PDA

View Full Version : Gnome 2.8 v OS X



Cam
15th September 2004, 07:51 PM
For those Linux users out there.. Gnome 2.8 is scheduled for release very soon!

What I find very interesting is a article written at zdnet. A answer regarding Gnome copying Windows features..

"Asked whether GNOME was just a clone of Windows, Waugh said GNOME 2.6 had achieved parity with the features of Microsoft's operating system. The new release, he claimed, was moving past Windows and was now targeting Apple's OS X operating system."

For those interested:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/0,20...39159436,00.htm (http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/0,2000061733,39159436,00.htm)

Ofcourse, we wouldnt expect anything more than OS X being ahead of Windows.

elvis
16th September 2004, 10:08 PM
How soon is "very soon"? Gnome 2.6 is still quite young. 2.4 was out for quite some time before 2.6 saw the light of day. I think there's still some serious development to be put towards another stable release (or at least I'd assume so).

10.4 is also due "soon". Aiming at OSX is like trying to hit a moving target. Apple are ahead of the OS design game, and have been for some time. Microsoft are finding it a struggle to implement features for 2006 that Apple succeeded with 24 months ago. I think it would be naive of the GNOME devs to try to be a "10.3 ripoff" when 10.4 is just around the corner.

That said, GNOME used to be my least-favourite WM slash Desktop Environment for Linux (When GNOME was still 1.2, KDE2 was so much more polished), and has quickly become one of my favourites in the last 12 months. The GNOME devs deserve credit for how quickly they've improved their product lately. Just looking at home many applications come pre-GTK'ed these days is enough to convince me that others feel the same.

Architecture and OSes aside, it's great to see developers improving the desktop metaphor. WindowsXP is nothing more than Windows95 with prettier icons, and I'm glad both Apple and the Linux community are trying a few more daring ideas these days.

Quamen
17th September 2004, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by elvis@Sep 16 2004, 10:08 PM
WindowsXP is nothing more than Windows95 with prettier icons,
For someone who claims to know a lot of stuff, and likes to make long posts about whether A is better than B. You sure do talk a lot of horse shit.

Windows 95 arguably isn't even an operating system. Merely a shell for DOS. Windows XP is a completely different kettle of fish.

Cam
17th September 2004, 09:02 AM
Visit http://www.gnome.org/start/2.8 for more details on the release. Soon as in, next couple of weeks soon.

In my personal opionion Windows XP is just Windows 2000 with fancy icons, and a couple of new features.

Windows XP in the eye's of a network administrator is far superior than 95 and 98. Screw Policy Editor (poledit) and get with the Group Policies..

However this post has nothing more about OS X if we continue like this

Marked: Windows Bitch Fest!

Cam
17th September 2004, 09:20 AM
I end this with a quote from slashdot..

"A Journal du Net article reports that about 8% of Windows sessions require a machine reboot. The relevant quote (translated from french) is: "The average rate of failures requiring a system reboot has been measured at around 8% per session. This number varies widely depending on the version of Windows. Windows 2000 has a failure rate of 4%, and NT4 is at 3%, whereas Windows XP is close to 12%." The study was originally made by Acadys and Microcost and gathered data from 1.2M machines belonging to about one thousand companies over a period of one month in seven different countries."

the_argon
17th September 2004, 09:58 AM
IMHO Windows 2000 is what Windows 95 should have been and then Windows XP should have been a few years after that. If that was the case then Microsoft really would have a stranglehold on the industry.

It's great to see that open source software is doing so well...

It's also great to see/know that Apple are supporting the open source movement. Let's just hope it stays that way, because Apple and their end users have a lot to gain from it.

Cam
17th September 2004, 10:16 AM
Apple are supporting what suits them.. Ofcourse.. This is business..

If Apple didnt create OS X from a Unix/BSD core, chances are it wouldnt be supporting them at the moment. Thats my two cents.

purana
17th September 2004, 11:49 AM
Anyone checked out this on PPC yet?

