Themable?
43 views
Skip to first unread message
euxneks
Jan 21, 2008, 11:27:35 PM1/21/08
to GNOME Do
Is it possible to create themes for Gnome-do? This might help to
differentiate it from the "others"(?) .. =P
differentiate it from the "others"(?) .. =P
Christopher Halse Rogers
Jan 21, 2008, 11:46:49 PM1/21/08
to gnom...@googlegroups.com
On 1/22/08, euxneks <eux...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is it possible to create themes for Gnome-do? This might help to
> differentiate it from the "others"(?) .. =P
>
I'm not really sure what you'd theme. My understanding of Do is that>
> Is it possible to create themes for Gnome-do? This might help to
> differentiate it from the "others"(?) .. =P
>
the windows are designed to transitory, and that themeing would be
fairly pointless.
I think Do should get it's colours from the current GTK theme in the
same way that it grabs its icons from the GTK icon theme, but apart
from that I don't think there's a great need for themeing. Do is
already differentiated from the others* by it's design. Nothing else
works like Do!
* Although, by "others" the only thing I can immediately think of is Deskbar
David Siegel
Jan 22, 2008, 12:15:07 AM1/22/08
to gnom...@googlegroups.com
We will put a lot of effort into making Do look good and work really
well. Letting people "theme" it may seem like a neat idea to some, but
I think it will damage Do's identity and disassociate its community.
Also, it seems that Linux users have come to expect that every
application they use be theme-able. I think that's pretty silly.
well. Letting people "theme" it may seem like a neat idea to some, but
I think it will damage Do's identity and disassociate its community.
Also, it seems that Linux users have come to expect that every
application they use be theme-able. I think that's pretty silly.
David
On Jan 21, 2008 11:46 PM, Christopher Halse Rogers
Al Pagan
Jan 22, 2008, 11:02:27 AM1/22/08
to GNOME Do
While I completely understand the need to enforce Do's identity in the
short term, Quicksilver offered different 'skins' from quite early on
in its development, and I for one really appreciated the alternatives
on offer. For example, I much preferred the Cube interface, both for
it's smaller screen space and for the little visual effects that came
with it. I later moved onto the Window interface as I found I could
fit more information as the interface flowed vertically rather than
the horizontal default Bezel.
I moved from Mac OS X to Linux for the customisation options, as did
many Mac converts I know, and it would be a shame if this part
Quicksilver-inspired app didn't have a least a few skin/theme options
that users could choose from (even if the options were part of your
long-term rather than short-term plans.)
On Jan 22, 5:15 am, "David Siegel" <djsie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We will put a lot of effort into making Do look good and work really
> well. Letting people "theme" it may seem like a neat idea to some, but
> I think it will damage Do's identity and disassociate its community.
> Also, it seems that Linux users have come to expect that every
> application they use be theme-able. I think that's pretty silly.
>
> David
>
> On Jan 21, 2008 11:46 PM, Christopher Halse Rogers
>
> <chalserog...@gmail.com> wrote:
short term, Quicksilver offered different 'skins' from quite early on
in its development, and I for one really appreciated the alternatives
on offer. For example, I much preferred the Cube interface, both for
it's smaller screen space and for the little visual effects that came
with it. I later moved onto the Window interface as I found I could
fit more information as the interface flowed vertically rather than
the horizontal default Bezel.
I moved from Mac OS X to Linux for the customisation options, as did
many Mac converts I know, and it would be a shame if this part
Quicksilver-inspired app didn't have a least a few skin/theme options
that users could choose from (even if the options were part of your
long-term rather than short-term plans.)
On Jan 22, 5:15 am, "David Siegel" <djsie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We will put a lot of effort into making Do look good and work really
> well. Letting people "theme" it may seem like a neat idea to some, but
> I think it will damage Do's identity and disassociate its community.
> Also, it seems that Linux users have come to expect that every
> application they use be theme-able. I think that's pretty silly.
>
> David
>
> On Jan 21, 2008 11:46 PM, Christopher Halse Rogers
>
euxneks
Jan 24, 2008, 1:02:19 PM1/24/08
to GNOME Do
As silly as it is, locking into one style that may not fit with the
rest of the themed desktop would make it stick out a bit in an
otherwise consistently themed environment..
