First Trisquel 5.5 development iso (unofficialy) available!
Thanks! We'll see if we need Xfce... ;)
I made some screenshots for the build '2012-02-22/16:00'. You can download it here:
Because there are some filesize(2MB)/extension restrictions for upload, I added the extra '.gz' extension to the end of each file. Remove these to be able to open it.
Also, there is a new build from '2012-02-22/20:13'. This should indicate some new test builds on a day-by-day basis. To download the latest iso, visit this link:
I tried to use the packages, but it didn't work for some reason. Do you mind just uploading the default desktop to omploader or something similiar? I hope it's not much trouble.
You MUST RENAME those files before you open it. In other words, remove the fake '.gz' extension at the end of each file, then double-click on 'trisquel_5.5-screenshots.7z.001' to open it.
Also, what do you mean with 'uploading the default desktop'?
Hope this help.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> download it here:
> Because there are some filesize(2MB)/extension restrictions for
> upload, I added the extra '.gz' extension to the end of each file.
> Remove these to be able to open it.
> Also, there is a new build from '2012-02-22/20:13'. This should
> indicate some new test builds on a day-by-day basis. To download
> the latest iso, visit this link:
I thought Trisquel 5.5 would be based off Ubuntu 12.04 - otherwise its
lifespan will be the remaining of Ubuntu 11.10 (~1 yr) if it came out
in the next month or so.
Wouldn't it make more sense to work on something based on Ubuntu 12.04
once it's out ?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: PGP/Mime available upon request
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I agree with danyoo... Why you don't just use pix.toile-libre.org or something similar because i can'y open it EVEN if i did rename it.
Also, there is no desktop on this ISO.
Is this Gnome 2.3x ?
GNOME 3 Fallback (without Shell)
I'm curious. For those of us who do have free 3d hardware acceleration, will the shell have a theme similar to these screen-shots? I'm assuming that one will be able to choose the shell instead of the fallback mode, of course.
When I boot off of the disk, it asks me to login as Other and I have no clue what the password is. Second, if I do a direct install it gives me an error about not detecting network device. FYI... didn't get this earlier when testing 5.0 in VirtualBox.
icarolongo's configuration is pretty sexy and I hope is the default one when the final ISO is released. I was also wondering two things:
1. Is it possible for the bottom panel have the transparency like in older versions with the panel-bg.png?
2. Can the menu, when clicked on in the lower left, be the same color as the bottom panel? Right now it is white and sticks out with the rest of the theme. Previous versions had a smoke like color.
All uploaded files were tested on a clean live-cd boot and worked perfectly (including downloading & extracting). The ISO contain the desktop, you must just login to see it (username: trisquel / password: (nothing)).
For those who does not know how to open a simple multi-part archive, here I re-uploaded them one-by-one:
These are for the build '2012-02-22/16:00'. Expect more soon!
As I promised, here are the new screen-shots. These are for the latest build '2012-02-23/03:56' that mistakenly contain the Unity interface. You can download these as following:
Multi-part 7-zip archive (remove the extra '.gz' extensions after download):
Fool-proof, single-part 7-zip archives (also remove the extra '.gz'):
For online viewing:
I tried to upload in '.tar.gz' & '.tar.bz2' formats, but the server refused it.
Thank you for those screenshots!
For those who do not know how to easily fetch them (despite the underscores that do not make the URLs be links in the forum), copy/paste the list in a file and execute:
$ wget -i file
"file" must be changed into the path to the file where the URLs were copied. Then you can see the screenshots with:
$ gthumb *_build_20120223-0356_*.png
If the URL contain a word between two underscores, the website automatically underline them. It is not a bug (see the 'Input format' drop-down menu when creating/editing a post), but the site could provide an alternative '‹url›'/'‹/url›' (the site does not allow to use regular arrows) tags to avoid similar regressions.
For the second part, you does not need to use 'wget' to download those pictures. That is why I provided those archives for downloading.
Have a nice day!
Overall, 5.5 seems like it needs a LOT of work still but I'm glad that the team is testing the waters with Unity 2d as well. Still though, when I ran an older dev version that was XFCE and manually did an apt-get install unity-2d, everything was pretty much there like in the standard Ubuntu install. This test image is missing lenses, notification icons in the top right, and even the option to search for programs in the dash.
Looks good. The debate between GNOME and Unity and Xfce is interesting. Having tried all three I would say that neither is particularly Trisquel-like out of the box, given the right customizations we can offer all of them and make them all awesome.
By the way, I have free software 3D acceleration on my notebook but only partial on my desktop (through nouveau) so my vote would be against Gnome because their fall back looks significantly different (at least until they finish making it so shell doesn't require acceleration). What sucks about that is, say, for documentation when we say "click here and do this" well if your desktop looks and acts differently it will be confusing - so we should, in my opinion, go with Xfce and "Trisquelize" it or go with Unity and Unity-2D and Trisquelize that as well, only because the former has no need for a fallback and the latter has a fallback that looks and acts like the real thing.
And being a fully-free-software distro many of our users or potential users will be in a situation where a fall-back is necessary, and GNOME's just doesn't cut it.
I agree, I think XFCE may be the best option because you can still have a fully functioning and easy to use desktop environment. I am not a huge fan of XFCE's default look, but the Trisquel Desktop and Mini Editions both look awsome so I am sure with a little bit of creatvitiy we can make XFCE look and feel a lot better.
Also, for those who are used to gnome, XFCE will feel right at home.
You know what is probably more important than anything is that it isn't missing critical features. Like wifi applets, an ability to create desktop shortcuts, delete desktop icons, etc. Not to mentioning adjusting things without opening a terminal. While I think the terminal is a critical component of a technical users arsenal it isn't something the majority of users are going to figure out. Even the well educated and 'technical' users today have trouble with basic computing tasks.
You know what is probably more important than anything is that it isn't
missing critical features. Like wifi applets, an ability to create desktop
shortcuts, delete desktop icons, etc. Not to mentioning adjusting things
without opening a terminal. While I think the terminal is a critical
component of a technical users arsenal it isn't something the majority of
users are going to figure out. Even the well educated and 'technical' users
today have trouble with basic computing tasks.
> because their fall back looks significantly different (at least until they
Are you talking about the default panels and applet arrangement? That
can be changed by ALT+Right Clicking on the panels. Then you can
remove and customise applets like with Gnome 2.
Other problems like pressing CTRL+Del to delete in Nautilus can also be changed.
Is there anything else major that is different?
> that is, say, for documentation when we say "click here and do this" well if
> your desktop looks and acts differently it will be confusing - so we should,
All XFCE configuration GUIs are different to Gnome 2's. Won't that
also break the "click here and do this" documentation?
> Unity-2D and Trisquelize that as well, only because the former has no need
> for a fallback and the latter has a fallback that looks and acts like the
> real thing.
My biggest long term worry with Gnome Fallback is that it might not be
getting a lot of attention in the future. At least not from Gnome
developers now that they are looking at making Gnome Shell use LLVM
for software rendering. But that is not ideal for older computers. So
unless they get software rendering mode to be really fast and
lightweight, I don't think we will be using that any time soon.