Hooray for Bluecurve

It doesn't look like stock KDE or GNOME? Good.

Immediately after its release and apart from the usual rough edges of every .0 version, Red Hat 8.0 generated a lot of heat. Much of it came from the Bluecurve desktop and from the changes RH made to standard KDE (for those who care, a good, though partial, summary of what Red Hat actually did is available here).

Red Hat had good reasons to create such an interface, apart from the unavoidable implementation errors. Even before the release, however, KDE developer Bernhard “Bero” Rosenkraenzer left Red Hat, claiming that KDE, as shipped in that distribution, is crippled. Since it's release, many GNOME and KDE fans are screaming because of this unrecognizable, offending, hybrid GUI. An excerpt from this posting sums up their feelings pretty well:

What you see is neither Gnome nor KDE in RH 8! Kind of comical actually.... I think...Redhat did [us] all a huge disservice with RH 8.

Personally, I am happy Red Hat melted the two environments together. If nothing else, this could be an excellent opportunity to realize that decently functional, good-looking desktop interfaces can be built on the assumption that KDE and GNOME themselves aren't really necessary and important in the first place.

In the rest of this article, I'll refer to them simply as K/G.

Back in 1996 and 1997, as a free desktop user I missed a few basic things—I'm still missing them today.

  • Making the cut-and-paste option always work between windows.

  • System-wide Unicode, instead of n different solutions for the Euro symbol.

  • One standard, centralized, font management system, for both display and printing.

  • A method for easy definition of the same hot keys across different applications.

  • Documentation written for end users, not people debugging a program.

Of course, K/G have slowly added come of these options. But I can't help but ask myself if these changes happened by mistake, while they were doing something sillier and (at least initially) throwing performances out the window (pun intended).

I would have liked to see, and here comes the real issue, programmers working to provide a path along which all existing applications could independently evolve in such a way that programmers could work less and end users could choose any combination of programs that maintain performance, integration and the userspace features listed above.

Instead, what K/G have said and done [during their development] sounds an awful lot like “let's throw existing applications away, even when they are perfectly good, and make everybody start using our programs”. One world, one Net, one (set of) windows—it's déjà vu.

I agree that without K/G Linux screenshots look like a mix of many different things—things that don't really want to stay close to each other. This point is made in this message and expanded in the related thread.

Beginners may indeed have an easier time if, for instance, the File Open dialog and other components were always the same in any application. In spite of this, however, I keep thinking that the whole “one look and feel” mantra is seriously overrated. I further believe that advancing toward desktop integration starting from the windows is the wrong way to go.

Best of Breed Applications

First of all, free software is successful because it started doing the “best of breed” thing decades before consultants created the slogan so they could overprice enterprise-level, process-oriented, Dilbert-R-Us, business “solutions”. Now some KDE-centric distributions are proposing that Mozilla be the standard default browser. Good, keep going: I might not personally agree, but I like open, pragmatic minds.

KOffice is trying to become a free FrameMaker with fully integrated spreadsheet and presentation capabilities. Being the ultimate solution to my idea of desktop/WYSIWIG publishing is why I'd use it, side by side with mutt and The GIMP—not because it browses local folders looking just like Konqueror.

What about developing effort? Mike Harris recently pointed out the huge amount of energy Red Hat is still forced to spend to make OpenOffice, K/G, Mozilla, X and fonts coexist, and I can't see why other distributions should be different in these respects. Speaking of fonts in general, Mike helps us understand why complaining about Bluecurve themes, in and by itself, is pointless:

The GNOME and KDE releases in Red Hat Linux 8.0, both are using Keith Packard's Xft2 and fontconfig, both of which are a core part of XFree86 now, and will be _the_ way fonts are done from now on period, in _all_ Linux distributions that are using X at all.

Keith has done a fantastic job at creating this technology, and we are very glad to be using it in Red Hat Linux 8.0, and to take X11 out of the 1980's finally.

For years I have made it a point not to lose sleep over any K/G, and now Bluecurve, crusade, on the assumption that the only meaningful road to really useful and flexible desktop integration is what I call a “path” above. A few weeks ago, I found the same concept in a message by Havoc Pennington. As he clearly expressed the idea in software engineering terms, and because it makes me really happy to see real gurus agree with the actual needs of the poor users, I'll quote Havoc directly:

Interactions between applications and the runtime environment really need to take place via documented, toolkit-independent protocols and file formats.... Documented, long-term-supportable protocols are the way to go from an engineering standpoint, vs. more ad hoc and implementation-dependent solutions.

The last and more important reason to stop bothering with K/G, Bluecurve and what-not is what I call the “migration mistake”. Please let's end this desktop environment tantrum and realize how futile it is to think Windows users will be freed from slavery by somebody saying, “Here, take this, it looks and feels just like Windows.” This last point has been thrown around too much, in too many places.

The question “How do I replace Microsoft Access” appears on the mail OpenOffice.org list every other week. Every time it reappears a bunch of solutions, usually MySQL-based, are kindly suggested. Almost always, though, nobody—starting from the original poster—understands what is really being asked. They're not looking for a “a stable, powerful and license-free DBMS which also has more or less the same buttons as Access” as much as they are looking for “whatever, even text-based, as long as it reads perfectly ten years worth of customer orders”.

Windows users (especially corporate ones) don't stick with Windows because they can't stand different interfaces, but because they have a really hard time converting terabytes of documents in proprietary formats. This is the real problem.

With respect to those Microsoft users not chained by data compatibility but only by mouse and start panel addiction, give them (and yourselves) a break. They couldn't care less about K/G. They want to see windows, any windows, so they can point-and-click all the way through. Everything that helps them to leave closed platforms and formats is fine. After the first thirty minutes, they won't even notice if their fingers are single- or double-clicking. Why should you?

Marco Fioretti is a hardware systems engineer interested in free software both as an EDA platform and (as the current leader of the RULE project) as an efficient desktop. Marco lives with his family in Rome, Italy.


Articles about Digital Rights and more at http://stop.zona-m.net CV, talks and bio at http://mfioretti.com


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Re: Hooray ... ms windows bluecurve theme

Anonymous's picture

Anybody seen where I can get a MS Windows theme to make it look like RedHat 8?

Re: Hooray ... ms windows bluecurve theme

Anonymous's picture

I am sure you are all experienced guys, and as I believe you all have more than one brain cell, I present you with the facts...

Command line is dead. It sucks.

GUI is the way ahead, and RedHat know it. People like windows (note the small 'w'), and if they can make a system that looks like MS then it will sell. Thats what it is all about.

