Firstly, what is the primary and most important reason to have icons at all? Options: 1. To look pretty? 2. To quickly convey meaningful information about a file's contents?
I'd much rather have informative, ugly icons than pretty, meaningless ones. Secondly, reductio ad absurbam: suppose I install an icon theme which contains only one icon, a blank square, set with a mimetype association to all/allfiles. What would the correct behaviour be? Krzysztof seems to be arguing that every file icon should be replaced by that one, irrespective of actual mimetype. Finally, let's consider practicalities. It takes time to create icons, and artistic talent. Many projects are too small to attract much in the way of artist attention to create a full set of icons themselves for every distribution's pet icon theme, while at the same time being too small for the distributions to create icon sets on their behalf. Are they therefore doomed *never* to have their (fairly well drawn) icons appear, just because they can't provide icons for pet_icon_theme_of_the_month? -- Incorrect icons displayed for mimetypes installed in hicolor theme only https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/217997 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
