[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-look
Subject:    Re: What KDE needs at this point...
From:       Dave Leigh <dave.leigh () cratchit ! org>
Date:       2001-06-03 14:48:49
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sunday 03 June 2001 01:32, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Dave Leigh wrote:
> > But while we're on the subject, could somebody PLEASE explain to me why
> > every other contribution to KDE-Look (I'm exaggerating) suggests that KDE
> > should look like something else?  It should look like NextStep, it should
> > look like MacOS, it should look like BeOS, it should look like GNOME, it
> > should look like Windows...
>
> There's nothing wrong with poaching good ideas from other operating
> systems. There is no need to be different just for the sake of being
> different.
>
> Having said that, there is a danger that if you borrow too much from too
> many, KDE will look like Frankenstein's Monster, with misshapen bits
> sewed on here, there and everywhere. So far, I think KDE has escaped
> that fate.

I'm all for poaching good ideas.  I've suggested a few myself.  However, IMHO 
it is certainly possible to implement good ideas regarding functionality 
while retaining a distinctive look and feel.  The point of my rant is exactly 
the "Frankenstein's monster" point you mention, and I made it in response to 
what I consider was a vague and not terribly valid criticism of the default 
look.  My response would have been different, I'm sure, if the default look 
WERE unprofessional-looking or unpolished.  And I don't mind saying it 
again... I LIKE the default look, and appreciate the hard work that went into 
it.  Themes are the proper place for optional looks that, though they may be 
good in themselves, do not mesh well with the default.

-- 
We give advice, but we cannot give the wisdom to profit by it.
		-- La Rochefoucauld

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]