[ubuntu-art] gtk theme

[Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen]

On 05/03/2008, Andrea Cimitan <cimi86 at alice.it> wrote:
>
>
> Il giorno mer, 05/03/2008 alle 13.52 +0100, Sebastian Billaudelle ha
> scritto:
>
> > Hi folks!
> >
> > Because my modem-driver is broken (never play around with
> > startup-scripts;-)) I wasn't able to read the mails.
> > I'll do it later, because I'm sitting in an internet cafe and I'm a
> > little bit short in time.
> >
> > I'm sorry for my bad and short post. I'll post more later!
> >
> > I've looked into the xl_cheese-/clearlooks-engine and changed some
> > points.
> > I could go on like this fixing the points written before.
> >
> > At first, there was the problem that windows without a toolbar looked
> > ugly, because the color of the menubar was not the same as the windows
> > bg-color.
> > That's changed now: The menubar is colored like the background of the
> > window and the gradient of the toolbar is changed a little bit to fit
> > to that change...
> >
> > The first point is the "unity of the menubaritem and the menu itself".
> > I looked into the code of the eXperience-engine and hacked a little
> > bit in clearlooks.
> > That should work now to, even if the menu is placed higher than the
> > menubar (Then the menubaritem-widget is turned "upside down").
> > Compiz/Emerald is still a problem...
>
> I'm the Clearlooks developer (yes Murrine too :P ), my friend Benzea is
> the Maintainer of Clearlooks, and he is the author of the eXperience
> engine :D
> So we will implement (he is the right guy to do this) this feature the
> day we get a sane way to do it, without the hackish way in eXperience.
> Another *huge* problem is that menuitems don't get shadows, so the whole
> menu will always look ugly, except an highly decentered shadow like in
> your sceenshot.
> (I'm using centered shadows, with 0 x-y offset, like a lot of huys... so
> this feature without shadow on menuitems will cause just glitches)
>
> >
> > Here's a little screenshot:
> > http://img248.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bildschirmfoto1su9.png
> > Later I'll upload the engine, but I've to clean up the code before
> > (This was my first contact to C;-)).
>
> NO, please NO yet another engine. I was totally against the decision of
> xlcheese to publish his patch as another engine and I will against a
> similar idea.
> Many years ago was created a tool, called DIFF, do publish your patches
> in a clean and simple way.
> Just attach your patch for Clearlooks, Murrine or whatever.
> In a future, if the patch is sane and we agree (in the meaning it's not
> hackish and it will work with compiz/shadows), that thing could be part
> of Gnome.
> It's so useless to publish a fork with more than 95% of the same code.
> Yes, NODOKA (aka murrine with a different name and fixed hilight_ratio
> and other options) is an useless engine. And I will be laughing when
> I'll publish the next release which is faster, better looking,
> alpha-capable, with a *100 times better* structured code :) Just to
> notice its capabilities, Murrine's SVN in just 10 lines of code can
> emulate Nodoka engine, with the benefits of a faster but also more
> secure/stable code :) (just add style = NODOKA in your gtkrc) eheh


While I agree 10000% percent that forking theme engines is a very bad idea,
given that Murrine was only recently put under public version control you
have more or less spurred this trend your self... That should all change now
that Murrine is in Gnome svn. So no excuses for forking :-)

Cheers,
Mikkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-art/attachments/20080306/2cf05328/attachment.htm