3 ms·

Relative to Linux desktop stuff in 2008, it’s not terrible. This stuff was never completed either so of course there’s obviously stuff that needs to be cleaned

• cxr 5y ago
  > Relative to Linux desktop stuff in 2008, it’s not terrible. That's not the rubric the commenter I responded to laid out, but even if you wanted to move the goalposts there, then for comparison, here's a stock Ubuntu desktop installation from 2008: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ubuntu-desktop-2-804-20080708.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ubuntu-desktop-2-804-2008...> Not especially bad, but not especially great, either. Something else that it's not, though, is anywhere near as bad as the Étoilé screenshots that are the subject of discussion.
  • badsectoracula 5y ago
    It isn't really a goalpost move though, since that is basically what i meant with my original comment. And to me the Ubuntu desktop doesn't look that much better than the Etoile desktop (if anything one the most common comments i remember from the time is that it looked like "shit" due to the brown color scheme :-P), which again remember that it was never finished and had to work theme support in GNUstep - the applications of which (that are shown in screenshots) weren't even made with theming support in mind. The biggest issues that the Etoile shots have are bad text alignment and some unthemed or badly themed controls that are both results of their WIP theming efforts. Also FWIW i explicitly remember a comment from an Etoile developer that their goal with Etoile's style was to avoid the "shiny" look Aqua had at the time (and other desktop themes, like Ubuntu's Human style shown in the screenshot, had copied).