Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sun 10th Oct 2004 05:47 UTC, submitted by Andrew
Slackware, Slax This is a message from Patrick Volkerding in regards to his thoughts on Gnome and Slackware. It was originally posted on the Dropline Gnome Forum. Editor's note: Pat has made similar comments to me as well regarding Gnome's bugs and maintainance problems.
Order by: Score:
WTH?!?!?!
by Gnomaniacal Perlmonger on Sun 10th Oct 2004 06:27 UTC

...simply TOOOO BAAAAD.

Anyway, I don't use Slack. :3 :3 :3

....And I can always install Gnome by source anytime I want if the distro doesn't have it in pkgs.

Somewhat understandable really.
by Best on Sun 10th Oct 2004 06:29 UTC

Considering that Gnome and KDE have both been pushed off to the second disk, normally reserved for the sourcecode and extras alone, perhaps it would be a good idea for him to eliminate KDE and Gnome from slackware completely, and rely upon specialized desktop distributions for both.

Dropline does a very good job at providing a good gnome desktop on top of the stable slackware base, I'm sure somebody could do the same thing with KDE.

Since Slack is a one man distro, it seems like a very good idea since it would get Slack back down to a single cd distro and would save Pat time.

I'd hate to see Gnome completely removed from Slackware, but if Pat were to officially endorse dropline by including the installer, I'm not sure really how much of an impact it would ultimately have.

Don't blame GNOME for the problems.
by Sean on Sun 10th Oct 2004 06:30 UTC

The problems building and maintaining GNOME on just about any Linux distro out there extends from the fact that there is no set standard of how a Linux system should be constructed. Every independent Linux distro has an almost completely different set of config files with an almost completely different syntax. You can't find 2 independent Linux distros that have the exact same set of libraries in the exact same places with the exact same minor or even major version. Until there is unity into what goes into a Linux distribution's core and how it's put there, you're going to run into these kinds of problems. In fact, I'm willing to bet the problem is going to get worse as time goes on. It all extends to the fact that Linux as an OS is a gigantic hodgepodge of componentry and nobody is communicating with each other as a consortium to make standards. We have to leave it up to the poor saps that build our so called Linux "distros" to pick up all the pieces, figure out how they all go together, and see if they all play nice with one another. Is this any way to build an OS?

this is good
by whatever on Sun 10th Oct 2004 06:31 UTC

this is good news. let slack handle the stuff it does best and let dropline does what it does best. both of them win.

Re: Don't blame GNOME for the problems.
by ralph on Sun 10th Oct 2004 06:38 UTC

But you did read the mail stating that he only got the problem with gnome, didn't you?

RE: WTH?!?!?!
by Kabal on Sun 10th Oct 2004 06:46 UTC

"....And I can always install Gnome by source anytime I want if the distro doesn't have it in pkgs."

Lol. Have you ever tried doing that? And no, Gentoo doesnt count.

RE: WTH?!?!?!
by cth on Sun 10th Oct 2004 06:57 UTC

"Lol. Have you ever tried doing that? And no, Gentoo doesnt count."

A lot of people (developers, testers, among others) are doing exactly that. jhbuild or garnome makes it easy.

v LIAR
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Oct 2004 06:58 UTC
Oh well
by spank_da_monkey on Sun 10th Oct 2004 07:06 UTC

Slackware makes for a rather pathetic Desktop/Workstation enviroment anyways.

For all the Gnome/Slackers out there, make the switch to Debian or Gentoo. I did!!! ;)

Pat, whats this BS about building Gnome? KDE is just as or perhaps more difficult.

RE: WTH?!?!?!
by reddazz on Sun 10th Oct 2004 07:13 UTC

I have never successfully built GNOME on Slackware from, there are always problems, so I can understand what Pat is saying even though I do not agree with it.

It usually takes about a month for a new Gnome release to be marked x86 stable in portage, while new KDE releases usually roll out in stable within a week, if not two.

For the most part, the KDE ebuilds have not changed all that much over the past few years with only new dependencies and USE flags being added here and there. The only major exception to this is the overhaul of the kde-i1n packages done to drastically simplify the update process of the i18n packages.

"I built both GNOME and KDE from source and you can't honestly tell me that KDE is much easier, they both are challenging. He is a liar and just prefers KDE."
True, it is challenging to manually build both environments (give the kde eclasses in Gentoo a read if you want to get an idea of how complex kde is to build). BUT, it seems like Patrick's problem isn't so much that they are complex packages to build as is that Gnome's build process changes and becomes more nuanced with each release, requiring more changes to the build systems Patrick has come up with, requiring more time to test out and QA the new release.

Too bad
by Joseph on Sun 10th Oct 2004 07:21 UTC

Pat is a kde user.. we could see for the first time the, in my opinion, horrible/silly desktop ui metaphor finally dropped from a somewhat mainstream Linux distribution or any user oriented OS for that matter. I'm so tired of seeing 'screenshots of Linux' with basic gnome/kde menus and panels and hearing everyone refer to getting users over to using Linux as the desktop initiative (or even worse: they just refer to the X gui as a desktop no matter what). Good to see at least part of my slackware cd purchase went to good use.. even though I've since switched to Archlinux. Slackware's cd sets have nice label art at least.

The good and the bad.
by Maynard on Sun 10th Oct 2004 07:32 UTC

The good is that KDE is easier to compile because it comes in huge single packages. Someone could just package Gnome insto source tarballs like that, but uprgading would become a bandwidth intensive affair. I am sure with something like Build Buddy from Ximian, it is pretty easy to maintain different package sets fro different distros. IIRC at Ximian at one point there was only one person doing the packaging for all the distros.

hmmmm
by poundsmack on Sun 10th Oct 2004 07:40 UTC

why not use something simple like icewm or xfce.....would take a hell of a lot less time to configure and is not nearly as buggy or masive....

Hmm
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Oct 2004 07:43 UTC

So I guess all those people who told me Linux didn't need a standard installing mechanism where mistaken?

re: Don't blame GNOME for the problems.
by rds on Sun 10th Oct 2004 07:49 UTC

That's nothing but passing the buck. Mind pointing me to a build-list on the GNOME site? Or a dependancies list? GNOME is roughtly 20+ libraries, many of which depend on others being compiled in a set order or they exhibit odd, unpredictable behavior. (Or at least did; last I tried was around 2.6)

One of the main reasons I didn't like GNOME when I used it is that making sure I had all the dependancies when compiling was usually "configure and see if it's OK." And after that I'd have things randomly break because I compiled them in the wrong order. jhbuild and garome fix this for end users who doesn't mind giving total control of their systems to GNOME, but comes at the cost of any revision control or OS-specific packaging. And correct me if I'm wrong, but both pull the CVS version, which just is not acceptable.

Most big packages are hard to install, but the GNOME team sure goes out of their way to make sure it stays hard to install.

Re: Sean (IP: ---.lax1-4.15.157.215.lax1.dsl-verizon.net)
by CaptainPinko on Sun 10th Oct 2004 07:53 UTC

The problems building and maintaining GNOME on just about any Linux distro out there extends from the fact that there is no set standard of how a Linux system should be constructed.

http://www.pathname.com/fhs/announce-2.3.html I know SuSE follows it (I'm pretty damn sure.).

You have GOT to be kidding me.
by Flecko on Sun 10th Oct 2004 07:58 UTC

I use slackware SPECIFICALLY for the fact that its simple(nice packages, ncurses based install, no bloat, swaret) and offers Gnome, my desktop of choice. Bitch all you want about dependencies, blah blah, kde this, blah blah, whatever. I've been using slackware since the 3.x, always with Gnome. If patrick drops Gnome, he loses a paying customer, as simple as that, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't have too many of them.

This is all coming from an experienced linux veteran, and advocate. I hope he makes the right choice, as I've been patiently waiting for gnome 2.8 packages to improve on my otherwise flawless desktop.

Re: The good and the bad.
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Oct 2004 08:03 UTC

> Someone could just package Gnome insto source tarballs like that, but uprgading would become a bandwidth intensive affair.

How that? I bet the whole size would be reduced because the auto* stuff is less duplicated.

My thoughts on this...
by Eu on Sun 10th Oct 2004 08:22 UTC

Pat is doing the right thing. Slackware will benefit greatly from the consistency of only offering one desktop environment. Quality assurance will also improve as he has to maintain a smaller set of packages.

Slackware appeals to the DIY-crowd, so I am sure that if some of them want to build it on their own, they will find a way to do so. In doing so, I suspect hey may reach the same concluions that Pat has reached.

I think the creation of training materials will benefit a great deal when all major distributions focus on one DE.

KDE: Slackware, Linspire, Xandros, Lycoris, Mandrake (offers both Gnome and KDE, but KDE is default) Arklinux.

Novell provides both KDE and Gnome and will continue to do so into the future for at least the next two years. Red Hat provides KDE but as a second thought. SUN's JDE is based on Gnome.

Debian is what you want it to be.

If people could set aside their ego, this issue could have been solved a long time ago. As is, it is one of the biggest strengths and one of the biggest problems holding back wider Linux adoption because even if I don't believe that there is such a thing as too much choice, development resources are too thin right now.

I am in the process on deciding which will be the default mail client in a Linux installation. Kontact does certain things better than evolution and evolution does certain things better than Kontact. If the teams could be thrown into the same room, we may have a chance to get the best mail client yet.

I find that KDE makes for a far easier transition from Windows for most users. If both Gnome and KDE do the infrastructure work jointly and have a common sound server, common HAL and DBUS, common menus, etc, then I can live with the slight inconsistencies of having two desktops.

tell us sth new
by Nikos Kouremenos on Sun 10th Oct 2004 08:45 UTC

Pat was always a KDE fan, and that is the main reason why SlackWare has lost a lof of its target group.
The simplicity of Slackware doesn't go well with KDE
GNOME tries to be simple for the user.
anyways, package system on slackware sucks. This is not slack anymore. I switched to ArchLinux and remembering slackware is like a tortute for me

RE: My thoughts on this . . .
by colin on Sun 10th Oct 2004 08:49 UTC


If people could set aside their ego, this issue could have been solved a long time ago. As is, it is one of the biggest strengths and one of the biggest problems holding back wider Linux adoption because even if I don't believe that there is such a thing as too much choice, development resources are too thin right now.


The fact of the matter is, while the developer pool might not be as big as one might like I have been using Linux since the RH 5.2 days and the DEs have come a loooong way. They might move faster and in a more concentrated direction if everybody could jump on one boat, but then what happens when there's an argument over where the boat is going? A branch, a new project? I believe that choice is a much better strength than dilution is a weakness.

As it stands, neither DE looks ready to die yet, and while some might gripe about GNOME's distibuted, sloppy distribution techniques, and other might gripe about KDE's every-thing-in-15-neat-little-pacakges techniques, there are still plenty of people interested, and with interests in, the technologies being developed.


I am in the process on deciding which will be the default mail client in a Linux installation. Kontact does certain things better than evolution and evolution does certain things better than Kontact. If the teams could be thrown into the same room, we may have a chance to get the best mail client yet.


Choose one and learn to live with it. I did. If this were Windows they'd make the choice easy because Outlook would have the best integration because they are operating under a monopoly (for all intents and purposes, go thunderbird!). Learn to live with the little flaws. Perhaps GNU/Linux's greatest errors is in making people believe in a utopia.

Slackware, mmmmmmm, FOREVER!!!
by open4free on Sun 10th Oct 2004 09:05 UTC

It's better to drop the huge troll GNOME.<p>
So, Slackware can release theirs distributions faster than any distributions (i.e. Gentoo).<p>
Inside of my PentiumII 300 MHz / 288 MiB, i've installed gcc-3.3.6-ss, gcc-3.4.3-ss, linux-2.4.28-pre4, linux-2.6.9-rc3, glibc-2.3.3, X.org-6.8.1, icewm-1.2.16, firefox-0.10.1, jikes-1.22, jre-1.4.2_05, etc. and works perfectly.
This machine uptimed more than one month since linux-2.4.26 without crash, xDDD.<p>
I've installed KDE-3.3.0 too, it's very goooooood for my AthlonXP 2200+ machine, xD (i.e. k3b, xxdiff, konqueror, kdeveloper, ...).<p>

RE:RE:WTH?!?!?!
by Gnomaniacal Perlmonger on Sun 10th Oct 2004 09:29 UTC

Yeah...I tried and finally succeeded to build Gnome 2.6 for my FreeBSD 5.2... The source code did not build correctly, so I had to edit Makefiles and even some headers to "go around" some problems. Anyway, the truth is, you can build and install Gnome, and other apps, from source, if you don't mind screwing around/editing Makefiles/write custom patches for your own distro. :3

RE:My thoughts on this...
by Gnomaniacal Perlmonger on Sun 10th Oct 2004 09:34 UTC

...If you prefer just one, consistant environment, go ahead and use Windoze instead.

Choice is GOOD.

I am extremely disappointed w/ Mr. Pat's decision. To me, just offering only one DE to users is a pseudo-monopoly.

Also....
by Gnomaniacal Perlmonger on Sun 10th Oct 2004 09:37 UTC

I never liked KDE because when one installs KDE, he has to install all the bunch of whole APIs as ONE.

I prefer Gnome because it is (at least to appearance) somewhat modularized.

However, this is just a personal preference...as somebody before me just mentioned, to some people, Gnome's modularized lib approach might seem too complicated.

By the way....
by Gnomaniacal Perlmonger on Sun 10th Oct 2004 09:40 UTC

...this is just a off-topic thought....I think no body in here seems to paying attention to GNUstep.

..some people argue that openstep (I am not sure about lower/uppercase convention for this one) api framework is far superior than gtk+ and qt...

RE: My thoughts on this...
by clausi on Sun 10th Oct 2004 09:43 UTC

Kontact does certain things better than evolution and evolution does certain things better than Kontact. If the teams could be thrown into the same room, we may have a chance to get the best mail client yet.

That's wishful thinking. It may even result in the worse mail client you've ever seen.

And to get this straight: Your 'problem' will be the same whatever OS you use. I also found two similar pieces of software doing some things better than the other in Windows. Windows only advantage is that at least both projects share a similar look. Thus, your 'problem' is due to the toolkits, not the desktops.

And although I don't use Slackware and don't bother with KDE, I agree that this is probably a good thing for Slackware to do: Drop all GNOME and maybe even all GTK packages from the distro.

From what others said, it's a one man distro. It should be concentrating on one desktop. It may even improve his the number of sold CDs, who knows?

Could start a trend.
by FreeBSD'r on Sun 10th Oct 2004 09:45 UTC


If this happens, it will be interesting to see if any other distros follow Pat's lead. I know several part-time linux users whom almost all complain about the their being "too many desktops". Personally I prefer FVWM or Fluxbox.

he doesn't like DBUS and HAL, but it comes to KDE too...
by anonymous on Sun 10th Oct 2004 09:51 UTC

... so it doesn't matter if he include this stuff NOW, because Gnome rely on this.
And I don't think Gnome 2.8 compiles other than 2.6 if DBUS&HAL are included.
Slackware 10.1 should be a 2.6 Kernel Distribution which is required for DBUS & HAL.
UDEV is included in Slackware 10.0 too...

Pat can't always say "xyz (dbus&hal) is too insecure" because it's a bit heavier to maintance his distribution.

Then Pat should drop SENDMAIL and prefer POSTFIX if he really wants a secure distribution. And Pat, we have 2004, so a SpamAssassin by default isn't to bad these days...

If your packages comes to complicated to maintain, then maybe you should switch to RPM:
No, not a ".rpm" "-devel.rpm" "-docs.rpm" "-xyz.rpm" hell, only ONE rpm file for ONE package, eg. "openldap.rpm" which includes server, client, devel and docs in ONE package!

And btw, as boot times in Slackware is nearly like Fedora (thanks to hotplug&initrd&udev in Slackware), you can switch to a SysV Init too.
As more daemons comes with Slackware, it doesn't matter which Initstyle, and BSD-Initstyle looks like SysV, so you can include SysV by default!

Come Pat, make Slackware a _bit_ _modern_, we have 2004 and not 1994!
You shouldn't patch every package, but please make a Postfix, RPM, SysV Slackware with _Vanilla_ packages!

T H A N K Y O U V E R Y M U C H !!!!

v bye bye Gnome
by Cheapskate on Sun 10th Oct 2004 09:54 UTC
Gnome
by Luk van den Borne on Sun 10th Oct 2004 10:22 UTC

It's not like he's saying Slack users can't use Gnome anymore, he just doesn't want to spend so much time on building and maintaining gnome packages if there already are very good Gnome packages(DLG).

However, there are still problems with DLG. DLG is sort of not very -current friendly. It wants to install its own packages, even packages like python and x.org etc. Especially when mixed with linuxpackages.net packages it'll become one big mess.

And while I do agree that building Gnome isn't the easiest one to build from source, I believe Gnome's usability adheres more to KISS than KDE does.

autopackage
by shakeeb on Sun 10th Oct 2004 10:25 UTC

idont know whether this cud help
Anyways checckout autopackage.org

Good idea...
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Oct 2004 10:26 UTC

He wants to drop Gnome because it's creating a lot of additional and unnecessary work for him. That's perfectly understandable. Gnome is difficult to build, and the build procedure is becoming more and more complex with each release. He said that a third of his work on Slackware is Gnome related, either trying to build the latest version, or bugfixing the thing.

Compare that with KDE. You just install QT, which is the most difficult bit, then build the main KDE packages by doing a simple "./configure && make && make install", passing a couple of path paramaters to the configure script if you want. As long as you have the required libraries, it works fine. All the required libraries (and optional ones) are listed on the KDE website, so you can easily build it from scratch. That's important for distribution maintainers.

If he wants to drop KDE, that's fine. That's what Dropline is for. There's no reason you can't just have the Slackware base system on the first disc, KDE on the second, and Dropline Gmome on a third.

If it reduces Pat's workload, and lets him get on with other important stuff, it's a good idea. He shouldn't need to waste his time on Gnome packages when people can just use Dropline.

yeah, make life easier
by joeuser on Sun 10th Oct 2004 10:29 UTC

of course, if you drop gnome, your life gets easier.

but think bigger: if you drop kde as well, and all applicationst AND even the kernel, your life gets even more easier

sorry, could'nt resist ;)

a good decision
by christian paratschek on Sun 10th Oct 2004 10:35 UTC

even though i personally prefer gnome, i support patricks decision. i have stated it before and i will say it again: choice is good, but having choice should not also mean that you chicken out out and make no decisions at all. patrick may make a debated decision, yeah. but he also reduces his amount of completely useless extra work, thus freeing him to do more for slackware. i think offering 2 completely desktop environments is so redundant. if ubuntu doesn't bring kde, then slackware might as well bring no gnome. it's perfectly legitimate. in fact, i want to see more distributions make this decision. support one desktop and support it really well. and if the whole distribution suffers, someone WILL fork it and put the other desktop in again. it's really that easy.

regards,
christian

it could mean good things for Gnome
by Michael Salivar on Sun 10th Oct 2004 10:49 UTC

Personally I don't like DE's, though I am installing an Arch/Gnome desktop for my parents as we speak. I do this because Gnome seems much easier to use for your truly average user, while KDE seems better for your typical (Windows) power user. To anyone who wants Linux to have only one major DE, I'd love to see your plan to make these two, and all other DE-using groups happy. I'll expect it on my desk first thing Monday morning. Don't forget XFCE and potential Enlightenment DR17 users.

