I am not a Windows user. I am a Linux user. Why the hell would I be care about Gnome if I was a windows user? And that screenshot you have is from DIA, not Firefox. I have Firefox open, in Gnome right now and my save as dialog looks nothing like that one.
You are a KDE zealot. You don't care about the facts regarding the dialog, you don't care about the design decisions behind the save as dialog and I'd wager that you wouldn't care if it copied the dialog from KDE, windows or OSX. You just want Gnome to look bad because you plain don't like it. Look around you, is anyone else trying to reignite the desktop wars on this thread? No, everyone's mature enough to realise that both desktops are doing a lot of good things.
I'm a Gnome user, but I'm not telling everyone that KDE sucks and to use Gnome. I was being so objective on this subject that you thought I was a windows user. This cannot be denied because it is there in your own writing. I switched to Gnome from being a very loyal KDE user three years ago because I found the attitudes behind KDE were in need of a bit of maturity. What you are displaying exemplifies this.
Gnome and KDE are very different environments. They appeal to very different people, when I was a loyal KDE guy I loved it because of the amount of fun stuff they manage to pack in, the options, the huge number of fun included games, the sticky button right on the left hand side of the window bar for quick tying down of windows, the big pretty applets, the power and integration of KFM and later Konqueror. But these days I like Gnome because of its sleek, uncluttered appearance, it's focus on making the most common tasks faster to do, the widgets being small but very readable. As a developer, I also prefer GTK+ to QT because of its community focused development methods and its focus on having excelent high level language bindings (pygtk (python), gtkmm (c++), gtk# (c#)) rather than encoraging everyone to use its native API.
If you want to help KDE you should maybe spend some time developing it, or maybe praise their developers every time there is a positive story on KDE on slashdot. Trying to convert everyone to KDE whenever there is a gnome story on slashdot doesn't help anyone and doesn't really make you or KDE look good. Try not to do it in the future, thanks.
Yep, Firefox doesn't really fit in with Gnome that well. That is why it isn't "part of the gnome desktop". The official Gnome browser is "Epiphany" which is a browser based on the Geko engine. Epiphany is very consistant with the gnome look at feel (and apparently the "user experience") yet has shortcomings of its own, mainly due to it's faily constricted feature set. Ubuntu has raised quite a shit storm by its choice of Firefox over Epiphany as its default browser. There is a fair amount of politics surrounding the whole thing since many Gnome stalwarts see it as making the experience inconsistant (which is undoubtably true). Ubuntu believes having Firefox which is familiar to many windows users as the default browser will give their distro a familiar face to new users, as well as it having a far bigger featureset. The whole thing has been a political quagmire ever since its inception. To me Epiphany was a sad departure from Gnome's original "adopt rather than duplicate" philosophy. Gnome originally adopted Mozilla, Enlightenment/sawfish and Xscreensaver as parts of the desktop, while KDE had Konquerer, KWM and their own screen locking package. These days Gnome includes Epiphany, Metacity and Gnome-screensaver, all developed in house. To me it is a sad departure from the original, wider community focused viewpoint of Gnome nestling in a small niche between the applications that a user or distro chooses.
To me, the best path for Gnome to take is to work with Firefox, leaveraging mutual official endorcement to work towards consistancy (mainly in regards to things like the file selector) rather than simply re-inventing what I see to be a wooden spoked wheel without enough tread. But the Gnome crew demands to see consistancy now and they see making their own browser to be far easier.
You keep referring to the file selector that was rewritten a whole year ago. How can you claim that you are waiting for improvements if you don't know what they have been doing for twelve months? As for the appearance, that's a matter of personal taste. I personally prefer the appearance of Gnome and I know other people do to. Noone's asking you to use Gnome, use it if you like it, use KDE if you don't, it's a matter of taste with both desktops doing what they see as best. It's just seeing you selling KDE on every thread gets a bit tiresome and is likely to spark a lot of conflict.
And this is the third time I've told you this: FIREFOX DOES NOT USE THE GNOME FILE SELECTOR, IT USES IT'S OWN. Firefox's file selector dialog has NOTHING TO DO WITH GNOME WHATSOEVER. Saying "The GNOME file selector used by Firefox 1.0.7 is quite terrible" is inherantly untrue nomatter if firefox's file selector is good or not, since Firefox does not have a "The GNOME file selector". You are basing your judgements on some very misguided assumptions, you have no idea what the Gnome file selector looks like because chances are you havn't seen it in the last three years.
If you want to respond, please read through this very carefully. If you want to say something about "The GNOME file selector used by Firefox 1.0.7" chances are you'll say something untrue and irrelivant. Firefox should use the Gnome file selector because it's fairly nice, but it doesn't. If you have a complaint about it, you should probably email the Mozilla crew instead and suggest that they might like to try using the Gnome file selector instead of their own one.
CyricZ: You've already had your fair share of Gnome bashing for today here, here, here, here and here. Maybe you would like to leave the incessant proselytizing to some other KDE fan. I think slashdot already gets the picture that you like KDE a lot more than Gnome and that you think everyone should use it as a result. However until you learn the difference between the firefox 1.0.7 file selector and the Gnome file selector you will not be the most knowlegable authority on what desktop people should use.
Firefox doesn't use the GNOME file selector, it uses its own file selector written in GTK+ (not that anyone really uses a file selector for a webbrowser). Anyway, I don't know what the issue is with the Gnome file selector, it was nicely rewitten a year ago, it has pretty icons, it has commonly used locations listed on the side, it has a great gui interface for changing the path and advanced functionality for showing and hiding relivant things. Basically its ownly problem is that you need to hit Ctrl-l if you want to use tab completion in the "Open file" dialogue now.
I know lots of people hated the old one which was simple, functional but uglier than anything that has poluted a desktop before. But people's complaints about Gnome just because of a dialogue box that is open 0.1% of computer usage time or less is really clutching at straws.
I don't think slashdot helps with America's negative PR. If a non-american was to come onto slashdot they would encounter for the first time: the view that global warming is simply a conspiricy to undermine capitalism, support for invasion of Iraq, scores of racist comments about Indians. In my life I've met many nice and nasty Americans. A common trend amongst them is that the Americans that challenge my own perceptions of the stereotyped "greedy, violent and rude American" tend to be the ones that understand completely why the world's hatred of their nation somtimes rubs off on them. On the other hand, I've known a particular American (a nice guy, but a bit of a faciest) who frequently used inflamitory rhetoric in support of the invasion of Iraq in a leftwing educational institution yet asked frequently "why y'all hate Americans so much".
What you said still depends on the assumption that Ximian somehow orchestrated some massive covert conspiricy against KDE under the nose of an unsuspecting Novell. Novell knew what Ximian was, what they stood for and what they offered long before they were aquired. If they had no intention of strategically linking themselves with Gnome they would never have aquired Ximian since Ximian never had anything to offer except for expertise with that desktop.
In my mind the only logical explaination of this is that Novell decided that they wanted the Ximian desktop as their own and decided that they needed their own linux distro to run it and their other software on. Ximian and SUSE are being used for Novells own ends and have been from the very start. All decision made regarding major changes in SUSE's focus were made by Novell and had been pre-destined from the beginning.
Novell is in the buisiness of making money, whether dumping KDE was a good or a bad idea, it was made by Novell for the perposes of making money.
Or he is bright enough to realize that competing head on with redhat and indirectly with Sun is a mistake?
SUSE was always competing head on with redhat and indirectly with Sun. The desktop market is worthless, it's only in servers (and maybe corperate workstations) that anyone but MS or Apple can make any money. The fact that SUSE went from KDE distro to Gnome distro means absolutely jack for the server market since SUSE was never differenciated from Redhat by what desktop they use, they were differenciated by price, focus, support and location.
When your employ Gnome's founders: Miguel de Icaza and Nat Friedman, you should expect a little bias. Novell bought Ximian because they wanted the Gnome desktop from the onset. Blaming Ximian for this is like blaming a dog for eating meat left on the floor.
