Comments on: GNOME plans for the future http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/12/31/gnome-plans-for-the-future/ Just another GNOME Blogs weblog Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:33:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Diego http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/12/31/gnome-plans-for-the-future/#comment-720 Diego Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/12/31/gnome-plans-for-the-future/#comment-720 I wouldn't say that KDE4 is not doing anything "new". From that POV, you could say that gnome 2.0 was not doing anything "new" compared with gnome 1.x.<p/> KDE 4 is still a computer desktop environment, but it's a radical, "revolutionary" (as in: your old apps won't work, you've to rewrite lots of code) change from kde 3. I wouldn’t say that KDE4 is not doing anything “new”. From that POV, you could say that gnome 2.0 was not doing anything “new” compared with gnome 1.x.

KDE 4 is still a computer desktop environment, but it’s a radical, “revolutionary” (as in: your old apps won’t work, you’ve to rewrite lots of code) change from kde 3.

]]> By: knipknap http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/12/31/gnome-plans-for-the-future/#comment-721 knipknap Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/12/31/gnome-plans-for-the-future/#comment-721 IMO, GNOME has shifted away from the simplicity idea lately. This first showed by the inclusion of Evolution, which was way more "bloated" UI wise than other GNOME applications, Rhythmbox, and probably others too. Don't get me wrong, I believe that for GNOME's success shipping these more powerful applications was absolutely important at that time, and it has certainly helped it's adoption in enterprise environments.<p/>Yet, I would love to see innovative new solutions. For example, there are ideas to create a dead-simple tag based email application, instead of yet another tool that looks like all others.<br/>Also, Muine as a music player has a more granny compatible user interface than the iTunes clones. I would love to see a desktop that is built around such simplicity. IMO, GNOME has shifted away from the simplicity idea lately. This first showed by the inclusion of Evolution, which was way more “bloated” UI wise than other GNOME applications, Rhythmbox, and probably others too. Don’t get me wrong, I believe that for GNOME’s success shipping these more powerful applications was absolutely important at that time, and it has certainly helped it’s adoption in enterprise environments.

Yet, I would love to see innovative new solutions. For example, there are ideas to create a dead-simple tag based email application, instead of yet another tool that looks like all others.
Also, Muine as a music player has a more granny compatible user interface than the iTunes clones. I would love to see a desktop that is built around such simplicity.

]]> By: Erich http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/12/31/gnome-plans-for-the-future/#comment-722 Erich Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/12/31/gnome-plans-for-the-future/#comment-722 You points about the need for a Gnome 3 are good. Gnome is nice as it is. I would however like to point something out.<p/>It's mostly C. While that is nice (it's efficient and the core developers really know how to handle it) it scares away some potential contributors. Contributing in C++ or some higher level language (Ruby for instance, it eats Python for breakfast) being *standardly* included possibility (if your application will require installing "extra" -mm libraries it will stay 2nd class citizen because many distros etc want to keep things small) would drive in more people to develop Gnome applications. <p/>You have to keep in mind that many people are taught nowadays higher level languages only. They can be good programmers but having to learn the ways of C is an unwanted extra burden for some. At least C++ would be an improvement. It can be efficient too, both in execution and to develop. Better yet, Ruby (or Python if you really MUST) could be a killer. <p/>Myself I have been thinking about revamping completely the icon selection (for files and runnable items on the gnome-panel) because it has HORRIBLE usability. (Why on earth can't I just select one of the THEMES installed and then the icon, why do I have to know about directory paths?!!?) I'm not quite willing to write any C however. I could but it's too time consuming and loathsome when I'm usually programming in Ruby or Java. I've been thinking the same about Dia. Hopping in and revising it pretty much completely. It seems horrible as well :-)<p/>So there MIGHT actually be "need" for Gnome 3.0. Not becauce of features but because of refactoring into a position where contributions in 1 great higher level language would be wanted also into the core<br/> You points about the need for a Gnome 3 are good. Gnome is nice as it is. I would however like to point something out.

It’s mostly C. While that is nice (it’s efficient and the core developers really know how to handle it) it scares away some potential contributors. Contributing in C++ or some higher level language (Ruby for instance, it eats Python for breakfast) being *standardly* included possibility (if your application will require installing “extra” -mm libraries it will stay 2nd class citizen because many distros etc want to keep things small) would drive in more people to develop Gnome applications.

You have to keep in mind that many people are taught nowadays higher level languages only. They can be good programmers but having to learn the ways of C is an unwanted extra burden for some. At least C++ would be an improvement. It can be efficient too, both in execution and to develop. Better yet, Ruby (or Python if you really MUST) could be a killer.

