Semi Transparent Gnome Panels By Default

Has this ever been considered? Or maybe just replace the standard white panels with shinier ones (in bronze or copper).

Not really, since semi-transparency requires compositing, and not all video cards can do compositing on Ubuntu, either efficiently or at all.

What about just making them shinier then?

That would depend on the theme. I'm actually against shiney, as I like "smoothness", so to speak. Since we are sticking with Human for 9.04, I think the panels are just fine.

It's currently possible to add transparent png as panel background. And that doesnt require compositing.

smartboyathome said: Not really, since semi-transparency requires compositing, and not all video cards can do compositing on Ubuntu, either efficiently or at all.

All video cards worth mentioning can do compositing efficiently with XRender. In fact, the software rasterizer is extremely quick for XRender compositing. And even then, that's not the point: gnome-panel doesn't do semi-transparency and it needs to be added. Who cares what *your* graphics card supports? This is about a much-needed feature that people have been bickering about for over a year.

You've only got to look at the global menubar in Leopard to see how nice semi-transparency can look.

Isn't that what we're aiming for? A Linux distro that looks as nice and polished as OSX?

Maybe Ubuntu should consider adopting xfce4 (which can do transparency) as its native DE.

Mark76 said: You've only got to look at the global menubar in Leopard to see how nice semi-transparency can look.

Isn't that what we're aiming for? A Linux distro that looks as nice and polished as OSX?

Maybe Ubuntu should consider adopting xfce4 (which can do transparency) as its native DE. That's really a matter of opinion and personal preference. Personally, I hate that look and find it hard on the eyes.

It's worked for Apple.

As sales of Macbooks will testify.

Mark76 said: It's worked for Apple.

As sales of Macbooks will testify. Sorry, hasn't convinced me to buy one. Quite the reverse actually. My dislike for the look and feel of the Mac desktop interface is one of the reasons I will never own one.

Who died and made you the arbiter of taste for humanity? :p

The fact is, people like the Apple look. Whether you like it or not is supremely irrelevant (I'm not keen on it myself, but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge that people are attracted to it. Rightly or wrongly).

Mark76 said: Who died and made you the arbiter of taste for humanity? :p

The fact is, people like the Apple look. Whether you like it or not is supremely irrelevant (I'm not keen on it myself, but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge that people are attracted to it. Rightly or wrongly). Apparently, the same people who appointed you. You expressed your preference. Mine is equally valid. If I wanted something that looked and felt like a Mac, I would by a Mac. Since only a relative small number of people I deal with every day choose to go the Mac route, I know I'm not alone in that. I also have a very difficult time believing that people are rushing off in droves to buy Macs because of transparent panels. I'm pretty sure that that Mac users that I know personally had much better reasons than that for their decision.

Maybe we should do a poll of all the people who've bought a Mac in the past two years to determine how much the UI influenced their buying decision.

I'm sure many of them could just have easily have chosen to buy a PC running Vista (it would certainly have been cheaper in most cases), and a lot of them were probably buying a Mac for the first time.

Do you really think Garageband and iTunes are the sole reasons for that? Or could it be that they liked the look?

Hmm?

Even our glorious leader acknowledges that Apple have got the interface right. What's wrong with taking some inspiration from it? Not too much though. I'd hate for Ubuntu to become an OSX wannabe.

Mark76 said: Do you really think Garageband and iTunes are the sole reasons for that? Or could it be that they liked the look?

Hmm? Not those specific applications, but yes, applications do make a difference. Several of the Mac owners I do know purchased them because they are musicians and prefer to use Logic for their studio needs. Guess what? Logic only runs on Mac OS. The same or similar logic holds true for most of the Mac users that I've met. I honestly can't remember any going "Oooh, Shiny! I must buy that!"

And what about the thousands of people who bought a Mac who aren't musicians or artists?

What do you think attracted them to the platform? Do you imagine that they give a full demo of Mac OSX in Apple stores if one just asks?

You know, for a Canadian you're surprisingly narrow-minded.

Sometimes people do want stuff just because it looks nice. Jobs knows this.

Mark76 said: And what about the thousands of people who bought a Mac who aren't musicians or artists?

What do you think attracted them to the platform? Do you imagine that they give a full demo of Mac OSX in Apple stores if one just asks?

You know, for a Canadian you're surprisingly narrow-minded.

Sometimes people do want stuff just because it looks nice. Jobs knows this. That's fine. I'm stating what I know from experience. And actually, yes, If you ask the staff in an Apple store to demo the features of Mac OS, they are generally very will to spend the time to do so.

I would also thank you to stop being insulting. The point of view I expressed is no more narrow-minded than your own. Personally, if I were a Mac owner, I would be insulted by your assertion that I chose it because of how it looks rather than how it works.

My dislike for the Mac look and feel is because it gets in the way of my tasks rather than any overt dislike for "shiny". When look impedes function, I don't care how pretty it is. I need my computer to be a workhorse, not an ornament.

WindowsSucks said: All video cards worth mentioning can do compositing efficiently with XRender. In fact, the software rasterizer is extremely quick for XRender compositing. And even then, that's not the point: gnome-panel doesn't do semi-transparency and it needs to be added. Who cares what *your* graphics card supports? This is about a much-needed feature that people have been bickering about for over a year.

And yet some of us don't like compositing because it is added bloat. Also, think of poorer countries where Ubuntu might also be used. Some of them might be using cheaper and older hardware which doesn't support compositing. Should we make the panels use semi-transparency and throw out support for the people of those poorer countries?

A simple solution is to add an option in the installation of ubuntu asking you which theme you would like to be set as default, or of course if ubuntu chose not to implement that you could always go to http://www.gnome-look.org/ and download a theme to your liking, or make your own theme.