Hello
1: Please replace clearlooks by bluecurve, its the offcial artwork and i like it ! 2: make a new version of system-config-boot, is not too many configurable 3: Make new wallpaper, splashscreen, and GDM theme, in Blue its really good 4: Make a Graphic Shutdown
Thanks !!
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Search : des réponses à tous vos besoins ! http://www.imagine-msn.com/hotmail/default.aspx?locale=fr-FR
DMC Mandrake wrote:
Hello
1: Please replace clearlooks by bluecurve, its the offcial artwork and i like it !
If you like it, you can use it. It still exists. Themes are a subjective taste and clear looks is the default now for GNOME.
2: make a new version of system-config-boot, is not too many configurable
File the enhancement requests in bugzilla.redhat.com
3: Make new wallpaper, splashscreen, and GDM theme, in Blue its really good
Ideas are cooking up in fedora-marketing list. You are welcome to participate and let us know your ideas on it
4: Make a Graphic Shutdown
Already in the wish list. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Wishlist. Personally I like the idea of doing something similar to the early GDM login and new init script to make bootup faster to apply to shutdown too so that it not slow enough to add graphics to make the wait look better
regards Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
If you like it, you can use it. It still exists. Themes are a subjective taste and clear looks is the default now for GNOME.
As if BlueCurve were the default theme for GNOME in the RH8 -> FC3 era. Your argument doesn't stand. And yes, I like BlueCurve more than Clearlooks too.
Already in the wish list. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Wishlist. Personally I like the idea of doing something similar to the early GDM login and new init script to make bootup faster to apply to shutdown too so that it not slow enough to add graphics to make the wait look better
And that won't work with the NVIDIA binary drivers either. I think this, as well as rhgb, are a waste of developers' time.
On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 12:39 +0300, Ovidiu Lixandru wrote:
As if BlueCurve were the default theme for GNOME in the RH8 -> FC3 era. Your argument doesn't stand.
One of the Goals of the Fedora project is to stay closer to upstream. This holds true for the kernel as well as the Desktop. Hence the "new" panel arrangement and the default theme.
Hi.
Ovidiu Lixandru ovidiu@linux360.ro wrote:
And yes, I like BlueCurve more than Clearlooks too.
And I happen to like clearlooks more. So what?
And that won't work with the NVIDIA binary drivers either.
Being compatible with nvidias drivers is not exactly a stated goal of FC.
Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
And I happen to like clearlooks more. So what?
"As if BlueCurve were the default theme for GNOME in the RH8 -> FC3 era. Your argument doesn't stand." You forgot this. My preference was not used as an argument.
Being compatible with nvidias drivers is not exactly a stated goal of FC.
I didn't say that. I said FC should use its efforts better for the benefit of its users. If you develop a program which the majority of the desktop users won't use because of *official* driver incompatibility, you definitely have some goal issues.
On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 13:19 +0300, Ovidiu Lixandru wrote:
Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Being compatible with nvidias drivers is not exactly a stated goal of FC.
I didn't say that. I said FC should use its efforts better for the benefit of its users. If you develop a program which the majority of the desktop users won't use because of *official* driver incompatibility, you definitely have some goal issues.
Actually, the official position should be to recommend users to avoid buying such incompatible hardware, since it's support is minimal.
Rui
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 13:19 +0300, Ovidiu Lixandru wrote:
Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Being compatible with nvidias drivers is not exactly a stated goal of FC.
I didn't say that. I said FC should use its efforts better for the benefit of its users. If you develop a program which the majority of the desktop users won't use because of *official* driver incompatibility, you definitely have some goal issues.
Actually, the official position should be to recommend users to avoid buying such incompatible hardware, since it's support is minimal.
Rui
the problem is that the don't have any other choice .... recommend user to buy older or slower hardware isn't the right way..
On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 13:29 +0200, dragoran wrote:
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: the problem is that the don't have any other choice .... recommend user to buy older or slower hardware isn't the right way..
Being held hostage to questionable market moves isn't the right way either.
Rui
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 13:29 +0200, dragoran wrote:
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: the problem is that the don't have any other choice .... recommend user to buy older or slower hardware isn't the right way..
Being held hostage to questionable market moves isn't the right way either.
Rui
I agree but there seems to be no solution :(
On Friday 01 July 2005 05:29am, dragoran wrote:
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
[SNIP]
the problem is that the don't have any other choice .... recommend user to buy older or slower hardware isn't the right way..
No other choice? What are you talking about? There are several other card makers out there building video cards for systems. None of them *force* anyone to "buy older or slower hardware".
This is open-source software...IOW, it's all about choice.
