digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

GNOME theme engine designer adds transparency to GTK

arstechnica.com — Andrea Cimitan has added translucency to the Murrine GTK theme engine, bringing Vista-like glass effects to the GNOME desktop.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • bowmanjoshua, on 12/13/2007, -12/+5Looks Cool!
  • ptFoe, on 12/13/2007, -14/+95Screw this Vista-like BS, how about Compiz-like?
    • schestowitz, on 12/13/2007, -18/+3http://www.tux-planet.fr/blog/?2007/12/12/214-wind ...
      • harlowsmonkeys, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4That page is in French. Since you've bitched at people for non-English content before, WTF are you doing linking to a French page???
    • dschep, on 12/13/2007, -0/+19Not exactly, gtk's lack of transparency (and qt's for now too iirc) made it that only the borders could have nice pretty transparency unless you made the whole windows transparent a certain amount. This even needs compiz (or some other compositing window manager) to work. Saying something that is a new feature that relies on compiz is compiz-ish would be stupid.
    • Muncher, on 12/13/2007, -5/+10Um, these effects "require a compositing window manager," so they're not Compiz-like, they ARE COMPIZ. Besides, look at the screenshots. If that's not Vista-like then I don't know what is.
      • CoolGoose, on 12/13/2007, -1/+14Compiz isn't the only compositing window manager.
        • Muncher, on 12/13/2007, -5/+2Either way, this allows for things now that weren't possible with Compiz before, so it's silly to call them "Compiz-like."
      • arbulus, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1That frustrates me. Damnit, why can't there be nice effects or really awesome apps comparable to AWN that can run WITHOUT a compositor. Compiz Fusion brings my system speed down more than half and causes random lockups. I don't use it because I like a fast and reliable machine, but I really like the functionality of AWN and the occasional semi-transparent window borders. It's a frustrating spot.
        • RoboDonut, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4Use xcompmgr. If you use a WM that supports external compositing managers (such as Fluxbox) you will get all the nice effects.
      • nailer, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2Compositing was in Mac OS X, and Compiz, before Vista was released. If anything, Vista was either Compiz-like or Mac-like.
    • idntunknwn, on 12/13/2007, -0/+6It *isn't* like Compiz at all. Show me how in Compiz you can get some widgets to be transparent and other widgets to be opaque.

      Guess what, you can't.
      • Darkx1337, on 01/13/2008, -1/+1You can! You are just to much of a noob to figure it out.
    • Cimi86, on 12/15/2007, -0/+0http://digg.com/linux_unix/GNOME_theme_engine_desi ...
      my reply
  • ptFoe, on 12/13/2007, -15/+19Now if the Nautilus developer can allow for transparent backgrounds, (someone has developed a patch already, but to get it accepted to Gnome through all its red tape would take a decade) we will be able to have different wallpapers on the workspaces using Compiz.

    Anyway KDE4 is around the corner and we can all leave all the childish politics involved with Gnome.
    • piesforyou, on 12/13/2007, -9/+5Everytime I see KDE and Gnome in the same sentence, I lose The Game.

      You've ALL lost the game now! haha!
    • geminitojanus, on 12/13/2007, -1/+13"(someone has developed a patch already, but to get it accepted to Gnome through all its red tape would take a decade)"

      Actually that patch is absolute garbage, no surprises GNOME didn't like it. Specifically, it checks for a Compiz atom and adjusts based on it, when instead it should be checking to see if the X server supports compositing and then set the background transparency. It's still a 10 line patch, but if you go ahead and generate it this way and submit it to Alex (the main Nautilus dev right now) I'm certain he'll push it into 2.22. There is no "red tape" here, just incompetence and misunderstanding of the situation.
      • init100, on 12/13/2007, -6/+1"Specifically, it checks for a Compiz atom"

        There are such things as Compiz atoms? I never saw them in the periodic system, must be a recent discovery, probably in some large particle accelerator. :)
        • geminitojanus, on 12/13/2007, -0/+7X Windows development uses "Atoms", basically global integer variables that point to a string or string table, to identify software and to pass information from e.g. Window managers to X and back. Compiz uses an atom to identify when it is the running WM, and the patch in question checks to see if that atom is available. If it isn't, then Compiz isn't running, and it continues on its merry way.

