On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:53:24 -0500, Vincent Noel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess the best thing to do might be to just file a bug when we find
> such icons, that are just leftovers from an ancient era :-) The Eye of
> Gnome one was filed as bug #167087.
It's the engine we like, not necessaril
On Thu, 2005-17-02 at 06:36 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > What do you want in a new default theme? I'm looking for everything
> > from big-picture to details. I don't want information like "the
> > $insert_widget should look like $insert_existing_theme" I want
> > information like "the $
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 18:08 +0100, Samuel Abels wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 00:32 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> >
> >
> > > In the bluecurve department, ClearLook
> > > (http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527), which I just found
> > > through this thread, looks like a hands-down im
Using my voice as gnome-themes maintainer, please hold off on this Christian.
-Seth
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:21:09 +0100, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nuvola is today in gnome-themes-extras. I am going to move it into
> gnome-themes if the maintainers of that pac
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 21:01 +, Ross Burton wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 19:52 +0100, Samuel Abels wrote:
> > I have to admit I only looked at the screenshot at g-l.o. Now I wanted
> > to try it out but got hit by this bug
> >
> > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148413
>
> Looks su
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 19:52 +0100, Samuel Abels wrote:
> I have to admit I only looked at the screenshot at g-l.o. Now I wanted
> to try it out but got hit by this bug
>
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148413
Looks suspiciously like the bug where not all gconf notifiers are
restored a
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 14:38 -0500, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> >http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=148413
> >
> >again. I just don't get it, on every single one of my GNOME
> >installations (all of which are Debian Sarge or Sid) this happens at
> >least sometimes. I seem to be the only person
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 19:29 +, Aidan Delaney wrote:
> Hey all,
> What do you want in a new default theme? I'm looking for everything
> from big-picture to details. I don't want information like "the
> $insert_widget should look like $insert_existing_theme" I want
> information like "the
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 19:52 +0100, Samuel Abels wrote:
>On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 12:32 -0600, Shaun McCance wrote:
>> I'm not fond of the colors in the screenshot you're referring to, but
>> I do like the engine a lot. I'm currently using the ClearlooksBluey
>> theme, which ships with Clearlooks.
>
>
> What do you want in a new default theme? I'm looking for everything
> from big-picture to details. I don't want information like "the
> $insert_widget should look like $insert_existing_theme" I want
> information like "the $insert_widget should look like
> $insert_description which can
Hey all,
What do you want in a new default theme? I'm looking for everything
from big-picture to details. I don't want information like "the
$insert_widget should look like $insert_existing_theme" I want
information like "the $insert_widget should look like
$insert_description which can b
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 17:57 +, Jamie McCracken wrote:
> Its an improvement over bluecurve but not a quantum leap in themes. All
> the Gnome themes I have seen lack sex appeal and reinforce the view that
> its all very bland (which is okay for a corporate desktop but boring to
> everyone else
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:36:14 -0600, Shaun McCance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would be nice if we could just get a default theme that doesn't
> make users cringe, and worry about adding fancy stuff later as the
> technology becomes available. I would really hate to see us miss
> yet another r
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 12:32 -0600, Shaun McCance wrote:
> I'm not fond of the colors in the screenshot you're referring to, but
> I do like the engine a lot. I'm currently using the ClearlooksBluey
> theme, which ships with Clearlooks.
I have to admit I only looked at the screenshot at g-l.o. Now
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:17:38 -0500, Sean Middleditch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The biggest problem I see with the icons has nothing to do with them
> being too boring, but with some being just plain out poorly designed.
> Take the Eye of Gnome icon, for example. What the hell is that thing?
> A
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 17:57 +, Jamie McCracken wrote:
> Samuel Abels wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 00:32 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>In the bluecurve department, ClearLook
> >>>(http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527), which I just found
> >>>through this threa
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 18:08 +0100, Samuel Abels wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 00:32 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> >
> >
> > > In the bluecurve department, ClearLook
> > > (http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527), which I just found
> > > through this thread, looks like a hands-down im
Samuel Abels wrote:
On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 00:32 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
In the bluecurve department, ClearLook
(http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527), which I just found
through this thread, looks like a hands-down improvement.
