Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
GNOME GUI

ClearLooks to be Default Theme on Gnome 2.12 149

Posted by timothy
from the polish dept.
Eugenia writes "The Gnome Project announced today that the ClearLooks theme engine will be the default theme for the Gnome 2.12 (to be released around September). This was a much needed refresh of the Gnome default desktop (old theme, new theme screenshots)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ClearLooks to be Default Theme on Gnome 2.12

Comments Filter:
  • Wow (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by n1ywb (555767)
    It looks just like KDE now.
    • How so?
    • It looks a bit like Plastik (which I like), but not at all like the butt-ugly Keramik theme.
    • Re:Wow (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Look -- if you don't like the way the theme works, just say so. Don't be mean.
    • Re:Wow (Score:2, Interesting)

      Well, it looks somewhat like Plastik, but you can still tell it's GNOME because of all that ugly extra padding and spacing [sourceforge.net] they stick into all their buttons, listviews, and many other widgets.

      It one of the main reasons why GNOME visually irks the hell out of me, regardless of the theme.
      • Thats funny. KDE drives me nuts because they cram the icons so close together. GNOME looks so much more pleasant with plenty of space between icons.

        To each his own, I suppose.
        • Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)

          by DaveJay (133437)
          Funny, when I run KDE I feel like there are so many toolbars, and the icons are so big, that it takes up too much real estate...and when I use gnome (debian), I feel like it's simple and small and tidy.

          Doesn't it make you wonder if each of us is missing some obscure setting somewhere?
    • It looks better than KDE.
    • It looks just like KDE now.

      Actually, my first thought was Windows XP...

    • Actually, this is very close to the default theme that Sun has shipped with GNOME ever since they beta-released GNOME 2 for Solaris about a year and a half ago.
    • My thought exactly. It reminds me so much of KDE that I think I will be sticking with my custom pseudo Mac OS X theme for my wife, kid and folks and will be moving to Enlightenment 0.17 for myself. If you haven't checked out Enlightenment recently, you should. It's as fast as twm and has more eye candy thatn any other environment out there. Now... if only Evidence (the Enlightened file manager) would get to a point where it could be used reliably for day to day use.
  • Allmost noone ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) <almafuerte.gmail@com> on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:04PM (#11808718)
    Uses the default theme anyway, that the beautiness of having themes, but for those that hasn't used gnome or gnu/linux at all, the first impression will be important ...

    KDE made a good job choosing Keramik as the default theme, before that, they allways shipped the ugliest one.

    ALMAFUERTE
    • by croddy (659025) on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:11PM (#11808762)
      what? there are ones uglier than keramik ???
      • Ok, Keramik is ugly, and it's not something one would call ellegant, but it's rounded and has some nice effects, like alpha-blending, and that's what people want to see. It may not be the most beautiful thing out there, but it's better than the default square gray buttons.
    • The theme they used before Keramik (in versions 2.x and 3.0.x) was pretty good. I like it a lot, though I prefer the Light Style 2nd Revision widget style (NOT 3rd revision) and the Pale Gray colour scheme.

      Keramik, on the other hand, was a massive mistake that seriously damaged KDE's reputation. I've heard on various boarda about how KDE looks like a hyperactive 12-year-old girl drew it. That's only half-true. Keramik looks like a hyperactive 12-year-old girl drew it. KDE can look incredibly good if you're
      • Re:Allmost noone ... (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Plastik is a dramatic improvement on Keramik, but it's still a tad too flashy for my tastes, and the bloody huge window decorations are just a waste of space.

        Reduce the font size for the title bar text. The only reason the buttons are that big is because the title bar has to be enlarged for the text.

      • ... for the flames to get fanned back and forth between Gnome and KDE.

        The whole point of themes is that you customise them to how YOU want them to look.

        So if you think it's fugly, change it. :-)

        I've been a big fan of Gnome since ~1997 and used to hate KDE with a passion, but recently as an experiment I took the time to customise a KDE desktop to look almost identical to my Gnome desktop, and found it actually wasn't that bad (in some respects superior to Gnome), so I actually now use KDE more often.