Patrick is certainly entitled to do whatever he wants with his distribution, though I have to think that Gnome and XFCE fit better with the overall Slackware philosophy. I didn't know he was a KDE user, and I have to say I'm a bit surprised. I half suspected Rat Poison ;)

Like I said, though, this really could mean good things for Gnome. First they have GoneME (sp?), and now a large and previously DE agnostic distribution considering dropping them. Either this is going to provide a wake up call for the developers, or give GoneME or another fork some backing. In my opinion, it's about time they fully realize there are packagers between them and the users, and they deserve some development focus. It can't be all about making their own lives easier if they want Gnome to continue as a viable option.

I support this
by mario on Sun 10th Oct 2004 10:53 UTC

Not only do I hate gnome (for good reason: I always manage to find half a dozen bugs in any release, in the first 3 hours of use), but to think that Patrick spends 1/3 of his time to build and bugfix gnome alone, wow! Gnome must be a real dud.

I am a Slackware fan, but for the record, I have now switched to FreeBSD 5.2 with KDE. On that PIII 500 MHz, it feels snappier than RedHat 7.3 or Slackware 8. I highly recommend it, and you can install it through the net in various ways (I used FTP through HTTP proxy, IIRC).

Up to the developers
by acobar on Sun 10th Oct 2004 10:58 UTC

Try to build something by yourself on Linux using the ubiquitous '#make install DESTDIR=<someplace>' and you will see one of the reasons he is complaining. It many times doesn't work, and your file system get messed. And it should, so that you could make packages with easy.

To fix this issue, I think that every package Makefile should look for a file in one common place, /etc/systemtemplate for example (it could be a shell script that set some known variables based on how it was called), and get all information needed, compiler flags, places to put libraries, include files, execs, docs and whatever more from there. This file should be divided in sections so that if you issue '#make usr', '#make local' or make '#make sys' it could prepare the package accordingly.

And don't come with: 'use automake and autoconf' they are just part of the equation.

@Christian
by Michael Salivar on Sun 10th Oct 2004 10:59 UTC

There's one problem there, though. Ubuntu is a desktop operating system through and through, while Slackware is more a build it yourself solution. Personally, I'd rather see him keep or abandon both, all or nothing, completely keeping it in terms of Slackware itself. It's not like he does any extra integration work, iirc (it's been awhile since I slacked)

When Gnome's well being is brought into it, I think he should drop it, for the reasons I mentioned in my last post. It's not like Gnomish Slackers will be left in the dark though, there's still Dropline and linuxpackages.net

Overall I agree with you. Off the CD distributions like Ubuntu and Connectiva should focus on a single set of software, especially when it comes to DE's. People who use these distributions tend to be overwhelmed by choices, and just want things to work.

I support Patrick's view
by Phil on Sun 10th Oct 2004 11:10 UTC

If and when Patrick removes gnome, it will, in my view be a good thing (tm).

I use KDE but I also like gnome. Gnome however, is "a bit kludgy" to install compared with KDE and by not distributing it, time is saved that could be otherwise spent on squashing important bugs.

People seem to think that if he drops gnome, he should drop KDE too.
Well....

1) If I were a gnome user, i'd just install dropline gnome and stop fussing (it'd be cleaner anyway)

2) Why make it so the KDE users have to install KDE if KDE isn't a problem for Patrick to include?

This CANNOT Happen
by Mike on Sun 10th Oct 2004 11:21 UTC

Oh god. Don't seperate the two things i truely love.

I recently installed Slack without any X/xapps/DM and then built the whole thing up from scratch and Garnome.

I'd rather slack simplified down to just a bash install and let me do everything than drop gnome and keep kde.

If that happens, i may be forced to switch to debian/UBUNTU(!) permanently.

It would be cool if there was a dropline Gnome and a dropline KDE project *IF* dropline kept up to date. Still no 2.8?!

As long as he does not drop GTK
by Mephisto on Sun 10th Oct 2004 11:31 UTC

I am less worried about Gnome than GTK. I use FVWM now anyway, but I do use some Gnome programs I would need to find a replacement for. GQView, Gedit, plus occasionally Abiword, gnumeric, and Galeon. I say occasionally because I principally use OO.o and Firefox. Heck on my laptop I removed KDE and just left QT.

I don't really consider Dropline an option, it is too intrusive in non-Gnome related things for my taste.

RE: This CANNOT Happen
by Mephisto on Sun 10th Oct 2004 11:35 UTC

If you are already building Gnome from scratch why do you care if he drops it?

Happy with port
by dennis on Sun 10th Oct 2004 11:37 UTC

I am very happy with the FreeBSD GNOME 2.8 port. I think dropline does good work to get GNOME on slack, so don't worry for that decision.

RE: Gnome to be (possibly) dropped by Slackware
by slakas on Sun 10th Oct 2004 11:37 UTC

I had never used Gnome, just KDE and Fluxbox and it won't be a great problem if slackware drops gnome fromt it's distro:)

v RE: liar
by dennis on Sun 10th Oct 2004 11:38 UTC
A Few Points
by enloop on Sun 10th Oct 2004 11:47 UTC

Just a few points:

1) I've never been able to successfully build any version of Gnome on Slackware. Any approach requires much trolling of the web to locate and build dependencies that are mentioned nowhere in either the Gnome or the build tool's documentation. Both jhbuild and Garnome include bootsrapping capabilities that purport to install all needed dependencies. But, they don't. Beyond that, both systems fail for me as a result of simple coding errors. That's a bit understandable for jhbuild, which pulls from CVS, but not for Garnome, which pulls tar files from a static repository.

2) The flipside of Slackware's beloved reluctance to tinker with the source of the software it includes is the reality that it is supportd by one person who, almost certainly, lacks the time to do much more. So, as someone who really likes Gnome and really doesn't like KDE, I'm disappointed that Pat V. may drop Gnome. But, I understand his reasons, and they are legitimate.

3. Too many open source developers and users excuse the lack of adherance to standards by mouthing "Choice is good". Choice doesn't exist if you can't get the damn thing to build or install.

RE: Mephisto
by Mike on Sun 10th Oct 2004 12:04 UTC

[quote]If you are already building Gnome from scratch why do you care if he drops it?[/quote]

Because the garnome process left a lot to be desired. Also, I format/reinstall a lot on multiple partitions/HDDs/Computers and i'd like to have what i want on 1 or 2 CDs for easy install.

I was wrong about Dropline though, they added 2.8 on thursday. I'm downloading their ISO right now and it looks promising.

Still, Ubuntu is a really tempting distro. I've been a Slack user as long as i've been a linux user, but if they drop Gnome, AND keep KDE, i may let Ubuntu handle my desktop needs. One thing i absolutely love about Ubuntu is the streamlining. There's ONE tool for most jobs. And the whole thing comes on ONE iso. I'd love to see others follow that trend.

I definitely understand Patrick's reasoning, but i'd rather he went totally CLI and let the user build the desktop up with a seperate CD that someone else maintains. I'd actually prefer it that way even to the current system. A blatent favoring of KDE would push me away from Slack (as a desktop OS)for good.

Re: Mike (IP: ---.wchstr01.pa.comcast.net)
by ralph on Sun 10th Oct 2004 12:11 UTC

Sorry, but to leave slack just because Patrick leaves kde in is just childish.

Ubuntu is great though, I agree.

another 2.8 distro
by hirisov on Sun 10th Oct 2004 12:26 UTC

Hi!

If you like slackware's simplicity, and wants a good (apt level) package handling too, and wants gnome 2.8 i suggest you to try arch linux. It has an excellent live cd which makes it install quite easy, and a very friendly community. It's also just working, and very stable - and unlike debian stable it's very up to date.

bye, hirisov

Well done if it's that buggy
by mikeyd on Sun 10th Oct 2004 12:38 UTC

Don't get me wrong, I like gnome. But if it's causing 1/3 of his bugs then Pat's right to drop it. Maybe with the spare time he can include MPlayer and OpenOffice. To all those saying he should drop KDE too, read his reasons. He's not dropping gnome because he prefers kde, he's dropping it because it's such a pain for him to build and so buggy. If he has the same problems with any package, I'm confident he'll drop it.

Arch
by Mike on Sun 10th Oct 2004 12:41 UTC

I'm not opposed to giving Arch a shot, but the changelog for the newest release doesn't say anything about 2.8. Is there a "current" ISO i'm missing?

very cool!
by sean on Sun 10th Oct 2004 12:53 UTC

Pat's dead on IMO. Makes me want to go back to using Slack (which, oddly enough, I used until 10.0 anyway).

Completely agree
by sean on Sun 10th Oct 2004 12:59 UTC

There is nothing stopping existing groups like Dropline from providing Gnome packages. I'd much rather see Slackware focus on more useful features related to making Slackware a great server than on desktop eye candy.

Sean

kde vs gnome
by bob on Sun 10th Oct 2004 13:08 UTC


personally i love gnome over kde, for 1 reason:

KISS (keep it simple, stupid)

Just enough options to keep me happy, and not too many to make it such an effort to configure when i've done a fresh install.

i don't mind kde, and i fiddle with it from time to time, but imo the difference between gnome and kde means extra effort for gnome is worth it in my estimation.

Good idea
by Daniel de Kok on Sun 10th Oct 2004 13:12 UTC

I'd support dropping GNOME, and optionally KDE. Many (older) Slackware supporters always stuck with Slackware because it is simple, flexible and transperant. It is a rock-stable base one could build upon.

But I think it would be a good idea to drop KDE too, KDE.org has fairly good builds for Slackware, and it would help to slim down Slackware a whole lot.

