Slashdot Log In
Gnome Removed From Slackware
Posted by
Zonk
on Sun Mar 27, 2005 09:47 PM
from the quite-large dept.
from the quite-large dept.
Anonymous Coward writes "After long consideration, Pat Volkerding has removed GNOME from Slackware. Pat mentions in the
-current ChangeLog that GNOME takes a lot of time to package, so this move should allow more time to be spent on the rest of Slackware." From the changelog: "Please do not incorrectly interpret any of this as a slight against GNOME
itself, which (although it does usually need to be fixed and polished beyond
the way it ships from upstream more so than, say, KDE or XFce) is a decent
desktop choice."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Gnome Removed From Slackware
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 761 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Also from the Changelog (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sorry... (Score:5, Funny)
I, for one, welcome our new KDE overlords.
1. Remove GNOME from Slackware
2. ???
3. Profit!!
Re:I'm sorry... (Score:4, Funny)
(Last Journal: Sunday August 20 2006, @01:37PM)
In Soviet Russia, old Koreans are GNOMEs [yimg.com].
Re:I'm sorry... (Score:4, Funny)
(http://opengameconsole.org/ | Last Journal: Friday July 08 2005, @02:58PM)
I thought this was decided a long time ago (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I thought this was decided a long time ago (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I thought this was decided a long time ago (Score:5, Informative)
(http://hive.ro/)
There is also Dropline, of course, which is quite popular. However, due to their policy of adding PAM and replacing large system packages (like the entire X11 system) with their own versions, I can't give quite the same sort of nod to Dropline. Nevertheless, it remains another choice, and it's _your_ system, so I will also mention their project: http://www.dropline.net/gnome/ [dropline.net]
he recommends these [sf.net] two [sf.net]
KDE 3.4 (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/~LittleLebowskiUrbanA/journal/ | Last Journal: Thursday March 30 2006, @06:26PM)
Re:KDE 3.4 (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Re:KDE 3.4 (Score:5, Funny)
based on the Gnome people pronouncing it, 'guh-NOME', you're right.
Re:KDE 3.4 (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://opengameconsole.org/ | Last Journal: Friday July 08 2005, @02:58PM)
Re:Who cares about fonts? (Score:4, Interesting)
I happen to like Gnome, but then again, I also liked Unix windowmanagers circa 1995. They do X and they do multiple desktops, two things that were always a hassle on Windows. Other than that, Gnome is still waiting for a third compelling application. It's just a prettier version of TWM, or FVWM, or whatever you were using way back when the internet was born.
Re:Who cares about fonts? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.ferion.net/ | Last Journal: Monday May 06 2002, @02:16AM)
Font smoothing is more than eye candy, it's more like eye-pillows.
(note: I pretty much agree with the rest of your point, I'm just feeling nitpicky today.)
Re:Never gonna happen (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://jedidiah.stuff.gen.nz/wp/ | Last Journal: Wednesday April 04 2007, @02:51PM)
The solution is quite simple: don't run the other DEs apps. Or actually pay for an OS - be it Windows, MacOS X, or something else altogether. No one is forcing you to use Linux/*BSD. If it sucks, by all means, stop using it.
The "Linux Desktop" is no some vast concerted effort, it is a hodge podge of whatever people are willing to contribute. As long as people are free to code whatever interests them there will always be splintering. If you don't like that, buy a system where there are enforced standards of what is acceptable.
Jedidiah.
Define progress. (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday January 22 2002, @05:54AM)
I see freedom to choose amongst many alternative as progress.
The original poster was right. You don;t like what you see then get what you need or contribute towards what you would like to see (whining does not count as a contribution, hunting bugs, participating in development forums, adopting one application and helping to steer it in the correct direction, etc is what is needed. People whining for Windows or MacOS like functionality just don't understand the philosophy of Linux and GPLed software...).
You are missing the entire point (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://knoppixquake.webhop.net/)
Your entire argument is based on the opinion that winning over the general public is somehow the "goal" of Linux.
Think about it for a second.
Now think about it for another.
Personally, I don't want it to become mainstream, or the OS of the general public. The general public is a bunch of morons who destroy the fun and life in everything it collectively touches. Disney is what the public wants. NASCAR is what the public wants. Windows is what the public wants.
Now I have known people, that I respect, that like each of these things. But as a whole, these things cater to the lowest common denominator. In my opinion, Linux is above that. And you can't say it is elitest, because *it* isn't a thing with someone behind the wheel steering it in any one direction. It is more like evolution than a lab experiment. In all honesty, I think it is a beautiful thing, and I don't want it to be degraded to the point where it is on the public desktop. If someone or a company can put it there, so be it. But hopefully if that happens it won't drag "Linux" down with it.
