Gnome 2.4

Gnome 2.4

Post by Stephani » Tue, 23 Sep 2003 02:08:50

Has anyone installed Gnome 2.4 RPM's on a RH 9.0 system yet. If so, how
did it go, where can I get the rpm's, and is it just a matter of running:

rpm -Uvh gnome*.rpm

type of command.

Thanks for any info.


Gnome 2.4

Post by Keith Clar » Tue, 23 Sep 2003 02:35:52

Here's a thread you may want to read :

What I did was install apt-get for RedHat 9 and install the RPM's that

apt-get :

Gnome 2.4 apt-repository (should be all one line)

rpm ~matt/downloads/apt redhat-9-i386 gnome
extras depends

Here's my experience. After I ran "apt-get update" and "apt-get upgrade"
it installed the new Gnome 2.4 packages using rpm -Uhv.

The biggest problems I found were with the new mozilla, galeon and
evolution. Any
versions of Evolution 1.4 don't run on Gnome 2.4. The workaround is to run
as root (don't ask me why but it seems to work) which is of course not
reccommended or the other workaround is to downgrade to evolution 1.2
which personally I think suckls so badly that it's not an option. Galeon
refuses to run with the new mozilla so I had to remove both and go back to
the RedHat versions of both.

The thing I hate about the new Gnome is that instead of using a hidden
folder for the contents of your desktop, not your home folder holds the
contents of the desktop! So if you have a bunch of stuff, folders etc in
your home directory, they're now plastered oll over your desktop. I like a
clean desktop with as few icons as pollible. The morre icons, the less
usable the desktop is in my opinion. It would be ok if there was an easily
obvious setting to use some other folder as the container for desktop
objects, but there was none that I could find.

There's some coolness, like now the "system proxy" actually works so you
can set the proxy and all the panel goodies like the Gnome weather
forecase and stock ticker etc will work behind a corporate firewall, where
they wouldn't before.

Otherwise, I think in my opinion that even though it was "released" (to
keep to the schedule???), it shouldn't have been. There needs to be a lot
more usability testing before the new bersion is ready for public
consumption in my opinion. Either that or there's something wrong with the
packages in the apr repository I used.

Bottom line for me is that I'll wait till "up2date" says they're available
for RedHat 9 or there's a new distribution that includes them because then
I'll know that more usability testing has been done.



Gnome 2.4

Post by Ed Murph » Tue, 23 Sep 2003 07:22:47

Wha? I thought it used ~/Desktop/ like KDE does. Can anyone dig through or or and find
the recommended global specs for this? Have you checked your environment
variables for something that might control the location of the container?

Gnome 2.4

Post by John Do » Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:08:08

Is there a good reason why YOU can't dig on your own?


Gnome 2.4

Post by Keith Clar » Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:19:37

If you dig around in other threads (do a goggle search maybe) there are
posts to the effect that you can change it through some obscure Windows
registry-like tool called "gconf-editor".


Gnome 2.4

Post by Ed Murph » Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:48:43

Because I don't know a better keyword to use than "desktop" which is
obviously way too general, and figuring one out would probably take
a few hours, and I figure there's a decent chance that someone here
either knows the answer right off the top of their head, or knows the
right keywords to track it down in just a couple of minutes. Is that
a good enough reason for you?

Gnome 2.4

Post by Ed Murph » Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:55:25

There's a Gnome menu option that fires it up. I'm not sure whether that
counts as "obscure".

It doesn't contain nearly as much *** as the Windows registry, and what
it does contain isn't nearly as obscure as the *** in the Windows
registry. Many of the entries have descriptive paragraphs.

It appears to be pretty much a GUI front end to the
/etc/gconf/gconf.xml/defaults/ hierarchy, which has multiple levels of
sub-directories (corresponding to the branches of the hierarchy tree)
which eventually contain %gconf.xml files (corresponding to the leaves).

Nice human-parseable XML, as opposed to whatever obscure binary crap
format the Windows registry uses. I'm not sure whether manually editing
the %gconf.xml files will work properly, or would require some additional
step - but it's probably still a lot more elegant than working with the
Windows registry.

Gnome 2.4

Post by John Do » Wed, 24 Sep 2003 06:45:23

Actually no, it's not good enough but I'm not going to waste a keystroke
explaining why lazy people disgust me. The following took only a few
minutes to find just by navigating the links without using search and you
could have done the same!

First I would go to before I went anywhere else. Don't you
think it makes much more sense to go directly to the source before trying
other resources?

Excerpt from above:


The Nautilus file manager contains a preference that enables users to use
the file manager to manage the desktop. If the user selects this option,
this directory contains the objects that are on the desktop of the user.
This directory contains the following:

Objects on the desktop, for example, the Home object, the Trash object, and
other launchers. The objects appear in the directory as desktop entry
files. For example, the starthere.desktop file contains a link to the Start
Here location.

Removable media volumes that are mounted.

The file manager also contains a preference that enables users to use the
home directory as the desktop directory, instead of .gnome-desktop. If a
user selects this option, the contents of the home directory are displayed
as desktop objects.



Gnome 2.4

Post by Ed Murph » Wed, 24 Sep 2003 08:33:23

You'd be totally right, except that THIS IS NOT WHAT I AM LOOKING
FOR. Pay *attention* to what I wrote. I am *not* looking for how
to change the setting in Gnome. I am not even looking for Gnome's
default setting. (Although that page implies that Gnome 2.4 still
defaults to ~/.gnome_desktop/ just like Gnome 2.2 does. This is
useful information; it implies that the situation is somewhat more
complicated than the OP implies). I am looking for *someone else's*
specs for what the default *should* be!

Show me how I could have found *that* information in less than 5
minutes, and I'll admit to laziness.

Gnome 2.4

Post by Keith Clar » Wed, 24 Sep 2003 08:58:45

That's all well and good, but the point is, the option is not in an obvious,
easy to find place - that would be in the Nautilus options, ideally, but you
can't see it unless you use gconf-editor.

It's a simple usability issue and doesn't call for going off the deep end like
you did.

Calling people lazy idiots because they (myself included) don't know everything
there is to know or where to look is just plain uncalled for.

Not to provoke any more name calling, but where do I find a setting that will
let *all* my true-type fonts be used in the font utility? They show up find in
KDE and in Open Office but not the Gnome font preferences utility. I looked in
gconf-editor for that but didn't find anything immediately obvious.


Gnome 2.4

Post by John Do » Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:14:33

Yes I'm aware that this is not what your looking for and I posted it for two
reason, one it was relevant to the thread and to basically say go do some
of the work for yourself first then ask for help.

You know if you had said something to the effect that you'd spent x amount
of time looking here and there and have exhausted your resources so if
someone could help me research this... bla... bla... bla... I would have
taken an entirely difference stance. Now if I made a wrong assumption then
I apologize however the wording of your question much less your reply
didn't sway me to believe that you had tried to help yourself first. This
is why I made the lazy comment.


Gnome 2.4

Post by John Do » Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:14:36

eith Clark wrote:

Keith, do not put words into my mouth! I never called anyone a lazy idiot!
I only said lazy and that's a far cry from adding idiot.



Gnome 2.4

Post by Ed Murph » Thu, 25 Sep 2003 01:09:17

Point taken. Note the web sites that I cited - I suspect that it's in
there *somewhere* - and, as it happens, I did look through about 5 to 10
table-of-contents pages per site before concluding that I couldn't find
the answer easily.