Then I guess I am pretty alone when I don't feel tha
On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 00:32 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > In the bluecurve department, ClearLook
> > (http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527), which I just found
> > through this thread, looks like a hands-down improvement.
Then I guess I am pretty alone when I don't feel that t
Indeed, some of the better pixmap themes are designed by Jip.
gonxical, for example, is a high quality professional theme. Arguably
the best gnome theme I've come across.
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:54:51 +0100, Miroslav Silovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The combination of the little-known themes I
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 11:48 -0400, Steven Garrity wrote:
>Site note: where's the best place to post feedback/suggestions for
>ClearLooks? I didn't want to start a theme-nitpick sub-thread here.
Probably either here:
http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527 or by mailing
the author
Jeff Waugh wrote:
In the bluecurve department, ClearLook
(http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527), which I just found
through this thread, looks like a hands-down improvement. I'm probably
going to suggest we cut Fedora over to it, as its both clearly an
iteration of Bluecurve (which
Le mercredi 16 fÃvrier 2005 Ã 14:54 +0100, Miroslav Silovic a Ãcrit :
> The combination of the little-known themes I'm using currently:
>
> Gtk2 - Perseid, from http://jp.bizet.free.fr/themes/gtk2.html (for some
> reason, this theme isn't on gnome-look nor at art.gnome.org, as far as I
> could t
Nuvola is today in gnome-themes-extras. I am going to move it into
gnome-themes if the maintainers of that package approve the move and
make a new final release of g-t-e without Nuvola.
This means that while it will not be the default theme for GNOME it
will be part of a default installation.
h
The combination of the little-known themes I'm using currently:
Gtk2 - Perseid, from http://jp.bizet.free.fr/themes/gtk2.html (for some
reason, this theme isn't on gnome-look nor at art.gnome.org, as far as I
could tell).
Metacity: RMilk (available from gnome-look).
My point: I think that some r
> In the bluecurve department, ClearLook
> (http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527), which I just found
> through this thread, looks like a hands-down improvement. I'm probably
> going to suggest we cut Fedora over to it, as its both clearly an
> iteration of Bluecurve (which we use
> I was working under the impression having less major colours is a good
> thing. From memory, the icons are done using the HIG palette with some
> intermediate colours for gradients and such.
>
> Designers I have met will tell you when doing a design, pick a small
> number of colours and stick wi
Both Novell (as Nat and Jimmac have stated before) and Red Hat (at
this point, people weren't in the beginning, but its now Fedora, not
RH) are happy with the use of Industrial or Bluecurve, respectively
(though bluecurve *might* have to be called something different as
bluecurve is TMed AFAIK). Th
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 16:21 -0500, Rodney Dawes wrote:
> This isn't the place to start a KDE/GNOME flamewar. End users is very
> general. Everyone likes something different. The current desktop
> trendiness is to be flashy with colors and stuff. OS X doesn't really
> have that much color. It's just
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 13:11 -0800, Gabriel Bauman wrote:
>On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 19:52 +0100, Daniel Borgmann wrote:
>> Well, did you take a look at Clearlooks? Someone mentioned it at the
>> Wiki, I tried it and it totally blew me away!
>
>Wow. I have a new default theme. The only issue I have wit
Ok.
Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 13:39 -0800, Eugenia Loli-Queru escreveu:
> >Look at this: http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=5358
> >A nice icon theme. Colors and Life
>
> Sorry, but this is just not "gnome". What we see in this icon theme is
> cartoonish-style icons that have absolutel
Look at this: http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=5358
A nice icon theme. Colors and Life
Sorry, but this is just not "gnome". What we see in this icon theme is
cartoonish-style icons that have absolutely no consistency in terms of
orientation. It's a mix'n'mash.
IF the gnome icon t
Spark wrote:
http://www.stellingwerff.com/headers.png
I agree. With some work, this can be the new default Gnome theme as long
there is no work done on GTK+ itself to support better more eye candy
themes. If the same gtk code is included for the next gnome, then we have no
choice but to include
I am not intent to start a flamewar... I really like to see GNOME with a
better look but I think that the "hackers" know what change themes and
is very important that default theme is designed to end-users like
"Windows XP" and "KDE 3.3".
