“The launch of the latest edition of the Gnome desktop software for Linux and Unix operating systems marks a new attitude among its developers: Integration is key.” BusinessWeek carries the story.
Revamped Gnome Wants to Get Along
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
halaluya!!! no realy…this is a big deal for Gnome to finaly get….if they want people to use the DE it has to all fit together so people don’t feel like they are just using a bloated WM.
Finally, we see some progress being made in the adoption of universal desktop standards. These are steps that are absolutely and utterly key to the progress of the linux desktop. I applaud the work being done by freedesktop.org! It is stories like this that get me exited about the future of the linux.
As soon as there are common standards for basic program operation like copy / paste / loading, linux on the desktop takes a massive leap towards user friendlyness. Roll on freedesktop.org.
I just hope that something actually comes out of these efforts in the near future. It’s nice to see interest in giving Linux a consistent GUI, but I’m pessimistic about how sucessful it will be. It will obviously rely on a lot of developers working together and deciding on standards. IMO that’s not something Linux developers have been very good at in the past.
so will they stop deliberately removing API chunks and instead start labeling them as deprecated?
the very thought of opening an application in linux and getting REAL startup notification and being able to minize any app to a system tray no matter what WM i am using is amazing to me. LMAO, i hope application developers starting using freedesktop.org standards in all applications
well.. one thing “linux on the desktop” need is a installer program.. so that I dont have too read the manual for howto install the Macromedia Flash Player and other things that desktop users needs.
I both agree, and disagree. An installer would be GREAT, but it would have to leverage existing package management or it would create a support nightmare.
Well how does OpenOffice / StarOffice have installer? I’ve seen other programs that have installers too.
It might be a support nightmare at the beginning but I believe that many users will begin using it since this is something that has been pushing linux back for a long time and soon enough it will be working pretty well after major bugs and design flaws have been fixed.
This is something that is deffinetley needed – you can’t ask common users to install millions of RPMS and resolve dependencies or compile software…
Debian and Gentoo probably have something good in that direction going on since I’ve been hearing how great apt or emerge are(I’ve never used Gentoo or Debian-based distibutions so I haven’t experienced these myself).
It would only be a support nightmare if there were multiple installers all using a different method to track installed applications. I’d like to see an installshield / apt / rpm conglomerate myself.
Yupp, the major (and minor) players really NEED to get together and make some standards. Otherwise the splinters that is the Linux scene today will remain just that – splinters, instead of a solid treetrunk that can will sprout many leaves (users).
The DLC is such a good thing. We need more such efforts.Gnome and KDE need to sit their asses down and essentially make “Knome”. Red Hat, Debian, Mandrake, SuSE and all the others need to sit their asses down and create ONE package manager for ALL. The same goes for sound deamons, fonts, directory structures, et cetera.
Diversity is GOOD, but we don’t have diversity – we have massive fragmentation. And that’s BAD. I cannot emphasize strongly enough just how BAD that is. We desperately need that BIG and EFFICIENT conference that would set some proper STANDARDS!
how about GDE for the GNU Desktop Environment. Its all built on GNU software anyway.
Well, cept for X, and mozilla, and…
GNU is da glue
is swallow their pride and copy Debian’s system improving
where necessary.
Linux doesn’t need an installer.
I use Debian and I have no trouble installing and upgrading
software.
Yes, there are always some problems , just like in Windows.
And if everyone got behind a Debian style package managment
system those problems would rapidly dissappear with
the sharper focus and everyone using very similar system.
No installing problems here.
come on in, the waters just fine.
yeah, like if RH, Suse, and mandrake got together with debian, the 3 RPM distros would standardize with .deb
keep dreaming.
“Yupp, the major (and minor) players really NEED to get together and make some standards. Otherwise the splinters that is the Linux scene today will remain just that – splinters, instead of a solid treetrunk that can will sprout many leaves (users).
The DLC is such a good thing. We need more such efforts.Gnome and KDE need to sit their asses down and essentially make “Knome”. Red Hat, Debian, Mandrake, SuSE and all the others need to sit their asses down and create ONE package manager for ALL. The same goes for sound deamons, fonts, directory structures, et cetera.
Diversity is GOOD, but we don’t have diversity – we have massive fragmentation. And that’s BAD. I cannot emphasize strongly enough just how BAD that is. We desperately need that BIG and EFFICIENT conference that would set some proper STANDARDS! ”
Imagine how well human evolution would have worked if it had standarized on the wrong thing, or consolidated on the wrong design? The parallel between OSS evolution and biological is there, because in both, the optimum design hasn’t been reached, and the world changes enough that what’s correct for now ends up as legacy (appendix) latter. The thing will be, to whom should we confur this awesome power of creation?
