Home > Gnome > GNOME Turns Ten

GNOME Turns Ten

Gnome 99 Comments

“We want to develop a free and complete set of user friendly applications and desktop tools, similar to CDE and KDE but based entirely on free software.” Those were the opening lines of Miguel De Icaza’s email announcing the GNU Network Object Model Environment, better known as GNOME, exactly (in my timezone) ten years ago, on 15th August 1997. They have come a long way from this, to this.

About The Author

Thom Holwerda

Follow me on Mastodon @[email protected]

99 Comments

  1. 2007-08-14 10:33 pm
    baadger

    The first screen shot link seems to be essentially dead, but I managed to grab it after a number of refreshes and waiting, here’s a mirror:

    http://rs171l33.rapidshare.com.nyud.net/files/49024673/gnome.png

    Edited 2007-08-14 22:34

  • 2007-08-14 10:44 pm
    flanque

    Happy birthday Gnome.. A big party is deserving.

  • 2007-08-14 10:52 pm
    tristan

    I know a lot of people like to knock Gnome for its so-called “dumbed down” approach, and for the perceived inferiority of GTK compared to Qt. But I don’t care: it’s by far my favourite desktop environment, and I wouldn’t be without it. It’s simple, clean and easy to use, and I love it.

    So bravo to the Gnome devs. Here’s to the next 10 years!

  • 2007-08-14 11:04 pm
    Adam Scheinberg

    I remember using Gnome on Red Hat when it looked like that. It really has come a very long way!

    • 2007-08-14 11:14 pm
      VenomousGecko

      I second that. I remember using it back in 2000 on Red Hat and I loved it. Awesome to see how far it has come in only a few years. Best of luck on future releases. Keep up the competition between KDE and GNOME and there is no telling how far they will both go!

      • 2007-08-14 11:36 pm
        netdur

        yes another “me too” post, I used it with red hat 6 (I guess) it wowed me showing top lines of text files as text file icon, I said to myself that time

        – this thing is something, light years ahead of windows

        (year) later I removed windows 98 from my P2 240 MHz, 4GB HD, 96 RAM Toshiba laptop and installed red hat 8 and never turned back to windows… later I got P3 733 MHz, 120 GB HD, 192 RAM Compaq and installed red hat 9, skipped all Fedore to Ubuntu… then two years ago I upgraded my hardware to P3 3GHz, 120 GB (same old HD) 1 GB RAM, I got this computer only because I need vmware to run W2k which I was studying at school

        me happy GNOME user

        • 2007-08-14 11:48 pm
          jaylaa

          Well, this isn’t a “me too” post, as I’m a relative noob who’s only been using Gnome since 2.0. But screenshots just like this of early Gnome were my first glimpses of Linux. Man, I thought it was the coolest looking desktop ever! Those icons, and all that stuff at the bottom. I didn’t even know anything about the OS, I just knew I wanted it on my computer.

          A humbling reminder to myself to not laugh at the current noobs who want Linux just so they can have spinning cubes and flaming windows. ;)

        • 2007-08-15 6:41 am
          evangs

          Me too! I started using Linux at about RedHat 7 and GNOME looked something like that. I hated it so much that I installed KDE. When GNOME 2.0 came out, I went back to GNOME and have never looked back since.

    • 2007-08-14 11:50 pm
      facerw

      We definately have come a long way since then. I have it still running on an old Pentium III with RH 6.2. Just recently upgraded the RH 6.2 to Gnome 2.18 and you can tell there’s a big difference.

      I also have Gnome running on the new fedora as well. Keep up the great work.

  • 2007-08-14 11:46 pm
    Hiev

    Happy BirthDay GNOME, I still remember the first time I used it, I think it was 1.4, now Im using 2.19.5 and is wonderfull.

    What a great desktop, great experience using it, and more to come.

    Thank you for all your work.

  • 2007-08-15 12:02 am
    javiersp

    I, as many others, began with Gnome and RedHat at the same time (old days of RH 6).

    I remember the look & feel of the 1.4 Gnome Desktop, and also KDE, and CDE, and WindowMaker…

    Can’t believe how much gnome has evolved, and how fast is evolving the last two years. And what I like more of Gnome is:

    a) My old machines run faster with new Gnome releases: up to three times faster (confirmed!) from 1.4 to 2.X (to Microsoft: knock, knock, more speed with new releases and same hardware, should you please take a look?).

    b) Simplicity. Everything is so easy to find…use it a couple of days and you will know always where to find things.

    I also like other Graphical Environments such as KDE, but none of them offer teh features AND simplicity of Gnome at the same time…and I think Gnome is on the right direction to surpass other desktop’s features in short…

    Really great work.

    • 2007-08-15 12:37 am
      leos

      a) My old machines run faster with new Gnome releases: up to three times faster (confirmed!) from 1.4 to 2.X

      Eh? Three times faster doing what? These older versions tend to use a lot less resources than newer ones (especially because they were built on GTK+ instead of GTK2, and thus had a lot more primitive font rendering and other features). I can see 2.18 being faster than 2.0, but faster than 1.x? How did you measure this?

      Congratulations to Gnome by the way. Without it the Linux desktop world would be a lot more boring.

      Edited 2007-08-15 00:39

    • 2007-08-15 1:49 am
      nelvana2005

      Gnome 1.4 is slower than 2.X, e.g. Gnome 2.18?

      No, this is not possible. Gnome 1.4 is definitely faster than Gnome 2.x.

      I still use Gnome 1.4 (from Woody) on my old Pentium I 200 MHz notebook which has only 64MB RAM.

      Would you suggest that I should install Ubuntu 7.04 with its beautiful Gnome 2.18 desktop on this machine for testing purposes and comparison with the speed of Gnome 1.4? I don’t believe so.

      Maybe “1.4” was a typo.

      • 2007-08-15 8:45 am
        kaiwai

        Gnome 1.4 is slower than 2.X, e.g. Gnome 2.18?

        No, this is not possible. Gnome 1.4 is definitely faster than Gnome 2.x.

        I still use Gnome 1.4 (from Woody) on my old Pentium I 200 MHz notebook which has only 64MB RAM.

        Would you suggest that I should install Ubuntu 7.04 with its beautiful Gnome 2.18 desktop on this machine for testing purposes and comparison with the speed of Gnome 1.4? I don’t believe so.

        Maybe “1.4” was a typo.

        He is probably referring to 1.4 with Nautilus – anyone from then would remember what Nautilus was like using the Mozilla framework; it was buggy, slow and unreliable. Compared to then, Nautilus is rocket fast.

  • 2007-08-15 12:20 am
    markpeak

    Is the first link (“announcing”) wrong URL?

  • 2007-08-15 12:59 am
    Luminair

    I’m not so sure that they’ve come a long way. The technology has, of course. But the user interface, not so much.

    Both KDE and Gnome came into existence as alternatives to existing systems, and as such were (and are) totally inspired by those systems.

    So the user interface itself hasn’t changed very much in 5 years, and even in 10 years.

    Either that’s a good thing because the interface is good, or a bad thing because there is room to innovate. I tend to think there is room to improve.

    Here’s to the next 10 years of Gnome ;)

  • 2007-08-15 1:07 am
    pllb

    I remember using gnome when it looked that way as well…call me crazy but I kinda liked it better back then lol

    • 2007-08-15 2:08 am
      niemau

      hahah. i started using gnome around then, too. i agree… i liked it better then, as well! for a while, it seemed like each new release too away features that i liked. oh, well… i’ve long since dropped heavy desktops for lighter wondow managers. i’m really digging openbox these days.

      sometimes XFCE reminds me of what gnome *used* to feel like.

      oh, nostalgia.

  • 2007-08-15 2:01 am
    apoclypse

    The first time I used gnome was with freebsd. Then I had switched to debian potato. I must say I was extremely impressed by gnome at the time, but opted for kde because ti looked more like windows. When Fedora came out and had gnome 2 as default I found myself using gnome again. I’m glad I moved back since I haven’t moced back since.

  • 2007-08-15 2:39 am
    monodeldiablo

    The mark of a good desktop environment is, for me, how little I notice it. GNOME stays out of my way, as it should, and I love it for that.

    I know a lot of KDE fans criticize it for its lack of obvious configurability, but I like the fact that most of that isn’t taking up menu- and window-space and has been relegated to GConf. Once my desktop is configured the way I like, I rarely change it (I’ve got better things to do), so why should it always be staring me in the face?

    It’s simple, clean and lets me manage my work. For that, I humbly thank the GNOME team.

    • 2007-08-15 10:31 am
      l3v1

      [OT]

      Once my desktop is configured the way I like, I rarely change it (I’ve got better things to do), so why should it always be staring me in the face?

      We’ve been through this a few hundred times already. This very same exact line could be said by by a gnome user who knows gnome, and by a kde user who knows kde. It’s _not_ a valid argument, unless someone’s completely uninformed of the other de’s capabilities. Still, up is the way you’re modded. Woot.

      [/OT]

    • 2007-08-15 11:36 am
      segedunum

      Once my desktop is configured the way I like, I rarely change it (I’ve got better things to do), so why should it always be staring me in the face?

      Because software should do what you want it to do, and it should jump when you tell it to. On a great many occasions, certainly looking through Gnome’s Bugzilla, that hasn’t been the case. Features could have been debated, organised and added in ways that would not have impacted general usability and would not have ‘got in the way’ of anybody at all. Linus Torvalds even created some patches for his window manager configuration beefs, and there’s really no reason at all why they couldn’t have been integrated sensibly and in an organised way without impacting default behaviour:

      http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=408898

      However, the standard answer is words to the effect of “No ordinary user would ever want to do this”. I don’t see any definition anywhere in Gnome’s HIG or on their site that defines what an ‘ordinary user’ is, or does. Go on to Amazon, buy any standard usability book that people tend to use, and you will never find that phrase, or anything like it, anywhere. I guarantee it.

      GNOME stays out of my way,…..It’s simple, clean

      Gnome can’t stay out of your way. It’s a desktop environment, and it should do what you want it to do at any given time. I have asked people on umpteen occasions to define what those phrases mean, and they never can.

      • 2007-08-15 1:35 pm
        Flatland_Spider

        [q]GNOME stays out of my way,…..It’s simple, clean

        Gnome can’t stay out of your way. It’s a desktop environment, and it should do what you want it to do at any given time. I have asked people on umpteen oc

      • 2007-08-15 1:36 pm
        Flatland_Spider

        GNOME stays out of my way,…..It’s simple, clean

        Gnome can’t stay out of your way. It’s a desktop environment, and it should do what you want it to do at any given time. I have asked people on umpteen occasions to define what those phrases mean, and they never can.

        I really beg to differ on that. A DE can be very intrusive. Windows Explorer can be very intrusive with it’s focus stealing balloons and gaudy themes.

        Mac OS X’s interface is intrusive because it is meant to be looked at. It’s not meant to fade into the background.

        For a definition. An unintrusive DE that is clean and simple is one that is minimalistic and goes un-noticed by the user as work is performed. Modernist principles where form follows function with a lack of decoration is usually the connotation.

        • 2007-08-16 1:46 pm
          gustl

          Then, at least to me, GNOME is intrusive.

          I usually use KDE, but as GIMP is definitely better than anything in the KDE world, I use GIMP whenever it comes to photo editing.

          Which brings up the topic of the “save as” file dialog. It gets in my way in a very serious manner.

          First, it pops up as a small window with no filesystem tree view or file viewer. How the path is displayed (as buttons) also needs some getting used to, for long path names not the whole path is shown which is a bad thing. Better make the dialog window wider if needed!

          I never have a clue, where Gimp will store the file in my filesystem. So I have to click the “filesystem browser” button, which brings up a filesystem browser which is not very well integrated into the rest of the “save as” dialog.

          To put it planely: This thing uses too much brain power, getting oriented is really hard work.

          I think, most people who do not like GNOME dislike it because of the file dialogs.

      • 2007-08-15 7:00 pm
        BluenoseJake

        “Gnome can’t stay out of your way. It’s a desktop environment, and it should do what you want it to do at any given time. I have asked people on umpteen occasions to define what those phrases mean, and they never can.”

        Perhaps he wants it to stay out of his way?

      • 2007-08-16 8:30 am
        lindkvis

        “However, the standard answer is words to the effect of “No ordinary user would ever want to do this”. I don’t see any definition anywhere in Gnome’s HIG or on their site that defines what an ‘ordinary user’ is, or does. Go on to Amazon, buy any standard usability book that people tend to use, and you will never find that phrase, or anything like it, anywhere. I guarantee it. ”

        You are right. This is currently handled as a judgement call by the maintainers. Havoc has actually pushed on more formalisation on what the target market for GNOME actually is. But even as it is, GNOME with the fuzzy idea of “ordinary user” is a more clearly defined project than most free software projects.

