SETUP: default to mintty

SETUP: default to mintty

[Corinna Vinschen]

[This time *with* patch...]

Hi guys,

we discussed this back in May already, but somehow we didn't get a
final result.  The thread was kind of confusing, so I re-open a new
one now.

We talked about using mintty as our default shell.  I created a setup
patch which I attached to this mail again.  Instead of "Cygwin Bash
Shell" in the start menu and "Cygwin" on the desktop, it creates 
"Cygwin Terminal" shortcuts in both of them.

Is that ok?

If not, what should we do better?

Apart from that, why is mintty still not in the "Base" category?
Just laziness on our side?  Some really important reason?


Corinna


Index: desktop.cc
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/cygwin-apps/setup/desktop.cc,v
retrieving revision 2.56
diff -u -p -r2.56 desktop.cc
--- desktop.cc	25 Jul 2011 08:59:15 -0000	2.56
+++ desktop.cc	25 Jul 2011 09:10:47 -0000
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
 
 #if 0
 static const char *cvsid =
-  "\n%%% $Id: desktop.cc,v 2.56 2011/07/25 08:59:15 corinna Exp $\n";
+  "\n%%% $Id: desktop.cc,v 2.55 2010/11/19 15:49:54 cgf Exp $\n";
 #endif
 
 #include "win32.h"
@@ -78,7 +78,8 @@ DesktopSetupPage::DesktopSetupPage ()
 static void
 make_link (const std::string& linkpath,
            const std::string& title,
-           const std::string& target)
+           const std::string& target,
+           const std::string& arg)
 {
   std::string fname = linkpath + "/" + title + ".lnk";
 
@@ -96,7 +97,7 @@ make_link (const std::string& linkpath,
   if (IsWindowsNT ())
     {
       exepath = target;
-      argbuf = " ";
+      argbuf = arg;
     }
   else
     {
@@ -105,6 +106,8 @@ make_link (const std::string& linkpath,
       GetWindowsDirectory (windir, sizeof (windir));
       exepath = std::string(windir) + "\\command.com";
       argbuf = "/E:4096 /c " + target;
+      if (arg.size ())
+	argbuf += " " + arg;
     }
 
   msg ("make_link_2 (%s, %s, %s, %s)",
@@ -115,7 +118,8 @@ make_link (const std::string& linkpath,
 }
 
 static void
-start_menu (const std::string& title, const std::string& target)
+start_menu (const std::string& title, const std::string& target,
+	    const std::string& arg)
 {
   LPITEMIDLIST id;
   int issystem = (root_scope == IDC_ROOT_SYSTEM) ? 1 : 0;
@@ -137,11 +141,12 @@ start_menu (const std::string& title, co
     }
 // end of Win95 addition
   path += "/Cygwin";
-  make_link (path, title, target);
+  make_link (path, title, target, arg);
 }
 
 static void
-desktop_icon (const std::string& title, const std::string& target)
+desktop_icon (const std::string& title, const std::string& target,
+	      const std::string& arg)
 {
   char path[MAX_PATH];
   LPITEMIDLIST id;
@@ -161,7 +166,7 @@ desktop_icon (const std::string& title, 
       msg ("Desktop directory for deskop link changed to: %s", path);
     }
 // end of Win95 addition
-  make_link (path, title, target);
+  make_link (path, title, target, arg);
 }
 
 static void
@@ -243,15 +248,17 @@ do_desktop_setup ()
 
   make_cygwin_bat ();
 
+  std::string target;
+
+  target = is_legacy ? batname : backslash (cygpath ("/bin/mintty"));
+
   if (root_menu)
-    {
-      start_menu ("Cygwin Bash Shell", batname);
-    }
+    start_menu (is_legacy ? "Cygwin Bash Shell" : "Cygwin Terminal", target,
+    		is_legacy ? "" : "-");
 
   if (root_desktop)
-    {
-      desktop_icon ("Cygwin", batname);
-    }
+    desktop_icon (is_legacy ? "Cygwin" : "Cygwin Terminal", target,
+		  is_legacy ? "" : "-");
 }
 
 static int da[] = { IDC_ROOT_DESKTOP, 0 };
@@ -425,8 +432,11 @@ DesktopSetupPage::OnActivate ()
       else
 	{
 	  root_menu =
-	    check_startmenu ("Cygwin Bash Shell",
-			     backslash (cygpath ("/cygwin.bat")));
+	    is_legacy
+	    ? check_startmenu ("Cygwin Bash Shell",
+			       backslash (cygpath ("/cygwin.bat")))
+	    : check_startmenu ("Cygwin Terminal",
+			       backslash (cygpath ("/bin/mintty")));
 	}
 
       if (NoDesktopOption) 
@@ -436,7 +446,10 @@ DesktopSetupPage::OnActivate ()
       else
 	{
 	  root_desktop =
-	    check_desktop ("Cygwin", backslash (cygpath ("/cygwin.bat")));
+	    is_legacy
+	    ? check_desktop ("Cygwin", backslash (cygpath ("/cygwin.bat")))
+	    : check_desktop ("Cygwin Terminal",
+			     backslash (cygpath ("/bin/mintty")));
 	}
     }
 


-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Andy Koppe]

On 25 July 2011 10:11, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> [This time *with* patch...]
>
> Hi guys,
>
> we discussed this back in May already, but somehow we didn't get a
> final result.  The thread was kind of confusing, so I re-open a new
> one now.
>
> We talked about using mintty as our default shell.  I created a setup
> patch which I attached to this mail again.  Instead of "Cygwin Bash
> Shell" in the start menu and "Cygwin" on the desktop, it creates
> "Cygwin Terminal" shortcuts in both of them.
>
> Is that ok?

If I remember correctly, we were going to go with just "Cygwin" on the
desktop. I'll have a proper look later.

> Apart from that, why is mintty still not in the "Base" category?
> Just laziness on our side?

I kept on putting it off because there was always that one more bug to
fix. No excuses now that I've bumped it to 1.0.

> Some really important reason?

My one remaining concern is the postinstall script, which would create
the "Cygwin/mintty" start menu entry for every Cygwin user, whether
they want it or not. Deleting it wouldn't help either, as it would
come back at the next mintty update.

Andy

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul 25 12:49, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 25 July 2011 10:11, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > [This time *with* patch...]
> >
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > we discussed this back in May already, but somehow we didn't get a
> > final result.  The thread was kind of confusing, so I re-open a new
> > one now.
> >
> > We talked about using mintty as our default shell.  I created a setup
> > patch which I attached to this mail again.  Instead of "Cygwin Bash
> > Shell" in the start menu and "Cygwin" on the desktop, it creates
> > "Cygwin Terminal" shortcuts in both of them.
> >
> > Is that ok?
> 
> If I remember correctly, we were going to go with just "Cygwin" on the
> desktop. I'll have a proper look later.
> 
> > Apart from that, why is mintty still not in the "Base" category?
> > Just laziness on our side?
> 
> I kept on putting it off because there was always that one more bug to
> fix. No excuses now that I've bumped it to 1.0.
> 
> > Some really important reason?
> 
> My one remaining concern is the postinstall script, which would create
> the "Cygwin/mintty" start menu entry for every Cygwin user, whether
> they want it or not. Deleting it wouldn't help either, as it would
> come back at the next mintty update.

Not a big problem, IMHO.  Just as soon as we change setup, the postinstall
script should go away, I guess.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Andy Koppe]

On 25 July 2011 12:49, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 25 July 2011 10:11, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> [This time *with* patch...]
>>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> we discussed this back in May already, but somehow we didn't get a
>> final result.  The thread was kind of confusing, so I re-open a new
>> one now.
>>
>> We talked about using mintty as our default shell.  I created a setup
>> patch which I attached to this mail again.  Instead of "Cygwin Bash
>> Shell" in the start menu and "Cygwin" on the desktop, it creates
>> "Cygwin Terminal" shortcuts in both of them.
>>
>> Is that ok?
>
> If I remember correctly, we were going to go with just "Cygwin" on the
> desktop. I'll have a proper look later.

Problem: the shortcuts have the classic Cygwin icon whereas the
resulting terminal window has the mintty (née Konsole) icon. Worse, on
Windows 7 at least, the Cygwin icon also appears in the taskbar. It
needs to be the same icon throughout.

That raises the obvious question: which one? I vote for mintty's, but
of course I'm biased. I don't think the classic Cygwin icon is fit for
purpose anymore, because of its jagged lines and because the black 'C'
is invisible on dark backgrounds.

Andy

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Chris Sutcliffe]

On 25 July 2011 16:18, Andy Koppe wrote:
> Problem: the shortcuts have the classic Cygwin icon whereas the
> resulting terminal window has the mintty (née Konsole) icon. Worse, on
> Windows 7 at least, the Cygwin icon also appears in the taskbar. It
> needs to be the same icon throughout.
>
> That raises the obvious question: which one? I vote for mintty's, but
> of course I'm biased. I don't think the classic Cygwin icon is fit for
> purpose anymore, because of its jagged lines and because the black 'C'
> is invisible on dark backgrounds.

Could this be the rise of Chuck's Hippo.ico? :)

Chris

-- 
Chris Sutcliffe
http://emergedesktop.org
http://www.google.com/profiles/ir0nh34d

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Charles Wilson]

On 7/25/2011 7:41 PM, Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
> On 25 July 2011 16:18, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> Problem: the shortcuts have the classic Cygwin icon whereas the
>> resulting terminal window has the mintty (née Konsole) icon. Worse, on
>> Windows 7 at least, the Cygwin icon also appears in the taskbar. It
>> needs to be the same icon throughout.
>>
>> That raises the obvious question: which one? I vote for mintty's, but
>> of course I'm biased. I don't think the classic Cygwin icon is fit for
>> purpose anymore, because of its jagged lines and because the black 'C'
>> is invisible on dark backgrounds.
> 
> Could this be the rise of Chuck's Hippo.ico? :)

Nah, I agree with Andy (and cgf). IMO, there's no need for the "C" icon
'branding'.  Currently, the Hippo icon is used with run2's "To X or Not
To X" demo (that is, urxvt if X is running, mintty otherwise):

/usr/bin/config-run2-example.sh contains this:

mkshortcut --desc="Cygwin Terminal" \
  --icon="/usr/bin/cygicons-0.dll" \
  --iconoffset=10 \
  --arguments="--display 127.0.0.1:0.0 ${XMLFILE}" \
  --name="CygShell" \
  /usr/bin/run2.exe

If people really want the big green C, it's in cygicons-0.dll with the
others.

--
Chuck

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Charles Wilson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 484 bytes --]

On 7/25/2011 8:10 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
> IMO, there's no need for the "C" icon
> 'branding'.  

Although, if folks DO think the 'branding' is important, this
/particular/ shortcut could be created with the icon below, rather than
using the one built in to mintty itself.  It doesn't have any of the
problems Andy mentioned.  It's at offset=9 in cygicons-0.dll.

(Ugh. Resend. qmail-send didn't like the 'image/png' MIME type of the
attachment. Packing in a tar.gz...)

--
Chuck


[-- Attachment #2: icon-on-black-bkgrnd.tar.gz --]
[-- Type: application/x-gzip, Size: 1977 bytes --]

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul 25 20:20, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 7/25/2011 8:10 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
> > IMO, there's no need for the "C" icon
> > 'branding'.  
> 
> Although, if folks DO think the 'branding' is important, this
> /particular/ shortcut could be created with the icon below, rather than
> using the one built in to mintty itself.  It doesn't have any of the
> problems Andy mentioned.  It's at offset=9 in cygicons-0.dll.

Nice one.

This discussion reminds me of the new icon format in Vista, which
support icons of up to 256x256 bytes in PNG format.  Is that something
we should add, too?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 7/26/2011 5:01 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> This discussion reminds me of the new icon format in Vista, which
> support icons of up to 256x256 bytes in PNG format.

Pixels, not bytes, unless you were thinking about 8 bpp paletted images.

I don't see -- in the almost nonexistent docs -- that windres actually 
supports PNG icons.  windres.exe isn't linked to cygpng*.dll on my 
system, so if it does support PNG icons, it must do so only by blindly 
copying the PNG data into the COFF file.

> Is that something we should add, too?

The only time I've found where I can tell that a program has a high-res 
icon is by looking at the blue info bar at the bottom of Explorer 
windows.  A little poking around suggests that at least 64x64 is useful 
with the default bar size.  You can resize it to make Explorer use a 
larger icon, if available, but I doubt many ever do that.

For XP support, we still need to ship 32x32 and 48x48 pixel icons.

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul 26 06:54, Warren Young wrote:
> On 7/26/2011 5:01 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >
> >This discussion reminds me of the new icon format in Vista, which
> >support icons of up to 256x256 bytes in PNG format.
> 
> Pixels, not bytes, unless you were thinking about 8 bpp paletted images.

Right, pixels.

> I don't see -- in the almost nonexistent docs -- that windres
> actually supports PNG icons.  windres.exe isn't linked to
> cygpng*.dll on my system, so if it does support PNG icons, it must
> do so only by blindly copying the PNG data into the COFF file.

I think it does.  In the setup sources is a cygwin.ico file and
these two lines in the resource file:

  IDI_CYGWIN              ICON    DISCARDABLE     "cygwin.ico"
  CYGWIN.ICON             FILE    DISCARDABLE     "cygwin.ico"

That doesn't look like windres cares for the actual format of the file.

> >Is that something we should add, too?
> 
> The only time I've found where I can tell that a program has a
> high-res icon is by looking at the blue info bar at the bottom of
> Explorer windows.  A little poking around suggests that at least
> 64x64 is useful with the default bar size.  You can resize it to
> make Explorer use a larger icon, if available, but I doubt many ever
> do that.
> 
> For XP support, we still need to ship 32x32 and 48x48 pixel icons.

I just had a look into the cygwin.ico file using gimp, and it appears
that the file has three icons, 32x32, 64x64 and 72x72.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511280.aspx#size
says the default sizes are 16x16, 24x24, 32x32, 48x48, and 256x256.

You say you already have created such icon files before.  Would you
have fun to create a new "official" cygwin.ico?

The only problem to look out for is licensing.  If you use foreign
art, you have to make sure that the icon is published under a free
license.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 7/27/2011 1:41 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> You say you already have created such icon files before.  Would you
> have fun to create a new "official" cygwin.ico?

Here you go:

	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/mintty-icon/combined.ico

That file contains a 256 px 32 bpp (RGBA) Vista (PNG) icon plus standard 
BMP icons in 48 px 32 bpp, 32 px 8 bpp, 24 px 8 bpp, and 16 px 8 bpp 
sizes and depths.  If you look at the directory view, you can see the 
source files that went into this.

I used the icobundl tool from

	http://www.telegraphics.com.au/sw/product/ICOBundle

to assemble combined.ico.

I'm willing to keep playing with this a bit more.  Points of discussion:

- Do we need more sizes?  I've seen reference to odd sizes like 64x64 
and 96x96, but surely we can trust Vista+ to scale the 256x256 to these 
sizes without needing hand-tweaked versions?