If you want to be more than the 0.000001% of backward users who use a crappy outdated system, you have to move forward.


Anonymous's picture


Re: Hooray ... ms windows bluecurve theme

Anonymous's picture

Command line is dead? You sure haven't done much 'real' stuff.

Re: Hooray ... ms windows bluecurve theme

Anonymous's picture

Yes, but it only works for Windows XP w/ service pack 1. You can find it by searching for "Download BlueCurve" at www.google.com. I have tried it and it works great.

Re: Hooray for Bluecurve

Anonymous's picture

I think the problem with 'desktop integration' between Gnome and KDE is that RedHat pushed it, not working with the actual KDE developers (I don't know about Gnome).

Integration is happening, step by step, you see something here, something there and the desktops start to interoperate more and more.

You can see that even the good ideas developed by RedHat are being used by the KDE and Gnome developers for the simple reason that interoperability is a good thing.

I would like to see RH efforts spent in a better way, working with the developers, in modification of the real project (not fork of the projects), something that can last and help the users.

Thank you.

Re: Hooray for Bluecurve NOT

Anonymous's picture

The problem with what RH has done is that they have forked the KDE and GNOME projects with out doing a renaming. They have given users no option for getting unperverted versions of KDE or GNOME. They have used their market power as a distribution to discriminate against the original version. If the user want unperverted versions of these project they must download from the internet. If RH had created forked versions of KDE and GNOME and distributed them as separate projects that would have been fine. It would have given users a choice.

Apparently, RH does not believe that users should have a choice.

Feedback from KDE developers

Anonymous's picture

answering to a request of mine on their list, some KDE developers have kindly shared some opinions on what may be improved to guarantee interoperability among all applications
regardless of their origin (KDE, Gnome, everything else....), and, in
general, about what could be done to have better desktop.

Newer comments are, obviously, in all other messages in that list archive
with the same title.

This is particularly important for developers of other big projects like
Xfree, OpenOffice and Mozilla. I hope to soon hear from them too!

Best Regards,
Marco Fioretti

What's the point?

VadimPlessky's picture

After reading this artcile, I have a question to the author:

Do you know what do you speak about?

BlueCurve is Window Decoration/Widget Theme (Engine), and installing it (instead of default) one is just one part of Desktop Customization process.

While it indeed affects default look, GNOME and KDE itself are not affected.

I am long-time KDE user (and running KDE 3.1 pre-release at amoment), but I installed GNOME 2.1.3 to do testing.

Wether GNOME users would like it or not, but:

GNOME 2.1.x is at KDE 2.0 (2.1) level.

This doesn't mean that GNOME2 is bad. It's good. As good as KDE 2.0/2.1 was.

But life is changing, and my expectation rised since that time, too. KDE 3.x leads Linux Desktop, and if RedHat wants to keep its user base - they should give respect to KDE3 and to KDE development process.

Latest releases of Linux-Desktop-focused distributions (Mandrake) and Desktop-only distributions (Lindows.com, Xandros, Lycoris) demonstrate that KDE leads on Desktop.

So, what's the point complaigning that something "doesn't work in GNOME"? In my opinion, it's less and less important for end-users, and only GNOME-centric distributions (RedHat only at a moment) should worry about this.

Answer from the author

Anonymous's picture


thank you for your feedback. I have also read your message on the

kde-core-devel list. Answers to both this post and that message follow.

  1. I agree that the title of the article and my posting to your list seem unrelated: the current title has been chosen from LJ staff. In any case, Bluecurve was just a starting line: the issue is U*nix desktops, not Bluecurve or Red Hat
  2. Your comments are valid (more below) but from some of them it may look that you didn't read the whole article (see below), and/or my answers to previous posters.
  3. I do know that Bluecurve is just a layer of paint: my piece came from seeing otherpeople (both Gnome and KDE users) reacting as if somebody had commited a crime
  4. As already said in this forum, personally I don't know and don't really care if Gnome X is behind or ahead of KDE Y: I and many others don't use any of them, and sometimes it just seems another "VI or EMACS" diatribe. Ditto for distributions. Choice is what matters, isn't it?
  5. Latest releases...demonstrate that KDE leads on Desktop. So?

    Latest sales figures demonstrate that Windows XP leads on Desktop:

    should we switch to XP?

  6. Frankly, one issue I have with K/G (I keep calling them so because I don't see any difference from this point of view), and another reason why I wrote the article, is that all statements like "If foo wants to keep their user base - they should give respect to bar" make me uncomfortable
  7. The part that makes me more uncomfortable (apart from an instinctive "so much for 'Free' SW") is when "bar" is not simply a set of standard interfaces, protocols and formats (which would make a whole

    lot of sense, see my quote of Havoc Pennington), but a whole set of

    applications a huge monolythic package, take it all or leave.

  8. I know that KDE has Unicode support and other things I mentioned

    in the article: however, see again what I say about making all

    existing application respect such right level of standards

  9. I fully agree with what you said on the kde-core-devel list about

    XFree: what makes me unhappy is that a lot of

    energies have been put in making all windows nicer and consistant

    before fixing the mess at that level. I am not questioning

    anybody's rights to choose the project to work on, I'm just saying

    that things seem to have happened in the opposite order, and that a

    lot of people find nothing wrong with this. For example, just two days

    ago on the koffice-devel list, you rigthly complained that

    "current packaging of XFree86 (by *all* distributions) really

    sucks. For example, KDrive (TinyX) is not packaged at all". For the

    record this is one of the thing that we are doing in the RULE project

  10. Just one more time before dinner: the pointers to standards and other

    things in your message are very good and do cover the real problems:

    what makes me sad is to see a lot of users, and, apparently, many

    developers too, just ignore them.

    Thanks for your contribution

    Best Regards,

    Marco Fioretti

RULE project - part 2

VadimPlessky's picture

Hello Marco,

I have checked several pages of RULE project:



and have a few comments on those.


Purposes of the project

* Create another installation option of the Red Hat Linux distribution (not another distribution, see the FAQ), containing all and only the packages above, optimized to run either a server, or a basic desktop on obsolete hardware with very little RAM and HD space.

* Promote and support (especially in developing countries) the use of this install option with schools, public and private organizations.

VP: I am afraid you would do bad job for "schools, public and private organization" offering them software like what I have seen on screenshots. Like it or not, Users *like* (I'd say, *love*) Eye-Candy and and slick Desktops. So, providing to novice users (somewhat) ugly Desktop, with not easy to use UI, you convinience those users to stay with Windows (and just keep them away from Linux)

As about "all and the only needed packages" - I think it should be KDE (and no GNOME), and GIMP *should not be included* in such pseudo-distribution/installer. BTW: ROX file manager lloks really cool, I think using it in *failsafe* mode (or "advanced user" mode) wouldn't hurt.


