|
Home > Archive > Linux Debian support > October 2004 > Future of GNOME
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Madhusudan Singh 2004-10-15, 8:46 pm |
| Hi
I was just reading an article and associated threads on the proposed
discontinuation of GNOME under Slackware, and was struck by the kind of
comments on the difficulty of compiling GNOME from sources for various
distros, with new nuances reportedly creeping into each newer release.
As to myself, I stopped using GNOME early this year after a few years of
using it and shifted back to KDE which has now become a lot more stable
than it used to be. I have never compiled GNOME for myself, but once did
compile KDE for Sun. The question is :
Does the Slackware decision portend more difficult times ahead for GNOME
with other distros ? If so, its a little unfortunate because GNOME is still
a very good window manager. Or would the burden of providing a distro
specific set of packages for GNOME (and KDE perhaps) shift to the
developers of GNOME (and KDE) instead of distribution providers ?
What do you think ?
| |
| James Keasley 2004-10-15, 8:46 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-10-13, Madhusudan Singh <spammers-go-here@spam.invalid> wrote:
> Does the Slackware decision portend more difficult times ahead for GNOME
> with other distros ? If so, its a little unfortunate because GNOME is still
> a very good window manager. Or would the burden of providing a distro
> specific set of packages for GNOME (and KDE perhaps) shift to the
> developers of GNOME (and KDE) instead of distribution providers ?
>
> What do you think ?
Personally I think that, to a certain extent Slackware is a bit of a
special case, in that it is, essentially, a one man show, but already
has a very good set of gnome packages available from dropline.
I don't think any of the other large distros are about to drop
Gnome from their distros, especially not debian or Red Hat.
However, I do think that the gnome devs ought to put a bit more
work into making gnome as straight-forward as possible to compile
from source.
- --
James jamesk[at]homeric[dot]co[dot]uk
Microsoft is a cross between the Borg and the Ferengi. Unfortunately, the
Ferengi do the coding and the Borg do the marketing. anon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBbaefqfSmHkD6LvoRApYIAJ9Wxr1a0jNV
Y+GwX0DjsRf8itWO+ACggvVL
sfYoSbikeky/g4B1pP49YUc=
=uXbx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| General Schvantzkoph 2004-10-15, 8:46 pm |
| On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:57:43 -0400, Madhusudan Singh wrote:
> Hi
>
> I was just reading an article and associated threads on the proposed
> discontinuation of GNOME under Slackware, and was struck by the kind of
> comments on the difficulty of compiling GNOME from sources for various
> distros, with new nuances reportedly creeping into each newer release.
>
> As to myself, I stopped using GNOME early this year after a few years of
> using it and shifted back to KDE which has now become a lot more stable
> than it used to be. I have never compiled GNOME for myself, but once did
> compile KDE for Sun. The question is :
>
> Does the Slackware decision portend more difficult times ahead for GNOME
> with other distros ? If so, its a little unfortunate because GNOME is still
> a very good window manager. Or would the burden of providing a distro
> specific set of packages for GNOME (and KDE perhaps) shift to the
> developers of GNOME (and KDE) instead of distribution providers ?
>
> What do you think ?
Gnome is the default desktop for Redhat and Novel now owns both Ximian and
SUSE so you would expect that Gnome will at least gain parity with KDE in
SUSE. Mandrake is pretty agnostic, they seem to give equal support to both
Gnome and KDE. There hasn't been any talk about remove Gnome from any
other distribution. It sounds like it's a Slackware only phenominon.
| |
| Jennifer Smith 2004-10-15, 8:46 pm |
| Madhusudan Singh wrote:
> Hi
>
> I was just reading an article and associated threads on the
> proposed
> discontinuation of GNOME under Slackware, and was struck by the kind of
> comments on the difficulty of compiling GNOME from sources for various
> distros, with new nuances reportedly creeping into each newer release.
