Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
GNOME GUI

ClearLooks to be Default Theme on Gnome 2.12 149

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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • Oh, big news here (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Lord Bitman ( 95493 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:09PM (#11808746)
    Gnome is made to look like whatever windows currently looks like? Unheard of!

    Copying windows will not get you anywhere. Innovate, damnit!
  • by GNUALMAFUERTE ( 697061 ) <almafuerte@@@gmail...com> on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:15PM (#11808785)
    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.
  • I gotta say (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ZosX ( 517789 ) <zosxavius@gmQUOTEail.com minus punct> on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:16PM (#11808791) Homepage
    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 probably give me what I want, but we really need something that is slick out of the box, something that doesn't work just like Windows. The Mac GUI creator just passed away (God bless his soul) and we haven't really come up with anything better in the last 30 years? Hell, even Nextstep and OS/2 were steps in a better direction.

    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. 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? What about drag and drop? Can I just drop any document onto a printer icon and have it spit out the result? Without configuring 20 various text files?

    When the big boys like Adobe start releasing Photoshop for Linux, then perhaps there will be some sort of market, but until then I hear that the GIMP is fine as long as you don't need to work in CMYK.
  • Re:hmmm (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:22PM (#11808834)
    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.
  • 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 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:51PM (#11809028) Homepage Journal
    "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.
  • 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.
  • 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...
  • 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.
  • by Narchie Troll ( 581273 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:37AM (#11809829)
    No. No, it isn't.

    Keramik is ugly and nearly unusable, and makes KDE look like a big piece of shit.
  • 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.

  • Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DaveJay ( 133437 ) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @02:19AM (#11810291)
    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?
  • 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.

  • by stuuf ( 587464 ) <sac+sd@@@atomicradi...us> on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @03:41AM (#11810578) Homepage Journal
    How portable are the Windows or Mac OS X widget sets? The fact that they're both named for an operating system is a clue. Splitting into numerous layers is one of the ways that many open source projects are so portable. Gnome sits on GTK which uses Glib and GDK, on top of either X11/POSIX or Win32. On windows, there is almost always an extra layer such as VCL, MFC, or WxWidgets above the windows API, because it's so hideous to use directly. The layers don't necessarily have anything to do with speed. I think that the small slowdowns and large code size is a reasonably tradeoff for making applications more portable and easier to write. Sure, writing Mozilla in C++, Javascript, and several proprietary compatibility libraries makes it bigger and slower than a pure C application, but also much easier to port and maintain.

    I use the Gnome desktop, file manager, and some small utilities, but third party apps for most work. Gnome has Epiphany; I use Mozilla. Gnome has Gcalctool, I use Qalculate. Gnome has gedit, I use XEmacs or Leafpad.

All seems condemned in the long run to approximate a state akin to Gaussian noise. -- James Martin

Working...