"Friendly system administration"

well, I don't know how usable this application (which on screenshot) in "reall life", but screenshot doesn't look like friendly at all.

Some users were criticizing GNOME2 "poorness" and "limited features", but from what I see on RULE project screenshots: such system is even more limited and really hard to use.

Concerning FAQ:



Q: Hardware is so cheap today, why bother?

Primarily for two reasons:

1. This is a very limited and egoistic attitude. Eigthy per cent of the world population still has to work many months or years to afford a computer that can run decently the majority of modern, apparently "Free" software.


VP: while I basically agree with you, there are certanly good arguments for supporting *latest* and *greatest* hardware first, and to support *aged* hardware later (not as the first priority)

This year (working for one rather famous networking company), I was participating (via partners) in federal program Children of Russia (computers to the schools in Russia).

A whole tender was about 8000 computer classes distributed to 8000 schools (one class per school, bad, isn't it? but it's betetr than nothing).

Each class had 12 computers - one for teacher and 11 for pupils.

And all of them had 17" monitors (that's not bad, isn't it?), teacher's computer was Pentium4, and other computers - Celeron 1GHz.

I think all of those had at least 128MB of RAM.

So, I think such computers are perfect for running (potentially) KDE 3.1, and while TinyX can provide some memory settings over traditional XFree86 server, such savings are not that critical.

What is more critical is to get RENDER, RandR, Xr/Xc extensions running on *that hardware*, and to make those extensions/features configurable/usable out of KDE (GNOME2).

5: Why Red Hat?

Because it is a very popular mainstream distribution, as defined above, and because the project founders are all Red Hat users.

VP: it can be that a lot of problems you have at the beginning are caused by the fact that you base your installer/configurator on RedHat.

RedHat is known to be not very friendly for Desktop users.

Please try Mandrake's installer/tools (DrakX, DrakXtools, urpmi), they are superior to RedHat's tools, IMHO. And those tools under GPL license.

I could recommend you SuSE's YAST too - b8ut it's closed-source, so it's not suitable for project like RULE.

Best Regards,

Vadim Plessky


Re: RULE project, TinyX, etc.

VadimPlessky's picture

Hello Marco,


"I fully agree with what you said on the kde-core-devel list about

XFree: what makes me unhappy is that a lot of

energies have been put in making all windows nicer and consistant

before fixing the mess at that level. I am not questioning

anybody's rights to choose the project to work on, I'm just saying

that things seem to have happened in the opposite order, and that a

lot of people find nothing wrong with this. For example, just two days

ago on the koffice-devel list, you rigthly complained that

"current packaging of XFree86 (by *all* distributions) really

sucks. For example, KDrive (TinyX) is not packaged at all". For the

record this is one of the thing that we are doing in the RULE project "

[ http://www.rule-project.org/en/ ]

Do you think that we need yet-another-Linux installer (or "yet-another-installer-from-source")?

There are projects like Gentoo and Sourcer (instll from source), plus there is a very nice *free* (GPL) installer inMandrake (DrakX, drakxtools, urpmi).

So, while everyone is free to work on project he likes - what about sharing experience and develop just *one* open-source insatller/configurator?

As about TinyX - yes, I think existing distor should package it.

I wrote about it to Mandrake, and I hope TinyX would be present in Mandrake 9.1

Best Regards,

Vadim Plessky

Hooray for Bluecurve? NOT

Anonymous's picture

I am disturbed that a corporation would destroy the unique style that is one graphical manager or another.
They seem to be following the Microsoft mantra of "Us or nothing." The concept of any company that deals with Linux in any way does business like this is frightening. Linux is about being different, unique with lots of choices. Remove those choices and you are Microsoft.
This is the time we should boycott Red Hat and openly support other distros that support the original coder's vision of thier product. Support Mandrake, Suse, Debian, and especially code-based distros like Gentoo.
Red Hat and Microsoft deserve each other. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft purchased Red Hat.

Answer from the author

linuxdesk's picture

I am not a Red Hat employee, nor am I tied to RH in any way.

Said this, I would like to point out that:

  • "destroying the unique style" of an existing GUI or any other application has always happened in Linux. New project are born all the time from existing ones: even creating a new theme /skin for K/G or whatever is "destroying its unique style"
  • As long as credit is given, names are changed, and licenses are respected, what is wrong with taking the source code and altering the "original coders vision"? We came to Free SW just to do this, didn't we?
  • "Linux is about being different, unique with lots of choices"

    Correct: the point of my article (and of several independent comments above in the thread) is just that: the current trend of thought, that one should use only all-pure-KDE or all-pure-GNOME solutions, or develop just within those frameworks "just because" is harmful for Free Desktops

  • It is harmful because the real problems are somewhere else, and a real choice would have been to have clear, UI independent formats/protocols/whatever (the "path" mentioned in the article). If the only choice is among "all pure KDE", "all pure GNOME" or the command line, thank you all the same
  • I, you, and everybody else still have choices. As already said, I have not used Bluecurve, KDE or Gnome in RH 8.0 yet. I just installed my very own mix of WM and apps, and am happy

    with that. Maybe RH should have provided some menu saying "choose among pure KDE, pure GNOME or (default) our UI". That is an implementation error, not an heresy

Best regards,

Marco Fioretti

Re: Hooray for Bluecurve

Anonymous's picture

It's about time that Redhat has evolved to an extrodinary desktop. The new Bluecurve interface is a huge step forward proving that Linux can compete with Windows. Redhat needs to stick to it's guns, keep the Bluecurve thing going and improve upon it making it bullet proof. For all those folks who miss KDE and GNOME. There's nothing stoping you from adding those enviroments to Linux, so stop crying like a bunch of babies. Go Redhat.

BlueCurve is not bad, just different, that's what OpenSource is

Anonymous's picture

Why the fuss? Isn't OpenSource/GPL all about the ability of people to take it, modify it and redistribute what *they* think is a good thing?

This is the whole spirit of the thing for goodness sake!

RedHat charges for printed documentation and for pre-made CD's you can buy in a box. Last time I went to a RedHat booth at a Linux Expo they gave me a few CD's (and not knowing that I already knew), explained that I was free to install it on as many computers as I wanted, that I could copy it as many times as I wanted, give it to as many people as I wanted and *MOST IMPORTANTLY*, that I was free to look at all the source code, modify it to my hearts content, and redistribute the result! I wasn't forced to take it or leave it as the author of this article (partially) suggests. I was free to take what I liked and ditch what I didn't and distribute the customized result....