          This is completely wrong, as another window manager that supports compositing may be running (Metacity, Beryl on old machines, KWin, CairoComposite, Enlightenment's new CWM, etc.) However, we have this pretty function in GDK that checks if compositing is available (gdk_screen_is_composited) and that should be used instead, as it will return TRUE if *any* compositing manager is running.
      • sukimashita, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3That atom is not even official.
    • MeneerR, on 12/13/2007, -1/+10I would love to switch to KDE4. I would love to be able to customize as much as I want to. But don't force me to customize because the default interface makes no sense. Rename your apps to normal names, unclutter the menu's by default. And hide all toolbar buttons and functionality that is not used by 90% of the users. Just turn them into extensions, or stuff we can 'turn on' for those 5 apps we actually use as powerusers.

      Gnome sucks with its policies. But its interface is lean and sane. If only the KDE gods would make this priority number one as well. Without the gnome legacy mess, their anti-tweak attitude and their weak architecture.
      • arbulus, on 12/13/2007, -2/+3KDE 4's menu layout is much more simplitic and organized, and the control center is really nice. It really cleans things up quite a lot. There's a live CD you can get to try it out on top of openSUSE or Debian 4. I'm really impressed with it.
    • Psi57, on 12/13/2007, -4/+5Compared to what I can do in LiteStep, both KDE and GNOME are awful. Who decided that users want large, poorly anti-aliased fonts and rounded corner everything with web 2.0 diarrhea type colors? Epic fail.
      • blackmage439, on 12/13/2007, -6/+1Finally, someone agrees with me on this. Forget the OS, most websites are rendered horribly in GNOME/KDE Linux. I understand being different is something to be proud of, but don't sacrifice functionality to do so.
      • Psi57, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1I was actually talking just about the OS UI, but since UI controls in browsers are part of that, it goes along with it.
    • skyshock1, on 12/13/2007, -2/+4I dunno dude, I've trired out a few live CDs w/ current builds of KDE4. So far.... it kinda sucks. It's not intuitive to pick up at all.
  • Vinvin, on 12/13/2007, -4/+49Too bad Ars call him "GNOME theme", as it's really "GTK theme" and can be just as well on Xfce. In fact, it's mostly first choice on Xfce because it's light-weight, as opposed to, say, Clearlooks.
    • dschep, on 12/13/2007, -5/+6Clearlooks? thats only a gtk theme/engine. It can be used with XFCE as well.
      • SimonGray, on 12/13/2007, -0/+8Nothing in his post indicates that he thought otherwise.
  • fragsta, on 12/13/2007, -15/+18Why do people even -want- translucency on their desktop??
    • MackPrime, on 12/13/2007, -3/+72so you can see stuff try to sneak up on you
      • MeneerR, on 12/13/2007, -1/+13Like paperclips?
        • arbulus, on 12/13/2007, -1/+11"It looks like you are trying to write a letter"
        • TeagueSterling, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2He could only see it because you let him by making your windows transparent.
    • drgn, on 12/13/2007, -1/+20How else should anyone notice *progress*? People are stuck with the same "window management" ideas and desktop metaphors for almost 30 years already ... until something better comes along, the only way to sell new computers is to make everything translucent and reflecting.
      • InferiorWang, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4Well they need something to eat up processor cycles so they can justify buying faster and faster computers. My 2.26 GHz P4 still runs XP Pro at a pretty good speed and linux is even faster. I get by without a lot of eye candy, though.
      • MeneerR, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2There are true new experiments beyond that though. Like the true 3d desktop. See this ted-talk:
        http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/131
        • svivian, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1But 3D desktops are just eye candy as well... what's your point?
          • MeneerR, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Did you watch the video? It's NOT a compiz or anything eyecandy ***** like that video.
            It's more like a 3d file-browser. Without all the toolbars and normal style desktop interface.

