Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME 3.0 May Not Come Until September 2010

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • val-gaav
    replied
    Well I expect gnome 3.0 to be more of a marketing release: "competition had a major release so we will have one too" ...

    The same way current Firefox was changed from 3.1 to 3.5 though it really is not so different from 3.0 ...

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
    @mat69; I worked (as I'm a software developer) and I am aware of Qt4 that is a much improved over Qt3. I can agree that KDE4 shell looks like a revolution compared with KDE3. The point was that without breaking the user front look, GNOME changes almost in the same amount as KDE4 did.
    It doesn't have sense to me. You said Gnome changes in the same amount as KDE4 did, but same time gtk3 will be almost same crap like gtk2? Btw. the first thing which they should change is its front look.

    Leave a comment:


  • val-gaav
    replied
    Remember gnome 3.0 would not happen without kde4. Gnomers were so set on their incremental improvements and no 3.0 as we do not believe in revolution (there was a webpage on gnome.org called threepointzero arguing how next major release will not happen and why). Only KDE impact made them go 3.0 route.

    Leave a comment:


  • L33F3R
    replied
    @ciplogic

    thank you for that post. That will hopefully clear alot up, for alot of people.

    Leave a comment:


  • ciplogic
    replied
    @mat69; I worked (as I'm a software developer) and I am aware of Qt4 that is a much improved over Qt3. I can agree that KDE4 shell looks like a revolution compared with KDE3. The point was that without breaking the user front look, GNOME changes almost in the same amount as KDE4 did. Gtk3 is expected to have a new theme engine but in rest, will be mainly Gtk2 with removed a lot of deprecated symbols. There are KillBonobo and Project Ridley that were about improving GNOME.

    Making minimalist improvements, makes you feel that GNOME stays in place for ages, but as platform did improve. By FreeDesktop integration it just mean that GNOME implements specfications as folder locations, launchers, using HAL, etc. They are probably not revolutionary from UI standpoint, but at large taking GNOME 2.0 with GNOME 2.28, is a jump (in 8 years) as is KDE 3 to KDE 4. Don't get mislead by plasma itself (or any fancy UI). Think as a jump from Windows 98 to Windows 2000, meaning the same of Win32 API to be there, but a lot of internals to be much well better written, improved, etc.

    Just the fact that GNOME 3 can run (as it's visible part: Gnome shell) on top of Gnome 2.28, simply means that technology on it may be considered one version above 2.0

    I also agree with persons that say: Gnome is the same for ages in the ares like: Nautilus in general, Gnome-Panel look and feel that are the most visible parts of GNOME. A Nautilus rewrite I think may be desirable, but no one will do it very soon, so we will stay with it for now.

    Probably, but at a smaller scale, is what OS X was from 10.0 to 10.6, but when you will go back on 10.0 stay 2 hours, you will say: how could someone liked that desktop?

    Leave a comment:


  • mat69
    replied
    @ciplogic well what you mention on the user side is not that thrilling at all (uuhh, drag and drop, come on that is a no-brainer and not sure on Gtk but should not take much time to code) [1] and you are highly inaccurate on the technology side. There is no such thing as "Freedesktop integration", fd.o is just a collection of "standards" people "agreed" on. [2]

    D-Bus has nothing to do with hardware and btw. KDE 4 only uses DBus, nothing else. Funny somehow that Gnome partially still uses Bonobo, reminds me of the icon-fd.o-spec that KDE uses while Gnome still does not fully embrace it (sic?) or at least took way longer, despite the fact that both D-Bus and that icon-spec were started by devs that are close to Gnome. And to be honest I never understood that because I had the feeling that Gnome had more devs than KDE, but maybe I'm completely wrong on that or developing with Gtk was (! with all the bindings that for sure has changed) not that fast/easy compared with Qt.

    [1] That is not to say that there weren't any thrilling changes, probably people just got so used to them that they can't imagine the absence of them in the past. And overall it is just hard to remember them and I do not urge anybody to look at all the changelogs, that would be a waste of time. Yet I still will mention when I see a change not as major improvement.
    [2] Actually fd.o was/is heavily Gnome sided and highly inflexible, inconsistent and inconsequent, that is what started discussions from KDE devs to improve the decision-process, not sure if it worked out. Just one example, look how Akonadi was treated, months without an answer and then half-baked unfounded reasons to neglect it. Just ridiculous and brashness --> people working months on something and then putting them of with reasons like "some people think it has problems" (no quote, but the problems were not listed at all). Also galago anyone? That is not to say that I do not like fd.o, it could be a fantastic way to bring the whole Linux desktop foward, to make live for users and devs easier but in many occations it hinders just that.

    Leave a comment:


  • val-gaav
    replied
    Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
    User features:
    - open-save dialogs are much better, can be added new sources (like search integration with beagle/tracker)
    Open/save file dialogs in gtk+ were always one big horrible joke on usability, features or whatever you want to name it.

    Saying that those are much better now is just as saying that "hell has frozen".... and it's also untrue, because I'm watching this dialog right now on my PC and it still makes me want to delete every application that uses it.

    As for other things I think we are living in 21 centry right now so putting drag and drop into major improvements is silly. It's not an major improvement it's a basic function that every DE should have and if it doesn't have it the devs should be just ashamed.

    Leave a comment:


  • ciplogic
    replied
    Originally posted by Joe Sixpack View Post
    In 7 years, can you honestly name me 5 major improvements?
    User features:
    - taskbar overhaul: blinking notification to aplication, drag and drop, drag and drop between workspaces
    - menubar reorganized to have much more clarity from two entries to three entries
    - open-save dialogs are much better, can be added new sources (like search integration with beagle/tracker)
    - standardized theme and set of icons that make any GNOME distro to give a non-distro specific Gnome look (Clearlooks)

    Technology:
    - support for composite (also cause of cairo) and which enable some applications as gnome-do to look nice on a composite desktop
    - desktop search API
    - help technology replaced
    - improved accesibility with Orca
    - telepathy framework
    - PolicyKit integration
    - Freedesktop integration

    Gtk:
    - toolkit: switching from Gdk to Cairo
    - mono interoperability
    - switching from gvfs to gio
    - GtkBuilder replaces Glade (which went to version 3 that do not generate source-code as it's predecesors, but was a separate library)

    Hardware API abstractisation:
    - D-BUS to send notifications as low batery, but not only. Is a IPC framework that will be adopted later even by KDE
    - swith hardware API to Hal (and maybe later DeviceKit, but may be a part of Gnome 3)
    - switch from ESD to GStreamer

    This seems to be all I remember, in short, sorry for what was skipped, but comparing GNOME 2.0 with Gnome 2.28 is plain silly. Is just like saying that GCC 4.0 is the same with GCC 4.4 and is use the same Gimple language and it stores it's definitions in SSA form, and we need to release GCC 5 as GCC 4.0 do not get enough fast binaries (compared with compiler X) and GCC 4 is based on the same bad technology.

    Leave a comment:


  • mat69
    replied
    Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
    I think that's much better than writing separate backends for GDI, XRender/EXA, Quartz, OpenGL, OpenGL|ES *and* a software rasterizer to boot. This hasn't been easy for Qt (check their blog) and - even after all those years - many of those backends are still lagging behind the software rasterizer.
    Granted that makes sense

    Maybe it's a better idea to focus on a single, well-optimized OpenGL & OpenGL|ES implementation, rather than implement a dozen half-baked backends.

    Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
    In all seriousness, this is a great project. Easy to animate. Runs on the desktop (on Linux at least). Runs on the browser (everywhere!) It can be used directly by many programming languages instead of just C or C++ (sidestepping the "sucky, outdated Qt/GTK bindings issue")
    I have no clue why this should be an innovative Gnome project.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlackStar
    replied
    Originally posted by mat69 View Post
    Qt can use OpenGL, the difference is that it is not a hard dependence. And as KDE strives to be multiplattform having a hard dependence on OpenGL is not a good idea. Also I'm not sure if Clutter supports OpenGL ES.
    It does support OpenGL|ES. Given that OpenGL is supported pretty much everywhere, I don't see why a hard dependency is a bad thing. Even if you lack hardware support, you can always fall back a software-based OpenGL implementation (no, soft OpenGL doesn't have to be slow!)

    I think that's much better than writing separate backends for GDI, XRender/EXA, Quartz, OpenGL, OpenGL|ES *and* a software rasterizer to boot. This hasn't been easy for Qt (check their blog) and - even after all those years - many of those backends are still lagging behind the software rasterizer.

    Maybe it's a better idea to focus on a single, well-optimized OpenGL & OpenGL|ES implementation, rather than implement a dozen half-baked backends.

    Just to be sure that I don't misunderstand you here again, but what do you mean with Moonlight?
    (Donning armor)



    (Trolls incoming in three, two, one!...)

    In all seriousness, this is a great project. Easy to animate. Runs on the desktop (on Linux at least). Runs on the browser (everywhere!) It can be used directly by many programming languages instead of just C or C++ (sidestepping the "sucky, outdated Qt/GTK bindings issue")

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X