Hi!

From what I did with my system yesterday, the question arises wether
others have done the same.
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!).
Now, yesterday I installed aterm, gave it a Tux'n'Tosh blended
background xpm with white on black font and removed all window border
decorations. Additionally, I installed a silver metallic theme and a
wallpaper of the same style.
I really like the new look, but at first sight it looks a litlle 1337,
which I clearly not intend to appear.

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?

~Mik
--
Top-Bottom Programming never gets you where you wanted to go.
Bottom-Top Programming gets you where you never wanted to go.

while not life:
sleep((sleep.normal_time - 5h)); eat(mode=fast); pc_mainloop()

Mario Berger wrote:

> Hi!
>
> From what I did with my system yesterday, the question arises wether
> others have done the same.
> 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!).
> Now, yesterday I installed aterm, gave it a Tux'n'Tosh blended
> background xpm with white on black font and removed all window border
> decorations. Additionally, I installed a silver metallic theme and a
> wallpaper of the same style.
> I really like the new look, but at first sight it looks a litlle 1337,
> which I clearly not intend to appear.
>
> 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?
>
> ~Mik


Eyecandy is just cool but /not/ functional at all.
It's personal too.

I like eyecandy in games and such, but on my (KDE) desktop everything is
just plain. (but not the default looks ...)

* No GUI effects, just opaque movement
* Style: Classic KDE theme
* Windowborder: Whid theme
* Colortheme: grey / blue / khaki
* Icontheme: classic new crisp (blue folders)
* a minimum set of icons on the desktop (documents folder and bin)
* a non disturbing wallpaper (minimalistic)
* konqi mimics nautilus in it's spatial use. (I like that a lot)


--
Arjan Groenemeijer - Slackware user since '96
mail $(echo qnqiqmqdqrqaquqgq@qmqyqrqeqaqlqbqoqxq.qcqoqmq | sed 's/q//g')

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!).

I'm not sure I understand the distinction between window managers here -- I
use KDE with no icons or other eye candy, and as you noted, you can add as
much eye candy as you want to fluxbox.

> So, what do you make of eye candy?

If I just want something pretty to look at, I'll visit some website full of
cool artwork. Inevitably, any images, wallpaper, etc. on my desktop (or the
walls of my house) gets old. It's like listening to the same song over and
over and over again.

A lot of what people call "eye candy" however serves a functional purpose as
well. Transparency, particularly in menus, can help to increase the amount
of displayed information on the screen. Visual feedback like icon zooming
can be very useful as well, particularly for, say, the visually impaired.

Of course, some people will scorn anything that doesn't make them feel
"manly". :-)

Jeffrey

Arjan Groenemeijer wrote:

> Mario Berger wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> From what I did with my system yesterday, the question arises wether
>> others have done the same.
>> 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!).
>> Now, yesterday I installed aterm, gave it a Tux'n'Tosh blended
>> background xpm with white on black font and removed all window border
>> decorations. Additionally, I installed a silver metallic theme and a
>> wallpaper of the same style.
>> I really like the new look, but at first sight it looks a litlle 1337,
>> which I clearly not intend to appear.
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> ~Mik
>
>
> Eyecandy is just cool but /not/ functional at all.
> It's personal too.
>
> I like eyecandy in games and such, but on my (KDE) desktop everything is
> just plain. (but not the default looks ...)
>
> * No GUI effects, just opaque movement
> * Style: Classic KDE theme
> * Windowborder: Whid theme
> * Colortheme: grey / blue / khaki
> * Icontheme: classic new crisp (blue folders)
> * a minimum set of icons on the desktop (documents folder and bin)

It is interesting both of you have few icons on the desktop. I have lots.
I group them into functional areas so all the tools for a task are easy to
locate.

Ian

--
Ian Bell

Mario Berger wrote:

> Hi!
>
> From what I did with my system yesterday, the question arises wether
> others have done the same.
> 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!).
> Now, yesterday I installed aterm, gave it a Tux'n'Tosh blended
> background xpm with white on black font and removed all window border
> decorations. Additionally, I installed a silver metallic theme and a
> wallpaper of the same style.
> I really like the new look, but at first sight it looks a litlle 1337,
> which I clearly not intend to appear.
>
> 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?
>
> ~Mik

Depends on my environment. At home I've got a very fancy desktop, lots of
sounds, every piece of eye candy I can get my hands on.

At work I've got a fairly bare desktop. The panel has only the KDE menu,
taskbar, tray. No icons on the desktop, no backgrounds on any of the 4
virtual desktops - heck I don't even use the mouse much if I don't have
to

Two environments, two setups.

Jenni

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

In alt.os.linux.slackware, Arjan Groenemeijer dared to utter,
> Eyecandy is just cool but /not/ functional at all.

In most cases yes, but I disagree on the basis that eye-candy can serve
a very useful purpose, giving you visual clues of background processes
for example. One bit of useful eye-candy are bouncing icons in the Dock
for Mac OS X. That tells you something depending on what application it
is for.

Window shadows help blur the transistion from one window to the next.
Pure anecdotal evidence here, but it seems to me that window shadows
have reduced my personal eye strain.

> I like eyecandy in games and such, but on my (KDE) desktop everything is
> just plain. (but not the default looks ...)

I agree that keeping things generally plain is a Good Thing(TM).

