Re: Default WM theme settings

[Chris Chabot <chabotc reviewboard com>]

How about making (Unscalable?) Gorila the default nautilus & sawfish 
theme? It combines well with about every gtk theme i have currently 
running under gtk2, and it has a very high WAF*. Also the proper 
combination of nautilus look + sawfish look + colors palete used in the 
contributed gnome icons, make it fit realy nice together as a whole.

Consitency is as important as look, since it can make or break a look 
easely, even if the invividual components of which it consits are very 
pleasing the eye.

* WAF: I came across this term when trying to find some reviews on new 
loud speakers i wanted to buy. It stands for "Wife Acceptance Factor". 
When confronting my g/f with nautilus gorila + sawfish gorila her 
literal responce was: "wow linux is a lot pretier then WindowsXP, i 
didn't know that!" Which for me indicates the look works realy well ;-)

(ps gorila with the ximian nightjungle background image, is a killer 
combination to, might be worth considering making that the default 
gnome2 background? )

   -- Chris

Michael Toomim wrote:

> Jens Knutson wrote:
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Personally, I don't find Klarth to be aesthetically pleasing.  I think 
> this is a very important issue, too.  I first got interested in linux 
> after I saw a bunch of cool screenshots of pre-1.0 gnome (running 
> enlightenment) on www.gnome.org, and wanted my computer to look all 
> beautiful too.  Lately, I tried to get my girlfriend into KDE when she 
> started using Linux (thinking that it would be the easiest desktop for 
> her to transition to from windows) -- but she refused, saying that it 
> was ugly compared to gnome and that she wanted "the pretty one".  
> Also, in the ongoing KDE vs. Gnome debates on public message boards, 
> I've noticed that many discussions seem to conclude that gnome is 
> "immature compared to KDE, but much better looking."  Aesthetics seem 
> to be one of the few things that gnome has really had going for it, 
> and it would be a pitty if this were no longer true.
>
> Crux is decent.  It isn't my favorite look, but it's nice.  I don't 
> like Klarth.  Klarth is boring, blocky, and has those annoying 
> vertical gradients all across everything that make me feel like my 
> computer is composed of Lincoln Logs.  The buttons don't look like 
> buttons, either, but rather like nondescript decorations for the ends 
> of the title-bar. (Especially when the title-bar takes on a dark, bold 
> color such as you get with the default gtk theme.)  The button-icons 
> don't mean anything to me: they look like "little v" and "big ^" 
> rather than minimize and maximize -- and when you look at it all for a 
> while, you realize that everything on the title bar (save the colorful 
> application-icon) is uniform same-color ASCII text!  Are we aiming for 
> a window manager that can be displayed in a videocard's text-mode on 
> purpose?
>
> I find it somewhat cool that it copies colors from my current GTK 
> theme, but I find that for many of my themes the result is just ugly.  
> My current gtk theme (flat) makes the Klarth window-decorations pitch 
> black (very hard to see).  The proper way to copy the colors, IMHO, is 
> to only set the theme's *highlight* to the GTK color (like crux does), 
> not every pixel that you can find on the darned thing.
>
> Anyway, style is important.  People don't pay a premium for Apple's 
> overpriced iMacs, iPods, G4 Cube's, etc. because they want their 
> title-bar to resize when they change their fonts, but because Apple's 
> products are all so freaking cool.  Klarth looks like my grandmother's 
> old garden clogs.  I think it'd be seriously detrimental to brand 
> gnome with it.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list