      • KDE can look incredibly good if you're not using Keramik, and it's a damn shame that Keramik is so ugly that it turns people off to KDE as a whole

        Even Keramik would be tolerable if they switched to Bitstream Vera fonts by default.
        • Re:Allmost noone ... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by vrt3 (62368)
          I don't understand why everybody seems to love Bitstream Vera. It doesn't look nice to me, though I can't explain exactly why. It's also less easily readable compared to, for example, Georgia. See this example [roelschroeven.net]: on the left is Bitstream Vera serif, on the right is Georgia, both the same size. Despite the Bitstream letters being larger than the Georgia ones, I find the text on the right *much* easier to read.

          Of course, Bitstream is Free and Georgia is not, but that doesn't change the fact that I find Georgia
        • Even Keramik would be tolerable if they switched to Bitstream Vera fonts by default.

          Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww....

          I hate hate hate hate hate the Bitstream Vera fonts with a burning passion. They're horribly ugly and they take up far more space than any font should be able to. I tried using them once and all of my screen real estate disappeared--the size of everything on my screen had to be doubled to accomodate those horribly wide fonts.

          I've found that Luxi Sans (for sans serif), Times (for serif), Termina
    • for that matter, who uses the default window manager with Gnome? I once saw someone on #gentoo say "I wouldn't widh Metacity on my worst enemies." So the window border theme doesn't affect everybody. It's mostly new users who will see the default theme. I think it would be cool if Gnome made it easier for new users to select a different theme immediately, like the theme selection in the KDE setup wizard. Also, a completely new user will be subject to any changes their distributor might make to the theme set
  • hmmm (Score:2, Troll)

    by Tumbleweed (3706) *
    Yes, make it look more like Windows XP, that'll make it "prettier!" *sigh*
    • Re:hmmm (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The main Windows-ness seems to be the use of the Tahoma font for menus. However, this font can't be shipped with Linux distros, only downloaded by the user, so the actual defaults will be have to different. Too bad the normal set of X fonts don't look all that great at lower resolution.
    • It is only vaguely similar to the WinXP default theme. Clearlooks looks alot better than the current GNOME default, no doubt about it. Do you have a theme you think would be better for the default GNOME theme?
    • The bottom screen shot here [sourceforge.net] even uses Microsoft's Tahoma font.

  • Oh, big news here (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Lord Bitman (95493)
    Gnome is made to look like whatever windows currently looks like? Unheard of!

    Copying windows will not get you anywhere. Innovate, damnit!
    • Actually, GNOME had Themes when windows hab static GUI, Microsoft introduced a theme engine in 2002, but Gnome had one way before, and had pretty good themes at that time. In this case, M$ coppied GNOME/KDE.
    • by theantix (466036) on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:10PM (#11809418) Journal
      Gnome is made to look like whatever windows currently looks like? Unheard of!

      Copying windows will not get you anywhere. Innovate, damnit!


      So uh, what version of windows does that look like? The one with the hideous malformed "start" button, the one with a cartoonishly unprofessional colour scheme, or the one that doesn't exist yet?

      To me it looks a hell of a lot more like OSX than it does Windows, if you get beyond the widget set. But there is a hell of a lot more to Gnome than the maximize window widget, for example the open/save dialogs and desktop preferences are quite different from the windows methodology. To judge a desktop entirely by three widgets is just foolhardy...
    • There are only so much that can be done as long as people expect that computes should have "windows" and that they should be hovering over a "desktop" Personally, I think what we really need is just some very, very good speach recognition systems. Just about everything should be able to be done without typing or using a mouse. For things which need to be displayed (layouts and things for documents), maybe some sort of touch-screen for draging images or whatever. maybe displaying text instead of reading
  • Great widgets...

    When do they ditch the muddy, dull and visually abhorrant icons? Look at the dialog for Keyboard Preferences. The red/white "Help" next to the Avacado/Harvest Gold [newsday.com] horror that is "Accessibility". The moldy folders...

    It doesn't have to look "flash". Garrett LeSage did a half-decent job with the Bluecurve icons.

    • Re:Great Windows... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:14PM (#11808775) Homepage Journal
      It now appears -after digging through the linked announcement - that SUEDE [gnome-look.org] is the candidate for default icons.

      A great step up.

      • by Sentry21 (8183) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:16AM (#11809761) Journal
        Wow, I've never seen well-done ugly icons before. The attention to detail in these icons is great (much better than Windows), but the icon design I have to say is ugly, blocky, and uninspired. It reminds me of the icons from System 6-7 & MacOS 8, which were great for their time compared to Windows, but are boring now. Why on earth would Gnome go from a blocky squared-off theme to a smooth, contoured one, and then go and make a blocky squared-off icon set the default?