No flames please... I am a GNOME user. :)
I dont like when
This isn't the place to start a KDE/GNOME flamewar. End users is very
general. Everyone likes something different. The current desktop
trendiness is to be flashy with colors and stuff. OS X doesn't really
have that much color. It's just a very well done interface. Making
things shiny with a billion
Look at this:
http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=5358
A nice icon theme. Colors and Life
Everaldo.
Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 19:09 -0200, Everaldo Canuto escreveu:
> Yes... it is nice and clean... but where is "life" and "color"?
> "Clean" is good when your work 8 or more hours on a co
I dont like Clearlooks menu style. I think that the original style menu
of BlueCurve is better.
Everaldo.
Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 13:11 -0800, Gabriel Bauman escreveu:
> On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 19:52 +0100, Daniel Borgmann wrote:
> > Well, did you take a look at Clearlooks? Someone mentioned it at th
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 19:52 +0100, Daniel Borgmann wrote:
> Well, did you take a look at Clearlooks? Someone mentioned it at the
> Wiki, I tried it and it totally blew me away!
Wow. I have a new default theme. The only issue I have with it so far is
a common one with most GTK engines: menu bars l
Yes... it is nice and clean... but where is "life" and "color"?
"Clean" is good when your work 8 or more hours on a computer but if you
user 1 hour per day to read your mail "Clean" sounds like a "Ugly".
I like "etiquette" but now is time to thinking like a "END USER". Or
GNOME and Linux always is
I think the new etiquette icon theme is quite attractive... It's still
clean like the default Gnome one, but it has a refreshing new look...
Especially the mime-types... I love it...
http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19853
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:06:17 -0200, Everaldo Canuto
<[EM
Hi,
Ok... the icons are not ugly but need more colors, I say one more time,
the end users like colors and because this some users like Kde Icons.
End users dont like gray desktop and for a moment (except for Fedora
users) the "G" of GNOME is a "G"ray.
Everaldo.
Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 20:27 +
--- Sean Middleditch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Are they icons really that
bad? Is it just the folders that most people
> find boring? Most the icons
seem pretty nice to me.
>
I think the GNOME Icons are on the whole really
good, and I'd strongly resist moving to some gooey kde-like icon theme. I
d
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 18:06 -0200, Everaldo Canuto wrote:
>ClearLooks is really nice but now we need a more atractive icon set.
Are they icons really that bad? Is it just the folders that most people
find boring? Most the icons seem pretty nice to me.
The biggest problem I see with the icons ha
ClearLooks is really nice but now we need a more atractive icon set.
Everaldo.
Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 17:53 -0200, Everaldo Canuto escreveu:
> This CleanLooks is nice but I dont like menus... I think that menu need
> to be same aspect at tool bar like original BlueCurve.
>
> Everaldo.
>
> Em Ter
This CleanLooks is nice but I dont like menus... I think that menu need
to be same aspect at tool bar like original BlueCurve.
Everaldo.
Em Ter, 2005-02-15 Ãs 19:52 +0100, Daniel Borgmann escreveu:
> On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 12:13 -0500, Pat Suwalski wrote:
> >Gabriel Bauman wrote:
> >> Most folks I
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Dave Ahlswede wrote:
> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 04:31:43 -0500
> From: Dave Ahlswede <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> Subject: Re: Exciting GNOME?
>
> On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 09:11 +0100, Paolo Borelli wrote:
> > Jeff Waugh
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 19:52 +0100, Daniel Borgmann wrote:
> Well, did you take a look at Clearlooks
Just in case anyone wants a look at this engine and uses Debian, I've
got packages in http://burtonini.com/debian, specifically:
http://www.burtonini.com/debian/unstable/gtk2-engines-clearlooks_0.2
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 12:13 -0500, Pat Suwalski wrote:
>Gabriel Bauman wrote:
>> Most folks I know install GNOME, shudder, then install Bluecurve and
>> never look back.
>>
>> Is it a Red Hat licensing issue perhaps?
>
>I would say it's a little more than that. Bluecurve is what identifies
>RedHa
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 09:00 -0800, Gabriel Bauman wrote:
>Most folks I know install GNOME, shudder, then install Bluecurve and
>never look back.