            The way you interact here with your documents has changed. They way you organize them, they way you browse them, etc. The fact that its 3d is not interesting beyond making this interaction possible.

            I am with you that eyecandy can never be a goal in itself.
      • JitMaster, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1How about putting back in a sorting task bar, like I have in TWM, so that you don't have to go looking for your minimize windows(since they are sorted they are always in the same place relative to the other windows)
    • willynilly, on 12/13/2007, -17/+3Because they're STUPID. They're undoubtedly the same people who championed the "skinning" fad of 7 years ago, where we could negate the purpose of GUIs by creating totally unfamiliar sets of controls in asinine arrangements.

      Now we have transparent ***** WINDOWS, through which you can see all the ***** underneath. Do these morons read transparent NEWSPAPERS and BOOKS?
      • ukblacknight, on 12/13/2007, -1/+8I wouldn't say they're stupid, some people may have legitimate reasons for it, i.e. mrboerts in the post below. You don't HAVE to use it. I personally wouldn't use it either, but saying they're stupid because of something they might have a personal preference to is ignorant.
      • DonAndy, on 12/13/2007, -0/+9I dunno, but I like transparent windows. I mean I heard there are some people who paint theirs' black, but that kinda defeats the whole purpose of windows.
      • wigren, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4Wow, dude... Take it easy.
    • Megatog615, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2I like a little eye candy but that's about it. If it were configurable, I would probably have the opacity at about 95%.
      • vade79, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Just enough to slow things down a bit for no reason. I would set mine at 99% just to to have the peace of mind knowing my computer is doing just a little extra processing for me.
    • drakethegreat, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Easier to see the background? Ya it really is stupid
    • crazybrit, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1I could see some uses for it. Something like Coverflow. I don't know.
  • mroberts, on 12/13/2007, -1/+19@fragsta: Having a reference web page behind an editor... At least that's why I use translucency.
    • piesforyou, on 12/13/2007, -8/+1That's why I have 1680 horizontal pixels. I love having my pdf and text editor open side by side.
  • Realz, on 12/13/2007, -5/+33/Waits for MS paid bloggers to say....linux again steals features from Microsoft
    • prophetpimp, on 12/13/2007, -2/+11you are more likely to see a unpaid Mac blogger do that then an MS paid blogger
    • KataLieb, on 12/13/2007, -2/+5Umm, I recall running Compiz way before Vista came out. Sure Compiz was alpha/beta back then but it was usable. So whats that for stealing...Mac might have had compositing before, but hell, it took Apple years to even provide a decent mouse...So what they had is a moot point :p
      • TrancePhreak, on 12/13/2007, -3/+1Yeah, because Vista just suddenly came into existance when it was released. It's not like they showed it off at conferences or anything.
        • RoboDonut, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3XGL got it to the users before Microsoft did.
          It doesn't matter what they showed at conferences.
    • p0ltergeist, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3I'll bet Mac did translucency first, if anything. If not, I know at least that KDE had it waaaaay before Vista was around.
    • FutureGuy, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1What a pre-emptive strike, you must work for Bush. And that window, especially top right corner control box, looks so original, wow.
  • marvy, on 12/13/2007, -0/+14From what I've seen of Vista (not much, I must admit), the transparency effect includes blurring out the background (similar to the menus in Mac OS Leopard). This makes the foreground much more readable. Unfortunately, the article states that the author uses color maps, which works nicely for transparency, but is hardly usable to create a gaussian blur.
    • willynilly, on 12/13/2007, -3/+7"This makes the foreground much more readable."
      So now we're blurring the crap behind the window, which makes it unreadable. But we're doing that to make the foreground readable. SO WTF IS THE POINT OF THE TRANSPARENCY TO BEGIN WITH?
      • chris9902, on 12/13/2007, -2/+6It's about focus. If I click on a window then it's obvious I want that window to be active. It would be no good to me if I can't read the thing.
      • ArthurArchnix, on 12/13/2007, -1/+15We're long past the day when computers ought to be merely useful. Our screens are the canvas of a new generation, and Linux users are doubly creative to begin with.
      • firefeather, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2I'd like a transparent GTK theme so that my desktop wallpaper shows through even when I have to use a maximized application. Having blurring keeps text from other windows or icons on the desktop from making my current window's text unreadable.
    • firefeather, on 12/13/2007, -4/+8Compiz Fusion (or Compiz or Beryl or whatever) can create a Gaussian blur for objects behind transparent parts of windows. This shouldn't have to be done by the GTK engine, because it's already done with the window manager.
      • salomejones, on 12/13/2007, -3/+3Unless you don't want to run still fairly unstable betaware, and instead want to run a stable, venerable window manager.
        • TeacherOfHeroes, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2If you don't want to run betaware, then you shouldnt be using this theme engine anyways...
      • geminitojanus, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4Arguably, it should be done by the GTK+ engine, as doing blurring on the first pass is always going to be faster than secondary blurring. Compiz may have the advantage of being able to go out to the graphics card, but pushing a huge texture into the card, then clipping it to exactly the sections that need to be blurred, then blurring it isn't any faster than just blurring it on the CPU before the pixel was generated anyways (since blurring is a very nasty convolution operation, even with shaders).

