Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 17th Apr 2003 03:12 UTC
Gnome HP will not make further investments in Gnome and they will stick with CDE for their HP-UX operating system. This is a bummer for Gnome, but not all is bad today, as the Bitstream Vera TTF fonts for X11 are out of beta and available to download (read the release notes and get a newer freetype/fontconfig though, as it fixes some problems when using these fonts).
Order by: Score:
...
by chicobaud on Thu 17th Apr 2003 03:22 UTC

Looks like they must have some reason not to keep with CDE as the default. They even say "there are not plan for gnome 2.2". They don't say what that reason is.

RE: chicobaud
by Eugenia on Thu 17th Apr 2003 03:23 UTC

The reason:
"The open source development of GNOME v2.0 was still on-going at the end of 2002, and did not stabilize in the timeframe that HP had earlier anticipated. This and other business and industry factors required us to re-assess our plans."

...+
by chicobaud on Thu 17th Apr 2003 03:25 UTC

I meant to keep with CDE as default wm.

...+2
by chicobaud on Thu 17th Apr 2003 03:33 UTC


Maybe Gnome should have more developers but there something
that keeps holding it down.

Will HP ever turn to KDE ? -- Or maybe to "twm" dev ? ;)

Must slepp a little ;)
I only read (and saw) the HP link.
I think I will go to bed now ...

GTK 2.0 took a lot longer to iron out and everything just snowballed but the entire gnome 2.0 project behind schedule. Until you have at least a developer's platform projects are not even going to seriously start reviewing plans to port over and on top of that the back-end infrastructure for a number of technologies were changed to conform to the freedesktop structure.

It puts KDE with a hell of a big lead. I doubt that will change and I like Gnome especially 2.2 a hell of a lot. It is my default desktop.

Not to be a schmuck but what did HP actually contribute to Gnome? I keep eyes on the lists and have not seen much but maybe I am looking at the wrong lists.

Beautiful
by Chris Parker on Thu 17th Apr 2003 03:38 UTC

Really. These fonts look amazing. My desktop has never looked so good.

Screenshots
by Stephen Smith on Thu 17th Apr 2003 04:17 UTC

Yeah, I'm a screenshot whore. Anybody have pictures of these new fonts?

RE: Screenshots
by Eugenia on Thu 17th Apr 2003 04:36 UTC

Install them, it won't take you more than 10 mins.

KDE on HP/UX
by RJDohnert on Thu 17th Apr 2003 04:38 UTC

You can compile KDE for HP/UX QT is already native so the main thing are the KDE sources.

New fonts
by Darius on Thu 17th Apr 2003 04:38 UTC

I know next to nothing yet about how fonts in Linux, but as I understand it, if you incorporate the TrueType fonts from a Windows install, you can get much better looking fonts than the Linux default fonts.
Does the release of these fonts mean that we will be able to get Windows-quality fonts in Linux out of the box now?

Re: Screenshots
by RJDohnert on Thu 17th Apr 2003 04:39 UTC

Do they only work on Gnome or can I use them on KDE as well ?

RE: New fonts
by Eugenia on Thu 17th Apr 2003 04:40 UTC

Yes. Pretty much. The Vera fonts are not as polished as the stock Arial or Verdana fonts, but they are close.
And the new versions of the distros are free to use them by default.

Submit button
by RJDohnert on Thu 17th Apr 2003 04:40 UTC

Why is it when I press the submit button it takes me to a HP dead link?

Taster's choice!
by Sean K on Thu 17th Apr 2003 05:30 UTC


I love KDE. Every time I login w/ Gnome, I get the impression
it's the direct result of an RMS hissy fit over Troll Tech's QT library.
But I digress. If it's not GNU it's not??? er, emm. Never mind.

Sean

Re: Taster's choice
by Felix on Thu 17th Apr 2003 09:37 UTC

I love KDE. Every time I login w/ Gnome, I get the impression
it's the direct result of an RMS hissy fit over Troll Tech's QT library.
But I digress. If it's not GNU it's not??? er, emm. Never mind.


Different things for different people. I personally hate KDE. In my experience, it's ugly. There are some significant problems with the HIG, which makes it consistant but stupid. So basically, I hate it's look-and-feel, and that's all that's important to me. Gimme inconsistant but sensible Gnome/GTK-based apps anyday.

(I dunno exactly what the point of your post was; mine is to remind you of something that you already know, followed by my opinion to give it a few more words.)

oh
by Joppe on Thu 17th Apr 2003 09:59 UTC

It's amazing how many "I love KDE" you get to read at these forums. Even when the article has absolutely nothing to do with it.

