|
| From: | Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf |
| Subject: | Re: Changes I've been thinking of... |
| Date: | Sun, 11 Oct 2009 03:20:57 +0200 |
Am 11.10.2009 um 00:51 schrieb Riccardo Mottola:
Hi,I don't really like too much eye-candy personally. The first thing I did at work was to change Windows Vista from Aero to Classic mode because I prefer Windows Classic (Windows 2000?) look compared to Aero. On the other hand, I think Snow Leopard looks quite good and I also think KDE4 and Gnome look sort of ok.Well, what you write here actually proves my point. The first thing I do on XP or Vista is to reset to Windows classic. Windows classic is then - barring the icons of XP or Vista - pretty much like WIndows 2000 indeed. And the controls, widgets, buttons are those of NT4 or 95/98.But the NEXTSTEP look is too old-fashened even for me (I don't care if it is a masterpiece. I don't want to put a picture of it in a frame on the wall, I want to use it as a desktop environment). I really like ObjC and the openstep/gnustep/Cocoa APIs. But everytime I sit down to develop something using gnustep, the old-fashened Look & Feel kills my motivation because I think nobody will use it anyway and I decide to use Qt/KDE instead (I am actually a former KDE developer).But guess what? In my opinion Microsoft really copied the NeXT look and adapted it to the Windows 3.1 style. I can tell you since I develop the WinClassic theme. SOmetimes i have difficulties recognizing if I themend an Item or not or int he images folder the images really look close together. SUre there are differences, there are different controls, but that is not the point.If you swithc back to classic, you are essentially stating you like the "old look" you despise.
Riccardo, nobody is going to take away the classic OPENSTEP look from you. It will always be there as a theme - even if this will not be the default one. On the other hand I don't understand your lobbying for the classic look. People have their own taste, you can't force something onto them - you yourself strongly preferring the classic look should know this best. Arguments don't help here, taste is not something to discuss as they say ("Über Geschmack lässt sich nicht streiten" in german). And in our case a discussion about a default theme has no point since GNUstep aims to be a development environment as you state yourself:
Hi,In my opinion GNUstep has to stop this it's just a development environment thing and develop a desktop environment where GNUstep applications do not look totaly out of place. GNUstep probably can't compete with KDE or GNOME but why shouldn't it be possible to compete with something like XFCE or Equinox or one of the other smaller OSS desktop environments. I think GNUstep needs to be more attractive to KDE / GNOME / MacOS X. In my opinion these are the people most likely to use GNUstep and if GNUstep attracts more users it will automatically get more developers.Well, although I would not write that, I think it is about correct. I got angry and almost livid when Gregory started pointing out that.We are a development environment. And a good one. But we are not "just that".On the other hand, GNUstep is not a Desktop Environment (I like it to call it a Workspace). It should never be. Other projects can fill that gap building up on GNUstep. Not by a total change the GNUstep Application Project shortens to "GAP".
And if we are a development environment our goal is to help developers to create their applications. Those applications could then run in any context, just as the developers of that application envisions. This naturally leads to themability. Developers naturally want their applications to fit in. If you don't believe this look at Qt. They developed themes that fit in on all platforms they support (even if this is not by any means perfect). Themability is a must for a self respecting development environment nowadays. So we need GNOME, KDE and Windows themes. Just to be able to fit in there.
regards,
Lars
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |