to Evolution development isn't going to make the rest of the user experience any better.

Edited 2008-03-31 19:57 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Concentrate on the Basics
by VistaUser on Mon 31st Mar 2008 20:13 UTC in reply to "Concentrate on the Basics"
VistaUser Member since:
2008-03-08

It is not about moving resources from one field to another - if those working on Evolution were not working on it, it does not mean they will be working on "basic everyday meat-and potatoes GUI file manipulation needs".

It would also be good to know exactly what you think is lacking or being ignored in favour of other less needed candy. Without this, the post just looks trollish to me.

From what I can see, the addition of Gio/GVFS should bolster the meat and potato file manipulation side of things.

(this is ignoring the difference between a desktop environment and a window manager...)

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Concentrate on the Basics
by unoengborg on Tue 1st Apr 2008 06:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Concentrate on the Basics"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree, people who develop free software develop things that they need or like to develop. The solution to get more development done, is to attract more developers.

As an example of what needs to be done appart from flashy projects like Ekiga, and Evolution is well integrated support for posix ACLs, more and more file systems support them now. It is also a way of administrating files that would be more familliar to windows new comers than the standar Unix users and groups way of thinking.

Another thing would be to make .hidden files to work in file dialogs, and perhaps use these feature to hide thing that normal non developer or sysadmin users shouldn't need to see. (/etc, /proc, /usr, /bin, /lib, /sbin, /dev, /boot, /root) in file dialogs as well as in Nautilus.

Improve user management so that more than local users can be managed. At least LDAP should be supported. I'm thinking of integrate with things like http://www.freeipa.org.

Other things to do, could be be to try to write better replacements for applications like tomboy and beagle. Preferably in other languages than mono (Why not try java now that it is free software). That way we could get rid of the eternal mono=microsoft=evil discussion. Beagle needs to be improved anyway for performance reasons.

Edited 2008-04-01 06:31 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Concentrate on the Basics
by BrendaEM on Tue 1st Apr 2008 15:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Concentrate on the Basics"
BrendaEM Member since:
2005-11-23

Trollish<>False.

Reply Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Trollish<>True.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Boldie
by Boldie on Mon 31st Mar 2008 20:01 UTC
Boldie
Member since:
2007-03-26

"GNOME application file dialogs, for instance, still lack basic support for file management operations such as rename and delete and don't provide support for viewing multiple file thumbnails."

I don't think this will happen. Remember Torvalds comment that "Gnome seems to be developed by interface nazis":
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/13/1340215

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Boldie
by h3rman on Mon 31st Mar 2008 20:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by Boldie"
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

Oh please, not that one again.
Yes, we Gnome users know that Gnome deeply sucks.
That's why we use it, because we feel sorry for it.
All right?

Now for f**** sake, let's move on, everybody knows that there are still some peculiar deficiencies in the Gnome DE. That can be discussed without good ol' Linus's "interface-nazi" contribution.

And I'm still convinced that the fact there's both Gnome and KDE on *n*x makes both DE's better DE's.

Reply Score: 13

RE[2]: Comment by Boldie
by Boldie on Tue 1st Apr 2008 06:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Boldie"
Boldie Member since:
2007-03-26

Well I think I have to clear one thing: I do not agree with Torvalds. I think that Gnome is doing good with its clean interface. Sorry for not making it clear!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Boldie
by h3rman on Tue 1st Apr 2008 08:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Boldie"
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

Well I think I have to clear one thing: I do not agree with Torvalds. I think that Gnome is doing good with its clean interface. Sorry for not making it clear!


Sorry for not wondering if you were being ironic.
I agree with Torvalds on pretty much everything else, BTW. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Boldie
by WereCatf on Mon 31st Mar 2008 20:58 UTC in reply to "Comment by Boldie"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I don't think this will happen. Remember Torvalds comment that "Gnome seems to be developed by interface nazis":

I thought Linus is first and foremost a kernel developer, not a GUI designer...

