[ubuntu-art] Aurora shouldn't be used in Ubuntu for default themes.
Nemes Ioan Sorin
nemes.sorin at gmail.com
Wed Jan 23 17:54:44 GMT 2008
My support for all that other members will choose. I'm not against
Murrine or Clearlooks.
On my opinion Clearlooks Gummy was the best Clearlooks ever. A good
point of Gummy was gradients, especially Gradients on tabs.
Aurora is a kind of fork of Clearlooks BUT has the right scrollbars.
(believe-me I know what I say).
From an usability point of view - Aurora scrollbars almost met the
perfection in GTK world where many nice themes has wrong scrollbars ( no
good visual contrast in general ).
I just propose Aurora as any other proposals because is one of the best
GTK themes - the main quality of Aurora -> equilibrate colors and
gradients, every UI item remain readable and easy to recognize from a
single look - scrollbars are visually unobtrusive.
The problem about I talk on my previous mail is "This was the engine
that had no reason to exist right?" - It was not clear WHY ..no reason
to exist. It's an offense or what ?.
Someone can interpret that as an intellectual fault addressed to the
author (because no explanation).
So is better to affirm clean WHY some things should not be in existence.
For example "Nazism had no reason to exist..." ..because "...".
Aurora should exist even is the worst GTK theme - because author has its
right to expression and ...Aurora don't kill peoples - (at least for that).
Very well if you can point Cimi here.
Maybe he can try to add the scrollbar principles from Aurora to Murrine.
This will be a good point.
Else the package - Murrine / Clearlooks - has the main advantage - Cimi
being Clearlooks maintainer and I see a good gtk hacker.
I hope I was clear about the language in use on that list.
Nothing to comment on points like "This list has been very supportive of
Cimi" - So be it - let support Cimi work.
But "it's an unnecessary and bad fork of Murrine that shouldn't be
supported by using it as a default engine." is not OK. No one tell you
to support Aurora as the main engine. Parts of Aurora are good and can
be useful. I put my proposal here as any other people.
Why is bad bad fork of Murrine ? - you can kill the right for free
expression to other peoples ?.
It's your opinnion - right - but the words used are not OK.
So, please explain me WHY the Aurora is a bad Fork of Murrine.
Convince-me with solid arguments please.
You can do it in a personal manner - not posting your response for
entire list, You choose. I am a reasonable people and If you have right
arguments - my respect for that.
I'll stay tuned.
Cory K. wrote:
> Nemes Ioan Sorin wrote:
>> This kind of answer should not exist, right ?
>> And I'm asking here all members of this list.
>> So please do not respond without arguments - also please respond if you
>> have something to say about. Else ..just to point here some vanity -
>> this is not the scope of this list.
> This list has been very supportive of Cimi and his work on Murrine. IMO
> (and that's what the internet is for right?) it's an unnecessary and bad
> fork of Murrine that shouldn't be supported by using it as a default engine.
> Cimi can cite all the technical reasons and has shown screenshots where
> you cant tell which is which. Murrine or Aurora. I'll point him to this
> -Cory \m/
More information about the ubuntu-art