        The main problem with integrating “your pet functionality” is that every user has their own pet functionality that does not match yours. So in order to please everyone, GNOME would have to pack in loads of features and configuration options and basically end up pleasing nobody but the “power users” that love to tweak and configure things. A horrible example is Emacs, which has so many obscure options that it is impossible to find the straightforward and simple ones.

        That is why everything is weighted so carefully before integrating it. If Linus feels GNOME is too restrictive, he should just keep on using KDE, there really is no reason for him not to.

        Also, there is no reason for Metacity to integrate loads of “power features”, because people can just keep using sawfish or whatever window manager they please.

    • 2007-08-16 1:57 pm
      gustl

      Once my desktop is configured the way I like, I rarely change it (I’ve got better things to do), so why should it always be staring me in the face?

      Well, it is like that in KDE too. I usually set up my desktop the way I like it, and then very seldomly use the “control panel” again. So your argument of KDE settings taking up menu- and window-space is hard to follow. Or do you have the GConf window open all the time?

      But to be able to set up everything the way I like, in KDE I do not have to read through pages and pages of a manual, to find the right keyword, try it out, see it was not the right one and go back to searching again.

      I simply open the “control panel” and start looking through the tree.

      For one setting, there usually are only 2 or 3 places where it could be (equivalent to the 2 or 3 keywords which could influence what I want), so finding the right place takes far less time than searching through a manual for the right keyword. Sorry, but especially dumbing down the configuration application was one of the worse ideas with GNOME 2.0 .

  • 2007-08-15 2:49 am
    matt.britt

    Ahh, the GNOME Midnight Commander. I well remember that file manager, and how laughably slow (albeit flashy) Ximian Nautilus was in comparison… Well, Nautilus’ speed still sucks, but at least we still have our command shells, right?

    I remember that awful glass breaking sound that played whenever something went wrong, and the amusing bomb icon used for core dumps (don’t they ulimit core dumps away in most modern distros?).

    I remember when Enlightenment was GNOME’s window manager… then Sawmill… then Sawfish… then that awful Metacity thing… I miss being able to choose your window manager; all this “dumb the options down for the dumb users” nonsense got pretty annoying at times. Thank goodness the compositing window managers restore the edge flipping that Metacity took away.

    I remember that obscene “cheese” GTK+ theme, and I remember having half my apps ported to GTK2 and the other half remaining with GTK1.x, making consistency a nightmare.

    Hey, I even remember when GNOME was an acronym. ;)

    Wow, has it been ten years?

    Edited 2007-08-15 03:01

    • 2007-08-15 5:37 am
      sbergman27

      “””

      and how laughably slow (albeit flashy) Ximian Nautilus was in comparison.

      “””

      That would be “Eazel Nautilus”. Remember all those news stories about how the crack team (that wrote the original Mac interface!) were going to revolutionize Linux with this file manager? (A file manager is low level computer software that stores your documents and spreadsheets.)

      Of course, they turned out like most poorly administered startups. They went through millions like money was going out of style, and then went belly up.

      It took some more years before Nautilus was really ready. But I do like it.

      Happy birthday Gnome.

      • 2007-08-15 6:25 am
        matt.britt

        That would be “Eazel Nautilus”

        Ack, you’re absolutely right! Curse my spotty memory!

        I remember when back in the 1.x days, being “cool” was enough to get something in to GNOME. After the massive 2.x restructuring, it took a hell of alot more. While I have remained on board all these years, I still find that they got too draconian and hierarchical during that transition. While I have loved the usable environment, I have also been watching KDE make quantum leaps forward in underlying technology, while GNOME has had a more steady evolutionary advance.

        Well said, sir. I fully agree (though I was an onlooker rather than a real developer). I’ve never taken sides in the DE war, but even as things stand today I’d prefer to use GNOME (or a third choice) over KDE… So long as I can dispense with icky Metacity.

        Edited 2007-08-15 06:31

    • 2007-08-15 5:47 am
      google_ninja

      I remember when back in the 1.x days, being “cool” was enough to get something in to GNOME. After the massive 2.x restructuring, it took a hell of alot more. While I have remained on board all these years, I still find that they got too draconian and hierarchical during that transition. While I have loved the usable environment, I have also been watching KDE make quantum leaps forward in underlying technology, while GNOME has had a more steady evolutionary advance.

      I really think at this point, GNOME has lost its way. I look at KDE4, and in about a year or so of development it looks like they not only have fixed 90% of my usability gripes, while delivering killer frameworks and APIs that compete with what the competition is shipping on the latest generation of operating systems.

      I love GNOME, and have for years. While the retrospective gives you a sense of pleasant nostalgia, I only feel some sadness at leaving what was my favorite platform for many years. While I havnt been here for the full ten years, Ive been here for most of them.

    • 2007-08-15 7:11 am
      chemical_scum

      I miss being able to choose your window manager;

      You can still do that and run Gnome on your choice of Window Managers.

      I used to run Gnome 2.14 with Openbox as Window Manager a few years back:

      http://icculus.org/openbox/index.php/Help:GNOME/Openbox

      If you really want a lighter system with the Gnome panel. You can run the Gnome panel alone on another WM. Back at Gnome 2.6 I used to run XFWM4 as window manager with the XFce session manager. I had Rox as the default file manager and used its pinboard to manage the desktop. The whole thing was set up to look pretty much like a default Gnome desktop but it ran a lot faster.

      I started using Gnome 1.0 with RH 6 and I remember how proud I was of that desktop. It looked a lot better than NT 4 at work. Somewhere I have some old screenshots like that one. GMC was pretty fast compared to the later Nautilus (once upon a time the worlds slowest file manager) but it was a pain to configure just the way you want it (mimetypes etc).

      Nowadays I run a pretty much out of the box desktop from Feisty.

    • 2007-08-16 8:15 am
      lindkvis

      “Well, Nautilus’ speed still sucks, but at least we still have our command shells, right?”

      The last version of Nautilus that ever slowed me down doing graphical file management was around Gnome 2.8 or 2.10.

      Also, just because Metacity doesn’t have the features you like, does not mean it is awful. It is a brilliantly designed window manager that integrates perfectly, is incredibly stable and has a sane theming and configuration system.