To say that RPMs should be the evolutionary “top of the pyramid” vs DEBs, or any other. The same with this filesystem vs that, or any other decision. Linux development has advanced far (evolved), but it still has far to go. Diversity for Linux is also a strong point, both for biological, and software evolution. The latest round of virus, and worms shows the wisdom of that approach.
The question once again is whom has the wisdom to know were the lines should be drawn (design by committee?), and is willing to incur the wraith of getting it wrong?
“Linux doesn’t need an installer.
I use Debian and I have no trouble installing and upgrading
software.”
well.. that good, but u cant get kde3.1 before year 2005 or..
…if debian wos that userfrendly as mandrake or.. any other of those “windows” distroes, i will use it, but thats going to take some time.. http://wiki.debian.net/DebianDesktopProjectGoals
well we linux users conplain that there aret that many drivers and soo on for linux, but like nvida they make drivers for linux, but no one (users from windows) cant install it,, and whats the meaning of that??
There is a project called autopackage and the owner of that project is currently talking on gnomesupport.org about ideas for a installer gui interface gtk2 of course (because he is talking to gnome people).
However, the Flash plugin comes in rpm format now and there is even an apt4rpm repository you can add with a couple of clicks on the synaptic gui.
The idea of autopackage is a installer system for the programs that do NOT comes standard with your distro. So your RH8 may come on rpms but if you go out and get app1 for somebubba.org’s website he has to only package app1 once in autopackage format and it installs on any linux system with very little fuss or muss. That is the theory anyway.
A GUI even without a driver like Windows.
How many times have this happened where your network connection works, but the X does not start; you reboot to your windows machine, download the drivers, and boot back to linux to install the driver.
What a terrible design.
Display the bare 16 color 640×480 so that the user can search on-line for the drivers.
Well, I don’t find this exiciting enough. Well, I would like to see more integration between the two projects, in areas concerning
1) Themes (including GTK+ and Qt themes). I wish there is a way that when I install a Qt theme, GTK+ would follow its looks and vice versa. Currently, there are combination of themes that create a consistent look (BlueCurve, Keramik/Geramik), but falls short of what I really want.
2) Consistent HIG. Yes, I know about the collaboration between KDE and GNOME HIGs, but that again falls short of my expectations. To quote “Having a shared document will also allow us to start looking at commonalities between the documents and perhaps create common chapters or sections on basic guidelines and lessons that are desktop and toolkit-independent (e.g., accessibility and internationalization tips, general usability principles).”
In other words, the HIG project is merely somethingto find commanality between KDE’s and GNOME’s HIG, while both still have their unique parts. What I want is the same HIG for both projects. Preferably one made by UI experts (not geeks like you and me).
I really want both KDE and GNOME apps to act and look the same that it is hard to make a difference between the two. I’m not saying that GNOME should act like KDE or vice versa, I’m saying that apps should act and feel the same. GNOME can still have its unique UI features, like it panels, the file manager (shell), the control panel etc.
While I agree than in most, if not all, distributions, installation of third party software leaves a lot to be desired, I’m all against imitating Windows’ idea. If I get a nickel for each time I get a phone call asking me how to install a app on Windows, I would be richer than Bill Gates himself (note: just gross exageration). OS X’s idea is interesting on the other hand.
on autopackage: We’re also talking to the LSB, but I don’t know if anything will come of that.
The debian system simply does not scale, nor does it work well for 3rd parties, users having to manually add sources and resynch is ridiculous. If distros could agree on a shared dependancy database, then maybe we could start building on and adapting apt, but until that happens I’m not optimistic.
We’re attacking this problem from multiple angles anyway.
The OS X software installation system is getting to be just as fragmented as Linux is, it just seems to gets worse every time I examine it closely. We’re not going to be copying that mess anytime soon
Is this a reaction to Red Hat’s Bluecurve, or do the KDE and Gnome teams now realise that we (the users) don’t care which libraries an application uses as long as it does what is should…
How is OS X’s sowftware installation system fragmented? Having and interest in these matters I’m curious. Are you referring to the app folder paradigm? Or the other packaging system that the use to package regular Unix software?
I’ve recently been looking into packaging systems and OS X’s seems to be the easiest to use which is my number one concern. Please elaborate.