Canonical’s Mark Shuttleworth has announced the plans for Ubuntu 9.10, named Karmic Koala. Jaunty Jackalope isn’t out of its cage yet (April 2009), but the Ubuntu team is already planning for 9.10, which will see the light of day in October 2009. The desktop side will focus on beautification and an improved boot-up experience; the server side will target cloud computing.
For the fourth time, Shuttleworth says that Karmic Koala might receive a new theme, but seeing the constant delays on that one, I am a bit sceptical. The boot process will be overhauled, focussing on improved boot times as well as a flicker-free experience, perhaps by working with Red Hat’s Plymouth effort. They are also considering a revamped GDM, providing a better login experience.
A lot of work will also be done on netbooks. Ubuntu will import work from Intel’s Moblin project to better support Atom-based netbooks, while also improving the interface to better handle smaller displays. They will also make sure the Netbook Remix is easy to install.
On the server side of things, the focus is cloud computing. It will support the open source Amazon EC2 APIs, allowing users to set up their own cloud using nothing but open tools. The server edition will also better support server suspend and resume, allowing servers to conserve more energy when they aren’t put to work as hard as normal.
Ubuntu 9.10 is, as the name implies, expected in October 2009.
Biggest improvement ever
I hated installing Ubuntu for friends just because of the shitty theme.
I don’t really understand why everyone keeps whining about Ubuntu’s default theme. I kinda like it (it’s consistent and easy on the eye), and easily recognisable (good marketing move on Ubuntu’s part).
Oh well, there’s no accounting for taste, I guess…
I totally understand why, and here is the reason. Look at whenever a new distro is released, or whenever news leaks on a main stream OS. What is it that everyone wants to see? Screenshots. It is the same reason people put on fancy clothes and do up there hair before going out, appearances mean more than they are given credit for, and if Ubuntu wants to compete with the Windows and OS Xs of the world, they need to compete visually as well as technologically. An average consumer at an average retail store is going to see the new fancy look of Windows 7 or Leopard and then compare it to the 2003 look of Ubuntu and they will not give Ubuntu the chance it deserves. This is the OS equivalent to making a good first impression, nobody goes to a job interview in acid wash jeans and an AC/DC t-shirt.
I DID!!!
Back on topic: i like Ubuntu`s default theme. And I also think most of the users change their default wallpaper/theme, no matter what the defaults are.
I find brown a warm and human color (compared to dull grey or cold blue). Ubuntu could use a darker orange though, especially for the window title bars. You can change the theme, but please keep the color scheme, it’s Ubuntu’s identity.
I do. I always have a technical position, if they care more about my clothes then my brains, I don’t want to work there.
It’s not about the clothes. It’s about if you care enough to put up an effort. If you can’t even care about your interview, why are they going to think you care about anything else?
WinXP showed up for the interview in a stained wife beater and boxer shorts and it did ok. And if the joe six packs of the world can deal with XPs default theme, then Ubuntu wont pose any problems.
You also hit the nail on the head as to one of the reasons why OS/2 (now eComStation) has never gotten more people to look at it. It is too industrial in a bad way.
Whenever I hear about brown I thought of ****.
We keep bitching about Ubuntu’s default theme because no matter what you do, brown is still the color of dirt, crap, grime, and smut. There’s a reason why Apple and Microsoft use variations of blue and silver: loads of usability studies indicate that’s what users prefer. Arguments aside, after how many years now has Ubuntu carried some variation of the same boring theme? Come on. Ubuntu is long overdue for a freshening up.
Actually I wouldn’t mind if the theme was brown, but it is ORANGE (and I hate it). The only brown thing I see is the wallpaper.
Agree. Brown colored designs can often look very attractive, especially if there is some texture in the design.
Ubuntu’s orangish theme isn’t very attractive. It isn’t bad, it just isn’t very good.
