Mario Berger wrote :

> I switched from KDE with lots of transparency and icon zoom etc. to
> fluxbox, because I liked the very basic and simple looks (not even icons
> on the desktop - just perfect!).

Theres no reason to switch from KDE for that. My KDE has no eye-candy at
all and is without any icons at the desktop.
--
Thomas O.

This area is designed to become quite warm during normal operation.

Mario Berger <no_damned_spam@nospam.no> wrote:
> So, what do you make of eye candy?

I prefer to minimize the amount of "clutter" on my desktop. I don't like
desktop icons and I've never really cared for how KDE/CDE looks (just too
large of space taken up on the bottom). I also don't much care for the
look of Gnome. My personal preference is to have configurable menus
accessible by mouse (hidden the rest of the time), a clock, an icon tray
and hardly anything else. I also like some Gnome aps like Gnumeric, so
some Gnome integration is okay.

Previously I used Enlightenment with Ganymede theme just because it was
the closest "out of the box" that matched those items and had a color
scheme that matched my favorite background image. Now I use Fluxbox with a
custom color scheme (so easy to do) and customized menu for my most used
apps (and to launch them with my favorite geometry).

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In alt.os.linux.slackware, Joost Kremers dared to utter,
> IMHO eye candy is by definition non-functional. if something pretty serves
> a useful purpose, it automatically loses the predicate "eye-candy". ;-)

I suppose you'r right in that. Of course, the first time I saw all my
icons bouncing randmonly around in a cutesy way I said to myself with a
groan, "Eye-candy."

> on my work machine (iMac running OS X) i started using the desktop as a
> place to dump the stuff on that i'm working on.

Naturally. The desktop is my own personal $TEMP in most cases.

> when someone sends me a
> paper to comment on, or i download something from the net, or the stuff i'm
> writing myself, i save everything to ~/Desktop. that way, it's only a
> (double) mouse click away when i need it.

I do that as well, and find that OS X plays well enough with the finder
that this isn't so difficult. With linux one must typically open
~/Docs/whatever in a file manager and then drag a document there. OS X
can drag the document over a file manager icon, hover there, open that
directory, hover on others, etc until you get where you want much mroe
intuitively. Linux DEs should work on something like this.

> i also still subscribe to the ancient adage that minimised apps should be
> iconified on the desktop... that's the main reason why i'm running ROX
> filer on my linux box.

I've never been like that, but I can see why you like it. It's sorta
like Expose` isn't it? Let's you see a bunch of open windows and choose
the one you want. I think OSS DEs should look at copying Expose` as it
beats icons hands down, IMHO.

- --
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBbwLhlKR45I6cfKARAmFzAJ9x/ghxdVHFPNciFIIFfrtfv7c3WgCfeTTl
vTFPI6m///2Om7CUu7yA31U=
=/8Jd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

+Alan Hicks+ wrote:
>
> In alt.os.linux.slackware, Joost Kremers dared to utter,
>> IMHO eye candy is by definition non-functional. if something pretty serves
>> a useful purpose, it automatically loses the predicate "eye-candy". ;-)
>
> I suppose you'r right in that. Of course, the first time I saw all my
> icons bouncing randmonly around in a cutesy way I said to myself with a
> groan, "Eye-candy."

well, true, it is an eye-candy way of doing something useful. i mean, there
are less visually attractive ways to reach the same effect.

> I do that as well, and find that OS X plays well enough with the finder
> that this isn't so difficult. With linux one must typically open
> ~/Docs/whatever in a file manager and then drag a document there. OS X
> can drag the document over a file manager icon, hover there, open that
> directory, hover on others, etc until you get where you want much mroe
> intuitively. Linux DEs should work on something like this.

then you've been using the wrong file managers. ROX filer does exactly
that. it even jumps back up when you hover a file over the Up-button in the
button bar.

> I've never been like that, but I can see why you like it. It's sorta
> like Expose` isn't it? Let's you see a bunch of open windows and choose
> the one you want. I think OSS DEs should look at copying Expose` as it
> beats icons hands down, IMHO.

i've never really used exposé, TBH i don't find it very intuitive. i use
multiple desktops to keep my apps organised: one app per desktop, always
the same app on the same desktop, on every machine i work on. it's just
that there are always a few apps or (browser) windows that i only use every
now and then. i don't use them often enough to really remember on which
virtual desktop i've put them, so what i do is i minimise them, and keep
one virtual desktop (the third) empty so i only have to type Alt-3 to see
all of them.

--
Joost Kremers joostkremers@yahoo.com
Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht
EN:SiS(9)

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:18:55 +0200, Mario Berger wrote:
....
> I switched from KDE with lots of transparency and icon zoom etc. to
> fluxbox, because I liked the very basic and simple looks (not even icons
....
> I really like the new look, but at first sight it looks a litlle 1337,
> which I clearly not intend to appear.

What does "looks a litlle 1337" mean?
>
> In my view, KDE had too much of it, because I didn't coose every single
> item of it. My system now, however only has exactly the amount of eye
> candy I chose for it, so I don't see it as exaggerated.
>
> So, what do you make of eye candy?

The thing I like about Slack is that you can give yourself as much or as
little of it as you want. You can make it perfectly the way you like it.
Are there any other distros that can make that claim, right out of the
box? Yikes, I should crosspost to advocacy or something. ;-)

I like the operation of windows-style windows, probably only because
that's what I'm used to, but as far as decorations, I'm more of a nuts
and bolts kinda guy. ;-) (i.e., right now, I'm running fluxbox "minimal".)