        If these are set as the default icons, I will swiftly change them.
  • I gotta say (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ZosX (517789)
    From what I've seen of the gnome project, everything in the UI is too pronounced. For example, does the menu bar need all of the icons with a bold highlight around them? Why does the title/menu bar have to take up 25% of the window? Small subdued cues would be grand in a UI. We all eventually know where to click anyways right? For as much as I dislike the classic Windows 2000 UI, it still is not nearly as intrusive as gnome or kde as far as I am concerned. I guess there are some skins out there that pro
    • Re:I gotta say (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) <almafuerte.gmail@com> on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:23PM (#11808841)
      "Can I just drop any document onto a printer icon and have it spit out the result?"

      Can i just make a few modifications to the windows source and pass it over to a friend?

      Compared to the scope of the second question, the first one is irrelevant.

      Not everything is about functionality, remember, it's not called "Faster Software", nor "Slicker Software", it's called "Free Software", because it's goal is to bee Free to all it's users, and let the users be free to do whatever they wan with they computer without relying on big corporations managing their lifes and ideas.

      Would you trade your freedom for nice icons?, I value my freedom a lot more than that.

      • Re:I gotta say (Score:3, Insightful)

        by LWATCDR (28044)
        "Can i just make a few modifications to the windows source and pass it over to a friend?

        Compared to the scope of the second question, the first one is irrelevant."
        No not really. Maybe to you but to most people software is a tool not a religion or a political statement.
        Even now what percentage of Linux users will ever compile a program much less modify the source code to the kernel?
        Software that is hard to use no matter how "free" is still bad software.
        • Re:I gotta say (Score:5, Insightful)

          by nathanh (1214) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @01:10AM (#11809994) Homepage
          No not really. Maybe to you but to most people software is a tool not a religion or a political statement.

          Maybe to you software is just a tool but to many others it's a core component in their business.

          Software is not really like a tool at all. No other tool integrates so tightly with your business processes, your other systems, your data, and your policies. Consider all the companies that have found themselves stuck with Exchange, or Notes, or Groupwise, and due to the lock-in nature of the software they are unable to migrate to anything else. This isn't a "tool". It's a system with hooks into almost every aspect of the enterprise. Tugging at even the slightest part of the system causes breakage elsewhere, often in non-obvious locations. Those hooks might be a tiny programming language that HR decided to use to implement their timesheet system (Notes), or it might be the calendaring system that has turned into a building meeting room manager (Exchange). Whatever the hook, it ties you to that product and becomes a core part of your business. Changing it isn't easy. Sometimes changing it is impossible.

          The reality is that it's pragmatic to use and only use free software. Putting your business software in the hands of a proprietary software vendor is naive. You are hoping that the vendor doesn't screw you; either by deprecating the softare, or breaking it, or raising the price, or whatever. But to the very nature of capitalism, the vendors are constantly thinking of new ways to screw you!

          Even now what percentage of Linux users will ever compile a program much less modify the source code to the kernel?

          Irrelevant. How many people will run for local office? Very few, but that doesn't mean democracy is a failed concept. The benefit of free software isn't that I personally can modify the source, but that anybody is free to do so.

          Software that is hard to use no matter how "free" is still bad software.

          Yes, but like the grandfather poster, I often use "bad software" that is free in preference to "good software" that is not free, for certain values of "good", "bad", and "free". For example, I use Linux and GNOME instead of MacOS X as my desktop. As a counter-example, I use IOS instead of Linux for my routers.

          It's a balancing act. For my desktop I'd been burnt so often by vendor lock-in and forced upgrades that I finally got sick of it and migrated to Linux (back in 1992). Now MacOS X is tempting, but not tempting enough that I'll give up the freedom I enjoy with Linux. However with routing the value of IOS so exceeds the potential value with Linux that I'm willing to compromise freedom, secure in the knowledge that IOS is at least standards compliant.

          • "Maybe to you software is just a tool but to many others it's a core component in their business."

            I'm sorry, but I disagree. I understand you can see things both ways, but if you are speaking of 'Linux on the desktop' then the above poster is right. Most people (as in non-tech-savvy joe doe users) just use their puter as a tool; to chat, to work, to download, etc. Some basic tasks is all they need, and they need it in a clear and user-friendly way.

            They do not want, nor need nor even would like to try 'com
            • They do not want, nor need nor even would like to try 'compiling' things or having to install some obscure libs just to get something running.

