Nicholas Petreley Slams Gnome

FreeLinux writes "Mainstream computer rag ComputerWorld, has posted a review of Gnome 2.6 by Nicholas Petreley. This opinion piece review, titled Living Down to a Low Standard, positively lambastes Gnome 2.6 over the new spatial Nautilus and Gnome's design choices. The review is quite the opposite to a previously reported review from PCWorld, last month. While this latest review is bound to be a polarizing and heavily debated issue (read flamebait), it is important in that this review will be seen by so many mainstream readers and corporate types who may have been considering Gnome."

No big surprise

[stephenb]

No big surprise here as Petreley has always been a KDE rulez, GNOME sux0rs guy. The piece isn't even well written or accurate. Here [whiprush.org] is a decent rebuttal. Petreley hasn't quite figured out that the GNOME v. KDE flamewars are dead yet.

Article Text

[Anonymous Coward]

Living Down to a Low Standard

Opinion by Nicholas Petreley

MAY 10, 2004 (COMPUTERWORLD) - I recently spent the better part of a week working with the latest version of the open-source GNOME graphical desktop environment on Linux. I've decided that the only way to explain the regression of GNOME over the years is that Microsoft and/or SCO moles have infiltrated the GNOME leadership in a covert effort to destroy any possibility that Linux could compete with Windows on the desktop.

To paraphrase the humorist Peter Schickele, who was describing what it was like to discover a new music manuscript by the (fictional) inept composer P.D.Q. Bach, "Each time I get a new version of GNOME, there's this feeling of anticipation and exhilaration -- a feeling that this new version of GNOME can't possibly turn out to be as bad as the last one. But so far, each new version lives down to the same low standards set by the previous one."

By the time a software project gets to Version 2.6, a user might reasonably expect that he wouldn't have to adapt to yet another paradigm shift in basic user-interface design, especially when it comes to something as fundamental as how you navigate through desktop folders. Yet this is precisely what users will have to relearn with this latest version of GNOME.

The GNOME file manager, Nautilus, no longer allows users to navigate through folders as one might use a Web browser or Windows Explorer. You no longer browse with all your options accessible in a single window or a split window with a directory tree on the left and icons on the right. Instead, each double-click on a folder icon opens a new window on the screen. If this sounds familiar, it's because this was the default behavior of Windows 95, OS/2 and early versions of Mac OS. The fact that this isn't the default behavior of any mature desktop operating system might have served as a warning sign to GNOME's developers, but never mind that.

Having used OS/2 for years, I found GNOME's retro approach to be a rather pleasantly nostalgic experience. But now that I'm used to navigating folders the way one does on virtually every other desktop, however, I decided to tell the file manager not to open a new window for every folder. But it turns out there is no preference setting that tells Nautilus to use a single window to browse folders.

The only way to change the default behavior of Nautilus is to set an obscure registry key via the command line or the registry editor. Not even that abomination of operating systems, Windows 95, made users retreat to the registry editor to use a single window to navigate folders. I can only assume that the GNOME developers decided to make Nautilus a worse Windows than Windows. I toast their rousing success.

Granted, there are myriad unintuitive keystrokes and shift-key/mouse-click operations you can use to make it easier to navigate folders, all of which will mean squat to the daft simpletons the GNOME developers say they are targeting as their users. But GNOME developers have long since abandoned logic when defending their design choices. For example, one GNOME developer says there's a good reason why users can't change individual colors in desktop themes: Someone might accidentally make both the text and background white, thus rendering the text unreadable.

Of course, this flaw has nothing to do with the inflexibility of the primitive graphical tool kit upon which GNOME was based. It was deliberately designed to protect users who are invariably too incompetent to pick their own colors but are smart enough to memorize shift-clicks and keystrokes or edit the registry to get Nautilus to work the way they like.

Of all the criticisms one might lodge against GNOME, it's the hypocrisy of its design philosophy that looms largest. GNOME grew out of the desire to free people from Microsoft's ability to dictate what users can or can't do. Yet GNOME is built on the premise that its developers are so much wiser than users when it comes to navigating folder

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Nothing new here

[Mars Ultor]

Not too surprising really - here's [linuxworld.com] an earlier article when GNOME 2.2 was still hot. From the article:

KDE is delivering a better version of what GNOME's goal has apparently morphed into: becoming a great component framework that you can write to in multiple languages. Nicholas Petreley rebuffs the common GNOME battle slogans and explains why the window-manager's name needs reworking.