But after all, it is Patrick's distro. It is his choice.

Back to basics.
by Mike on Sun 10th Oct 2004 13:19 UTC

Daniel: I really agree with you about slack as a solid foundation. That's what i tried to use it for recently to build xorg and gnome myself.

The more i think about it, the more i'm thinking i'd love to see Patrick make slack just a solid foundation distro, basically the equivalent of LFS but with better command line tools. Then there could be seperate projects for KDE and Gnome or whatever on seperate CDs with their own installers.

The problem i see with that is if you give a whole CD to a Gnome or KDE, it runs the risk of adding too much bulk.

RE: Arch
by Michael Salivar on Sun 10th Oct 2004 13:22 UTC

Arch 0.6 had either Gnome 2.4 or 2.6, I'm honestly not sure. Arch 0.7 will probably have 2.8 since that's in current right now, and while there's a 0.7 beta out now, it's a net install and only includes base. But the releases are just snapshots of current with a very basic installer, so don't worry about what's in them. I installed from a 0.5 CD three months ago and it upgraded to current without problems, it's very Debian like in that releases are pretty meaningless once you have it installed. For the record, I had no problems with the 0.7 beta, which is the way to go for udev, imho.

Even with a full install ISO it's suggested you install only base, and then download what you need. If you want, you can always burn a CD with a few of your default packages like xorg and the Gnome stuff; and then install them with pacman -A foo. Once you get used to it, it's much easier than Slackware's pkgtools but doesn't sacrifice much, if anything.

But I'm tired, and thus rambling. If you have any questions I'd be happy to answer an email.

This makes me really really sad :(
by Space-Cadet on Sun 10th Oct 2004 14:37 UTC

I love the GNOME/Slackware combo... it's what has kept me using Linux. I don't think I can keep using Slackware if GNOME doesn't come with it by default. I don't like Dropline's packages, because they're too modified... I like the vanilla GNOME that Slack has always included. Well, there are two BSD releases coming very soon now... to BSD I go.

KDE support
by csabimano on Sun 10th Oct 2004 14:38 UTC

I'm dual (well, trial) booting between WinXP, FreeBSD 5.3 and Slackware. Spend most (90%) of my time in BSD, and slackware is there only because I'm interested in linux. Someone said that GNOME fits better into Slack's philosophy, because of simplicity.

Why I choose Slack to play with linux? Because of its simplicity, which amounts to a clear system layout, init system, configuration files, and most importantly: the cleanlyness of the system. (It is not a coincidence that among BSD users, Slackware is the favorite linux distro). What I am trying to say is that you confuse a clean system with a simple interface (UI).

I always thought, or rather felt that there is something in KDE development that resembles FreeBSD philosophy (and slackware's too, and I'm not surprised that Pat is a fan). And here is a very recent example for that.

A very serious bug was discovered in kdebase port (related to KDM) on current mailing list. The bug was in a FreeBSD specific patch. The first reply to the post came from a KDE developer, offering to test the patch supplied with the bug report AND to merge it upstream into KDE CVS! Note, that the bug wasn't a KDE bug, it was a bug in a FreeBSD specific patch - and the KDE developer first thought that it is a KDE bug. After clarifying that, he still offered to merge the (now repaired) FreeBSD patch upstream, explaining that:

"To me, however, (part of the KDE side of the club) it looks [the patch] fine. I agree
that it's an obvious typo that should be fixed immediately. Whether that (my
support) is enough for portmgr@ to go on and fix it, is a matter for y'allses
policies to decide ;)

Still, the (corrected) patch itself oughter be merged upstream - we do try to
keep the number of OS-specific patches to a minimum."

Now that's what I call a clear and visible sign of the project's commitment to keep their codebase portable (which has also something to do with being clean). The more portable the codebase is, the more likely that it would build cleanly on the various linux distroes. OTOH gnome only tests for RedHat. And this is the difference that counts. This is why saying GNOME fits better with slackware's philosophy is not true. It's not about UI design principles (which can be debated to death - there is no empirical evidence that having less features makes a desktop simpler to use). It is about simplicity as: clean codebase, portability, easy maintanance. And whatever the merits of GNOME UI-wise, this is where KDE is undoubtedly ahead.




forgot the link
by csabimano on Sun 10th Oct 2004 14:39 UTC

Here is the link for the -current discussion I mentioned:

http://frontrangebsd.org/pipermail/kde-freebsd/2004-October/009258....

why not but ...
by zebul666 on Sun 10th Oct 2004 14:50 UTC

It is an error to think you could drop gnome and rely on Dropline Gnome.

because what DG replace will break something else

It will become acceptable if dropline gnome only use what exists in slackware and doesn't replace something there and another thing here ...


RE: csabimano
by Mike on Sun 10th Oct 2004 15:00 UTC

Great point. KDE does have a cleaner code base. I still prefer gnome though ;)

I'm disappointed
by cycojesus on Sun 10th Oct 2004 15:03 UTC

I'm a slacware user for some years now and even if I use neither gnome nor kde I often compile programs that relies on kde/gnome libs so if Pat drop gnome I would have to compile those gnome libs myself... I've tried that and it's a real pain, you find yourself downloading dependencies all around the web just to make a single tiny lib to compile :/

And no, dropline for the moment is not a solution as it reinstall huge parts of slackware such as X, Python, not even mentioning the PAM stuff... I really don't like that, I try to stick as much as possible to basic slack packages.

Now the ball is in gnome's camp, maybe they should rethink their building method to make it simplier

If I,m stuck with KDE
by rage on Sun 10th Oct 2004 15:18 UTC

I,d sure prefer Gnome but if I,m stuck with KDE,the Yoper project sure draws me ,they are very helpful,it,s easy to work with,up to date I686 and very fast.

I'll have to switch.
by Carl on Sun 10th Oct 2004 15:43 UTC

I love Slackware's simplicity, And almost everything about it. And I think its better that Slackware drops GNOME and KDE.

But heck I think its time for me to switch. I find Ubuntu appealing because it chose only GNOME. And its simpler.

I'll always have Slackware to comeback to anyways.

...
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Oct 2004 15:48 UTC

The guy just shot on his own foot, He is taking GNOME away based on his preferences w/o having in mind the Slackware users.

I just installed Ubuntu yesterday, is fast and stable, Im very pleased with it, all Slackware-GNOME users try it, you will like it.

Conclusion
by Mike on Sun 10th Oct 2004 15:49 UTC

Ok, it's settled then. Patrick is going to get rid of Gnome, and KDE and just focus on the foundation of linux. We'll get the desktop some other way.

Hear that patrick, the geniuses at OSnews have spoken!

RE: Conclusion
by MamiyaOtaru on Sun 10th Oct 2004 16:16 UTC

It's settled.. Patrick will drop the DE that has proven itself to be a royal PITA for him to compile, and will leave in the one that requires no real effort.

FFS, the DEs aren't children, you don't have to worry that one's feelings will be hurt if it is dropped and the other isn't. The fanboys are another story though..

Validity?
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Oct 2004 16:16 UTC

Eugenia, is the only source of this that post on the dropline forums?

Zenwhen/Troy McFerron, the person who posted on the dropline forums, is a known troll from somethingawful.com and is pretty much unanimously the top jackass there. Making up something like this fits right with is profile.

He does use slackware, so this may be valid. I just hope you have another source too. I'm guessing that it's not true.

what has to be done ... has to be done
by Punk on Sun 10th Oct 2004 16:17 UTC

i just wonder were will gnome libs go ?! lots of software depend on that

And btw, as boot times in Slackware is nearly like Fedora (thanks to hotplug&initrd&udev in Slackware), you can switch to a SysV Init too.
As more daemons comes with Slackware, it doesn't matter which Initstyle, and BSD-Initstyle looks like SysV, so you can include SysV by default!


I hope you are kidding. It's probably the worst init style. I can't stand most Linux distros because of that archaic system. I would rather sandblast my ass than having to use it again.

Why Gnome sucks to maintain packages for
by ntl on Sun 10th Oct 2004 16:31 UTC

Gnome packages who's makefiles install gconf schemas don't use DESTDIR, even though the rest of the files during a make install do.

This means that you have to ./configure most Gnome packages with --disable-schemas and create post-scripts to install the schemas manually.

I wonder if this is file-a-bug-worthy.

RE: Conclusion
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Oct 2004 16:39 UTC

Mike wrote:
> Ok, it's settled then. Patrick is going to get rid of Gnome, and KDE

As it's bloat anyways ...

> and just focus on the foundation of linux.

Well, don't Linus Torvalds and Andrew Morton already do that?

> We'll get the desktop some other way.

Indeed: http://fvwm-themes.sourceforge.net/

gnome 2.8
by javajazz on Sun 10th Oct 2004 16:48 UTC

am using dropline gnome 2.8 on slack current. the dropline released just a few days ago was the only succesful install of gnome i was able to get. tried to install the .tgzs' in the correct order myself earlier and i got a buggy gnome.
I can't get a working clamscan on the slack though. good thing for f-prot.

I agree Ubuntu is real piece of art.

Unfortunatelly, I'm sticking with Fedora 3 fore one sole reason. Ubuntu 4.10 is built on xfree (that was due to lack of time, I think they wanted to be synchronized with G2.8) and FC3 is on XOrg 6.8.1. There's just too much difference in display speed for me to use Ubuntu now.

But if
1. Ubuntu 5.10 is built on xorg
2. Still on one cd
3. Without KDE in base install (not that I have something against KDE, [yes, I'm avid Gnome user and don't need KDE] but I still hate telling my friends what to install and what not so that their desktop is as it should be. Ubuntu 4.10 install is wonderfull. It installs complete desktop just as it is to be. Knowing people when provided two chances, they always click both and that only leads to mess. This is the reason why I would like for KDE to stay in apt)

I'm switching with no remorse, which will means that all my friends that used FC now because of my help will have to switch too or not depend on me anymore (I suspect it will be the first, almost everybody tried Ubuntu now and all agreed it is wonderfull).

