Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 17:31:43 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Joe Abley <jabley@clear.co.nz> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Adding desktop support Message-ID: <199904282331.RAA11927@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <19990429112538.D81921@clear.co.nz> References: <199904282017.NAA01044@dingo.cdrom.com> <19990429083638.B34373.kithrup.freebsd.hackers@gurney.reilly.home> <199904282244.PAA28325@kithrup.com> <19990429112538.D81921@clear.co.nz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Putting icons in the executable itself is pretty stupid -- it's a single > > instance of something that a window manager can use, and there are much > > less-invasive ways of doing the same thing. > > What's invasive about it? The fact that the user may not like the icon you've chosen to use due to many criteria, including size, # of colors, transparency, 2D/3D, etc... So, do we embed every icon the user may want to use inside the executable to meet everyone's needs, or do we find an alternative location such that the user can use any icon it finds appropriate. This also allows for such things as 'themes', whereby I can change the behavior of my system if the location of the icons are in a centralized place by replacing the contents with a similar layout with different icons. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199904282331.RAA11927>