        Of course, Cairo (the toolkit that GTK+ uses to draw) doesn't support convolution operations right now either (which means unless you're generating the image as a buffer in memory and not through the Xlibs, you're going to have to send things back and forth anyways), so either way it's going to be hella nasty. This could be gotten around by adding convolution operations to Cairo, which I believe is on the table for 1.6 so they can support SVG Filters.
  • ukblacknight, on 12/13/2007, -4/+14I'd rather see more work done on making the GUI more compact, offering more usable screen real estate. Gnome 1280x1024 feels like Windows in 1024x768. To me, they're just trying to prove they can keep up with the Jones'.
    • chris9902, on 12/13/2007, -11/+4A compact GUI would be nice but how about sorting out the awful font rendering first.
      • UKsHaDoW, on 12/13/2007, -1/+8There are cleartype text libaries you can install. Although disto's don't like to use because of patents again *sigh*
      • TeacherOfHeroes, on 12/13/2007, -1/+7Try turning hinting off
    • firefeather, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2There are themes out there that are designed with less space in mind (Clearlooks Compact---I think---is one that's really compact). Sure, it'd be nice if one of those was included by default, but it's really up to you to get the theme you want.
    • gavintlgold, on 12/13/2007, -1/+3The gnome default text size is gigantic. Turn that down, and you shouldn't be so bad off.
  • fluvio, on 12/13/2007, -4/+3GO cimi GO! :D
  • EbilPhish, on 12/13/2007, -0/+5I hope there is code released soon, I actually spent quite some time trying to get transparency in Murrine myself so I would love to see how he did it.

    I even made a mock up on a simple theme style designed to work well with transparency: http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php/Transparent ...
    • UKsHaDoW, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4"Not found." :(
    • EbilPhish, on 12/13/2007, -4/+2Looks like it requires application side modifications which make it kind of useless for most things unless a few applications decide to take advantage, or unless you want to manually patch every GTK app.

      We need the ability for the GTK engine to be able to apply transparency to the widgets without requiring code modifications.
    • mercurysquad, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1That looks ***** awesome, can you just make/release a non-transparent version of it? When the new Murrine is released (Murrine website still has a version from June), you can updated it to take advantage of the translucency.
  • TheRealToma, on 12/13/2007, -11/+2Fake transparency it seems :( Kinda like the old "transparent" panels in KDE.
    • andycr512, on 12/13/2007, -0/+5No, it's real. From the article:

      "The translucency effects obviously require a compositing window manager, but the theme engine is designed so that the widgets will simply be rendered without transparency when no compositing window manager is present. "