One of the problems with Linux is that there is too much choice.
I know I quoted you out of sequence, so forgive me. But choice is EXACTLY what got Linux where it is today. I can agree that it is daunting, even for me, to choose. But I would rather have the choice. I was on the same distro for about 5 years, which is like millenia in distro time. By the time I decided to upgrade, the choices were staggering! I tried one, then another, then settled on my third choice. There are still things that I don't like about the one I chose (or should I say that I like better about the ones I didn't), but I made a good choice. Linux is evolving, constantly, and is improving. I have been using it since RedHat5.1, and Unix before that. There are some tools that I use today that I used the first day I logged in. And I still learn about new tools today - some brand new, some that have been there since day 1. It is awesome, and I love it. There are 50 ways to do the same thing, some more elegant than others, some brute force. I write scripts all the time that perform actions like taking photos, resizing them to 3 standard sizes, making thumbnails, and creating HTML around them so people can view them on a web page. There are packages that can do this, there are hundreds of ways via shell scripts, different languages, etc. But I did it my way. Is my way the best way? There is no best way. My way works, and it is mine. THAT is why I like Linux. I think it is better to offer choice. Everyone can choose, but everyone doesn't have to choose the same thing.
Re:KDE 3.4 (Score:4, Funny)
New slogan:
Re:KDE 3.4 (Score:5, Funny)
Ironic... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.20bvert.com/)
Re:Ironic... (Score:5, Informative)
make -e install DESTDIR=/tmp/[gnomepkgname]
Yes I am makeing packages.
Re:Ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the biggest differences between KDE and Gnome is that KDE's use of the Qt library dramatically cuts down on dependancies. Gnome requires use of dozens of libraries to match the functionality of Qt and this complicates the build process.
Frankly, from a developer perspective, I don't think Gtk/Gnome libs have quite kept up with Qt in terms of overall quality and I'm not sure how they can be expected to. Qt is heavily supported commercially. There are people being paid full time to add features, improve performance, and write top quality API docs. Gnome expends much effort maintaining its own libraries. It's a shame that KDE and Gnome do not both use Qt. It would eliminate almost all of the compatibility issues, save memory on hybrid desktops, and allow them to compete on things that really matter like UI design. (where there are legitimate arguments on both sides) But, unfortunately, Qt began it's life as a less-than-Free piece of code. As a result, the Gnome folks rightly avoided it. But then they continued their own efforts even after Qt went GPL.. Now there's even a GPL full version for Windows, so the cross-platform argument is totally shot.
FWIW, I'm not trying to bash Gnome, but I do think there is some re-evaluation in order. Competition is good, but wheel re-inventing is usually not.
Qt licensing, again (Score:4, Insightful)
It would also eliminate the option of creating closed source applications without paying thousands of euros for Qt licenses (or at least apps that fit the general UI look and feel).
Not in million years. Companies don't want to be that dependent on Trolltech.
This comes from a KDE user (KDE 3.4 is a gem). But I'm also a developer, and I don't see Qt as *strategically* viable route to bring Linux desktop forward.
(For those that don't know, Gtk is LGPL which is more free than GPL, which is the license Qt uses).
Re:Qt licensing, again (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ironic... (Score:5, Interesting)
That is ok (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That is ok (Score:4, Funny)
(http://droplinegnome.org/)
That said, in spite of the fact that I am one of many that works on Dropline GNOME, I'm very pleased to see that there are other alternatives for everyone. Each GNOME desktop for Slackware offers a unique experience and helps provide choices for Slackers (which has always been the mission of Dropline GNOME in the first place).
We will be releasing Dropline GNOME 2.10 within a few days. Currently, it is being BETA tested, but things are progressing well. It will be our first release that is built totally from the ground up, since we (the development team) took the project over from Todd back in Novemeber. We're really proud of our work.
In addition, I'd like to pay my respects to the other Slackware GNOME teams out there. Freerock (of GNOME.SlackBuild) frequents our IRC channel, and has been very kind in sharing some of his experiences with GNOME 2.10's (many) quirks. He's a very nice guy, and has a quality GNOME desktop. I've also visited the GWARE room on Freenode, and have found that they are also nice guys as well. They're also developing a quality desktop.