Freedom to choose is not just for consumers but also for the hardware manufacturers. They can choose to support or ignore (or somewhere in-between) any group of users they choose to.
On Fri, July 1, 2005 7:29 am, dragoran said:
the problem is that the don't have any other choice .... recommend user to buy older or slower hardware isn't the right way..
No, it _is_ the right way. There _are_ other choices, and they should be recommended by the community instead of companies that refuse to properly support Linux. Especially when many (or most) peoples needs are servered perfectly well by one of the current open source options. We _really_ need people who care about open source to stop spreading the notion that there is no alternative to nVidia.
Cheers, Sean
On Friday 01 July 2005 08:54, Sean wrote:
On Fri, July 1, 2005 7:29 am, dragoran said:
the problem is that the don't have any other choice .... recommend user to buy older or slower hardware isn't the right way..
No, it _is_ the right way. There _are_ other choices, and they should be recommended by the community instead of companies that refuse to properly support Linux. Especially when many (or most) peoples needs are servered perfectly well by one of the current open source options. We _really_ need people who care about open source to stop spreading the notion that there is no alternative to nVidia.
Please, name a video card that performs as well as an nVidia GeForce2 using OSS drivers. ATi has some cards in that performance range, but only if you use their drivers, which are even worse then nVidias
Richard June wrote:
On Friday 01 July 2005 08:54, Sean wrote:
On Fri, July 1, 2005 7:29 am, dragoran said:
the problem is that the don't have any other choice .... recommend user to buy older or slower hardware isn't the right way..
No, it _is_ the right way. There _are_ other choices, and they should be recommended by the community instead of companies that refuse to properly support Linux. Especially when many (or most) peoples needs are servered perfectly well by one of the current open source options. We _really_ need people who care about open source to stop spreading the notion that there is no alternative to nVidia.
Please, name a video card that performs as well as an nVidia GeForce2 using OSS drivers. ATi has some cards in that performance range, but only if you use their drivers, which are even worse then nVidias
Would people stop discussing merits and demerits of particular brands of video cards and their drivers and market share in the Fedora development list. This is definitely off topic for this list. Kindly stop
regards Rahul
Sean wrote:
No, it _is_ the right way. There _are_ other choices, and they should be recommended by the community instead of companies that refuse to properly support Linux. Especially when many (or most) peoples needs are servered perfectly well by one of the current open source options. We _really_ need people who care about open source to stop spreading the notion that there is no alternative to nVidia.
Yeah, there's ATI!
On Friday 01 July 2005 04:19am, Ovidiu Lixandru wrote:
Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
[SNIP]
I didn't say that. I said FC should use its efforts better for the benefit of its users. If you develop a program which the majority of the desktop users won't use because of *official* driver incompatibility, you definitely have some goal issues.
You can not state that Nvidia is used by a "majority of the desktop users". That is simply not true. Far more people are using something else than are using Nvidia video cards.
Even if that were true, there would not be any "goal issues" here...where is is said that one of Fedora's goals would be to give one hardware vendor an advantage over another? (Rephrase as needed to understand the point).
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 07:32:52AM -0600, Lamont R. Peterson wrote:
You can not state that Nvidia is used by a "majority of the desktop users". That is simply not true. Far more people are using something else than are using Nvidia video cards.
Intel is currently the dominant supplier of video hardware according to the marketing data I have seen. (Just an FYI)
Alan
Ovidiu Lixandru wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
If you like it, you can use it. It still exists. Themes are a subjective taste and clear looks is the default now for GNOME.
As if BlueCurve were the default theme for GNOME in the RH8 -> FC3 era. Your argument doesn't stand. And yes, I like BlueCurve more than Clearlooks too.
