On 22Feb2008 13:24, for.register for.register <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Cameron Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > On 21Feb2008 16:39, Jes?s Guerrero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > | As someone already said, xclock can't be transparent because it just | > | lacks that feature. [...] | > | > And per some recent threads, if you have the Composite extension on | > your X server you can run xcompmgr and make anything transparent. That's | > what I do on displays that will do it - I'm very fond of xclock's wire | > frame appearance:-) | | You definitely right. I do have xcompmgr, and have tried. Frankly, | I prefer xclock to xdaliclock. But a problem is it seems impossible | to set xclock totally transparent (melted to the background like conky) | excepts the hands?
1: PLEASE PLEASE STOP TOP POSTING!!!!!! You have been asked multiple times already. Replies belong _below_ the quoted text, and the quoted text should be trimmed to the minimum needed for context. This basic etiquette makes discussions much easier to read. 2: xcompmgr won't do "everything except the hands"; it applies a single alpha (opacity) value across the entire window instead of an alpha mask with per-pixel alpha values. However, you can get a similar effect for xlock by making its background colour the same as your desktop; it will still cast a "shadow" but not be as obtrusive. Cheers, -- Cameron Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> DoD#743 http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/ No, I haven't read 'Illuminatus' myself, although I do know of it. Perhaps I might find some _more_ information in this book to back up these claims. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Marcus)