I recall an older version of Ubuntu had quite a nicely done wallpaper; brown as usual, but instead of reminding me of dirt or shit, it reminded me of fresh melted chocolate (I think it was called Ubuntu Lagoon). Didn’t matter though, brown is brown, within five minutes the desktop and the theme were still changed. I changed the theme (using whatever was available upon installation), hoping to get an extra half-hour out of the decent-looking desktop, but *nothing* went along with brown (used in the wallpaper), so it was short-lived on my desktop.
Ubuntu, IMO, has yet to match that background, and I’m glad to see they’re finally ditching that damn color. In almost all cases, it’s ugly one way or another.
If I think of a blue/silver theme, it really feels American. It’s a cool colour that fits the continent and the culture; while the more warm brown/orange colour feels African and fits there culture. Ubuntu originated in Africa, and is primarily (well I think) aimed at the continent. Thous that particular theme.
Google the term “American logo” and “African logo” and you’ll see the differences in colours they use. (well of course you see a lot of logos based on flags weakening my point a little bit, but still)
Although I don’t like Ubuntu, and I’m from Europe
, I really like there default theme. Except there new background (which looks like a poo smudge on a wall), though the previous Heron was great.
quote
There’s a reason why Apple and Microsoft use variations of blue and silver:
end quote
As does Fedora. enough said.
I guess you’ve never been in a field of golden wheat, or in the grand canyon, or on a beach, or near the sea-side cliffs of Newfoundland.
Why prefer blue? When people have the blues, they’re sad. Blue is also the colour of molded cheese. Do you prefer a sad and moldy colour to a peaceful natural down to earth colour?
Personally when I’m down, the colour is grey; however grey was the main colour for Windows for years, and a grey background is much easier on the eyes than any colour or pure white.
I see blues and greens as being clean and fresh (e.g. pictures of Earth from space). Black and green is very techy (e.g. Shadowrun, The Matrix), and blues seem gentle. Also men appear to prefer colours from the blue end of the spectrum.
I can never really get into brown myself, it just seems functional but dull.
Which is sexier? Blue eyes or brown? Actually grey or green eyes for me but then blue. Brown is just too … normal. At least in America. I realize it is very different in other countries and this is a world wide product.
Brown.
So chocolate sales are going to skyrocket if they change the color to blue?
actually they might…blue chocolate would be a novelty
Colors have different values in different cultures…
One, Windows 95 had a teal green background by default;
two, do you really want to claim XP’s luna theme with the bright blue and bright green buttons was ATTRACTIVE?
-Which was nicked from IBM’s OS/2 Warp 3.0 – its main competitor for the PC desktop in the mid 90’s …
Shame on you for being racist!
What’s wrong with smut? I understand and agree about the others. Americans are WAY too anal about their bodies. It wasn’t God that clothed Adam and Even. They did it themselves. Nakedness isn’t bad, it’s what pathetic immature think about nakedness is bad.
Proper grammar isn’t bad either.
I do use Ubuntu, but every time a new edition of Fedora comes out I sigh. They manage to come up with a different theme every 6 months, each one beautifully done.
Ubuntu always looks the same boring way, save for a gradual slide from brown to orange. I don’t think it is *ugly*, but more like profoundly uninteresting.
It’s a nice bikeshed issue that everyone has an opinion about.
I completely agree … the theme looks excellent, especially the intrepid wallpaper. I also like the panel background (panel_bg.png) that was introduced as part of intrepid, but can’t understand why it gets removed on software update. The only thing I would like them to change, is the splash screen but that is easy to change anyway.
Clearly it’s been a while, since Ubuntu is orange now.
Their official KDE version is black with blue trim, and their XFCE version is gray with blue trim, if that really suits you better.
Personally, I think orange is a good choice since it’s a nice distinctive warm color (and not as unreadable as yellow, nor as alarming to western audiences as red would be).