Just because something is the default isnt going to change your personal opinion on it. So instead of convincing people to adopt your choices as the default it would be better to just switch the theme over after the installation or during kickstart. If you do have rational arguments about other set of preferences in various applications, developers are more likely to hear you because it generally is much more applicable to a wider set of people. I am pretty sure that are dozens of other themes which some of the users like which isnt being shipped in Fedora Core at all. You should use the theme sites like http://art.gnome.org or http://kde-look.org. Applications that grab such themes from various sites and make the end user experience in changing the themes from a wider variety more transparent and easier would be a good thing to do. Thats where I would like to see the effort go towards in extras or even in core
regards Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Just because something is the default isnt going to change your personal opinion on it. So instead of convincing people to adopt your choices as the default it would be better to just switch the theme over after the installation or during kickstart. If you do have rational arguments about other set of preferences in various applications, developers are more likely to hear you because it generally is much more applicable to a wider set of people. I am pretty sure that are dozens of other themes which some of the users like which isnt being shipped in Fedora Core at all. You should use the theme sites like http://art.gnome.org or http://kde-look.org. Applications that grab such themes from various sites and make the end user experience in changing the themes from a wider variety more transparent and easier would be a good thing to do. Thats where I would like to see the effort go towards in extras or even in core
You're missing the point. I said BlueCurve was chosen as a default for RH8 through FC3 for other reasons, because BlueCurve has never been the default theme in official GNOME releases. As I said some time ago, Fedora Core is losing parts of its graphical identity. The desktop now starts by default with a stock GNOME theme which does not include a GTK1 theme, the login theme and the wallpaper are pretty ugly and quite unprofessional compared to the RHEL ones. I'm a bit upset about this because I'm a long time RH and FC user and I've recommended and installed the distro to a lot of regular users. The interface is the first contact they make with the distro and lately I've begun considering some other distros for their default interfaces. The default desktop interface is not an issue for me, it is however for the people I recommend FC to.
Ovidiu Lixandru wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Just because something is the default isnt going to change your personal opinion on it. So instead of convincing people to adopt your choices as the default it would be better to just switch the theme over after the installation or during kickstart. If you do have rational arguments about other set of preferences in various applications, developers are more likely to hear you because it generally is much more applicable to a wider set of people. I am pretty sure that are dozens of other themes which some of the users like which isnt being shipped in Fedora Core at all. You should use the theme sites like http://art.gnome.org or http://kde-look.org. Applications that grab such themes from various sites and make the end user experience in changing the themes from a wider variety more transparent and easier would be a good thing to do. Thats where I would like to see the effort go towards in extras or even in core
You're missing the point. I said BlueCurve was chosen as a default for RH8 through FC3 for other reasons, because BlueCurve has never been the default theme in official GNOME releases.
Red Hat Linux had a development methodology that is different from Fedora. Clear looks itself is based on the BlueCurve engine and with it being a potential candidate for the next GNOME default theme, it makes more sense to flow along with the upstream thing which is an explicit Fedora design goal.
As I said some time ago, Fedora Core is losing parts of its graphical identity. The desktop now starts by default with a stock GNOME theme which does not include a GTK1 theme, the login theme and the wallpaper are pretty ugly and quite unprofessional compared to the RHEL ones.
Again, You should get into the fedora-marketing list and read the discussions there and participate if you have good design skills or even ideas on how to go about making Fedora look attractive and better. It seems you would rather choose your distribution based on the theme and wallpapers rather than switching it over to what fit your tastes better. I am pretty sure any given theme isnt going to please everyone
regards Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Again, You should get into the fedora-marketing list and read the discussions there and participate if you have good design skills or even ideas on how to go about making Fedora look attractive and better. It seems you would rather choose your distribution based on the theme and wallpapers rather than switching it over to what fit your tastes better. I am pretty sure any given theme isnt going to please everyone
My hands are full with another Linux project. I just thought an old user's opinion could be heard by the great people who develop it and perhaps see some bits of truth in it.
On 07/01/2005 06:36 AM, Ovidiu Lixandru wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Just because something is the default isnt going to change your personal opinion on it. So instead of convincing people to adopt your choices as the default it would be better to just switch the theme over after the installation or during kickstart. If you do have rational arguments about other set of preferences in various applications, developers are more likely to hear you because it generally is much more applicable to a wider set of people. I am pretty sure that are dozens of other themes which some of the users like which isnt being shipped in Fedora Core at all. You should use the theme sites like http://art.gnome.org or http://kde-look.org. Applications that grab such themes from various sites and make the end user experience in changing the themes from a wider variety more transparent and easier would be a good thing to do. Thats where I would like to see the effort go towards in extras or even in core
You're missing the point. I said BlueCurve was chosen as a default for RH8 through FC3 for other reasons, because BlueCurve has never been the default theme in official GNOME releases.
ClearLooks is being considered for the same reasons Bluecurve has been around, plus others. See http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2005-February/msg00453.htm...
Hi.
Ovidiu Lixandru ovidiu@linux360.ro wrote:
identity. The desktop now starts by default with a stock GNOME theme which does not include a GTK1 theme
I have to agree with you here. Although I think that clearlooks is more beautiful than bluecurve, the lack of a GTK1 theme (minor, since GTK1 is deprecated for FC, but there is lot of use of it in FE) and more importantly a KDE theme is unfortunate.