I just think consistent guidelines for GUI development is a good thing and I personally do like the look and feel of GNOME apps. And yes, the file open/save dialog should provide thumbnails and atleast the ability to rename files but GNOME devs have just responded this far that one should use file manager to do file managing. I do agree it's a bit nitpicky but given the GVFS capability and all they just might change their stanse and implement those features. Atleast thumbnailing they should add, it makes the dialog feel inconsistent with the rest of the desktop if it doesn't support thumbnails (pretty much everything else does support big and clear thumbnails)

Reply Score: 10

RE: Comment by Boldie
by johndaly on Mon 31st Mar 2008 22:30 UTC in reply to "Comment by Boldie"
johndaly Member since:
2006-01-16

Is it even bad to be an interface nazi? In general I like the way Gnome dose things and that is because they are interface nazis!

They care about the UI, they care about it fanaticaly and it shows. I even believe its rubbing off. Did you take a look at some of the dialogs and configuration applets in KDE? Some of the Gnome ideas on UI design definitely rubbed off and I'm sure the same will happen in reverse (some of those dialog ideas are good).

Sure file management in file open/save dialogs sucks right now, BUT the Gnome guys realized that the file open/save dialog has a lot in common with the file manager. They realized this with the release of XFCEs Thunar and I don't believe they are dumb enough to NOT act on that.

Edited 2008-03-31 22:32 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by Boldie
by evangs on Tue 1st Apr 2008 07:11 UTC in reply to "Comment by Boldie"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

I do not want a full featured file browser appearing in a dialog that's meant to open and save files. Being able to browse the file system, create a folder and name my file is what I want in a file dialog. Anything else is overkill and that's why we have KDE.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Boldie
by leos on Tue 1st Apr 2008 07:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Boldie"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

I do not want a full featured file browser appearing in a dialog that's meant to open and save files. Being able to browse the file system, create a folder and name my file is what I want in a file dialog. Anything else is overkill and that's why we have KDE.


Except that "I do not want" is not an argument. Why do you not want? If you're going to argue against the inclusion of a feature then you'll have to be more convincing than that. Perhaps you think that it will add complexity to the UI, but then you have to explain exactly how it will do that.

Every other system has shown that the ability to do some common file operations in the open/save dialog does not add complexity or get in the way of opening and saving files. These features can be hidden in a context menu where they don't get in anyone's way.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Comment by Boldie
by evangs on Tue 1st Apr 2008 08:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Boldie"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07


Every other system has shown that the ability to do some common file operations in the open/save dialog does not add complexity or get in the way of opening and saving files. These features can be hidden in a context menu where they don't get in anyone's way.


Uhm, sorry. Every other system? This is not the case on OS X which is widely reputed to be one of the most usable operating systems around. Of course, there is the argument that what is usable to some is unusable to others but that's a different story. Gnome's file dialogs share a lot in common with OS X's file dialogs, in that they are minimalistic in design and provide only the tools you'd need for naming, creating new directories and traversing the filesystem.

A file dialog should only deal with opening and saving files. It is not a full file manager. That I believe is the approach Gnome is taking and it is what I feel most comfortable with. Of course there are other users who do not like such a "dumbed down" interface. As such, they will be glad that KDE exists to scratch that itch.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Boldie
by segedunum on Tue 1st Apr 2008 12:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Boldie"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

This is not the case on OS X


OS X does at least have the ability to create a new folder in a save dialogue.

...which is widely reputed to be one of the most usable operating systems around......Gnome's file dialogs share a lot in common with OS X's file dialogs.....

"Oh, OSX does stuff like this!" is not a valid justification, nor is the perception that OS X is some kind of usability oracle. For some reason that attitude seems to pervade everyone who associates themselves with Gnome. You see people spinning on Mac forums like this as well.

in that they are minimalistic in design

I love watching people squirm coming up with reasons for stuff like this.

A file dialog should only deal with opening and saving files.

No, that is not what an open, and especially a save dialogue, is supposed to do, and it just shows how people have been brainwashed by this stuff. A file dialogue is there for you to provide a file path for opening. Certainly in the case of saving, that file path doesn't exist, because the file itself doesn't yet exist. The file dialogue should then do what it needs to do to make that file path resolvable, including creating any folders that don't exist and giving the user the tools to achieve that. If you can't then you can't create a file path.

