2010/1/17 Shane Fagan <[email protected]>

> On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 18:18 +0000, Samuel Arthur Wright Illingworth
> wrote:
> > 2010/1/17 Joern Konopka <[email protected]>
> >         Hi All, i hope i did everthing right considered this is my
> >         first Mailing List Answer EVER, but i just wanted to lose some
> >         words about the Live Wallpapers.
> >
> >
> >         Im not gonna delve into the discussion about Nautilus drawing
> >         the Icons since its quite a Topic for itself.
> >
> >
> >         I think implementing Live Wallpapers at this point of
> >         gnome-shell development is just too much to ask for honestly,
> >         it might look nice at first sight but we really should focus
> >         on more important stuff right now like f.e. getting an
> >         Extension System rolled out, have some Customization Options
> >         integrated into the Shell for switching the Black Look to
> >         something more personalized (some people love a pink or blue
> >         background, simple as that), make the new Notifier System
> >         really usable (in a PRODUCTIVE way), have good Zeitgeist
> >         Integration thats really giving User advantages while browsing
> >         Recent Files, have more Keyboard Actions for the Shell so
> >         people wont have to click on pretty much everything and so on
> >         and so on, i could point out a list of maybe 50 features and
> >         the Live Wallpapers would be way below that list.
> >
> >
> >         Im not saying it totally sucks, maybe some people will
> >         actually like it, but we should focus on giving everybody a
> >         good Working Experience for the Everday Tasks before we start
> >         thinking about Features that exist mainly for Eyecandy.
> >
> >
> >
> > I wish I didn't, but I agree with that.  Gnome-Shell (and Gnome 3 in
> > general) should be functional before it's pretty.
> >
> >
> > The problem with that, if Gnome 2 is anything to go by, is the
> > developer attention may never go to making it all look
> > sexy, especially not in terms of additional features rather than just
> > changing the colours.  For example, we still don't have global support
> > for transparency in GTK.
> >
> > --
> > Sam Illingworth
> > Sent from London, Eng, United Kingdom
> Canonical is bringing transparency in GTK for ubuntu lucid and they are
> pushing the code upstream so its coming.
>
> Shane
>
>
A link concerning the Transparency in GTK for anybody whos wondering what it
might look like or doesnt have a clue what were talking about:

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2009/12/lucid-to-get-aero-style-rgba.html
_______________________________________________
gnome-shell-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-shell-list

Reply via email to