Am 11.10.2009 um 00:51 schrieb Riccardo Mottola:
Hi,
I don't really like too much eye-candy personally. The first thing
I did at work was to change Windows Vista from Aero to Classic
mode because I prefer Windows Classic (Windows 2000?) look
compared to Aero. On the other hand, I think Snow Leopard looks
quite good and I also think KDE4 and Gnome look sort of ok.
But the NEXTSTEP look is too old-fashened even for me (I don't
care if it is a masterpiece. I don't want to put a picture of it
in a frame on the wall, I want to use it as a desktop
environment). I really like ObjC and the openstep/gnustep/Cocoa
APIs. But everytime I sit down to develop something using gnustep,
the old-fashened Look & Feel kills my motivation because I think
nobody will use it anyway and I decide to use Qt/KDE instead (I am
actually a former KDE developer).
Well, what you write here actually proves my point. The first thing
I do on XP or Vista is to reset to Windows classic. Windows classic
is then - barring the icons of XP or Vista - pretty much like
WIndows 2000 indeed. And the controls, widgets, buttons are those
of NT4 or 95/98.
But guess what? In my opinion Microsoft really copied the NeXT look
and adapted it to the Windows 3.1 style. I can tell you since I
develop the WinClassic theme. SOmetimes i have difficulties
recognizing if I themend an Item or not or int he images folder the
images really look close together. SUre there are differences,
there are different controls, but that is not the point.
If you swithc back to classic, you are essentially stating you like
the "old look" you despise.
Riccardo, nobody is going to take away the classic OPENSTEP look from
you. It will always be there as a theme - even if this will not be
the default one. On the other hand I don't understand your lobbying
for the classic look. People have their own taste, you can't force
something onto them - you yourself strongly preferring the classic
look should know this best. Arguments don't help here, taste is not
something to discuss as they say ("Über Geschmack lässt sich nicht
streiten" in german). And in our case a discussion about a default
theme has no point since GNUstep aims to be a development environment
as you state yourself:
Hi,
In my opinion GNUstep has to stop this it's just a development
environment thing and develop a desktop environment where GNUstep
applications do not look totaly out of place. GNUstep probably
can't compete with KDE or GNOME but why shouldn't it be possible
to compete with something like XFCE or Equinox or one of the other
smaller OSS desktop environments. I think GNUstep needs to be more
attractive to KDE / GNOME / MacOS X. In my opinion these are the
people most likely to use GNUstep and if GNUstep attracts more
users it will automatically get more developers.
Well, although I would not write that, I think it is about correct.
I got angry and almost livid when Gregory started pointing out that.
We are a development environment. And a good one. But we are not
"just that".
On the other hand, GNUstep is not a Desktop Environment (I like it
to call it a Workspace). It should never be. Other projects can
fill that gap building up on GNUstep. Not by a total change the
GNUstep Application Project shortens to "GAP".
And if we are a development environment our goal is to help
developers to create their applications. Those applications could
then run in any context, just as the developers of that application
envisions. This naturally leads to themability. Developers naturally
want their applications to fit in. If you don't believe this look at
Qt. They developed themes that fit in on all platforms they support
(even if this is not by any means perfect). Themability is a must for
a self respecting development environment nowadays. So we need GNOME,
KDE and Windows themes. Just to be able to fit in there.
regards,
Lars
_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