Most folks I know remove GNOME and switch to KDE because they don't find
GNOME attractive with Bluecurve as default theme on Fedora or Red Hat. I
think t
Hey guys,
Remember that not all user are technician and "normal end users" like
colors. The KDE themes and icons is very nice, I prefer GNOME but normal
users like a my girlfriend, my sister and my friends like colors.
Ok... somebody say me "hey install another theme, gnome-look theres a
lot of i
Gabriel Bauman wrote:
Most folks I know install GNOME, shudder, then install Bluecurve and
never look back.
Is it a Red Hat licensing issue perhaps?
I would say it's a little more than that. Bluecurve is what identifies
RedHat. I don't think that it would be appropriate to use it, legally
possibl
Has Bluecurve (both GTK theme and iconset) ever been considered as a
default theme for GNOME? It has to be the slickest and most consistent
of the current crop - no huge bevels and gradients for controls, and
nice, colourful icons. My only complaint with it is that the icons
aren't available in SVG
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 09:11 +0100, Paolo Borelli wrote:
> Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
> >More and more, I'm getting the balance of these two: The icons look good,
> >but the colours are dull (which is somewhat on purpose, because we don't
> >want to overwhelm the user, but they tend to come across very br
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 21:45 -0800, Eugenia Loli-Queru wrote:
> >I certainly support a new default widget theme (the popular candidates
> >look nice to me, no favoritism there), but please, please please don't
> >mess with the icon theme!
>
> Fully agreed. The default wm is not good (difficult to c
Jeff Waugh wrote:
More and more, I'm getting the balance of these two: The icons look good,
but the colours are dull (which is somewhat on purpose, because we don't
want to overwhelm the user, but they tend to come across very brown [1]).
yup, "brown" is the same comment I got... after asking it
Il giorno lun, 14-02-2005 alle 21:45 -0800, Eugenia Loli-Queru ha
scritto:
> >I certainly support a new default widget theme (the popular candidates
> >look nice to me, no favoritism there), but please, please please don't
> >mess with the icon theme!
>
> Fully agreed. The default wm is not good (
I certainly support a new default widget theme (the popular candidates
look nice to me, no favoritism there), but please, please please don't
mess with the icon theme!
Fully agreed. The default wm is not good (difficult to click its buttons)
and both the Simple and Default widget themes leave much
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 00:20 -0500, Dave Ahlswede wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 20:10 -0800, Rob Adams wrote:
> > I think that the gnome icons are absolutely gorgeous.
>
> I agree-- I much prefer the soft, toned down colors to the bright
> rainbow that (for example) the Crystal SVG icons offer.
>
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 20:10 -0800, Rob Adams wrote:
> I think that the gnome icons are absolutely gorgeous.
I agree-- I much prefer the soft, toned down colors to the bright
rainbow that (for example) the Crystal SVG icons offer.
I certainly support a new default widget theme (the popular candid
I think that the gnome icons are absolutely gorgeous.
Davyd Madeley wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 01:45 -0200, Everaldo Canuto wrote:
A new default theme for GTK solve some problem but another problem is a
default theme icon for GNOME... I ask some "normal end users" about the
screenshots and all
> On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 01:45 -0200, Everaldo Canuto wrote:
>
> > A new default theme for GTK solve some problem but another problem is a
> > default theme icon for GNOME... I ask some "normal end users" about the
> > screenshots and all users (100% of 11 users) say me that the GNOME icons
> > i
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 01:45 -0200, Everaldo Canuto wrote:
> A new default theme for GTK solve some problem but another problem is a
> default theme icon for GNOME... I ask some "normal end users" about the
> screenshots and all users (100% of 11 users) say me that the GNOME icons
> is not cool and
Hi,
On last week my friend Willian (Willian is a lawyer) look at me using
Evolution and say: "Hey, this is a cool application. Can you install on
my computer?". I have install the Fedora 3 on his computer and he likes
the look of GNOME applications. The BlueCurve theme is nice for end
users and I
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Shaun McCance wrote:
> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:34:41 -0600
> From: Shaun McCance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> Subject: Re: Exciting GNOME?
