It seems every day I update my system or read the daily geek-news, I see or read something about a new revision of a piece of software that adds brand new features while not being archiaic like the old days of pre-2002.
For example, back when GNOME 2.0 was released, nothing happened from 2.0 to 2.4 - but after GNOME 2.6 and KDE 3.1, everything started to change. Stuff like DBUS/HAL/IVMan integration with the DE which was only a dream two years ago has become a reality, to the point where I can plug in my USB stick and it'll automaticly mount it - unheard of two years ago!
So far I'm very impressed, especially since this operating system is legally free in both the libre and beer senses.
However, while the interface is maturing and becoming usable by everyday people (and not people who chant over their keyboard every day praying to Trovalds/Gates/Jobs), it still needs a bit of work. Specifically, in hardware configuration. Instead of having to edit /etc/X11/xorg.conf for everything, it would be better if a graphical counterpart existed for this. I understand HAL supports scripting, but why not a graphical frontend to HAL/DBUS to configure devices, especially when unlocking features such as overclocking for video cards?
Above that is media players - Totem, XINE and MPlayer are more than sufficient for watching videos, although additional graphics-card integration would be nice, such as the TV-Out feature of Totem actually doing something.
As for the Make It Pretty(tm) stuff with Glitz and Cairo (OpenGL backends to GTK+), eventually stuff will be moved over and we'll be seeing things on the level of Quartz, that while it wont take over your desktop, will make it look attractive and shift graphics rendering from the CPU to the GPU, where it belongs.
On this subject, what things would you like to see out of the operating system? Tons of stuff is changing and even so to the point where I have it on two of my five systems constantly. For me, it would be tighter hardware integration, especially with video-cards.
> So far I'm very impressed, especially since this operating system is legally free in both the libre
O rly? Have you actually read the GPL?
sage for mindless GNU zealot
>>3
indeed, the GPL is not really a truly free license... however,
>sage for mindless GNU zealot
you fail for misunderstanding 'sage'
I do support user/server applications to be released under GPL. However I'd like to see more libraries using LGPL or a more free license rather than GPL.
Hey fellows, the point is that I don't have to work for 2 years straight just to buy a legal server OS from Microsoft, right?
>>6
you don't need linux for that...
*bsd, darwin, solaris, etc.