Aqua-Soft ForumsHi folks,
What d'ye think?
I'd prefer KDE, (because I can't compile GNOME 2.4 on my machine - allways exits with an Error...)
baraquda
Gnome Or Kde?
If you take a look thru this forum, you'll notice that most of the themes here are for GNOME. I remember contra telling me that even though there are many more themes for KDE than for GNOME, the ones for KDE are crappy in quality...not that KDE lacks the skinning potential, it's just that the Aqua themes out there for GNOME are much better in quality.
Here are links to some GNOME Aqua themes made by our talented skinners.
http://www.aqua-soft.org/board/index.php?showtopic=8983
http://www.aqua-soft.org/board/index.php?showtopic=6446
http://www.aqua-soft.org/board/index.php?showtopic=8840
BTW try getting the latest distros such as Fedora Core 1 or Mandrake 9.2. You can install GNOME thru the setup itself, but I'm no linux expert so don't take my word for it.
Problem for me is having FreeBSD installed on my Machine....
Gnome 2.2 runs excellent but most skins are for Gnome 2.4...
anyone have a tip how to install gnome 2.4 on bsd? I've tried the port-collection, but it didn't work...
I'm not familiar with *BSD at all, but as far as GNOME themes, I don't know of any reason why GNOME 2.x themes should be incompatible between releases. To my knowledge a theme made for GNOME 2.2 should work on 2.4, and vice versa. And if I'm wrong, I'm sure contra will come and correct me. 
Both gtk2 and metacity themes should work fine with gnome 2.2. Some themes might need tweaking when the next version of gtk2 comes out. But the differences between gnome 2.2 and gnome 2.4 should not make a difference as far as these themes are concerned.
Originally posted by baraquda@Nov 19 2003, 07:43 AMProblem for me is having FreeBSD installed on my Machine....
Gnome 2.2 runs excellent but most skins are for Gnome 2.4...
anyone have a tip how to install gnome 2.4 on bsd? I've tried the port-collection, but it didn't work...
Have you read that?
It's a pity I can't help, because I'm not familiar with *BSD too.
I have redhat 9.0 installed and it pisses me off already. Maybe *BSD is the solution I need 
i enjoy Gnome 2.4 alot and Xfce 4 is amazing.. im currently using Xfce4
i really like the nautilus file manger.. one of my favorite tools to use!
-bolero
Definately Gnome! I used to stick by KDE proclaiming how wonderful it was, but I had to eventually admit that the themes for Gnome were far better and since switching to Gnome I've not looked back 
hmmm... well there IS a really great theme for KDE, leaving all gnome-themes behind it, as far as i think: http://kde-look.org/content/preview.php?file=8692-1.png, for having a look at it....
baraquda
Originally posted by baraquda@Nov 20 2003, 03:22 PMhmmm... well there IS a really great theme for KDE, leaving all gnome-themes behind it, as far as i think: http://kde-look.org/content/preview.php?file=8692-1.png, for having a look at it....
baraquda
Nope, not as good as the gnome themes
only theme from kde which i thought was neat was Kwinaqcua.. for kde 2.2 ( i know old days) but it was an aqua 10.1 window decor.. and when the title bar was unfocused.. it did a transparency effect like the real OSX.. of course it was fake.. but iv never seen any new themes for new kde or gnome do that
-bolero
KDE all the way. GNOME is good, but KDE has more skinning flexibility.
i used kde for a long time because up until 3-4 months ago, themes were better for kde. it seemed a bit better.
but since getting slack 9.1, and running gnome 2.4, ive fallen in love with gnome. the interface is smoother. i would be willing to say that the gnome interface has a more slick and mature feeling than windows. and is only bettered by osx.
kde is cool, and probably has more that you can do with it (i think other than redhat, kde is MUCH more popular), but i really like gnome, and the gnome themes are SO nice. gnome is made to be skinned (and have the buttons on the left) and the themes are nice and work. i really hated how window blinds skins always screwed up the text in tabs and buttons
OK
>
that was always stupid.