>
> As to myself, I stopped using GNOME early this year after a few
> years of
> using it and shifted back to KDE which has now become a lot more stable
> than it used to be. I have never compiled GNOME for myself, but once did
> compile KDE for Sun. The question is :
>
> Does the Slackware decision portend more difficult times ahead for
> GNOME
> with other distros ? If so, its a little unfortunate because GNOME is
> still a very good window manager. Or would the burden of providing a
> distro specific set of packages for GNOME (and KDE perhaps) shift to the
> developers of GNOME (and KDE) instead of distribution providers ?
>
> What do you think ?
I don't get all the fuss about it. Use Dropline Gnome and be done with it.
Personally I'd say drop KDE too. If people want either WM they can get
Gnome via Dropline, and KDE via Konstruct.
Jenni
| |
| Felix M. Palmen 2004-10-15, 8:46 pm |
| * Madhusudan Singh <spammers-go-here@spam.invalid> [alt.os.linux.debian]:
> As to myself, I stopped using GNOME early this year after a few years of
> using it and shifted back to KDE which has now become a lot more stable
> than it used to be.
Same thing here.
BTW allow me to note: your paragraphs suck. Please start them without a
tabulator. Your style provokes overlength lines when quoting.
> Does the Slackware decision portend more difficult times ahead for GNOME
> with other distros ?
I hope that's not the case. ATM, I know about 3 DEs for GNU/Linux, 2 of
them are widely known (GNOME and KDE). I think it's a good motivation
for the developers, even when it isn't commercial, to have a competing
project.
> If so, its a little unfortunate because GNOME is still
> a very good window manager.
GNOME is NOT a window manager. Metacity is one, it's the default in
GNOME 2.x. Just like kwin (formerly known as kwm, which is part of the
KDE-project) is the default window manager in KDE. GNOME as well as KDE
work with every fdo-compliant window manager.
>_Or would the burden of providing a distro
> specific set of packages for GNOME (and KDE perhaps) shift to the
> developers of GNOME (and KDE) instead of distribution providers ?
I don't think so. Commercial Distros are interested in delivering at
least one DE to their users. Debian wants to be a better alternative to
the commercials.
Greets, Felix
--
-|- Felix M. Palmen (Zirias) http://zirias.ath.cx/ -|-
-|- fmp@palmen.homeip.net (PGP pubkey: http://zirias.ath.cx/pub.txt) -|-
-|- try out http://mini-chat.ath.cx/ !! I never read HTML emails !! -|-
-|- PGP Fingerprint ED9B 62D0 BE39 32F9 2488 5D0C 8177 9D80 5ECF F683 -|-
| |
| Felix M. Palmen 2004-10-15, 8:46 pm |
| * Jennifer Smith <jennifer@cathouse.mine.nu>:
> I don't get all the fuss about it. Use Dropline Gnome and be done with it.
> Personally I'd say drop KDE too. If people want either WM they can get
> Gnome via Dropline, and KDE via Konstruct.
Those are /not/ WMs! Himmihergott! (sry *g*)
Greets, Felix
--
-|- Felix M. Palmen (Zirias) http://zirias.ath.cx/ -|-
-|- fmp@palmen.homeip.net (PGP pubkey: http://zirias.ath.cx/pub.txt) -|-
-|- try out http://mini-chat.ath.cx/ !! I never read HTML emails !! -|-
-|- PGP Fingerprint ED9B 62D0 BE39 32F9 2488 5D0C 8177 9D80 5ECF F683 -|-
| |
| Christopher Browne 2004-10-15, 8:46 pm |
| Clinging to sanity, Madhusudan Singh <spammers-go-here@spam.invalid> mumbled into her beard:
> I was just reading an article and associated threads on the proposed
> discontinuation of GNOME under Slackware, and was struck by the kind
> of comments on the difficulty of compiling GNOME from sources for
> various distros, with new nuances reportedly creeping into each
> newer release.
What I think is that Slackware has been a one man show for a very long
time, and that evaluating anything based solely on one opinion is a
terrible idea.