- Something I read talked about the 16x16 being 4bpp, but I can't see a 
need for that since the the old Windows 95 Plus Pack days.  Everything 
from Win98 up should actually be fine with 16bpp and up.  The only 
reason I used 8bpp for the smallest ones is that's a big enough box of 
crayons.

- There are two source icon files.  full-size.png is pretty much what I 
linked to yesterday as mintty-icon-glowy-wedge.png, with some minor 
tweaks.  high-contrast is a variant of this with higher contrast, needed 
when scaling to smaller sizes.

- The 16, 24 and 32 px versions are pretty heavily hand-tweaked after 
they were scaled down from high-contrast.png.  Acceptable, or more 
tweaking needed?

> The only problem to look out for is licensing.  If you use foreign
> art, you have to make sure that the icon is published under a free
> license.

There are two source pieces, the fattbuttlary Cygwin icon and the KDE 
Konsole icon.  I assembled and massaged them on work time.  Red Hat has 
a copyright assignment on file for me, from way back.

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Andy Koppe]

On 27 July 2011 18:30, Warren Young wrote:
> On 7/27/2011 1:41 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>
>> You say you already have created such icon files before.  Would you
>> have fun to create a new "official" cygwin.ico?
>
> Here you go:
>
>        http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/mintty-icon/combined.ico
>
> That file contains a 256 px 32 bpp (RGBA) Vista (PNG) icon plus standard BMP
> icons in 48 px 32 bpp, 32 px 8 bpp, 24 px 8 bpp, and 16 px 8 bpp sizes and
> depths.  If you look at the directory view, you can see the source files
> that went into this.

Thanks very much for putting in this effort.

However, there are a number of problems. In increasing order of subjectivity:

- The 16x16 has white dots in the corners.
- There are black edges around the icons. Those need to be transparent.
- Contrast and saturation are rather low. I think it would be better
to overlay the Cygwin symbol on top of the terminal rather than
blending them.
- The terminal's screen is too busy with both the prompt and the 'C'.
I think the ">_" would need to go.
- Even then, I'm not convinced this will be as good as either of the
original icons, because it will still look like a compromise, with the
glossy Cygwin symbol sticking out of the more matte terminal screen in
the bigger versions and getting squashed in the 16x16 version.

Andy

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 7/27/2011 2:04 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
> - The 16x16 has white dots in the corners.

That was a feature.  But you no like it, I make go 'way.

> - There are black edges around the icons. Those need to be transparent.

Why?

I purposely redrew the edges in the smaller icons for contrast and 
clarity.  (Among other things.)  Because the Konsole icon edges are 
black, I made the semitransparent pixels you get from simple 
downsampling pure black.  If all you want is the blurry mess you get 
from a direct downsample, there's no point in having the smaller icons 
at all.

Maybe a dark gray would make you happier?  Something that approximates 
the appearance of a thin black line blending into the background the 
icon is being matted on, without trying to make use of alpha blending?

My old skool heritage is showing.  I've been trained not to use alpha 
blending a 32 px and below.  When I was a boy, all we had was 8 bpp with 
one color reserved for yes/no transparency, AND WE LIKED IT.

Is this outmoded?  Will XP do the right thing with RGBA for 16 px icons? 
  Is that a good idea regardless, or is old skool the only skool?

> - Contrast and saturation are rather low. I think it would be better
> to overlay the Cygwin symbol on top of the terminal rather than
> blending them.

Here it is:

	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/mintty-icon/no-text.ico

It also has the gray edges on the smaller icons instead of black, and 
transparent corners in the 16x16.

I had to remove the text, which makes the result not as clearly a 
terminal.  At 256 and arguably at 48 px, you can figure out that it 
might be a terminal, especially if you've seen the icon in its previous 
incarnation.  At 32 px and below, I challenge anyone to honestly tell me 
that there is any sense of "terminal" left in this version.

One could make an argument for going back to the plain old Konsole icon. 
  Maybe one icon cannot serve two masters.

I don't want to get all bikesheddy.  I'm just telling you my thought 
process, so we can get to a decision.

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Andy Koppe]

On 27 July 2011 22:11, Warren Young wrote:
> On 7/27/2011 2:04 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
>>
>> - The 16x16 has white dots in the corners.
>
> That was a feature.  But you no like it, I make go 'way.

Thanks.

>> - There are black edges around the icons. Those need to be transparent.
>
> Why?
>
> I purposely redrew the edges in the smaller icons for contrast and clarity.
>  (Among other things.)  Because the Konsole icon edges are black, I made the
> semitransparent pixels you get from simple downsampling pure black.  If all
> you want is the blurry mess you get from a direct downsample, there's no
> point in having the smaller icons at all.
>
> Maybe a dark gray would make you happier?  Something that approximates the
> appearance of a thin black line blending into the background the icon is
> being matted on, without trying to make use of alpha blending?
>
> My old skool heritage is showing.  I've been trained not to use alpha
> blending a 32 px and below.  When I was a boy, all we had was 8 bpp with one
> color reserved for yes/no transparency, AND WE LIKED IT.
>
> Is this outmoded?  Will XP do the right thing with RGBA for 16 px icons?  Is
> that a good idea regardless, or is old skool the only skool?

I don't know about that. What I do know is that the Konsole icon looks
fine to me, including at 16px, and that I haven't had any complaints
about it.

To me, the black/grey border just looked like something went wrong
with transparency during the conversion. Also, at 16px, the left and
right sides of the terminal screen's frame have actually gone.

>> - Contrast and saturation are rather low. I think it would be better
>> to overlay the Cygwin symbol on top of the terminal rather than
>> blending them.
>
> Here it is:
>
>        http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/mintty-icon/no-text.ico

That looks a lot better, thanks. Nice work removing the prompt. Did
you go back to the original SVG to do that?

> It also has the gray edges on the smaller icons instead of black, and
> transparent corners in the 16x16.
>
> I had to remove the text, which makes the result not as clearly a terminal.
>  At 256 and arguably at 48 px, you can figure out that it might be a
> terminal, especially if you've seen the icon in its previous incarnation.
>  At 32 px and below, I challenge anyone to honestly tell me that there is
> any sense of "terminal" left in this version.

Fair point.

> One could make an argument for going back to the plain old Konsole icon.
>  Maybe one icon cannot serve two masters.

Just to be clear: I'd be happy with the modernized Cygwin icon too. I
still prefer both that and the Konsole icon over the combined one
(even ignoring the issue with the non-transparent border).

Thanks again for putting in this effort to have something tangible to
compare with.

Andy

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

Hi Warren, Hi Andy,

On Jul 28 06:50, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 27 July 2011 22:11, Warren Young wrote:
> >        http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/mintty-icon/no-text.ico
> 
> That looks a lot better, thanks. Nice work removing the prompt. Did
> you go back to the original SVG to do that?
>
> > It also has the gray edges on the smaller icons instead of black, and
> > transparent corners in the 16x16.
> >
> > I had to remove the text, which makes the result not as clearly a terminal.
> >  At 256 and arguably at 48 px, you can figure out that it might be a
> > terminal, especially if you've seen the icon in its previous incarnation.
> >  At 32 px and below, I challenge anyone to honestly tell me that there is
> > any sense of "terminal" left in this version.
> 
> Fair point.

Indeed.  There's also the problem that the Cygwin C is harder to
recognize on the dark grey background the smaller the icon gets.
Compared to the original mintty icon, the left and right sides of
the terminal frame gets harder to recognize, too, the smaller the
icon gets.  I think that's a result of using more low-key shades
of grey.  Alternatively I just need glasses.

> > One could make an argument for going back to the plain old Konsole icon.
> >  Maybe one icon cannot serve two masters.
> 
> Just to be clear: I'd be happy with the modernized Cygwin icon too. I
> still prefer both that and the Konsole icon over the combined one
> (even ignoring the issue with the non-transparent border).
> 
> Thanks again for putting in this effort to have something tangible to
> compare with.

I fall in with the thanks.  It looks like a terminal frame and the
Cygwin C are no good companions, icon-wise.

It seems that black was a bad choice for the Cygwin C.  I have a rather
dark background on my W7 32bit test machine.  It doesn't matter if I
use the original icon or the fatbuttlarry icon, both are hard to see,
except for the green wedge.  And the (much too) big shortcut overlays
don't help either.

Hmm.  


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul 28 11:08, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Hi Warren, Hi Andy,
> 
> On Jul 28 06:50, Andy Koppe wrote:
> > On 27 July 2011 22:11, Warren Young wrote:
> > >        http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/mintty-icon/no-text.ico
> > 
> > That looks a lot better, thanks. Nice work removing the prompt. Did
> > you go back to the original SVG to do that?
> >
> > > It also has the gray edges on the smaller icons instead of black, and
> > > transparent corners in the 16x16.
> > >
> > > I had to remove the text, which makes the result not as clearly a terminal.
> > >  At 256 and arguably at 48 px, you can figure out that it might be a
> > > terminal, especially if you've seen the icon in its previous incarnation.
> > >  At 32 px and below, I challenge anyone to honestly tell me that there is
> > > any sense of "terminal" left in this version.
> > 
> > Fair point.
> 
> Indeed.  There's also the problem that the Cygwin C is harder to
> recognize on the dark grey background the smaller the icon gets.
> Compared to the original mintty icon, the left and right sides of
> the terminal frame gets harder to recognize, too, the smaller the
> icon gets.  I think that's a result of using more low-key shades
> of grey.  Alternatively I just need glasses.
> 
> > > One could make an argument for going back to the plain old Konsole icon.
> > >  Maybe one icon cannot serve two masters.
> > 
> > Just to be clear: I'd be happy with the modernized Cygwin icon too. I
> > still prefer both that and the Konsole icon over the combined one
> > (even ignoring the issue with the non-transparent border).
> > 
> > Thanks again for putting in this effort to have something tangible to
> > compare with.
> 
> I fall in with the thanks.  It looks like a terminal frame and the
> Cygwin C are no good companions, icon-wise.
> 
> It seems that black was a bad choice for the Cygwin C.  I have a rather
> dark background on my W7 32bit test machine.  It doesn't matter if I
> use the original icon or the fatbuttlarry icon, both are hard to see,
> except for the green wedge.  And the (much too) big shortcut overlays
> don't help either.
> 
> Hmm.  

Actually, the longer I see the 48x48 icon on my desctop, the more I like
it.  If the left and right terminal frames would be just one pixel
thicker, and the terminal background a teeny little bit lighter, I think
I could go with it.  For the smaller sizes, maybe we should simply fall
back to the plain old Cygwin C?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul 28 12:26, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 28 11:08, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Hi Warren, Hi Andy,
> > 
> > On Jul 28 06:50, Andy Koppe wrote:
> > > On 27 July 2011 22:11, Warren Young wrote:
> > > >        http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/mintty-icon/no-text.ico
> > > [...]
> Actually, the longer I see the 48x48 icon on my desctop, the more I like
> it.  If the left and right terminal frames would be just one pixel
> thicker, and the terminal background a teeny little bit lighter, I think
> I could go with it.  For the smaller sizes, maybe we should simply fall
> back to the plain old Cygwin C?

Oh well, my professional art critic senses would like to discuss this a
bit more.

The lighter the terminal background gets, the less it's recognized
as a terminal background.  So, instead of making the tty background
lighter, are there other choices to make the Cygwin C better stand out?

- What if the green glow around the black C glows a bit more?

- What if the green glow is replaced with a pretty light grey glow, just
  to help distinguishing the C from the background?

- Only in 48x48, what if the C is made one pixel bigger in each direction,
  perhaps combined with a lighter glow, green or grey?

It would probably be easier if I could handle gimp better, but I'm still
trying to untangle my fingers from the mouse cord...


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

Collecting all Corinna reply answers here:

On 7/28/2011 3:08 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> It seems that black was a bad choice for the Cygwin C.

Is there a reason we cannot change it now?  I don't see that Red Hat has 
filed a US trademark on the logo.  Even if they had, it's usually better 
to file without reference to color.  Ref: http://goo.gl/MXIbK

Is the new color scheme on cygwin.com just someone's disconnected idea, 
or is it part of the product's current identity?  Perhaps green and 
black is démodé?

> the longer I see the 48x48 icon on my desctop, the more I like
> it.

You mean the second version, with the bright Cygwin logo alone in the 
terminal window, rather than the original "with text" composite?

We can mix-and-match.  We could go for a lone Konsole icon for the 
smaller sizes and add the Cygwin C only at larger sizes, for example. 
That's one of the freedoms you buy when you include multiple sizes in a 
single icon file.

At the largest size, we'd have enough resolution to add some text back 
in.  Imagine a green glass tty look with, say, autoconf output, scaled 
for a proper 80x25 grid?

> The lighter the terminal background gets, the less it's recognized
> as a terminal background.

True.

The only reason to do that is to improve contrast, and as you point out, 
changing the foreground brightness instead also accomplishes that.

> What if the green glow around the black C glows a bit more?

Totally doable.  The main limit is taste, not tech.

> What if the green glow is replaced with a pretty light grey glow, just
> to help distinguishing the C from the background?

Yes.  You also have choices of mattes, strokes, bevels, etc.

I'm also a fair hand with 3D, which gets you specular highlights, 
shadows and suchlike, which can help a logo pop off a dark background.

Is there official vector logo art I can use?  I can do my own tracing, 
but if there's something official, I'd rather start from that.

> It would probably be easier if I could handle gimp better

Let me handle this, ma'am.  I'm a trained professional. >:)

(One of my day job hats is graphics-monkey-by-default, 2D since 1995, 3D 
since 2007.)

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul 29 03:14, Warren Young wrote:
> Collecting all Corinna reply answers here:
> 
> On 7/28/2011 3:08 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >It seems that black was a bad choice for the Cygwin C.
> 
> Is there a reason we cannot change it now?  I don't see that Red Hat
> has filed a US trademark on the logo.

It's not about Red Hat.  The C may be ugly, but it's something
which is now recognized as Cygwin.

> Is the new color scheme on cygwin.com just someone's disconnected
> idea, or is it part of the product's current identity?  Perhaps
> green and black is démodé?

cgf just modernized the web page.  It has nothing to do with the colors
of the C.

> >the longer I see the 48x48 icon on my desctop, the more I like
> >it.
> 
> You mean the second version, with the bright Cygwin logo alone in
> the terminal window, rather than the original "with text" composite?

Right.

> We can mix-and-match.  We could go for a lone Konsole icon for the
> smaller sizes and add the Cygwin C only at larger sizes, for
> example. That's one of the freedoms you buy when you include
> multiple sizes in a single icon file.

I'd prefer to go for a lone C in the >= 32x32 sizes.

> At the largest size, we'd have enough resolution to add some text
> back in.  Imagine a green glass tty look with, say, autoconf output,
> scaled for a proper 80x25 grid?

Sounds nice, but it distracts from the message (the C).

> >What if the green glow around the black C glows a bit more?
> 
> Totally doable.  The main limit is taste, not tech.