To bad (Score:3, Funny)
WHAT?!?!?! (Score:4, Funny)
Weren't Sun and HP.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Weren't Sun and HP.. (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.intelligentblogger.com/ | Last Journal: Monday August 27, @11:47AM)
Technically speaking, they have been. However, the scuttlebutt out of the Sun team is that the GNOME developers are not entirely appreciative of the help and tend to shove back. While this may or may not be true, I'm afraid that the whole "Spatial Natilus" debacle didn't do much for the GNOME team's reputation.
Re:Weren't Sun and HP.. (Score:4, Informative)
(http://robotmonkeys.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 26 2004, @03:23AM)
The GNOME heirachy needs to be walloped with a clue stick when it comes to useability. Before the Sun usability GNOME suffered from the Tyrany of Choice. Too many almost identical apps all with similar names. The clock applets were my favorite, "clock", "another clock", "clock with mail check", "jbc clock", etc. Sun came back and said, "You have too many choices." Havoc et al. took away from this, "Choice is bad" and systematically removed almost every preference in GNOME. They didn't have to go from one extreme to the other. Now you're stuck using undocumented gconf keys to change things, even though gconf-editor plainly says "don't use this to change preferences". Nice.
The other problem with GNOME is the whole culture of "Let's rewrite everything!" The file chooser has changed almost 6 times since GNOME started. Entire architectures are tossed overboard without much second thought. Damn. It's like it's being developed by a bunch of ADD teenagers trying to show how 1337 they are.
But yes, GNOME needs another usability study.
I use Gnome, with e16, and I like it very much but I'm not likely to say anything about it until I have something to bitch about.
I'll give you something. The filechooser. "Nah. No one will ever want to type in a filename when they can simply click 15 times!" (Yes, I know MacOSX 10.2+ introduced this. I'll simply recount the wisdom of Obi-Wan, "Who's the more foolish? The fool or the one who follows him?"
What did you expect? (Score:5, Funny)
Wow... just wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Anway, i found interesting that Pat mentions XFCE as a "fixed an polished" desktop. It's great, and while i'd hate to see GNOME loose popularity, at this time XFCE 4.2 is a better GNOME than GNOME itself.
Re:Wow... just wow (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Tuesday December 31 2002, @08:24AM)
Re:Wow... just wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Over at OSNews (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/~LittleLebowskiUrbanA/journal/ | Last Journal: Thursday March 30 2006, @06:26PM)
I think it's for the better... (Score:3, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday July 30 2006, @11:04PM)
Real men... (Score:3, Funny)
(http://www.davidsterry.com/)
LFS (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://xptical.org/)
Build Linux From Scratch. Then try adding some common desktops. KDE is quite easy to add to LFS. Gnome is an absolute bear to add.
At one point, I had a printout of all the deps for Gnome. It was a huge spiderweb of tangles that had to be decoded and followed exactly to get Gnome to build.
Anyway, Gnome is lots of work.
slow your roll fools (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/~Stalyn/journal | Last Journal: Wednesday September 28 2005, @08:10PM)
"Dropline GNOME is a version of the GNOME Desktop that has been tweaked for Slackware Linux systems. It is available in Slackware's standard
Why not let Dropline do all the work... so don't fret slackware users you still have GNOME. Just not being packaged by Slackware officially.
A few subtle hints (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.entropicsoftware.com/eve/sd.html | Last Journal: Monday July 10 2006, @07:42PM)
This does open the door for third-parties to tidy up the GNOME releases and provide a drop-in package for the distro though. Perhaps one of them will become strong enough to make it back in the door again.
Sometimes I think Pat runs KDE (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.madleet.net/)
I'd be interested to hear anecdotes from Slackware users who run Gnome or KDE. This change just won't affect me much.
Re:Sometimes I think Pat runs KDE (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Tuesday September 25, @04:26AM)
hear hear (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://home.golden.net/~dunbare)
last time I tried -- admittedly a VERY long time ago -- compiling gnome without the benefit of something like portage was a days-long dependency hunt. dependencies of FINAL releases were often still in CVS only. ick.
if you think that's what computing should be all about, you have WAY too much time on your hands.
Give Me Slack Or Kill Me (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/~Doc%20Ruby/journal | Last Journal: Thursday March 31 2005, @01:48PM)
Maybe this will pressure GNOME to become more installable. I find it worth the effort, but we'd all be better off if it were easier. Including GNOME, whose user/developer base would expand.
In related news (Score:3, Funny)
The right decision (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.stox.org/)
1) A distribution that includes everything. Of course this means that the team's resources are spread too far, producing an inferior product.
2) A distribution that provides a subset, but is a solid foundation upon which others can reliably add functionality.