>
> On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 08:30 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> >
> >
&g
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 08:30 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > Not sure why we feel the need to have such a theme as a default though;
> > the only reason I can see is to compete with OS X (lets face it, we've got
> > Windows XP Luna beat, even with themes like Crux o_O). Do we want to
> > adverti
> On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 08:30 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
> >Do you think of OS X's look'n'feel as flashy eye-candy? I don't. :-) It
> >is very clean, very fresh, minimal in most cases (and becoming less funky
> >with every OS X release). It might appear to be flashy because it's so
> >different.
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 08:30 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>Do you think of OS X's look'n'feel as flashy eye-candy? I don't. :-) It is
>very clean, very fresh, minimal in most cases (and becoming less funky with
>every OS X release). It might appear to be flashy because it's so different.
A lot of peop
> Not sure why we feel the need to have such a theme as a default though;
> the only reason I can see is to compete with OS X (lets face it, we've got
> Windows XP Luna beat, even with themes like Crux o_O). Do we want to
> advertise GNOME as a flashy eye-candy based Desktop? I always liked
> GN
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 19:36 +0100, Maciej Katafiasz wrote:
> Anything besides obvious "it needs to be distributed separately" thing?
> Does the fact that engines are compiled binaries ever cause compat
> problems?
There are always going to be compat issues, binary or not. You either
have a binary
Dnia 14-02-2005, pon o godzinie 13:03 -0500, Havoc Pennington napisał:
> > Incidentally metacity is due for a bump in the theme version to add new
> > and exciting capabilities built on Cairo and Gtk 2.8 after the branch.
> > Talented and visionary eye-candy folks are being solicited. Maybe
>
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 12:43 -0500, Mystilleef wrote:
> A theme competition on gnome-look.org and art.gnome.org might be a
> good idea. The first rule should be, "No pixmap themes allowed!",
> however.
I wouldn't say that. If somebody comes up with a reasonable fast pixmap
engine the user wouldn't
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 09:35 -0800, Rob Adams wrote:
> Incidentally metacity is due for a bump in the theme version to add new
> and exciting capabilities built on Cairo and Gtk 2.8 after the branch.
> Talented and visionary eye-candy folks are being solicited. Maybe
> metacity needs plugable m
A theme competition on gnome-look.org and art.gnome.org might be a
good idea. The first rule should be, "No pixmap themes allowed!",
however. I can't stand most of them.
--
"My logic is undeniable."
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-li
Incidentally metacity is due for a bump in the theme version to add new
and exciting capabilities built on Cairo and Gtk 2.8 after the branch.
Talented and visionary eye-candy folks are being solicited. Maybe
metacity needs plugable metacity theme engines.
-Rob
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 07:48 -0800, Link Dupont wrote:
> I think a competition is a good idea. Seems more likely than a long
> thread on d-d-l to produce results (based on previous discussions about
> themes on d-d-l). For what its worth, I never designed
> SmoothGNOME/Glider with flashy, shiny,
I think a competition is a good idea. Seems more likely than a long
thread on d-d-l to produce results (based on previous discussions about
themes on d-d-l). For what its worth, I never designed
SmoothGNOME/Glider with flashy, shiny, eye-candy effects in mind. Not
sure why we feel the need to h
On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 22:04 -0800, Eugenia Loli-Queru wrote:
>>we should be looking at leapfrogging the current best effort [2], no
>>matching it. :-)
>
>Fully agreed. That's how we should be thinking at all times. :)
>
>BTW, about the theme thing, I had a suggestion a few months ago:
>http://mail
Jeff Waugh wrote:
Particularly with GTK+ 2.8 on the horizon, we should be looking at
leapfrogging the current best effort [2], no matching it. :-)
[2] That has got to be OS X.
Also, a theme so good that it would unify vendor appearance of GNOME. So
good that vendors would be pathalogically stupi
we should be looking at leapfrogging the current best effort [2], no
matching it. :-)
Fully agreed. That's how we should be thinking at all times. :)
BTW, about the theme thing, I had a suggestion a few months ago:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2004-September/msg00172.html
(wh
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 14:30 +0900, Ryan McDougall wrote:
> Yeah, but I would like to hear about or participate in formulating plans
> for actively involving the right segments of the community.
This is where the plans start:
http://live.gnome.org/NewDefaultTheme
It is only ten minutes worth of b
> Particularly with GTK+ 2.8 on the horizon, we should be looking at
> leapfrogging the current best effort [2], no matching it. :-)
> [2] That has got to be OS X.