Myself I have been thinking about revamping completely the icon selection (for files and runnable items on the gnome-panel) because it has HORRIBLE usability. (Why on earth can’t I just select one of the THEMES installed and then the icon, why do I have to know about directory paths?!!?) I’m not quite willing to write any C however. I could but it’s too time consuming and loathsome when I’m usually programming in Ruby or Java. I’ve been thinking the same about Dia. Hopping in and revising it pretty much completely. It seems horrible as well :-)

So there MIGHT actually be “need” for Gnome 3.0. Not becauce of features but because of refactoring into a position where contributions in 1 great higher level language would be wanted also into the core

]]> By: superstoned http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/12/31/gnome-plans-for-the-future/#comment-723 superstoned Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/12/31/gnome-plans-for-the-future/#comment-723 @knipknap: what's the use of simplicity? it helps ppl to get up and running faster, touché. but that's only helping what, week of the whole 50 years one uses a computer? i'd take an advanced but a bit harder-to-learn interface over a totally dumbed down interface which doesn't allow anyone to work efficiently with it. Ok, feature overkill lowers efficiency. but you can't dumb down and gain efficiency forever. better THINK more about how to integrate the features. imho all those simplicity isn't worth anything. more an excuse for 'we don't have time to implement the features' or, in other words 'sorry, we're behind the competition. but look how usable it is!'. @knipknap: what’s the use of simplicity? it helps ppl to get up and running faster, touché. but that’s only helping what, week of the whole 50 years one uses a computer? i’d take an advanced but a bit harder-to-learn interface over a totally dumbed down interface which doesn’t allow anyone to work efficiently with it. Ok, feature overkill lowers efficiency. but you can’t dumb down and gain efficiency forever. better THINK more about how to integrate the features. imho all those simplicity isn’t worth anything. more an excuse for ‘we don’t have time to implement the features’ or, in other words ’sorry, we’re behind the competition. but look how usable it is!’.

]]> By: byteframe http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/12/31/gnome-plans-for-the-future/#comment-724 byteframe Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/12/31/gnome-plans-for-the-future/#comment-724 Easy, Gnome 3 should have an entire revamped build system thing. It should be as easy to build and install as KDE. I would think something like this would require huge changes, and so calling it Gnome 3 would be good. Couple that with out of the box support for all that funky opengl window manager shit and I'd say a major release like that would be warrented. Easy, Gnome 3 should have an entire revamped build system thing. It should be as easy to build and install as KDE. I would think something like this would require huge changes, and so calling it Gnome 3 would be good. Couple that with out of the box support for all that funky opengl window manager shit and I’d say a major release like that would be warrented.

]]> By: knipknap http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/12/31/gnome-plans-for-the-future/#comment-725 knipknap Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/12/31/gnome-plans-for-the-future/#comment-725 superstoned: Simple applications do not need to have less features. In fact, I found that by adding additional "smart" features you can often get rid of UI bloat.<p/>For example, in OpenOffice they could add a "File -> Save a copy..." menu item and get rid of the "Save as...", "Export..." and "Export as PDF..." menu items all at once, since they all do the same thing for a subset of document types. After the change you could in fact perform the same action on more document types than before.<p/>Same thing goes for tag based email. superstoned: Simple applications do not need to have less features. In fact, I found that by adding additional “smart” features you can often get rid of UI bloat.

For example, in OpenOffice they could add a “File -> Save a copy…” menu item and get rid of the “Save as…”, “Export…” and “Export as PDF…” menu items all at once, since they all do the same thing for a subset of document types. After the change you could in fact perform the same action on more document types than before.

Same thing goes for tag based email.

]]> By: Roy Schestowitz http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/12/31/gnome-plans-for-the-future/#comment-726 Roy Schestowitz Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/12/31/gnome-plans-for-the-future/#comment-726 Thom planted the flamebait. No need to feed the trolls. Thom planted the flamebait. No need to feed the trolls.

]]> By: Mark Acacio http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/12/31/gnome-plans-for-the-future/#comment-727 Mark Acacio Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/12/31/gnome-plans-for-the-future/#comment-727 Who is this "thom"? Who cares about what that guy thinks? Why am I wasting my time even reading something related to that guy's opinion?? Who is this “thom”? Who cares about what that guy thinks? Why am I wasting my time even reading something related to that guy’s opinion??

]]> By: alex http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/12/31/gnome-plans-for-the-future/#comment-728 alex Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/12/31/gnome-plans-for-the-future/#comment-728 Who is this "Mark Acacio"? Who cares about what that guy thinks? Why am I wasting my time even reading something related to that guy's opinion?? Who is this “Mark Acacio”? Who cares about what that guy thinks? Why am I wasting my time even reading something related to that guy’s opinion??

]]> By: Me http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/12/31/gnome-plans-for-the-future/#comment-729 Me Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2006/12/31/gnome-plans-for-the-future/#comment-729 Who is this "alex"? Who cares about what that guy thinks? Why am I wasting my time even reading something related to that guy's opinion??<p/> Who is this “alex”? Who cares about what that guy thinks? Why am I wasting my time even reading something related to that guy’s opinion??

]]>