              No modern Linux desktop requires the user to compile things. You are being dishonest.

              And, frankly, while Linux came a long way, they are still not there. I myself, for instance, while I'd consider myself more tech-savvy then most joe doe users, am a newbie at linux, and the last week, I have tried to download firefox on my mandrake box. After a week, I stil

              • "No modern Linux desktop requires the user to compile things. You are being dishonest."

                Well, make it yourself easy then, and say I'm dishonest about all the rest I said. I do not know what you read into it (I didn't say people had to compile anything to install Firefox, for instance), but my statement as such remains valid, whether you 'require' compiling or not, let alone installing libs. That would depend entirely on what you try to do on your box, or what you are trying to run.

                "Well, don't take this th
          • The reality is that it's pragmatic to use and only use free software. Putting your business software in the hands of a proprietary software vendor is naive. You are hoping that the vendor doesn't screw you; either by deprecating the softare, or breaking it, or raising the price, or whatever. But to the very nature of capitalism, the vendors are constantly thinking of new ways to screw you!

            I despise proprtary systems, particulary protocols and file formats, as well. That's the main atitude I got out of co
            • That said, I'm typing this on my new powerbook with MacOSX. MacOSX is bsd, well more precisely NeXTSTEP. It's real unix. You have nothing to lose but your hardware incompatabilities and your teletubies developed software. ("Let's rewrite the entire software...AGAIN!" "Let's change the filechooser...AGAIN!")

              No, that's not all you lose. You also lose your freedom. You become tied to a single vendor with their proprietary software. Sure, it's UNIX, but before Linux I ran another proprietary UNIX. It's n

              • Now, can you easily swap out MacOS X with another UNIX?

                Yeah. If you don't want to use the proprietary apps anymore. You can get most of your settings out via the XML .plist files. Also since it's real unix, you can use any of the standard tools, and even use the preloaded Perl and Python.

                Will all your apps continue to run?

                Well I just converted my debian laptop to macosx, and with some minor conversions, (XBEL to nsHTML bookmarks, recompilation of locally developed apps, some path conversion, etc.)

          • "Maybe to you software is just a tool but to many others it's a core component in their business."

            Since I am a software developer I can say that you are WRONG. Software is a tool no different than a hammer for a carpenter or an anvil for a blacksmith.

            I love open source. I use Netbeans, FLTK, Postgresql, MySQL, PHP, Perl, OpenOffice, Thunderbird and Firefox. My office is standardizing on Firefox and Thunderbird and dumping IE and Outlook. But had to use software is bad software. Making open source easy to
            • Since I am a software developer I can say that you are WRONG.

              Wow. I'm a software developer too and I say you are wrong.

              Now that we've exhausted that brilliant line of reasoning and reached a stalemate, what else do you have to offer?

      • Not everything is about functionality, remember, it's not called "Faster Software", nor "Slicker Software", it's called "Free Software", because it's goal is to bee Free to all it's users, and let the users be free to do whatever they wan with they computer without relying on big corporations managing their lifes and ideas.

        That's not excuse for substandard software, and too often it is. People want software that works, so they can do what they want to do. This simple fact is lost on to many "free" softw
    • Re:I gotta say (Score:2, Informative)

      by webfiend (112579)

      If you ask me, there will never be a year of the Linux desktop until somebody creates a Linux desktop environment that is at least as rich as Windows.

      That's okay. I use Linux on my desktop and have for most of the last five years. I don't really need a "year" of the desktop. All I needed was for it work on my desktop and it's been doing that quite nicely for some time.

      When is cut and paste going to be even supported across applications in KDE or GNOME?

      Well, text works okay...

      Oh, text works ok? Well w

    • Re:I gotta say (Score:4, Informative)

      by Mornelithe (83633) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:04PM (#11809096)
      When is cut and paste going to be even supported across applications in KDE or GNOME? Oh, text works ok? Well what about a piece of a picture or a clip of a wave?

      I just went into kview, copied part of a picture, and pasted it into the GIMP. Then I went into kpdf, copied part of a page, and pasted that into the GIMP. Then I copied part of a page in kpdf, and pasted it into a konqueror window, and it asked me what filename I'd like, and turned it into a PNG image.

      I don't have any sound editing software, so I can't test anything there.

      Without configuring 20 various text files?