Hi
Already in the wish list. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Wishlist. Personally I like the idea of doing something similar to the early GDM login and new init script to make bootup faster to apply to shutdown too so that it not slow enough to add graphics to make the wait look better
And that won't work with the NVIDIA binary drivers either. I think this, as well as rhgb, are a waste of developers' time.
I am not sure you read me correctly. Work in going towards removing RHGB and making the boot process faster. In a similar fashion if the shutdown is also made faster, the need for graphics there is much less. So without the graphics involved the Nvidia drivers arent going to come into play.
regards Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I am not sure you read me correctly. Work in going towards removing RHGB and making the boot process faster. In a similar fashion if the shutdown is also made faster, the need for graphics there is much less. So without the graphics involved the Nvidia drivers arent going to come into play.
I got you loud and clear. I should've snipped the last part of the quote, I was referring just to the entry in the Wishlist.
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 12:39:45PM +0300, Ovidiu Lixandru wrote:
As if BlueCurve were the default theme for GNOME in the RH8 -> FC3 era.
And the fact that Bluecurve was the default for RH8 -> FC3 doesn't mean it has to be the default till the end of time. Your arguement doesn't stand either.
And that won't work with the NVIDIA binary drivers either. I think this, as well as rhgb, are a waste of developers' time.
I too think that binary drivers are a waste of developers' time.
Emmanuel
Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
And the fact that Bluecurve was the default for RH8 -> FC3 doesn't mean it has to be the default till the end of time. Your arguement doesn't stand either.
Did I say it has to be BlueCurve? Did I say it has to be any artwork "borrowed" from RHEL? I said it should be something professional. BlueCurve was and still is in this regard. AFAIK BlueCurve is the *only* complete desktop package for GNOME and KDE. It's got Qt/GTK1/GTK2/Metacity/KWM themes, icons, wallpapers and mouse pointers for both environments. Clearlooks may be a "rewrite", but it's a 5% rewrite. There can't be any comparison between the two.
I too think that binary drivers are a waste of developers' time.
Why should you care, is it FC's developers' time? Are they cr*p? Have a look at ATI's, thank you.
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 03:14:24PM +0300, Ovidiu Lixandru wrote:
I too think that binary drivers are a waste of developers' time.
Why should you care, is it FC's developers' time?
Yes, it is.
Mike Harris has to spend time explaining to users that he can't fix bugs in the nvidia driver because he hasn't got the source code. Kernel hackers have to waste their time with crashes from tainted kernels. In the long run, all of this adds up and it's time that could be used for better things.
Are they cr*p? Have a look at ATI's, thank you.
No thanks. I brought an ATI card because the XFree86/Xorg drivers had good 3D support for them. The whole point was to avoid binary drivers, to begin with.
Emmanuel
On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 15:43 +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 03:14:24PM +0300, Ovidiu Lixandru wrote:
I too think that binary drivers are a waste of developers' time.
Why should you care, is it FC's developers' time?
Yes, it is.
Mike Harris has to spend time explaining to users that he can't fix bugs in the nvidia driver because he hasn't got the source code. Kernel hackers have to waste their time with crashes from tainted kernels. In the long run, all of this adds up and it's time that could be used for better things.
The reality is a LOT of non Fedora controlled Linux websites recommend NVidia graphics cards for use with Linux. I think that is somewhat unfortunate, but also is reality.
I don't know of a video card with an open source driver that has the 3D performance of NVidia, and 3D is really the only reason to run the nvidia binary drivers anyway (I have no problems with the open source nvidia drivers for 2D)
If you are going to game in Linux, you need either ATI or NVidia - unless there is some card with open source 3D drivers I'm not aware of - and I'm not sure the 3D gaming market in Linux should be ignored by Fedora.
That being said - there's no reason to let nvidia hold back development, if something in the boot process doesn't work with nvidia's drivers, then have an option to disable it. Those who want nvidia can disable it. Early login should be a boot option, like rhgb, that can be disabled. As long as that is the case - there's no problem. If that is not the case, then there is a serious problem with Fedora, non-working xorg.conf should not interfere with booting a system (and that is why I don't use rhgb presently)
On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 00:18 -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote:
If you are going to game in Linux, you need either ATI or NVidia - unless there is some card with open source 3D drivers I'm not aware of - and I'm not sure the 3D gaming market in Linux should be ignored by Fedora.
Matrox, but their 3D performance isn't at the same level as ATI or nVidia.
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 07:34:11AM -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
If you are going to game in Linux, you need either ATI or NVidia - unless there is some card with open source 3D drivers I'm not aware of - and I'm not sure the 3D gaming market in Linux should be ignored by Fedora.
Matrox, but their 3D performance isn't at the same level as ATI or nVidia.