      Pretty much the perfect window manager for people that don’t care about what a window manager is, which is the majority of computer users.

      It still has far more features that window managers of today’s commercial operating systems.

  • 2007-08-15 2:59 am
    czubin

    I was semi-expecting the last screenshot to have compiz enabled. So that the oolbars would have a bit shadow ;)

  • 2007-08-15 3:33 am
    spackie

    GNOME’s 2D GUI looks as tho’ its from the Windows 98 era designed by high school kids in a GUI comp.

    The control panel is a ripoff from OSX, the apps are amateur and “cheap” in their design.

    Where is the professional creative vision????

  • 2007-08-15 5:57 am
    Jack Malmostoso

    I think it’s very nice that Miguel’s announcement was immediately followed by the first Gnome vs. KDE flame in history:

    http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-list/1997-August/msg00144.html

    “IMHO this is a knee-jerk reaction to a nonexistent problem.

    Best of luck doing this with GTK… it has a long ways to catch up with

    Qt.”

    • 2007-08-15 9:08 am
      superstoned

      yeah, time has proven it was a silly reason – Qt is now more free (GPL) than GTK (Lesser GPL). and it is still ahead of GTK…

      Yet, Gnome did the free desktop a lot of good, leading the way in usability (not to everybody’s happiness, but still) and through competition ensuring the Free desktop is better than it would have been without Gnome. So congrats on these 10 years…

      • 2007-08-15 9:45 am
        kelvin

        Qt is now more free (GPL) than GTK (Lesser GPL)

        This is neither the time nor the place to discuss this, but no it isn’t. The GPL places more restrictions on developers than the LGPL does; hence the LGPL is a more free license.

        • 2007-08-15 9:54 am
          superstoned

          So the BSD is more free than the GPL as well. I think it depends on your point of view. I just follow the Free Software Foundations’ view where they prefer the GPL over the LGPL, even for libraries.

          • 2007-08-15 11:55 am
            kelvin

            Still neither the time nor the place, but leave it to the KDE-zealots to ruin a perfectly good birthday party. They even brought off-topic GNOME-bashing to their own party last year:

            http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=16177

            In any given situation, the word “free” does not depend on your point of view. In this case it applies to what you can do with the code. Someone linking a proprietary program to an LGPL library doesn’t deny anyone their rights. Also note that GTK+ is licensed under the Library GPL — not the Lesser GPL.

            This FSF document:

            http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

            simply states that the LGPL is inappropriate for some libraries. The LGPL-licensing of GTK+ (and supporting libraries) is in no way in conflict with that document.

          • 2007-08-15 12:16 pm
            superstoned

            BSD allows you to do more with the code than the GPL or the LGPL. So you consider it more free than the LGPL? I DO think the term free is subjective to a certain extend. And I don’t see why someone writing proprietary code (which nobody should be writing) should be allowed to freeride on the hard work of other developers without any obligation to contribute back.

            BTW I dont see why this is bashing gnome. They can use whatever license they want. I have no problems with Solaris nor freeBSD either… I just noticed the statement from that old email was today as true as it was then…

          • 2007-08-15 12:37 pm
            kelvin

            Yes it’s a free ride. What’s wrong with that? If the developers want to give out free rides who are you to argue?

            I never claimed that you were bashing GNOME, I claimed that you were misusing the English language in order to score political points. The statements from that old email were incorrect then, and they’re still incorrect today:

            “IMHO this is a knee-jerk reaction to a nonexistent problem.”

            The Qt licensing at the time was anything but a nonexistent problem. If Qt was the leading (or only) free desktop GUI toolkit today, the licensing would still be a problem. Fortunately, there’s GTK+.

            Best of luck doing this with GTK… it has a long ways to catch up with Qt.

            GTK caught up with Qt 1.4 a loooong time ago.

          • 2007-08-15 12:43 pm
            superstoned

            Best of luck doing this with GTK… it has a long ways to catch up with Qt.

            GTK caught up with Qt 1.4 a loooong time ago.

            Now YOURE playing language games… I won’t go into this, it’s silly.

            Anyway, I do agree with you that choice is good. It’s essential for FOSS and the darwinian way of improvement. Even though it’s sometimes annoying to see all the duplication of work… I just wish the political stuff wouldn’t lead to (technically) stupid decisions anymore… But vhs/video2000 and other past stuff have shown it’s kind’a inevitable, so I’ll shut up now and won’t respond anymore.

          • 2007-08-15 1:09 pm
            segedunum

            The Qt licensing at the time was anything but a nonexistent problem. If Qt was the leading (or only) free desktop GUI toolkit today, the licensing would still be a problem. Fortunately, there’s GTK+.

            The problem is that the people who thought Gnome was solving a problem then and wasn’t, still don’t understand that it isn’t solving any problem today.

            Having an open source desktop was a given so that code code be shared and modified by anyone. As long as the license for that code was clear and understandable by everyone involved, there was no problem. That fulfilled developers needs to get the code and improve it. Any other concerns are basically the political things that ultimately killed Unix and CDE as a desktop, and Gnome still hasn’t got them out of its system.

            Beyond that, if you want to get people to actually use your desktop then it has to be good enough. Users simply do not give a shit if your desktop is licensed under the QPL, GPL or LGPL. It is judged on its quality, regardless of how favourable your licensing is.

            GTK caught up with Qt 1.4 a loooong time ago.

            Hmmmmm. Well, GTK was a graphical toolkit then, and it still is now. Qt has always been a complete, general purpose cross-platform programming toolkit with APIs for a multitude of things not GUI related. GTK hasn’t become that at all.

          • 2007-08-15 1:59 pm
            SlackerJack

            GTK has apps and it’s toolkit on Windows, OS X, Linux, BSD, Solaris so please stop flying the flag for Qt and making you feel better. Oh sorry I forgot Nokia use it. I knew this thread would turn into a Qt Vs GTK crap just so the Qt gang can tell us how superour Qt is when it’s not.

            So please mod me down like normal.

            Edited 2007-08-15 14:07

          • 2007-08-15 3:17 pm
            Wrawrat

            GTK has apps and it’s toolkit on Windows, OS X, Linux, BSD, Solaris so please stop flying the flag for Qt and making you feel better.

