Glass Ubuntu Mock Up

[Tipped OuT]

Now wouldn't it be cool if gnome could use a glass interface like Windows Vista or Windows 7? Take a peek:

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3577/glassbuntu.png (http://img12.imageshack.us/my.php?image=glassbuntu.png)

He is trying to get at the fact that we need transparency in GTK elements and widgets within a window, and not just the Window border. This is not the same as turning down the opacity in compiz, as that makes everything in the window transparent, including the text, making it hard to read. We need GTK to be able to make parts transparent natively, and along with Emerald for borders this could work out nicely. See this image. (http://www.gnome-look.org/CONTENT/content-pre3/42755-3.jpg)

Notice that while the Windows are transparent, only certain elements are. The text field is not, and the text is not. Try scrolling with Alt down in Compiz. It doesn't look nearly as good, which is what the OP is pointing out.

[Firestem4]

Now wouldn't it be cool if gnome could use a glass interface like Windows Vista or Windows 7? Take a peek:

KDE + Oxyglass theme =)

[Warpnow]

There are a myriad of glass themes on gnome-look.org.

[Tipped OuT]

There are a myriad of glass themes on gnome-look.org.

Yes, but that only goes as far as glass window borders. Unless I'm missing something?

[Corelogik]

I like that but it would be hell on lighter backgrounds.

[Giant Speck]

The only thing that annoys me about glass is that you need to put a white glow around text to make it readable.

[Warpnow]

Yes, but that only goes as far as glass window borders. Unless I'm missing something?

What else do you want? Panels? They can already be made transparent.

[kevdog]

The only thing that really annoys me is the limited bandwidth from imageshack to download that screenshot!

[Tipped OuT]

What else do you want? Panels? They can already be made transparent.

You're missing my point though. I'm talking about actual transparency, not just lowered opacity. I'm talking about a glass UI like Windows Vista / 7.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Aero

There is no support for real transparency in gnome (except for the window borders). So what I'm saying is, what if there was, it might possibly look like my mock up. :)

[Giant Speck]

You're missing my point. I'm talking about actual transparency, not just lowered opacity. I'm talking about a glass UI like Windows Vista / 7.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Aero

There is no support for real transparency in gnome (except for the window borders). So what I'm saying is, what if there was, it might possibly look like my mock up. :)

The Murrine engine has limited RGBA support, which allows for transparent effects. Combine that with Compiz's reflection and blur plugins, and you could have a really neat glass theme.

[Tipped OuT]

The Murrine engine has limited RGBA support, which allows for transparent effects. Combine that with Compiz's reflection and blur plugins, and you could have a really neat glass theme.

I knew some one was going to say that, but the key word here is limited. Plus, it only applies to the applications that support it, which is very few. ;)

[Warpnow]

You're missing my point though. I'm talking about actual transparency, not just lowered opacity. I'm talking about a glass UI like Windows Vista / 7.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Aero

There is no support for real transparency in gnome (except for the window borders). So what I'm saying is, what if there was, it might possibly look like my mock up. :)

Zero opacity and transparent are literally the exact same thing.

What you want is a unified desktop with glass themes for every app you use. Its not impossible, its just that no one's gotten around to doing it that I know of.

[Tipped OuT]

Zero opacity and transparent are literally the exact same thing.

What you want is a unified desktop with glass themes for every app you use. Its not impossible, its just that no one's gotten around to doing it that I know of.

Kind of see the difference? "A" is transparency "B" is lowered opacity. :D
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3139/opacitytrans.png (http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=opacitytrans.png)

[Warpnow]

Kind of see the difference? "A" is transparency "B" is lowered opacity. :D
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3139/opacitytrans.png (http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=opacitytrans.png)

I have no idea what that image is of...:-p

But...I was just pointing out, if you look the words up in a dictionary...

Transparency is basically defined the same way you'd define lacking opacity. ;)

Obviously, transparent panels in gnome look different than transparent things in Aero. But that doesn't make one "True" transparency and the other not. In fact, Gnome is MORE transparent, whereas Aero adds "distortion" to make it look glassy, which makes it more opaque, and therefore less transparent.

[Tipped OuT]

I have no idea what that image is of...:-p

But...I was just pointing out, if you look the words up in a dictionary...

Transparency is basically defined the same way you'd define lacking opacity. ;)

Obviously, transparent panels in gnome look different than transparent things in Aero. But that doesn't make one "True" transparency and the other not. In fact, Gnome is MORE transparent, whereas Aero adds "distortion" to make it look glassy, which makes it more opaque, and therefore less transparent.

](*,)

[Warpnow]

](*,)

Was I not supposed to take that post seriously?