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/

PPC images/iso's available. Supposely its not bad too. A fellow from slug installed it over his debian setup... his journal entry can be seen via http://planet.slug.org.au/ as written in the last few days.

alexc
17th September 2004, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by elvis@Sep 16 2004, 10:08 PM
How soon is "very soon"? Gnome 2.6 is still quite young. 2.4 was out for quite some time before 2.6 saw the light of day. I think there's still some serious development to be put towards another stable release (or at least I'd assume so).
IIRC,

Gnome releases are on a six month schedule.

Edit: Link: http://developer.gnome.org/dotplan/

Which means they release an update every six months with the features that are ready.

Which is the reverse of Apple's & MS's policy of fixing a feature set for the next revision and working towards it. Longhorn being a prime example.

I think that Apple had an 18 month release policy for OSX, but not any more.

alex.

decryption
17th September 2004, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by iodine@Sep 17 2004, 11:49 AM
Anyone checked out this on PPC yet?

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/

PPC images/iso's available. Supposely its not bad too. A fellow from slug installed it over his debian setup... his journal entry can be seen via http://planet.slug.org.au/ as written in the last few days.
I'm downloading that at the moment, as I've heard some good stuff about it. A streamlined distro that isn't a pain to setup!

elvis
17th September 2004, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by Quamen+Sep 17 2004, 07:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Quamen @ Sep 17 2004, 07:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-elvis@Sep 16 2004, 10:08 PM
WindowsXP is nothing more than Windows95 with prettier icons,
For someone who claims to know a lot of stuff, and likes to make long posts about whether A is better than B. You sure do talk a lot of horse shit.

Windows 95 arguably isn&#39;t even an operating system. Merely a shell for DOS. Windows XP is a completely different kettle of fish. [/b][/quote]
Calm down sunshine. I was referring to the user interface and design metaphors at a higher level, and not the kernel or underlying OS foundations. I know a little more about OS kernel development than to make stupid comments like the ones you are referring to.

Next time perhaps read the context of the conversation before flinging insults? Either that or switch to decaf.

Quamen
17th September 2004, 06:09 PM
Even in context your quote is wrong. Windows XP is a lot easier to navigate and setup than windows 95 was.

I just find it annoying that every time you do post on the subject of comparison, your post is always blindingly biased against Microsoft. They&#39;re the company that everyone loves to hate. But they aren&#39;t "that" bad.

Hell everyone on some of the other forums I visit love to bag out microsoft as well. But 99% of them use some form of windows. And yes a lot of them also like to bag out macs as well, and I always point out the stupidity of their arguments.

I&#39;m just trying to keep an open mind on things. A lot of the stuff you say is true, and you do know your shit, but every now and again your bias against MS shines through in a way that is incredibly obvious.

If you don&#39;t like people disagreeing with what you say, then don&#39;t post it. Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one, and everyone knows that quote. My opinion still stands. So does yours....even if it is wrong :P

pipsqeek
17th September 2004, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by the_argon@Sep 17 2004, 09:58 AM
IMHO Windows 2000 is what Windows 95 should have been and then Windows XP should have been a few years after that. If that was the case then Microsoft really would have a stranglehold on the industry....[snip]
Don&#39;t they already? unfortunately.

decryption
17th September 2004, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Quamen@Sep 17 2004, 06:09 PM
Even in context your quote is wrong. Windows XP is a lot easier to navigate and setup than windows 95 was.

The user interface of XP is so cluttered, espically when using My Computer.
Windows &#39;95 is way more simple to navigate than Windows XP IMHO.

elvis
18th September 2004, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by Quamen@Sep 17 2004, 06:09 PM
I&#39;m just trying to keep an open mind on things. A lot of the stuff you say is true, and you do know your shit, but every now and again your bias against MS shines through in a way that is incredibly obvious.
I&#39;ve never denied my complete one-eyed bias against Microsoft. But to be perfectly honest, I think I&#39;m entitled to it. I&#39;ve spent the last decade building and maintaining some of the biggest multi-location international Microsoft domains in the world. I&#39;ve had MS engineers from Redmond stumped trying to get solutions to problems that I&#39;ve then fixed myself, and had to document for them&#33; After a few years of that, anyone would be as cynical as I am. I&#39;m not some Mac fanboy who&#39;s never used a Windows desktop outside of playing a few games. I think I&#39;ve seen almost everything that could possibly go wrong with a Windows network at some stage, be it a large or small issue.