      No reason for requiring compositing other than it being real.
  • xienze, on 12/13/2007, -16/+5It just goes to show you that the graphical effects that Mac OS and Windows have are "lame" and "unnecessary bloat" until someone implements them for Linux (then they're the coolest thing ever).
    • UKsHaDoW, on 12/13/2007, -0/+5no it just means linux surports tastes for different people. not everybody on linux thinks its bloat.
      • SuperCow1127, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Some of us Linux users still think it's bloat. We also know that the beauty of Linux is that if we don't want it, we don't have to have it!
    • EbilPhish, on 12/13/2007, -0/+10The linux transparency manages to work well on 1ghz/512mb systems, Vista's requirements for the same thing are ludicrous.
    • ArthurSucks, on 12/13/2007, -0/+5Linux: Two lines of code
      Vista: Extra GIG of ram.
      • geehossiphats, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3Linux: apt-get update; apt-get upgrade
        Vista: clicky clicky clicky clicky wait, reboot, wait, clicky clicky clicky clicky, wait, reboot, [repeat several times].
        • Mtown, on 12/13/2007, -3/+1Actually i believe it's more like
          Vista: Actually do something useful
          Linux: Stare at your cool looking Desktop
  • ArthurArchnix, on 12/13/2007, -1/+3This along with compositing support coming down the pipe in Metacity is nothing but good news for Gnome users. Despite the benefits of compiz and beryl merging it was sad to see some choice disappear.
  • hornett, on 12/13/2007, -8/+3OK, now stack some of those windows on top of each other and see how usable it is!
    • andycr512, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2There's blurring, so it's hardly any more difficult than before.
  • Hades32, on 12/13/2007, -3/+13Transparency != Glass Effect
    • drakethegreat, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1Of course but every time linux copies Mac OS X or Windows and says its the same thing when clearly its just a half witted attempt to be like it without polish they prove to me why they still have yet to hit the mainstream in the way they want.
  • Zippo, on 12/13/2007, -0/+10I must say, Linux has certainly come along over the past few years. I know that the backbone of the OS is what really matters, but it's really nice to see the free software getting the nice, professional eye candy. It's really the icing of the cake.
  • muppethouse, on 12/13/2007, -0/+9I believe macslow deserves some credit for creating these widgits please. Read his blog post on the subject here
    http://macslow.thepimp.net/?p=150
  • JasonCox, on 12/13/2007, -11/+5"/Waits for MS paid bloggers to say....linux again steals features from Microsoft"
    1) I'm not MS paid
    2) Wasn't it you Linux folks who four years ago said transparency was stupid why would you need glass-like effects and animations on an OS? Now it's all the rage on Linux... I just find it funny.
    • ukblacknight, on 12/13/2007, -2/+13Maybe theres a niche of linux users who like glass like effects? Therefore someone is catering for that niche. Thats generally how the community works.
    • EbilPhish, on 12/13/2007, -1/+7"Linux folks" refer to more than one entity as such they are capable of having a variety of viewpoints.
      Personally I've always wanted transparency, I find it to be quite useful, you can view an example behind the window your typing in for instance. Or see when a console output has stopped spewing stuff behind a browser window without checking continiously.

      Plus it just looks awesome.

      Of course there are Linux users that say Transparency is stupid, there are Linux users that say GUI's are stupid, and there are users that make a very convincing argument for using punch cards over keyboards.