> * a minimum set of icons on the desktop (documents folder and bin)

I use a few more icons, but instead of having icons that I use alot, I
tend to have icons that I don't often use on the desktop. That's
because they're almost always covered by a window, but when I do need
them, I don't have to search through a long menu to find them. Web
browser and e-mail client icons on in my Dock or toolbar as well as on
the desktop, always in a place unlikely to be covered by a window
(generally speaking the top row on an icon grid). I keep document
folders sorted according to what they contain in one column on the
left, application icons in two columns in the middle, and temporary
icons like downloaded files go in a column on the right.

> * a non disturbing wallpaper (minimalistic)

A must have. My desktop wallpaper isn't _too_ minimilistic though. I'm
using a digital blasphemy wallpaper of a dark forst at sunrise/sunset.
The picture is dark, mostly black with a dark reddish orange hue for
the light. There's no white anywhere in the background, so my icons and
their text stand out and are easily readable.

- --
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)

iD8DBQFBbs2GlKR45I6cfKARAjChAJ93xhuiKcDYVcc+ITfc3n zYDWTDHgCfcYlL
vCvO8Dr+lq5iNA+LIfZ0rKI=
=8ux3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

On 2004-10-14, Mario Berger <no_damned_spam@nospam.no> wrote:
>
> So, what do you make of eye candy?

I use X quite a lot, actually! Sometimes, though, I eschew the eye
candy and use a text console instead.

- --keith ;-)

- --
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBbtD4hVcNCxZ5ID8RArgvAJ0ZKHGyaL8HRCUQJqhDc/3YYTZi2ACdFIO1
UlBe9kfF8RvRkayPOlQtREk=
=+3qA
-----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, Arjan Groenemeijer dared to utter,
>> Eyecandy is just cool but /not/ functional at all.
>
> In most cases yes, but I disagree on the basis that eye-candy can serve
> a very useful purpose, giving you visual clues of background processes
> for example. One bit of useful eye-candy are bouncing icons in the Dock
> for Mac OS X. That tells you something depending on what application it
> is for.
>
> Window shadows help blur the transistion from one window to the next.
> Pure anecdotal evidence here, but it seems to me that window shadows
> have reduced my personal eye strain.
>
>> I like eyecandy in games and such, but on my (KDE) desktop everything is
>> just plain. (but not the default looks ...)
>
> I agree that keeping things generally plain is a Good Thing(TM).
>
>> * a minimum set of icons on the desktop (documents folder and bin)
>
> I use a few more icons, but instead of having icons that I use alot, I
> tend to have icons that I don't often use on the desktop. That's
> because they're almost always covered by a window, but when I do need
> them, I don't have to search through a long menu to find them. Web
> browser and e-mail client icons on in my Dock or toolbar as well as on
> the desktop, always in a place unlikely to be covered by a window
> (generally speaking the top row on an icon grid). I keep document
> folders sorted according to what they contain in one column on the
> left, application icons in two columns in the middle, and temporary
> icons like downloaded files go in a column on the right.
>
>> * a non disturbing wallpaper (minimalistic)
>
> A must have. My desktop wallpaper isn't _too_ minimilistic though. I'm
> using a digital blasphemy wallpaper of a dark forst at sunrise/sunset.
> The picture is dark, mostly black with a dark reddish orange hue for
> the light. There's no white anywhere in the background, so my icons and
> their text stand out and are easily readable.
>
> - --
> 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)
>
> iD8DBQFBbs2GlKR45I6cfKARAjChAJ93xhuiKcDYVcc+ITfc3n zYDWTDHgCfcYlL
> vCvO8Dr+lq5iNA+LIfZ0rKI=
> =8ux3
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

+Alan Hicks+ wrote:
>
> In alt.os.linux.slackware, Arjan Groenemeijer dared to utter,
>> Eyecandy is just cool but /not/ functional at all.
>
> In most cases yes, but I disagree on the basis that eye-candy can serve
> a very useful purpose, giving you visual clues of background processes
> for example. One bit of useful eye-candy are bouncing icons in the Dock
> for Mac OS X. That tells you something depending on what application it
> is for.

IMHO eye candy is by definition non-functional. if something pretty serves
a useful purpose, it automatically loses the predicate "eye-candy". ;-)

>> * a minimum set of icons on the desktop (documents folder and bin)
>
> I use a few more icons, but instead of having icons that I use alot, I
> tend to have icons that I don't often use on the desktop. That's

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. 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. then when i've finished with it,
i either move it to the trash or store it somewhere else. (usually the
former, i find. ;-)

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.

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

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

Joost Kremers <joostkremers@yahoo.com> trolled:
> +Alan Hicks+ wrote:

>> In most cases yes, but I disagree on the basis that eye-candy
>> can serve a very useful purpose, giving you visual clues of
>> background processes for example. One bit of useful eye-candy
>> are bouncing icons in the Dock for Mac OS X. That tells you
>> something depending on what application it is for.

> IMHO eye candy is by definition non-functional. if something
> pretty serves a useful purpose, it automatically loses the
> predicate "eye-candy". ;-)

Not necessarily. Candy can brighten up your day and in that it
serves a very useful purpose. Let's not be total philistines here.

I alternate between icewm, windowmaker and kde. One of the nice
things about linux is the choice.

cordially, as always,

rm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8

iQA/AwUBQW7sQOEckfDWS6x8EQLkTACgkUl+uaWbW7nOOmxWmOJawf hwnfYAoKvJ
vUnh2q8iHtdbIrKGSj9Ny9g4
=E5AD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----