Release Candidates :: DSL v4.2RC1



Quote (lucky13 @ Dec. 11 2007,09:40)
Quote
I disagree.... I'll continue using the good and eventually fix the bad.


DSL isn't about eyecandy, it's about function.

It was prettier one iteration ago.  And pettier still last major version.

There's no reason why form and function can't co-exist.

If DSL is only about function, then why not strip out all the icons from the desktop and the command menu?  Then it will look crisp and austere instead of amateurish.
Quote (lucky13 @ Dec. 11 2007,07:20)
Quote
* Cleanup of usused files, modules, and directories (pnp & xfs)

Is it necessary to leave some of those other fs modules in the base? How many people need Mac (hfs/hfs+) and BeOS (befs) filesystem support, and can't they be accomodated via module extensions? If we don't have the progs to take advantage of the modules, why retain them?

True. Good comment. I will remove them.
john.martzouco, DSL is about size and function. I am not going to support high color jpg, png, gif, animated or not, whose sole function is eye candy.
If you think that makes DSL look dated or "amateurish"  then so be it. I can't please everyone.

I have tried to accomodate the cristism of the icons, when sized down for JWM menu, by using these new more square looking icons. I very much appreciate those in the community who have contributed icons or suggested other small low color icons. And I will continue to do so.

I have also purposely used icons of low-color so that the smaller less powerful computers may acutally be able to display icons. In the past with xtdesk and the icons from 3.x some users had no option but to not use icons.

These issues likely don't affect many users with gbs of memory and ghz processors, but those of us who don't have such at least have an option (icons) that we didn't have before.

While most distros grow bigger in size and have constantly larger hardware requirements. DSL has actually difted downward not only is size of the distro but in actual hardware required to run it.

Your repeated and constants rants about eye candy is not going to make DSL to jump aboard the bloatmobile.

Your comments to drop all icons is ridiculous and extreme. I could not entertain such "logic".  You have posted your opinion repeatedly, enough is enough.
`
For lucky13's comment on not having programs to operate on some filesystems, we only have programs to operate on ext2/3 and still some like to mount reiserfs or whatever.. I agree with hfs and bfs being unneeded though.
Quote
I have tried to accomodate the cristism of the icons, when sized down for JWM menu, by using these new more square looking icons.

Let me summarize a few basic criteria about icons, eye candy, etc.

First, the icons must be small in size because they load into RAM with jwm and dfm. Some people are using DSL with 64MB or less RAM. That doesn't need to be eaten up with 50 icons that weigh in around 10kb each -- that's half a MB.

Second, the more colors in an XPM the larger it will be. Those icons are text files and the more data they contain, the larger they get. My ugly folder icons use a very light gradient to give a mild "shiny" appearance, and the gradient I chose gives only a couple extra colors to the base color of each icon. My focus when I made them was to make them aesthetically-acceptable in as small a footprint as possible. My goal was 1kb each -- and I may try to get some in that range even if it means removing gradients so they're flatter.

Third, icons with excessive "wiggles" tend to break as they're scaled down. That means the more vertical and horizontal they are, the better; the more curves and diagonals, not the better. Boxes may not be very pretty, but imperfect squiggles get ugly very fast. When I re-scaled the icons I took from your zipfile to 16 -- which is a closer approximation to the size of the icons in my menu -- the handles on the umbrella and magnifying glass disappear; they would not be visible on darker backgrounds at all (then you might complain that there's only a blue thing with a yellow dot, a circle, and a multicolored blob on the menu). The only way around that is to make the tray and the menu settings 32, which is way too big for monitors with lower resolution and space. That would also require the use of larger fonts or else the icons would be ~3x the size of the fonts next to them. That won't work because DSL doesn't start big and work down, it starts small and can grow to what you want (modularity). Here's another shot of your icons scaled to 18 and 16 pixels to show how the handles start to disappear:
http://lucky13linux.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/heresjohnm.png

Finally, users are free to find what works for them. I have a jwm-menu sans icons per my anti-WIMPS project. You definitely don't want that in DSL releases. But what I'm doing to avoid a mouse/touchpad on my laptop is not the focus of DSL 4 development.

DSL 4 is not about the icons, themes, or how pretty the desktop is. Users are free to change icons, wallpaper, jwm themes, gtk themes, etc., to suit their own tastes -- it's a fairly blank canvas like that, providing the bare (damn small) essentials. DSL 4 is about the utility afforded by using a file management system that integrates applications according to data (MIME-type) relationships on the desktop. That's where our focus lies.

DSL has to stay suitable for those with less modern hardware. When building something in modular fashion, you don't start with something big and start to break it down. You start with a small, solid base and expand it as needed or desired. That's what DSL allows you to do.
Next Page...
original here.