      I'm sure there are heaps of windows people that also hate the transparency.
      • ArthurArchnix, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3You need to come to the meetings more often or else read the damn memos, this is NOT the OFFICIAL position. I'll be reporting you to your local Linux authority.
    • gavintlgold, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4I used to use OS X, and thought that the pulsing effects and (very subtle) transparency effects were neat. I also think vista's transparent windows are cool too. So I would be very happy to have something like this. Now other people who are from a different background might like to use the default gnome theme, but I personally think it's horribly ugly.
    • salomejones, on 12/13/2007, -1/+7No. Pseudo-transparency has been available in Linux since the advent of the Enlightenment window manager in the late 1990s. True transparency has been available since the advent of publicly released XGL, which happened on January 2nd, 2006. In any event, it predates the windows version by quite a while, but not the OS X version, which was implemented in terminal.app three years earlier.
      • KataLieb, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Yup. Been running Compiz myself since that first public alpha release of XGL and Compiz...Back then had some bugs of course, reported em, and today ive been enjoying a rather stable composited desktop for well over a year. And hey it runs well on computers that Vista wouldnt even boot up on.
    • ArthurSucks, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1Four years ago when Windows had transparency... oh wait.
  • kapowaz, on 12/13/2007, -16/+1I'm really impressed!!!! In a couple of years maybe you'll add drop shadows and firework effects whenever you move a window!!!!! That'd be super awesome!!!!!!!! Linux is so going to beat Windows on the desktop now!!!!!!! Come in Bill, your time is up!!!1one
    • ukblacknight, on 12/13/2007, -0/+7Grow up!!!!!11111two
    • EbilPhish, on 12/13/2007, -0/+7There already are drop shadows. The fireworks can be setup to occur when a window is minimised/restored or closed/open (well technically they are more magical sparkles).
      If you don't like effects don't enable them.
  • digduality2, on 12/13/2007, -10/+3buried for the MS-shill desktop environment being in the linux section
  • regeya, on 12/13/2007, -2/+14Yep...those MS fanboys will be trashing Linux for trying to be like Vista, and if there's a story later about Linux distros taking Windows marketshare they'll trash Linux for not being enough like Windows.
  • triskele, on 12/13/2007, -3/+1Why would I want Gnome to look more like Vista? And besides, when not using a solid color wallpaper, that would and did make my eyes hurt.
    • andycr512, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2It's blurred, so it avoids the "I can see 3 layers of crap, my eyes are burning" effect.
  • arekarek, on 12/13/2007, -1/+13Microsoft didn't invent transparency.

    They would love to patent it, but...
  • etnlIcarus, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3It's a pretty nifty little improvement to the Murrine GTK+ engine. I just hope (and fully expect) to be able to set individual widget opacity in my gtkrc file.

    Also, if anyone can tell me what media player that was in the first screenshot, I'd be much obliged. For reference sake, this is the one I'm talking about: http://arstechnica.com/journals/linux.media/murrin ...
  • jearsh, on 12/13/2007, -5/+10I'm sick of gnome-look and all of the X themes mocking Vista/OS X. Someone make a real theme.
    • RoboDonut, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3We've still got *box.
      Minimalism at it's best.
  • arjie, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2That's interesting. I was waiting for this after I found out that gnome-terminal can do this funky stuff. The transparency is real transparency if you have a compositing window manager, otherwise it's fake transparency. Neat.
    • geminitojanus, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3It's sad how proficient the free software guys have gotten at faking things like transparency because the hardware has been such a closed garden for so long. Now CPUs are so fast that doing CPU-bound transparency isn't even tough, and poof, innovation abound.
  • jakk, on 12/13/2007, -4/+1Did anyone else look at this and shudder? I used to like Gnome, too. They've gone down the wrong path recently, although I know (hope/pray) this wont be a default setting, its still takes catering to Windoze users a little too far.
  • Megatog615, on 12/13/2007, -1/+3Why does everyone copy the Vista theme? If you go on gnome-look.org I bet you'll see a Vista-esque theme on the front page.
    • CondoleezzaRice, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1because the vista theme is pretty

      just like why there are imitation Aqua themes
      • Megatog615, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1So instead of trying to give Linux a unique look, they copy others instead?
        • sure13, on 02/22/2008, -0/+0If you don't like the copy-cat themes, don't use them. Problem solved, genius.
  • devzer0, on 12/13/2007, -8/+2Buried. Sorry, GNOME and GTK are dead projects. Try again.
    • blackmage439, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1Right, because Ubuntu was written natively for the GNOME platform.

      Fail.
    • RoboDonut, on 12/13/2007, -2/+2It's personal preference.
      I dislike pretty much every QT app I've ever tried with the exception of Amarok (which is amazing) and Konqueror (Which is a little bloated, but still usable)
      Does this mean that QT/KDE sucks? No, it doesn't.
      Does GTK suck? Maybe, but it gets the job done.
    • bruce89, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Strange, I was under the impression that GNOME has a 6 month development cycle.
  • vancanucksfan, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4some people are complaining and saying they dont like this aero-vista look. they are giving you more choice. some people like the aero-vista look but can't stand using windows, so why not get the same look but in linux? linux is about choice, and the more choice the better. if you don't like this look, use another. thats the beauty of linux.
  • eclip5e, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2GTK/GNOME, still playing catch-up?

