Posts in by tag
Recent Poll's
User login
Navigation
Recent Comments
Syndicate
Tue, 01/30/2007 - 13:34 — admin
Is the general Linux Desktop expirience based on gnome getting any better? On the whole do you feel it is consistant and reliable?
Comments
KDE looks ugly and I can't
KDE looks ugly and I can't stand it. I love GNOME.
KDE is for people who like everything shiny and stylish.
Oh, and Compiz is gay too. All that effort should be put into something more useful.
I very much prefer KDE to
I very much prefer KDE to GNOME, and prefer OS X to GNOME, but GNOME is indeed getting better. Where once it was "Eew", it is now "Meh". If the KDE folks can get Plasma to stop crashing when I try to do anything more exotic than move an icon to the panel, KDE will be in pretty good shape.
Desktop Linux is hopeless.
Desktop Linux is hopeless. Stop beating the dead horse.
Gnome is good enough for
Gnome is good enough for now. Main thing is, it's consistent with commercial platforms so I'm not lost when I sit down at someone else's computer.
Whatever replaces Linux/Windows/Mac, it will not be written in C++, so any "enhancements" to KDE or GNOME are pretty much wasted effort -- like pumping money into GM and Chrysler. It'll be a few years before there's a viable replacement, though, and it always takes longer than I think!
Gnome Experience is much
Gnome Experience is much better and usable.especially Ubuntu is doing great work!.kde imho is definitely not worth with normal Desktop Users.
although ,I agree kde /qt fans are very very particular about it's existance.heck ,this is a free world!let the one choose what the one wants!
I was told by several people
I was told by several people that KDE is better, and tried to get into Linux on KDE-based distros several times, but I just couldn't stick with it. I'd always end up back in XP. KDE is like all the bad parts of Windows and none of the good.
After trying Kubuntu for a little while and getting sick of it like all the rest, I tried Gnome-based Ubuntu. I've been using it as my main desktop for two years.
I see a lot of people complaining that Gnome "dumbs down" the interface to the point where you can't do things you want, but I don't see any of them actually listing the things they'd like to do with it. What does it actually prevent you from doing? Does anyone besides you care?
I quite liked GNOME 1.2 (or
I quite liked GNOME 1.2 (or was it 1.0) which was the first version I used. Since then, it seems that GNOME has lost features, rather than gained them. It looks TOO simple as if they thought the difficulties with Linux had to do with GNOME and they'd better 'dumb it down. People who use Linux don't want dumbed down, they just don't really want to struggle with installing software, drivers, keeping the system up to date and constantly upgrading and resolving issues and broken softare.
The Linux mantra seems to be "Make whats already easy easier, leave whats hards/broken untouched".
KDE 4 made me want to puke, and I just hope KDE 3 will be around for a long time.
I voted "No", "Win XP is the
I voted "No", "Win XP is the way", "I prefer OS X". Gnome and KDE both feel very clunky and tend to break often. The whole X11 experience is a huge turnoff. Not sure why Linux is still pushing ahead with the obsolete X-window technology... its as if developers are piling more fixes & tweaks & window dressing on the same old broken interface. Very disappointing.
I think X itself is fine,
I think X itself is fine, KDE naturally is more cohesive due to its stronger ObjectOrientated background which forces the developers to think in a clearer frame about what is going on, while gnome is a patch work of C code.
i am running latest debian lenny and i still get font issues with gnome but in KDE it all works pretty good, I think font support is a good indication of the maturity of any window manager and display server, take mac for example, it is so well written than you can convert any screen into a perfect pdf with correct text embedded, whist in gnome, you get clitches when you highlight some text!
What is there besides X? X
What is there besides X?
X is not primitive, X is now highly refined. In fact I keep finding more and more stuff that it can do, some of which just blows my mind:
Eg. Quickcam IM camera that (thanks to Phillips being morons and Logitech being the morons that use the morons' chipset) only had shitdos32 drivers: Run it in shitdosXP in vmware under linux on one box, with the vmware display X-exported to X on another linux box - and I could wave my hand around in front of the cam and see the picture move on the other linux box with NO jerkiness whatsoever other than that which the cam and its shit driver introduced (ie. exactly the same running natively on shitdos32).
Also:
Don't be fooled by Apple - Aqua has an 'unspecified' chunk of itself that is basically X. Aqua was taken from NextStep which was basically a modified X server that used Display PostScript to render parts of itself - Aqua is the same tech but uses PDF instead of raw PostScript.
There really isn't anything apart from X. X is it. Calling X 'old tech' is like calling Unix 'old tech' - a better, more accurate term is 'Highly Evolved Technlogy.'
Jon
"Calling X 'old tech' is
"Calling X 'old tech' is like calling Unix 'old tech' - a better, more accurate term is 'Highly Evolved Technlogy.'"
But Unix _IS_ old tech.
While we have perfect scripting languages like ruby, and decent ones like python, the majority is still written all over the places in ugly shell scripts.
We are in the year 2008. Soon 2010.
We still use shell scripts - wtf?
We could be using human readable languages that do exactly what the shell scripts would do, but in a human readable way.
Xorg is old tech. The protocols are outdated.
Why do I need the client/server architecture? I just want to have a simple programs that displays what _I_ need and use on the web.
Xorg caters to every plattform, but I only care about Linux. And not about the monolithic/modular crap that consists of Xorg.
Recently they broke keyboard input with the idiotic move to EVDEV which even ignores the crappy xorg.conf
It is soooooooooo annoying. Xorg could be so much better if they would listen to users more.
I gave up on Xorg and I hope someone one day comes and will remove the Xorg on my system - maybe a layer upon directfb. So far I heard only praises about directfb.