I have seen considerable problems with both GNOME and KDE, and
numerous other packages, too. Practically anything could be
"discontinued" if you really wanted to do so.
--
(format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "ntlug.org")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/spiritual.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #73. "I will not agree to let the heroes go
free if they win a rigged contest, even though my advisors assure me
it is impossible for them to win." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
| |
| Christopher Browne 2004-10-15, 8:46 pm |
| A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Jennifer Smith <jennifer@cathouse.mine.nu> wrote:
> I don't get all the fuss about it. Use Dropline Gnome and be done with it.
> Personally I'd say drop KDE too. If people want either WM they can get
> Gnome via Dropline, and KDE via Konstruct.
Neither Gnome nor KDE are window managers.
They are correctly characterized either as:
a) Application frameworks, or
b) Applications created using those frameworks.
--
select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'acm.org';
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/x.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #177. "If a scientist with a beautiful and
unmarried daughter refuses to work for me, I will not hold her
hostage. Instead, I will offer to pay for her future wedding and her
children's college tuition." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
| |
| Stuart Winter 2004-10-15, 8:46 pm |
| On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:57:43 -0400, spammers-go-here@spam.invalid wrote:
[..]
> Does the Slackware decision portend more difficult times ahead for GNOME
> with other distros ? If so, its a little unfortunate because GNOME is still
> a very good window manager. Or would the burden of providing a distro
> specific set of packages for GNOME (and KDE perhaps) shift to the
> developers of GNOME (and KDE) instead of distribution providers ?
Patrick is considering dropping gnome for technical reasons (these are
from memory, so please correct me if I'm wrong); some of which are:
* The latest GNOME needs(?) Linux 2.6; Patrick is not using Linux 2.6
as the stock Kernel in Slackware just yet.
* GNOME is difficult (or more difficult than it could be) to build into
packages because many of its component packages do not support
installing into a pseudo root (usually done using a 'make' variable
named DESTDIR, TOPDIR or similar). Therefore the way Patrick builds packages
is to do a comparison of the file system before and after the build,
tidy up, Slackwareify the contents then turn it into a package with makepkg.
This is terribly time consuming but for non DESTDIR or similar 'clean' builds
he likes to do it this way.
* A number of other technical problems he's experienced in the past which I can't
recall right now.
Whilst other people do contribute fixes, scripts and other things to Slackware,
it's still Patrick who ultimately builds, tests and packages *everything*.
I have read comments in the past about how all Slackware is is just compiled
source put into a gzipped tar file: whilst that's essentially true, it's much
much more than that. When a new version of a package is released it's not always
a case of just changing the package version number and recompiling; changelogs
need to be read, scripts need to be amended. It really is a long winded and
time consuming process, especially for one person!
--
Stuart Winter
www.interlude.org.uk & www.armedslack.org
| "Washing machines live longer with Calgon"
| |
| Martin Hughes 2004-10-15, 8:46 pm |
| Stuart Winter wrote:
> Patrick is considering dropping gnome for technical reasons (these are
> from memory, so please correct me if I'm wrong); some of which are:
> * The latest GNOME needs(?) Linux 2.6; Patrick is not using Linux 2.6
> as the stock Kernel in Slackware just yet.
> * GNOME is difficult (or more difficult than it could be) to build into
> packages because many of its component packages do not support
> installing into a pseudo root (usually done using a 'make' variable
> named DESTDIR, TOPDIR or similar). Therefore the way Patrick builds packages
> is to do a comparison of the file system before and after the build,
> tidy up, Slackwareify the contents then turn it into a package with makepkg.
> This is terribly time consuming but for non DESTDIR or similar 'clean' builds
> he likes to do it this way.
> * A number of other technical problems he's experienced in the past which I can't
> recall right now.
There may be more to it than that. I also read in the patch Changelogs
about problems with Galeon (Gnome/mozilla based web browser) which occur
when Patrick updates to the latest Mozilla versions. Dropping
Gnome/Galeon and also Epiphany would allow continued use of up to date
Mozilla builds or even a migration to Firefox/Thunderbird instead of
Mozilla.
