On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 05:46 +0100, D. D. Brierton wrote: > I am not a fan aesthetically of BlueCurve (I always switch to > Industrial), but it is/was very important for one thing: it was both a > KDE theme and a GNOME theme. As far as I know (and I might easily be > wrong) ClearLook isn't. This strikes me as an odd decision on the part > of Red Hat. Following upstream is one thing, but FC is also meant to be > a testing ground for RHEL. Even if, like myself, one uses the default > GNOME desktop there are KDE applications which are offered as defaults > such K3B and kcron. Having a unifying theme is a usability plus. Why > abandon the work on a unified theme for both GNOME and KDE? I don't get > it. Surely BlueCurve could've been tweaked and hacked to work around > whatever the dissatisfactions with it were. Agreed on the importance of matching themes for KDE/GNOME applications. The one area where Clearlooks has an advantage I'd say is in its window borders or Metacity theme, as it shows the icon of the window on the upper-left corner. I waver on the Gtk theme, but I think the Bluecurve Icons are excellent and fairly clear about the function of their perspective programs, while the Gnome/Clearlooks icons are a lot less smooth and readily apparent. That said, I suspect the decision has been made already, so I just hope Bluecurve is retained in future FC releases. -- Aaron Kurtz <a.kurtz@xxxxxxxxxxx GPG Key ID: ED588CF2
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part