"The impending release of Windows Vista with its fancy Aero Glass special effects, along with the hasty addition of the similar XGL and Compiz technologies to the latest SUSE Linux release makes me think that programmers have a warped idea of what desktop computing is about. For some reason, many GNU/Linux users are concerned about competing feature-for-feature with Vista, while Apple and Microsoft struggle to add more graphical extras to their already graphics-intensive desktop OSes. It's gotten so that you need a serious 3D video card (with proprietary drivers) and a fairly fast computer just to keep up with desktop environments. Whatever happened to being productive and having fun?"
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-10-02
and frankly i don't care if it's called QT, GTK2 or even GNUstep or WHATEVERstep, as long as it looks "nice", and is realtively quick
That sentence is sensible, however GTK2 is nowhere near being relatively quick. It's buttslow. Especially when combined with Gnome (and Metacity).
Personally I don't give a damn in looks as long as they avoid screaming pink and orange colors. I do care about the API. It has to be clean, simple and efficient. As soon as that target has been reached, one can start fixing the look.
The problem with GTK2 is that it is a lot of bullshit with a nice look. In Danish we would say "en lort med chokoladeovertręk". That pretty much sums up what's wrong with GTK2.
Of course the interface has to be appealing, but a lot of the appeal comes from near-instantaneous response, low resource usage, and high level of stability. GTK+-2 fails on all aspects.
Besides that. GTK+-1 had good looks. It was and is themeable. The only difference for the end user is the antialiased fonts. Those are however nice to have.
You have a weird definition on useful. The usefulness on applications do not rely on the look, but on the functionality. Whether or not you can stand to work with it, is a different issue. But of course an issue.
GNUstep is clearly usable. Unfortunately most distributions are forgetting about GNUstep, robbing users of the closest, mankind can get to the Real Thing.
Right now I'm using ClearLooks too, but Clearlooks aren't better than those screenshots I posted. However, you can always create a ClearLooks-theme for GNUstep, if you like. However, I don't think you would ever change your mind 
Member since:2006-06-28
Well, you have certainly made your point clear about what you think of GTK2. And i think i have made mine as well. So to continue this debate a little further, i'm not gonna argue with you about the respective API's of GNUstep and GTK2. (as i don't know anything about GNUstep) But your point about fixing the API before the looks, is not entirely usefull.
When is your API fixed well enough to feature freeze and start thinking about looks and usability? As i can read, you are a computer science student, which of course means, that it will never happen. You will never be satisfied with your design, and therefore you will keep redesigning the API to improve ceartain aspects. I say this of course, because i'm an Electronics/Data Engineer (AAU), and we think of things a little different. 
I DO care about the API, but if i have to choose between "en lort med chokoladeovertręk" or "en lort med chokoladefyld" i would prefer the first one. If i can't seem to avoid "lort" in any case, i would rather have the nice exterior and the usable interface now, and wait for the performance to follow.
That leaves us with the discussion of what we find is a usable or usefull system. My first intention with the word usability, had nothing to do with the uses of the application. Usefullness comes, as you say, from the features of the application. Usability on the other hand, is, as the word suggets, the ability to use these features. The people from Gnome has done some nice stuff towards good usability. The HIG is one of them, and Clearlooks, which you yourself use, is another one. No point in having nice features if you can't find them because the icons all look the same.
My suggestion: Take the Fancy Pancy (bling) user interface from Clearlooks/Cairo/Pango, and use it on your Fancy Pancy (bling) API. And the world would be perfect, wouldn't it ;-)
Member since:2005-12-05
That sentence is sensible, however GTK2 is nowhere near being relatively quick. It's buttslow. Especially when combined with Gnome (and Metacity).
Ever heard of XFCE DE ? Based on GTK2, ultra fast. That somewhat defeates your claim of GTK2 beig slow. It's more like some themes may be slow, but not the GTK2 in nature. I don't understand why you put Metacity into this.
Member since:
2006-06-28
Hehe, very good humor there. I admit to be a bit naive to think that the first google picture search for GNUstep was the whole truth. And i also admit, that i didn't do alot of reading on the internals of GNUstep. And hey, with the latest screenshots you posted, i even admit that GNUstep is looking "nicer". And that, the "niceness" is exactly my point. GNUstep might be evolving to a step where it's beginning to look usefull, but my point is, it's just the same evolution as when GTK1 went to GTK2. Allright, the internals have changed and the API is different, but that doesn't matter to the end user. It's about how you present yourself, and frankly i don't care if it's called QT, GTK2 or even GNUstep or WHATEVERstep, as long as it looks "nice", and is realtively quick. Too bad, that my view of "nice" equals what GTK2 with Clearlooks engine and cairo gives me. You'll still have to come up with something smoother looking to rock my boat. Sorry that i can't say that i'm not judging by the looks, but i am. I really am.