Also the Intel integrated chipsets.
Michael A. Peters wrote:
I don't know of a video card with an open source driver that has the 3D performance of NVidia, and 3D is really the only reason to run the nvidia binary drivers anyway (I have no problems with the open source nvidia drivers for 2D)
I don't want to start a flame war here, but the r200 open-source driver is *very* fast and very high quality.
The current CVS code from Mesa and DRI is even better than what we have in Xorg 6.8.2. Doom 3 runs nicely and it's quite fast.
Even though glxgears isn't a comrehensive benchmark suite, I'd like to point out that I get 2800-3000 fps with a Radeon 8500 card using the latest CVS code. NVidia cards usually score less than 2000 fps.
Then I switched to a Radeon 9600 card with the reverse-engineered r300 driver developed on SourceForge. This driver already renders quake, doom and many other programs correctly, altough it's not yet as fast as the r200 driver was, and there are outstanding security and stability problems that prevent merging this code back into DRI and Mesa.
So at this time I'd recommend Radeon cards to Linux users because their OSS drivers are very good. We all hope one day NVidia will publish their source code or enough documentation to add 3D support to the nv driver. If not, the r300 project showed that a reverse-engineering approach isn't impossible.
On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 20:01 +0200, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
I don't know of a video card with an open source driver that has the 3D performance of NVidia, and 3D is really the only reason to run the nvidia binary drivers anyway (I have no problems with the open source nvidia drivers for 2D)
I don't want to start a flame war here, but the r200 open-source driver is *very* fast and very high quality.
Maybe I should revisit them on my old 9000 card ... when I used to use them they did not do mult-texturing and did not support s3tc compressed textures. I don't believe the texture compression issue is fixed because of patent issues.
The current CVS code from Mesa and DRI is even better than what we have in Xorg 6.8.2. Doom 3 runs nicely and it's quite fast.
Even though glxgears isn't a comrehensive benchmark suite, I'd like to point out that I get 2800-3000 fps with a Radeon 8500 card using the latest CVS code. NVidia cards usually score less than 2000 fps.
Hmmm I'm getting the following on a nVida 5700 Ultra (a far from top range nVidia Card) [subsolar@azure ~]$ glxgears 20495 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4099.000 FPS 27532 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5506.400 FPS 27474 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5494.800 FPS 27347 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5469.400 FPS 27244 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5448.800 FPS
Regards, Paul
Paul wrote:
I don't want to start a flame war here, but the r200 open-source driver is *very* fast and very high quality.
Maybe I should revisit them on my old 9000 card ... when I used to use them they did not do mult-texturing and did not support s3tc compressed textures. I don't believe the texture compression issue is fixed because of patent issues.
GL_ARB_multitexture is supported in new Mesa, but I'm not sure if it's accelerated on r200.
s3tc _is_ supported for radeon, r200 and Intel chipsets, altough encumbered code is kept in a separate library to avoid legal problems for Mesa:
http://homepage.hispeed.ch/rscheidegger/dri_experimental/s3tc_index.html
Even though glxgears isn't a comrehensive benchmark suite, I'd like to point out that I get 2800-3000 fps with a Radeon 8500 card using the latest CVS code. NVidia cards usually score less than 2000 fps.
Hmmm I'm getting the following on a nVida 5700 Ultra (a far from top range nVidia Card) [subsolar@azure ~]$ glxgears 20495 frames in 5.0 seconds = 4099.000 FPS 27532 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5506.400 FPS 27474 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5494.800 FPS 27347 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5469.400 FPS 27244 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5448.800 FPS
Oops, perhaps I've been avoing NVidia cards for too long :-)
BTW, NVidia is the only binary driver for Linux that doesn't suck and works fine even with latest versions of the kernel.
(that's just a technical consideration, it doesn't mean we should all be depending on it).
On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 06:26 +0200, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
BTW, NVidia is the only binary driver for Linux that doesn't suck and works fine even with latest versions of the kernel.
Every time I try it - there still are issues. last time, grep would segfault under certain conditions, for example - and other apps (such as balsa) would sometimes stall during startup for long periods - solved be reverting to nv.ko
It's usable, sure - but it is definitely not as stable as open source drivers. So I don't do any 3d games in Linux anymore - I'm not much of a gamer anyway. Tuxracer was nice though to play with.
Ovidiu Lixandru wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Already in the wish list. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Wishlist. Personally I like the idea of doing something similar to the early GDM login and new init script to make bootup faster to apply to shutdown too so that it not slow enough to add graphics to make the wait look better
And that won't work with the NVIDIA binary drivers either.
How so?
-- Rex