And most people I know think it’s even worse than the old one. Don’t get me wrong I’ve got nothing against a cheery, warm, colorful theme, but the default should try to be a tad more neutral. Yes, XP was colorful and garish to boot, but XP came preinstalled on about 95% of the world’s new PCs which tends to help quite a bit. And what’s even more important, MS has learned. Win 7 looks a lot better and I don’t even have to mention OSX.
They’re not Ubuntu. Kubuntu is a disaster anyway. I tried it not too long ago and out of the distros I checked out (Debian/Sidux with the experimental pkgs – my final choice -, Fedora, SuSE) it was the worst.
ymmv though.
(btw. if Ubuntu cared one bit about Kubuntu they would’ve skipped the KKK release)
Edited 2009-02-23 20:10 UTC
Why? Because of the association with the klan? I hate to break it to you, but there are plenty places on this planet where the acronym KKK is not automatically a bad thing.
I really agree with you! Brown was fun in the early days as it was original to have a brown based distro… but now that the originality effect has past, they really should change as nobody in my entourage finds it pretty!
Even worse was the intrepid ibex default wallpaper.. it may be well executed technically speaking but let’s face it, it is soooo ugly.
If ubuntu is to be used by real / normal users, they need to be appealing at first sight and brown, like we saw with microsoft Zune device, is not an appealing color at all.
Oh, right. no one in YOUR entourage find it pretty. What more reason could they possibly need?
You do realize that it’s a big planet and difficult cultures have difficult color sensbilities, right? Earthy colors like brown and red is quite common in Africa where, surprise surprise, Ubuntu is actually from. I’ve always liked the warm brown colors more than the usual cold blue ones.
If Shuttleworth were serious about Ubuntu’s looks, he would make a move to KDE as default. KDE is infintely more customizable to give you exactly the look you want.
No this is no flame-bait. KDE 4.2 proves that Linux desktop can be original in look and feel.
Bad move to go with GNOME/GTK. Anyway, because its getting popular, it won’t seem like a bad move. Just look at Windows for a better example
Yay!, Only two more letters for masturbatory monkey!.
Edited 2009-02-21 20:29 UTC
um, that’s for those OpenBSD dudes
or in YOUR case…. Windows wanker
Why worry about the desktop, if the installation aborts or hangs and you can’t get to the desktop at all?
Since initially installing 7.04, I’ve noticed that the installations have become more troublesome and the feedback threads in their forums echoes or amplifies my experiences. Perhaps, if they slowed from 6 months to 9 months between releases, they’d have more luck getting things right before deploying them. After all, aren’t Canonical supposedly concerned more about user experience than any other group with a distribution?
The desktop theme, etc. don’t matter if you can’t see them.
I wonder what they’re going to start using as their naming scheme once we get past Zealous Zebra…
So, it’s not just me that thinks these double-letter animal nicknames are stupid? Maybe in another eight years Canonical will drop that cheesy codename scheme. With any luck, the recently-begun desktop NetBSD project will have come into its own and given Linux a much needed kick in the teeth.
Debian releases are named after Toy Story “characters” (well, toys…). Yet, Debian is one of the most respected OSes todate.
Not Microsoft, not Apple, not even Sun or IBM? Linux is BSD’s greatest opposition?
Hey, I’m still hoping for Ubuntu 10.10 Masturbating Mosquito!
I kinda like OpenSolaris and I think after some time it just might do the job.
I like Opensolaris too, but its desktop performance isn’t all that great at the moment. I wouldn’t like to run it, say, on a netbook due to its higher ram usage. That being said, they could seriously tune it if they had a mind to, and Solaris has come late to the desktop world. I’m still hoping for one of the better designed systems (BSD, Solaris) to give Linux the boot. Ah, wouldn’t it be nice to have a foss operating system on which software could easily be developed and deployed, with a standard, stable API?
Funny, I’ve seen a few people complaining about performance and I never had these issues. OpenSolaris runs fine on my desktop with Athlon 3000+ an 1G of RAM. [almost a netbook setup
] Truth is that it is a little too resource-demanding for a desktop OS. I think it won’t even start booting [i.e. load kernel & boot archive] under 512M RAM.
