Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 8th Nov 2012 20:54 UTC, submitted by Elv13
Gnome "Theme development is a tedious and difficult task, and for the GTK devs to be so careless in breaking their API at every turn disrespects the many hours people put into making themes for it. [...] I was given to believe that this breakage stems from a Microsoft-like climate of preventing users from customizing their systems, and deliberately breaking the work of others so that your 'brand' is the best. Anytime I hear the word 'brand' being used in Linux, I know something valuable is being poisoned." I find the tone of this one a bit too harsh and overly negative at times, but his point still stands.
Thread beginning with comment 541573
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Why not use Qt?
by woegjiub on Fri 9th Nov 2012 03:59 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Why not use Qt?"
woegjiub
Member since:
2008-11-25

I'll admit I didn't go looking as thoroughly as I should have.

Was that added since in KDE 4.4 and 4.5 or am I just too tired to be competent?

Don't quote me on this, but I believe it has been there since 4.3 or so. I may well be mistaken, however.

Agreed. From KDE 3.5 to present, I've always kept Konqueror around as my FTP/SFTP/FISH/etc. client regardless of what I do with other things.

Lately, though, I haven't been using any kind of GUI client. I just use rsync. (Pull it here, edit, push... and I get a free extra backup out of it.)


Indeed. often, the GUI just interferes.

I'll admit PCManFM is a tiny bit dated in not yet supporting a breadcrumb trail address bar or showing the number of children in the size column for folders.

That aside, I'm not really sure what you mean. Maybe I just value performance too much to get comfortable enough to notice any progress that has been made.

I think it is mostly 3D shiny gradients, squared raised elements etc that annoy me. That being said, I like android's holo themeing, and think that the iPhone looks cheap and dated in comparison, due to things like the 3D bubbles in messaging, etc. Very 2000s style kitsch.

You are aware, I hope, that Unity 2D is being end-of-lifed? Last I heard, Canonical was planning to replace it with regular Unity using software-rendered compositing in either 13.04 or 13.10.

All too aware. They actually suggest LXDE as a replacement for those who can not run regular unity.


From the screenshots, I can see what you'd mean by looking slicker for the panels and popup notifications.

However, in some ways, my LXDE desktop is actually slicker. Most of what I see would become almost identical once I squashed those panels down to my desired height and turned off compositing and fake translucency to squeeze out more CPU cycles.

(I'm using panel graphics from a previous Lubuntu release that make LXDE's panels look a LOT like the dark Razor ones and I've customized my tray icons so they all look like monochrome carved depressions in the panel unless they're trying to get my attention)

Your customizations sound great, they sound as though they address most of my issues.

I actually don't like those seamless window decorations. Lubuntu does offer some but I turn them off because I like the active region for the WM to be clearly distinct from the active region for the client.

(Not to mention how the default window borders don't offer enough contrast between active and inactive windows)

Differing usage, I suppose.I mostly hold down alt and drag from anywhere in the window when I want to move or resize.
I also use mostly full or tiled windows, without much stacking. I'd use a TWM if any had the HUD and dash.

I'll take a look at it but this isn't a case of "He doesn't know where to look". This is a case analogous to "He's running Vim because, with fifty-million other editors having a Vi-like mode, none of them cloned it well enough to satisfy."

Making a satisfactory knock-off of a program is very hard and, for most of my GTK+ apps, nobody has even come close to mimicking all the little features that, to other people, probably seem like pointless wastes of effort.

Ah. I can relate. Since getting used to vim in the terminal only 8 months or so ago, I am addicted.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Why not use Qt?
by ssokolow on Fri 9th Nov 2012 04:54 in reply to "RE[8]: Why not use Qt?"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21


I think it is mostly 3D shiny gradients, squared raised elements etc that annoy me. That being said, I like android's holo themeing, and think that the iPhone looks cheap and dated in comparison, due to things like the 3D bubbles in messaging, etc. Very 2000s style kitsch.


I'm not sure I'd use it on a non-touchscreen device but I definitely agree that Holo is probably the most elegant look and feel for touch in existence.

...and that 3D bubbles were NEVER stylish.


Your customizations sound great, they sound as though they address most of my issues.


I'm a bit overdue for bed but I'll see if I can find time tomorrow morning to pull together some screenshots and links to the resources I'm using.


Differing usage, I suppose.I mostly hold down alt and drag from anywhere in the window when I want to move or resize.
I also use mostly full or tiled windows, without much stacking. I'd use a TWM if any had the HUD and dash.


It depends. I don't always have my left hand free to hold Alt.

I have actually been wanting to set up a hybrid tiling-floating WM but I haven't had time to program AwesomeWM or to learn enough Haskell to make Bluetile less GNOMEish.

(I have two kinds of windows. The stuff like Firefox which takes up the entirety of one of my two 1280x1024 monitors and the stuff like MPlayer which tends to be floated over the least important region of one of my applications.)

Ah. I can relate. Since getting used to vim in the terminal only 8 months or so ago, I am addicted.


*nod* Originally, I chose it because it was the least of several evils. (Eric3 was too distracting, Eclipse was too distracting and heavy, SciTE had no command line, GTK+ Emacs felt even less native than gVim and had more alien keybindings, Gedit and nano weren't programmable, etc.)

However, now, I can't imagine programming without it. It's light, fast, there are a ton of useful plugins, and no other editor I know of lets me type ":gui" to release my terminal for other uses.

Speaking of which, if you ever want to check out my vimrc or plugin load-out, they're up on GitHub and .vimrc contains a reference for most of the keybinds I actually use:

https://github.com/ssokolow/profile/blob/master/home/

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: Why not use Qt?
by zima on Fri 9th Nov 2012 05:10 in reply to "RE[9]: Why not use Qt?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm a bit overdue for bed but I'll see if I can find time tomorrow morning to pull together some screenshots and links to the resources I'm using.

I would also appreciate it, especially the tray icons stuff.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: Why not use Qt?
by woegjiub on Fri 9th Nov 2012 05:26 in reply to "RE[9]: Why not use Qt?"
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

I'm a bit overdue for bed but I'll see if I can find time tomorrow morning to pull together some screenshots and links to the resources I'm using.


That would be greatly appreciated, thanks.


Speaking of which, if you ever want to check out my vimrc or plugin load-out, they're up on GitHub and .vimrc contains a reference for most of the keybinds I actually use:

https://github.com/ssokolow/profile/blob/master/home/


Thanks again. I'd share mine in return, but it is very basic due to the length of time I have been using vim.

Reply Parent Score: 2