Other than boosting ad views, I'm not sure what continuing a KDE/GNOME flamewar here on /. really contributes to open discussion (pardon the pun)

A level headed reply to him.

[Soko]

Jorge "whipirush" Castro, of Ars Technica's Linux.ARS fame, has made a level headed, informative reply to this trol^Warticle on his blog. Here is the text of relevant entry [whiprush.org], to try and save whiprush some bandwidth:

May 10, 2004
Crack Pipes for Everyone!

I stumbled upon this review of GNOME 2.6 by Nicholas Petreley via OSNews. Now, I'm no self-proclaimed Linux desktop expert, but I consider myself a pretty knowledgeable GNOME user, I even wrote up a review or two that were considered pretty decent. Given the longevity of Nick in this community, I was appalled by the utter disrespect shown in this article. Luckily for us, fools choose emotion over straight facts, so in this entry I will simply refute his comments with facts.

Obviously Mr. Petreley has chosen to outright lie about GNOME and its capabilities, so you can call this an open letter, in which I will happily debate in public, or whatever, since most of what he says, just plain ain't true. Sure, not everyone likes GNOME, and surely everyone has strong opinions about the spatial Nautilus, but misdirection is just dishonest.

Let's start off with this gem:

"Each time I get a new version of GNOME, there's this feeling of anticipation and exhilaration -- a feeling that this new version of GNOME can't possibly turn out to be as bad as the last one. But so far, each new version lives down to the same low standards set by the previous one."

Does anyone reading this quote, right off the bat assume that this is going to be a fair review of GNOME whatsoever? I can't even formulate a response to this.

The GNOME file manager, Nautilus, no longer allows users to navigate through folders as one might use a Web browser or Windows Explorer.

Misconception #1. The standard tree view is available by right clicking on a folder and choosing "Browse Folders", via the menu using "Browse Filesystem", or via the panel icon that looks like a file cabinet (it's there by default). So, three seperate methods to access the old view, one of which is even on the panel by default, yet Nicholas, with his years of Linux experience, can't seem to find it, naturally GNOME has robbed him of this ability.

If this sounds familiar, it's because this was the default behavior of Windows 95, OS/2 and early versions of Mac OS.

Windows 95 was never spatial. It was mimicked, poorly. Since Mr. Petreley can't seem to define what spatial is in the first place, and which OS implemented it in which way if at all, we're left with ye olde "Doesn't work like Explorer, it sucks." excuse. There's more to spatial than one folder per window. I'd explain it, but there are plenty of resources available that define this, unfortunately Nicholas failed to comprehend even one of them.

Not even that abomination of operating systems, Windows 95, made users retreat to the registry editor to use a single window to navigate folders.

GConf is nothing like the Windows Registry, except for the similar appearance of their respective editors. If Mr. Petreley cares to compare and contrast GConf and the Windows Registry he would know this. In fact Nicholas, I will paypal you $100 US if you can name three architectural similarities between GConf and the Registry.

Of course, this flaw has nothing to do with the inflexibility of the primitive graphical tool kit upon which GNOME was based.

This is another passage that I can't even comprehend, and isn't worthy of replying to. I'd like to quote it for the record though. Note the lack of evidence when defining "primitive" and "inflexibility". I don't think anyone that has used GTK's language bindings will use the word "inflexible".

GNOME grew out of the desire to free people from Microsoft's ability to dictate what users can or can't do.

Well someone better tell the GNOME developers, I'm pretty sure that they're out to make a kickass free desktop. I su

So use it...

[Azureflare]

And use a different filemanager! (Or different WM). Personally, I've fallen in love with XFce [xfce.org] as my Window Manager (I think I just love gtk...) and ROX-Filer [sourceforge.net] as my file manager (Man I love ROX-Filer =)

BTW I thought I read that the new spatial mode could be turned off, and the filemanager could return to normal operation... Ah yes, according to a post on Linux Today [linuxtoday.com]:

I actually have tried spatial mode in Garnome. i don't like the clutter either. But it definitely does make browsing the filesystem easier. All they need to do is add a button to 'close all windows' and I'm happy. You should really give spatial an chance before you turn it off. BTW you can turn it off with the --browser option.

I'm also going to wait for Fedora 2 to be released so I can upgrade. Gnome is really starting to rock!!!

I haven't tried gnome 2.6 yet, as it hasn't been packaged for Mandrake 10, and I don't want to mess with source, so I haven't tried this recommendation.

If you're stuck on nautilus, perhaps this will help. I've never been a big fan of nautilus (hence my ROX-Filer usage =).

Ack..

[Azureflare]

Should have read that site a bit more... I pasted the wrong post in. Here's the right one:

You can turn off spatial mode in nautilus in 2.6. There's a GConf setting to revert back to browser mode as default (search the net for it). Also note there is a file browser nautilus app in fedora 2 test in the menu.

Here's a direct link [linuxquestions.org] to the linuxquestions.org page about hacking the gconf (looks pretty simple really).

Re:Simple Solution.

[EdMack]

It's in there, there are three separate ways to browse normally. He misses those however...

Re:Article Text

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"The GNOME file manager, Nautilus, no longer allows users to navigate through folders as one might use a Web browser or Windows Explorer."

jorge [whiprush.org]

Misconception #1.
The standard tree view is available by right clicking on a folder and choosing "Browse Folders", via the menu using "Browse Filesystem", or via the panel icon that looks like a file cabinet (it's there by default). So, three seperate methods to access the old view, one of which is even on the panel by default, yet Nicholas, with his years of Linux experience, can't seem to find it, naturally GNOME has robbed him of this ability.

Re:Scary

[stephenb]

How do you know this?

What 'this' are you talking about? I assume from your next sentance that you're talking about my claim that Petreley has a pro-KDE/anti-GNOME bias. If that's the case, then the way I know this is I have read his opinion of GNOME and KDE for years. He always criticizes GNOME and always praises KDE. I don't have the time to google all his past articles on them, but you can do it if you don't believe me.

By the way, this is not to say that some of his past GNOME criticism hasn't been justified. But this particular article was pretty bad. Criticising a whole release for a single feature? Come on.

I don't mean this is flamebait, I'm honestly surprised that these paper bloggers get this much 'cred'.

Again, I wish you were more specific. I assume by 'paper bloggers' you are talking about the author of the article I linked to. I probably should have mentioned that he is a well-respected ArsTechnica contributor. I have a lot more respect for ArsTechnica than I do for ComputerWorld. ArsTechnica is very comprehensive and accurate. Your opinion may vary, however.

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[daviddennis]

It's an opinion piece, meaning it will land on the opinion pages, which I think are about in the middle of the magazine.

I doubt that it will have a massive global impact, especially since it only talks about a single characteristic of the product.

D

Re:Interesting

[normal_guy]

Whose resources? The kinds of people developing new widgets for Gnome or KDE aren't the ones that will finally fix ACPI, enable support for the damn thumb buttons on mice, or lobby manufacturers for better driver support. Those are the real failures of OSS on the desktop, not competing GUIs.

Re:I like Gnome.

[13Echo]

Yeah? Runs great on my test PC with a P3 450, Voodoo 3 (16MB), and 256 MB SDRAM. Hardly high-end by any means. Only about 150 MB of RAM is cached at any given time on the machine... That's cached, not "used". Most people don't understand how Gnome and Linux use memory, therefore they assume that it "uses too much".

Re:Simple Solution.

[Mr. Frilly]

Nautilus in 2.6 by default acts in "spatial" mode. To find a good summary as to why spatial mode is good, check out: About the Finder [arstechnica.com] or Inside the GNOME 2.6 Desktop & Developer Platform [arstechnica.com]

I've had Fedora Core Test 3 installed for about a week now, and I gotta say, I love Gnome 2.6. It's very clean, polished, and the gnome bundled apps are consistent with each other.

That being said, I still haven't decided if I like the spatial file navigation of nautilus, although I'm trying to give it more time. I'm a command line guy, so I tend to think in "browser" mode, and I think most of the people here on /. are probably command line/browser mode entrained people.

For people who started their computer experience on Mac's, they'll probably love the new nautilus, but I started on DOS 2.0, so I might be to old of a dog to teach.