--
Regards
Martin Hughes
Linux User #283064
Blessed are those who expect nothing; for they shall not be disappointed.
| |
| Big Al 2004-10-15, 8:46 pm |
| Every distro I know of except Slackware & Lindows/spire still includes
Gnome. RedHat has it as the default, and SuSe is owned by Ximian. I
don't think Gnome will be seriously hurt by Pat dropping them.
| |
|
| Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote in message news:<2t62t4F1qq8ecU4@uni-berlin.de>...
> A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Jennifer Smith <jennifer@cathouse.mine.nu> wrote:
>
> Neither Gnome nor KDE are window managers.
>
> They are correctly characterized either as:
>
> a) Application frameworks, or
> b) Applications created using those frameworks.
"Application frameworks". "Applications created using those
frameworks" are Gnome/KDE applications.
Maybe the annoying confusion around the term "window manager" stems
from the fact many so-called WM's provide functionalities that have
little or nothing to do with window management?
| |
| Sharninder 2004-10-15, 8:46 pm |
| On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:28:50 +0000, Stuart Winter wrote:
> * The latest GNOME needs(?) Linux 2.6; Patrick is not using Linux 2.6
> as the stock Kernel in Slackware just yet.
Gnome 2.8 does not require kernel 2.6.
Gnome over the years has become a nightmare to compile and install but one
reason of dropping gnome is the excellent work done by the dropline
project which is what most people should be using if they anyways want
gnome on slackware.
-- Sharninder
| |
| Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz 2004-10-16, 8:45 pm |
| In <736af730.0410140359.65dbe53a@posting.google.com>, on 10/14/2004
at 04:59 AM, apeak_2000@yahoo.com (Big Al) said:
>Every distro I know of except Slackware & Lindows/spire still
>includes Gnome. RedHat has it as the default, and SuSe is owned by
>Ximian.
ITYM SuSE is owned by Novell. Ownership may be transitive but it's not
reflexive.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
| |
|
| On 10-14-2004, in alt.os.linux.slackware,
Stuart Winter <use.reply.to@interlude.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:57:43 -0400, spammers-go-here@spam.invalid
> wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> * GNOME is difficult (or more difficult than it could be) to
> build into packages because many of its component packages do not
> support installing into a pseudo root (usually done using a
> 'make' variable named DESTDIR, TOPDIR or similar). Therefore the
> way Patrick builds packages is to do a comparison of the file
> system before and after the build, tidy up, Slackwareify the
> contents then turn it into a package with makepkg. This is
> terribly time consuming but for non DESTDIR or similar 'clean'
> builds he likes to do it this way.
Excuse me if I show my stupidity here, buy why don't the DEVS just
do this sort of thing by default?. What's so wrong with including
$(DESTDIR) in the make files. Since you mentioned it, is there ever
a time when software *can't* be installed without a
$(DESTDIR)$(PREFIX)$(BLAH) construct? Curious is all...
> Whilst other people do contribute fixes, scripts and other things
> to Slackware, it's still Patrick who ultimately builds, tests and
> packages *everything*. I have read comments in the past about how
> all Slackware is is just compiled source put into a gzipped tar
> file: whilst that's essentially true, it's much much more than
> that. When a new version of a package is released it's not always
> a case of just changing the package version number and
> recompiling; changelogs need to be read, scripts need to be
> amended. It really is a long winded and time consuming process,
> especially for one person!
Indeed. Probably safe to assume it'd be a long winded process for
*more* then one person. All hail PV and Slackware!.
Oh, I'm one who could care less about ?nome. I don't see the loss
(if Patrick should do it!) as a hit on the distro. Slack is too good
a ship to sink so quickly.
Max
--
I am thoroughly convinced that Dependencies are a boogie-man
concocted by those that would sell you a solution to them. I have
used Slackware for four years, and have never met this mythical
monster. --Jeffery (AOLS)
|
|
|
|
|