      I haven't used text files to configure printers in a long time. With CUPS and KDE, you can just use their printer install wizard. It's about the same as installing a printer on Windows.
  • 1. Bootable CD-ROMS. They don't remember that you changed the theme. They might not even give you a choice.

    2. Public teminals. Hopefully these do not let you change the theme.

    3. Other people's computers. Not everyone will have the sense to change a theme.
  • Hehe (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    and if you run Ubuntu Linux, you're already using the theme.
    • Re:Hehe (Score:3, Informative)

      Actually, the "Human" theme that Ubuntu uses as default is based on Industrial (slightly different colours, and square corners on the windows). This may change in the future though.
  • The semi-matte finish is nice. It's a very polished (heh) look when viewed on an LCD. Pity about the corners, though. Kinda distracting, at least at first glance.
  • by eraserewind (446891) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:32PM (#11809216)
    Looking at those screenshots, one thing bugs me. Can't they do some anti-aliasing on the rounded corners of the windows? Those jagged edges don't look nice at all. Also the "X" button looks too big, and is too pointy for the rounded corners. Win XP has knocked the points off the 3 window control buttons, and it looks like a better match. The theme itself is ok, if a bit on the dull side.
  • I looked at the two linked screenshots of old vs new. Without a side by side comparison, i can't really tell the difference. Can anyone point out what the major differences are? Does it just look different, or is there new functionality.

    It saddens me to think the announcement of the change was big enough to hit the slashdot front page.

    It saddens me more to see they are only as original as Windows (which is only as original as Apple, ad infinitum). Doesn't anyone do innovative UI research? (Longhorn doesn'
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Well, remember that this is for GNOME 2.12, which is still only a glimmer in the developers' eyes. GNOME 2.12 will doubtless contain new features and stuff.

      This theme is different from the old one because:
      Old: Kinda grey
      New: Almost orange, yellow, and XP Green(TM)

      Old: Lines and bevels
      New: Curves and gradients. And lots of rounded corners.
    • Doesn't anyone do innovative UI research?

      The last automobile I had came with this truly incredible and innovative UI. Instead of the depressingly boring copies of Henry Ford's steering week and brake/accelerator pedals, you sat in harness and controlled the vehicle by leaning left or right. Pushing forward hard on the dash (a very intuitive action) caused braking.

      I really can't understand why nobody else likes this radical new automobile UI. I'm waiting for mine to get back from the repair shop so I can
  • darwinports (Score:3, Informative)

    by OmniVector (569062) <see my homepage> on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:08PM (#11809402) Homepage
    if you're using os x, you can try it out in darwinports [opendarwin.org] by typing

    port install gtk2-clearlooks
  • factoid (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:15PM (#11809444)
    This news factoid is merely rumour.

    Please read this [gnome.org] for more information.
  • by JPyObjC Dude (772176) on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:24PM (#11809503)
    Personally, I would vote for Gnome over KDE. Gnome's strict adherence to GUI standards where less is more will get them to a lot more usage in the future. KDE, although very feature friendly, is not nearly as refined as Gnome from a UI perspective and this will bite them in the ass as it has bit Microsoft.

    When I look at the latest screenshots, I am blown away with the finite details that the UI designers have gone through. Most importantly, they seem to have stuck with the minimal real estate impact that I have come to love with OSX.

    Real estate is where Microsoft have failed in the past with XP sytles and from what I have seen with their replacements, they are only getting worse with tons of real estate taken up by oversized and over spaced text on pretty but poorly contrasted backgrounds.

    Keep up the good work Gnome ... You are the best bet for me to move to Linus or *bsd besides OSX.

    JsD

    Side bit - L&M of car manufacturers.
    Honda (Apple)
    - Less but works more but better
    General Motors (Microsoft)
    - More but works less and worse.
    • Keep up the good work Gnome ... You are the best bet for me to move to Linus or *bsd besides OSX.

      Huh? If OS X doesn't do it for you, and your main beef with Windows is aesthetic, you're not gonna be happy with GNOME...

      • Funny you should say that. I have a G4 tower sitting here that I just acquired, and it has OSX Panther on it. The first thing I did was install to dual-boot Debian testing (gnome) on it.

        I played around with OSX for a while (I normally use an x86 box, so it was a novelty), then flipped over to debian with gnome. Honestly, and I'm as surprised as anyone else, I found that I liked it better. Obviously, being used to it has a lot to do with it, and compared to Windows 2000, OSX looks amazing, but...well...I gu
      • I guess I was not totally clear. I love OSX. It rocks. However, it is always good to have an alternative to consider and Gnome is the next best thing regarding refined interefaces.