Gnome must stay!
by Finnzi on Sun 10th Oct 2004 16:55 UTC

Bah...if Pat drops gnome then iŽll drop slack. Slackware is a very nice workstation and Slackware has brilliant package management system. It will be a sad day for all slackers if Pat drops this *sight* ...I wont be going back to KDE ..thats for sure.

RE: cycojesus
by csabimano on Sun 10th Oct 2004 16:56 UTC

I'm a slacware user for some years now and even if I use neither gnome nor kde I often compile programs that relies on kde/gnome libs so if Pat drop gnome I would have to compile those gnome libs myself... I've tried that and it's a real pain, you find yourself downloading dependencies all around the web just to make a single tiny lib to compile :/

I don't think we should worry about dependencies. Having _some_ gnome/gtk libs to resolve dependencies is entirely different from having to build a fully functional gnome desktop. I use KDE, but have GIMP, mplayer-gtk-esound, and a number of other progs installed that need gnome/gtk libraries (haha, even KDE needs some). I'm always for a clean solution, that's why I try to keep my system as gnome/gtk free as possible. This list has (I think) all the gnome/gtk dependencies you need for most programs. I have all these installed as dependencies by various progs, but some of them might very well be just buildtime dependencies (I'm using ports on FreeBSD), and the list can be shorter for Slack:

atk-1.6.1 A GNOME accessibility toolkit (ATK)
gail-1.6.6 An implementation of the ATK interfaces for GTK+ widgets
gconf2-2.6.4 A configuration database system for GNOME
glib-1.2.10_11 Some useful routines of C programming (previous stable vers
glib-2.4.6_1 Some useful routines of C programming (current stable version)
gnomehier-1.0_19 A utility port that creates the GNOME directory tree
gnomemimedata-2.4.1_2 A MIME and Application database for GNOME
gnomevfs2-2.6.2_1 GNOME Virtual File System
gtk-1.2.10_12 Gimp Toolkit for X11 GUI (previous stable version)
gtk-2.4.9_1 Gimp Toolkit for X11 GUI (current stable version)
gtk-engines2-2.2.0_4 Theme engine for the gtk+-2.0 toolkit
libbonobo-2.6.2 A component and compound document system for GNOME2
libglade2-2.4.0 GNOME glade library
libgnomecanvas-2.6.1.1 A graphics library for GNOME
libgphoto2-2.1.4_3 A universal digital camera picture control tool
libgtkhtml-2.6.2 Lightweight HTML rendering/printing/editing engine
libxml2-2.6.13 XML parser library for GNOME
libxslt-1.1.10 The XSLT C library for GNOME

There might be more, and as I said, some of these are KDE dependencies as well, but the difference is that these are maintainable and usually small packages. This is, of course, just speculation, but when Pat is considering dropping gnome I don't think he means to ditch any library that has something to do with gnome/gtk. Since building just the gnome desktop takes 1/3 of the total time he spends on Slackware, I see his move justified.

Not only that, but instead of the childish "if he drops gnome he should drop kde as well" kinda remarks, we should focus on getting the message across to gnome devs: hey, throwing a set of libraries to distro makers and telling them to make a gnome desktop out of it is very uncool. The problem is not with Pat being a KDE fan. The problem is that 1/3 of total time spending on Slack is too much. This is purely a technical problem, and it is not his job to resolve it. Why be so protective of the GNOME project, when this kind of criticism, if taken seriously, can lead to a better/more considerate development model?

Kudos to Pat for having the balls to speak his mind openly, even in the face of being flamed for it and being told "uh, I'm going to Ubuntu if you do this". Because, no matter if you are a GNOME fan or a KDE fan, the points raised by him are valid.

Childish?
by Mike on Sun 10th Oct 2004 17:01 UTC

I don't think it's a childish opinion to want KDE and Gnome gone.

Slack has always been agnostic about DM/WM. To cut out Gnome is be no longer agnostic, which changes one of slack's selling points.

Plus, it's a good oppurtunity to save patrick some time and get better desktop consistency overall by outsourcing the desktop portion of Slackware, leaving Patrick to do what he's always been good at, a stable, streamlined, unix-like linux based OS.

KDE Ubuntu?
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Oct 2004 17:11 UTC

Or is there a distro like this? I love KDE but it really is a mess of applications, it would be so nice to get something like ubuntu/dropline gnome for kde...I mean one app for one purpose isn't that hard why isn't it liek that already.

So can anyone suggest anything for me? Thanks ;)

RE: KDE ubuntu
by Mike on Sun 10th Oct 2004 17:15 UTC

I doubt Ubuntu will move to KDE ever. In my opinion 1 app for 1 purpose is sort of against how KDE works. KDE is flooded with options on everything. Even the clock has a bunch of preference tabs.

The nice thing about KDE is it's relatively easy to install KDE with a script whereas Gnome can be a pain in the ass, the "best" Gnome script is Garnome, and from my expirience, it should be a lot better.

RE: Dropline line modifications
by IT on Sun 10th Oct 2004 17:20 UTC

Perhaps he will co-ordinate efforts with the dropline gnome maintainers, so as to ensure a smooth and errror free integration with the rest of the slackware system.

v Good decision
by A mess on Sun 10th Oct 2004 17:21 UTC
Re: Childish?
by David on Sun 10th Oct 2004 17:32 UTC

I don't think it's a childish opinion to want KDE and Gnome gone.

KDE and Gnome won't be gone. This is about Gnome and how much effort it takes to maintain it for a distro.

I doubt Ubuntu will move to KDE ever.

I agree with you there. People may do things with KDE stuff, but why should it really?

In my opinion 1 app for 1 purpose is sort of against how KDE works. KDE is flooded with options on everything. Even the clock has a bunch of preference tabs.

Nope, that's not how it works but how it's worked out. KDE has some work to do to streamline this by default.

How?
by David on Sun 10th Oct 2004 17:35 UTC

Honestly, how can they drop Gnome? No one drops anything from an open source project. If people want it, and there's demand, people will simply use Gnome anyway. To be honest, Slack is a good distribution but I don't really see it being a massively popular distribution. More users for Ubuntu then!

KDE was dropped from UserLinux but it hasn't mattered because people started doing things with KDE and Debian anyway. As an aside, UserLinux hasn't got a chance of being successful in the business arena they're targetting because the reasons given were all about development licensing - wrong attitude for that audience. It will be interesting to hear Pat's exact reasons for potentially dropping Gnome. He's right in a way about building Gnome. People say that KDE and C++ takes longer to build, but Gnome has more packages in total (and the total build process certainly isn't straightforward) and it does take a few days to iron out where any problems might be and get it working from the get-go. This has held true on whatever distribution I've tried, but Portage (easiest compile ever!) and apt ease the burden for most. However - it's got to be built and tested first! Whether he feels that effort is taking too much out of the project and him, I don't know.

Gnome won't be gone, as I think people will just co-ordinate things with Dropline in a better distribution of effort.

Who knows
by Haldir on Sun 10th Oct 2004 17:35 UTC

Pat V. has not officially said he is dropping gnome. He says he is considering it. It could also be a reaction to a bunch of people emailing him and bugging him about gnome 2.8 and when it is going to come out. This could be his way of saying f*** off and leave me alone. It will be released when and if I am ready to do so.

RE: Mike
by csabimano on Sun 10th Oct 2004 17:48 UTC

"Slack has always been agnostic about DM/WM. To cut out Gnome is be no longer agnostic, which changes one of slack's selling points."

Well, maybe childish is a strong word. On the other hand, I believe you turn a technical problem into a political problem. Gnome is not being dropped because KDE is better, it is dropped because it needs too much time, while KDE usually builds cleanly. The problem I see with what you propose is this: Pat's reasons for dropping gnome support are technical. It is a technical decision. However, if you drop KDE because you dropped GNOME, that's a political decision. I'm not sure it is prudent to go the Debian way, if you take my meaning.

As someone already said this: if Pat will build KDE anyway, because he uses it, than what's the problem with sharing it?

Also: why not put some pressure on the GNOME project itself to come up with a saner solution? Maybe then, no DE would need to be dropped.

Another solution would be if someone volunteered to do the work. The GNOME guys @freebsd do an excellent work, but it is not a 1 man show, it is a team of developers. The fact that they have their own script to upgrade from 2.4 to 2.6 (2.8 is ready since september, but is not included b/c of ports freeze) means that there are some difficulties with gnome install (or in this case, upgrade) process. Or at least that's what I think, and can be wrong of course. (corrections welcome). FreeBSD has 11000+ ports, and I can't think of another port that needs its own script (there can be, I just use some 250+ ports) ... all integrate nicely into cvsup/portupgrade/portinstall method.

who cares?
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Oct 2004 17:54 UTC

I mean that in a good way..

If Pat does not like or want to maintain Gnome in his distro then thats his business....

Gnome/Slack users are lucky that there is dropline.

Everyone I know that runs slack/gnome uses dropline anyways. So whats the suprise?

Well done dropline for being a better selection of gnome packages than the default ones..

