User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; de; rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060807 Firefox/1.5.0.6 Build Identifier: I've read the Changelog to xfce RC2 and found that Thunar now scales from png thumbnails even for svg originals. To be clear about that: one uses svg iconsets because of the better display quality. Scaling from png thumbnails reduces that quality and must be considered a buggy behaviour. If rendering svg icons is too slow on some systems, the solution is to not use svg icons but to find a png theme. Don't reduce the quality for all users! Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3.
I hope you did not only read the changelog entry, but also understood what it means. We're not scaling the included 16x16 or 22x22 pngs, but we're generating thumbnails from the SVG icons and scaling them appropriately. I doubt that you'll notice any visible difference.
I still understand the very same from (the very unclear sentence) >>Use the thumbnail database to load SVG icons from the icon theme [to load them or to cache and use PNG copies of them?], because loading SVG is quite slow and takes a lot more memory than loading [here it comes!] *** and scaling *** PNG icons from the thumbnail database.<< This means, at least to me, the new Thunar scales from the png thumbnails. This is a buggy feature, and I'm fully against it. I want to get rid of blurry, smeary pixmaps at all (even if the effect is small). I wished I had a pure vector-based desktop presence. At least make that feature optional, or always first create thumbnails of correctly scaled size before using them repetitively [I mean, that's the case you want to use the thumbnail database for, don't you? For single use it makes no sense]. Btw. Your comment is the same unclear: [...] we're [you?] generating thumbnails from the SVG icons and scaling them [Which? The sentence states that *you* scale the PNG thumbnails.] appropriately. I'm sorry but I still understand the same!
Nonsense! This is not buggy, no matter what you think. It's a valid optimization. I really fail to see your point. There's no decrease in quality. Come up with a non-empty set of commonly-used icons that look awkward this way compared to the other way (loading and scaling SVG directly) and we may talk again... by the way, did you try that? > I wished I had a pure vector-based desktop presence. Do you get paid for posting sentences like this in public forums? Aside from the buzzword-factor and probably wasted disk space, there's nothing that makes using a n icon theme with SVG icons look better than an icon theme with PNGs in the required sizes. Applications use only well-defined icon sizes (16x16, 22x22, 48x48, ...).
Created attachment 858 Test Ok, to make myself clear: Look at that picture and tell me, which one is loaded from the thumbnail database? Impossible to tell? Doesn't matter? Got the point?
No way to talk to you, eh? Are you the maintainer because you block best (I could ask back--don't answer)? Ok, I am straight but what you write is somewhat aggressive, isn't it? The point is still *** scaling ***. When you write that apps always use standard sizes there is no reason to not use cached PNGs--if they are scaled correclty from the original SVGs. This is what I wrote, actually. I am against scaling from PNGs. So, if you append two icons of same size, where is the point? Could you please re-read my messages and understand that I am only against *** scaling *** from PNGs? I explicitely wrote that caching and using PNGs that were scaled correcly from the original SVGs is acceptable to me. As I wrote, I read about this 'feature' in the Changelog and find it buggy per definition (what was expressed in the sentence). I did not try it yet but know by experience that scaling PNGs for just some pixels reduces quality on a good monitor. Still, I am only talking about scaling, not about using PNG or that the Monitor should be vectorized or whatever. If you still disagree, just close this bug message (because you are the master and I cannot change anything on this at all) before we *waste* more precious space on your system.
[CC'ing xfce-bugs, in case someone is willing to waste his/her time on this "issue".] You think I'm aggressive? You should talk to my psychotherapist... Anyway, you keep telling that "this feature is buggy" without any deeper knowledge of the software/facts or even trying out the software. So you are a troll by definition. That's all the master has to tell you.
So, have installed and running xfce4.4rc2 now. The facts are that the SVG icons on the desktop are smoothened and the edges show stairs. Text, like 'pdf', is hard to read or even unreadable. The trash icon on my small panel looks knitted. There is technically no way to keep the quality when scaling from png and I proofed this to be right. The quality of SVG icons under xfce4.4rc1 is visibly higher. Regards, Dennis
Er... thumbnails aren't displayed on the desktop. And all desktop icons are rendered directly from svg. I'm too lazy to implement useful optimisations like Benny has done with Thunar. (In reply to comment #7) > There is technically no way to keep the quality when scaling from png and I > proofed this to be right. Where? I don't see any proof. (Hint: You saying "I proved it" doesn't make it proven. Especially when you can't conjugate verbs correctly.)
Seems that you are all quite childish (no matter if I wrote that correctly. Having used a wrong word in a foreign language is not a proof for being unable to do it right at all. Don't know how your comment helps further in the case. Looks rather discriminating to me. Not to mention that I actually shit on what you call a language. Wasting my time with loads of stuff in english on the net is rather annoying than an experience. Come down and focus on the case.) I proved it to myself and can tell you about it. There is no way proving something 'visible' to someone else. What do you expect? A spectral analysis? I can only say that xfce4.4rc1 produced visibly better results. However that happened. So it is on my screen. However, as I already wrote: You are the masters and I don't struggle for it (and not on that level.) Bye
Wow, somebody's a bit touchy and defensive... You still have yet to demonstrate -- and saying "I think it looks bad" is not demonstrating anything -- that Benny's optimisation degrades quality in any perceptible way. If you want to take a screenshot of something you think looks bad, with a comparison shot of how you think it should look, along with a set of steps to reproduce the effect exactly on Benny's machine, I'm sure he'd be willing to look into it more closely. However, you've been nothing but argumentative, insulting, arrogant, and unreasonable, so I really don't expect anything of the kind from you. *That's* the reason no one wants to help you. Further useless crap like what you've been spewing will only get you banned; otherwise feel free to be civil.