        Windows interfaces have always and will continue to suck well into the future.

        Also, in most large corporate environments, having a mac is considered a joke although I totally disagree. In such cases, Linux is a possible alternative to either expensive Unix boxes or crappy win32 boxes. When linux is the option, I will be selectin
  • ...is still the best looking and cleanest theme I have ever seen.
    • While like the new theme a lot, I certainly can't argue with you there. Bluecurve is among the best themes I've used.
  • WTF? You mean.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Korgan (101803) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @03:08AM (#11810446) Homepage

    Okay... When did people stop using this great Emacs? I mean... Graphical interfaces? Wow! Who'da thunk it. Thats just a totally innovative and novel idea.

    What? I can change the way my interface looks so it suits my own personal tastes and preferences? OMG! Someone get on the phone and tell Microsoft, they're gonna want to embrace that idea. They already do? Damn, they're on the ball. What? They got the idea from KDE and Gnome? OMG! Isn't that like stealing? Xerox? Apple Computer? Who are they again?

    </>

    It amazes me to see how so quickly the whole fight between KDE and Gnome sprang up over something as simple as the new DEFAULT THEME for Gnome being announced. Its not like people can't change the theme for either KDE or Gnome if they don't like the defaults. I thought the whole Keramilk issue was put to rest a long time ago. Guess not. Must've missed that memo. Sorry, didn't mean to stay out of the fight for so long.

    Come one people. Get real. Personally, I think it looks good. Its clean, open, totally uncluttered (like some KDE shots I've seen recently) and its functional. Its pretty easy to navigate and it keeps with the K.I.S.S principle I have always liked in Gnome (KDE was always too cluttered with too many bells and whistles presented to the average end user. Might be fine for advanced users, but generally the newer users prefer not to get a whole heap of stuff thrown at them when all they want to do is configure their desktop).

    But who cares? If you use Gnome and you don't like this theme, install a different one. There are so many available out there. Hell, I even went as far as making my own (*GASP*) so that my desktop looked and felt the way I wanted it to so I was more productive and it was useful to me.

    Damn... Lets badmouth a clean and easy on the eyes interface simply because it bears some resemblance to Windows XP. Damn... Last time I looked, every Window Manager had 3 buttons at the top of their windows for minimize,maximize/restore,close. Even OS X.

    If it really is that much of an issue, don't you dear look at FVWM. Maybe you should go check out Enlightenment again. Its not dead you know. In fact, some of use still use it every day. Then you can really make your desktop look any and every way you could possibly want it to. Amazing that.

    Gotta love the fact that you can choose what interface your desktop has. In fact, if you really wanted to, you could set your .xinitrc to pick a different one at random every time you started X. Now theres a really far out idea.

    • Gotta love the fact that you can choose what interface your desktop has.

      Don't forget to love the fact that you can choose what desktop your OS has ;)

      Now... you CAN choose your desktop, right?
  • They should use the theme that's default in XFCE4. It looks much cleaner (the gnome themes all seem to have too much colour in them) and still has good performance.

  • Hmm. This new GNOME looks awfully darn similar to KDE's Plastik theme [osdir.com], the new default for 3.4.

    In fact, there are a lot of features [gnome.org] in the upcoming GNOME that KDE already has. Many of them have even been around for a long time. Let's look at a few:
    • Integrated help browser w/ man and info support
    • Developer-friendly text editor
    • Nice GUI for sharing files
    • Freedesktop.org cross-desktop menu specification
    • Weather panel applet
    • Panel and applet transparency
    • An "new and improved" mixer (looks like kmix now
  • Just one thing.. (Score:4, Informative)

    by omega9 (138280) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:36AM (#11812102) Homepage
    Sorry, but this story is bullshit.

    All spelled out here. [gnome.org]
  • I didn't notice it at first, but part of the reason the ClearLooks screenshot is so appealing is the presence of dropshadows. Subtle, but definatly pleasing.

    Just get your X server up to snuff and you can enjoy them too....

    [May or may not be useful....]
    http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-doc-list/200 1 -December/msg00107.htm [gnome.org]l
    http://www.xfce.org/gtkmenu-shadow/ [xfce.org]
    http://www.gnome-look.org/ [gnome-look.org]

news: gotcha

Working...