A Screenshot
by jaavaaGuru on Thu 17th Apr 2003 10:41 UTC

If anyone's too lazy/busy to install them, here's what they look like (compared to Verdana and Tahoma):

http://www.sorn.net/screenshots/index.php?Show=vera

Inconsistency in Vera fonts...
by Anonymous on Thu 17th Apr 2003 11:26 UTC

The monospace font is a little inconsistent for my taste - it's sans-serif except for the letters 'i' and 'j'...which in particular makes a lowercase 'i' look funny next to a lowercase 'l'...

The license allows the fonts to be modified, though, has anyone seen a "fixed" version yet?

I've just installed the vera fonts...
by Matthew Gardiner on Thu 17th Apr 2003 12:56 UTC

and to be completely honest I see no difference between them at the freely available URW Type 1 fonts that are available.

HP/UX and GNOME
by RJDohnert on Thu 17th Apr 2003 14:15 UTC

Maybe HP should have adopted KDE instead of GNOME, it probably would have gone farther.

.
by Rich on Thu 17th Apr 2003 14:20 UTC

>> It's amazing how many "I love KDE" you get to read at these forums.

True, we need more Gnome.

"I love GNOME"
"I love GNOME"
"I love GNOME"

Not an option
by Nick Slaughter on Thu 17th Apr 2003 15:26 UTC

HP investigated other options but KDE was never even considered, it was refered to as too heavy and more of a "toy" then lite, clean working environment that they required. I read this in "Computer Insight" so don't shoot the messenger, even though I agree.

But on the other hand, I also see why they didn't go with Gnome, even though it for the purpose intended are way better then KDE.

ttf in KDE
by aherm on Thu 17th Apr 2003 15:34 UTC

It is easier to install ttf fonts in KDE than in GNOME. This ttf has 10 fonts in it. Only need 1 minute to download and 10 second to install. It works out of the bat in linux. No reboot necessary ;-)


Have fun :-)

Re: Taster's choice
by RJDohnert on Thu 17th Apr 2003 17:04 UTC

" Different things for different people. I personally hate KDE. In my experience, it's ugly. There are some significant problems with the HIG, which makes it consistant but stupid. So basically, I hate it's look-and-feel, and that's all that's important to me. Gimme inconsistant but sensible Gnome/GTK-based apps anyday.

(I dunno exactly what the point of your post was; mine is to remind you of something that you already know, followed by my opinion to give it a few more words.) "

I think GNOME is ugly and the most awkward desktop environment on Linux and it has more significant problems than KDE does. I like QT it is crossplatform which makes it much more flexible than GTK and QT looks better and more consistant. Lets not turn this into a desktop flamewar, each has its advantages and disadvantages. It is all about personal preference.

Gtk cross platform
by Spark on Thu 17th Apr 2003 20:25 UTC

I like QT it is crossplatform which makes it much more flexible than GTK

I guess gaim and GtkRadiant which I both use under Windows are based on Tcl/Tk then. ;)
I don't know how far Gtk is on Mac OS X but I think it works just as well. Unlike Qt, it's free (both beer and speach) for every platform though.

@aherm
by Rich on Thu 17th Apr 2003 21:39 UTC

>> It is easier to install ttf fonts in KDE than in GNOME.

lol.

Installing fonts in GNOME (with Fontilus, which is installed with Garnome and part of GNOME 2.4) can be done in 3 seconds and less.

And we (GNOME users) have got a nice tool to view the details of the installed fonts as well.. heheh..

Oh, and we can view the fonts as thumbnails in Nautilus.

"I love GNOME"

Gnome Blows
by Seth on Thu 17th Apr 2003 22:06 UTC

GNOME looks stupid, Only idiots use GNOME, hell only idiots use UNIX, WINDOWS RULEZ

@aherm
by Spark on Thu 17th Apr 2003 22:14 UTC

Yep I did it like that, just dropped the fonts into my fonts:// folder. Unfortunately they didn't show up there after a reboot. So it's not perfect yet or it's just a problem in Red Hat 9.
Nevertheless, those fonts are beautiful. ;) I always thought AA Fonts for medium sizes would suck, but this is the first time I really enjoy looking at AA fonts, they don't appear "blurry" or unclean anymore.
Now if only jEdit could use those fonts. ;) Looking at the ugly italic fonts in jEdit is really horrible.
Hoping for a better Java future or a great text editor for Gtk# or something. =)

Re: A Screenshot
by renoX on Fri 18th Apr 2003 17:02 UTC

Thanks jaavaaGuru for the screenshot.

The look of Vera is nice but I find the spacing between the letters a bit weird for the small font part especially for "Bits" of "Bitstream" where it is really inconsistent.

What is surprising is that it doesn't do it in the bigger example..

Anyone knows what could cause this problem?