This is the year 2008. Soon
This is the year 2008. Soon 2010. And we are still using WHEELS and FIRE? We still TYPE? Sounds like the kind of argument one makes to appeal to a desire for progress for the sake of progress, rather than for any improvement.
What does the year have to do with it? Change for the sake of change because of the year number? Thats a dumb way to develop an OS!
Welcome to reality. Besides,
Welcome to reality.
Besides, in the year 2010, we dont want to carry legacy crap around all the time, do we?
Aliens would be fucking laughing about our technology.
How do you know what aliens
How do you know what aliens would laugh at? You've met them I suppose? And what does the "This is the year 2010" crap have to do with anything. The whole "This is the year, xxxx, so we must yyyy" argument is stupid. Tell me, what are we supposed to have in the year 2011, 2020? Let me know now. I think you'll find that EVERY historical projection of the future has been way off course. Look at Star Trek. Even better, look at 2001 a space oddysey or the old bugs bunny cartoons set in the 'futuristic' year of 1999. People who think they can pre-empt what we do in the future get proven wrong consistently. In the real world, people adopt what is useful, in the end.
Stop thinking in terms of what some futurist sci-fi writer thinks our future should be and should look like and their own biased, idealised interpretation of whats 'futuristic' and whats 'obsolete' and start thinking in terms of utility and practicality. Which is what tools are primarily for.
Does the command line interface still provide a practical and useful means by which to compute? The answer is YES. Does the command line interface still provide a mechanism of controlling information and supplying tasks to the computer in a manner the GUI cannot quite do? The answer is YES. The car didn't obsolete the bike, nor did it get rid of the need to walk. Only idiots think of the future in terms of what some walking hard-on marketer 'sells' to them what the future should be (so as to make their product marketable), as Microsoft do.
Hey, I have a car with trapezoid wheels. Round wheels are so outdated and old. Mines the wave of the future? Care to buy it?
Seriously... Shut up now.
Seriously... Shut up now. The 2010 argument is quite relevant. If you had a choice would you use a chariot to get to work or drive a car? I guess in your case chariot it is, but i would prefer the car. The point is that considering how many talented people work on all the Linux distros they could make one good OS.
But thats not going to happen. People should just abandon the idea already. Every idiot thinks he can make the better distro and they fight among themselves like little kids. Nothing useful comes out of it. You retards want to keep the terminal ? Thats fucking great, but hide its ugly ass from me and the rest of the public. no one else wants to see it.
It is really amazingly simple. All they would have to do is come together and make 1-2 different versions. Thats all. If they made the graphical interface easy to use and intuitive... EASE OF USE is whats missing in Linux. that alone would sway many people to switch. Once more people use it companies would actually help with driver development. Eventually games and more applications would be available. Doesnt that sound nice?
I am quite computer savvy, but ill be damned if i have to write an essay in a black box to achieve ANYTHING. Ill leave that for someone with as thick glasses as you.
Both Chariots and Cars have
Both Chariots and Cars have wheels dood. You know, Ford didn't wake up one day and thought "you know, the wheel has been around since Roman times. Why don't we replace it with something flashier? Thats OLD technology. This is 2009, we don't want to still use WHEELS, do we?
Yes, the argument is relevant. The terminal provides a different communication method between the user and the computer. Just as writing provides a different method of communication than hand gestures or diagrams. Clever marketing made people think that the GUI was the successor to the CLI. It isn't, it wasn't. It replaced SOME CLI functions, particularly those which require a graphical/spatial/visual approach, but not all.
Complaining that you need to use the terminal to do basic config stuff is a valid complaint. After all, if there is a GUI to configure sound, but you still HAVE to run programs and edit config files manually, then the GUI is deficient. Thats valid, I'll pay that criticism of the software. Complaining that the terminal is THERE is just stupid. It's just like complaining that manual transmission cars are still made, or that some stereo systems still have a turntable to play vinyl LP's.
There is no point in Linux becoming another Windows to win over Windows people. Likewise, there is no point in replacing windows. It's an alternative OS. Suits some people because its different. If someone thinks Windows is great, then why complain about Linux not being what you want it to be? It's not like the existance of Linux stops you from using Windows, does it?
Theres the whole issue
Theres the whole issue between sound daemons and kernel drivers too, been some choice quotes about "esound" and "artsd"
We need to start a Sound
We need to start a Sound thread, yes!
-Jon
Sound thread started. Jon
Sound thread started.
Jon
I voted both for 'yes' and
I voted both for 'yes' and 'KDE is the way forward'. I've been a Gnome user since I started getting into Linux seriously, but I've switched to KDE. I like some of the things Gnome has done - and I dislike a lot about KDE as well (in general I find it tacky and a bit plastic).
However, two points are very firm in my mind:
1) Metacity is clunky and slow and doesn't render very nicely even with a great graphics card. Kwin on the contrary, perhaps because it is older (?) and has had more development through age, is so remarkably smooth.
2) Many KDE apps are more powerful than what Gnome offers - quick examples: k3b, kftpgrabber & kasablanca, kflickr. On the other hand, some Gnome apps seem easier to use than KDE apps - quick examples Xchat compared to Konversation, Gaim compared to Kopete.
I think Gnome is great but jerky and frustrating. KDE is smoother but prone to more crashes (in my experience) and takes longer to configure (which can be another way of saying it offers more features/functionality).
Despite liking Gnome, I think KDE is far ahead and probably due to its age more than anything: it's more refined. I'm not sure if Gnome can catch up to it.
Sorry for the tome! Nice site btw, I like a site that has the balls to be critical in the interest of building solutions to put back in, rather than just bitch about stuff that doesn't work. :)
Personally I prefer KDE but
Personally I prefer KDE but I think Gnome made some improvements as well.
What I dont like is that KDE is easier to compile than Gnome, and this is why I will stick to KDE - it simply makes MY life easier.