I’m going to keep an eye on this project too. I didn’t have much luck with PC-BSD so maybe this one will it’s find place on some of my machines. I also hope they’ll finish the ZFS port soon.
So true.
The pre-release codename of Vista was “Longhorn”.
The pre-release codename of Ubuntu 8.10 was “Intrepid Ibex”.
How is one any cheesier than the other?
Let’s not forget that Nintendo turned the “Revolution” into the “Wii”
Those are not the prerelease codenames, those are the release names. The codenames continue to be used even after the pre-release cycle, even in Ubuntu’s software repositories. Please, Lemur 2, just once get your facts straight before posting. I know I’m asking too much though.
http://www.ubuntu.com/products/ubuntu/release-cycle
I think you’ll indeed have more luck converting the pop to Islam.
It might help also if the original request hadn’t got it wrong.
Another clue can be found here:
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/02/ubuntu-910-is-named…
“Karmic Koala” has been announced as the development codename for the Ubuntu 9.10 release, which will be released in October this year.
Clues such as this aren’t actually all that hard to find, a tiny bit of research is all that is required. There really is no need to embarrass onself in asking another poster to get facts straight in the same post as where one has just got it very wrong themselves.
Edited 2009-02-22 22:51 UTC
Open About Ubuntu. It reads: “Thank you for your interest in Ubuntu 8.10 – the Intrepid Ibex – released in October 2008.” They also use these names in the release announcements and official documentation.
They are release names.
These are the release names:
http://www.ubuntu.com/products/ubuntu/release-cycle
Too dry to talk about in articles. Wrong syntax to name repositories after where you need a single word (so they use the adjective rather than the animal, ie the 8.10 repository is named intrepid rather than ibex). Not as useful as the codenames for internet keyword search terms. But nevertheless, those are the official release names … according to Ubuntu themselves who, after all, are the ones who get to say …
Edited 2009-02-22 23:09 UTC
who gives a shit? Just refer to them by numbers if you dont like the names.
There never was a release with an “A” or “C” code name. “H” has already been used twice (Hoary Hedgehog and Hardy Heron).
Yes … the alphabetic sequence of pre-release names started after the first LTS version (6.06), which was call Dapper Drake before release.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_releases
Before Dapper Drake, there was still the same naming scheme, but it wasn’t in aplhabetical order. As you say, no “A” and no “C”. Only after “D” (Dapper Drake) did the pre-release names follow from then on in alphabetical order.
The actual names of the releases, BTW, are numeric. Animal names apply to pre-releases. The current release is Ubuntu 8.10 which was released in the 10th month (October) of 2008 … hence the 8.10. The current pre-release version is Jaunty Jakalope, which will be released in April this year, whereupon it will become known as Ubuntu 9.04.
Edited 2009-02-22 11:03 UTC
If the name of the next Ubuntu is Karmic Koala, then KDE should be default DE, don’t you think?
(:joke:)
Brown and orange colours can be nice if done correctly. In terms of GTK and Metacity theme, Ubuntu’s is a bit worn-out. It looked nice in June and July of 2006 but they need to go into luscious brown.
There’s not really a lot about the announcement that’s exciting for desktop users. Servers suspending and being open to cloud services is good, but most Ubuntu users are on the desktop. Canonical always promises a faster boot, but the real time-wasting part is loading the desktop. KDE and Gnome seem to go through a few resolutions and about 15 seconds to start.
Having said that, I think we’ll see greater Kubuntu adoption soon. KDE 4.2 is really really nice.
Agreed. The shiki-colors theme would be the best choice IMO:
http://tombuntu.com/index.php/2008/11/13/shiki-colors-and-community…
This looks dull and sad. It looks like it was inspired by OS X
Even worse, the grey looks like Windows-classic mode.