KDE is better than Gnome
by SoulMaster on Sun 10th Oct 2004 18:09 UTC

In all the instances where I ran GNOME and KDE, I've found KDE to be the faster of the two and much more robust. In fact, I think Linux needs to drop this so called multi desktop and focus on one. This is yet one of the many challenges that Linu x faces to become a "REAL" contender to Microsoft. The commmunity needs to focus on one package and go with it. So if it be XWindows and KDE, that would be the best. Unless Linux does something about this, then you will never have a real challenger to Microsoft. Sure Linux is a great OS, but when it comes to the Home Market, nobody beats Microsoft. Until Linux gets rid of it's elitist uber geek attitude and makes a change to make stuff simple for people to install, run binaries, and to do REAL work on it, it will never beat Microsoft.

v In other news....
by Cheese Face on Sun 10th Oct 2004 18:14 UTC
RE: CSbinmano
by Mike on Sun 10th Oct 2004 18:28 UTC

Also: why not put some pressure on the GNOME project itself to come up with a saner solution? Maybe then, no DE would need to be dropped.

That is a really good idea actually. The Gnome developers are a pretty vocal bunch of coders though, so they probably know the deficiencies of their software.

RE: SoulMaster KDE is good as a windows clone and it's definitely snappier than Gnome. but Gnome has a much better potential of surpassing Windows, while KDE at best will Equal windows.

Why drop KDE
by Phil on Sun 10th Oct 2004 18:52 UTC

Some people are being very childish and backwards. I can hear their little feet stamping on the floor right now. "If I can't have GNOME then «KDE user» shouldn't have KDE".

Well I like KDE. For me, KDE works well, the code is clean an its simple to install (which is partly why I prefer it anyways)

Re: RE: CSbinmano
by David on Sun 10th Oct 2004 19:30 UTC

SoulMaster KDE is good as a windows clone and it's definitely snappier

Sorry, but KDE is not a clone of Windows nor will it ever be. It looks more like Windows than Gnome does, but that's just the way things have gone development-wise (sensible existing de-facto standards where it didn't make any sense changing them - left/right buton ordering), and Gnome has gone out of its way to be less Windows-like. There is a wizard at startup that can make KDE instantly look and feel extremely non-Windows like.

but Gnome has a much better potential of surpassing Windows

So I've heard (and have been hearing for years), but in what ways will it surpass Windows? Why does it have better potential? If Gnome is a bit of a pain itself to maintain, then it isn't a terribly solid base to work on.

Why make politics?
by Morty on Sun 10th Oct 2004 19:48 UTC

Why does the Gnome fanboys try to make politics out of a pure technical problem, and please RTFA before answering. Pretty simple reasons if you read what Pat says.

"Probably 1/3 of development time here is used maintaining GNOME, and *most* of the bug reports I get have something to do with GNOME (and aren't bugs I caused, or can fix). KDE, on the other hand, tends to build using the existing build scripts with no changes at all. I can start the build and come back to finished packages in a few hours. A GNOME update usually takes at least a week of manual labor, and another week of cleaning up broken things"

The short version, clean up the crap aka GNOME build system and there are no reasons not to include it in Slack. And spending the time elswere will overall result in a much better distro.

Good riddence.
by Slacky on Sun 10th Oct 2004 19:52 UTC

To all of you who say that they use other distributions because they don't like Slackware and suggest using their distributions I say good riddance. There is a reason why Slackware is the oldest distribution still around.

For all of you who say to bad the Gnome might be dropped I say good riddance. I have been installing Slackware on my system since version 2.0. Ever since Gnome was incorporated into the installation disks I have only troubles getting it to work while all the other(!) windows managers worked just fine. My latest install of Slackware 10.0 worked great, except for guess what? Yes, Gnome. I decided to leave it out of my system this time altogether.

I am getting really tired with people who write posts how their os or dist is better. We are all different people, so obviously have different tastes. For God sake, stop behaving like nerd trekies!

Ok, next e-mail to Pat supporting his decision...

Choice
by xxx on Sun 10th Oct 2004 19:58 UTC

Some argue that 2 desktops (yes there are more) is too much. Why not concentrate on one? This situation with slackware and gnome shows why! Patrick can drop Gnome because he can use KDE. When GNOME was the only choice this was a lot more difficult .

Re: Why make politics?
by Anil Wang on Sun 10th Oct 2004 20:07 UTC

> ....and *most* of the bug reports I get have something to
> do with GNOME...

Actually, there's a good reason for this. GNOME tries to make many *small* reusable libraries that can be used independently of GNOME, and because of this modularity, many non-GNOME applications use these libraries. If you remove GNOME, you have two choices. You could get rid of all these libraries. If you do this, you lose all the non-GNOME applications. You can also choose to get rid of the GNOME desktop and leave the libraries. The GNOME desktop is a small part of the GNOME libraries and with each new version, the desktop layer is becoming smaller and smaller. Because of this you wouldn't be reducing the bug reports dramatically -- you'd just be removing a couple of configuration utilities and a few applications.

RE: SoulMaster
by csabimano on Sun 10th Oct 2004 20:26 UTC

I don't think that having two desktop environments is bad at all. I use KDE because some of the reasons you mention, but there is no way the reconcile the two project's aims.

GNOME has HIG!!! That's what we hear all the time (I have news: KDE has one as well), but more often than not, the HIG is used to justify decisions that are not in league with the user's opinions (ranging from file-dialog, now resolved, through button order to spatial nautilus). But where the two projects really differ is their stance on features, flexibility and configuration.

GNOME: make it simple! meaning: take away uneccesary features. Problem is, uneccessary is always arbitrary decided.

KDE: have as many features as possible, but organize it in a sane way. Now, there is still room for improvement in this latter area, but 3.3 is almost there.

Point is: you can't have it both ways. Also, debate is pointless on this. Ultimately, the market will decide, and thus far, it seems that KDE is doing something better. And no, it's not because KDE ~ windows & GNOME ~ MacOS. I hate this bs when I hear it. Reversing the button order and putting the panel on the top of the screen doesn't make it resemble MacOS more. By this logic, a Mac user would find him/herself more at home on a GNOME desktop. This is often not the case: http://e-scribe.com/osx/freebsd-kde-and-me/

And the most important point relating to this news and to marketshare: sometimes you have to pay attention to the developers/distributors of your program as well. Make things inconvenient for them, and there goes a distro getting fed up with your policies. Make things easy for developers/distributors, and your software will be included, even if the official (and always political: see User Linux) stance of the distro-makers is not to have your prog. included.

Besides: the (often not very) friendly competition between the GNOME and KDE is good for the development of both. Even if the aims of both projects could be reconciled, I'm not sure that development would be faster at all.

Cool with me
by Corey on Sun 10th Oct 2004 20:26 UTC

I've always run WindowMaker on Slack......and it's N-I-C-E!

Dropline
by Chris on Sun 10th Oct 2004 20:26 UTC

When I use Gnome on slack I always install dropline anyway, AFAI am concerned he might as well save himself the bandwidth.
Actually, I often wonder why they keep any window managers anyway, slack guys would prolly prefer to just dl slack packs after the install anyway.

Re: Anil Wang
by csabimano on Sun 10th Oct 2004 20:36 UTC

The GNOME desktop is a small part of the GNOME libraries and with each new version, the desktop layer is becoming smaller and smaller. Because of this you wouldn't be reducing the bug reports dramatically -- you'd just be removing a couple of configuration utilities and a few applications.

Compare this list:

http://www.gnome.org/start/2.8/notes/rninstallation.html

With what pkg_info gave me (installed gtk/gnome related packages), and you'll see that there is a huge difference. What I needed for a GNOMEless, but fully functional (read: including mplayer-gtk-esound, GIMP2, etc.) desktop has 1/3 (well, this is a wild guess, you can count it if you wish to) of the packages needed for a gnome install. Maintaining 1/3 of the packages vs all the packages needed for a full gnome install does make a difference, even more than the numbers would suggest.

@csabimano
by Rayiner Hashem on Sun 10th Oct 2004 20:38 UTC

KDE: have as many features as possible, but organize it in a sane way. Now, there is still room for improvement in this latter area, but 3.3 is almost there.
KDE's features are not organized in anything near a sane way, and 3.3 is nowhere near as being polished as GNOME. I use and enjoy using KDE, but that's after hours of non-standard customizations. The default setup is absolutely garish.

v So who cares?
by Anonymous on Sun 10th Oct 2004 20:46 UTC
How hard can it be?
by Mike on Sun 10th Oct 2004 20:50 UTC

Here is a list of gnome packages required for a basic working installation of GNOME, taken from "Beyond Linux From Scratch 5.1". I have worked through this and there were several problems to deal with when I had...

# GTK-Doc-1.2 # libIDL-0.8.3 # ORBit2-2.10.1 # intltool-0.30 # libbonobo-2.6.0 # GConf-2.6.1 # GNOME MIME Data-2.4.1 # GNOME Virtual File System-2.6.1.1 # libgnome-2.6.1.1 # libart_lgpl-2.3.16 # libglade-2.3.6 # libgnomecanvas-2.6.1.1 # libbonoboui-2.6.0 # GNOME Icon Theme-1.2.1 # gnome-keyring-0.2.1 # libgnomeui-2.6.1.1 # GTK Engines-2.2.0 # GNOME Themes-2.6.1 # ScrollKeeper-0.3.14 # GNOME Desktop-2.6.1 # libwnck-2.6.1 # GNOME Panel-2.6.1 # GNOME Session-2.6.1 # VTE-0.11.10 # GNOME Terminal-2.6.1 # libgtop-2.6.0 # GAIL-1.6.3 # GStreamer-0.8.1 # gst-plugins-0.8.1 # GNOME Applets-2.6.0 # libgsf-1.8.2 # libcroco-0.5.1 # librsvg-2.6.5 # EEL-2.6.1 # Nautilus-2.6.1 # Control Center-2.6.1

And they have to be installed in order. This was 2.6. Most packages needed extra config arguments to make them conform to the FHS.

True, some of those packages are used by other programs but at least half are things no-one would install if they didn't want the GNOME desktop. Thumbs up for modularity but compare with the KDE equivalent:

# aRts-1.2.2 # kdelibs-3.2.2 # kdebase-3.2.2

Be kind to package maintainers.