Personally I think that RedHat did a good thing with BlueCurve. At first I was a little frustrated with it, but mostly just because of a few things that were a little different than I was used to and I had to figure them out. But it was worth it.

Why, you might ask? Because redhat "integrates" all their tools, and tries to make sure that they work with the other packages on the system the way they are supposed to. Plus, major/critical bugs will be addressed with updated RPMs, and if there are dependencies then those will be provided as well.

The KDE and GNOME camp members that are complaining make me wonder just how honorable they are? Why release something under the GPL (or compatable) license if you aren't glad to see other people do what the license intends?

Also, how can people be angry with RedHat? I mean RedHat employs and pays many of the OpenSource communities programmers and lets the fruit of their efforts be shared by all the other Linux users and distributers.

If you want a desktop/application environment that enforces that all distributers maintain the creators intent, there is a solution that many people use, it's called Wind......

Re: BlueCurve is not bad, just different, that's what OpenSource

Anonymous's picture

dear reader the gnome armageddon has started,

first of all i want to clarify that this text was meant to be a source of
information otherwise i wouldn't have spent so much time into writing it.
belive me it took me a couple of days writing this text in a foreign language.
even if you don't care at all for gnome, you may find some interesting
information within this text that you like to read. please try to understand my
points even if it's hard sometimes, otherwise you wake up one day and feel the
need to switch to a different operating system.

on the following lines i'm trying to give you a little insight of the gnome community. the things that are going
on in the back, the information that could be worth talking and thinking about.

many of us like the gnome desktop and some of us were following it since the
beginning. gnome is a promising project because it's mostly written in C, easy
to use, configurable and therefore fits perfectly into the philosophy of u*nix.
only to name some of its advantages.

unfortunately these advantages changed with the recently new released version
of gnome. the core development team somehow got the idea of targeting gnome to
a complete different direction of users. the so called corporate desktop user.
in other words they're targeting people that aren't familiar or experienced
with desktop environments. usually business oriented people who are willing to
pay money for getting gnome on their computers.

having this new target in mind, the core development team mostly under contract
by companies like redhat, ximian and sun decided to simplify the desktop as much
as even possible by removing all its flexibility in favor of an easy clean
simple interface to not confuse their new possible customers. so far the idea
of a clean easy to use desktop is honourable.

some of the new ideas, features and implementations such as gconf, an evil windows
registry like system, new ordering of buttons and dialogs, the removal of
90%-95% of all visible preferences from the control center and applications,
the new direction that gnome leads and the attitude of the core development
team made a lot of users really unhappy. these are only a couple of examples
and the list can easily be expanded but for now this is enough. now let me try
to get deeper into these aspects.

you may imagine that users got really frustrated because
their beloved gnome desktop matured into something they didn't want. during the
time, the frustration of a not less amount of people increased. more
, more
and more
emails arrived on the gnome mailinglists where users tried to explain their
concerns, frustrations and the leading target of GNOME.

but the core development team of gnome don't give a damn about what their users
are thinking or wanting and most of the time they come up with their standard
purl. the reply they give is mostly the same. users should either go and 'file
a bug' at bugzilla or the user
mails are being turned so far that at the end they sound like being trolls or
the user feedback is simply not wanted. whatever happens the answers aren't
really satisfying for the user. even constructive
isn't appreciated.

if you gonna think about this for a minute then things gonna harden that they
are directing into the commercial area. the core development team actually
don't care for the complaining home user. it's more important for them to reach
the customers with the cash. it seems that this has been told to them by the
company leaders. everything about gnome has been decided already, a way back or
direct communication isn't possible. don't get trapped by sentences like 'we
listen to our users'. they listen to you - yes, to make funny silly jokes about
you afterwards.

i thought that everything was build up on friendship, build on programming for
fun, build on understanding each other. but the reality looks like it's all for
the big money. the cash is what matters everything else is a lie and a dream.
time for people to wake up.

not long ago they threw one of the most important long year core developer
out of team. a guy who worked really hard on getting gnome into
the right direction. a nice friendly person who put all his time into gnome.
but narrow minded gnome elites such as havoc pennington were responsible
that he left the gnome project. the trouble and the pressure that was put on
him was to much.

with the new gnome desktop a lot of user interface changes happened such as
. needless to say that this confuse people who are used to
the 'right' button ordering for ages. even our fellow linux guru alan
wasn't thrilled about this idea. but the gnome elites such as havoc
pennington, seth nickell, calum benson and dave bordoley knew it better. why
following the road of any other desktop that exists ? why not doing something
that don't confuse their users and still stay usable ? well it seems to be too
easy. gnome needs to be different than anything else so they changed the button
order which was one of the reasons that users became unhappy. they said that
there was a hard fight about this and the decision was made to change the
buttons. but i belive they simply copied the behaviour of macos because most of
the gnome developers use a macintosh as either laptop or desktop. sad that they
forgot to keep in mind that users tend to mix applications and that this will
lead into weird button searching and clicking.

but as if this wasn't enough the same people decided that the new gnome human interface
were the ultima non plus ultra in human interface guides. the
announcement contained informations that the kde usability people got initiated
into it. unfortunately the kde people heard about it the first
when seth nickell went to the kde mailinglist which happened after
the announcement. you can imagine that they got highly pissed off about this
attitude. you can read more on this link. to
summarize it, the kde people clarified that gnome should care for their own

the problem that came with the new interface guides was, that every little
gnome hacker started to become an user interface expert over night. a lot of
gnome programs that we like to use matured into a disaster over night. hackers
that never programmed correctly for their life started to blindly follow the
hype of simplification. for an example look what happened to galeon's interface (pay
attention for the last paragraph). even philip langdale a long year galeon
hacker got highly indignant by the target that gnome leads and wrote this
to the galeon mailinglist.

here another reason why users became angry. the elite assumes, that the user
knows nothing about their system. you find a couple of heavily insulting mails
on their mailing lists containing sentences like the quoted ones.