A file dialogue is a tool used to save and open file paths, not individual files. If that was the case you would have a system with no directory structure where all files would be saved in the root directory. Then the arguments would make sense.

Logically, taking this approach you can argue that file dialogues should not be creating file paths at all in any way, and thus, when saving you should create a file of the type you need in Nautilus first and then navigate to it in the save dialogue of the application so it can be saved. When you install a piece of software and it goes through the wizard, and you then come to the part where you decide where you want it installed, if the file path doesn't exist should it say "I'm sorry, you need to create the file path and any folders first through Nautilus"?

When you're part of a niche who thinks they're doing things cool and different, you can get away with this stuff. When you have more people using your desktop this is the kind of issue that tends to crop up. A lot.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: Comment by Boldie
by unapersson on Tue 1st Apr 2008 13:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Boldie"
unapersson Member since:
2005-07-19

"This is not the case on OS X


OS X does at least have the ability to create a new folder in a save dialogue.
"

And so does GNOME. I use that feature all the time.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Boldie
by h3rman on Tue 1st Apr 2008 13:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Boldie"
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

"This is not the case on OS X


OS X does at least have the ability to create a new folder in a save dialogue.
"
You're implying Gnome can't do that, but it can.
Whence the confusion?
Or did they remove it after 2.16, the one I just checked it on? That would make little sense if they did.

edit: O_o someone was first.. ;)

Edited 2008-04-01 13:09 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Boldie
by Kitty on Tue 1st Apr 2008 13:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Boldie"
Kitty Member since:
2005-10-01

OS X does at least have the ability to create a new folder in a save dialogue.
...
The file dialogue should then do what it needs to do to make that file path resolvable, including creating any folders that don't exist and giving the user the tools to achieve that.
...


Why all the ranting and flailing at empty air?

Why all the babbling about "resolving paths" instead of dealing with files (a concept that would be lost on most users, btw)?

There's a big "Create Folder" button in the Gnome save file dialog, right next to the breadcrumb buttons.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by Boldie
by evangs on Tue 1st Apr 2008 13:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Boldie"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07


Why all the ranting and flailing at empty air?


Probably because that is the mark of an enlightened computer user, unlike the masses of unwashed rabble who follow blindly like sheep and are able find the "Create Folder" button.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Boldie
by evangs on Tue 1st Apr 2008 13:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Boldie"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07


OS X does at least have the ability to create a new folder in a save dialogue.


Gnome does this, so what's the issue?


"Oh, OSX does stuff like this!" is not a valid justification, nor is the perception that OS X is some kind of usability oracle. For some reason that attitude seems to pervade everyone who associates themselves with Gnome. You see people spinning on Mac forums like this as well.


In the same way the let's include everything and the kitchen sink pervades the KDE way of thinking? See what I did there?


"A file dialog should only deal with opening and saving files.

No, that is not what an open, and especially a save dialogue, is supposed to do, and it just shows how people have been brainwashed by this stuff.
"

Ah I see. So people who have adopt a different approach and prefer that approach are mindless sheep who have been brainwashed. Got ya.

There are different DEs for different people. I like the OS X and Gnome way of doing things. You obviously don't. Choice is good, aye?

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by Boldie
by starnix on Wed 2nd Apr 2008 15:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Boldie"
starnix Member since:
2006-05-12

"OS X does at least have the ability to create a new folder in a save dialogue. "

So does gnome.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by Boldie
by WereCatf on Wed 2nd Apr 2008 16:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Boldie"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

True, I didn't remember that. I checked it in both Gedit and in Gimp and there it is, "Create new folder". But!! This dialog _seriously_ needs some UI love >_<

http://img395.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshotsaveasww9.png

Reply Score: 2

Features vs bugs
by J.R. on Mon 31st Mar 2008 20:38 UTC
J.R.
Member since:
2007-07-25

I get more impressed each Gnome release, but I still wish they would fix those old annoying bugs that has been there for years...

