transparent menus?

[The Matt]

On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 11:54, Moritz Heiber wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:49:40 -0800 (PST)
> Jonathan Gardner <bohemian72 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> > Heh, careful what you say around here. Not EVERYBODY
> > loves the eye-candy. I think it's a nifty effect and
> > my computer can certainly handle special effects, but
> > many people use Xfce because it's lean and mean more
> > than pretty. Mind you Xfce4 is far prettier than
> > Xfce3.
> > Declaring that "everyone loves the eye-candy" is a
> > good way to get yourself flamed though.
> 
> Hey, somebody understood it. ;-)
> 
> I won't be flaming now but I really can't stand any kind of wicked
> transperancy or anything else as useless as that. We'd better focus on
> other things than that.

Now, now.  Some of us *love* the eye candy.  Of course, I also *love*
lean and fast (since my boxes aren't the greatest).  So, all we need is
lean, fast eye candy.

I'd love true transparency, but that's an X problem, right?  I mean, I
gave up on transparency in my GNOME days because it was just the
background image with some black added.  Right now, I just keep trying
out gdesklets.  They're eye candy enough for me...they just suck up way
too much resources.

Matt

-- 
I am a theoretical chemist.  Fear me!
 Matt Thompson -- http://ucsub.colorado.edu/~thompsma/
 440 UCB, Boulder, CO  80309-0440
 JILA A510, 303-492-4662
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.xfce.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20031216/5911a725/attachment.pgp>