  • "the user don't know what a window manager is",
  • "the user don't know what themes are",
  • "the user don't know what a homedir is",
  • "the user can't compile a kernel",
  • "the user don't want to customize their desktop",
  • "the user shouldn't see preferences which purpose they don't know"
  • you may imagine that a lot of people are being offended by such lines because
    it's exactly these gnome users who are meant by these phrases. to read more
    such lines on the gnome mailinglists, simply click on this link and grep in their
    archives. be said that most of these sentences are coming from havoc

    such evil practices shouldn't be tolerated by the users and need to be fighted.
    u*nix users aren't stupid people. who actually gave havoc pennington the rights
    to decide what the user wants and what not ? various
    told him that people who use a u*nix like system are well aware
    of their capabilities dealing with such a complex system. there's a reason why
    people are switching from alternative operating systems. they want to learn,
    they want to use the full power of the system, they want to change everything
    they like.

    to top all this, look at the future plans of nautilus. the current maintainers got the
    idea of changing the whole nautilus concepts into an object oriented user
    interface design. you may be highly interested in reading the exact words of
    alex larsson's vision for nautilus' future direction by clicking on this

    to summarize it, it's assumed that the user don't need to deal with his homedir
    or his whole filesystem because it may confuse him or because he don't
    understand it. the new concepts of nautilus should be that the user deal with
    symbols in the nautilus view. e.g. you get a cdrom symbol and by clicking on it
    you see the directory of your cdrom, you get a photo symbol and by clicking on
    it you get a list of all your pr0n pictures, you get a music symbol and by
    clicking on it you get a list of all your mp3's. you don't know where all these
    files are located because you don't deal with the bottom layer of your homedir
    or filesystem anymore as mentioned earlier.

    the question is why are people that know nothing about their users, that know
    nothing about correct user interface design destroying gnome ? the users don't
    deserve all this specially those that backed gnome for all the years. even sun
    threw a bunch of so called user interface experts together and have them work
    on gnome. don't forget that sun are the creators of the common desktop environment. we
    don't need another cde clone named gnome. even havoc pennington author of the
    good user
    text isn't able to get his own written software following
    his rules.

    not long ago there was an report about the 'two captains of nautilus' where the
    reporter (uraeus a gnome contributor himself) reported alexander larsson and
    david camp. you may imagine that such a report can't be taken serious because
    it's done by their own people. we here have a saying that sounds like this 'one
    crow doesn't hack the eye of another crow out'. now you can click on this
    and read more. it may be interesting to read the replies from
    various users all over the globe of what they think about gnome and nautilus in
    general (please pay attention to the listed ip's there). another nice and
    informative reading can be found by clicking on this link.

    the fileselector problem was a long discussed issue in the gnome community.
    finally they came to an solution for this and have decided to go for this
    ugly fileselector instead going for this one which was developed by a
    free volunteer for a long time and in general looks and behaves better.

    most users have no problems with the idea of keeping things simple and clean.
    removing some not needed preferences was indeed a good idea but it doesn't
    stop. people started to remove everything from their apps. you're forced to use
    dubious programs like gconf-editor which basically works like the windows
    registry editor, to tweak uncommented preferences. i don't think that this is
    an advantage. even the possibility to tweak preferences with an editor was
    taken away with that ugly implementation of gconf. all your preferences are
    stored in a directory tree with an unknown amount of *.xml files. even if you
    delete programs their keys are still remaining orphaned in these trees and
    finding them is like playing trivia. at the end it's worth a discussion if a
    system driven by a single home user needs such a registry like system. we
    didn't need such a system for over 30 years but the gnome development team got
    the idea copying one of the most retarded systems from windows to u*nix. not to
    mention that the copy is more retarded than the original.

    it's a shame to see how such a nice desktop got thrown into the trash by such
    people. but there is a lot more behind the scenes that i don't know about.
    everything around gnome is a big marketing strategy. poor people are working
    the hell out of gnome for nothing and companies such as those mentioned above
    are getting the big cash. for sure you could say - go and fork gnome - but
    seriously how can you go and fork gnome ? such a big project which needs a
    bunch of people to keep the code alive and compatible. well you know it's all
    about open source the code is signed under the gnu/gpl or gnu/lgpl, you can't
    own it. even the companies are aware of this. but if you can't own the code -
    go and hire their developers. you can direct them like puppets in any direction
    that you - as company - like. exactly this is happening with gnome.

    well you could easily come up and tell me to simply not use gnome and let them
    do whatever they like. well, you are right with that but things are more
    complicated nowadays. gnome is influencing a lot of third party projects such
    as xfree86 which recently added a lot of gnome components into their cvs
    repository. please know that with the next coming xfree86 version you get a lot
    of gnome components without even knowing it. code like, gnome-xml, pkgconfig, fontconfig, xcursor and xft2 were
    mainly written by people who're heavily involved into gnome development. also
    the gimp is maturing more and more into getting the look and feel of a native
    gnome application. the cvs version of the gimp has a lot of gnome pixmaps
    inside and they are heavily working on integrate the gimp into gnome. if not
    today but the direction is sure and i fear the day this gonna happen.

    it's ok that these things exist and it's ok to see xfree86 and the gimp are
    beeing hacked on. but please think about the people that don't like or use
    gnome. what about them ? why force them to have gnome components installed on
    their systems ? why can't gnome go the same way that kde went e.g. doing their
    own stuff without infecting other projects like aids. seeing more and more
    libraries and applications that were in no way related to gnome jumping on the
    pkgconfig boat which's really not needed. look what will happen to solaris, the
    world famous operating system on u*nix used by big companies and long years
    experts. they really plan to replace cde with gnome. i know that cde wasn't the
    best invention of desktops but it rarely crashed and it fits far better into
    the philosophy of xfree86 with their configuration system than gnome. you know
    the good old way having your settings defined with .xdefaults and all nice
    default configurations are going into /etc/x11/app-defaults/ and so on.
    understandable that the good old way may be blocking the future of applications
    for multiusersystems - but why must it have to be a windows registry like
    system that replaces future configuration ?

    well to come to an end i personally don't like many of this stuff. i can't
    stand the button reordering, i don't like the gconf system and even more i
    don't like the commercial outsourcing of gnome and the bad influence that gnome
    has on other applications. the bad attitude of some gnome developers is another
    story since we are all different reacting humans. luckily there are people
    sharing some of my thoughts otherwise i wouldn't be able to proof my text with
    so many links. even amongst the gnome developers there are silent voices of
    people that hate many of these decisions and silently use something else.
    right now if you checkout the gnome cvs repository every day you find out that
    the whole gnome development seemed to came to an halt. the contributions to
    their cvs are poor. while projects such as kde are reaching easily 10-20k
    commits per month - gnome is getting around 1-2k per month on it's best times.
    it really looks like the situation of gnome is unclear so it would be better to
    have it not influence so much other programs or at the end we deal with an

    now i hope this text was informative for you. i hope that you start to think
    about the situation and the global direction. the situation of gnome is
    unclear, their target is groggy too since i can't belive that the users that
    they are targeting ever heard of u*nix or linux. they plan to get out of the
    0.05% desktop niche but this will for sure not happen if they continue their
    current direction and their bad ugly attitude.