That's what I played with in gimp, but the results didn't look overly
well.  That doesn't mean much, though.  I would like to see this once
done by a professional, just to be sure it's unbearable. :)

> >What if the green glow is replaced with a pretty light grey glow, just
> >to help distinguishing the C from the background?
> 
> Yes.  You also have choices of mattes, strokes, bevels, etc.

Oh, I don't know how this looks like.  If I had examples...

> I'm also a fair hand with 3D, which gets you specular highlights,
> shadows and suchlike, which can help a logo pop off a dark
> background.

Sounds good for 256x256, but how feasible is that in 48x48?

> Is there official vector logo art I can use?

I don't think so, sorry.

> >It would probably be easier if I could handle gimp better
> 
> Let me handle this, ma'am.  I'm a trained professional. >:)

Yessir!  With pleasure, sir!


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul 29 11:42, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 29 03:14, Warren Young wrote:
> > We can mix-and-match.  We could go for a lone Konsole icon for the
> > smaller sizes and add the Cygwin C only at larger sizes, for
> > example. That's one of the freedoms you buy when you include
> > multiple sizes in a single icon file.
> 
> I'd prefer to go for a lone C in the >= 32x32 sizes.

Ouch.  s/>=/<=/


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 7/29/2011 3:42 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
 > On Jul 29 03:14, Warren Young wrote:
 >> Is there official vector logo art I can use?
 > I don't think so, sorry.

Okay, here's my take:

     http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/traced-icon.svg

This should probably be archived somewhere on cygwin.com.  I won't 
guarantee hosting for it.

> I'd prefer to go for a lone C in the <= 32x32 sizes.

Here's a combined icon -- same 5 sizes as before -- based on the new 
vector logo, with the two parts individually stroked for contrast 
against both light and dark backgrounds:

     http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/stroked.ico

Here's a version with heavy chiseled bevels and shadows added:

     http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled.ico

It only includes a 256 px version, since it's too much detail to work at 
small sizes.  You'd want to fill in the smaller sizes with a simpler 
style, like the stroked C or the plain Konsole.

The bevel depth and style can of course be varied, as can the shadow 
angle, opacity, etc.  If you don't like it but can describe what you'd 
like better, I'll take a shot at creating it.

Here are some 3-D variants of the Cygwin logo, one inside the Konsole 
terminal frame for MinTTY, and one with the logo alone for broader purposes:

     http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/mintty-icon/3d.ico
     http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/3d.ico

Again, 256 px only, for detail reasons.

>>> What if the green glow around the black C glows a bit more?

Try this on:

     http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/glowing.ico

It's not bad, but I prefer the stroked variants.

Incidentally, while doing that, I went and made a layered, rasterized 
Konsole icon from the original SVG.  This is how the 3D Cygwin logo in 
the Konsole frame has the same glare overlay as the original icon.

     http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/mintty-icon/konsole-icon-layered.psd

I checked, and Gimp does seem to render it correctly, even though it 
wasn't created that way.

RE: 256x256 px icons

[Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [E]]

Warren Young sent the following at Friday, July 29, 2011 10:12 AM
>     http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/glowing.ico

     http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/logo-glowing.ico 

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 7/29/2011 9:21 AM, Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [E] wrote:
> Warren Young sent the following at Friday, July 29, 2011 10:12 AM
>>      http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/glowing.ico
>
>       http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/logo-glowing.ico

I've fixed it so the original URL is correct.  (None of the other .ico 
files are prefixed "logo-" because they're in a "logo" subdir.)

Thanks for catching that.

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

Couldn't resist doing another.  I call this one The Matrix:

	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/matrix.ico

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul 29 10:21, Warren Young wrote:
> Couldn't resist doing another.  I call this one The Matrix:
> 
> 	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/matrix.ico

Heh, funny.  But again, probably not feasible in smaller sizes.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Andy Koppe]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2299 bytes --]

On 29 July 2011 15:11, Warren Young wrote:
> On 7/29/2011 3:42 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Jul 29 03:14, Warren Young wrote:
>>> Is there official vector logo art I can use?
>> I don't think so, sorry.
>
> Okay, here's my take:
>
>    http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/traced-icon.svg
>
> This should probably be archived somewhere on cygwin.com.  I won't guarantee
> hosting for it.
>
>> I'd prefer to go for a lone C in the <= 32x32 sizes.
>
> Here's a combined icon -- same 5 sizes as before -- based on the new vector
> logo, with the two parts individually stroked for contrast against both
> light and dark backgrounds:
>
>    http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/stroked.ico
>
> Here's a version with heavy chiseled bevels and shadows added:
>
>    http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled.ico
>
> It only includes a 256 px version, since it's too much detail to work at
> small sizes.  You'd want to fill in the smaller sizes with a simpler style,
> like the stroked C or the plain Konsole.
>
> The bevel depth and style can of course be varied, as can the shadow angle,
> opacity, etc.  If you don't like it but can describe what you'd like better,
> I'll take a shot at creating it.
>
> Here are some 3-D variants of the Cygwin logo, one inside the Konsole
> terminal frame for MinTTY, and one with the logo alone for broader purposes:
>
>    http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/mintty-icon/3d.ico
>    http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/3d.ico
>
> Again, 256 px only, for detail reasons.
>
>>>> What if the green glow around the black C glows a bit more?
>
> Try this on:
>
>    http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/glowing.ico
>
> It's not bad, but I prefer the stroked variants.
>
> Incidentally, while doing that, I went and made a layered, rasterized
> Konsole icon from the original SVG.  This is how the 3D Cygwin logo in the
> Konsole frame has the same glare overlay as the original icon.
>
>    http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/mintty-icon/konsole-icon-layered.psd
>
> I checked, and Gimp does seem to render it correctly, even though it wasn't
> created that way.

Attached is my take on this, with 64x64, 48x48, 32x32 showing
fatbuttlarry's Cygwin symbol inside the Konsole icon, and 16x16
showing the Cygwin symbol only.

Andy

[-- Attachment #2: cygwin-terminal.ico --]
[-- Type: image/x-icon, Size: 32038 bytes --]

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul 29 21:29, Andy Koppe wrote:
> Attached is my take on this, with 64x64, 48x48, 32x32 showing
> fatbuttlarry's Cygwin symbol inside the Konsole icon, and 16x16
> showing the Cygwin symbol only.

Not bad, but the green border around the C is too dark to set the
C apart from the background.  The border needs some light grey which
allows to recognize the C.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Andy Koppe]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1499 bytes --]

On 30 July 2011 19:36, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 29 21:29, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> Attached is my take on this, with 64x64, 48x48, 32x32 showing
>> fatbuttlarry's Cygwin symbol inside the Konsole icon, and 16x16
>> showing the Cygwin symbol only.
>
> Not bad, but the green border around the C is too dark to set the
> C apart from the background.  The border needs some light grey which
> allows to recognize the C.

I'm not sure how to do that, but the attached attempt turn up the
saturation of the green outline.

It also reduces the blurriness of the whole thing a bit. Apparently
it's better to convert an SVG to a high-res bitmap and resize that
down with a bitmap program such as Paint.net instead of converting the
SVG straight to the target bitmap sizes (at least when using
InkScape).

The two attached icons differ at size 32: cygwin-terminal2.ico has the
Cygwin-in-terminal there, whereas cygwin-terminal3.ico has just the
Cygwin symbol. Size 32 shows up in the Windows 7 taskbar.

Btw, an insiduous Windows feature when playing around with icons is
Explorer's icon cache, which apparently is unable to detect when an
icon file has changed, so one can waste quite a bit of time wondering
why changes don't seem to make a difference. Renaming the icon helps,
except if that icon name existed before, in which case you get to see
that (possibly long-deleted) icon instead. And there only seem to be
seriously hacky ways to clear the cache. Gah.

Andy

[-- Attachment #2: cygwin-terminal2.ico --]
[-- Type: image/x-icon, Size: 34494 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: cygwin-terminal3.ico --]
[-- Type: image/x-icon, Size: 34494 bytes --]

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Andy Koppe]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1498 bytes --]

On 30 July 2011 21:22, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 30 July 2011 19:36, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Jul 29 21:29, Andy Koppe wrote:
>>> Attached is my take on this, with 64x64, 48x48, 32x32 showing
>>> fatbuttlarry's Cygwin symbol inside the Konsole icon, and 16x16
>>> showing the Cygwin symbol only.
>>
>> Not bad, but the green border around the C is too dark to set the
>> C apart from the background.  The border needs some light grey which
>> allows to recognize the C.
>
> I'm not sure how to do that, but the attached attempt turn up the
> saturation of the green outline.
>
> It also reduces the blurriness of the whole thing a bit. Apparently
> it's better to convert an SVG to a high-res bitmap and resize that
> down with a bitmap program such as Paint.net instead of converting the
> SVG straight to the target bitmap sizes (at least when using
> InkScape).
>
> The two attached icons differ at size 32: cygwin-terminal2.ico has the
> Cygwin-in-terminal there, whereas cygwin-terminal3.ico has just the
> Cygwin symbol. Size 32 shows up in the Windows 7 taskbar.

Further to those two, here's one with the glowy Cygwin symbol all the
way from size 16 to 64. It's a "remastered" version of the one in
cygutils; a bit bigger and with the aforementioned brighter green
outline around the "C".

(256x256 versions of these aren't really worth doing, because the
original fatbuttlarry icon was only 96x96, and that had a fair bit of
space around the C.)

Andy

[-- Attachment #2: cygwin-symbol.ico --]
[-- Type: image/x-icon, Size: 34494 bytes --]

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul 31 21:21, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 30 July 2011 21:22, Andy Koppe wrote:
> > On 30 July 2011 19:36, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> On Jul 29 21:29, Andy Koppe wrote:
> >>> Attached is my take on this, with 64x64, 48x48, 32x32 showing
> >>> fatbuttlarry's Cygwin symbol inside the Konsole icon, and 16x16
> >>> showing the Cygwin symbol only.
> >>
> >> Not bad, but the green border around the C is too dark to set the
> >> C apart from the background.  The border needs some light grey which
> >> allows to recognize the C.
> >
> > I'm not sure how to do that, but the attached attempt turn up the
> > saturation of the green outline.
> >
> > It also reduces the blurriness of the whole thing a bit. Apparently
> > it's better to convert an SVG to a high-res bitmap and resize that
> > down with a bitmap program such as Paint.net instead of converting the
> > SVG straight to the target bitmap sizes (at least when using
> > InkScape).
> >
> > The two attached icons differ at size 32: cygwin-terminal2.ico has the
> > Cygwin-in-terminal there, whereas cygwin-terminal3.ico has just the
> > Cygwin symbol. Size 32 shows up in the Windows 7 taskbar.
> 
> Further to those two, here's one with the glowy Cygwin symbol all the
> way from size 16 to 64. It's a "remastered" version of the one in
> cygutils; a bit bigger and with the aforementioned brighter green
> outline around the "C".

Thanks.  But, hmm.  The longer I play with it, the less I like the green
glow.  It adds an eerie touch to the C and it still doesn't set the C
really apart on dark backgrounds.  I think we should go with a grey
outline.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Andy Koppe]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2017 bytes --]

On 1 August 2011 09:07, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 31 21:21, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> On 30 July 2011 21:22, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> > On 30 July 2011 19:36, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >> On Jul 29 21:29, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> >>> Attached is my take on this, with 64x64, 48x48, 32x32 showing
>> >>> fatbuttlarry's Cygwin symbol inside the Konsole icon, and 16x16
>> >>> showing the Cygwin symbol only.
>> >>
>> >> Not bad, but the green border around the C is too dark to set the
>> >> C apart from the background.  The border needs some light grey which
>> >> allows to recognize the C.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure how to do that, but the attached attempt turn up the
>> > saturation of the green outline.
>> >
>> > It also reduces the blurriness of the whole thing a bit. Apparently
>> > it's better to convert an SVG to a high-res bitmap and resize that
>> > down with a bitmap program such as Paint.net instead of converting the
>> > SVG straight to the target bitmap sizes (at least when using
>> > InkScape).
>> >
>> > The two attached icons differ at size 32: cygwin-terminal2.ico has the
>> > Cygwin-in-terminal there, whereas cygwin-terminal3.ico has just the
>> > Cygwin symbol. Size 32 shows up in the Windows 7 taskbar.
>>
>> Further to those two, here's one with the glowy Cygwin symbol all the
>> way from size 16 to 64. It's a "remastered" version of the one in
>> cygutils; a bit bigger and with the aforementioned brighter green
>> outline around the "C".
>
> Thanks.  But, hmm.  The longer I play with it, the less I like the green
> glow.  It adds an eerie touch to the C

Now what's wrong with that? Cygwin - mean and a bit eerie. ;)

> and it still doesn't set the C
> really apart on dark backgrounds.

I disagree, looking at a desktop with a darkish picture and dark grey
taskbar and window borders.

> I think we should go with a grey outline.

I did eventually work out how to turn the outline of fatbuttlarry's
icon grey. See attachments.

Andy

[-- Attachment #2: cygwin-terminal-greylarry.ico --]
[-- Type: image/x-icon, Size: 34494 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: cygwin-greylarry.ico --]
[-- Type: image/x-icon, Size: 34494 bytes --]

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Andy Koppe]

On 1 August 2011 21:05, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 1 August 2011 09:07, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Jul 31 21:21, Andy Koppe wrote:
>>> On 30 July 2011 21:22, Andy Koppe wrote:
>>> > On 30 July 2011 19:36, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> >> On Jul 29 21:29, Andy Koppe wrote:
>>> >>> Attached is my take on this, with 64x64, 48x48, 32x32 showing
>>> >>> fatbuttlarry's Cygwin symbol inside the Konsole icon, and 16x16
>>> >>> showing the Cygwin symbol only.
>>> >>
>>> >> Not bad, but the green border around the C is too dark to set the
>>> >> C apart from the background.  The border needs some light grey which
>>> >> allows to recognize the C.
>>> >
>>> > I'm not sure how to do that, but the attached attempt turn up the
>>> > saturation of the green outline.
>>> >
>>> > It also reduces the blurriness of the whole thing a bit. Apparently
>>> > it's better to convert an SVG to a high-res bitmap and resize that
>>> > down with a bitmap program such as Paint.net instead of converting the
>>> > SVG straight to the target bitmap sizes (at least when using
>>> > InkScape).
>>> >
>>> > The two attached icons differ at size 32: cygwin-terminal2.ico has the
>>> > Cygwin-in-terminal there, whereas cygwin-terminal3.ico has just the
>>> > Cygwin symbol. Size 32 shows up in the Windows 7 taskbar.
>>>
>>> Further to those two, here's one with the glowy Cygwin symbol all the
>>> way from size 16 to 64. It's a "remastered" version of the one in
>>> cygutils; a bit bigger and with the aforementioned brighter green
>>> outline around the "C".
>>
>> Thanks.  But, hmm.  The longer I play with it, the less I like the green
>> glow.  It adds an eerie touch to the C
>
> Now what's wrong with that? Cygwin - mean and a bit eerie. ;)
>
>> and it still doesn't set the C
>> really apart on dark backgrounds.
>
> I disagree, looking at a desktop with a darkish picture and dark grey
> taskbar and window borders.
>
>> I think we should go with a grey outline.
>
> I did eventually work out how to turn the outline of fatbuttlarry's
> icon grey. See attachments.

