On 10/19/05, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <quote who="Matthew Nuzum"> > > > The Tango team is largely (?/partially?) made up of Novel Desktop > > developers. I think that visual aesthetics is one place where Linux > > distributions *should* differentiate themselves. Be careful embracing > > Tango at the expensive of Ubuntu's distinctive look. > > a) We don't have a distinctive look for our icons at the moment (we ship the > GNOME icons by default right now).
Ah. That explains the foot. The only two Gnome's I've used is RedHat/Fedora and Ubuntu and they look much different from each other, so I didn't realize these were defaults. > c) How do completely different looking 'Linux' [1] desktops help users? I'm not suggesting they look completely different, I'm suggesting they have unique visual styles. In a sense, if you've seen Windows XP Home and compared it to Windows XP Media Center there is a a unique visual style to media center. It doesn't look drastically different - everything is still in the same place, it just has a little additional flair. That is what I was suggesting with Ubuntu, and note that I said this type of distinction should be emphasized, implying that some other things that differ between distros should not. I was initially attracted to Ubuntu because it's simple, clean and elegant style *looked* much nicer than the cluttered Fedora/RedHat desktop I'd used before. However your point b is well taken - I know creating one icon is tricky, and since Ubuntu doesn't differentiate itself from others now in the icons it uses, then if a new suite of nice looking icons is available then it makes sense to use it. -- Matthew Nuzum www.bearfruit.org -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