    Re: BlueCurve is not bad, just different, that's what OpenSource

    Anonymous's picture

    You posted the exact same article on slashdot a while back.

    Do you have this saved to a text file or somethign??

    Comments on the GNOME armageddon

    linuxdesk's picture


    I am happy that my article was so stimulating to make you write
    this comment. I am still reading it, maybe will make some more comments over the weekend.
    In the meantime, some partial comments. You say:
    ...people who use a u*nix like system are well aware of their capabilities dealing with such a complex system. there's a reason why people are switching from alternative operating systems. they want to learn, they want to use the full power of the system, they want to change everything they like

    The kind of u*nix users you mention probably don't really care about what any packager does to vanilla KDE or Gnome, because they simply compile it from scratch, or, like myself,
    don't use them at all.
    Apart from Bluecurve being or not THE solution, and apart from
    bugs in its first release, I wanted to point out in my article that:

    • the users coming to u*nix now are exactly the type who doesn't
      want to know what a file system is
    • helping them without forcing them to become programmers is not a bad thing, because today there cannot be Free Software without a Free desktop for everybody
    • the K/G way of doing it , regardless of which button you
      click one or two times, seems to look at the problem from the
      wrong point of view, and ignore much more urgent issues: if we focus on interoperability through formats and protocol (what's called "path" in the article) then nobody is forced to submit
      to somebody else's vision of user-friendliness, buttons alignment, etc...

    Please consider pointing to this article, or just raising the same
    issues, on other public forums you visit: apart from my personal opinions, I think (and you seem to think the same) that we all really need a reality check, so any discussion is useful.
    Personally, I am sincerely interested in receiving feedback on
    these issues, both for my personal interest, and for a second, more in depth piece on U*nix desktop environments. Please let me know of any other forum/list discussing this article (my email address is at the top of the article)
    Best Regards
    Marco Fioretti

    Re: Comments on the GNOME armageddon

    Anonymous's picture

    Try here. Interesting to read the Gnome Armageddon, Why GConf and Gnome Resistance. Oh by the way click on General GNOME Discussion.

    Re: Comments on the GNOME armageddon

    Anonymous's picture

    Try here. Interesting to read the Gnome Armageddon, Why GConf and Gnome Resistance.

    Re: Hooray for Bluecurve

    Anonymous's picture

    I don't understand why people got so upset by BlueCurve. It has a default set of themes that give the desktop a consistent look, but that's all they are: defaults. You can change the themes/icons/backgrounds to have whatever look you like, just as you can with any other distro.

    Re: Hooray for Bluecurve

    Anonymous's picture

    As a brand new Linux-format user of Redhat 8.0, I can only say that the desktop makes it easier to convert. However, some of 8.0 is definitely confusing and could use some more friendly-user cleanups. I am anxious to learn and take over Linux for my home and business, but I need to fell more comfortable in doing it. I am impressed, however, that 8.0 makes it easier in many ways than the 7.2.

    Re: Hooray for Bluecurve

    Anonymous's picture

    I agree. As a Linux advocate and user since '93, I applaud RH8.0 as the first usable desktop platform. The graphical UI is reasonably consistent, reasonably intuitive, and most of it actually works. And now that RH8.0 and Apple's OS X 10.2 use a lot of common technology, my iBook plays exceptionally well with my Linux machines. Very sweet, indeed.

    Not that it is without a few peeves -- I liked being able to slide the task panel out of the way using the little arrows -- gone! And a few other features too -- now vapour.

    A lot of the Linux fonts still suck (look at the default italics used by Mozilla). Move between the OS X and the much improved RH and you will see what an eyesore our platform still can be. Having said that, fonts on RH8.0 are much improved over previous versions of RH, Gnome, KDE, or anything else I've seen on Linux.

    In spite of the belly aching that goes on amongst our fellow developers, I can, finally, get my mother, my sister, my brother, and just about anyone else, interested in Linux now. For me that is my ticket out of M$ Windoze purgatory :-)

    Re: Hooray for Bluecurve -- MS Access

    Anonymous's picture

    You hit one of my buttons mentioning MS Access.

    I'm one of those people who have been looking for a good replacement for MS Access under linux... and no, I don't just want to port the data; that's easy, and any decent relational database can migrate data.

    No, the thing that has made Access a success -- and is holding back innumerable companies from ditching Windows for Linux -- is that it's a tremendous database front-end development tool. Access makes it really easy to build forms and reports, and create customized business interfaces.

    Blah blah VB sucks, yes of course. But the point is that many companies have a huge investment in proprietary apps built in Access. And unless/until it becomes possible to port whole applications, including translating crufty VB into python (or perl, or tcl, or javascript, or whatever scripting language), and run under linux, there will always be a contingent that is stuck on Windows because it can't afford to abandon or rewrite their custom Access apps.

    Maybe Mono willl become the solution for this. (Please direct brickbats to /dev/null.)

    Re: Hooray for Bluecurve -- MS Access

    Anonymous's picture

    Omnis Studio is pretty MS Access'ish. Highly rated as a RAD tool, but I wouldn't want to have to rewrite my MS Access applications if I could avoid it.

    Re: Hooray for Bluecurve -- MS Access

    Anonymous's picture


    I use Access in this way constantly. I can easilly create an interface to a database for people who's first reaction is always to build a spreadsheet and type the data into seperate rows. Access allows me to build a solution so that end-users might not even realize they're using a database and I've built hundreds of little time savers this way.

    Thats what I want from a Linux database.

    -Ted Clark

    DOS was good

    Anonymous's picture

    I still prefer Q&A for DOS for quick and dirty list management, file import, and conversion. Build a front end like it to P/M SQL with easy mail merge and you've got something useful.

    There are lots of SQL programmers out there, they just don't know it. All of the Paradox/DOS users, for example.
    The current Paradox/Win versions include an OCX that make web access across an intranet a snap.

    Linux solutions are very stable and trouble-free once they're running, it would be nice if SAMS and PTR published books that didn't assume newbies to the OS were nitwits. Most of us who manage mailing and fund-raising lists don't much like Windows (take Results/Plus, please), but we're stuck. Programmers who are good with LAMP aren't interested in our (considerable) budgets.