Having used both variants for a while, I agree that a grey outline
does look better.

Andy

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug  2 15:49, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 1 August 2011 21:05, Andy Koppe wrote:
> > On 1 August 2011 09:07, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> On Jul 31 21:21, Andy Koppe wrote:
> >>> On 30 July 2011 21:22, Andy Koppe wrote:
> >>> > On 30 July 2011 19:36, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>> >> On Jul 29 21:29, Andy Koppe wrote:
> >>> >>> Attached is my take on this, with 64x64, 48x48, 32x32 showing
> >>> >>> fatbuttlarry's Cygwin symbol inside the Konsole icon, and 16x16
> >>> >>> showing the Cygwin symbol only.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Not bad, but the green border around the C is too dark to set the
> >>> >> C apart from the background.  The border needs some light grey which
> >>> >> allows to recognize the C.
> >>> >
> >>> > I'm not sure how to do that, but the attached attempt turn up the
> >>> > saturation of the green outline.
> >>> >
> >>> > It also reduces the blurriness of the whole thing a bit. Apparently
> >>> > it's better to convert an SVG to a high-res bitmap and resize that
> >>> > down with a bitmap program such as Paint.net instead of converting the
> >>> > SVG straight to the target bitmap sizes (at least when using
> >>> > InkScape).
> >>> >
> >>> > The two attached icons differ at size 32: cygwin-terminal2.ico has the
> >>> > Cygwin-in-terminal there, whereas cygwin-terminal3.ico has just the
> >>> > Cygwin symbol. Size 32 shows up in the Windows 7 taskbar.
> >>>
> >>> Further to those two, here's one with the glowy Cygwin symbol all the
> >>> way from size 16 to 64. It's a "remastered" version of the one in
> >>> cygutils; a bit bigger and with the aforementioned brighter green
> >>> outline around the "C".
> >>
> >> Thanks.  But, hmm.  The longer I play with it, the less I like the green
> >> glow.  It adds an eerie touch to the C
> >
> > Now what's wrong with that? Cygwin - mean and a bit eerie. ;)
> >
> >> and it still doesn't set the C
> >> really apart on dark backgrounds.
> >
> > I disagree, looking at a desktop with a darkish picture and dark grey
> > taskbar and window borders.
> >
> >> I think we should go with a grey outline.
> >
> > I did eventually work out how to turn the outline of fatbuttlarry's
> > icon grey. See attachments.
> 
> Having used both variants for a while, I agree that a grey outline
> does look better.

I tried your icons on my desktop and the standalone icon looks good.  In
the terminal icons the beveled C looks better than the fatbuttlarry C,
cleaner, crisper.  It's also easier to distinguish from the dark
background, but that's probably just because you used a darker shade
of grey for the frame.  In the terminal window, a lighter grey really
doesn't hurt.

Generally it looks like your C's are a pixel or two smaller, except in
the smallest sizes.  Gimp shows that you're always leaving a transparent
frame of at least one pixel.  Any reason for that?

I guess we're getting close to the end result now.  The question is
just, should we use fatbuttlarry's bubbly C, or Warrens beveled C?
I like both.  The beveled C exists in 256x256, too.  I like the
beveled C better in the terminal frame, but I like the bubbly C better
standalone.  Maybe we can just use both in this combination?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Charles Wilson]

On 8/2/2011 11:24 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> I guess we're getting close to the end result now.

So, how are you (Andy, Corinna) planning to handle the .ico file(s)
themselves?  Are you

1. (Andy) planning to put it/them into the mintty executable as resource(s),

2. ship the .ico file(s) in '/' as part of the main cygwin package, as
we have long done with cygwin.ico

3. Incorporate it/them into cygicon*.dll as part of the cygutils package

or some combination?  I'm open to #3, but I'll need provenance and
licensing info (see the end of /usr/share/doc/cygutils/cygicons/README )

P.S. I've been quiet on the artistic aspects of this discussion 'cause,
well, I'm a no-talent hack, and I figured ya'll could do all the
bike-shedding without my $0.37 (adjusted for inflation).

--
Chuck

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug  2 11:45, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 8/2/2011 11:24 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > I guess we're getting close to the end result now.
> 
> So, how are you (Andy, Corinna) planning to handle the .ico file(s)
> themselves?  Are you
> 
> 1. (Andy) planning to put it/them into the mintty executable as resource(s),
> 
> 2. ship the .ico file(s) in '/' as part of the main cygwin package, as
> we have long done with cygwin.ico
> 
> 3. Incorporate it/them into cygicon*.dll as part of the cygutils package
> 
> or some combination?  I'm open to #3, but I'll need provenance and
> licensing info (see the end of /usr/share/doc/cygutils/cygicons/README )

I would stick to the standard terminal icon for mintty(*), except in the
case of the "Cygwin Terminal" desktop and start menu icons.  Both files
will be installed into / just as today.  They can (and maybe should)
also become part of cygicon DLL.


Corinna

(*) Well, unless Andy wants to take over the terminal icon with the C in
    it, but that's entirely his own call.

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Andy Koppe]

On 2 August 2011 17:06, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug  2 11:45, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> On 8/2/2011 11:24 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> > I guess we're getting close to the end result now.
>>
>> So, how are you (Andy, Corinna) planning to handle the .ico file(s)
>> themselves?  Are you
>>
>> 1. (Andy) planning to put it/them into the mintty executable as resource(s),
>>
>> 2. ship the .ico file(s) in '/' as part of the main cygwin package, as
>> we have long done with cygwin.ico
>>
>> 3. Incorporate it/them into cygicon*.dll as part of the cygutils package
>>
>> or some combination?  I'm open to #3, but I'll need provenance and
>> licensing info (see the end of /usr/share/doc/cygutils/cygicons/README )
>
> I would stick to the standard terminal icon for mintty(*), except in the
> case of the "Cygwin Terminal" desktop and start menu icons.

Sounds good to me.

> Both files will be installed into / just as today.

I thought the desktop and start menu icons would be the same.
(Setup.exe's icon might be different.)

Andy

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug  3 06:54, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 2 August 2011 17:06, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Aug  2 11:45, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >> On 8/2/2011 11:24 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> > I guess we're getting close to the end result now.
> >>
> >> So, how are you (Andy, Corinna) planning to handle the .ico file(s)
> >> themselves?  Are you
> >>
> >> 1. (Andy) planning to put it/them into the mintty executable as resource(s),
> >>
> >> 2. ship the .ico file(s) in '/' as part of the main cygwin package, as
> >> we have long done with cygwin.ico
> >>
> >> 3. Incorporate it/them into cygicon*.dll as part of the cygutils package
> >>
> >> or some combination?  I'm open to #3, but I'll need provenance and
> >> licensing info (see the end of /usr/share/doc/cygutils/cygicons/README )
> >
> > I would stick to the standard terminal icon for mintty(*), except in the
> > case of the "Cygwin Terminal" desktop and start menu icons.
> 
> Sounds good to me.
> 
> > Both files will be installed into / just as today.
> 
> I thought the desktop and start menu icons would be the same.
> (Setup.exe's icon might be different.)

Right.  But even if the terminal uses the terminal C, I think it
doesn't hurt to provide the standalone C as well (think "brand").


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Andy Koppe]

On 2 August 2011 16:24, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug  2 15:49, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> On 1 August 2011 21:05, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> > On 1 August 2011 09:07, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >> On Jul 31 21:21, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> >>> On 30 July 2011 21:22, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> >>> > On 30 July 2011 19:36, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >>> >> On Jul 29 21:29, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> >>> >>> Attached is my take on this, with 64x64, 48x48, 32x32 showing
>> >>> >>> fatbuttlarry's Cygwin symbol inside the Konsole icon, and 16x16
>> >>> >>> showing the Cygwin symbol only.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Not bad, but the green border around the C is too dark to set the
>> >>> >> C apart from the background.  The border needs some light grey which
>> >>> >> allows to recognize the C.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I'm not sure how to do that, but the attached attempt turn up the
>> >>> > saturation of the green outline.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > It also reduces the blurriness of the whole thing a bit. Apparently
>> >>> > it's better to convert an SVG to a high-res bitmap and resize that
>> >>> > down with a bitmap program such as Paint.net instead of converting the
>> >>> > SVG straight to the target bitmap sizes (at least when using
>> >>> > InkScape).
>> >>> >
>> >>> > The two attached icons differ at size 32: cygwin-terminal2.ico has the
>> >>> > Cygwin-in-terminal there, whereas cygwin-terminal3.ico has just the
>> >>> > Cygwin symbol. Size 32 shows up in the Windows 7 taskbar.
>> >>>
>> >>> Further to those two, here's one with the glowy Cygwin symbol all the
>> >>> way from size 16 to 64. It's a "remastered" version of the one in
>> >>> cygutils; a bit bigger and with the aforementioned brighter green
>> >>> outline around the "C".
>> >>
>> >> Thanks.  But, hmm.  The longer I play with it, the less I like the green
>> >> glow.  It adds an eerie touch to the C
>> >
>> > Now what's wrong with that? Cygwin - mean and a bit eerie. ;)
>> >
>> >> and it still doesn't set the C
>> >> really apart on dark backgrounds.
>> >
>> > I disagree, looking at a desktop with a darkish picture and dark grey
>> > taskbar and window borders.
>> >
>> >> I think we should go with a grey outline.
>> >
>> > I did eventually work out how to turn the outline of fatbuttlarry's
>> > icon grey. See attachments.
>>
>> Having used both variants for a while, I agree that a grey outline
>> does look better.
>
> I tried your icons on my desktop and the standalone icon looks good.  In
> the terminal icons the beveled C looks better than the fatbuttlarry C,
> cleaner, crisper.

I think it would be better to stick to one. I don't particularly mind
which, in principle anyway.

Warren's has the advantage of a 256 version and that it's more
tweakable assuming he provides the vector version it's presumably
based on. It does need to lose that shadow though, and have the bottom
edge fixed. Also, the bottom half of the green triangle is a bit on
the dark side.

> It's also easier to distinguish from the dark
> background, but that's probably just because you used a darker shade
> of grey for the frame.  In the terminal window, a lighter grey really
> doesn't hurt.

It's pretty much the same grey actually (~220), at full size anyway.
But the border is thinner and/or partially transparent in larry's.
Therefore, when scaling it down, it blends into the background more.

> Generally it looks like your C's are a pixel or two smaller, except in
> the smallest sizes.  Gimp shows that you're always leaving a transparent
> frame of at least one pixel.  Any reason for that?

Not really. Just seemed a prudent thing to do when cutting it out of
the original, but you're right, there's no need for this, and I'd be
happy to redo it.

Andy

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug  4 06:49, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 2 August 2011 16:24, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > I tried your icons on my desktop and the standalone icon looks good.  In
> > the terminal icons the beveled C looks better than the fatbuttlarry C,
> > cleaner, crisper.
> 
> I think it would be better to stick to one. I don't particularly mind
> which, in principle anyway.

Ok.

> Warren's has the advantage of a 256 version and that it's more
> tweakable assuming he provides the vector version it's presumably
> based on. It does need to lose that shadow though, and have the bottom
> edge fixed. Also, the bottom half of the green triangle is a bit on
> the dark side.

I agree.  I think the dark side of the wedge is a result of the shadowing.

> > It's also easier to distinguish from the dark
> > background, but that's probably just because you used a darker shade
> > of grey for the frame.  In the terminal window, a lighter grey really
> > doesn't hurt.
> 
> It's pretty much the same grey actually (~220), at full size anyway.
> But the border is thinner and/or partially transparent in larry's.
> Therefore, when scaling it down, it blends into the background more.

Right.  In my icons (which somehow nobody cared to comment upon) I tried
to use a lighter grey for the C frame for smaller icons.

> > Generally it looks like your C's are a pixel or two smaller, except in
> > the smallest sizes.  Gimp shows that you're always leaving a transparent
> > frame of at least one pixel.  Any reason for that?
> 
> Not really. Just seemed a prudent thing to do when cutting it out of
> the original, but you're right, there's no need for this, and I'd be
> happy to redo it.

Sure!  I would be more happy with the fatbuttlarry icon if it would
be available in a nice 256x256 variation, though.  That's really a
big plus of Warren's version.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Charles Wilson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 310 bytes --]

On 8/4/2011 4:39 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Sure!  I would be more happy with the fatbuttlarry icon if it would
> be available in a nice 256x256 variation, though.  That's really a
> big plus of Warren's version.

Here (well, it's 237x258 but that's nothing that can't be fixed with
little GIMP).

--
Chuck

[-- Attachment #2: fatbuttlarry-256.tar.gz --]
[-- Type: application/gzip, Size: 32382 bytes --]

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug  4 09:19, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 8/4/2011 4:39 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Sure!  I would be more happy with the fatbuttlarry icon if it would
> > be available in a nice 256x256 variation, though.  That's really a
> > big plus of Warren's version.
> 
> Here (well, it's 237x258 but that's nothing that can't be fixed with
> little GIMP).

Nice, thank you.  Do you know how to convert the green glow around
the C to grey, by any chance?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Charles Wilson]

On 8/4/2011 10:29 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Nice, thank you.  Do you know how to convert the green glow around
> the C to grey, by any chance?

Not...exactly.  I think you should be able to use the magic wand
selection tool (with appropriate options), and then apply a desaturate
or color shift filter to the selected region.  But, that's only a guess.

--
Chuck

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug  4 13:24, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 8/4/2011 10:29 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Nice, thank you.  Do you know how to convert the green glow around
> > the C to grey, by any chance?
> 
> Not...exactly.  I think you should be able to use the magic wand
> selection tool (with appropriate options), and then apply a desaturate
> or color shift filter to the selected region.  But, that's only a guess.

I tried that for about 45 minutes.  Don't ask to see any results :(


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 8/4/2011 12:16 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug  4 13:24, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> On 8/4/2011 10:29 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> Nice, thank you.  Do you know how to convert the green glow around
>>> the C to grey, by any chance?
>>
>> Not...exactly.  I think you should be able to use the magic wand
>> selection tool (with appropriate options), and then apply a desaturate
>> or color shift filter to the selected region.  But, that's only a guess.
>
> I tried that for about 45 minutes.  Don't ask to see any results :(

In Gimp, you can say Colors > Hue-Saturation, then click the radio 
button next to the green color chip to restrict the adjustment to the 
greens.  Dropping Saturation should then give you the result you want.

Avoid the Tragic Wand.  It is almost never the right tool for the job. 
There are whole books on better selection methods:

	http://www.amazon.com/dp/0321441206/
	http://www.amazon.com/dp/0735712794/
	http://www.amazon.com/dp/0321808231/

Yes, they're all to do with Photoshop, but the principles are the same.

In the case of Hue-Saturation, Gimp/PS is computing a mask for you 
automatically when you restrict it to a color range.  When not dealing 
with simple logo art, you often have to resort to the more advanced 
techniques in the books I've recommended above.

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Andy Koppe]

On 4 August 2011 15:29, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug  4 09:19, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> On 8/4/2011 4:39 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> > Sure!  I would be more happy with the fatbuttlarry icon if it would
>> > be available in a nice 256x256 variation, though.  That's really a
>> > big plus of Warren's version.
>>
>> Here (well, it's 237x258 but that's nothing that can't be fixed with
>> little GIMP).
>
> Nice, thank you.

Ditto. Where did you find that? There isn't a vector version of this, is there?

I'm asking because that would allow to remove the shadow under the C
without impacting the edge of the C which has a bit of a fade-out on
it.  I realised that I'd used the 24bpp version of cygicons-0.dll,9,
which doesn't have the shadow, but only because it doesn't have an
alpha channel.

> Do you know how to convert the green glow around
> the C to grey, by any chance?

Here's what I did, in Paint.net. I very much suspect there are better ways.

- Select the green arrow with the rectangular select tool.
- Invert the selection, thereby selecting everything but the green arrow.
- Go to Adjustments->Hue/Saturation: Turn the hue to -60 (yellow) and
the saturation to 200 (maximum). OK.
- Adjustments->Black and White.

(The point of turning it bright yellow before the Black and White step
is to make the resulting grey as light as possible.)

Andy

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1700 bytes --]

On Aug  5 16:05, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 4 August 2011 15:29, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Aug  4 09:19, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >> On 8/4/2011 4:39 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> > Sure!  I would be more happy with the fatbuttlarry icon if it would
> >> > be available in a nice 256x256 variation, though.  That's really a
> >> > big plus of Warren's version.
> >>
> >> Here (well, it's 237x258 but that's nothing that can't be fixed with
> >> little GIMP).
> >
> > Nice, thank you.
> 
> Ditto. Where did you find that? There isn't a vector version of this, is there?
> 
> I'm asking because that would allow to remove the shadow under the C
> without impacting the edge of the C which has a bit of a fade-out on
> it.  I realised that I'd used the 24bpp version of cygicons-0.dll,9,
> which doesn't have the shadow, but only because it doesn't have an
> alpha channel.
> 
> > Do you know how to convert the green glow around
> > the C to grey, by any chance?
> 
> Here's what I did, in Paint.net. I very much suspect there are better ways.
> 
> - Select the green arrow with the rectangular select tool.
> - Invert the selection, thereby selecting everything but the green arrow.
> - Go to Adjustments->Hue/Saturation: Turn the hue to -60 (yellow) and
> the saturation to 200 (maximum). OK.
> - Adjustments->Black and White.
> 
> (The point of turning it bright yellow before the Black and White step
> is to make the resulting grey as light as possible.)

Works extremly well in gimp.  Thanks for the hint!

I attached my result.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

[-- Attachment #2: cygwin-greylarry.ico --]
[-- Type: image/vnd.microsoft.icon, Size: 67900 bytes --]

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Charles Wilson]

On 8/5/2011 11:05 AM, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 4 August 2011 15:29, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Aug  4 09:19, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>> Here (well, it's 237x258 but that's nothing that can't be fixed with
>>> little GIMP).
>>
>> Nice, thank you.
> 
> Ditto. Where did you find that?

It's at the same place I got the original windows icon:
http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=36393

It's the 'Fedora' download.

> There isn't a vector version of this, is there?

Not that I could see. There's contact info for fatbuttlarry at the link,
but it's several years old, so no telling if it is still accurate, or if
fbl would respond, or if he still HAS any original vector artwork, or if
he'd be willing to share it...

(The pentajock link on the page above is dead, so that doesn't bode well)

--
Chuck

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Andy Koppe]

On 5 August 2011 16:57, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 8/5/2011 11:05 AM, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> On 4 August 2011 15:29, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Aug  4 09:19, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>>> Here (well, it's 237x258 but that's nothing that can't be fixed with
>>>> little GIMP).
>>>
>>> Nice, thank you.
>>
>> Ditto. Where did you find that?
>
> It's at the same place I got the original windows icon:
> http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=36393
>
> It's the 'Fedora' download.
>
>> There isn't a vector version of this, is there?
>
> Not that I could see. There's contact info for fatbuttlarry at the link,
> but it's several years old, so no telling if it is still accurate, or if
> fbl would respond, or if he still HAS any original vector artwork, or if
> he'd be willing to share it...

I sent a request to the email address given there. At least it hasn't
yet come back as undeliverable ...

Thanks,
Andy

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 8/5/2011 9:05 AM, Andy Koppe wrote:
>
>> Do you know how to convert the green glow around
>> the C to grey, by any chance?
>
> Here's what I did, in Paint.net. I very much suspect there are better ways.

The "right way" is to use Levels.  Ctrl-L in Photoshop and Paint.NET, 
Colors > Levels in Gimp.

In this case, I'd drag down the white point of the input levels to push 
things toward white, while leaving the dark parts of the image where 
they are, more or less.

You could also try moving the gamma slider, either alone, or in 
combination with the above to keep the blacks where you want them.  (The 
gamma slider is the triangle that starts at the 50% gray point on the 
Output side in Paint.NET, but it's on the Input side in PS and Gimp, 
like it should be.)

One advantage of using Levels for this is that you can do it *after* the 
desaturation step.  This lets you establish your grayscale, then 
manipulate the light part visually, instead of guessing at the shade of 
yellow you need and then blindly hoping the desat step gets you the 
right shade of gray, and if not, going back and retrying.

Also, the Levels tool is just plain awesome, and you should get to know 
it regardless.  The UI for it is confusing in Paint.NET.  Gimp does it 
like Photoshop, which is of course the One True Way.

(Not that I'm endorsing Gimp.  This example shows up yet another place 
where it falls down, UI-wise.  Levels isn't about color, and the absence 
of a hot key for such a commonly-used function is a mistake.)

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug  5 10:13, Warren Young wrote:
> On 8/5/2011 9:05 AM, Andy Koppe wrote:
> >
> >>Do you know how to convert the green glow around
> >>the C to grey, by any chance?
> >
> >Here's what I did, in Paint.net. I very much suspect there are better ways.
> 
> The "right way" is to use Levels.  Ctrl-L in Photoshop and
> Paint.NET, Colors > Levels in Gimp.
> 
> In this case, I'd drag down the white point of the input levels to
> push things toward white, while leaving the dark parts of the image
> where they are, more or less.
> 
> You could also try moving the gamma slider, either alone, or in
> combination with the above to keep the blacks where you want them.

I don't understand this.  If I do that, the black C and especially the
highlights in the C are getting whiter and chunky, while the green frame
gets chunky but stays green.  So I'm puzzled.  If I do that and then
desaturize, what have I won, except that the highlights in the C are
chunkier?  Where's the trick?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 8/5/2011 11:50 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> You could also try moving the gamma slider, either alone, or in
>> combination with the above to keep the blacks where you want them.
>
> I don't understand this.  If I do that, the black C and especially the
> highlights in the C are getting whiter and chunky,

This is due to not having a layered document.  The levels move is 
affecting everything, not just the glow.  Lacking a layered document so 
you can modify the glow in isolation, you're back to needing a good 
selection to start with.

Riffing off the Hue-Saturation tip from the other message, you could 
take essentially the same path but move the lightness slider in addition 
to the saturation.  Between this and Andy's "select wedge then invert 
selection" you should get a good result.

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 8/3/2011 11:49 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
>
> Warren's has the advantage of a 256 version and that it's more
> tweakable assuming he provides the vector version it's presumably
> based on.

Sorry, there is currently no vector version.  Effects like bevels and 
shadows are raster effects.  However, based on this:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/SVG_filter_effects

it does look like SVG's been extended with the raster effects needed to 
recreate my beveled icon.  I am installing Inkscape now and will try to 
do that later, perhaps today, perhaps not.

In the meanwhile, here's my new beveled Cygwin logo:

	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled-noshadow.psd

Changes from the original:

	- removed the big drop shadow (outer glow still present)
	- softened lighting on the wedge
	- dropped outer C stroke from white to a light gray
	- rebuilt as 1024 px square, not counting the outer glow,
           for finer editing control

This should open in any version of Photoshop going back to the 90s.  (v6 
and up, I'm guessing.)  While I realize not everyone will have even 
that, I'm providing it because it's based on easy-to-edit procedural 
effects, rather than flattened raster effects.

However, I have made a fully rasterized, layered version compatible with 
Gimp for those without even Photoshop 6.0:

	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled-noshadow-rasterized.xcf

I also made a 256 px .ico, for those who just want to see it in action:

	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled-noshadow.ico

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Andy Koppe]

On 5 August 2011 18:35, Warren Young wrote:
> On 8/3/2011 11:49 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
>>
>> Warren's has the advantage of a 256 version and that it's more
>> tweakable assuming he provides the vector version it's presumably
>> based on.
>
> Sorry, there is currently no vector version.  Effects like bevels and
> shadows are raster effects.  However, based on this:
>
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/SVG_filter_effects
>
> it does look like SVG's been extended with the raster effects needed to
> recreate my beveled icon.  I am installing Inkscape now and will try to do
> that later, perhaps today, perhaps not.

Don't worry too much about that. The below sounds like the Photoshop
version should be entirely sufficient.

> In the meanwhile, here's my new beveled Cygwin logo:
>
>        http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled-noshadow.psd
>
> Changes from the original:
>
>        - removed the big drop shadow (outer glow still present)
>        - softened lighting on the wedge
>        - dropped outer C stroke from white to a light gray
>        - rebuilt as 1024 px square, not counting the outer glow,
>          for finer editing control
>
> This should open in any version of Photoshop going back to the 90s.  (v6 and
> up, I'm guessing.)  While I realize not everyone will have even that, I'm
> providing it because it's based on easy-to-edit procedural effects, rather
> than flattened raster effects.
>
> However, I have made a fully rasterized, layered version compatible with
> Gimp for those without even Photoshop 6.0:
>
>        http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled-noshadow-rasterized.xcf
>
> I also made a 256 px .ico, for those who just want to see it in action:
>
>        http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled-noshadow.ico

I like this a lot. Thanks very much for responding so positively to my whinging.

Andy

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 8/5/2011 1:08 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
> I like this a lot. Thanks very much for responding so positively to my whinging.

Let me know if you need to see any other changes.

I think a large part of the problem is tl;dr, and the resultant talking 
past each other.  I know it's true for me.

I've been taking a passive role since you and Corinna took my ball and 
ran with it, but don't take that to mean you can't ask me for changes. 
The main thing I need is concrete requests, such as those that lead to 
the present changes.

I will get back to your comments about the semitransparent Konsole icon 
edge later.  I don't see a fade-out here, no doubt because there's 
precious little standardization in vector art, SVG notwithstanding. 
That's one of the reasons I decided to install Inkscape instead of 
continuing to base my work on SVG art imported into Illustrator then 
re-exported.  I'd bet AI is a lot more powerful, but if it impedes 
communication...

Besides, PS fanboy though I am, AI fanboy I am not. :)

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2558 bytes --]

On Aug  5 11:35, Warren Young wrote:
> On 8/3/2011 11:49 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
> >
> >Warren's has the advantage of a 256 version and that it's more
> >tweakable assuming he provides the vector version it's presumably
> >based on.
> 
> Sorry, there is currently no vector version.  Effects like bevels
> and shadows are raster effects.  However, based on this:
> 
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/SVG_filter_effects
> 
> it does look like SVG's been extended with the raster effects needed
> to recreate my beveled icon.  I am installing Inkscape now and will
> try to do that later, perhaps today, perhaps not.
> 
> In the meanwhile, here's my new beveled Cygwin logo:
> 
> 	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled-noshadow.psd
> 
> Changes from the original:
> 
> 	- removed the big drop shadow (outer glow still present)
> 	- softened lighting on the wedge
> 	- dropped outer C stroke from white to a light gray
> 	- rebuilt as 1024 px square, not counting the outer glow,
>           for finer editing control
> 
> This should open in any version of Photoshop going back to the 90s.
> (v6 and up, I'm guessing.)  While I realize not everyone will have
> even that, I'm providing it because it's based on easy-to-edit
> procedural effects, rather than flattened raster effects.
> 
> However, I have made a fully rasterized, layered version compatible
> with Gimp for those without even Photoshop 6.0:
> 
> 	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled-noshadow-rasterized.xcf

Thank you very much.  I created an icon set from there.  The fact that
everything is layered is cool.  You can simply change a single aspect of
the picture.  What I did:

- In general the dark shadow of the wedge became too dark (IMHO) when
  resizing the image to smaller sizes.  The wedge looked pretty
  asymmetrically when small.  So I lightend the shadow quite a bit
  before scaling it down.

- For the 256x256 icon I darkened the C stroke a bit, for 48x48 and below
  I used an entirely white stroke before scaling down.

- For the 256x256 icon I kept the dark outer glow, for the smaller sizes
  I removed it.

The 16x16 icon looks blurry when magnified to 800% in gimp, but I'm
surprised how good it looks in normal 100%.

Is that one ok as default Cygwin icon?

I'm going to work on the terminal icon based on Andy's blank-terminal
icons and this beveled icon next, as well as on a new setup "box" icon.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

[-- Attachment #2: cygwin-standalone-beveled.ico --]
[-- Type: image/vnd.microsoft.icon, Size: 61585 bytes --]

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Andy Koppe]

On 6 August 2011 09:28, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug  5 11:35, Warren Young wrote:
>> On 8/3/2011 11:49 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> >
>> >Warren's has the advantage of a 256 version and that it's more
>> >tweakable assuming he provides the vector version it's presumably
>> >based on.
>>
>> Sorry, there is currently no vector version.  Effects like bevels
>> and shadows are raster effects.  However, based on this:
>>
>> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/SVG_filter_effects
>>
>> it does look like SVG's been extended with the raster effects needed
>> to recreate my beveled icon.  I am installing Inkscape now and will
>> try to do that later, perhaps today, perhaps not.
>>
>> In the meanwhile, here's my new beveled Cygwin logo:
>>
>>       http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled-noshadow.psd
>>
>> Changes from the original:
>>
>>       - removed the big drop shadow (outer glow still present)
>>       - softened lighting on the wedge
>>       - dropped outer C stroke from white to a light gray
>>       - rebuilt as 1024 px square, not counting the outer glow,
>>           for finer editing control
>>
>> This should open in any version of Photoshop going back to the 90s.
>> (v6 and up, I'm guessing.)  While I realize not everyone will have
>> even that, I'm providing it because it's based on easy-to-edit
>> procedural effects, rather than flattened raster effects.
>>
>> However, I have made a fully rasterized, layered version compatible
>> with Gimp for those without even Photoshop 6.0:
>>
>>       http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled-noshadow-rasterized.xcf
>
> Thank you very much.  I created an icon set from there.  The fact that
> everything is layered is cool.  You can simply change a single aspect of
> the picture.  What I did:
>
> - In general the dark shadow of the wedge became too dark (IMHO) when
>  resizing the image to smaller sizes.  The wedge looked pretty
>  asymmetrically when small.  So I lightend the shadow quite a bit
>  before scaling it down.cd
>
> - For the 256x256 icon I darkened the C stroke a bit, for 48x48 and below
>  I used an entirely white stroke before scaling down.
>
> - For the 256x256 icon I kept the dark outer glow, for the smaller sizes
>  I removed it.