For a better rebuttal of Petreley's article (and how to access "browser" mode in Gnome 2.6), check out: Crack Pipes for Everyone! [whiprush.org]

Re:Other problems, the insanity continues

[Jon Pryor]

In addition to to opening up a new window for every folder, the folders "cascade" so if you need to get somewhere fast, your screen slowly fills up with folders you have NO USE FOR.

The folders should cascade only once, the first time you ever open the folder. From that point onward, whenever you re-open that folder, it will appear in exactly the same screen location as the previous time it was closed. It will also retain the same window size, and window backgrounds (images, colors, etc) can also be per-folder (though how to do this isn't particularly well documented ATM). This is what "spatial" is about. So you'll only get a "cascade" of windows if you never bother to move the windows into a sensible location.

Put another way, if your windows are always cascading, it's your own falt! (Note "always"; the first time Nautilus opens a folder, the placement is at the discretion of the window manager.)

In addition, there is no location bar where you can "jump" to a place you want

Press Ctrl+L, and you'll get a dialog box that lets you jump to any place you want. It even supports file-name completion! This is also available as a menu item, though I forget what it is.

nor do you get a sense of where you are in the file system.

Please see this image: nautilus-parentfolders.png [gnome.org]. The "menu" in the lower-left corner of the window gives tells you precisely where you are on the filesystem, as it contains the full path of the folder. Furthermore, clicking on any of the menu entries will open the specified folder.

And good luck even if you do have a sense of where you are because there are no forward back or up buttons in sight to allow you to get anywhere (I know there is a hidden menu, but it's hidden, it may aswell be a keyboard shortcut for how easy it is to use from a GUI perspective).

I don't consider that menu to be hidden. It also lets you jump up to any parent directory, so this suffices (somewhat) as a "back" button.

All of this reeks of hijacking of the OS by some disgruntled designer, aka a former BeOS dude or whatever. I don't mind you making a BeOS style file browser dudes, but seriously.... make a fork of gnome.... don't just hijack gnome (at a 2.6 release, not some early design stage, a mature 2.6) to your own ends.

Spatial navigation has been around since the original Macintosh, and has a number of proponents. You might find this article [arstechnica.com] useful. As for research, there has been lots of research done in the 80's, and spatial was the preferred approach. This is why "direct manipulation" is so prevalent in desktop environments today. Or have you never used Drag And Drop?

Re:No big surprise

[Minna Kirai]

"Spatial" means like how real objects in real space work. It means that simple intuitive rules we've learned about how to handle physical objects will still apply.

For example:

• A thing can only be in one place at a time.
• You can't see the same thing more than once; if you see two things, they must be different things.
• Things don't move around on their own. The pencils in your drawer won't move without you touching them.

Making a computer behave "spatially" means having it obey rules like that, which could prevent users from being surprised by behavior different from what they've learned all their lives.

Of course, whether or not making computer software act this way is beneficial is a separate argument. One could say that limiting data objects to act like physical objects is like cutting the wings off birds.

Desktop Linux sucks big time

[Anonymous Coward]

The article is right on the money... I've been going throught this same "anticipation that the next version will be better then the previous crap" phase and my experience has always been the same mentioned in the article. I dont care to see a multitude of Window Managers, just give me one that works well!

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[andyross]

Obviously its just my opinion, but the way Nautilus browses the file system is backwards compared to 2.4, and the removal of the tree in a left hand pane was a very bad decision.

The tree has not been removed! Right click on something and select "browse" and you have your old Nautilus back. Not enough? Make a launcher on your desktop and have it run "nautilus --browser". Still not enough? Put it in a menu (FC2 already does). Still not enough? Delete all the spatial icons from your desktop and you will never see it again.

Good grief. You would think that "expert users" who can handle the complexities of a browser-based file interface might be able to, y'know, configure their desktops before whining about it in public.

I'll see your flamebait and raise you a kneejerk

[LightStruk]

K's QT isn't truely OSS since you have to pay out the ass to use it on Windows, so I avoid it on principle.

Comments like this really bother me. What, were you planning on running KDE on Windows?
Here's the truth: QT on X11 has been licensed under the GPL [trolltech.com] for almost 4 years. [freshmeat.net] This means that KDE is 100% GPL and 100% Free, and has been for a very long time. No matter what Trolltech decides to do to stay in business, my KDE desktop will ALWAYS be Free.

Spread your FUD somewhere else.

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[spectre_240sx]

"Seems like people are always complaining that GNOME and KDE don't innovate, and when they do everybody gets upset."

Did you miss the part that OS/2, Win95 and early Mac OS versions worked this way too? How is it inovation if it's already been done before?

The whole idea of the spacial file management system is to bring the metaphor of files and folders closer to what it is in the real world. However, that comes at a loss in usability, and there's no reason to try to do this if people are already comfortable with the way that file managers work at the moment.

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[cweditor]

Glad to see so much interest in one of our columns :-)

For the record, this column appeared on page 30 of Computerworld's print edition this week, on the last page of our Technology section. Nicholas Petreley is one of several different columnists who rotate writing for that Tech opinion page. (There is an opinion column on the last page of the print publication's Management section as well.)

Our print readers have seen quite a bit of coverage of Linux and open source in addition to this column. Two weeks ago, for example, one of our cover features was A Sunny Forecast For Open Source [computerworld.com], about how weather.com has cut IT costs by one-third after moving away from proprietary software and hardware. It was one of the most-read stories on our site that week.

Sharon Machlis
Online Managing Editor
Computerworld

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[Spellbinder]

ok if you don't like the spatial mode just start gconf-editor
then go to the folder apps -> nautilus -> preferences and there set the checkbox always_use_browser
then you have the pre 2.6 browser mode everywhere
i am not sure if there was not even a message at the first start of gnome 2.6 how to change this

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[Allen Zadr]

What if I were to tell you that my initial interest in Gnome was to replace the CDE on Solaris?

At that time, I didn't even consider using Linux in my place of business. Since then, a lot has changed, but I will fully admit, that from just the text of the article, the summary I got is: 'Gnome is inflexible' and 'backwards'. That's a strong summary, and I'm educated enough (meaning I used Gnome before reading the article) to know better.

On Solaris it isn't a question of Gnome or KDE, it's a question of Common Desktop or Gnome -- I can fully assure you that Gnome is FAR superior to the Common Desktop Environment. Would this article have given me an informed synopsis? No. Would I have taken it for gospel, no - but I would have had the impression that it's not flexible, and no impression of anything good.

To me it's broader than Windows vs. Linux. It's about taking away the ability to process facts, by centering on something that, to me, is the most insignificant feature of a desktop environment ... the file manager.

No, that wasn't the motivation for Gnome

[Anonymous Coward]

The real motivation was freedom from Qt. The relevance of KDE is that KDE was a widely-used piece that relied on Qt, and was therefore establishing Qt as a proprietary critical component in the standard free software stack. (Yes, I know that Qt is no longer strictly proprietary. It was then.)

Nobody had a problem with KDE itself. In fact people liked KDE, which is why it was a problem.

Of course both Nick and Jorge are more than halfway right.

While Qt was the significant detail that made Gnome important, the underlying motivation was to have a completely free software stack, giving freedom from proprietary software - including Windows. Whether motivated by ideology (the FSF, Debian) or business reasons (Red Hat), that was the goal.

And, of course, fundamental goals like that only go so far. The people who got involved and stayed involved in Gnome had a goal of creating a kickass desktop. That was a means to the end for people cheering from the sidelines and making financial donations, but it was (and is) the goal for people doing the actual work.

Re:Does Gnome conduct usability studies?

[sn0wman3030]

Yes. Sun has done some very productive usability studies that have directly affected GNOME. That is why GNOME is the usibility masterpiece that you see today. Check out a few of the studies here [gnome.org].

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[orcrist]

On Solaris it isn't a question of Gnome or KDE, it's a question of Common Desktop or Gnome

Why is that? KDE is available for Solaris too.

-chris

Re:Thank you, but who?

[cweditor]

It is indeed me; you're welcome to e-mail me at sharon_machlis at computerworld dot com to confirm. (plse excuse the probably vain attempt to foil e-mail harvesting) I visit Slashdot reasonably often but have never opened an account to post before.

I'm not the editor for any columns that start life in print, so I wasn't the editor on this one. But I am familiar with our open-source coverage in general, and I do feel strongly that it's unlikely Computerworld readers will be turned away from open-source because of this column.

