I'm not agree with making the panel bigger. Gnome has a problem with upper panel, with large screens becomes unusable (it has a lot of unused space). So in my opinion we should keep ubuntu panel in 24px.
2008/4/29 Dylan McCall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I entirely agree that something other than Nautilus could handle the > desktop background. It has always been odd to me how that is the case > now, and I bet if we had another, simpler program do it, the > background could load in much more happily than it does now. > (Furthermore, fancy visual effects for the wallpaper would not add > unnecessary dependencies to the file manager). > > However, numerous issues with that being a Compiz plugin: > -Not everyone needs, wants or can have Compiz. (It also has a lot of > usability issues compared to Metacity). > -The Window Manager drawing an image to the background... Am I the > only one who finds the thought gross? That's like the kernel handling > a window system, a VGA cable used for audio, or a rhinoceros that > thinks it's a pterodactyl. > -Compiz is not the only thing that can do visual effects. The point of > a compositing window manager is to enable fancier visual effects for > the applications using it (eg: rgba instead of rgb), not to dominate > the role of generating visuals. A window manager should be focusing > entirely on placing and organizing windows in a standard way that > enhances usability in the realm of keeping things organized. Perhaps > it should be looked at this way: A window manager should be portable. > Most platforms have some visible program handling the wallpaper, such > as their file browser. Bad things happen when the window manager > suddenly decides that it, too, should handle the wallpaper -- namely, > loss of platform neutrality. > > Having said that, the changing wallpapers are working fine for me over > here, I guess partly because I am not staring at them intently. I > prefer the idea of a slow moving slideshow versus a looping video; the > two are really very different, where the slideshow is meant to just > change unobtrusively while the video is built for instant > gratification (for lack of better words at the top of my mind). > One thing: Can we use relative paths for the slideshow XML files? I > found these much more complicated to install than they should be... > > Bye, > -Dylan > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Cory K. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sumit Agarwal wrote: > > > Anyone got any estimates on CPU/GPU usage if we finagled it through > > > Compiz? > > > > As I said in a previous post about this, that would require taking away > > handling of the wallpaper from Nautilus. On the surface this sounds > like > > a much more complex task then we need to take on or are even capable of > > doing. > > > > I really say we just nix this idea for now and have people keep an eye > > out over this next cycle to see if things improve. > > > > > > > > -Cory \m/ > > > > -- > > ubuntu-art mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art > > > > -- > ubuntu-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art > -- Álvaro.
-- ubuntu-art mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