            In reality, it’s pretty much restricted to Unix-like OSes with X-Windows. The Windows port is so bad that it’s easy to make manual screenshots of the redraw process, not to mention that it looks completely alien, even with the WIMP theme. Can’t speak for OS X but wouldn’t be surprised if it was the same.

            Oh sorry I forgot Nokia use it.

            Are they using it for its quality or because of the LGPL? Who cares, anyway? Qt got many high profile users (see http://trolltech.com/customers/directory), yet it’s hardly a good argument on superiority. Although I do believe that Qt is superior, if only for the API and the great documentation.

            As for GNOME itself, I wish them an happy birthday. Quite nice to see the progress it went in all those years. I just hope their success won’t inflate the heads of the developers, persuading them to build an even higher ivory tower.

          • 2007-08-15 5:43 pm
            SlackerJack

            Your really trying hard but it’s just sad, iTunes is a perfect example of your logic gone wrong, it’s the functionality that counts. Users dont give a crap about API’s it works, Pidgin, GIMP, Inkscape all do, so get over it.

          • 2007-08-15 8:23 pm
            Wrawrat

            Not sure it’s a good example. The MS Windows ports for the applications you mentioned are just horrible. Last timed I used it, GIMP didn’t even used native dialogs. Never used iTunes but I’m pretty sure it does… So far, I didn’t had such issues with Qt applications.

            Look, I’m a GNOME user, yet it doesn’t mean that I have to like GTK+, especially from a programmer’s point of view. Anyway, I said that I prefer clean API with good documentation. If you prefer something else like popular hacks, well, that’s your prerogative.

          • 2007-08-15 10:11 pm
            segedunum

            GTK has apps and it’s toolkit on Windows, OS X, Linux, BSD, Solaris so please stop flying the flag for Qt and making you feel better.

            The problem is, GTK is only viable on Unix/Linux systems – and it has some well documented problems, some of them pointed out by Nokia, even at that.

            The Windows and OS X ports are a disaster to the point of being unusable. VMware uses GTK for its VMware Console, but doesn’t use it as a cross platform toolkit on Windows. The Windows port of VMware Console is reimplemented with Windows development tools. Not terribly efficient when you consider that with Qt they could have it running on Windows, Linux and OS X without any problems, but there you go.

            Oh sorry I forgot Nokia use it.

            Yer, and Nokia all but came out and panned GTK for not being good enough to do what they want to do in another article around here.

            I knew this thread would turn into a Qt Vs GTK crap just so the Qt gang can tell us how superour Qt is when it’s not.

            Well, it’s reasonably on topic considering that Miguel de Icaza’s e-mail about starting Gnome tells us how bad Qt and KDE was, and how it won’t be too hard to keep up with it. The reply to that mail is still relevant now.

            Obviously that’s as still wrong today as it was then.

          • 2007-08-15 10:59 pm
            phoebus

            First, let me congratulate you and superstoned for once again highjacking a discussion about Gnome/GTK+ to why you believe KDE/Qt is superior. You both manage to troll by stoking the flamewars and the rather mythical antagonism between the two projects while at the same time not (usually) appearing to be inflammatory. Nicely done.

            Some more comments about this particular post follow:

            The problem is, GTK is only viable on Unix/Linux systems – and it has some well documented problems, some of them pointed out by Nokia, even at that.

            You are misrepresenting the statements by Carlos Guerreiro at Nokia and are otherwise spreading FUD. Mr. Guerreiro said that there are some new effects that he would like to do that are difficult or not possible with GTK+ in it current incarnation. That is not the same thing as saying “there are well documented problems” with GTK+. Qt, I believe, instituted a new animations and drawing framework in the recent releases of Qt4.x. By your logic, Qt3 had well documented problems that made the whole toolkit defective. I don’t think the folks at Trolltech or more KDE developers would agree with that.

            Similarly, the GTK+/Gnome folks are currently experimenting with new canvases and animation frameworks based on OpenGL or Cairo, and the experiments may end up in GTK+ (either the 2.x series or an API-breaking 3.x series). See Clutter, Pigment, HippoCanvas, etc. Just because they are looking to break out in new directions doesn’t mean they believe that GTK+ 2.x has “well documented” problems.

            The Windows and OS X ports are a disaster to the point of being unusable.

            What is your evidence to back this up? It smells like FUD to me. Have you developed a GTK+ application on Windows? If so, what are the specific problems you encountered? Did you file bugs with GTK+ or even the WIMP theme maintainer, Murray Cumming? Just because many toolkits use native Windows controls on Windows doesn’t mean that GTK+ is a “disaster” on Windows.

            I knew this thread would turn into a Qt Vs GTK crap just so the Qt gang can tell us how superour Qt is when it’s not.

            Well, it’s reasonably on topic considering that Miguel de Icaza’s e-mail about starting Gnome tells us how bad Qt and KDE was, and how it won’t be too hard to keep up with it. The reply to that mail is still relevant now.

            Obviously that’s as still wrong today as it was then.

            The sad thing is Miguel went out of his way in the original post to be complimentary of KDE. It’s also sad that you feel the need to argue a licensing debate that became moot in 2000 when Trolltech relicensed Qt to the GPL. By that time, Gnome had already taken off, and its purpose was not to replace the (now libre) Qt but to provide a desktop its developers wanted to develop.

            KDE and Gnome are complimentary and a source of good-natured competition, each taking and learning from the other. It’s sad that you feel the need to denigrate GTK+/Gnome at every chance.

          • 2007-08-15 11:34 pm
            google_ninja

            What is your evidence to back this up? It smells like FUD to me. Have you developed a GTK+ application on Windows? If so, what are the specific problems you encountered? Did you file bugs with GTK+ or even the WIMP theme maintainer, Murray Cumming? Just because many toolkits use native Windows controls on Windows doesn’t mean that GTK+ is a “disaster” on Windows

            Have you used GTK on windows? I gave Pidgin a real fair try, functionally it is right up there with the best IM clients. I could not get used to the overall sluggishness of the UI, and the horrible repaints. On Linux, its not exactly the best in class either, but on windows it is far worse. By contrast, I use skype regularly, and check out nvu now and then to see how they are coming along. I don’t have the same issues with them at all, both fit in quite well with the OS. Not saying you are wrong about the rest, but GTK on windows is definately a joke.

          • 2007-08-16 4:59 pm
            segedunum

            First, let me congratulate you and superstoned for once again highjacking a discussion about Gnome/GTK+ to why you believe KDE/Qt is superior.

