[ubuntu-art] Aurora shouldn't be used in Ubuntu for default themes.
coryisatm at nc.rr.com
Wed Jan 23 18:24:42 GMT 2008
Nemes Ioan Sorin wrote:
> OK Cory,
> 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).
Its a fork of Murrine 0.40.1 and Murrine is a fork of Clearlooks. *SOME*
of the history can be found here:
> 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.
Nothing Aurora has been shown to do cant be done in Murrine. Cimi has
shown this before.
> 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.
It's simply my opinion here. I see Aurora as an unnecessary fork. Its
code is *SO* close to Murrine it's just not needed. Cimi has also said
the small things it can do can be added (and might be now) to Murrine.
Just my opinion. We have too many forks in the open-source world. I
don't think everyone needs to carve of their on little piece of the
world rather than working together. ;)
And since there's an apparent language barrier here I'm not gonna try to
converse if you don't understand exactly what I'm saying. Sorry.
More information about the ubuntu-art