Makes sense. If the outline needs to be any brighter, it would need to
be thickened before scaling down.

> The 16x16 icon looks blurry when magnified to 800% in gimp, but I'm
> surprised how good it looks in normal 100%.

I agree.

> Is that one ok as default Cygwin icon?

I think so.

> I'm going to work on the terminal icon based on Andy's blank-terminal
> icons and this beveled icon next, as well as on a new setup "box" icon.

Looking forward to those. I seem to be in a minority of one regarding
the logo-in-terminal approach, so I withdraw my objection to that.

Andy

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2150 bytes --]

On Aug  6 11:47, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 6 August 2011 09:28, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Aug  5 11:35, Warren Young wrote:
> >> However, I have made a fully rasterized, layered version compatible
> >> with Gimp for those without even Photoshop 6.0:
> >>
> >>       http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled-noshadow-rasterized.xcf
> >
> > Thank you very much.  I created an icon set from there.  The fact that
> > everything is layered is cool.  You can simply change a single aspect of
> > the picture.  What I did:
> >
> > - In general the dark shadow of the wedge became too dark (IMHO) when
> >  resizing the image to smaller sizes.  The wedge looked pretty
> >  asymmetrically when small.  So I lightend the shadow quite a bit
> >  before scaling it down.cd
> >
> > - For the 256x256 icon I darkened the C stroke a bit, for 48x48 and below
> >  I used an entirely white stroke before scaling down.
> >
> > - For the 256x256 icon I kept the dark outer glow, for the smaller sizes
> >  I removed it.
> 
> Makes sense. If the outline needs to be any brighter, it would need to
> be thickened before scaling down.
> 
> > The 16x16 icon looks blurry when magnified to 800% in gimp, but I'm
> > surprised how good it looks in normal 100%.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> > Is that one ok as default Cygwin icon?
> 
> I think so.
> 
> > I'm going to work on the terminal icon based on Andy's blank-terminal
> > icons and this beveled icon next, as well as on a new setup "box" icon.
> 
> Looking forward to those. I seem to be in a minority of one regarding
> the logo-in-terminal approach, so I withdraw my objection to that.

The terminal icon is attached to this mail.  Downscaling the C to 18x18
and pasting it into the 32x32 terminal outline was a waste of time.
For 32x32 I now created a C pixel by pixel so that it looks good on 
the XP desktop.  For 24x24 and 16x16 I used the standalone C from my
previous icon set as fallback.

Now for the setup icon...


Corinna


-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

[-- Attachment #2: cygwin-terminal-beveled.ico --]
[-- Type: image/vnd.microsoft.icon, Size: 53342 bytes --]

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2434 bytes --]

On Aug  6 19:43, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug  6 11:47, Andy Koppe wrote:
> > On 6 August 2011 09:28, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > On Aug  5 11:35, Warren Young wrote:
> > >> However, I have made a fully rasterized, layered version compatible
> > >> with Gimp for those without even Photoshop 6.0:
> > >>
> > >>       http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled-noshadow-rasterized.xcf
> > >
> > > Thank you very much.  I created an icon set from there.  The fact that
> > > everything is layered is cool.  You can simply change a single aspect of
> > > the picture.  What I did:
> > >
> > > - In general the dark shadow of the wedge became too dark (IMHO) when
> > >  resizing the image to smaller sizes.  The wedge looked pretty
> > >  asymmetrically when small.  So I lightend the shadow quite a bit
> > >  before scaling it down.cd
> > >
> > > - For the 256x256 icon I darkened the C stroke a bit, for 48x48 and below
> > >  I used an entirely white stroke before scaling down.
> > >
> > > - For the 256x256 icon I kept the dark outer glow, for the smaller sizes
> > >  I removed it.
> > 
> > Makes sense. If the outline needs to be any brighter, it would need to
> > be thickened before scaling down.
> > 
> > > The 16x16 icon looks blurry when magnified to 800% in gimp, but I'm
> > > surprised how good it looks in normal 100%.
> > 
> > I agree.
> > 
> > > Is that one ok as default Cygwin icon?
> > 
> > I think so.
> > 
> > > I'm going to work on the terminal icon based on Andy's blank-terminal
> > > icons and this beveled icon next, as well as on a new setup "box" icon.
> > 
> > Looking forward to those. I seem to be in a minority of one regarding
> > the logo-in-terminal approach, so I withdraw my objection to that.
> 
> The terminal icon is attached to this mail.  Downscaling the C to 18x18
> and pasting it into the 32x32 terminal outline was a waste of time.
> For 32x32 I now created a C pixel by pixel so that it looks good on 
> the XP desktop.  For 24x24 and 16x16 I used the standalone C from my
> previous icon set as fallback.
> 
> Now for the setup icon...

Here it is.  The 32x32 icon is the most tricky one and needed some
convincing to look acceptable.  24x24 and 16x16 are agains the standalone
icon.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

[-- Attachment #2: cygwin-setup-beveled.ico --]
[-- Type: image/vnd.microsoft.icon, Size: 60363 bytes --]

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Andy Koppe]

On 6 August 2011 19:27, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug  6 19:43, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Aug  6 11:47, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> > On 6 August 2011 09:28, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> > > On Aug  5 11:35, Warren Young wrote:
>> > >> However, I have made a fully rasterized, layered version compatible
>> > >> with Gimp for those without even Photoshop 6.0:
>> > >>
>> > >>       http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled-noshadow-rasterized.xcf
>> > >
>> > > Thank you very much.  I created an icon set from there.  The fact that
>> > > everything is layered is cool.  You can simply change a single aspect of
>> > > the picture.  What I did:
>> > >
>> > > - In general the dark shadow of the wedge became too dark (IMHO) when
>> > >  resizing the image to smaller sizes.  The wedge looked pretty
>> > >  asymmetrically when small.  So I lightend the shadow quite a bit
>> > >  before scaling it down.cd
>> > >
>> > > - For the 256x256 icon I darkened the C stroke a bit, for 48x48 and below
>> > >  I used an entirely white stroke before scaling down.
>> > >
>> > > - For the 256x256 icon I kept the dark outer glow, for the smaller sizes
>> > >  I removed it.
>> >
>> > Makes sense. If the outline needs to be any brighter, it would need to
>> > be thickened before scaling down.
>> >
>> > > The 16x16 icon looks blurry when magnified to 800% in gimp, but I'm
>> > > surprised how good it looks in normal 100%.
>> >
>> > I agree.
>> >
>> > > Is that one ok as default Cygwin icon?
>> >
>> > I think so.
>> >
>> > > I'm going to work on the terminal icon based on Andy's blank-terminal
>> > > icons and this beveled icon next, as well as on a new setup "box" icon.
>> >
>> > Looking forward to those. I seem to be in a minority of one regarding
>> > the logo-in-terminal approach, so I withdraw my objection to that.
>>
>> The terminal icon is attached to this mail.  Downscaling the C to 18x18
>> and pasting it into the 32x32 terminal outline was a waste of time.
>> For 32x32 I now created a C pixel by pixel so that it looks good on
>> the XP desktop.  For 24x24 and 16x16 I used the standalone C from my
>> previous icon set as fallback.
>>
>> Now for the setup icon...
>
> Here it is.  The 32x32 icon is the most tricky one and needed some
> convincing to look acceptable.  24x24 and 16x16 are agains the standalone
> icon.

Nice work on both of them. GTG, as far as I'm concerned.

I'd quite like to have another go at the small icons though, but that
doesn't need to hold up anything. Warren, could you do a version of
the C with a thicker stroke, say twice as thick? (If you think I could
easily do that myself, just say so.)

Andy

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 8/7/2011 4:08 AM, Andy Koppe wrote:
> the C with a thicker stroke, say twice as thick? (If you think I could
> easily do that myself, just say so.)

So.  :)

See my reply above.

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 8/6/2011 12:27 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> Now for the setup icon...
>
> Here it is.  The 32x32 icon is the most tricky one and needed some
> convincing to look acceptable.

I'd make the C smaller in all of them, especially the 32x32.  Please 
point me to the box art.  I want to try.

I also want to try a pure black C on a recolored kraft brown box.  Make 
it shipping-boxy, power in potentia, yet to be unleashed.

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug  8 11:10, Warren Young wrote:
> On 8/6/2011 12:27 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>Now for the setup icon...
> >
> >Here it is.  The 32x32 icon is the most tricky one and needed some
> >convincing to look acceptable.
> 
> I'd make the C smaller in all of them, especially the 32x32.  Please
> point me to the box art.  I want to try.

Smaller?  I'm surprised.  I wouldn't really want them smaller, especially
in the 32x32 case, where the C is already so small.  But I'm curious.
The box art is part of the gnome-icon-theme package(*), the icons are
/usr/share/icons/gnome/*/mimetypes/package-x-generic.png.

> I also want to try a pure black C on a recolored kraft brown box.
> Make it shipping-boxy, power in potentia, yet to be unleashed.

That sounds interesting.


Corinna

(*) http://rpm.pbone.net/index.php3/stat/4/idpl/15511208/dir/fedora_14/com/gnome-icon-theme-2.31.0-1.fc14.noarch.rpm.html

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 8/6/2011 11:43 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> Makes sense. If the outline needs to be any brighter, it would need to
>> be thickened before scaling down.

One way to do this without involving me:

- enlarge the canvas to make room
- right click stroke layer, alpha to selection
- select > grow
- fill selection with stroke color

It doesn't affect the outer glow, but from what you've written, Corinna, 
that won't matter.  You only need to thicken the stroke for the smaller 
sizes before downsampling.

> The terminal icon is attached to this mail.  Downscaling the C to 18x18
> and pasting it into the 32x32 terminal outline was a waste of time.

Try compositing the C with the terminal before downsampling.  This will 
allow the C to blend into the background.  The smaller C-in-terminal 
icons in this current version clearly have their borders hand redrawn 
pixel by pixel.  That look is fine when the whole icon is hand-drawn, 
but it stands out when most of it is antialiased.

Thickening the stroke should avoid the need to redraw the border to make 
it bright and solid enough.  You might need to double its thickness, or 
more.

Overall, a minor nit.  This is the right path.

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug  8 10:42, Warren Young wrote:
> On 8/6/2011 11:43 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>Makes sense. If the outline needs to be any brighter, it would need to
> >>be thickened before scaling down.

Oops, that's a quote from Andy.
> 
> One way to do this without involving me:
> 
> - enlarge the canvas to make room
> - right click stroke layer, alpha to selection
> - select > grow
> - fill selection with stroke color
> 
> It doesn't affect the outer glow, but from what you've written,
> Corinna, that won't matter.  You only need to thicken the stroke for
> the smaller sizes before downsampling.
> 
> >The terminal icon is attached to this mail.  Downscaling the C to 18x18
> >and pasting it into the 32x32 terminal outline was a waste of time.
> 
> Try compositing the C with the terminal before downsampling.  This
> will allow the C to blend into the background.  The smaller
> C-in-terminal icons in this current version clearly have their
> borders hand redrawn pixel by pixel.  That look is fine when the
> whole icon is hand-drawn, but it stands out when most of it is
> antialiased.

That was the idea.  It stands out.  Every other try to resize and paste
in whatever order resulted in a C which was barely visible on the dark
background.  The 32x32 icon is pretty small, so the inner C must stand
out to be visible at all.  IMHO.  If you have a way to create a C which
is not handdrawn *and* stands out, I would very much like to see it.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 8/8/2011 2:43 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>  If you have a way to create a C which
> is not handdrawn *and* stands out, I would very much like to see it.

That's why I quoted Andy: increasing the stroke width can help.  By 
starting with a much thicker outer stroke, you end up with a brighter 
yet still AA'd outline.

You can also play with (x, y) placement and the sampling algorithm.

An 8 px white stroke on black scaled 256:32 (8x) will not necessarily 
end up a single 1 px white stroke on black.  Given a case where that 
happens, then shifting the line 4 px from that position, downsampling 
can give you two 50% gray lines side by side if the algorithm interprets 
the source image as having half the line on one side of the pixel 
boundary and half on the other.  Then if you leave the line where it is, 
4 px "off" optimal for one algorithm but use a different sampling 
algorithm, you might get good results again.

This same issue is also why on-screen type hinting is difficult.

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug  8 16:28, Warren Young wrote:
> On 8/8/2011 2:43 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > If you have a way to create a C which
> >is not handdrawn *and* stands out, I would very much like to see it.
> 
> That's why I quoted Andy: increasing the stroke width can help.  By
> starting with a much thicker outer stroke, you end up with a
> brighter yet still AA'd outline.
> 
> You can also play with (x, y) placement and the sampling algorithm.
> 
> An 8 px white stroke on black scaled 256:32 (8x) will not
> necessarily end up a single 1 px white stroke on black.  Given a
> case where that happens, then shifting the line 4 px from that
> position, downsampling can give you two 50% gray lines side by side
> if the algorithm interprets the source image as having half the line
> on one side of the pixel boundary and half on the other.  Then if
> you leave the line where it is, 4 px "off" optimal for one algorithm
> but use a different sampling algorithm, you might get good results
> again.

Erm... say that again?  Here's where you're losing me.  I don't even
know how to make the stroke thicker unless it would be a big, square
block.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 8/9/2011 1:25 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> Erm... say that again?  Here's where you're losing me.  I don't even
> know how to make the stroke thicker unless it would be a big, square
> block.

Elaborating on steps I gave a few messages up the thread:

- enlarge the canvas to make room (Image > Canvas Size)
- right click stroke layer in Layers panel, Alpha to Selection menu item
- Select > Grow
- fill selection with stroke color (Edit > Fill with BG Color)

Voila, the stroke is now thicker.

But never mind that.  Here's a re-spin of the logo, with the strokes 
thickened and the wedge shadow reduced again.  It looks rotten at full 
size, but it's just what you need for direct resizing down to 32 px and 
smaller:

     http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled-for-small-composites.xcf

Here's what you get when you resize the C-on-terminal with this thicker 
stroke:

     http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/terminal-with-c-aa-32.png

Want the stroke even whiter?  Okay, so thicken the stroke some more 
before resizing.