Cheers!
Rich

NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------

pgp trash troll delete

Hicks, Alan
188 Shady Dale Dr
Lizella, GA 31052
478-935-8132

+Alan Hicks+ <alan@lizella.network> trolled:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In alt.os.linux.slackware, Joost Kremers dared to utter,
>> IMHO eye candy is by definition non-functional. if something pretty serves
>> a useful purpose, it automatically loses the predicate "eye-candy". ;-)
>
> I suppose you'r right in that. Of course, the first time I saw all my
> icons bouncing randmonly around in a cutesy way I said to myself with a
> groan, "Eye-candy."
>
>> on my work machine (iMac running OS X) i started using the desktop as a
>> place to dump the stuff on that i'm working on.
>
> Naturally. The desktop is my own personal $TEMP in most cases.
>
>> when someone sends me a
>> paper to comment on, or i download something from the net, or the stuff i'm
>> writing myself, i save everything to ~/Desktop. that way, it's only a
>> (double) mouse click away when i need it.
>
> I do that as well, and find that OS X plays well enough with the finder
> that this isn't so difficult. With linux one must typically open
> ~/Docs/whatever in a file manager and then drag a document there. OS X
> can drag the document over a file manager icon, hover there, open that
> directory, hover on others, etc until you get where you want much mroe
> intuitively. Linux DEs should work on something like this.
>
>> i also still subscribe to the ancient adage that minimised apps should be
>> iconified on the desktop... that's the main reason why i'm running ROX
>> filer on my linux box.
>
> I've never been like that, but I can see why you like it. It's sorta
> like Expose` isn't it? Let's you see a bunch of open windows and choose
> the one you want. I think OSS DEs should look at copying Expose` as it
> beats icons hands down, IMHO.
>
> - --
> It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
> Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
> Ecclesiastes 7:5
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFBbwLhlKR45I6cfKARAmFzAJ9x/ghxdVHFPNciFIIFfrtfv7c3WgCfeTTl
> vTFPI6m///2Om7CUu7yA31U=
> =/8Jd
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 2004-10-14, Mario Berger <no_damned_spam@nospam.no> wrote:

> So, what do you make of eye candy?

Stock KDE with no icons and a very small taskbar. I gave up on eye candy.
I didn't even load my slackware hard rock baby wallpaper on 10. No point in
it. When I start KDE it auto-boots 5 Konsole shells to max, so I never
see the wall anyway. If I need something I just call it up with the menu or
the Alt-F2 run command. I almost never view multiple windows, being a
full screen alt-tab junkie.

nb

On 2004-10-14, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

> What does "looks a litlle 1337" mean?

That he's an uberdummy?

nb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In alt.os.linux.slackware, Joost Kremers dared to utter,
> i've never really used exposé, TBH i don't find it very intuitive.

I felt the same way until I turned mouse corners on. The corner of the
screen is the quickest and easiest thing to touch with the mouse, so
both my right corners make expose show all windows. Upper left shows
desktop, lower left shows current app only. Very intuitive with just a
little bit of training. Now I find even virtual desktops disorienting.
*shrugs*

> i use
> multiple desktops to keep my apps organised: one app per desktop, always
> the same app on the same desktop, on every machine i work on.

I did that with linux when I started linux but found that it was really
no different than Alt-tabbing between windows. Wasn't very intuitive
when I needed to do something out of the ordinary. I'd have a few
desktops, one for web browser, one for e-mail, one for IM chats, one
for documents, but what if I needed to use the GIMP or something? Got
too complicated so I just used one desktop and alt-tabbed.

- --
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBb0fslKR45I6cfKARAppEAJ4nMhGDG5iumtGxGzWMOv d0l+7tKgCgqN7O
AXgO6vcrXHhiGKFYA5SnIwg=
=ADbi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------

pgp trash troll delete

Hicks, Alan
188 Shady Dale Dr
Lizella, GA 31052
478-935-8132

+Alan Hicks+ <alan@lizella.network> trolled:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In alt.os.linux.slackware, Joost Kremers dared to utter,
>> i've never really used expos?, TBH i don't find it very intuitive.
>
> I felt the same way until I turned mouse corners on. The corner of the
> screen is the quickest and easiest thing to touch with the mouse, so
> both my right corners make expose show all windows. Upper left shows
> desktop, lower left shows current app only. Very intuitive with just a
> little bit of training. Now I find even virtual desktops disorienting.
> *shrugs*
>
>> i use
>> multiple desktops to keep my apps organised: one app per desktop, always
>> the same app on the same desktop, on every machine i work on.
>
> I did that with linux when I started linux but found that it was really
> no different than Alt-tabbing between windows. Wasn't very intuitive
> when I needed to do something out of the ordinary. I'd have a few
> desktops, one for web browser, one for e-mail, one for IM chats, one
> for documents, but what if I needed to use the GIMP or something? Got
> too complicated so I just used one desktop and alt-tabbed.
>
> - --
> It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
> Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
> Ecclesiastes 7:5
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFBb0fslKR45I6cfKARAppEAJ4nMhGDG5iumtGxGzWMOv d0l+7tKgCgqN7O
> AXgO6vcrXHhiGKFYA5SnIwg=
> =ADbi
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----