Reply Score: 5

Gnome Terminal
by sigzero on Mon 31st Mar 2008 23:34 UTC
sigzero
Member since:
2006-01-03

In KDE there is an option to send the same command to all the tabs. This helps me a lot when I have to do the same thing on multiple servers and I haven't had time to script it or automate it.

Does Gnome Terminal have the same feature?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Gnome Terminal
by WereCatf on Mon 31st Mar 2008 23:42 UTC in reply to "Gnome Terminal"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Not as far as I know. Shouldn't be too hard to implement though, but I don't know if it is considered useful enough generally to be implemented.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Gnome Terminal
by sbergman27 on Tue 1st Apr 2008 00:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Gnome Terminal"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

In my opinion, this is *exactly* the sort of KDE feature that should *stay* on KDE. As I've said before, Gnome and KDE reflect a certain polarization of users, and I'm happy about that. This feature is esoteric enough that I don't really even see it belonging in gconf. But I can see where certain KDE users might find it handy. The availability of two DE's with such differing UI philosophies benefits all of us. The DE I prefer is not plagued with users constantly moaning because you can't set the mouse buttons to be assigned differently depending upon the current phase of the moon, and KDE users get to accidentally send "rm -rf /" to all their servers simultaneously if they want, and everyone is happy. ;-)

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Gnome Terminal
by johndaly on Tue 1st Apr 2008 00:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Gnome Terminal"
johndaly Member since:
2006-01-16

You have a very enlighten view of the DE market, it is somewhat similar to mine. And I agree, Gnome and KDE implement other types of interface and a function in one doesn't imply a lack in the other.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Gnome Terminal
by segedunum on Tue 1st Apr 2008 12:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Gnome Terminal"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

The DE I prefer is not plagued with users constantly moaning because you can't set the mouse buttons to be assigned differently

That's probably because it doesn't have very many users ;-). When people, especially those who have used Unix workstations, move over from something like CDE to the Linux desktop world they're expecting to see a reasonable 'Unix' desktop. They won't find it in Gnome. When people move from Windows, and even OS X, there's a lot of functionality that simply isn't there in Gnome - and they're also expecting to see something compelling that they don't have on OS X and Windows that will make them stay.

When you have demand for features, and you have to weigh up where to put certain things and how to organise your desktop, it means that people are actually using it for something. When those user aren't there, you're in trouble ;-).

and KDE users get to accidentally send "rm -rf /" to all their servers simultaneously if they want, and everyone is happy. ;-)

Yes I know, we get it. All users are idiots ;-).

Edited 2008-04-01 12:37 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Gnome Terminal
by sbergman27 on Tue 1st Apr 2008 15:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Gnome Terminal"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

That's probably because it doesn't have very many users ;-).

Yeah, I see where this is going. I'm supposed to point out that most of the distros on distrowatch use Gnome by default and that *all* enterprise oriented ones do. And then you claim that everyone just installs KDE on top of them. And then I point to some desktop surveys. And then you claim that they've all been thoroughly debunked, while still standing firm with your anecdotal evidence...

And on, and on...

Been there. Done that. Have better things to do with my time. But I will leave you with one rhetorical question:

What difference does it make how popular a desktop is as long as the people who do use it are happy with it?

Edited 2008-04-01 15:16 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Gnome Terminal
by leos on Tue 1st Apr 2008 18:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Gnome Terminal"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

Yeah, I see where this is going. I'm supposed to point out that most of the distros on distrowatch use Gnome by default and that *all* enterprise oriented ones do.


Why would you point out something like that if its wrong?

http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=506064&cid=22927576

Of course, measuring linux adoption, bad source, etc etc. In other words, there is no really 100% reliable stats on this subject. The question is more or less up in the air.

And then I point to some desktop surveys.


So far there has been a grand total of 1 survey that showed the userbase of gnome larger than KDE. But as you say, these surveys aren't worth anything anyway, and people putting stock in them have about zero understanding of sampling bias.

Been there. Done that. Have better things to do with my time.


Apparently not, since you are still posting.

But I will leave you with one rhetorical question:

What difference does it make how popular a desktop is as long as the people who do use it are happy with it?


No difference at all, up to a certain point. The popularity of Windows is not healthy for the market as it puts too much control into the hands of one company. As long as no single company controls more than, say 70% of the computers in the world, we're fine.

Edited 2008-04-01 18:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Gnome Terminal
by sigzero on Wed 2nd Apr 2008 11:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Gnome Terminal"
sigzero Member since:
2006-01-03

Once you've used it...you will know how convenient it is.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Gnome Terminal
by Soulbender on Tue 1st Apr 2008 15:30 UTC in reply to "Gnome Terminal"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

No. This is why we have Tentacle and clusterssh.

Reply Score: 3

File Manager Interface
by zlynx on Tue 1st Apr 2008 00:09 UTC
zlynx
Member since:
2005-07-20

Now if I were doing the Gnome interface there wouldn't even be a file open/save dialog. Instead, to save files you'd get a Nautilus window open to an "Unsaved Files" folder where you could rename them and drag&drop them to their save locations. To open files you'd double click, right-click, or drag&drop the file to open it.

And, to make file management more accessible and faster there wouldn't be that pansy Places menu. Instead, file management would get a whole toolbar to itself, just like the Task bar.

Reply Score: 1

RE: File Manager Interface
by Crono on Tue 1st Apr 2008 01:26 UTC in reply to "File Manager Interface"
Crono Member since:
2006-11-08

Instead, to save files you'd get a Nautilus window open to an "Unsaved Files" folder where you could rename them and drag&drop them to their save locations. To open files you'd double click, right-click, or drag&drop the file to open it.

Sounds good in theory but I think I (and probably many others, too) might get very confused by this. You won't be able to see the difference between a normal Nautilus and a load/save-nautilus that easily.
Even if it should have the same functionality as a normal file-browser, it definately shouldn't look like one.

And, to make file management more accessible and faster there wouldn't be that pansy Places menu. Instead, file management would get a whole toolbar to itself, just like the Task bar.

I hardly even use the Places-menu because I have a clean file-structure and the most important places bookmarked in Nautilus. I'm curious who really uses that menu (and why).
Also it would be a huge waste of space (at least for me). We already have two bars, no need for a third one IMHO.

Now if I were doing the Gnome interface

Thank god you don't ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: File Manager Interface
by WereCatf on Tue 1st Apr 2008 01:30 UTC in reply to "RE: File Manager Interface"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I hardly even use the Places-menu because I have a clean file-structure and the most important places bookmarked in Nautilus. I'm curious who really uses that menu (and why).

I use that menu very often. Why? Well, because I often use files on my fileserver and I have bookmarked those samba folders so they are visible and very easily accessible from the Places menu. I haven't added any desktop icons for them because clicking a menu and then clicking the bookmark name isn't really much more complicated and it does not clutter up my desktop ;) Oh, and it's also a fast way to get myself to f.ex. nautilus-cd-burner.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: File Manager Interface
by zlynx on Tue 1st Apr 2008 03:06 UTC in reply to "RE: File Manager Interface"
zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

"Instead, to save files you'd get a Nautilus window open to an "Unsaved Files" folder where you could rename them and drag&drop them to their save locations. To open files you'd double click, right-click, or drag&drop the file to open it.

Sounds good in theory but I think I (and probably many others, too) might get very confused by this. You won't be able to see the difference between a normal Nautilus and a load/save-nautilus that easily.
Even if it should have the same functionality as a normal file-browser, it definately shouldn't look like one.
"
There wouldn't be any difference. It would be a Nautilus window, not some load/save thing. The program wouldn't ask you anything. You hit save, it writes it into the special folder with a name like "Unsaved Spreadsheet 1", and calls Nautilus with some command line or DBUS message so that the window pops up with the file selected for rename.

I think it was RISC-OS or Acorn, something like that, that did files this way. I like the idea of it. If you have a good file manager, then use it for everything instead of having separate file management systems.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: File Manager Interface
by bornagainenguin on Tue 1st Apr 2008 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE: File Manager Interface"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

I hardly even use the Places-menu because I have a clean file-structure and the most important places bookmarked in Nautilus. I'm curious who really uses that menu (and why).


I find myself using it a lot to be honest! I find that it works well with the GNOME philosophy of not using desktop icons--or at least that's the impression I get given the developers' tendency to place icons on the panels instead of the desktop.... Maybe its a Ubuntu thing? I know that Fedora puts a home folder and a trash icon on their desktop, so it might be.

Generally I use it the same way I use the 'enhanced' start menu in Windows XP--as a quick way to reach My Documents or My Computer and extract or otherwise move around files that I've just downloaded from within the browser. That said, I wish there were a way to choose which folders were chosen by default to be displayed. I know I can change these via adding bookmarks, but that always changes the list into a submenu which adds to my mousing...annoying and time consuming especially if you miss the menu and have to play with it while the DE loads the menu.

All that having been said I'm happier with it than I am without it.

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 2

RE: File Manager Interface
by Soulbender on Tue 1st Apr 2008 15:32 UTC in reply to "File Manager Interface"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Congratulations, you've just described X Direct Save. It used a lot in the ROX Desktop.
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/direct-save

Reply Score: 2

Deskbar
by Crono on Tue 1st Apr 2008 01:12 UTC
Crono
Member since:
2006-11-08

From the article:
"Unfortunately, it still isn't possible to embed the search text box itself directly into the panel."

On Debian (Etch) it IS directly in the panel.
Did the Debian-devs do this or is it because it's GNOME 2.14?

http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/4756/screenxs3.png

Reply Score: 1

RE: Deskbar
by leech on Tue 1st Apr 2008 04:00 UTC in reply to "Deskbar"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

They changed it in 2.20 or 2.18 something like that. In 2.20 it didn't even have the option to stick to the panel like the 2.22 does.

Not sure why they removed / changed that feature, I liked it a lot better than how it is now. Especially since it was supposed to replace the command line applet, which did embedded itself into the panel.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Deskbar
by de_wizze on Tue 1st Apr 2008 08:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Deskbar"
de_wizze Member since:
2005-10-31

Yeah I'm still waiting for them to re-enable that ability.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Deskbar
by miscz on Tue 1st Apr 2008 13:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Deskbar"
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

It was Summer of Code intern that did a major rewrite of Deskbar. I still have yet to know what was improved but a lot of stuff was broken and future of embedded Deskbar is still uncertain.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Deskbar
by evangs on Tue 1st Apr 2008 13:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Deskbar"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

That feature needs to be brought back. I'd have modded you up but I can't as I've already commented on the story :S

Reply Score: 2

RE: Deskbar
by abraxas on Thu 3rd Apr 2008 10:07 UTC in reply to "Deskbar"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

Did the Debian-devs do this or is it because it's GNOME 2.14?

It's because it's GNOME 2.14. I think the last version of GNOME that supported the text entry in the panel was 2.18. I for one hope that it comes back soon. The applet just isn't as useful without the text entry box in the panel

Reply Score: 2

Good review
by motang on Tue 1st Apr 2008 15:23 UTC
motang
Member since:
2008-03-27

Pretty good review, gives insight into what new with GNOME, been using it with Ubuntu 8.04 beta for 2 weeks now, and works good and I really like the default Clearlooks theme.

Reply Score: 1

WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

These are all only my own opinions and as such don't flame me, ok?

1. File open/save dialog should get thumbnail support. Even if it did require quite some work, it still should be there. It helps one to identify files a lot better, and since Nautilus (and as such, the desktop) shows thumbnails everywhere by default the file open/save dialog just feels somehow inconsistent.

2. File open/save dialog should allow atleast for renaming of files. It is an often-requested feature and I can understand why people want it. I am not talking about every possible file management function here either, just being able to rename files is already a big plus.

3. Some more eye-candy.

4. Please, allow for hiding the menu in applications :O Every single god damn app duplicates all the functions by providing both the menu and the toolbar, and you can only hide the toolbar not the menu. It's a waste of space, and it has been proven several times that people can memorize pictures a lot more easily than arbitrary menus. Atleast I definitely wish Epiphany and Nautilus both had the "hide menu" feature.

Reply Score: 2