    Re: Hooray for Bluecurve -- MS Access

    Anonymous's picture

    I'll prefer to see a free clone of VB for Linux rather than lots of complaints about how bad or lame is VB.

    50% of the Apps running in corporate Windows are VB made, and something like VB cannot be implemented in linux just because there are no standarization in linux except at the console level. type PWD and you get the current directory on any Linux distro. Then try to copy from an X application to another.

    Linux has to standarize, today the only thing that can be said about the linux desktop is CAOS.

    From the author: Hooray for Bluecurve -- MS Access

    linuxdesk's picture

    "....Then try to copy from an X application to another. Linux has to standarize, today the only thing that can be said about the linux desktop is CAOS."

    Again, exactly my point: if we are still in this situation in spite of thousands
    of hours spent on making K/G looking consistent and/or like Windows, and
    of OOo looking like MS Office, there must be something wrong in the basis
    assumptions , right?

    Thanks for you feedback
    Marco Fioretti

    Re: Hooray for Bluecurve -- MS Access

    zylogue's picture

    I have a question regarding this thread...

    I have noticed that MS Access (2000 or XP) has the ability to 'build' its applications to be web accessible. If the Access built prgrams were ported to this, within access, wouldn't other desktops be able to access the apps? how good is the MS access to web development tool? I have not, yet, had an opportunity to try this, but would appreciate information.

    Re: Hooray for Bluecurve

    Anonymous's picture

    I totally agree with the author. If you don't like the convergence of the appearance of KDE and GNOME apps, if you don't like consistency across the bulk of the apps on your system don't use RH 8. I for one am finding the RH8 the first distro worth using on my desktop system after having discovered OpenStep a number of years ago, then switching to Mac OS X. Yes, I ran Linux exclusively for a few years before that, but now a days I don't have the time to dick around with my system so much as I simply need to get work done. I really like RH8, and am finding myself using the default environment, whereas in the past, I've had to do a lot of tweaking to get a computing environment that didn't really suck. I can run KDE and GNOME apps (I'm using GNOME for the DE) and not recoil when I see how disgustingly different they look.

    If you would rather revel in inconsistency, install stock GNOME or KDE and shut up. :)

    RevAaron (at hotmail dot com)

    Re: Hooray for Bluecurve

    Anonymous's picture

    Lots of good points, thanks. Of course I don't agree with everything.

    Windows users (especially corporate ones) don't stick with Windows because they can't stand different interfaces, but because they have a really hard time converting terabytes of documents in proprietary formats. This is the real problem.

    That's one of the real problems, but not the only problem. People individually and companies collectively get locked in to platforms and products because they have invested money, time, training, and infrastructure to accomodate the platforms and products. Sticking with what they already have will almost always seem easier and cheaper than throwing it all out and starting over.
    Microsoft is the only company that has offered a long-term consistent path moving forward from the command line to enterprise-scale desktop solutions. Maybe you hate their solution, and we can argue forever about why Microsoft doesn't have more competition, but human attention span, not to mention corporate budgets, can't accomodate lots of choices--people settle on one path and stick with it until it sucks so hard they have to switch.

    Before anyone starts looking for ways to migrate their Office data files, they have to consider moving away from Office/Windows in the first place; if they aren't asking that question, data migration doesn't come up.

    Contrast the lackluster adoption of Linux on the desktop to the enthusiastic reception of Linux for web and mail servers. Microsoft got into the web server market late, but just in time to capture a huge chunk of the market. And of course they locked in their customers with non-portable technologies like ASP and SQL Server. But they don't own the protocols, the cost of switching is considerably lower (because the number of people who actually have to learn the guts of a new server is very small, compared to desktop users), and on the server side the open source community has more or less avoided the interface/API wars that KDE and GNOME sparked on the desktop.

    With respect to those Microsoft users not chained by data compatibility but only by mouse and start panel addiction, give them (and yourselves) a break. They couldn't care less about K/G. They want to see windows, any windows, so they can point-and-click all the way through. Everything that helps them to leave closed platforms and formats is fine. After the first thirty minutes, they won't even notice if their fingers are single- or double-clicking.

    I think you seriously underestimate the amount of mental energy and time Joe Average User wants to devote to learning anything new, especially something like a desktop interface, which they barely understand already. Anyone who has had a job where they aren't just working with other computer geeks knows that most computer users have to be trained and retrained constantly just to do the simplest things. The computer on their desk is a tool for doing their job; they don't want anything to change because they don't want to learn anything new. Microsoft understands this. Red Hat is getting the idea. But most of the Linux/open source community is too geek-heavy and too full of people who fetishize technology, and they don't get that not everyone sees that Linux is any better than Windows.

    Besides the Windows domination on the desktop created by Office and other desktop apps, medium and large companies usually have very expensive back-end software, such as Oracle, SAP, etc. that may not play nice with Linux desktops. If your multi-million dollar client-server app needs a Visual Basic client, Linux is not an option no matter which desktop environment you like.

    Greg Jorgensen
    PDXperts LLC

    Re: Hooray for Bluecurve

    linuxdesk's picture


    I agree with your comments

    There is no doubt that many users will never want and use anything

    different from the kind of GUI they have already learned, and there is

    nothing really bad in this

    I am aware that Joe Average will fight even different icon colors, and that he is even dumber than K/G developers think he is (true story: one of my wife co-workers, after ten years of daily Windows use, still says "click on the little TV-box" when she wants her to save a file...) but this particular article was more aimed to developers. I wanted them to realize that:

    • without paying attention to formats too, the GUI (any GUI) is worthless: apart from proprietary vs file formats, for example, it is a real shame that KOffice and OpenOffice don't have a common one yet.
    • that K/G (see the TV-box story above) are still too complicated for Joe

      Average, and consequently Red Hat is indeed, using your words, getting the idea. Finally!

    Best regards

    Marco Fioretti


    Anonymous's picture

    If nothing else, this could be an excellent opportunity to realize that decently functional, good-looking desktop interfaces can be built on the assumption that KDE and GNOME themselves aren't really necessary and important in the first place.I'm having a hard time parsing this sentence. Since Bluecurve is built out of KDE and GNOME, what makes the author think they aren't important and necessary? Perhaps he's trying to say that the specific appearance of KDE and GNOME isn't necessary?

    Re: Huh?

    Anonymous's picture

    It's not really that hard to understand; the sentence is worded badly, though.

    OK, here's the deal: RH has taken away the individual personalities of KDE and GNOME. Good! The point of KDE and GNOME is to have free, usable desktop systems and apps. KDE and GNOME seem to compete a bit too much. Competition is good, but ultimately leads to self-destructive nature. Look at how both the GNOME and KDE projects concentrated for so long on frivolous things like themes?

