[ubuntu-art] Re: Before we vote...

[Billy]

On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 10:22 +0100, Who wrote:

> >
> >  Problem is, people do use them. Some do prefer an ungy fast, useable,
> > nothing in the way gui. That is why I offered to do thinice, mist, or
> > something for them. Are we just going to remove them and give them pixmap
> > and slow cairo? I don't think so!!! I won't take responsibility in that
> > slaughter! I have spoken for them. Will anyone listen and at least give them
> > the smooth engine. We do not need inexperienced, imature voting for eyecandy
> > not considering the real world. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's the
> > reason gnome has lagged in eyecandy for so long. There needs to be a middle
> > ground. Something for both ends on the spectrum, and ubuntulooks is not
> > light and fast, so that can not count for light and fast just because it is
> > an engine. Pixbuff is an engine...is it light? No. Think of everyone before
> > you vote!!!
> 
> I think that the whole point of this exercise is to get some really
> good looking themes in Ubuntu, and while I don't think that procludes
> any Smooth theme, I think it means not packing a huge number of them
> in
> 
> I agree that we _must_ keep a few speedy engines in, which is one of
> the reasons I champion Industrial for inclusion. I had a look at
> http://gtkperf.sourceforge.net/index.php?page=testing&id=1
> which suggests we should really be using cleanice if we want a truly
> performance focussed skin!
> 


Thinice, mist, and cleanice have already been mentioned a few times, but
again, no one said how they felt about it. The one Mist theme that was
being made, was given up on.

Once more, no one has suggested a lot of smooth themes be included, so I
don't know why that its repeated.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-art/attachments/20060517/b18521b3/attachment.htm