<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Back to GNOME Foot.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.gnome.org/brunobol/2007/11/27/back-to-gnome-foot/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/brunobol/2007/11/27/back-to-gnome-foot/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 02:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Conolly</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/brunobol/2007/11/27/back-to-gnome-foot/#comment-147</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Conolly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 04:48:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.gnome.org/brunobol/2007/11/27/back-to-gnome-foot/#comment-147</guid>
		<description>some people like the ubuntu logo there
gives a feeling of a coherent operating system, rather than a mere collection of packages
theres nothing stopping you from putting the foot back on your own version tho</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>some people like the ubuntu logo there<br />
gives a feeling of a coherent operating system, rather than a mere collection of packages<br />
theres nothing stopping you from putting the foot back on your own version tho</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anonym</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/brunobol/2007/11/27/back-to-gnome-foot/#comment-138</link>
		<dc:creator>anonym</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:26:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.gnome.org/brunobol/2007/11/27/back-to-gnome-foot/#comment-138</guid>
		<description>the ubuntu icon set is very ugly. they are a real regression compared to the tango set of gnome. also their logout button is hideous. same story on openoffice.org.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the ubuntu icon set is very ugly. they are a real regression compared to the tango set of gnome. also their logout button is hideous. same story on openoffice.org.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matías</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/brunobol/2007/11/27/back-to-gnome-foot/#comment-134</link>
		<dc:creator>Matías</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:08:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.gnome.org/brunobol/2007/11/27/back-to-gnome-foot/#comment-134</guid>
		<description>I don't know but may be it's a theme issue. look at darkilouch, it makes gmail looks the same as if it were a light theme, well except the widgets</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t know but may be it&#8217;s a theme issue. look at darkilouch, it makes gmail looks the same as if it were a light theme, well except the widgets</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/brunobol/2007/11/27/back-to-gnome-foot/#comment-133</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:31:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.gnome.org/brunobol/2007/11/27/back-to-gnome-foot/#comment-133</guid>
		<description>Dunno if this is what you were asking, but I made my epiphany menu bar run ~/bin/my-epiphany %U, and ~/bin/my-epiphany is:


#!/bin/bash
export GTK2_RC_FILES=/usr/share/themes/Human/gtk-2.0/gtkrc
exec epiphany $@
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dunno if this is what you were asking, but I made my epiphany menu bar run ~/bin/my-epiphany %U, and ~/bin/my-epiphany is:</p>
<p>#!/bin/bash<br />
export GTK2_RC_FILES=/usr/share/themes/Human/gtk-2.0/gtkrc<br />
exec epiphany $@</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/brunobol/2007/11/27/back-to-gnome-foot/#comment-131</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:10:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.gnome.org/brunobol/2007/11/27/back-to-gnome-foot/#comment-131</guid>
		<description>The missing foot icon for the menu and other places in Ubuntu is probably one of the reasons i jumped ship back to Debian. I like Gnome as it's made, i get annoyed when distros start forcing their own little version of Gnome on me, with Novell being perhaps my only exception to that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The missing foot icon for the menu and other places in Ubuntu is probably one of the reasons i jumped ship back to Debian. I like Gnome as it&#8217;s made, i get annoyed when distros start forcing their own little version of Gnome on me, with Novell being perhaps my only exception to that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phrodo_00</title>
		<link>http://blogs.gnome.org/brunobol/2007/11/27/back-to-gnome-foot/#comment-130</link>
		<dc:creator>Phrodo_00</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:49:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.gnome.org/brunobol/2007/11/27/back-to-gnome-foot/#comment-130</guid>
		<description>I don't remember right (I'm actually using a custom darkish gummy theme, but not dark enough to switch fonts from being black, nor textbox from being white), but I remember I did something like:
body {
background: #fff;
color: #000;
}

in epiphany's default style sheet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t remember right (I&#8217;m actually using a custom darkish gummy theme, but not dark enough to switch fonts from being black, nor textbox from being white), but I remember I did something like:<br />
body {<br />
background: #fff;<br />
color: #000;<br />
}</p>
<p>in epiphany&#8217;s default style sheet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
