kde 3.1 -- make Keramik default?

[Thomas Zander]

On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 10:19:06AM -0700, Neil Stevens wrote:
> This isn't about who made them.  This is about replacing the known, 
> familiar KDE look with something different for no reason other than to be 
> different.
> 
> This is about people coming out of the woodwork to bash the existing KDE 
> look, calling it a copy, non-modern, and whatnot, when this existing 
> default widget style has been default since KDE 2.0.

<...>
sig:
> "I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding
> because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they
> have not a single political argument left." - Margaret Thatcher

HIhi; that's a match! :)


 
> > If we
> > decide to use these stuff for 3.1, that is no "Trash the existing icons,
> > trash the existing look", it is just a modernisation of the look'n'feel
> 
> Modernization?  How is one more "modern" than another?  Can you define what 
> looking "modern" means?  Are the old styles coal burning while keramik is 
> electric?

As always Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, and lots of people have told
us the Keramic style is beautiful. (I am one of them)

Its different, yes.  People like it, and new replaces old that is the way of 
the world. Don't fight change, embrace it. Use it.

Thanx for your attention ;)

-- 
Thomas Zander                                           zander at planescape.com
                                                 We are what we pretend to be
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20020530/5f686135/attachment.sig>