I'll take quality over quantity, thank you!
thank you (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.neomonastic.com/)
and while we're on the topic of cutting out unnecessary GNOME fat... GTK developers: please stop depending on GNOME-specific packages!! when i want a cute little program for a slim little purpose to run on my less mainstream enlightenment setup, i *don't* want to install an entire DE that i never use!! please write programs independant of GNOME *and* KDE. both Qt and Gtk are perfectly fine libraries by themselves, without the additional bloat!
Gnome has always been messed and unstable. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a shame really because I love C and I like gnome is about, but the bottom line is the results simply aren't there. Going a day with a Segv in a gnome environment is unusual in my experience.
for crying out loud!! (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.xutopia.com/)
I don't see what the big deal is. If other distros can become so popular without supporting everything and build a very strong community around that streamlining concept I don't see what is wrong with Slack doing the same thing. Pat is making the right decision in only supporting one DE.
PS: yes I know some religious Gnome fan boy will come and try to comment on my post and say that I'm just a KDE fan spewing his views. Except I'm a gnome fan too.
Re:Why Gnome is hard to compile and KDE is not (Score:4, Informative)
The truth is that the KDE libraries are not all clumped together into KDE libs. They have never been. In version 1.0 KDE libs might have been larger than the others, but that was five years ago. Things have evolved a little bit and the KDE libraries are actually very modular.
So, Gnome is not more difficult to compile because there are a lot of different people work on it. Hell, there are more people working on KDE and the results are much better. The problem with GNOME is that it's poorly coordinated and it's way too dominated by ideological issues (we have to write it in C comes to mind, even if it was unrelated).
As about your statement that programs that need some KDE feature exclusively are KDE programs: bollocks! You don't have a clue about the structure of KDE or how to link a program. Unless you need to write the program as a DCOP client, you don't need other any part of KDE except for what you link in your program.
Slackware removed from Gnome (Score:3, Funny)
(Last Journal: Wednesday December 11 2002, @09:04PM)
- IP
Dropline is slow, so is Gnome, imo (Score:3, Insightful)
(https://furniture.for.satan.com/)
KDE 3.4 was a total cinch to install from source on slackware 10.1 - download about 100meg of packages, extract, make a quick bash script to compile and leave for a few hours - done !
Or you can use Konstruct.
I tried compiling the latest version of gnome, gave up and tried dropline. Dropline runs like an absolute dog on my hardware setup, whereas KDE 3.4 runs smooth. It also took almost as long to install dropline as it did to compile KDE 3.4
I can't blame Pat for deciding to Gnome - it's much better for a distribution to focus on a single core desktop. After all, if you want to install Gnome, you can.
GNOME slipping, slipping, slipping into the past (Score:3, Interesting)
The drawback to eliminating GNOME is not the loss of the GNOME UI, but the loss of the GNOME libraries, which allow one to run GNOME apps under KDE. But it IS a huge reduction in what has to be built and packaged, a huge reduction in disk usage, and a huge reduction in memory bloat.
GNOME people need to get on the stick, cut the fat, improve the quality of the user experience, and make their system easlier to use.
I think part of their problem is over-dependence on RPC. Too many things are done by launching another process, and then calling a procedure in the other process. I suppose the RPC interface itself isn't that bloated (or is it?), but just think about the overhead!
Re:Something doesn't compute... (Score:4, Informative)
(http://parveenkaler.com/)
Clearly, you and Pat don't agree. The article summary clearly states that Pat doesn't think there is anything major wrong with GNOME the desktop, it is the packaging of GNOME that is difficult.
Geez. Not only aren't we reading the articles, we aren't even reading the summaries anymore.
-- KDE user and summary reader.
Re:The Gnome way (Score:5, Funny)
(http://rahga.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 18 2005, @05:15PM)
Re:The Gnome way (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~cmoore/)
Anyway. Gnome and GTK+ are very object oriented, they use classes, virtual member functions and polymorphism right to their cores. Also, skinning in GTK+ is a simple matter of loading a config file.
Re:The Gnome way (Score:4, Insightful)
void callback(button& b) {
cout << "click\n";
}
int main() {
init();
window my_window(200, 200, "title");
signal_connect(my_window, destroy, main_quit, 0);
button my_button("label");
signal_connect(my_button, click, callback);
container_add(my_window, my_button);
widget_show_all(my_window);
gtk_main();
}
Now look how this C++ version is 10 times easier to understand. Plus it can do many more things. The callback function can be typesafe, for instance, and doesn't need a given signature - it could be a functor, or return a value (which is presumably ignored). This is possible due to templates. C++ is better than C, period.
Re:The Gnome way (Score:3, Informative)