    It would be cool if window-global transparency was actually useful in a usability sense.
  • momsshizzle, on 12/13/2007, -11/+2You can add ***** to *****, but it still ends up as *****. Linsux.
    • multitude, on 12/13/2007, -0/+6@momshizzle, I looked at your profile and it seems that you just go around posting inane comments against Linux. Don't you have anything better to do with your time?
      • RoboDonut, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4Not only that, but he uses the EXACT SAME argument in every thread.
        "Buried for linsux"
        "It's still linsux"
        "Linsux linsux linsux"
  • CCmachined, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1dont they mean like the Emerald window manager?
    Vista is well behind it terms of graphics... :D
    • gavintlgold, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2This adds transparency to the rest of the window (but not some parts). So it's cooler :P
  • rlbond86, on 12/13/2007, -2/+3Who cares, KDE is better anyway.
  • Mtown, on 12/14/2007, -1/+1I just don't get it... Vista adds some Mac/Linux-like widgets and everybody screams that Microsoft is copying other OS's.

    Now Linux copies the Vista glass theme and everybody praises as a brilliant innovation?
  • Cimi86, on 12/14/2007, -0/+6Hi guys, I'm Andrea Cimitan, the "man" :)
    So I just want to reply to someone of you and specify few things.

    First of all I'm not a Vista-Fanboy, this theme is not ment to *copy* Vista style BUT was essentially made to show you what Gtk can do with its current API. This article and test is about RGBA colormaps and their possibilities. So, as an example, I've shown a media player (that works :) perfectly). The Vista-like emerald theme was taken cause I wanted a transparent window-border :)
    but don't blame me, unless you just want to do a flame or something absolutely useless (for the community) and irritating.
    But don't go OT, I repeat this theme was done JUST for showing the possibilities, so... let's start making RGBA applications!

    The requirements are just to set the usage of an RGBA colorpam in your gtk app, something like gtk_widget_set_colormap(colormap), with colormap an rgba colormap.
    The result is that, if the engine is rgba capable you'll get a transparent window, otherwise just the classic ones :)

    Another simple thing, doing trough gdk_screen_is_composited, is that the app will (obviusly) be transparent just with a composited window-manager, and if it can't find it, it just get the fallback classic view without any kind of glitches.

    Said that, there's no special reason to don't make your apps rgba-capable :) Or to write applications just to use those features, like media players, of course or everything you like (that are available without any slowdown)

    If you have intelligent questions (and not stupid flames) I'm there :)

    (I hope to release the source code when I'll have a great modularity, I'm rewriting most of it to ensure a simple future development)

    PS:
    @muppethouse: MacSlow encouraged myself, but the code is mine
    @vinvin: I'm developer of both engines (gnome 2.20 default theme is all by me), there's no longer speed difference between the two themes, clearlooks is now fast. A _slow_ gtk engine could be ubuntulooks (1,5 times slower), and MUCH slower then clearlooks is Aurora (3 times slower, 300% slower)
    • searayman, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Great work! I just wanted to thank you personally. Can't wait to get my hands on it.
  • peedeeramone, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1I really don't think people get the point of the article at all. It's not saying "We can doo what veesta and OSX can!!!!"

    All the article is showing is that people said it couldn't be done, and they're just saying yeah, it can, here it is.

    The thing about linux that makes it so damn cool is just that you can make it look just like XP. or Vista. or OSX. or DOS. or OS/2.
    or like LINUX.

    You can do anything you want (or at least have the knowledge of)

    Some people like transparencies and eye candy, others don't. Some like linux, others don't. If you want it, If you like it, if you would like to try it, go ahead, its there, its FREE. if not, dont. that simple
    • socceroos, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0Couldn't have said it better myself. Well done mate.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.