With that colour scheme…I think it looks more like a NeXTStep/OSX hybrid…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NeXTSTEP_desktop.jpg
How about having the server team do something about the dismal state of server GUI tools? Just because it’s 1337 to do everything in the terminal, doesn’t mean it’s always practical or necessary.
Like…..
Are you talking about ncurses type management, or installing X on every server?
You wouldn’t have to do a full X install on every serve, just a lightweight X client. X is pretty neat in the way it lets you redirect where the actual gui should be displayed.
And either way there’s a third option. You run the gui tools on your desktop which talks to your server via ssh. No X needed on the server.
Both, any. Put some weight and effort behind ebox or webmin or something similar. Slipstream it, improve it and support it. Or build good, solid interfaces in GNOME. Anything that makes it easier and quicker and safer to administrate a server.
By easier I mean that you need not keep a lot of information, config file locations and syntax in memory.
By quicker I mean a centralized way to adminstrate and configure your server.
By safer I mean that while a GUI can contain sanity checks for Apache/MySQL/whatever paramters and options, nano/vim/emacs sure as hell do not.
Bottom end: whenever someone questions the existance of the millionth Linux distro everybody clubs the guy and screams that “choice is good”. Whenever somebody asks for another way to configure and adminstrate a server rather than having to resort to poking around in text files scattered all over the place, everybody concludes that the guy in question is an “inferior noob” that simply doesn’t “get how things should and have always be done”.
Never going to happen I’m afraid. Linux distributions are always going to be inferior to Windows Server there until one of them gets a clue.
Obviously we have vastly different definitions for the word “inferior.”
Obviously, and if you care to take a look around most Linux distributions, and even the ‘enterprise’ ones, you will find a pretty shocking lack of any form of acceptable configuration and management tools, be it command line or graphical, and any infrastructure to go with it. There’s little, if anything, that integrates various components in a distribution well. The functionality is there, but it’s getting to it, that’s the problem and Linux distributors don’t make it easy.
Like I’ve said so often, Linux distributors are not going to keep getting away with producing a Unix replacement. They need to take those firm Unix foundations, move them forwards and use them to compete squarely with Windows Server.
I don’t understand this objection.
One can set up a local server on one’s enterprise lan as the only repository for all of one’s Linux desktop machines. All of one’s desktop machines can be set to auto-update from that repository. This could include an arbitrary script if need be.
Individual desktop configuration is set by files in the local user’s directories (usually these are named named .<something>rc ). Updates on the server can easily include such files, and/or scripts to modify/update these. Scripting languages are plentiful (Python, Perl, etc). Menu contents are adjusted automatically as part of updating a package. Unique adjustments/corrections to individual machines can be made by logging in remotely via ssh. Tools such as GParted can copy disk images whole.
I may lack imagination or something (because I haven’t actually ever had to do this task), but can’t really see any insurmountable difficulty in configuration control in an enterprise deployment scenario. It seems to me the required tools are built right in to the package management system.
I’ll ask you this. How easy is it to have a LDAP infrastructure waiting for your clients and to easily join them, and have all the surrounding software such as NSS, PAM, CUPS and Samba configured, with one or two commands or a few clicks of a mouse? Not very, is the answer.
The functionality sitting in Linux systems is way beyond what you will find anywhere else, but it is all pretty disjointed. Sadly, joining a Windows client, or even a Samba system, to an AD domain is far easier.
This hasn’t got anything to do with what I’m talking about – and even this is still not particularly straightorward.
Errrrr, yep, and there are not tools of any sufficient quality to configure them in one place.
OK, now I think I know what you meant.
When it is released, Samba 4 should improve matters here considerably, I believe. OpenChange for an exchange replacement. Alfresco for a Sharepoint replacement and so on. CUPS, Apache and MySQL already work OK. The trick here is to get the Active Directory and other services supplied by a server which doesn’t go out of its way to try to make sure that only Windows clients join the domain.