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 10 02:47, Warren Young wrote:
> On 8/9/2011 1:25 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >
> >Erm... say that again?  Here's where you're losing me.  I don't even
> >know how to make the stroke thicker unless it would be a big, square
> >block.
> 
> Elaborating on steps I gave a few messages up the thread:
> 
> - enlarge the canvas to make room (Image > Canvas Size)
> - right click stroke layer in Layers panel, Alpha to Selection menu item
> - Select > Grow
> - fill selection with stroke color (Edit > Fill with BG Color)
> 
> Voila, the stroke is now thicker.
> 
> But never mind that.  Here's a re-spin of the logo, with the strokes
> thickened and the wedge shadow reduced again.  It looks rotten at
> full size, but it's just what you need for direct resizing down to
> 32 px and smaller:
> 
>     http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled-for-small-composites.xcf
> 
> Here's what you get when you resize the C-on-terminal with this
> thicker stroke:
> 
>     http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/terminal-with-c-aa-32.png

That looks excellent, IMHO.  Can I just grab it for the official 32x32
terminal icon?  There's no reason I should duplicate the work, right? ;)


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 10 12:07, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 10 02:47, Warren Young wrote:
> > On 8/9/2011 1:25 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >
> > >Erm... say that again?  Here's where you're losing me.  I don't even
> > >know how to make the stroke thicker unless it would be a big, square
> > >block.
> > 
> > Elaborating on steps I gave a few messages up the thread:
> > 
> > - enlarge the canvas to make room (Image > Canvas Size)
> > - right click stroke layer in Layers panel, Alpha to Selection menu item
> > - Select > Grow
> > - fill selection with stroke color (Edit > Fill with BG Color)
> > 
> > Voila, the stroke is now thicker.
> > 
> > But never mind that.  Here's a re-spin of the logo, with the strokes
> > thickened and the wedge shadow reduced again.  It looks rotten at
> > full size, but it's just what you need for direct resizing down to
> > 32 px and smaller:
> > 
> >     http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled-for-small-composites.xcf
> > 
> > Here's what you get when you resize the C-on-terminal with this
> > thicker stroke:
> > 
> >     http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/terminal-with-c-aa-32.png
> 
> That looks excellent, IMHO.  Can I just grab it for the official 32x32
> terminal icon?  There's no reason I should duplicate the work, right? ;)

Here's my new icon set for the setup icon using your above C for midgets
in the 32x32 setup icon:  http://cygwin.de/cygwin-setup-beveled.ico

That's better, isn't it?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 8/10/2011 4:23 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 10 12:07, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> That looks excellent, IMHO.  Can I just grab it for the official 32x32
>> terminal icon?  There's no reason I should duplicate the work, right? ;)

Thanks.  I jumped into this icon project to contribute, so, ja. :)

> Here's my new icon set for the setup icon using your above C for midgets
> in the 32x32 setup icon:  http://cygwin.de/cygwin-setup-beveled.ico
>
> That's better, isn't it?

Yes, thanks.

The next size up, the second in the set, could use similar treatment. 
You might need to generate your own logo, if the strokes in the new logo 
version are too heavy and the original ones too light.  The widths are 
20 px for the C and 8 px for the wedge in my original .xcf logo, and 
double that in the new beveled-for-small-composites.xcf one.

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 10 08:02, Warren Young wrote:
> On 8/10/2011 4:23 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Aug 10 12:07, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>That looks excellent, IMHO.  Can I just grab it for the official 32x32
> >>terminal icon?  There's no reason I should duplicate the work, right? ;)
> 
> Thanks.  I jumped into this icon project to contribute, so, ja. :)
> 
> >Here's my new icon set for the setup icon using your above C for midgets
> >in the 32x32 setup icon:  http://cygwin.de/cygwin-setup-beveled.ico
> >
> >That's better, isn't it?
> 
> Yes, thanks.
> 
> The next size up, the second in the set, could use similar
> treatment.

New incarnation uploaded.  Same URL.  Is that better?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 8/11/2011 4:38 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> New incarnation uploaded.  Same URL.  Is that better?

Yes, thanks.

I haven't forgotten about my attempt, by the way.  It's just become a 
bigger project than anticipated.  I guess you're not waiting on me, 
which is fine.

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 11 15:06, Warren Young wrote:
> On 8/11/2011 4:38 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >
> >New incarnation uploaded.  Same URL.  Is that better?
> 
> Yes, thanks.

I didn't feel up to the task to resize the stroke, btw., so I just made
it slightly darker before resizing.  This seems to have to do the trick.

> I haven't forgotten about my attempt, by the way.  It's just become
> a bigger project than anticipated.  I guess you're not waiting on
> me, which is fine.

No, no, I'm curious.

There's no rush.  Even if I check in the current icons to the setup
repository, we're not quite finished anyway.  Andy was trying to take
another stab at the smaller icon sizes 24x24 and 16x16.  Then we must
move mintty to Base, then we have to release setup.
Oh, and, I'd still *love* to use the 256x256 setup icon in the splash
screen dialog, if I'd only know how to do that.

For now the important thing is that we have a nice icon set, thanks to
you and Andy for the artwork, and the code in setup to use them.
Changes to the icons are still possible.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 12 08:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Oh, and, I'd still *love* to use the 256x256 setup icon in the splash
> screen dialog, if I'd only know how to do that.

Got it!  If you specify SS_REALSIZEIMAGE in the ICON control statement,
then the dialog uses the original size of the icon, rather than to
resize it to something small.  If the icon is an icon set, it uses the
first icon in the set.

Turns out, 256 is too big for the splash screen.  Looking for a nice
size, I found that 1064, the size of the rasterized original icon,
dived by 7 is 152, which looks like the ideal size for the dialog icon.
So I added a 152x152 icon to cygwin.ico, and made it the first icon
in the set.  Here's the result:

http://cygwin.de/cygwin-standalone-beveled.ico

Two examples:

Classic Windows style:    http://cygwin.de/splash-new-1.png
Windows 7 non-Aero style: http://cygwin.de/splash-new-2.png


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Andy Koppe]

On 12 August 2011 10:12, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 12 08:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> Oh, and, I'd still *love* to use the 256x256 setup icon in the splash
>> screen dialog, if I'd only know how to do that.
>
> Got it!  If you specify SS_REALSIZEIMAGE in the ICON control statement,
> then the dialog uses the original size of the icon, rather than to
> resize it to something small.  If the icon is an icon set, it uses the
> first icon in the set.
>
> Turns out, 256 is too big for the splash screen.  Looking for a nice
> size, I found that 1064, the size of the rasterized original icon,
> dived by 7 is 152, which looks like the ideal size for the dialog icon.
> So I added a 152x152 icon to cygwin.ico, and made it the first icon
> in the set.  Here's the result:
>
> http://cygwin.de/cygwin-standalone-beveled.ico
>
> Two examples:
>
> Classic Windows style:    http://cygwin.de/splash-new-1.png
> Windows 7 non-Aero style: http://cygwin.de/splash-new-2.png

Spiffy!

Andy

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 8/12/2011 3:12 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> Turns out, 256 is too big for the splash screen.  Looking for a nice
> size, I found that 1064, the size of the rasterized original icon,
> dived by 7 is 152, which looks like the ideal size for the dialog icon.
> So I added a 152x152 icon to cygwin.ico, and made it the first icon
> in the set.  Here's the result:
>
> http://cygwin.de/cygwin-standalone-beveled.ico
>
> Two examples:
>
> Classic Windows style:    http://cygwin.de/splash-new-1.png
> Windows 7 non-Aero style: http://cygwin.de/splash-new-2.png

Mostly delicious, Corinna.

The hard edges in the original art are causing stair-stepping when doing 
a direct downsample, though.  (Look at the pointy bits.)  By blurring 
the high-res version and then downsampling by a non-integral amount, you 
can get a much smoother result.  Here's one at 128 px^2:

	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/128-smooth.png

If you're really set on 152 px^2, here's that, too:

	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/152-smooth.png

If you want yet a different size, the procedure is:

	- merge all layers (don't flatten; keep transparency)
	- Gaussian blur, 2 px
	- bilinear resize

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Charles Wilson]

On 8/15/2011 10:33 AM, Warren Young wrote:
> The hard edges in the original art are causing stair-stepping when doing
> a direct downsample, though.  (Look at the pointy bits.)  By blurring
> the high-res version and then downsampling by a non-integral amount, you
> can get a much smoother result.

This is only the case if the "downsample" operation used by GIMP, when
d/s by an integral amount, is to simply pick every Nth pixel.  That's
very fast -- but is not the correct operation (I'd posit a GIMP bug, in
fact).

Sampling theory says a downsample SHOULD be preceded, automatically, by
a low-pass filter (blurring) operation of a specific type and, er,
"radius" for lack of a better word.  (IOW, GIMP /should/ be doing this
blur FOR you, automatically).  There's lots of theory behind this, to
select the proper kind of filter (gaussian is not correct -- but is
probably a good enough approximation) and its 'radius' (which should
scale with the downsampling factor).

Since GIMP is apparently not doing that, then yes -- you need to apply a
blurring filter yourself, before using GIMP's braindead 'pick every Nth
pixel' version of "downsampling".

--
Chuck

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 15 11:44, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 8/15/2011 10:33 AM, Warren Young wrote:
> > The hard edges in the original art are causing stair-stepping when doing
> > a direct downsample, though.  (Look at the pointy bits.)  By blurring
> > the high-res version and then downsampling by a non-integral amount, you
> > can get a much smoother result.
> 
> This is only the case if the "downsample" operation used by GIMP, when
> d/s by an integral amount, is to simply pick every Nth pixel.  That's
> very fast -- but is not the correct operation (I'd posit a GIMP bug, in
> fact).
> 
> Sampling theory says a downsample SHOULD be preceded, automatically, by
> a low-pass filter (blurring) operation of a specific type and, er,
> "radius" for lack of a better word.  (IOW, GIMP /should/ be doing this
> blur FOR you, automatically).  There's lots of theory behind this, to
> select the proper kind of filter (gaussian is not correct -- but is
> probably a good enough approximation) and its 'radius' (which should
> scale with the downsampling factor).
> 
> Since GIMP is apparently not doing that, then yes -- you need to apply a
> blurring filter yourself, before using GIMP's braindead 'pick every Nth
> pixel' version of "downsampling".

Are you talking about recent gimp versions?  In my gimp I have the
choice of four different interpolation algorithms, "None", "Linear",
"Cubic", and "Sinc (Lanczos3)", whatever each of them means.  I guess I
just don't want to know in such great detail...


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Charles Wilson]

On 8/15/2011 11:59 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Are you talking about recent gimp versions? 

I wasn't talking specifically about any GIMP version -- I was surmising
based on what you guys described as GIMP's behavior.

> In my gimp I have the
> choice of four different interpolation algorithms, "None", 

This sounds like the dumb "pix every Nth pixel" algorithm.  It probably
devolves to

> "Linear",

...this, when the downsampling factor is not an integer. ("linear" is
implicitly "bi-linear" when you're dealing with a 2D image).

> "Cubic", and "Sinc (Lanczos3)", whatever each of them means.  I guess I
> just don't want to know in such great detail...

Sinc is the theoretically "correct" operation, but for obscure reasons
can't *really* be implemented in real life, because a /true/ sinc
function has infinite extent.  So, they probably mean a "windowed sinc"
function...which has other (mostly theoretical) problems (unless the
"window" is not a simple "box" window, but is instead a hamming,
hanning, or certain other "windows".  But even then, you encounter
certain OTHER arcane problems.

In practice, I'm sure either cubic or sinc will be fine.  Cubic is
usually faster.  In the end, what *looks good* is what matters here.

--
Chuck

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 8/15/2011 9:44 AM, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 8/15/2011 10:33 AM, Warren Young wrote:
>> The hard edges in the original art are causing stair-stepping when doing
>> a direct downsample, though.  (Look at the pointy bits.)  By blurring
>> the high-res version and then downsampling by a non-integral amount, you
>> can get a much smoother result.
>
> This is only the case if the "downsample" operation used by GIMP, when
> d/s by an integral amount, is to simply pick every Nth pixel.  That's
> very fast -- but is not the correct operation (I'd posit a GIMP bug, in
> fact).

Perhaps Gimp did that in the past, but what you're describing is now 
Gimp's "None" interpolation mode.  Both it and Photoshop have better 
resampling modes, but they all give some stair-stepping with hard 
diagonal lines if you don't give it a bit of help.

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 15 08:33, Warren Young wrote:
> On 8/12/2011 3:12 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >
> >Turns out, 256 is too big for the splash screen.  Looking for a nice
> >size, I found that 1064, the size of the rasterized original icon,
> >dived by 7 is 152, which looks like the ideal size for the dialog icon.
> >So I added a 152x152 icon to cygwin.ico, and made it the first icon
> >in the set.  Here's the result:
> >
> >http://cygwin.de/cygwin-standalone-beveled.ico
> >
> >Two examples:
> >
> >Classic Windows style:    http://cygwin.de/splash-new-1.png
> >Windows 7 non-Aero style: http://cygwin.de/splash-new-2.png
> 
> Mostly delicious, Corinna.
> 
> The hard edges in the original art are causing stair-stepping when
> doing a direct downsample, though.  (Look at the pointy bits.)  By
> blurring the high-res version and then downsampling by a
> non-integral amount, you can get a much smoother result.  Here's one
> at 128 px^2:
> 
> 	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/128-smooth.png
> 
> If you're really set on 152 px^2, here's that, too:
> 
> 	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/152-smooth.png
> 
> If you want yet a different size, the procedure is:
> 
> 	- merge all layers (don't flatten; keep transparency)
> 	- Gaussian blur, 2 px
> 	- bilinear resize

Thanks for the tip.  I checked in a new 152x152 icon with lightgrey
stroke which I blurred before.  I resized using the cubic interpolation
because I forgot to set it to linear (no "bilinear" in gimp), but it
looks good to me.  If you want to have a look, I uploaded it to
http://cygwin.de/cygwin-standalone-beveled.ico again.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Andy Koppe]

On 12 August 2011 07:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 11 15:06, Warren Young wrote:
>> On 8/11/2011 4:38 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >
>> >New incarnation uploaded.  Same URL.  Is that better?
>>
>> Yes, thanks.
>
> I didn't feel up to the task to resize the stroke, btw., so I just made
> it slightly darker before resizing.  This seems to have to do the trick.
>
>> I haven't forgotten about my attempt, by the way.  It's just become
>> a bigger project than anticipated.  I guess you're not waiting on
>> me, which is fine.
>
> No, no, I'm curious.
>
> There's no rush.  Even if I check in the current icons to the setup
> repository, we're not quite finished anyway.  Andy was trying to take
> another stab at the smaller icon sizes 24x24 and 16x16.

I hope to get 'round to this this weekend.


> Then we must
> move mintty to Base, then we have to release setup.

I think it would be best to do that as concurrently as possible,
including the removal of the mintty postinstall and preremove scripts
for creating and removing the 'mintty' start menu entry. That's to
avoid an intermediate phase where the mintty entry appears in people's
start menus without them asking for it, only for it to disappear again
soon after.

