and so few with a warf ? gee not sure i remember how to spell "warf" !
upload something and make it more...you say it like its my fault.
Wharf had been replaced by boxes...
Front Page has a screenshot of BrushedNeXT...that bar on the right is a wharf
Sarcasm is lost on the devil.
Sarcasim is lost in text...
...and well...Im used to answering stupid questions...
haha i feel ya devilboi.
wharf is outdate imo... lsbox can handle wharf functions just fine.
Warf.. you mean Lieutenant Commander Warf on U.S.S. Enterprise?
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS JUST MY OPINION, IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED READ NO FURTHER:
:start rant
I really don't think wharfs are outdated by any means, simply underappreciated. If a theme looks better without a wharf, then by all means leave it out, but I find minimal themes boring, kind of defeating the purpose of swithing to litestep. I personally think most of the minimal themes that feature a taskbar look exactly the same and are essentially the same as windows/kde/gnome (whatever). I feel that if you're gonna switch shells, do something different. I like the Elegance-16 layout, it's smooth, and asthetically pleasing with a
[url]http://www.shadowness.com [/url] background. Oh, and Nixblue is still one of my ALLtime faves it's pretty much what got me reinterested in litestep after being away for a few years.
Anyways, enough rant, short version being, if you don't use them, bothers me none, but, hell, i like'em.
:end rant
:responsive rant
I've got no arguments against people who prefer "non-minimal" themes. But I don't think minimal themes should be dismissed because they "look" like windows/kde/gnome. Themes shouldn't be judged by there appearances. It's often the little differences you may never notice that make them significantly superior these standard shells.
Lets use the explorer shell for instance. Have you noticed that applications in the explorer taskbar sit a couple of pixels away from the edge of the screen? This means you have about a 200 x 20 pixel area to land your mouse before clicking. Most LS themes, however, have the applications on the taskbar sitting up against the edge of the screen. This means you can move your mouse infinite distance down without ever going past the application (assuming the taskbar is at the base of the screen). This effectively gives you a pixel area of 200 x 1.e+999999999999... (infinite). A small detail but the bigger something is the easier it is to click on. Elegance-16 has about a 20 x 1.e+999... area. What's going to be easier to switch applications with? Elegance or the explorer shell look alike?
Something the explorer shell doesn't take advantage of is the 5 most accessible points of a computer screen. The point where the mouse pointer is currently, and the four corners of the screen. For the same reason as above the corners of the screen are infinite in size and are the largest accessible areas for the mouse to find.
There are many design principles like this that can make an interface extremely accessible. My point is that just because a theme is shaped differently to windows/kde/gnome shells it doesn't mean it's better. And whilst it's good to have an "aesthetically pleasing" theme, I've used many themes that look amazing but simply don't lend themselves to practical use. Unless of course your primary use is to impress your friends.
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS JUST MY OPINION, IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED READ NO FURTHER:
:start Counter-responsive rant
I'm personally not dismissing minimalism here, just because it looks like explorer, and you are right, there are faults aplenty to be found with explorer, I just don't like these themes with a taskbar because they're boring (no offence to minimailsts out there), but you're absoloutley right; they are functional.
Maybe I'm a product of my generation, and seen too many sci-fi/hacker flicks, but i believe a computer should be
a) Functional
b) Graphcial
c) Animated
d) Personalized
Case modders personalize thier system by putting cold cathodes in the dark recesses of thier pc's that pulse to the beat of whatever music they have pumping out of thier Klipchies, or z680's, or throw blue windshield washer fluid, and black light reflective coolant in ther water cooling systems, to show that the Coolant IS moving, and IS working.
Litesteppers, on the whole, seem to be presenting minimal, functional themes, which is like takng the case off your system and putting it next to the A/C, because it'll keep the system running at a cool, reasonable temperature. Sure it works, it's kind of original, but it's boring. Hell if A/C cooling works for you, go ahead and use it, right? I'm not going to tell you not to, but don't expect me to fall in line at the local hardware store to pick up my new $100.00 heat sink.
Anyway, my point is simply thus: if you like minimalism, yay for you, but I like graphicly intensive themes (Singularity rocks) not to impress my friends/co-workers, but to impress myself. Why would anyone use a program they weren't impressed with?
Don't like win98? -> upgrade
Don't like windows? -> linux\litestep
Don't like Paintshop Pro? -> Photoshop
If you're impressed by minimals, more power to you, but I'll be damned if I use anything I don't look at and say "wow".
:End Counter-responsive rant
I don't know about the rest of the community but I rarely actually see my desktop with all the windows I have open. I don't need another thing to blink, flash, move, distract me...I need something that tells me what I want to know and not have to go digging for it. You can do a LOT with a little bit of space if you put your mind to it.
I think every theme has it's value, be it minimalist or not. And it's good that people can have both of then. What makes me a Litestep maniac in the first time was the Wharf module. Don't know why people seens to hate it that much.
Just my thoghts. :)