            Don’t look at us – look at why Gnome was started!

            Mr. Guerreiro said that there are some new effects that he would like to do that are difficult or not possible with GTK+ in it current incarnation.

            Well, the tone of that interview was that there were many things in GTK they couldn’t do, a GTK 3 is not on the horizon to solve those problems, Nokia aren’t contributing much or anything to a new GTK 3 and everyone is basically stuck. There was certainly no plan of action.

            Qt, I believe, instituted a new animations and drawing framework in the recent releases of Qt4.x. By your logic, Qt3 had well documented problems that made the whole toolkit defective.

            Well, the point is Qt actually has that new canvas framework now – not that you couldn’t do a lot of things with Qt 3, as you can see with software like MythTV. Qt has been an embedded toolkit for some time.

            What is your evidence to back this up? It smells like FUD to me. Have you developed a GTK+ application on Windows? If so, what are the specific problems you encountered?

            I’d like to think that you’re joking with this, but when you next run GIMP on Windows give us a screenshot of the redraw ;-).

            The sad thing is Miguel went out of his way in the original post to be complimentary of KDE.

            Well, of course he was complimentary in an official announcement. The compliments went away elsewhere.

            It’s also sad that you feel the need to argue a licensing debate that became moot in 2000 when Trolltech relicensed Qt to the GPL.

            That licensing debate still drags on, because apparently everyone needs to be able to develop for free now.

            KDE and Gnome are complimentary and a source of good-natured competition, each taking and learning from the other. It’s sad that you feel the need to denigrate GTK+/Gnome at every chance.

            Frankly, the only thing good about the two desktop scenario has been the competition. However, if people feel the need to tell people that their licensing decisions are better and that everyone elses’ licensing decisions are a problem then I feel the need to call people on it, because ultimately, users don’t care.

          • 2007-08-15 2:07 pm
            thebluesgnr

            Having an open source desktop was a given so that code code be shared and modified by anyone.

            You do know that Qt was proprietary software at the time GNOME was created right?

          • 2007-08-15 6:42 pm
            deviceguy

            You do know that Qt was proprietary software at the time GNOME was created right?

            No, it wasn’t. The source code was available under the FreeQt license, which restricted the redistribution of modified Qt, thus was not defined as “Free Software” by the FSF.

            http://developer.kde.org/documentation/books/kde-2.0-development/ch…

            Which was far more free than any closed source/proprietary code allowed to link to LGPL code.

          • 2007-08-15 6:49 pm
            pinky

            >which restricted the redistribution of modified Qt, thus was not defined as “Free Software” by the FSF.

            And if something is not Free Software it is non-Free Software aka proprietary Software.

            You can argue about many things and i’m also in favour of Qt.

            But everyone who has some knowledge about Free Software licensing (also the KDE guys) agree that back in the KDE1.x days Qt was non-Free Software => proprietary Software.

            Edited 2007-08-15 18:57

          • 2007-08-15 5:24 pm
            phoenix

            I DO think the term free is subjective to a certain extend.

            “Free” is very much subjective when it comes to software licenses. You have to distinguish between “freedoms of the software (source code)” and “freedoms of the user”.

            The GPL is very much about the freedoms of the software. It places restrictions on how it can be used, and tries to guarantees that the source will always be available.

            The BSD license is very much about the freedoms of the user. You can do whatever you want with the source, including incorporating it into proprietary and/or closed source software.

            “Free” is also subjective in that it has multiple definitions in English (no cost vs freedom), and both/neither apply when discussing licenses.

          • 2007-08-15 5:49 pm
            pinky

            >The GPL is very much about the freedoms of the software. It places restrictions on how it can be used, and tries to guarantees that the source will always be available.

            >The BSD license is very much about the freedoms of the user. You can do whatever you want with the source, including incorporating it into proprietary and/or closed source software.

            I disagree.

            I would say that GPL (and copyleft in general) is about users freedom and BSD (and non-copyleft in general) is about the freedom of the software.

            Let me explain why:

            non-copyleft licenses allows the software to merge with non-free software or to become non-free by their own. So that the user will have zero freedom.

            On the other hand copyleft guarantees that all users will have the freedom to use the software for every purpose, to modify it and to distribute it.

            So copyleft licenses guaranties freedom for every user while non-copyleft allows the maximum freedom for the software even if it will result in non-freedom for the users.

          • 2007-08-15 12:48 pm
            segedunum

            Still neither the time nor the place, but leave it to the KDE-zealots to ruin a perfectly good birthday party.

            Well, stuff will always get debated. I don’t call legitimate debate trolling. Enough people seem to want to tell us how much of an advantage this is. EDIT: Particularly as the old e-mail above talks about Gnome being as a response to KDE.

            Someone linking a proprietary program to an LGPL library doesn’t deny anyone their rights.

            In the eyes of the project it does, because when you link a piece of closed software to the LGPLed, open sourced core, how do you define what is and isn’t in the open source project? It severely impacts the integrity of the code and the project as a whole to the point where less code is being contributed back.

            Going back to my previous example, just tell me how many open sourced drivers you think we would have, coded and distributed in the Linux kernel if Linux was LGPLed.

            Also note that GTK+ is licensed under the Library GPL — not the Lesser GPL.

            Same difference. The Lesser GPL is merely the Library GPL renamed because of the perception it gave. This was done around 1999 I think, so I’m not sure what differences you think there are.

            This FSF document:

            http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

            simply states that the LGPL is inappropriate for some libraries.

            That’s just skipping over the relevant parts:

            “Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising “more users for this library” if we let them use the code in proprietary software products.”

            That pretty much confirms my Linux kernel example above.

            The LGPL-licensing of GTK+ (and supporting libraries) is in no way in conflict with that document.

            “Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all.”

            Personally, I find that very relevant considering that LGPL licensing has been continually muted as having sort of advantage by various people, merely by virtue of the fact that you can develop for free – completely ignoring quality or fitness for purpose:

            http://www.gtk.org/faq/#AEN81

            That very much covers what the FSF document is talking about. There will be times when a proprietary application will need to use one of your libraries, but the FSF is pointing out that it shouldn’t be used for the promotion of developing proprietary software at the expense of your own open source project. That seems to be what is happening here.