[Chame_Wizard]

KDE+Elegance theme FTW

[Eclipse.]

Too late, windows has already done that with aero.

Seriously guys, we need our own unique look.

[Mazza558]

As others have said. KDE 4.3 can do this (with blur) quite easily now.

[3rdalbum]

The opposite of "transparent" is "opaque".

0% opaqueness is 100% transparency.

Nobody has any idea what you're trying to get at with the "real transparency" stuff. Sorry.

[damis648]

The opposite of "transparent" is "opaque".

0% opaqueness is 100% transparency.

Nobody has any idea what you're trying to get at with the "real transparency" stuff. Sorry.

He is trying to get at the fact that we need transparency in GTK elements and widgets within a window, and not just the Window border. This is not the same as turning down the opacity in compiz, as that makes everything in the window transparent, including the text, making it hard to read. We need GTK to be able to make parts transparent natively, and along with Emerald for borders this could work out nicely. See this image. (http://www.gnome-look.org/CONTENT/content-pre3/42755-3.jpg)

Notice that while the Windows are transparent, only certain elements are. The text field is not, and the text is not. Try scrolling with Alt down in Compiz. It doesn't look nearly as good, which is what the OP is pointing out.

[gn2]

It's all just window dressing.
Does transparency really add anything useful?
I think not.

[Slug71]

One Linux distro had a default glass theme some time ago, brother showed me in 2003/2004, that was awesome but i cant remember which Distro it was. If i remember correctly it only ran from a CD.

[SomeGuyDude]

Hey! Hey you! Stop suggesting Windows could possibly have a feature Linux doesn't!!!

[days_of_ruin]

I knew some one was going to say that, but the key word here is limited. Plus, it only applies to the applications that support it, which is very few. ;)

Same on windows.

[jonian_g]

Hey! Hey you! Stop suggesting Windows could possibly have a feature Linux doesn't!!!

I hope linux will never have such useless features!

[MaxIBoy]

Whatever floats your boat, but I think the whole "glass" thing is a waste of screen space. It only looks any good if you make the panels and window borders really wide, wider than they need to be. And even then, it gets really old after a while. (I speak as someone who used Vista for three entire weeks once.)

[Tipped OuT]

He is trying to get at the fact that we need transparency in GTK elements and widgets within a window, and not just the Window border. This is not the same as turning down the opacity in compiz, as that makes everything in the window transparent, including the text, making it hard to read. We need GTK to be able to make parts transparent natively, and along with Emerald for borders this could work out nicely. See this image. (http://www.gnome-look.org/CONTENT/content-pre3/42755-3.jpg)

Notice that while the Windows are transparent, only certain elements are. The text field is not, and the text is not. Try scrolling with Alt down in Compiz. It doesn't look nearly as good, which is what the OP is pointing out.

Thank you.

[billgoldberg]

You're missing my point though. I'm talking about actual transparency, not just lowered opacity. I'm talking about a glass UI like Windows Vista / 7.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Aero

There is no support for real transparency in gnome (except for the window borders). So what I'm saying is, what if there was, it might possibly look like my mock up. :)

Compiz Fusion.

[swoll1980]

Kind of see the difference? "A" is transparency "B" is lowered opacity. :D
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3139/opacitytrans.png (http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=opacitytrans.png)

Feathers aren't soft, they're just less hard.

[Skripka]

It's all just window dressing.
Does transparency really add anything useful?
I think not.

Bling. Do we not all like Bling every now and again?

Note: The capitalization of "bling", e.g. "Bling", so that you don't get confused with mere "bling"

[Tipped OuT]

So you guy's think this is a bad idea...or?

[Skripka]

So you guy's think this is a bad idea...or?

Asking Gnome users if they like glassy desktop effects is kind of like asking Focus on The Family what they think about Grand Theft Auto. The reactions are very predictable.

I like. Then again I'm a KDE4 user.

[Tipped OuT]

Asking Gnome users if they like glassy desktop effects is kind of like asking Focus on The Family what they think about Grand Theft Auto. The reactions are very predictable.

I like. Then again I'm a KDE4 user.

I might try KDE sometime then. ;)

[jonian_g]

So you guy's think this is a bad idea...or?

In my opinion, it's not useful. That doesn't make it a bad idea.

[kc3]

Meh, doesn't have to be useful to be a good idea, just needs to be liked enough for people to use. How many cosmetic changes serve no other purpose than for looks??? I love having my computer setup looking good, hell for the growth of Linux even the style would have a huge effect. I like it, even though there are alternatives.

[jonian_g]

How many cosmetic changes serve no other purpose than for looks???

I don't think you can compare silicon ***** with transparent windows. Everyone likes the first, not everyone the second.

For me a transparent window creates a lot of eye junk.

[swoll1980]

I don't think you can compare silicon ***** with transparent windows. Everyone likes the first, not everyone the second.

For me a transparent window creates a lot of eye junk.

I can't stand the way fake breast look.

[Kareeser]

Asking Gnome users if they like glassy desktop effects is kind of like asking Focus on The Family what they think about Grand Theft Auto. The reactions are very predictable.

I like. Then again I'm a KDE4 user.

Speak for yourself. I wouldn't mind it. As long as it was done tastefully, and made optional, with the default setting as off.

[aeiah]

Speak for yourself. I wouldn't mind it. As long as it was done tastefully, and made optional, with the default setting as off.

edit: sorry, nevermind. i thought we were still talking about *****.

[floborg]

i can't stand the way fake breast look.

+1

[kc3]

I don't think you can compare silicon ***** with transparent windows. Everyone likes the first, not everyone the second.

For me a transparent window creates a lot of eye junk.

I met on computers haha, like cosmetic as in just changing the looks :P most people enjoy SOME crap on their computers :P I hear ya though, I still think it's good, even if some people won't use it. If an idea was bad just because some people don't like it, hell we wouldn't even have computers lol

And as for fake *****, meh ***** are *****. Fake or not you can still motorboat them :o haha

[jonian_g]

That's what I said. The fact that I don't like it doesn't make a bad idea


And as for fake *****, meh ***** are *****. Fake or not you can still motorboat them :o haha

+1 :D

[kc3]

That's what I said. The fact that I don't like it doesn't make a bad idea



+1 :D

Oh okay, I gotta say though, I loved your analogy ;)

[Superkoop]

It's all just window dressing.
Does transparency really add anything useful?
I think not.

If we were only worried about being useful, all we would be using is the terminal.

About people debating about glass looking good or not; look around you at the current consumer level technology interfaces, that's the style we are dealing with right now. A lot of people base their first impressions of operating systems on how they look, and when an operating system fails to meet the 'modern' look, the operating system appears unsatisfactory.
By the time Ubuntu has something of similar appearances, it will be too late and the styles will have moved on. However, the style will be based on what we have now, and this level of technology. So all is not lost, we simply have to go past the current style out there now, and come up with something based on it but appears 'better' to new users.

So what I am saying is that we have look at what is popular now, base our plans on that, and then deviate from that into something the public will consider to be the cool new thing.
Our current theme is stuck back in the styles of 2001, we need to update it to the current styles, and then jump ahead to a style that will be popular in 5 years.

Can we do it? Yes. :guitar:
Will we do it? No. :-({|=

[jonian_g]

If we were only worried about being useful, all we would be using is the terminal.

About people debating about glass looking good or not; look around you at the current consumer level technology interfaces, that's the style we are dealing with right now. A lot of people base their first impressions of operating systems on how they look, and when an operating system fails to meet the 'modern' look, the operating system appears unsatisfactory.
By the time Ubuntu has something of similar appearances, it will be too late and the styles will have moved on. However, the style will be based on what we have now, and this level of technology. So all is not lost, we simply have to go past the current style out there now, and come up with something based on it but appears 'better' to new users.

So what I am saying is that we have look at what is popular now, base our plans on that, and then deviate from that into something the public will consider to be the cool new thing.
Our current theme is stuck back in the styles of 2001, we need to update it to the current styles, and then jump ahead to a style that will be popular in 5 years.

Can we do it? Yes. :guitar:
Will we do it? No. :-({|=

Linux already hs what you ask for. KDE4

[Superkoop]

Linux already hs what you ask for. KDE4

I was not writing about Linux in general, I was writing specifically about Ubuntu which uses GNOME.

[kc3]

Well, there's Kubuntu, meh, but one thing to consider, the fact that it's not consistent doesn't help Linux grow either. When people think of it they usually have something specfic in mind which is understandable. A lot of people don't have about the better Linux styles. Someone who has barely ever seen Linux may have an impression of Linux and never seen KDE to it's fullest.

However I must say also that the only way to make it all look the same and consistent would kind of defeat one of the reasons for Linux in the first place. Kind of a predicament lol

[gn2]

If we were only worried about being useful, all we would be using is the terminal.

I disagree, for most users the terminal is only any use as a recovery/repair tool when other options aren't available.

[tom66]

I like it.

[infamous-online]

KDE + Oxyglass theme =)

What about us that use Gnome, I'm not a big fan of KDE?

[lisati]

Thread closed: necrophilia