Anyways... back to the issue at hand...

I understand your comments on the Windows desktop, but like it or not there has been no *radical* change between Win95 and WinXP on the desktop (again for the sake of clarity, completely ignoring the lower level past what you see with your naked eyes). Yes, there have been changes, I&#39;m not denying that, but they have been relatively conservative. I would honestly say this is to reduce learning curves between versions (which is a smart thing for the less intelligent users out there). But the trophy for the bleeding edge of the desktop metaphor and ease-of-use still rightfully belongs to Apple, in my not-so-humble opinion.


If you don&#39;t like people disagreeing with what you say, then don&#39;t post it. Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one, and everyone knows that quote. My opinion still stands. So does yours....even if it is wrong :P

There are two types of people in this world: those who agree with me, and those who don&#39;t know what they are talking about. :P

Seriously though: my comments are most certainly biased, but not unfounded. I&#39;ve clocked up quite a few kilometers in a dozen different OSes from the point of view of programmer, system administrator, network architect and end user. I&#39;ve used, destroyed and fixed almost every major OS out there, and I know which are my favourites, and which are not. :)

And feel free to disagree with me, but expect a three-page rebuttle. Concise I ain&#39;t.

Currawong
18th September 2004, 09:36 AM
This very polite flame-fest reminds me of a common issue when dealing with people who&#39;ve switched from Windows to Mac OS X.

Switched User: How do I cut and paste documents in the Finder? It&#39;s annoying I can&#39;t do that like I do in Windows.
Me: That&#39;s because you don&#39;t need to. When you drag a file to a folder, it will move it to the new location. You don&#39;t have to second-guess what will happen, whether it will make a shortcut, move the file or copy it (or delete it, I might add, which happened without any warning once with 4Gb of files in Windows XP).

the_argon
18th September 2004, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by pipsqeek@Sep 17 2004, 06:30 PM
Don&#39;t they already? unfortunately.
Y&#39;know... I honestly don&#39;t think that they do... and as long as the competitors are making as good ,or in this case better Operating Systems, I don&#39;t think they really will.

Look at it this way... There are Mac evangelists all over the place that will *NEVER* use windows, they are spreading the word all over the place even if it is "use Mac&#39;s or go to hell and die"

There are enlightened ones like us that get their mothers, brothers, sisters, granparents etc. to use mac&#39;s because they are the easiest platform to use.

I even know a few hardcore network admins that now use OS X as their main desktop.

Then there&#39;s the people who want the best regardless of platform. what are they going to choose?

A classic example is my ex boss. When I started there his opinion was that "Microsoft is here wether we like it or not, and that&#39;s what we&#39;re sticking to." a year or so later he has 3 powerbooks and a 23" display. Most of that was Disko&#39;s influence, who I originally pestered to get a Mac.

Thats why I don&#39;t think they have a strangle hold at all on the market. Word of mouth can make and break empires, and alot of people are trying to break this one.

Quamen
18th September 2004, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by Currawong@Sep 18 2004, 09:36 AM
This very polite flame-fest reminds me of a common issue when dealing with people who&#39;ve switched from Windows to Mac OS X.
I wouldn&#39;t call it a flame fest. Flame fests don&#39;t involve thought. Just mindless bashings.

Back to the arguments...

I have my favorites too. Right now my favorite is OS X. Hands down. Much nicer to use than my XP box. But that doesn&#39;t mean I go around bashing windows all of a sudden.

Also I can&#39;t play games on OS X, I can&#39;t run any technical analysis software (charts etc. for share trading) on OS X, and those are two things I really want/need to do. But that hasn&#39;t stopped me from enjoying OS X.

So you&#39;ve had bad issues with windows, but the average home user isn&#39;t setting up huge domains. The average home user is not going to have those same issues.

I think keeping the usability similar between OS releases is a good thing. Apple do it, every version of OS X has the same layout and usability. Hell spotlight is going to look the same as the current search function, it&#39;s just going to work a lot quicker, but we&#39;re disregarding the underlaying workings for this argument aren&#39;t we?