            Edited 2007-08-15 12:56

          • 2007-08-15 1:42 pm
            kelvin

            me: Someone linking a proprietary program to an LGPL library doesn’t deny anyone their rights.

            segedunum: In the eyes of the project it does

            No it does not. The library is used exactly as allowed in the LGPL. The library authors chose to license their work under the LGPL which specifically allows proprietary programs to link to it. They made that choice, hence no rights are denied.

            Edited 2007-08-15 13:44

          • 2007-08-15 3:42 pm
            segedunum

            No it does not. The library is used exactly as allowed in the LGPL.

            It denies the project code that it would have had added and contributed (proprietary drivers deny Linux code and has promoted instability), thus denying contributors and users access to code that is used as a part of the project. That’s the point the FSF is making on that page.

            The library authors chose to license their work under the LGPL which specifically allows proprietary programs to link to it. They made that choice, hence no rights are denied.

            The fact that the authors have made a choice over what license to use their project, and the success and well being of that project and its code, are not mutually exclusive.

            I’m sorry, but the FSF have critiqued their own license quite well as to how it is a poorer choice, especially if you are trying to promote free proprietary development because that’s all you have.

            Edited 2007-08-15 15:46

          • 2007-08-15 6:05 pm
            deviceguy

            No it does not. The library is used exactly as allowed in the LGPL. The library authors chose to license their work under the LGPL which specifically allows proprietary programs to link to it. They made that choice, hence no rights are denied.

            so you admit that the Lessor GPL is about proprietary software. Is this appropriate on a free, open source operating system?

            The LGPL denies me the right to any proprietary software code that it lets link with it.

            Edited 2007-08-15 18:07

          • 2007-08-15 7:00 pm
            kelvin

            so you admit that the Lessor GPL is about proprietary software.

            Admit? Has anyone ever claimed otherwise?

            The LGPL denies me the right to any proprietary software code that it lets link with it.

            You perceive that you have a right to other peoples code, and that the LGPL denies you that right? You cannot be serious!

          • 2007-08-15 10:21 pm
            segedunum

            You perceive that you have a right to other peoples code, and that the LGPL denies you that right? You cannot be serious!

            Because when proprietary software links into your LGPL library, it then becomes a part of that library. As a piece of open source software, that library then has to stand on its own because companies are not going to contribute very much to it if their competitors can just sit on the sidelines, not contribute and create their own proprietary spinoffs.

            Proprietary software developers are not contributing back to it, and that’s the problem that many large development libraries such as GTK are encountering. The LGPL is used for instances where allowing proprietary applications to link in is desired in certain circumstances, but if you want your large scale open source project to stand on quality, code contributions and a future roadmap, don’t expect anything to happen. Nokia certainly aren’t.

            It’s rather like the Linux kernel again. If everyone was creating proprietary drivers and extensions for it, what code do you think would actually be contributed?

          • 2007-08-16 6:45 am
            deviceguy

            You perceive that you have a right to other peoples code, and that the LGPL denies you that right? You cannot be serious!

            I am quite serious, in case you have never read the GPL, from the preamble of the GPL:

            To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights.

            The LGPL is allowing these rights to be surrendered, in the case of the closed source it allows to be linked with. Which is why the LGPL got renamed to the Lesser GPL

            Keep software free! Don’t use the LGPL!

            Edited 2007-08-16 06:46

          • 2007-08-16 7:06 am
            kelvin

            from the preamble of the GPL:

            To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights.

            The LGPL is allowing these rights to be surrendered

            No it doesn’t. Your rights to the LGPL-licensed library are still intact. You have no inherent right to other peoples code unless they give you those rights.

        • 2007-08-15 9:59 am
          GeneralZod

          I’m guessing it was an attempt to reference this:

          http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

          that was badly worded. “More in tune with the FSF’s philosophies” would probably have been a better choice than “more free”.

        • 2007-08-15 11:15 am
          segedunum

          The GPL places more restrictions on developers than the LGPL does; hence the LGPL is a more free license.

          Hmmmmm, well I wasn’t going to reply, but that’s just plain wrong, because your definition of ‘free’ does not correspond to the meaning of free that the FSF coined when they came up with the GPL and the LGPL.

          The FSF is talking about the freedom of the code, not your freedoms. The GPL ensures that any changes that anyone else makes are available to you, and vice versa. The LGPL can be got around because people would just create proprietary extensions that would drag down the quality of the open source project, and ensure less code being contributed back in. Imagine the Linux kernel LGPLed, with people shoving binary drivers on it right, left and centre and you’d have a disaster from an open source and free code point of view – not to mention quality.

          Point is, it adversely affects the integrity and identity of the project and what code should be contributed back. The LGPL has just become a poor excuse for a lot of people to say “Look, you can develop everything for nothing!” Sadly, that just isn’t enough, nor are things that simple.

          The FSF always intended that the LGPL should have limited use, and for reasonably good pragmatic reasons, aside from any other FSF politics or rhetoric.

          Edited 2007-08-15 11:17

      • 2007-08-15 3:26 pm
        irbis

        “Qt is now more free (GPL) than GTK (Lesser GPL)”

        QT is licensed under a double license: not only pure GPL but also a commercial, proprietary license. If you want to write commercial proprietary applications with QT, GPL is not enough but you have to buy a commercial license from Trolltech. That could restrict commercial development of QT-based proprietary apps (mobile apps, games etc.).

        From Wikipedia QT article:

        “Proprietary commercial development requires the commercial license, and, unlike some open source software libraries, Qt is not licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License and does not include a GPL linking exception.“

        • 2007-08-16 6:27 am
          wakeupneo

          “..you have to buy a commercial license from Trolltech. That could restrict commercial development of QT-based proprietary apps (mobile apps, games etc.)”

          Riiight…and having to purchase a Visual Studio license restricts proprietary Windows software development. Gotcha.

          • 2007-08-16 7:52 am
            Temcat

            You don’t have to buy VS to develop closed-source software using Windows widgets. You do have to buy Qt to develop closed-source software using Qt widgets. That’s a huge difference.

      • 2007-08-15 6:27 pm
        bryanv

        That all depends on how you look at “free”.

        If “free” means the fewest restrictions on use, then GNOME is far free-er than QT.

        Of course, I don’t expect GPL zealots to understand that you do not gain freedom by adding restrictions, so whatever…

        • 2007-08-15 8:35 pm
          superstoned

          Freedom has to be protected. Is that new to you?

