Re: Exciting GNOME?

[Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Shaun McCance wrote:

> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:34:41 -0600
> From: Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org>
> To: desktop-devel-list gnome org
> Subject: Re: Exciting GNOME?
>
> On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 08:30 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > <quote who="Link Dupont">
> >
> > > Not sure why we feel the need to have such a theme as a default though;
> > > the only reason I can see is to compete with OS X (lets face it, we've got
> > > Windows XP Luna beat, even with themes like Crux o_O).  Do we want to
> > > advertise GNOME as a flashy eye-candy based Desktop? I always liked
> > > GNOME's clean, basic, simple interface; it was never cluttered with
> > > bouncing icons and flashing lights. That always appealed to me. Is the
> > > motivation for a flashy new theme to effectively gain more "market" share?
> >
> > Do you think of OS X's look'n'feel as flashy eye-candy? I don't. :-) It is
> > very clean, very fresh, minimal in most cases (and becoming less funky with
> > every OS X release). It might appear to be flashy because it's so different.
>
> Well, the original OS X look was very, very ribbed.  It looked snazzy in
> the
> same way that gradients first looked cool when people first starting
> using
> them in themes.  But it sort of got on your nerves after a while.
>
> Subsequent versions of OS X have toned down the ribbing, and it's a
> great
> improvement.  Apple made a mistake and they fixed it.  Let's learn from
> that and just avoid the mistake altogether.

I believe Apple referred to them as *pinstripes*.

I wounldn't normally see fit to mention it but the term you used
unfortunately suggests something else completely different and given the
day it is today it might not be such a bad idea to remind people to be
particularly careful about their health.

:P

- Alan H