(btw, I use fluxbox - tabbed windows trumps everything)

@Rayiner Hashem
by csabimano on Sun 10th Oct 2004 21:03 UTC

KDE's features are not organized in anything near a sane way, and 3.3 is nowhere near as being polished as GNOME. I use and enjoy using KDE, but that's after hours of non-standard customizations. The default setup is absolutely garish.

Well, that is, again, what personal taste is about. The 'clutter' didn't bother me when I first tried out KDE (it was 3.0.1). I just remove taskbar from main panel, add a tiny external panel to the top, put taskbar and desktop switcher there, and that's it (apart from background/icon customization). You might say that I'm just used to it. I might say that you are just used to something different. I don't agree that _objectively_ KDE is less polished. But what you say just proves one of my points: both DE's are needed because they cater to different user needs.

Once in a while (once I year basically) I try out gnome out of curiousity and have similar experience to yours. I could have written the same sentence: "I use and enjoy using KDE, but that's after hours of non-standard customizations. The default setup is absolutely garish." Minus the joy. Well, that's not entirely true. I liked some things about GNOME, but KDE was always more usable (a case in boint: lan browsing service of konqi). Or I am just too much used to it.

re: Mike
by csabimano on Sun 10th Oct 2004 21:23 UTC

These are the packages that are NOT installed on my system (from your list):
libgnome-2.6.1.1
libbonoboui-2.6.0
gnome-keyring-0.2.1
GNOME Icon Theme-1.2.1
libgnomeui-2.6.1.1
GNOME Themes-2.6.1
ScrollKeeper-0.3.14
GNOME Desktop-2.6.1
libwnck-2.6.1
GNOME Panel-2.6.1
GNOME Session-2.6.1
VTE-0.11.10
GNOME Terminal-2.6.1
libgtop-2.6.0
GStreamer-0.8.1
gst-plugins-0.8.1
GNOME Applets
EEL-2.6.1
Nautilus-2.6.1
Control Center-2.6.1

So yes, it's about half the packages, and if I understand correctly, this is just a basic gnome install. And what is installed should suffice for most of the programs that need gtk/gnome libraries. So the desktop layer is not that thin as someone suggested (and if we consider not just a basic working gnome install, than my figure of 1/3 can be more or less accurate).

I don't blame him
by Nocain on Sun 10th Oct 2004 21:52 UTC

Look here is what I will say,

I was able to build KDE from scratch my first attempt, hade to back off maybe one time and that was due to a simple error on my behalf

Gnome took me 6 attempts to get the thing to build.

quite some time ago when both KDE and Gnome started to become just a bloat of mess IMO and no longer did what I wanted them to do, creat an intuitive to me, easy, clean, quick, desktop, I quit installing them all the way, instead I just install the basics to enable me to run some apps that requier them.

I can do this with KDE while watching Star Wars at 2 in the morning, hell I have written scripts to handle the entier process. No problems.

Gnome is a friggin nightmare, what order does crap go in, what is needed by apps that depend on it. The process is long and tediouse, just as soon as I think I have it down, a version comes out that screews everything up, I have given up trying to document what is needed or make any sence out of how it works, infact I have for the most part just stopped running any apps that requier gnome at all.

The developers are so out of tune with with one another I can not even understand why any but the total die-hard fan distros or the big distros with many developers, or a developer that works on the Gnome project even bothers to keep this in thier repository

Where are those pro-choice KDE users now?
by Lovechild on Sun 10th Oct 2004 22:21 UTC

I remember when UserLinux announced that they wouldn't be shipping KDE, all the KDE fnaboys screamed about choice and how it was good for us.. Now I would like to see just one of those people stand up to have GNOME supported on Slackware officially under the same guidelines. But I guess I'll have to endure the double standards of that userbase once more.

I understand that Pat is doing this basically singlehandedly, maybe it's time he reached out to the community, afterall Slackware does have a lot of capable users, surely someone could step to the plate and handle GNOME for him in the official distro.

@csabimano
by Michael Salivar on Sun 10th Oct 2004 22:29 UTC

Why I choose Slack to play with linux? Because of its simplicity, which amounts to a clear system layout, init system, configuration files, and most importantly: the cleanlyness of the system. (It is not a coincidence that among BSD users, Slackware is the favorite linux distro). What I am trying to say is that you confuse a clean system with a simple interface (UI).

You're right, I was mixing it up. Though I do maintain that usability wise it does fit better with Slack, I don't use Gnome myself so I wouldn't hold up in a debate.

It's funny, the main reason I don't use Gnome is that it makes an absolute mess of the home directory, which is also an example of why it doesn't fit into the Slackware and Arch philosophies. I definitely think there's a conflict, though: usability vs package and filesystem organization (probably overall project organization). Maybe that's why XFCE4 is so popular in Arch.

v number of packages
by ac on Sun 10th Oct 2004 22:30 UTC
Forget the f****** arguments
by zealot-smasher on Sun 10th Oct 2004 22:37 UTC

The average home user is going to use windows. If you want more control you use linux. If you really like it or *need* to setup servers etc then you go from that point. I am sick of the OS - DISTRO - WM/DE flame wars.

IT MAKES NO SENSE.

I use Slackware because it has never failed me and
has the tools I need to complete my daily tasks as a server admin.

Neither your or my comments are going to make a hill of beans in the big picture. Slackware users (the diehards) will stick with slackware for better reasons than a desktop.
Those reasons being that Slackware is a solid simple distrobution. Period. If you switch distros for desktops then you are an "average user" who needs to point and click
and are probably not involved in running servers so you may as well load win*.

Therefore why punish yourself asking questions for 6 months
instead of just loading windows and moving on.

Windows has its place and so does Linux.
Anyone changing distros because of a WM/DE has no valid
point whatsoever IMHO.

@SoulMaster
by Michael Salivar on Sun 10th Oct 2004 22:52 UTC

Windows will fall on it's own, eventually, I don't think anyone needs to worry about contending with them. That focus would just end up infusing GNU/Linux with a lot of the same problems Windows has, by following many of the same goals Microsoft followed. If you look at the big distributions like Fedora and Mandrake you'll see evidence to this (namely bloat).

Honestly, the average user shouldn't even need to worry about DE's when Linux is ready. The Distribution throws a set of software on the CD, the user installs it, and then upgrades and installs from their repository. If a distribution uses KDE, you don't have to worry about Gnome and XFCE. Is the community there yet? Not fully, but we're definitely getting there.

RE: Lovechild
by csabimano on Sun 10th Oct 2004 23:14 UTC

That was a different case. Bruce Perens made a political decision imho, while Pat is making a technical one. And I have written off Bruce Perens as a man of integrity since that incident, for he knows damn well what is the difference between royalty and licencing, and yet he choose to defend his position of dropping KDE with the argument of 'wanting a royalty free' development platform.

As for me, I don't care if GNOME is included in a distro or not. I'm happy for my fellow FreeBSD users who prefer gnome (there are many). I also have great respect for the gnome@freebsd folks, for I only heard good things about them. Problem here is that there is no good gnome@slackware folks, but one developer who is tired of spending a total of 1/3 of the time spent on the distro for the sake of one DE.

So how should I stand up for GNOME support in this particular case? I already said this: the solution is to have some volunteers who would maintain gnome for slackware (or help dropline or whatever), or better, persuade the GNOME project to make their DE more maintainable. What else do you think should be done? Petition pat to keep on struggling with the massive amount of work involving building GNOME (not to mention the massive amount of bugreports?) Would you do that? I won't...

real issue: ugliness of Gnome system
by tech_user on Sun 10th Oct 2004 23:19 UTC

the real issue this highlight is that GNOME messes up your otehrwise clean and logical system. if that was fixed or better designed there would be no issue. and why is gnome so ugly to build? something is clearly wrong.

Re: Where are those pro-choice KDE users now?
by falonaj on Sun 10th Oct 2004 23:42 UTC

@Lovechild: There are some differences between Bruce excluding KDE and Pat potentially dropping GNOME.

Pat is talking about the broken GNOME build process, not about dropping all GTK applications. Bruce decided that not a single Qt or KDE application may exists within UserLinux.

Pat is wondering how to spend his own time, since Dropline GNOME exists. Bruce declared that the function of UserLinux is to be a "standard" for ISVs, and that he alone decides which packages may be included in the "standard". Several developers were willing to do the work for including KDE and Qt applications in UserLinux, and Bruce showed them the door.

Pat's problem with GNOME is technical: Building GNOME takes one third of his time. Bruce's arguments against KDE were purely political: He is against GPL'ed libraries, because mean ISVs cannot use them freely for non-free software.

The reply to Bruce political arguments have been political. The reply to Pat's technical observations should be technical.

Not Surprising
by Richi on Sun 10th Oct 2004 23:57 UTC

I recall a previous thread where people were complaining that Gnome was too difficult to compile. Then someone (presumably pro-Gnome) mentioned that end-users weren't even supposed to compile things so making Gnome easy to compile wasn't an issue. Well ... now that the distros themselves are talking of dropping Gnome due to difficulty compiling and maintaining it, that argument doesn't seem to hold as much water.

Slack was my first distro. It was very simple and I was very resistant to moving to RedHat. I thought RedHat added unnecessary complexities. However, after using RH and following the Fedora releases, I've come to realize that the other features, though they made things a bit more complex, are actually better off because of the carefully chosen complexity.

That said, things should be kept as simple as possible without sacrificing functionality. Perhaps a splinter faction could check out to see if the Gnome packages can be made simpler to compile by unifying the procedure.

