Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th Jun 2008 08:14 UTC
Gnome The KDE project saw the writing on the wall. They saw that they had reached a certain limit when it came to what could be done with the KDE 3.x series - they named it the "big friggin' wall", and decided that in order to get over that wall, incremental updates wouldn't do - they needed massive changes, a big jump, and they went for it. It's been a rough road, but it seems as if KDE 4.1 is showing signs of the vision becoming a reality. And it now seems as if several people within the GNOME community are seeing the writing on the wall too: GNOME 2.x has reached its goal - now what?
Thread beginning with comment 318127
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Not buying it
by cmost on Wed 11th Jun 2008 10:15 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

I'm sorry, but I don't buy the rationale that Linux has to be "sexy" or flashy to intice new users. If your sole reason for switching from Windows or Mac to a Gnome or KDE based Linux system is black, glass and flash then you must not use your computer much. Once you download the ISO, install the system, spend many hours configuring it to resemble your friend's flashy box then what? What do you do with it? Sure, it looks pretty but everything you're used to is gone including all your familiar applications, familiar file system hierarchy, and the ready help of your friends and neighbors. My point is that switching operating systems is not a task to be undertaken lightly or without serious consideration and anyone who makes the switch flippantly because of some glamorous desktop is an idiot.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Not buying it
by waynej on Wed 11th Jun 2008 10:28 in reply to "Not buying it"
waynej Member since:
2007-07-04

You're totally right.

This fixation on eye-candy has been a distraction for too long. Yes, it's impressive but ultimately pointless. If the underpinnings of Compriz, beryl, etc can be used to truly enhance the users experience, productivity, etc great. But if the technology is merely to make something look good what does it truly bring to the table.

While I prefer KDE, I do like and appreciate Gnome's clean, clear look but I would never swith based on looks - functionality is key.

Better to have something functionally excellent and add eye-candy later, than to compromise functionality to get eye-candy in the first place and spend forever trying to get the functionality you need. (hope that came out properly)

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Not buying it
by MaxKlokan on Wed 11th Jun 2008 12:03 in reply to "RE: Not buying it"
MaxKlokan Member since:
2007-12-04

...But if the technology is merely to make something look good what does it truly bring to the table...

Beauty?
Pleasure?
I agree with you that functionality is more important and it has higher priority for me too. But if you can add beauty to a functional system, what's wrong with it? Beauty is valuable, in my eyes.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Not buying it
by danieldk on Wed 11th Jun 2008 13:26 in reply to "RE: Not buying it"
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

This fixation on eye-candy has been a distraction for too long. Yes, it's impressive but ultimately pointless.


If it is purely eye candy, I agree. But the platform itself is not developing rapidly as well. I am not an Apple fanboy (although I do have an OS X machine), but I'd love to have something equivalent (and stable) to the Core technologies. They make it easy to create stunning applications.

The emphasis should change from the desktop as a bunch of applications to a full platform. Of course, GNOME provides platform libraries, but it is nowhere the same experience as e.g. OS X or possibly KDE 4 (I haven't looked at it in detail yet).

Edited 2008-06-11 13:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Not buying it
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 11th Jun 2008 16:35 in reply to "RE: Not buying it"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

This fixation on eye-candy has been a distraction for too long.


Except going "wow" has absolutely nothing to do with flashy effects. I've never had a flashy effect that made me go "wow". What does make me go "wow" is a really nice feature that requires major backend work.

When I first loaded up Mac OS X Tiger, the ONE thing that made me go "wow" was hitting Apple+space, entering "Saf", and instantly see "Safari" as the first hit, allowing me to press enter and load the app. THAT made me go "wow", and Apple was the first to deliver that. By the time GNOME and the others got similar technology, it no longer made go "wow" - it made me go "finally! Why did that take them so god damn long?"

Another one of those things is Quicklook in Leopard. Being able to simply hit the spacebar to get an instant live preview of EVERYthing, with full content, without ever opening an application, is what makes me go "wow". And I just KNOW that a few releases from now GNOME will implement something similar and all I will think is "finally!"

And that's the problem right there with GNOME. It never makes me go "wow, what a geat new feature!" - there's just a lot of "finally" moments.

In other words, GNOME isn't delivering any exciting features. And no, that doesn't mean flashy effects (although some effects are useful, like Expose, which I can no longer live without). GNOME is a whole lot of "me too!", but never the trendsetter that comes up with truly useful new features. And that needs to change in order for GNOME to grow.

The GNOME project knew that back in the 1.x days, Apple knew it during the OS8 days, and the KDE guys knew it during the 3.x days. I hope that starting today, GNOME will start to realise it too.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE: Not buying it - are you still using TWM?
by jabbotts on Wed 11th Jun 2008 12:22 in reply to "Not buying it"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I assume your then using TWM predominantly? I kinda found it limiting and for technical reasons I had to move on through a few different desktops over the years. My prefered has plenty of bling but it's the other advantages that keep me from changing.

The only exception for me has been Enlightnment which was initially for the bling but "wholes" through window frames where the mouse click actually hits the window behind is mind-blowing to someone who grew up on MS interfaces.

Having been a modder in the day, once you've made you or your friends machine as pretty as you can, you enjoy it. Maybe it lasts a week, maybe a month or maybe until your next clean install. Maybe you move on to doing the case. For the modding croud it's expression more about creating the thing than the final presentation.

What get's me is the people who claim to be hard core modders but won't touch anything but windows (yeah, cause you can really customize that out the wazoo huh..). Those are generally the Gamer primary Modder secondary though and they are perfectly happy that way.

Reply Parent Score: 5

tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

The only exception for me has been Enlightnment which was initially for the bling but "wholes" through window frames where the mouse click actually hits the window behind is mind-blowing to someone who grew up on MS interfaces.

This is the first time I have ever seen someone mention this amazing usability benefit of window borders with transparent sections. The ability to click through these sections is very useful when one has a small screen with windows maximized.

Enlightenment is not the only WM to offer this capability. I enjoyed it for years in the Golem WM, but I am pretty sure that this capability is automatic in any of the other WMs that allow configurable,transparent window borders: Sawfish, Oroborus, IceWM, PekWM, Openbox, etc.

By the way, this capability can be just as "mind blowing" to someone who grew up on Mac interfaces as it is for some one who learned on MS interfaces. However, it usually takes the Mac users much longer to make such a realization.


What get's me is the people who claim to be hard core modders but won't touch anything but windows (yeah, cause you can really customize that out the wazoo huh..).

I am fairly sure that now there are some fancy, highly configurable WMs that run natively on Windows (and OSX, too).

Edited 2008-06-13 16:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Not buying it
by ephracis on Wed 11th Jun 2008 15:30 in reply to "Not buying it"
ephracis Member since:
2007-09-23

Revolutuion != More bling, and I don't think that anyone has ever said "we need to move Gnome to 3.0 for one reason: we need to make it more flashy".

What does major versions mean for Gnome? What does minor versions mean? API and ABI compability maybe?

Perhaps the purpose of a Gnome 3 would not be to make a more flashy desktop but to make a more functional desktop?

I think so.

Please... *sigh*

Reply Parent Score: 3