Meanwhile, I don’t know if it is useable or not, or if it even fits the situation you are talking about, but it is possible that a product called Likewise may help.
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9227285361.html
Perhaps this site might be of some help for you:
http://www.debian-administration.org/about/Debian%20Administrat…
Some bits and pieces that might be of interest:
http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/600
http://www.debian-administration.org/users/mwr/weblog/1
http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/406
Another site that may be useful to you:
http://www.infrastructures.org/
Edited 2009-02-23 04:12 UTC
Been it, seen it, done it all. While there are some fantastic tools around in the open source world with great functionality they are exceptionally disjointed. Try adding a Linux system easily to a LDAP infrastructure, as you would with joining Windows to an AD domain, with a couple of commands and a few clicks of a mouse and have it all work and you’ll see what I mean.
Unfortunately, there are still people who think they can wave this away by pointing to a few guides. We need to understand and come to terms with where we are short in the open source world, rather than going into denial, if we are to get ahead.
Which is why Linux servers are not striving for huge gains LDAP/AD infrastructures, but rather in the web space and virtualization.
In the web space and virtualization, Linux kicks Windows Server’s ass all over the map.
Hmm..that’s exactly why I like Ubuntu Server. It’s almost OpenBSD-like in it’s stripped down state. None of that, for example, Yast crap that SUSE has.
That said, I have nothing against administrative GUI’s and we’re using quote a few products (OpenFire, Zimbra) that has them.
Mixed feelings here. Everybody is talking about colors, or boot time, but isn’t that just cosmetics?
Personally, I’m observing a release engineering cycle which currently tends to introduce more regressions than improvements. Ubuntu developers seriously recommend to stick to a 12 month old release if one wants a smooth experience. That’s ridiculous.
Ubuntu made good progress in semi-automatic bug reporting with Apport & friends. As much as bug fixing can be boring, Ubuntu IMHO has the chance to make this an enjoyable experience. Cheer on users finding and reporting a quirk, craft tools to allow occasional developers to commit fixes, get regression testing into place.
Quality is the no. 1 asset to success and Ubuntu has the chance to get both, a good work experience as well as a good look.
I hope they finally fix tablet pc compatibility in this release. It’s super annoying to set tablet drivers in _every_ Linux release at the moment. Having to sit down for 2-3 days, figuring out what drivers work and how to setup the scripts just so my freaking tablet actually is being recognized and has pressure sensitivity is a no-go.
That’s a huge reason why the creative industries don’t jump onto Linux or use Windows whenever they have to use tablets. It’s just such a pain in the nuts in Linux right now.
What are you going on about? are you talking about a drawing tablet or a tablet PC with a touch/stylus screen? Within one post you swiched between a drawing tablet and a tablet PC.
As an Australian I would like to point out that Mark Shuttleworth seems to be using the word “bear”. A koala is no a bear, there is no such thing as a koala bear. It’s just a koala…
Anyway, last ubuntu installation I had I made the theme much browner… I think the orange is what makes it look ordinary.
But I think the limitations of GTK are always going to mean that it’s look is not going be be as nice as we want it…
Also how is Kubuntu’s implementation of KDE 4.2? I alwyas found KDE 3.5 was really slow on Kubuntu (not that I tried it on many other distributions), but it was terribly slow, and I figured it was Kubuntu’s implementation of KDE…
Actually in the linked article the word bear appears twice but he never says Koala Bear.
As for KDE 4.2 in Jaunty it is OK. KDE 4.2 is much better than previous releases however Ubuntu is putting all their effort into Gnome. They have introduced a new notification system for Gnome but there is nothing for KDE. Their KDE feels slapped together compared to the Gnome Desktop.
I know they never refer to it as a koala bear, but still just thought I would point it out…
Also thats exactly what I mean about Kubuntu. Seems slapped together.