It seems a lot of people are misunderstanding the meaning into this post. What I meant by it is that it would be nice if they sent some of the games and toys to hospitals in the third world because they have less stuff to amuse kids there and far more deseases. It seems that a lot of people have read all sorts of rubbish into it that was never intended, it may be a bit poorly worded in hindsight but slashdot does not allow editing. If you are considering being the next person to read it and get offended by it I hope that I can convince you to take a deep breath and move on.
You mean the "if you can't solve every problem, ship some gameboys to some sick kids in poorer countries" approach don't you?
Why the hell does everyone choose to misinterpret the same post even after it's been modded to 0 Troll? Do people just browse slashdot at 0 looking for badly written posts then reply to them without reading the huge amount of (mainly futile) discussion it caused to find out what the author actually meant?
It sounds like you need to use a distro with a better package manager, or learn to use your current one better. I use Gentoo, Ubuntu and Debian regually and they all allow software to be installed very quickly and easily. Synaptic (Ubuntu) provides an excelent search interface to choose a program and it's two to three clicks to install any package you want.
Considering that punkbuster is specifically designed to notice if there is something weird about the environment it's running in, I'd say that isn't really a fair complaint.
As for ATI, Linux boxes don't have ATI cards anyway for all intents and perposes, and drivers arn't really cedega's problem.
I think they have done quite well with this. It's very sad that they have given so little back to open source wine though.
I would have thought mentioning who can and cannot afford a gameboy would be a dead giveaway that I wasn't referring to a complete overhaul of child's play.
I am re-responding because I realise my first response was fairly pointless.
Can you seriously tell me why opening up a program that distributes toys and games to other, poorer countries is a bad idea? Can you tell me why I have taken this massive wave of abuse over suggesting it? From what it seems, most people here firmly believe that if there were more than three countries that a donor could choose to send things to that the skies would open and fire-rain would come down from heaven and distroy every toy in every children's ward in the western world.
I have recieved some good responses about it, referring to logistical and security concerns about transporting such things to less developed countries. But most of it was utter rubbish by people who rather than reading, decided it would be easier to post first.
I make these suggestions because I would like to contribute myself (though as a student, my finances are hardly large enough to make a huge difference) but do not find the idea of sending money to people in a country richer than my own appealing. The GDP per capita of the United States for example is 7 times my own income. Such countries should be able to take reasonable care of their own people.
Outside of the developed world, where things like Maleria and Aids are rampant, there are many more sick children who's parents are even less likely to be able to buy them something to keep them happy while they are in hospital, or more likely, a roughly made bed in an unsanitory house. Children there do not have books or TV or anything else, only their own misery. Wouldn't sending some toys there be good also? So, I guess I think it would be nice if some toys could be sent to such places, it seems that most people here disagree.
Sure, Africa might be a logistics nightmare, but in poorer parts of India and South America they could put a shipment of gameboys to good use and make a lot of children with even less to amuse them happy. To me, this doesn't seem like a bad idea. Evidently it does to you, for this, I'm sorry.
But if you want to tell us NOT to make the lives of sick kids better: Fuck you. Fuck you very, very much.
Where did I say this? Where? Tell me you strawmanning fucktard where?
If you had actually read my fucking post you would notice I never once objected to giving gameboys and other toys to children. I just pointed out that limiting it to three of the richest nations on earth was unfortunent. That's what I said, that's all I said, and you and your fucking moron friends come and call me some kind of a grinch character that wants to take toys from children.
If you want to respond to what I say, respond to what I really said. If not, fuck you, fuck you very much.
The parent of this post is not a troll. If I were to post a troll, this is what it may look like (further explaination can be found after the blockquote):
This is a standard American example of "charity", i.e. a gift of a trivial product to photogenic white children in order to generate publicity for a political cause and personal public gratification in places close enough to home to have their arses kissed in person. America has internal problems with poverty that could be sorted out if you got the browncoats out of Washington for long enough to realise that setting up some sort of real welfare system and universal healthcare does not equate to losing the cold war 15 years after it ended. Of cause this will never be the case since to every American I've met, social responsibility means nothing unless one can have one's name etched into a big plaque and recieve a tap dance from a homeless person in exchange for some food stamps and small change.
What would we do without compassionate conservatism, the long overdue return of the Client-Patron system of Rome whereby the poor are constantly reminded of their station for the amusement of others. This way, instead of having an anonymous charge in tax, you can now whack off at your charity reciepts before writing it down in the deductions column.
No doubt this will be modded down a lot as well, after all, I did advocate something approaching socialism, and this is slashdot which basically turns into a Nuremburg rally as soon as the sun's first light crosses the Atlantic.
What made it a troll? Here's why:
* Deliberate hyperbole in order to make certain readers angry.
* Message not completely based on author's own viewpoint.
* Drifting off topic early in the post.
* Insult of many of slashdot's readers at the end
I don't know why people would bother using their modpoints to mod someone down, but if you logged onto slashdot today hoping to "mod me down a troll YEEHAW!" I suggest that maybe you would be better to mod this post down as a troll, and maybe mod the parent up as overrated. The parent may not be right by many people's reckoning and the subject it is on is considered taboo by many, but I believe it was phrased in a very gracious way and is clearly on a subject worthy of discussion. A lot of people seem to have thought I was being a jerk, which I do not understand but I can assure anyone that I did not intend to be, I really like Gabe and Tyco and admire them for putting so much effort into giving something to those they consider needy.
but don't criticise them because you think there are people who are more deserving.
I don't know how 9 people so far believe that I am criticising them. I don't know how I could have been more gentle about my disagreement with their priorities, if you have any suggestions I'd like to know of them. And I don't think I ever claimed anything about who is more deserving. Charity has never been about who deserves, it is about who has the most needs that can be satisfied.
As for the insightful rating, I may or may not deserve it. In fact I've got a lot of insightful ratings on stupid posts before. This time I had the curse of posting early so now I have a bunch of idiots and their junior home made strawman kits responding to what I said.
* Child's play is not for poor children, it's for sick children.
* Child's play is a cynical political stunt for the computer gamer lobby.
* Child's play really is for poor children since sick children are poor.
* Poor sick children need aid far more than other sick children since they are missing far more than just comfort.
Ok, so basically I said that Child's play is a very honorable and generous program that may be a little short in scope due to some natural human localisation of thinking. You defend them saying that Child's play is a self-contradictary undertaking based on political motivations who's contributions become insignificant compared to even basic care. I'm currently wondering if I'm responding to a fan with bad argument planning skills and an itchy reply link finger or a strawman sock puppet operated by Jack Thompson and the "fuck penny arcade" lobby.
I'm serious, KDE does NOT support SVG; Crystal SVG is a PNG theme nomatter what it is called. You have never turned it on in Gnome because you can't, it's always on, it loads up an SVG icon if it finds it with no user interaction, you probably don't know you are using it but there are a number of programs that only ship with SVG graphics and icons but "just work" according to the gnome philosophy.
I'm a huge fan of penny-arcade and I admire them a lot for doing what they are doing. However, why is it that they pick three of the countries in which children would be most likely to be able to afford gameboys etc. themselves in? I appreciate that there are lots of kids in US, UK and Canada who are having rough lives but I am sure that there would be poor children in India, Africa and South America that are in far greater need. Generocity is always great and reflects the same way on the donor nomatter where it is going to, however toys and money can do so much more for those who have even less.
I don't miss the transparency, the shadows, the SVG icons of KDE
That's sad because Gnome has most of that stuff too. Transperancy and shadows are turned off by default for performance reasons, but since 2000, Gnome has been the one and only desktop with SVG icons. KDE has no SVG icons, it has png icons rendered from SVG sources. I'm actually the current co-maintainer of librsvg, the high performance SVG rendering library that gnome uses for icons, and I assure you for SVG Gnome blows KDE out of the water (as in it actually supports SVG). So even though you don't care, it may still be nice to know that you may well be using SVG icons but do not realise it.
In this, the brightest light that are worth simulating is the brightest light that a human can look at without damaging their eyes, because humans generally don't know what blinding light really looks like. Anything that causes temporary or perminant blindness can be simulated easily by just turning the whole screen white.
Slashdot Mirror
You are a KDE zealot. You don't care about the facts regarding the dialog, you don't care about the design decisions behind the save as dialog and I'd wager that you wouldn't care if it copied the dialog from KDE, windows or OSX. You just want Gnome to look bad because you plain don't like it. Look around you, is anyone else trying to reignite the desktop wars on this thread? No, everyone's mature enough to realise that both desktops are doing a lot of good things.
I'm a Gnome user, but I'm not telling everyone that KDE sucks and to use Gnome. I was being so objective on this subject that you thought I was a windows user. This cannot be denied because it is there in your own writing. I switched to Gnome from being a very loyal KDE user three years ago because I found the attitudes behind KDE were in need of a bit of maturity. What you are displaying exemplifies this. Gnome and KDE are very different environments. They appeal to very different people, when I was a loyal KDE guy I loved it because of the amount of fun stuff they manage to pack in, the options, the huge number of fun included games, the sticky button right on the left hand side of the window bar for quick tying down of windows, the big pretty applets, the power and integration of KFM and later Konqueror. But these days I like Gnome because of its sleek, uncluttered appearance, it's focus on making the most common tasks faster to do, the widgets being small but very readable. As a developer, I also prefer GTK+ to QT because of its community focused development methods and its focus on having excelent high level language bindings (pygtk (python), gtkmm (c++), gtk# (c#)) rather than encoraging everyone to use its native API.
If you want to help KDE you should maybe spend some time developing it, or maybe praise their developers every time there is a positive story on KDE on slashdot. Trying to convert everyone to KDE whenever there is a gnome story on slashdot doesn't help anyone and doesn't really make you or KDE look good. Try not to do it in the future, thanks.
To me, the best path for Gnome to take is to work with Firefox, leaveraging mutual official endorcement to work towards consistancy (mainly in regards to things like the file selector) rather than simply re-inventing what I see to be a wooden spoked wheel without enough tread. But the Gnome crew demands to see consistancy now and they see making their own browser to be far easier.
And this is the third time I've told you this: FIREFOX DOES NOT USE THE GNOME FILE SELECTOR, IT USES IT'S OWN. Firefox's file selector dialog has NOTHING TO DO WITH GNOME WHATSOEVER. Saying "The GNOME file selector used by Firefox 1.0.7 is quite terrible" is inherantly untrue nomatter if firefox's file selector is good or not, since Firefox does not have a "The GNOME file selector". You are basing your judgements on some very misguided assumptions, you have no idea what the Gnome file selector looks like because chances are you havn't seen it in the last three years.
If you want to respond, please read through this very carefully. If you want to say something about "The GNOME file selector used by Firefox 1.0.7" chances are you'll say something untrue and irrelivant. Firefox should use the Gnome file selector because it's fairly nice, but it doesn't. If you have a complaint about it, you should probably email the Mozilla crew instead and suggest that they might like to try using the Gnome file selector instead of their own one.
CyricZ: You've already had your fair share of Gnome bashing for today here, here, here, here and here. Maybe you would like to leave the incessant proselytizing to some other KDE fan. I think slashdot already gets the picture that you like KDE a lot more than Gnome and that you think everyone should use it as a result. However until you learn the difference between the firefox 1.0.7 file selector and the Gnome file selector you will not be the most knowlegable authority on what desktop people should use.
I know lots of people hated the old one which was simple, functional but uglier than anything that has poluted a desktop before. But people's complaints about Gnome just because of a dialogue box that is open 0.1% of computer usage time or less is really clutching at straws.
A week ago Novell's position was that KDE would be shipped, but not as the default.
Today's Novell's position was that KDE would be shipped, but not as the default.
That's is a huge inconsistancy isn't it?
I don't think slashdot helps with America's negative PR. If a non-american was to come onto slashdot they would encounter for the first time: the view that global warming is simply a conspiricy to undermine capitalism, support for invasion of Iraq, scores of racist comments about Indians. In my life I've met many nice and nasty Americans. A common trend amongst them is that the Americans that challenge my own perceptions of the stereotyped "greedy, violent and rude American" tend to be the ones that understand completely why the world's hatred of their nation somtimes rubs off on them. On the other hand, I've known a particular American (a nice guy, but a bit of a faciest) who frequently used inflamitory rhetoric in support of the invasion of Iraq in a leftwing educational institution yet asked frequently "why y'all hate Americans so much".
In my mind the only logical explaination of this is that Novell decided that they wanted the Ximian desktop as their own and decided that they needed their own linux distro to run it and their other software on. Ximian and SUSE are being used for Novells own ends and have been from the very start. All decision made regarding major changes in SUSE's focus were made by Novell and had been pre-destined from the beginning.
Novell is in the buisiness of making money, whether dumping KDE was a good or a bad idea, it was made by Novell for the perposes of making money.
SUSE was always competing head on with redhat and indirectly with Sun. The desktop market is worthless, it's only in servers (and maybe corperate workstations) that anyone but MS or Apple can make any money. The fact that SUSE went from KDE distro to Gnome distro means absolutely jack for the server market since SUSE was never differenciated from Redhat by what desktop they use, they were differenciated by price, focus, support and location.
When your employ Gnome's founders: Miguel de Icaza and Nat Friedman, you should expect a little bias. Novell bought Ximian because they wanted the Gnome desktop from the onset. Blaming Ximian for this is like blaming a dog for eating meat left on the floor.
Thank you for your time.
Why the hell does everyone choose to misinterpret the same post even after it's been modded to 0 Troll? Do people just browse slashdot at 0 looking for badly written posts then reply to them without reading the huge amount of (mainly futile) discussion it caused to find out what the author actually meant?
Why don't you browse at +1 next time?
It sounds like you need to use a distro with a better package manager, or learn to use your current one better. I use Gentoo, Ubuntu and Debian regually and they all allow software to be installed very quickly and easily. Synaptic (Ubuntu) provides an excelent search interface to choose a program and it's two to three clicks to install any package you want.
As for ATI, Linux boxes don't have ATI cards anyway for all intents and perposes, and drivers arn't really cedega's problem.
I think they have done quite well with this. It's very sad that they have given so little back to open source wine though.
I would have thought mentioning who can and cannot afford a gameboy would be a dead giveaway that I wasn't referring to a complete overhaul of child's play.
Can you seriously tell me why opening up a program that distributes toys and games to other, poorer countries is a bad idea? Can you tell me why I have taken this massive wave of abuse over suggesting it? From what it seems, most people here firmly believe that if there were more than three countries that a donor could choose to send things to that the skies would open and fire-rain would come down from heaven and distroy every toy in every children's ward in the western world.
I have recieved some good responses about it, referring to logistical and security concerns about transporting such things to less developed countries. But most of it was utter rubbish by people who rather than reading, decided it would be easier to post first.
I make these suggestions because I would like to contribute myself (though as a student, my finances are hardly large enough to make a huge difference) but do not find the idea of sending money to people in a country richer than my own appealing. The GDP per capita of the United States for example is 7 times my own income. Such countries should be able to take reasonable care of their own people.
Outside of the developed world, where things like Maleria and Aids are rampant, there are many more sick children who's parents are even less likely to be able to buy them something to keep them happy while they are in hospital, or more likely, a roughly made bed in an unsanitory house. Children there do not have books or TV or anything else, only their own misery. Wouldn't sending some toys there be good also? So, I guess I think it would be nice if some toys could be sent to such places, it seems that most people here disagree.
Sure, Africa might be a logistics nightmare, but in poorer parts of India and South America they could put a shipment of gameboys to good use and make a lot of children with even less to amuse them happy. To me, this doesn't seem like a bad idea. Evidently it does to you, for this, I'm sorry.
If you had actually read my fucking post you would notice I never once objected to giving gameboys and other toys to children. I just pointed out that limiting it to three of the richest nations on earth was unfortunent. That's what I said, that's all I said, and you and your fucking moron friends come and call me some kind of a grinch character that wants to take toys from children.
If you want to respond to what I say, respond to what I really said. If not, fuck you, fuck you very much.
See subject (yes, I know it's my own post)
What made it a troll? Here's why:
* Deliberate hyperbole in order to make certain readers angry.
* Message not completely based on author's own viewpoint.
* Drifting off topic early in the post.
* Insult of many of slashdot's readers at the end
I don't know why people would bother using their modpoints to mod someone down, but if you logged onto slashdot today hoping to "mod me down a troll YEEHAW!" I suggest that maybe you would be better to mod this post down as a troll, and maybe mod the parent up as overrated. The parent may not be right by many people's reckoning and the subject it is on is considered taboo by many, but I believe it was phrased in a very gracious way and is clearly on a subject worthy of discussion. A lot of people seem to have thought I was being a jerk, which I do not understand but I can assure anyone that I did not intend to be, I really like Gabe and Tyco and admire them for putting so much effort into giving something to those they consider needy.
I don't know how 9 people so far believe that I am criticising them. I don't know how I could have been more gentle about my disagreement with their priorities, if you have any suggestions I'd like to know of them. And I don't think I ever claimed anything about who is more deserving. Charity has never been about who deserves, it is about who has the most needs that can be satisfied.
As for the insightful rating, I may or may not deserve it. In fact I've got a lot of insightful ratings on stupid posts before. This time I had the curse of posting early so now I have a bunch of idiots and their junior home made strawman kits responding to what I said.
* Child's play is not for poor children, it's for sick children.
* Child's play is a cynical political stunt for the computer gamer lobby.
* Child's play really is for poor children since sick children are poor.
* Poor sick children need aid far more than other sick children since they are missing far more than just comfort.
Ok, so basically I said that Child's play is a very honorable and generous program that may be a little short in scope due to some natural human localisation of thinking. You defend them saying that Child's play is a self-contradictary undertaking based on political motivations who's contributions become insignificant compared to even basic care. I'm currently wondering if I'm responding to a fan with bad argument planning skills and an itchy reply link finger or a strawman sock puppet operated by Jack Thompson and the "fuck penny arcade" lobby.
I'm serious, KDE does NOT support SVG; Crystal SVG is a PNG theme nomatter what it is called. You have never turned it on in Gnome because you can't, it's always on, it loads up an SVG icon if it finds it with no user interaction, you probably don't know you are using it but there are a number of programs that only ship with SVG graphics and icons but "just work" according to the gnome philosophy.
I'm a huge fan of penny-arcade and I admire them a lot for doing what they are doing. However, why is it that they pick three of the countries in which children would be most likely to be able to afford gameboys etc. themselves in? I appreciate that there are lots of kids in US, UK and Canada who are having rough lives but I am sure that there would be poor children in India, Africa and South America that are in far greater need. Generocity is always great and reflects the same way on the donor nomatter where it is going to, however toys and money can do so much more for those who have even less.
That's sad because Gnome has most of that stuff too. Transperancy and shadows are turned off by default for performance reasons, but since 2000, Gnome has been the one and only desktop with SVG icons. KDE has no SVG icons, it has png icons rendered from SVG sources. I'm actually the current co-maintainer of librsvg, the high performance SVG rendering library that gnome uses for icons, and I assure you for SVG Gnome blows KDE out of the water (as in it actually supports SVG). So even though you don't care, it may still be nice to know that you may well be using SVG icons but do not realise it.
In this, the brightest light that are worth simulating is the brightest light that a human can look at without damaging their eyes, because humans generally don't know what blinding light really looks like. Anything that causes temporary or perminant blindness can be simulated easily by just turning the whole screen white.