To be honest, though, I compiled Gnome 2.4 from scratch using tar.gz sources and everything was pretty much straightforward "./configure --prefix=/usr && make && make install". I didn't bother to try "make DESTDIR=<dir> install", but I assume it should all work.

Lo and Behold, competition is good! :-)
by Dewd on Mon 11th Oct 2004 00:20 UTC

It's amazing. Let me repeat it: it's amazing!
How come we don't get excited by such a dispute between these two wonderful desktop environments?
We can't know all the forces behind one or the other. We don't know their motivations. We only know that we use one or the other very well, and wish everybody used the same. How ingenuous of us.
The supporting libraries of both are important for the desktop, because they both are needed by programs, some of which we've never heard of, so we can't be sure if we would like to use them or not.
It's not about indecision, but rather about balancing of forces, and support for the development of next generation applications, which could use one or the other, depending on the need of the developers.
If we believe that broadband will ever be ubiquitous, then we have to let these two live, because in the future, without the limitations of slow network or CDs, we could really enjoy what we don't even know yet. :-)

I blame Gnome and Pat
by Sammyd on Mon 11th Oct 2004 01:11 UTC

Well let me give my two cents on the issue since I can. As to whether it is a good decisions or not will be debated on many forums and such I am sure. As for the technical merits of the claim by Pat this is not true when we talk about versions, and install issues. However on the shear magnitude of work required to keep up with gnome this claim is true. Gnome needs to get a handle on what it is doing. There are so many sub projects to it that no one can keep track of it. You have so many libraries and many of these are just needed by one program. If you look at other large development projects you will not see this X11 and KDE come to mind. This makes the simple fact of building gnome a real pain in the butt. However if this is all you are doing is building a distro then so what its part of the job grin and bear it.
If doing this is is a good choice I would say no, but here me out on it first. The idea is to gain as much of a user base as you can, by removing Gnome you will loose some of this base. If you look at its history it has not had security or stablity issues as of late. These are usually his arguments for removal. Of course Pat isn't one to be the most wisest of folks when it comes to gaining a user base. If you consider the fact that it is one of the oldest distributions out there and is last in this group when it comes to user base. It is one thing to be stubborn but another thing to let ego get in the way of running a business. Every person you loose is a possible lost sale of a Slackware CD. Slackware had it oportunity to be on top many years ago but due to ego maybe it was left behind the rest. With its great stability and security record it could have dominated the Linux server market. You know 50 years from now when we are all dead they will not be saying wow he was a great man he didn't change his software. No they will be saying like some do now that wow he wasn't very bright he had the chance to make a difference and didn't.
In the past I always used Gnome or some other DM besides KDE. KDE to me was just MS Wanabe bloatware. As time has gone on and KDE has found its calling it does make for a good DM. However if Gnome is removed you will find a bunch of good useful applications just wont compile on Slackware anymore. Having GTK and Glib is one thing but there are many good applications that need the rest of gnome to compile. If he tries to remove it he will still see he is going to need a bunch of the libs from it if he wishes to keep some of the GTK related applications around. So he will still end up having to keep up with some of it.
As for the Dropline thing. Until dropline stops trying to do its own thing it just isn't going to be a good alternative. All dropline is doing at this time is basically porting the Ximian desktop over to Slackware. If you have ever seen Ximian installed you will know what I am saying. If dropline was to try and be more compatible with Slackware it would make for a good alternative and even a wise choice for Pat to direct user to. The problem with it now is that it is not compatible with a standard Slackware install. If dropline was to remove the PAM, the full LDAP install, X11 and a few of those other non gnome related packages it would be very compatible with a current Slackware system. They would also need to recompile for an i486 arch so to give it a wider audience. Current data shows that optimization results in very little noticeable difference and at times has shown to slow a system down. Even Linuxpackages will not allow packages built on dropline systems for this reason. It also runs the old time Slackware users away from it. Dropline should sit back and take a look and see what they can do to become more compatible with Slackware. This is an excellent opportunity with Pat having doubts about the future of Gnome with Slackware to step up and give the Slackware community something that follows the true nature and heart of Slackware and not try and turn a Slackware system into a Redhat system.

Oh lord
by Anonymous on Mon 11th Oct 2004 01:41 UTC

"You know 50 years from now when we are all dead they will not be saying wow he was a great man he didn't change his software. No they will be saying like some do now that wow he wasn't very bright he had the chance to make a difference and didn't. "

Oh lord, I cannot believe the pathetic manipulation some of you people are trying to pull here. Contrary to many posts here, it's not the end of the world, and you'd still have Dropline!

oops
by Laydros on Mon 11th Oct 2004 01:50 UTC

poor todd. dropline.net is totally /.'d now......

This is kinda sad.......
by David on Mon 11th Oct 2004 02:10 UTC

The one thing I liked about Slack in concern with the desktop was that it gave you simple desktop for both Gnome and KDE--neither was "specialized" (e.g. KDE=SuSE Gnome=RedHat/Fedora)

damn this topic is hot
by tm on Mon 11th Oct 2004 06:26 UTC

stay cool, be friends. kde is good, gnome is goood, and pat has his choise - why make noise?

Oh well...
by Morgan on Mon 11th Oct 2004 07:31 UTC

I use Slackware 9.1 with DLG, so this really won't affect me. I think since it's his distro, he can do whatever he wants with it. I really think it is the best thing he could do anyway; if he were to drop KDE instead of Gnome, I think he would lose many more Slackers.

The way I do it is by leaving out Gnome and X (and of course KDE) in the Slackware install, then running the dropline installer for Gnome. This ensures the cleanest possible system. If you just don't like DLG (I didn't at first either), well I guess you can try garnome or another install script.

My experience on building GNOME/KDE
by Federico Tomassetti on Mon 11th Oct 2004 07:39 UTC

I tried a lot of time to build GNOME from source (also using garnome). Always failed. I tried a lot of time to build KDE from source. Always successed. Maybe I'm an exception.

Wait a minute
by Morgan on Mon 11th Oct 2004 07:40 UTC

I just thought of something; if Pat prefers KDE to Gnome so much, why in Slackware 9.1 and 10 is GDM the default login manager? I mean, the rc.4 script has an IF...ELSE structure that loads GDM if found, KDM if no GDM, and XDM if no KDM. It would make more sense to either use KDM first (since he uses KDE), or better yet, to use XDM first so it is truly DE-agnostic.

partitions
by mather on Mon 11th Oct 2004 08:39 UTC

i noted that slackware installation places KDE in /opt, i use only Gnome, so i've not /opt partition standalone, my / partiton is about 300MB... (not enough to place KDE in it)so i'll have to change all my disk partitions ?

RE: Slackware and window managers
by troy banther on Mon 11th Oct 2004 14:39 UTC

"Oh lord, I cannot believe the pathetic manipulation some of you people are trying to pull here. Contrary to many posts here, it's not the end of the world, and you'd still have Dropline!"

I agree. I believe Pat should focus his resources exclusively on Slackware. I absolutely love Slackware. It frigin' rocks and is solid.

Let the GNOME and KDE people focus on the window managers. Personally, I use Dropline GNOME since it is extrememly stable on my machine and intergrates well into Slackware. I dislike KDE. That is not a jab at people who use it or like it.

re: Don't blame GNOME for the problems.
by sunnus on Mon 11th Oct 2004 16:25 UTC

> The problems building and maintaining GNOME on just about > any Linux distro out there extends from the fact that
> there is no set standard of how a Linux system should be > > constructed. Every independent Linux distro has an almost > completely different set of config files with an almost > > completely different syntax. You can't find 2 independent > Linux distros that have the exact same set of libraries in > the exact same places with the exact same minor or even
> major version. Until there is unity into what goes into a > Linux distribution's core and how it's put there, you're
> going to run into these kinds of problems. In fact, I'm
> wlling to bet the problem is going to get worse as time
> goes on. It all extends to the fact that Linux as an OS is
> a gigantic hodgepodge of componentry and nobody is
> communicating with each other as a consortium to make
> standards. We have to leave it up to the poor saps that
> build our so called Linux "distros" to pick up all the
> pieces, figure out how they all go together, and see if
> they all play nice with one another. Is this any way to
> build an OS?


[snicker]

Eh em. Sounds like the UNix days of late 1980' early 1990's to me. It's called fragmentation.

It's a force that's tough to deal with, and as it turns out, Linux is even more susceptible to it that propreitary UNIX is or ever was.

Good luck.


Jim




Think about it...
by THE DUDE on Mon 11th Oct 2004 18:59 UTC

If Pat takes 1/3 of his time just fixing what gnome has wrong where it comes to Slackware there are two, and only two possibilities:

(1) Slack is broken.
(2) Gnome is broken.

("Broken" is defined very broadly.)

Everything else works with Slack, I mean *everything*, so I doubt #1 is true; that leaves only #2 to be true. If Slack needs to be tweaked for Gnome, then Gnome should be either:

(A) dropped entirely, or,
(B) installed in default, "broken" configuration only -- then make the end-user fix it if they choose, the documentation, as crappy as that may be, is available.

The only "winning" move for Pat is "A". If he does "B" then he will be shipping a known broken system -- hardly a good thing to tell the buyer.

Pat's decision will force Gnome to get its act together, or Gnome will just give up on Slackware. The former is a good thing for everyone involved, and the later is a bad thing for Gnome.

Thus Gnome will have no choice but to get their act together (i.e.: fix their install methodology.) This is a good thing.

Although KDE isn't that wonderful in itself, it at least works right the first time.

v 0MG!!11oneonepiepiepie
by l337 h4><0r on Tue 12th Oct 2004 02:02 UTC
hm
by xlynx on Mon 18th Oct 2004 04:30 UTC

As someone that uses neither gnome or kde, I can offer a less biased opinion.

I think you can't drop gnome because too many programs rely on its libraries. That's all, thanks.