Obviously there would be a default theme like the one currently used
right now, but having the ability to modify the look and feel of the
interface I think wouldn't take away from gnome-do's ability - only
add to the value for linux users. Most people will probably just
leave it as is anyway.. =)
On Jan 21, 9:15 pm, "David Siegel" <djsie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We will put a lot of effort into making Do look good and work really
> well. Letting people "theme" it may seem like a neat idea to some, but
> I think it will damage Do's identity and disassociate its community.
> Also, it seems that Linux users have come to expect that every
> application they use be theme-able. I think that's pretty silly.
>
> David
>
> On Jan 21, 2008 11:46 PM, Christopher Halse Rogers
>
> <chalserog...@gmail.com> wrote:
rest of the themed desktop would make it stick out a bit in an
otherwise consistently themed environment..
Obviously there would be a default theme like the one currently used
right now, but having the ability to modify the look and feel of the
interface I think wouldn't take away from gnome-do's ability - only
add to the value for linux users. Most people will probably just
leave it as is anyway.. =)
On Jan 21, 9:15 pm, "David Siegel" <djsie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We will put a lot of effort into making Do look good and work really
> well. Letting people "theme" it may seem like a neat idea to some, but
> I think it will damage Do's identity and disassociate its community.
> Also, it seems that Linux users have come to expect that every
> application they use be theme-able. I think that's pretty silly.
>
> David
>
> On Jan 21, 2008 11:46 PM, Christopher Halse Rogers
>
Jorge O. Castro
Jan 27, 2008, 9:19:01 PM1/27/08
to GNOME Do
On Jan 24, 1:02 pm, euxneks <euxn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Obviously there would be a default theme like the one currently used
> right now, but having the ability to modify the look and feel of the
> interface I think wouldn't take away from gnome-do's ability - only
> add to the value for linux users. Most people will probably just
> leave it as is anyway.. =)
It's my opinion that GNOME Do should inherit the gtk theme. I know
> Obviously there would be a default theme like the one currently used
> right now, but having the ability to modify the look and feel of the
> interface I think wouldn't take away from gnome-do's ability - only
> add to the value for linux users. Most people will probably just
> leave it as is anyway.. =)
there is a patch in launchpad for this someplace. If you think this is
important then you should open a bzr branch in launchpad and integrate
this.
I realize you and Al Pagan think this is important, but I would like
to offer a different view. GNOME Do is rather young, and in my
opinion, I think it's important that "trunk" is taken care of. This
means things like basic functionality and bugfixes. I think that the
"themeability" of GNOME Do is a trivial issue at this point in time.
The core devs have limited time, and I would argue that most users
want major bugs fixed, and not have their time wasted on cosmetic
issues. Since it's open source, if you think that it's that important,
surely you can find someone to register a branch and fix your pet bug.
I am not dismissing your idea; the problem is that the core devs have
a limited amount of time, and if they were to implement every idea on
this list then GNOME Do wouldn't get anywhere. The reasonable thing
for them to do is to build a solid core so that other people can build
on the core and come up with their own ideas.
If you step away and think in terms of use cases, I think you will
find that the "themability" of GNOME Do is the least of our problems;
though having GNOME Do integrating with the user's theme is desirable.
If I were in your shoes I would file some wishlist bugs in launchpad,
and see what happens.
Regards,
--
jorge
euxneks
Jan 28, 2008, 2:14:33 AM1/28/08
to GNOME Do
Ah, on this level, I will concede, of course there are more pressing
matters for the core development users to attend to, and of course if
I had the time I would give it to this worthy project to implement
solutions to my own "pet" bugs.. =) I was just not aware that there
_were_ more pressing matters! I've been using gnome do for quite a
while now and it seemed complete! haha Well I guess I'm not a power
user!
Thanks,
matters for the core development users to attend to, and of course if
I had the time I would give it to this worthy project to implement
solutions to my own "pet" bugs.. =) I was just not aware that there
_were_ more pressing matters! I've been using gnome do for quite a
while now and it seemed complete! haha Well I guess I'm not a power
user!
Thanks,
odomok
Feb 26, 2008, 10:38:04 AM2/26/08
to GNOME Do
I would just like to remind that gnome-do is essentially eye-candy.
Theming naturally falls under its umbrella capabilities.
However, integration and development do take precedence.
Nonetheless, I would imagine that adding theming capabilities could
not fail to widen the community, and in addition would create a group
of 'dedicated' to theming. Do's identity is Not based around its
limited theme - it should be based around its capabilities. Take the
gnome environment as an example - while being perfectly themable,
gnome strives to provide sensible defaults with the added options/
configuration where needed (gconf etc). As a gnome-app, it might make
sense for gnome-do to adhere to these principles. Superficially then
gnome-do's identity could seem to revolve around its Initial theme,
but internally it should be as compatible/themable as other gnome
apps.
Lack of theming is a gnome-do shortcoming that is severely accentuated
at the least by other desktop environments, not to say even other
gnome/gtk themes.
On Jan 22, 12:15 am, "David Siegel" <djsie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We will put a lot of effort into making Do look good and work really
> well. Letting people "theme" it may seem like a neat idea to some, but
> I think it will damage Do's identity and disassociate its community.
> Also, it seems that Linux users have come to expect that every
> application they use be theme-able. I think that's pretty silly.
>
> David
>
> On Jan 21, 2008 11:46 PM, Christopher Halse Rogers
>
> <chalserog...@gmail.com> wrote:
Theming naturally falls under its umbrella capabilities.
However, integration and development do take precedence.
Nonetheless, I would imagine that adding theming capabilities could
not fail to widen the community, and in addition would create a group
of 'dedicated' to theming. Do's identity is Not based around its
limited theme - it should be based around its capabilities. Take the
gnome environment as an example - while being perfectly themable,
gnome strives to provide sensible defaults with the added options/
configuration where needed (gconf etc). As a gnome-app, it might make
sense for gnome-do to adhere to these principles. Superficially then
gnome-do's identity could seem to revolve around its Initial theme,
but internally it should be as compatible/themable as other gnome
apps.
Lack of theming is a gnome-do shortcoming that is severely accentuated
at the least by other desktop environments, not to say even other
gnome/gtk themes.
On Jan 22, 12:15 am, "David Siegel" <djsie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We will put a lot of effort into making Do look good and work really
> well. Letting people "theme" it may seem like a neat idea to some, but
> I think it will damage Do's identity and disassociate its community.
> Also, it seems that Linux users have come to expect that every
> application they use be theme-able. I think that's pretty silly.
>
> David
>
> On Jan 21, 2008 11:46 PM, Christopher Halse Rogers
>
Richard Harding
Feb 26, 2008, 10:44:55 AM2/26/08
to gnom...@googlegroups.com
odomok wrote:
> I would just like to remind that gnome-do is essentially eye-candy.
> Theming naturally falls under its umbrella capabilities.
>
> However, integration and development do take precedence.
>
> Nonetheless, I would imagine that adding theming capabilities could
> not fail to widen the community, and in addition would create a group
> of 'dedicated' to theming. Do's identity is Not based around its
> limited theme - it should be based around its capabilities. Take the
> gnome environment as an example - while being perfectly themable,
> gnome strives to provide sensible defaults with the added options/
> configuration where needed (gconf etc). As a gnome-app, it might make
> sense for gnome-do to adhere to these principles. Superficially then
> gnome-do's identity could seem to revolve around its Initial theme,
> but internally it should be as compatible/themable as other gnome
> apps.
>
> Lack of theming is a gnome-do shortcoming that is severely accentuated
> at the least by other desktop environments, not to say even other
> gnome/gtk themes.
>
>
> I would just like to remind that gnome-do is essentially eye-candy.
> Theming naturally falls under its umbrella capabilities.
>
> However, integration and development do take precedence.
>
> Nonetheless, I would imagine that adding theming capabilities could
> not fail to widen the community, and in addition would create a group
> of 'dedicated' to theming. Do's identity is Not based around its
> limited theme - it should be based around its capabilities. Take the
> gnome environment as an example - while being perfectly themable,
> gnome strives to provide sensible defaults with the added options/
> configuration where needed (gconf etc). As a gnome-app, it might make
> sense for gnome-do to adhere to these principles. Superficially then
> gnome-do's identity could seem to revolve around its Initial theme,
> but internally it should be as compatible/themable as other gnome
> apps.
>
> Lack of theming is a gnome-do shortcoming that is severely accentuated
> at the least by other desktop environments, not to say even other
> gnome/gtk themes.
>
>
Just to provide the other side of the argument. GNOME Do is far from eye
candy. I prefer to think of it as a use it and lose it type application.
I only want to speedily launch/find my things and then I want it to
disappear. It's not like compiz eye candy that's around and built into
every open window on your desktop. It's a utility, and I hope that it
keeps it's vision on doing just that, and doing it darn fast.