First off, a criticism of one particular desktop implementation doesn't imply that the columnist advocates ditching Linux on the desktop; I can't speak for them, but I don't believe many of our readers would conclude that. But even if we had a columnist suggesting that, we've had a lot of other articles with differing points of view. (One recent example: I was the editor on a reader contributed opinion piece, It's Possible to Ditch Microsoft Office [computerworld.com].)

In any case, I've sent along the link to this Slashdot discussion to our print Technology and Features editors.

Re:Don't panic... it's not that bad

[urmensch]

Happier now? I gave you a little more then what stuck in my mind? Would you like me to spend a week with it and give you a list of everything that just doesn't work quite right?

Yes I am happier now. Don't get upset with me because you can't formulate your criticism in an intelligent manner. Giving one reason why you don't like gnome is not a very good argument. Especially when it's something that is easily fixed/configured.

I don't think gnome is perfect either, there are lots of things I would like it to do better. For example if I was going to pick a list off the top of my head it would go like this.

- Can't see .dotfiles in the new file selector. You can see dotdirs, but that's not good enough.
- Show hidden files doesn't stay selected in the file selector. I'm not sure if I really dislike this or not. Time will tell. It would be nice to have the option though.
- The new file selector doesn't retain it's height and width. This really bugs me.
- Metacity opens windows in the top left, right where I'm not looking for it.
- My panel keeps stealing focus from applications when I switch desktops.
- Nautilus should have a configuration option for spatial/browser mode. This is just something that you have to have both ways. I would have had major issues using gnome spatially, but since I don't have to, I'm not too worried about it.

So there you go, of the top of my head, it didn't take a week to post and really helps make the argument deeper. It lets people take it seriously, instead of saying to themselves, this guy doesn't like gnome, but his example is not very weighty, so who cares? If I were a gnome developer reading your original post, I wouldn't give it a second thought.

I will be glad when it works as well as 1.4

[garvon]

Yes I would like to have a autohide task bar that worked again!!! It worked great in gnome 1.4 but in 2.0 2.2 an 2.4 it forgets to hide about as often as it remembers to. Task list grouping that worked as well as it it did in 1.4 would also be nice. If I have 30 aterms open I get 30 buttons on my task bar it compleatly ignores the "Alway group windows" setting.
Now the real fun one is trying to change the window manager to run that has some actual functionalaty. I have used both virtual windows AND virtual desktops since well before the gnome project started and will be using the long after it is dead. Gnome used to be a desktop envirement that could be set up to work the way YOU wanted it now you have to work the way it wants. Try to use the gconf edit to change the window manager.
step1 find setting in gconf
step2 change "metacity" to "enlightenment" exit gconf then exit X
3)restart x and say "WTF?" metacity started again
4)look at gconf see it says metacity again
5)find the file in the ~/.gconf/desktop/gnome/applications/window_manager
edit it by hand then restart X metacity starts
6)kill X edit file change oner ship to root then chmod 644 start X again metacity is running again.
7) kill X edit file chmod 444 the file and start X again. still metacity starts (thias time the gconf shows that it is suposed to run enlightenment.
8) rm /usr/bin/metacity ln -s /usr/bin/enlightenment .usr.bin/metacity
I have seen the same thing on 2 different distros(mandrake and slack) o it si not disto changes it is the normal activity of the "New Improved (we know better then you) gnome"

I would love to see a updated gnome 1.4 (it actually worked and allowed you to have your desktop instead of one that they want you to use

As a Gnome user

[Nailer]

I think its got a long way to go til it becomes usable. Too much effort is spent on making Gnome a next generation desktop when its not yet up to the standard of a current generation desktop.

Emblems, spatial Nautilus, contextual sidebars etc are great. So are Evo, Gimp 2, XChat Gnome, etc.

But the current Gnome desktop:

* No menu editor
* No way to modify what a launcher points to
* A file manager that acts like it can display web pages, then can't
* A bloody complex file associations menu that doesn't know about either the programs in my Gnome menu, or $PATH.
* No display of emergency messages when your hard disks decide to melt (apparently users have to be proactive and read /dev/console themselves all the time, you know, just in case...)
* No decent looking, comprehensive theme. Minor in comparision to the rest, but still...

Thanks for fixing the File Open dialog though.