Niklas Weidel wrote:
How about upgrading the shipment to offer DVD-versions? It
would allow for some serious improvements in both shipped software as
well as configurability, extras and tutorials. And there's not one
computer shipped today that is without a dvd-reader, and keep a dieted
CD-vers
How about upgrading the shipment to offer DVD-versions? It would allow for some serious improvements in both shipped software as well as configurability, extras and tutorials. And there's not one computer shipped today that is without a dvd-reader, and keep a dieted CD-version for the older ones.
A
Op 3-jul-2006, om 10:31 heeft Mark Shuttleworth het volgende geschreven:
You're absolutely right - for non-default wallpapers we could relax
this criterion. However, the number of wallpapers we can include on
the installation CD is limited by space. I'm not sure, for example,
if Dapper inc
Joao Inacio wrote:
- How much of this "ubuntu distinctiveness" is really
needed on the
other included wallpapers (not default)?
Even though this i completely agree on the default wallpaper, from my
humble POV a few extra wallpapers that didnt quite follow the rules to
the point,
On Jun 30, 2006, at 11:22 PM, Joao Inacio wrote:
On 6/30/06, Mark Shuttleworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michiel Sikma wrote:
They don't necessarily have to be distinctly Ubuntu, I believe.
That's up
for debate. I think that nice photos that are included by default
can be
abstract enoug
It would be really, really nice if someone would write this up as a wiki
page as "guidelines for an Ubuntu wallpaper"!
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Artwork/Documentation/Guidelines/WallPapers
--
ubuntu-art mailing list
ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-ar
On 6/30/06, Mark Shuttleworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michiel Sikma wrote:
They don't necessarily have to be distinctly Ubuntu, I believe. That's up
for debate. I think that nice photos that are included by default can be
abstract enough as well simply to be good filler material. Besides, ho
Michiel Sikma wrote:
They don't necessarily have to be distinctly Ubuntu, I
believe. That's up for debate. I think that nice photos that are
included by default can be abstract enough as well simply to be good
filler material. Besides, how would you make them classify as
Ubuntu-ish, anyway? Do
Op 29-jun-2006, om 17:00 heeft Matthew Nuzum het volgende geschreven:
On 6/29/06, Michiel Sikma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Op 29-jun-2006, om 16:14 heeft Matthew Nuzum het volgende geschre
> For inspiration, I strongly suggest looking at what other OSs are
> doing. Most computers come from the
On 6/29/06, Michiel Sikma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Op 29-jun-2006, om 16:14 heeft Matthew Nuzum het volgende geschre
> For inspiration, I strongly suggest looking at what other OSs are
> doing. Most computers come from the manufucaturer with the maker's
> branding on the wall paper. Stop into y
On 6/29/06, Matthew Nuzum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/29/06, Mark Shuttleworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Étienne Bersac wrote:
>
>
> For me, the branding on the Breezy background was great - it belnded
> in very well with the backdrop - an generally looked 'cool'.
>
> Agree, but it wa
Michiel Sikma wrote:
Op 29-jun-2006, om 16:14 heeft Matthew Nuzum het volgende geschreven:
On 6/29/06, Mark Shuttleworth
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Étienne Bersac wrote:
For me, the branding on the Breezy background was great - it belnded
in very
Op 29-jun-2006, om 16:14 heeft Matthew Nuzum het volgende geschreven:
On 6/29/06, Mark Shuttleworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Étienne Bersac wrote:
For me, the branding on the Breezy background was great - it belnded
in very well with the backdrop - an generally looked 'cool'.
Agree, b
On 6/29/06, Mark Shuttleworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Étienne Bersac wrote:
For me, the branding on the Breezy background was great - it belnded
in very well with the backdrop - an generally looked 'cool'.
Agree, but it was too dark. Especially if we have window shadow.
I've no proble
Étienne Bersac wrote:
For me, the branding on the Breezy background was great - it belnded
in very well with the backdrop - an generally looked 'cool'.
Agree, but it was too dark. Especially if we have window shadow.
I've no problem if there are SOME desktop wallpapers in
I'll put up the shiny logopart in various formats, including photoshop original (sorry guys, i'm not gimped yet) and png. I'll look into setting up a little wikisubpage for the stuff./Niklas
2006/6/27, Michiel Sikma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Op 27-jun-2006, om 16:13 heeft Michiel Sikma het volgende gesc
Hello,
> For me, the branding on the Breezy background was great - it belnded
> in very well with the backdrop - an generally looked 'cool'.
Agree, but it was too dark. Especially if we have window shadow.
Étienne.
--
Verso l'Alto !
--
ubuntu-art mailing list
ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com
http
On 6/27/06, Troy James Sobotka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 2006-27-06 at 07:33 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> The desktop colour should not be too bright, or it becomes tiring to
> look at all day. We generally have chosen to go with darker, richer
> colours so that there is less strai
Op 27-jun-2006, om 16:13 heeft Michiel Sikma het volgende geschreven:
Op 27-jun-2006, om 16:11 heeft Troy James Sobotka het volgende
geschreven:
On Tue, 2006-27-06 at 07:33 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
The desktop colour should not be too bright, or it becomes tiring to
look at all d
Op 27-jun-2006, om 16:11 heeft Troy James Sobotka het volgende
geschreven:
On Tue, 2006-27-06 at 07:33 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
The desktop colour should not be too bright, or it becomes tiring to
look at all day. We generally have chosen to go with darker, richer
colours so that th
On Tue, 2006-27-06 at 07:33 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote:
> The desktop colour should not be too bright, or it becomes tiring to
> look at all day. We generally have chosen to go with darker, richer
> colours so that there is less strain on the eyes. Also, we are
> preferring not to have distro
21 matches
Mail list logo