Speed/accuracy are the only two things that matter to me with it. After
all, 99.9% of the time I never see it.
Just another point of view.
Rick
David Siegel
Feb 26, 2008, 11:23:27 AM2/26/08
to gnom...@googlegroups.com
Yes, GNOME Do is certainly not "essentially eye candy." However, Jason Jones is working very hard on what you might call theming support right now.
David
David
Jason Jones
Feb 27, 2008, 1:18:40 PM2/27/08
to gnom...@googlegroups.com
Jason Jones is actually the guilty part for the OpenSearch and
Pastebin plugins--I believe Jason Smith is the one working on theming.
:)
Pastebin plugins--I believe Jason Smith is the one working on theming.
:)
djsi...@gmail.com
Feb 27, 2008, 3:02:16 PM2/27/08
to gnom...@googlegroups.com
Aha. Well, then, we have a few good Jasons.
David
Brian
Feb 28, 2008, 12:02:13 AM2/28/08
to GNOME Do
Sorry.. that wasn't supposed to go in here.. don't know how that
happened. Don't know if anyone can move it or not.
On Feb 27, 11:54 pm, Brian Lucas <bcl1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The attached source and binaries allow for the use of both sqlite and
> mysql with amarok.
>
> Amarok.cs
> 10KDownload
>
> Amarok.dll
> 24KDownload
>
> [Makefile.am]EXTRA_DIST = Amarok.cs AmarokItems.cs AmarokItemSource.cs AmarokPlayAction.cs AmarokEnqueueAction.cs AssemblyInfo.cs MusicItems.cs
>
> ASSEMBLY_NAME=Amarok
> ASSEMBLY=$(ASSEMBLY_NAME).dll
>
> CSFLAGS+= -debug+ -debug:full
>
> CLEANFILES = $(ASSEMBLY){,.mdb}
>
> amarok_references = $(DO_ADDINS_LIBS) -r:MySql.Data.dll -r:Mono.Data.Sqlite -r:System.Data
>
> amarok_sources = \
> Amarok.cs \
> AmarokItems.cs \
> AmarokItemSource.cs \
> AmarokPlayAction.cs \
> AmarokEnqueueAction.cs \
> AssemblyInfo.cs \
> MusicItems.cs
>
> amarok_build_sources = $(addprefix $(srcdir)/, $(amarok_sources))
>
> plugin_DATA = $(ASSEMBLY)
>
> all: $(ASSEMBLY)
>
> $(ASSEMBLY): $(amarok_sources)
> $(CSC) $(CSFLAGS) $(amarok_references) -target:library -out:$@ $(amarok_build_sources)
>
> MySql.Data.dll
> 177KDownload
happened. Don't know if anyone can move it or not.
On Feb 27, 11:54 pm, Brian Lucas <bcl1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The attached source and binaries allow for the use of both sqlite and
> mysql with amarok.
>
> 10KDownload
>
> Amarok.dll
> 24KDownload
>
> [Makefile.am]EXTRA_DIST = Amarok.cs AmarokItems.cs AmarokItemSource.cs AmarokPlayAction.cs AmarokEnqueueAction.cs AssemblyInfo.cs MusicItems.cs
>
> ASSEMBLY_NAME=Amarok
> ASSEMBLY=$(ASSEMBLY_NAME).dll
>
> CSFLAGS+= -debug+ -debug:full
>
> CLEANFILES = $(ASSEMBLY){,.mdb}
>
> amarok_references = $(DO_ADDINS_LIBS) -r:MySql.Data.dll -r:Mono.Data.Sqlite -r:System.Data
>
> amarok_sources = \
> Amarok.cs \
> AmarokItems.cs \
> AmarokItemSource.cs \
> AmarokPlayAction.cs \
> AmarokEnqueueAction.cs \
> AssemblyInfo.cs \
> MusicItems.cs
>
> amarok_build_sources = $(addprefix $(srcdir)/, $(amarok_sources))
>
> plugin_DATA = $(ASSEMBLY)
>
> all: $(ASSEMBLY)
>
> $(ASSEMBLY): $(amarok_sources)
> $(CSC) $(CSFLAGS) $(amarok_references) -target:library -out:$@ $(amarok_build_sources)
>
> MySql.Data.dll
> 177KDownload
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages