> > Problem is, people do use them. Some do prefer an ungy fast, useable, > nothing in the way gui. That is why I offered to do thinice, mist, or > something for them. Are we just going to remove them and give them pixmap > and slow cairo? I don't think so!!! I won't take responsibility in that > slaughter! I have spoken for them. Will anyone listen and at least give them > the smooth engine. We do not need inexperienced, imature voting for eyecandy > not considering the real world. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's the > reason gnome has lagged in eyecandy for so long. There needs to be a middle > ground. Something for both ends on the spectrum, and ubuntulooks is not > light and fast, so that can not count for light and fast just because it is > an engine. Pixbuff is an engine...is it light? No. Think of everyone before > you vote!!! I think that the whole point of this exercise is to get some really good looking themes in Ubuntu, and while I don't think that procludes any Smooth theme, I think it means not packing a huge number of them in I agree that we _must_ keep a few speedy engines in, which is one of the reasons I champion Industrial for inclusion. I had a look at http://gtkperf.sourceforge.net/index.php?page=testing&id=1 which suggests we should really be using cleanice if we want a truly performance focussed skin!
Thinice, mist, and cleanice have already been mentioned a few times, but again, no one said how they felt about it. The one Mist theme that was being made, was given up on.
Once more, no one has suggested a lot of smooth themes be included, so I don't know why that its repeated.
-- ubuntu-art mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