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2008/12/hands-on-kde-4-2-be…
KDE 4.2 actually brings far more feature improvements to Kubuntu 9.04 over Kubuntu 8.10 than the corresponding changes between 8.10 and 9.04 in the main Ubuntu release.
Including a new notification system.
As for the original question … KDE 4.2 is OK in Kubuntu. Just OK, as you say … it probably lacks the attention to fine detail that it might get if it were the main focus. These feature improvements that it does have are due to the efforts of the KDE team, not Kubuntu itself.
Edited 2009-02-22 22:25 UTC
People, themes are about more than just colour. The fact that the theme is brown/orange doesn’t matter – you could make this theme fart money and Fiona Apple concert tickets and it would still suck.
For instance, the Metacity theme isn’t even antialiased. Welcome to the 21st century – those pixellated corners annoy the frak out of me. I’m sure someone will point out that Matacity doesn’t support AA, so in that case: FIX IT, or choose a window manager that isn’t totally incompetent.
That’s just one example. The theme has a very 90s feel to it, which is fine for some people, but for the rest of the world, a decent default look is important. Other distributions can do it, so why can’t Ubuntu?
That’s curious that you say that, Thom. I thought that retro look in Gnome was part of why you like it so much. Gnome doesn’t look like it’s changed at all in the last five years.
I would disagree. It has changed in the respect it has been polished up over time.
it has not changed like kde 3 –> 4 I grant you. But it is not the same as it was 5 years ago (install an old Warty Warthog and you will see what i mean)
//you could make this theme fart money and Fiona Apple concert tickets and it would still suck.//
Especially the latter. Talk about a quick reformat if that ever happened.
If you’ve ever done any kind of design you would know that color choice is very important. It all depends on what you are trying to convey. The reason you don’t see blue chocolate is because blue isn’t a color associated with food. Blues and greys are good for computer interface colors because they are soothing. Brown can convery an organic feel. Red and orange are more exciting colors that evoke more emotion. Vivid reds and oranges should generally be avoided in interfaces unless you’re trying to explicity draw attention to a widget. The ubiquitous green on black terminal look was chosen for two reasons. First the contrast is enough to make the characters stand out. Second green is a soothing color like blue. Sometimes you’ll see a terminal with a muted orange/yellow look for the same reasons.
They should just switch to KDE4 now.
GNOME doesn’t have enough reason to exist anymore.
Edited 2009-02-22 22:23 UTC
what a silly thing to say….
Why silly? GNOME was created mainly because of political reasons, it was because of Qt not being free software at that time, now KDE and Qt are pure free software, so what’s the point?
Sure, it’s nice to have competition, and I’m all for choice and freedom, but why duplicate efforts when it’s not really needed? Why not work together on creating the best DE together? Why separate efforts and people in our FOSS community to do different things that ends up doing the same?
KDE and Qt are years ahead of GNOME and Gtk+ now, I just don’t see a very solid reason for GNOME to continue anymore, they also don’t seem to have a very solid roadmap and vision for the future.
I know, however, that their egos wont let them work together.
Alsa needs work.
Pulse audio isn’t ready.
Gnome never needed a streaming audio subsystem, any more than it needed to have Evil-ution shareware a depends. But, it will continue because the Gnome foundation answers to Novell.
Yet if there was to be one, JACK should have been the default Gnome client-server audio solution, perhaps backed by OSS–at least if works most of the time.
Unless something is done, droves of frustrated people will be hitting the threads, seeing Wifi and Audio solutions.
To me : colour doesnt matter ………
Well, I’m posting this message from my trusty old Thinkpad R31- which runs ubuntu 8.04 perfectly but can’t run ubuntu 8.10 very well due to an integrated graphics problem.
I’m hoping that I’ll be able to install 9.04 without that problem. Gosh, I’ve been with Ubuntu since edgy eft (7.04) and have never experienced anything like this. I suppose hardware regressions are unavoidable but the incompatibilities with 8.10 are somewhat disheartening. I may switch over to pure debian soon enough. Why not?