Also, a theme so good that it would unify vendor appearance of GNOME. So
good that vendors would be pathalogically stupid or so foc
> > > Its early in the consensus building, but I'm all for a hardcore push
> > > for a wonderful new theme, including heavily publicizing on
> > > art.gnome.org, gnome-look.org, even slashdot! Promises of wealth and
> > > fortune for the winner could be interesting.
> >
> > Donations welcome.
>
On Mon, 2005-14-02 at 16:14 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > Its early in the consensus building, but I'm all for a hardcore push for a
> > wonderful new theme, including heavily publicizing on art.gnome.org,
> > gnome-look.org, even slashdot! Promises of wealth and fortune for the
> > winner cou
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 00:29 -0400, Steven Garrity wrote:
> Ryan McDougall wrote:
> > While the default theme *is* butt-ugly, I also recall there being some
> > concerns that its was more accessible or had less usability bugs or
> > something, and replacing it meant trying to fix a whole new slough
> Its early in the consensus building, but I'm all for a hardcore push for a
> wonderful new theme, including heavily publicizing on art.gnome.org,
> gnome-look.org, even slashdot! Promises of wealth and fortune for the
> winner could be interesting.
Donations welcome.
> However it all means no
On Mon, 2005-14-02 at 15:57 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 00:29 -0400, Steven Garrity wrote:
> > > If there was anything close to consensus in the last round of debate
> > > about a new default theme (Glider? Indubstrial?), it might be nice to
> > > get it in right at the
mÃn 2005-02-14 klockan 15:57 +1100 skrev Jeff Waugh:
>
>
> > On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 00:29 -0400, Steven Garrity wrote:
> > > If there was anything close to consensus in the last round of debate
> > > about a new default theme (Glider? Indubstrial?), it might be nice to
> > > get it in right at the
> On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 00:29 -0400, Steven Garrity wrote:
> > If there was anything close to consensus in the last round of debate
> > about a new default theme (Glider? Indubstrial?), it might be nice to
> > get it in right at the beginning of 2.11 and start to deal with any new
> > accessibili
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 00:29 -0400, Steven Garrity wrote:
> If there was anything close to consensus in the last round of debate
> about a new default theme (Glider? Indubstrial?), it might be nice to
> get it in right at the beginning of 2.11 and start to deal with any new
> accessibility issues
Ryan McDougall wrote:
While the default theme *is* butt-ugly, I also recall there being some
concerns that its was more accessible or had less usability bugs or
something, and replacing it meant trying to fix a whole new slough of
bugs (can anyone correct me on this?).
If there was anything close t
On Mon, 2005-14-02 at 13:31 +1300, Callum McKenzie wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 10:40 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > Here's a list of screenshots that wonderfully demonstrates why GNOME does
> > not come off as an exciting, fun, cool desktop for end-users to love. They
> > are not sho
> On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 11:44 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > Agree (and we should ensure that the rules suggest the almost exclusive
> > use engine themes). I'll hack up a draft for this on the wiki. Who
> > should judge? I definitely think we should rope jimmac and tigert into
> > it. :-)
>
> So
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 11:44 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> Agree (and we should ensure that the rules suggest the almost exclusive use
> engine themes). I'll hack up a draft for this on the wiki. Who should judge?
> I definitely think we should rope jimmac and tigert into it. :-)
Some people with a goo
> It strikes me that the single biggest difference between the screen shots
> is the theme (widget, icon, background and window manager). KDE is shinier
> and more eye-catching. It also has more buttons and so looks more detailed
> and interesting (in a screenshot), but I think this is a very sec
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 10:40 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Here's a list of screenshots that wonderfully demonstrates why GNOME does
> not come off as an exciting, fun, cool desktop for end-users to love. They
> are not show-off screenshots, just normal, everyday things:
>
> http://www.fir
Hey,
Here's a list of screenshots that wonderfully demonstrates why GNOME does
not come off as an exciting, fun, cool desktop for end-users to love. They
are not show-off screenshots, just normal, everyday things:
http://www.fireflybsd.com/screenshots/
Thanks,
- Jeff
--
GUADEC 2005: Stuttga
96 matches
Mail list logo