  • 2007-08-15 6:28 am
    de_wizze

    … is some of the more advanced features, especially in the window manager like multi-function maximize buttons from sawfish. Or the selection of nautilus views like for viewing music folders.

  • 2007-08-15 6:28 am
    Andre4s

    For sure Gnome has come a very long way. Back in the 1.x days(screenshot 1) it was something I avoided more then anything. CDE rocked my *nix desktop back then. But after 2.0 a lot changed! suddenly it was something extremly pretty and usefull. Go Gnome!

  • 2007-08-15 6:29 am
    Andre4s

    Does anyone know where I can find the green wallpaper used in screenshot 2? looks very good.

  • 2007-08-15 7:47 am
    leech

    I remember running Debian back when Gnome first started getting packaged for it. It was version 0.30 when Debian 2.1 was the latest release. It was extremely crash prone at that point. Slink has gnome-core 0.30-2 in it’s repositories from November 26th, 1998.

    The main reason I never liked KDE was that it was TOO much like Windows. The one that got me interested in Linux in the first place though was Enlightenment DR13. Enlightenment still has the coolest themes I’ve ever seen. I wish e17 would be finalized sometime this decade though. That’s been in development forever.

  • 2007-08-15 8:30 am
    AdamW

    You can still use any WM you like on GNOME. sawfish still exists, you can install it and use it instead of metacity if you like.

  • 2007-08-15 8:31 am
    AdamW

    [root@lenovo Nana]# urpmq -r sawfish

    sawfish-1.3.1-1mdv2008.0

  • 2007-08-15 12:08 pm
    rx182

    I too think that Gnome looked more professional back then. I dislike the new look and the lack of options. Still using it tho (I use both KDE and Gnome)

  • 2007-08-15 12:49 pm
    sargek

    I did not know, but should have, that Gnome and I share a birthday. I am several decades older, but Gnome has been my desktop of choice since 1999 or so. Long live Gnome, and me of course ;)

    Hat’s off to the Gnome devs and all my fellow Gnome users and supporters.

  • 2007-08-15 1:38 pm
    Yagami

    well , i remember very well using gnome 1.*

    i am from the days afterstep was the bomb ;)

    but anyways

    back then , i liked gnome 1.x much better than kde. i was a gnome user all the way. i even stayed away from qt apps.

    in fact , my desktop of gnome + enlightenment , still beats gnome 2.x desktop by miles…

    but , since then , i have changed completly , being now a “never” gnome user , and a completly kde fan ! now i try to use everything kde and stay away of gtk apps.

    its funny how it turned out. so i must say , gnome 1.x did much better for its time than gnome 2.x.

  • 2007-08-15 2:53 pm
    Noremacam

    My idea of nirvana for a DE would be the gnome desktop redone with Qt. I really don’t like kde’s obtrusive interface, but I do prefer the toolkit over gtk.

    I want the same gnome interface and gnome programs – in Qt.

    I know, I know, I’m dreaming….

    Gnome is still my desktop of choice, so it’s definitely doing something right! I hope to see more progress with GTK!

    • 2007-08-15 5:05 pm
      Yagami

      you are dreaming ?!?

      just spend a few minutes configuring kde , and you can make a gnome lookalike of kde. ( i just would have no idea why you would want this , though… gnome is far too obtrusive to me ) ;)

      heh , anyway , forgot earlier … happy birthday gnome , happy another 10 years

      • 2007-08-16 9:18 am
        Obscurus

        I think you are being a bit optimistic by suggesting it will take “a few minutes” to configure KDE so the interface is less obtrusive. The default KDE desktop is way too cluttered and busy for my liking, and it takes me a good 30 minutes+ to get it how I like it. I personally prefer XFCE, but Gnome has pretty good defaults, and it doesn’t take me long to configure. Gnome is actually very flexible and configurable, contrary to what some say about it, but it doesn’t shove all of the options in your face like KDE does. Most people won’t change their preferences much once their DE is set up to their liking, and it is much better to have the more boutique user options hidden away somewhere that constantly in plain sight, cluttering up toolbars and menus.

        I think the underlying technology behind KDE is probably more advanced than Gnome, but the default interface is just too overcrowded with options. Options are fine, but it becomes very annoying when the interface for adjusting those options is plastered all over the DE, rather than tucked away in a discrete dialogue somewhere.

        Beyond that, I just find the default KDE setup to be messy and disagreeable to my sense of aesthetics. I couldn’t be bothered going to the effort required to get it looking like the DE I like, when Gnome and XFCE are so close out of the box.

        I also like the way you can change the mouse cursor in gnome without restarting X, and how changes to the themes etc are applied instantly. These are the sort of options people are likely to change frequently, and Gnome handles them elegantly, while KDE is rather awkward and cludgey in this regard.

        see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Featuritis

        That said, I have no problem with anyone who likes KDE – people should use what works for them.

        Edited 2007-08-16 09:27

  • 2007-08-15 4:18 pm
    bryanv

    GNOME Turns Ten: And it still mostly sucks… but less than KDE.

  • 2007-08-15 5:38 pm
    xerces8

    “exactly (in my timezone) ten years ago”

    Ten years ago is ten years ago, no matter what timezone you (or the event) are in (or was in).

  • 2007-08-16 12:54 pm
    ariszlo

    Here are some more screenshots of GNOME releases with a near-upstream GNOME 1.0.53 desktop:

    http://ariszlo.tripod.com/scr3.html

  • 2007-08-16 7:07 pm
    Tanner

    Ten Years, but to me that i’m new in the linux world, Gnome’s speed feels really sluggish.

    Hope it will perform better in the future.

    • 2007-08-17 9:17 am
      Obscurus

      Gnome is a modern desktop environment. It needs modern hardware to run optimally. If your hardware is out of date, your mileage may vary. On a modern machine, Gnome flies (I have certainly not noticed any sluggishness with Ubuntu on a 3 year old machine at any rate).

      This isn’t directed at you Tanner per se (since I have no idea what you are running Gnome on or with), but I really don’t have much sympathy for people who insist on installing the latest version of whatever OS/DE on a decrepit 386 with 8MB of RAM or similarly obsolete hardware and who then complain about the sluggish performance. There are desktop environments (eg Fluxbox) specifically designed for low-spec machines, and if you want the bells and whistles of a full featured, up-to-date DE, expect to get decent hardware to run it.

  • 2007-08-17 8:52 am
    twistys

    you’d better look here http://prevedgame.ru/in.php?id=20508