    I use Bluecurve on a Gentoo Linux box, and I think it's great. It's usable, it brings a reasonably unified look-and-feel to the table (all I get are the widget and window themes, not the modifications to apps and utils) and doesn't eat RAM and CPU cycles. What more could you ask for? And I'd bet that if this were the standard widget theme for GTK1, GTK2, and Qt, most people would concentrate less on what toolkit their apps were built on. ;-D

    The meaning of

    linuxdesk's picture

    What I mean is that:

    • the specific appearance is not necessary: for example, whining about

      the default theme of something is worthless, since any group of ten different

      people (thanks God) will always chose ten different themes

    • One should not think that KDE and Gnome are the ultimate

      answer to the need for a Unix desktop just because they look nice, which is the impression I have when reading many comments and reviews

    • (my real point) As they are today, KDE and Gnome look too much of a holy monolyth: we should be glad that we can mix and pick single pieces at

      will, not ask for another "take it as it is, or leave it" platform. Especially when,

      as I explain in the article, the seem to be born looking at the problem from the wrong angle (see the "path" vs "starting from the windows" issue)

    Best Regards

    Marco Fioretti

    Re: Hooray for Bluecurve...not

    Anonymous's picture

    While I agree there should be an option for new users and windows retards, Linux easily has more than a dozen window managers/desktop environments, with each one having its own look and feel. Do we embark on a project to make them all look and function like windows? Kinda defeats the whole purpose. I hate windows and I certainly don't want my Linux desktop to look like it.Maybe what we need is an installation option such as "novice desktop" which would install bluecurve or whatever suckass/dumbed downed windows clone the distro desires, and a "power user desktop" that would install all of the wm/de's in all of their incompatible glory.Bluecurve lost out on my desktop to Mandrake because I couldn't stand the menu structure and Redhat provides no way to change it.

    Re: Hooray for Bluecurve...not

    Anonymous's picture

    I agree entirely. RH created 2 desktops for RH8, that didn't look all that alike at all, then they mixed the applications and that was real garbage. and not to mention, once I cleared that away, I find that 8.0's version of rpm is incompatible with kpackage.

    Linux is about choices, sure newbies should have some choices made for them, but the choices should be designed with long time linux users in mind, too.

    I left MS Windows because of its lockdown of windows, and it seems that RH is going that way too.

    This is exactly what Red Hat did, isn't it?

    linuxdesk's picture

    You say:

    "Maybe what we need is an installation option such as novice desktop..."


    My point is that Red Hat is trying to do this with Bluecurve and that this is

    a good and long needed thing because it helps newbies and at the same time forces K/G developers to rethink the very foundations of what they

    are doing

    The fact that there is no easy way to change the menu structure is bad, of course, but on an entirely different level: that is an implementation error, as there always are in any .0 release, be it from Red Hat, Mandrake, Sun, you name it

    Best Regards,

    Marco Fioretti

    Re: This is exactly what Red Hat did, isn't it?

    Anonymous's picture

    Bluecurve isn't about a novice desktop, but a consistent desktop for novices as well as power users. The far more important part is the second part of your sentence, methinks. I am far from a novice computer user, and not a Linux newbie. But I still find myself really likeing RH8. Why do so many Linux users think that if a piece of software is well design, relatively intuitive and consistent that it must be just for newbies? It's like the Mac OS fallacy- if it's easy to use and consistent, it must be for morons. I proudly use Bluecurve and am incredily happy to finally find a Linux distro that doesn't have the horrible kludgy hack of an interface. Well, it's still does, but it's improved a hundredfold compared to the other options out there!

    Re: Hooray for Bluecurve...not

    Anonymous's picture

    What, are you too much of a [i]power user[/i] to install windowmaker, enlightenment, rox, or fluxbox yourself after installation? You know, these fringe, obscurity-lovin weenies really annoy me. The point of the article was beyond that of Bluecurve and Redhat. To me, the point of the article was that it is much more important to use linux, not which flavor of linux, or DE that you use. But no.... You've got to get all pompus and call users 'retards' and their tools 'suck-ass'.

    Have fun with your crappy looking interfaces buddy....

    Re: Hooray for Bluecurve...not

    linuxdesk's picture

    Yes, my point is indeed that it is much important to use Free Software,

    formats and protocols, and to guarantee that all kind of applications (

    not just the "pure KDE" or "pure Gnome") interoperate correctly.

    Once this happens, everybody is really free to develop and use whatever interface he or she likes best.

    Just out of curiosity, who do you think was getting pompous? Me or the

    poster you replied to?

    Best Regards,

    Marco Fioretti

    Re: Hooray for Bluecurve

    Anonymous's picture

    Back in 1996 and 1997, as a free desktop user I missed a few basic things--I'm still missing them today.

    * Making the cut-and-paste option always work between windows.

    * System-wide Unicode, instead of n different solutions for the Euro symbol.

    * One standard, centralized, font management system, for both display and printing.

    * A method for easy definition of the same hot keys across different applications.

    * Documentation written for end users, not people debugging a program. Enter GNUstep... I'm amazed that "Desktop Environment" on *nix always seems to be synonymous with KDE and/or GNOME.

    Re: Hooray for Bluecurve

    linuxdesk's picture

    I'm amazed too: apart from the actual result, I am also amazed that that the K/G way to build a Unix desktop is considered to be the only one
    ( see my need for a "path" as later defined by Havoc Pennington): that's why I wrote the article

    Re: Hooray for Bluecurve

    Anonymous's picture

    Um, when is GNUstep going to actually work? Loving Window Maker, I thought GNUstep would be a great thing to migrate to, but it seems more like a test bed that anything else. And will GWorkspace ever be fully configurable?

    So no, GNUstep isn't ready

    Re: Hooray for Bluecurve

    Anonymous's picture

    If all the GNOME and KDE developers worked on GNUstep, I'm sure it would be in better shape. Plus it is a proven architecture from NEXTstep and now Mac OS X. In fact, GNUstep could provide improved compatibility for porting Mac OS X apps to Linux/GNUstep.

    Re: Hooray for Bluecurve

    Anonymous's picture

    No, GNUstep isn't a proven archtecture from NeXTSTEP. GNUstep is based on OpenStep, not NeXTSTEP- the two are quite different in a handful of ways. The ways that NS and OS are the same (ObjC, DPS, Mach, MVC) are still useful, even though some aren't used by GNUstep.

    RevAaron (at hotmail dot com)