Now the classic appe OS (not sure which version, I avoided it like the plague at school though) was around when windows 95 was around. And I much prefered Win 95. Because, quite frankly, the classic OS sucked. OS X has overtaken windows IMHO now, but back then, windows was a lot nicer. But that still doesn&#39;t mean that XP&#39;s usability is bad. If it were that bad, a lot more people would be screaming and switching.

You could argue that MS havn&#39;t needed to change the way you navigate things since Win 95 because the competition was crap. OS X came along and changed that. Longhorn, next big thing, and it seems to be turning into XP SP3 at the moment. Which will be a bad thing for MS. Especially if by 2006 the compeitition has continued to grow at the speed it is growing now.

elvis
18th September 2004, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Quamen@Sep 18 2004, 11:53 AM
I have my favorites too. Right now my favorite is OS X. Hands down. Much nicer to use than my XP box. But that doesn&#39;t mean I go around bashing windows all of a sudden.
I&#39;m not bashing Windows all of a sudden. I&#39;ve been doing it for years. :)

My favourite OS for day-to-day usability is MacOSX. It&#39;s my preferred email/word-processing/spreadsheeting/cd-burning type office-computer. Athough I work with some fantastic creative artisits in both 2D print work and 2D/3D film and TV stuff, I personally don&#39;t use my machine for that (I don&#39;t have a creative bone in my body). However when you become an application-specific user, I think the desktop behnd your app eventually becomes a non-issue, especially when you spend 8+ hours a day in the single app.

Since day one I&#39;ve lived in a world where Windows was the desktop, and UNIX was the server. Both of which irked me to tears. Fast forward a decade and now I&#39;m happily living in a hetrogenous world of Mac and Linux, both of which happily integrate back into the Windows and UNIX world if need be.

In my line of work the unfortunate thing is that some clients MUST use windows. 3D Studio Max users are my favourite example, where discreet simply refuse to offer a non-microsoft alternative for their most famous 3D modeller. Here in Brsibane, Max is king (Maya seems to be pretty alien, and mostly used down south). Also the 3D market here is mostly geared towards architecture and game design, with more of your film, tv and commercials being done in Sydney.

These same Windows-using clients live in a constant world of viruses, spyware, trojans, and a whole host of other dramas. These unfortunately represent the majority of my clients, and income. (A workmate of mine suggests sending Bill Gates a bottle of wine every Christmas with a thank-you letter).

My Mac and Linux clients are simply heavenly to work with. Their problems generally are those of logistics and planning. I&#39;m hired to suggest ways to better use resources, plan network upgrades, extend existing hardware and software when jobs come on board, add in higher level hardware for specific asks and the like. Of course there is the occasional hardware blowup (nothing in IT is perfect), but on the whole the Mac and Linux users seem to spend more time working with their systems, and not fighting against them. They also seem to be making more money, which could just be a happy coincedence, but I&#39;m not going there. On the whole these user don&#39;t need to know so much about the internals of their systems, and the nitty-gritty of their IT, simply because it just works right the first go.

The irony of my career is that I strive to put myself out of business. If everyone in the world lived with computers that were easy to use, and didn&#39;t suffer from the gross amount of vulnerabilities that they do today, I would be out of the job, but tremendously satisfied to be so. In which case I&#39;d give up IT and make a life building arcade cabinets. :)

Anyhoo.. back on topic... I&#39;m quite impressed with how the GNOME team are moving forwards. It&#39;s taken the linux community a long time to accept the fact that they need a sensible and easy-to-use desktop to attract the masses. I think the GNOME devs have made some good decisions in the last 2 years, and things are starting to get on track, in terms of the desktop.

cmetom
18th September 2004, 06:02 PM
I hate windows xp, as it&#39;s NEVER been nice to me EVER.

Windows 2000 replaced my favourite, 95b, after I held on so long that the last machine I installed Win95 on did the "file copying" bit of the installation in 5 minutes :lol: :o

I had the pleasure of setting up Windows 2003 Server last year, and it impressed me - felt like XP but without the "treating you like a child" thing... in other words, like 2000 but newer&#33;