2 ms·

> is this poor rendering "not enough graphics" for you (as in "not fancy enough")? I never mentioned more graphics. Only you did! Nobody here wants more graphi

> is this poor rendering "not enough graphics" for you (as in "not fancy enough")? I never mentioned more graphics. Only you did! Nobody here wants more graphics. You’re arguing with an imaginary person saying different things to me. I’m interested in rendering that is accurate, with fonts that are correctly hinted and rasterised and icons that are correctly composited, with a high-resolution for high-fidelity. This rendering is inaccurate and low-fidelity which makes it a poorer experience. It’s not about being fancy it’s about showing me the text and I’m working with and the graphics that are there with as much precision as possible. Compare the same fonts and icons rendered with a modern rasteriser style a modern DPI. Doesn’t compete. > Because many could not care less for the "fidelity of the rendering" compared to the actual functionality. Showing me the text and UI I’m working with is the functionality of a desktop environment. Without rendered text for me to work on… what am I doing in my desktop environment?

coldtea 5y ago
>I never mentioned more graphics. Only you did! Nobody here wants more graphics. You’re arguing with an imaginary person saying different things to me. I've already explained what I meant in my follow up comment, so I'm not sure why you continue to protest being misinterpreted. Not sure what you understood as the meaning of my "not enough graphics?" comment. But I tried to make it clear in the follow up (e.g. that your issue is the poor rendering, etc.), and it seems you have the same thing in mind as being the problem. The distinction I am making is between graphics and functionality. For me "rendering that is accurate, with fonts that are correctly hinted and rasterised and icons that are correctly composited, with a high-resolution for high-fidelity" is not functionality, it's graphics. It's how CDE looks. Whereas what's important (functionality) is what it does as a desktop environment/launcher. If we were talking about GIMP or Photoshop or Premiere or even Word, sure "fonts that are correctly hinted and rasterised" would be part of the functionality. For a desktop environment, they are secondary. You might agree or disagree, but that was the point I was making.

coldtea 5y ago

>I never mentioned more graphics. Only you did! Nobody here wants more graphics. You’re arguing with an imaginary person saying different things to me. I've already explained what I meant in my follow up comment, so I'm not sure why you continue to protest being misinterpreted. Not sure what you understood as the meaning of my "not enough graphics?" comment. But I tried to make it clear in the follow up (e.g. that your issue is the poor rendering, etc.), and it seems you have the same thing in mind as being the problem. The distinction I am making is between graphics and functionality. For me "rendering that is accurate, with fonts that are correctly hinted and rasterised and icons that are correctly composited, with a high-resolution for high-fidelity" is not functionality, it's graphics. It's how CDE looks. Whereas what's important (functionality) is what it does as a desktop environment/launcher. If we were talking about GIMP or Photoshop or Premiere or even Word, sure "fonts that are correctly hinted and rasterised" would be part of the functionality. For a desktop environment, they are secondary. You might agree or disagree, but that was the point I was making.