In preparation for that, I've repackaged mintty without those scripts:

http://mintty.googlecode.com/files/mintty-1.0.1-2.tar.bz2
http://mintty.googlecode.com/files/mintty-1.0.1-2-src.tar.bz2

And here's a setup.hint with added Base category:

http://mintty.googlecode.com/svn/tags/1.0.1-2/cygport/setup.hint

Andy

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 12 20:37, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 12 August 2011 07:59, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Aug 11 15:06, Warren Young wrote:
> >> I haven't forgotten about my attempt, by the way.  It's just become
> >> a bigger project than anticipated.  I guess you're not waiting on
> >> me, which is fine.
> >
> > No, no, I'm curious.
> >
> > There's no rush.  Even if I check in the current icons to the setup
> > repository, we're not quite finished anyway.  Andy was trying to take
> > another stab at the smaller icon sizes 24x24 and 16x16.
> 
> I hope to get 'round to this this weekend.

I'm looking forward.  I have a hard time to see how you can get a
recognizable result at 16x16.  Maybe a terminal or a setup box with just
a green wedge?

> > Then we must
> > move mintty to Base, then we have to release setup.
> 
> I think it would be best to do that as concurrently as possible,
> including the removal of the mintty postinstall and preremove scripts
> for creating and removing the 'mintty' start menu entry. That's to
> avoid an intermediate phase where the mintty entry appears in people's
> start menus without them asking for it, only for it to disappear again
> soon after.

ACK

> In preparation for that, I've repackaged mintty without those scripts:
> 
> http://mintty.googlecode.com/files/mintty-1.0.1-2.tar.bz2
> http://mintty.googlecode.com/files/mintty-1.0.1-2-src.tar.bz2
> 
> And here's a setup.hint with added Base category:
> 
> http://mintty.googlecode.com/svn/tags/1.0.1-2/cygport/setup.hint

Erm... do you still need the dependency to cygutils?  I thought this
is only necessary to install a mintty icon, but now that one is for
free anyway...


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Andy Koppe]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2530 bytes --]

On 13 August 2011 08:58, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 12 20:37, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> > There's no rush.  Even if I check in the current icons to the setup
>> > repository, we're not quite finished anyway.  Andy was trying to take
>> > another stab at the smaller icon sizes 24x24 and 16x16.
>>
>> I hope to get 'round to this this weekend.
>
> I'm looking forward.  I have a hard time to see how you can get a
> recognizable result at 16x16.

I wasn't going to attempt that. (I now tried it anyway, and the result
indeed isn't pretty.)

No, what I was going to try was using Warren's bevelled Cygwin logo
with the wider stroke to create the standalone logo at 16 and 24 and
the logo-in-terminal at 32, 48, and 64.

Resulting cygwin-terminal.ico attached, with the 256x256 taken from
the current one. I think it's an improvement, particularly at 32x32.


> Maybe a terminal or a setup box with just a green wedge?

Hmm, interesting idea. Attempt attached, with wedge-in-terminal
instead of the standalone logo at 16x16 and 24x24. I think I prefer
the logo though.


>> > Then we must
>> > move mintty to Base, then we have to release setup.
>>
>> I think it would be best to do that as concurrently as possible,
>> including the removal of the mintty postinstall and preremove scripts
>> for creating and removing the 'mintty' start menu entry. That's to
>> avoid an intermediate phase where the mintty entry appears in people's
>> start menus without them asking for it, only for it to disappear again
>> soon after.
>
> ACK

On second thoughts, the move of mintty to the Base category (but not
the removal of the postinstall/preremove scripts) should probably be
done a day before uploading the new setup.exe, to make sure it's got
to the mirrors before setup.exe starts depending on it.


>> In preparation for that, I've repackaged mintty without those scripts:
>>
>> http://mintty.googlecode.com/files/mintty-1.0.1-2.tar.bz2
>> http://mintty.googlecode.com/files/mintty-1.0.1-2-src.tar.bz2
>>
>> And here's a setup.hint with added Base category:
>>
>> http://mintty.googlecode.com/svn/tags/1.0.1-2/cygport/setup.hint
>
> Erm... do you still need the dependency to cygutils?

No, thanks for spotting that. And actually the bash dependency isn't
needed anymore either, following the removal of the
postinstall/preremove scripts. Hence I dropped the 'requires' line
completely (after checking that there are other packages without a
'requires' line).

Andy

[-- Attachment #2: cygwin-terminal.ico --]
[-- Type: image/x-icon, Size: 59559 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: cygwin-terminal-wedge.ico --]
[-- Type: image/x-icon, Size: 59559 bytes --]

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 13 21:35, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 13 August 2011 08:58, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Aug 12 20:37, Andy Koppe wrote:
> >> > There's no rush.  Even if I check in the current icons to the setup
> >> > repository, we're not quite finished anyway.  Andy was trying to take
> >> > another stab at the smaller icon sizes 24x24 and 16x16.
> >>
> >> I hope to get 'round to this this weekend.
> >
> > I'm looking forward.  I have a hard time to see how you can get a
> > recognizable result at 16x16.
> 
> I wasn't going to attempt that. (I now tried it anyway, and the result
> indeed isn't pretty.)
> 
> No, what I was going to try was using Warren's bevelled Cygwin logo
> with the wider stroke to create the standalone logo at 16 and 24 and
> the logo-in-terminal at 32, 48, and 64.
> 
> Resulting cygwin-terminal.ico attached, with the 256x256 taken from
> the current one. I think it's an improvement, particularly at 32x32.

Your attempts at 16x16, 24x24, and 32x32 definitely look better than
mine.  Also, somehow I seem to have broken the terminal frame in 32x32.
I didn't notice that before, but in direct comparison with your 32x32
it's quite obvious.

As for 48x48 and 64x64, it seems the thicker original stroke results in
a washed-out looking stroke in the inner part of the C, just below the
wedge.  Can you get rid of that washed-out look?  If yes, I just take
all of them.

> > Maybe a terminal or a setup box with just a green wedge?
> 
> Hmm, interesting idea. Attempt attached, with wedge-in-terminal
> instead of the standalone logo at 16x16 and 24x24. I think I prefer
> the logo though.

What?  They a cute!  I like them a lot.  I'd like do the same with the
setup icon.

> >> I think it would be best to do that as concurrently as possible,
> >> including the removal of the mintty postinstall and preremove scripts
> >> for creating and removing the 'mintty' start menu entry. That's to
> >> avoid an intermediate phase where the mintty entry appears in people's
> >> start menus without them asking for it, only for it to disappear again
> >> soon after.
> >
> > ACK
> 
> On second thoughts, the move of mintty to the Base category (but not
> the removal of the postinstall/preremove scripts) should probably be
> done a day before uploading the new setup.exe, to make sure it's got
> to the mirrors before setup.exe starts depending on it.

Still ACK.

> >> http://mintty.googlecode.com/svn/tags/1.0.1-2/cygport/setup.hint
> >
> > Erm... do you still need the dependency to cygutils?
> 
> No, thanks for spotting that. And actually the bash dependency isn't
> needed anymore either, following the removal of the
> postinstall/preremove scripts. Hence I dropped the 'requires' line
> completely (after checking that there are other packages without a
> 'requires' line).

Yup, makes sense.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Andy Koppe]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3452 bytes --]

On 14 August 2011 12:12, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 13 21:35, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> On 13 August 2011 08:58, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> > On Aug 12 20:37, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> >> > There's no rush.  Even if I check in the current icons to the setup
>> >> > repository, we're not quite finished anyway.  Andy was trying to take
>> >> > another stab at the smaller icon sizes 24x24 and 16x16.
>> >>
>> >> I hope to get 'round to this this weekend.
>> >
>> > I'm looking forward.  I have a hard time to see how you can get a
>> > recognizable result at 16x16.
>>
>> I wasn't going to attempt that. (I now tried it anyway, and the result
>> indeed isn't pretty.)
>>
>> No, what I was going to try was using Warren's bevelled Cygwin logo
>> with the wider stroke to create the standalone logo at 16 and 24 and
>> the logo-in-terminal at 32, 48, and 64.
>>
>> Resulting cygwin-terminal.ico attached, with the 256x256 taken from
>> the current one. I think it's an improvement, particularly at 32x32.
>
> Your attempts at 16x16, 24x24, and 32x32 definitely look better than
> mine.  Also, somehow I seem to have broken the terminal frame in 32x32.
> I didn't notice that before, but in direct comparison with your 32x32
> it's quite obvious.
>
> As for 48x48 and 64x64, it seems the thicker original stroke results in
> a washed-out looking stroke in the inner part of the C, just below the
> wedge. Can you get rid of that washed-out look?

I see what you mean. I think it's because the scaled-down stroke is
less than a pixel wide in theory, but due to its position it ends up
being divided between two pixel lines, so you get a two-pixel darkish
grey instead of a one-pixel light grey. Fixing this would require
redrawing the C at the high resolution in such a way that it maps to
whole pixels when scaling down. I'm afraid that's beyond my pay grade
though. Warren, if you've got any more spare time to spend on this ...

Meanwhile, attached is the same again but with the 48x48 from your
current icon, and a 64x64 scaled down from your 256x256, because I
didn't like the C in the current 64x64 being bigger in relation to the
terminal frame than at the other sizes. The stroke probably is a bit
too dark though ...


>> > Maybe a terminal or a setup box with just a green wedge?
>>
>> Hmm, interesting idea. Attempt attached, with wedge-in-terminal
>> instead of the standalone logo at 16x16 and 24x24. I think I prefer
>> the logo though.
>
> What?  They are cute!  I like them a lot.  I'd like do the same with the
> setup icon.

I still prefer the logo there because it provides a good connection
between the 16x16 window icon and the 32x32 taskbar icon on Vista/7,
as the logo is the same in both. Also, the logo is rather well
established, whereas the green wedge on its own wouldn't necessarily
be recognised as representing Cygwin.


>> Picking up on an old point here. As Warren suggests, the 64x64 doesn't
>> actually seem to be used if 256x256 is present. For example, when
>> setting the desktop icon size to large, a downscaled 256x256 is used.
>> Shall we drop the 64x64s for a bit of a size saving (particularly as
>> they're in BMP rather than PNG format)?
>
> You're saving 12K or so.  Given that we already have the icons, is it
> worth it to delete them for just a few K?

There's also the having-to-create-them-for-no-obvious-benefit factor.

Andy

[-- Attachment #2: cygwin-terminal.ico --]
[-- Type: image/x-icon, Size: 59559 bytes --]

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 15 20:46, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 14 August 2011 12:12, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Your attempts at 16x16, 24x24, and 32x32 definitely look better than
> > mine.  Also, somehow I seem to have broken the terminal frame in 32x32.
> > I didn't notice that before, but in direct comparison with your 32x32
> > it's quite obvious.
> >
> > As for 48x48 and 64x64, it seems the thicker original stroke results in
> > a washed-out looking stroke in the inner part of the C, just below the
> > wedge. Can you get rid of that washed-out look?
> 
> I see what you mean. I think it's because the scaled-down stroke is
> less than a pixel wide in theory, but due to its position it ends up
> being divided between two pixel lines, so you get a two-pixel darkish
> grey instead of a one-pixel light grey. Fixing this would require
> redrawing the C at the high resolution in such a way that it maps to
> whole pixels when scaling down. I'm afraid that's beyond my pay grade
> though. Warren, if you've got any more spare time to spend on this ...
> 
> Meanwhile, attached is the same again but with the 48x48 from your
> current icon, and a 64x64 scaled down from your 256x256, because I
> didn't like the C in the current 64x64 being bigger in relation to the
> terminal frame than at the other sizes. The stroke probably is a bit
> too dark though ...

I created a new 64x64 icon with smaller C.  Other than that I made
a longish comparison of the small 16x16 and 24x24 icons on various
backgrounds, and in contrast to what I said above, I think I prefer
the slightly darker frames.

Please have a look at http://cygwin.de/cygwin-terminal-beveled.ico.
I think that should really do it.

> >> > Maybe a terminal or a setup box with just a green wedge?
> >>
> >> Hmm, interesting idea. Attempt attached, with wedge-in-terminal
> >> instead of the standalone logo at 16x16 and 24x24. I think I prefer
> >> the logo though.
> >
> > What?  They are cute!  I like them a lot.  I'd like do the same with the
> > setup icon.
> 
> I still prefer the logo there because it provides a good connection
> between the 16x16 window icon and the 32x32 taskbar icon on Vista/7,
> as the logo is the same in both. Also, the logo is rather well
> established, whereas the green wedge on its own wouldn't necessarily
> be recognised as representing Cygwin.

I agree.  I tried that on the setup boxes and it just didn't look good.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Andy Koppe]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2166 bytes --]

On 16 August 2011 10:08, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 15 20:46, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> On 14 August 2011 12:12, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> > Your attempts at 16x16, 24x24, and 32x32 definitely look better than
>> > mine.  Also, somehow I seem to have broken the terminal frame in 32x32.
>> > I didn't notice that before, but in direct comparison with your 32x32
>> > it's quite obvious.
>> >
>> > As for 48x48 and 64x64, it seems the thicker original stroke results in
>> > a washed-out looking stroke in the inner part of the C, just below the
>> > wedge. Can you get rid of that washed-out look?
>>
>> I see what you mean. I think it's because the scaled-down stroke is
>> less than a pixel wide in theory, but due to its position it ends up
>> being divided between two pixel lines, so you get a two-pixel darkish
>> grey instead of a one-pixel light grey. Fixing this would require
>> redrawing the C at the high resolution in such a way that it maps to
>> whole pixels when scaling down. I'm afraid that's beyond my pay grade
>> though. Warren, if you've got any more spare time to spend on this ...
>>
>> Meanwhile, attached is the same again but with the 48x48 from your
>> current icon, and a 64x64 scaled down from your 256x256, because I
>> didn't like the C in the current 64x64 being bigger in relation to the
>> terminal frame than at the other sizes. The stroke probably is a bit
>> too dark though ...
>
> I created a new 64x64 icon with smaller C.  Other than that I made
> a longish comparison of the small 16x16 and 24x24 icons on various
> backgrounds, and in contrast to what I said above, I think I prefer
> the slightly darker frames.

Fair enough. Compared to "mine" though it looks a bit rougher around
the edges when used in a mintty window frame with dark background. In
particular, some of the corner pixels stick out and the wedge has more
pronounced stepping. (See attached pic.)

I wonder whether this is due to resizing algorithm. Can you be
bothered to try different scaling algorithms, or send me the orignal
so I can have a go with Paint.net (which says it uses
"supersampling")?

Andy

[-- Attachment #2: compare.png.gz --]
[-- Type: application/x-gzip, Size: 2303 bytes --]

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 16 15:16, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 16 August 2011 10:08, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > I created a new 64x64 icon with smaller C.  Other than that I made
> > a longish comparison of the small 16x16 and 24x24 icons on various
> > backgrounds, and in contrast to what I said above, I think I prefer
> > the slightly darker frames.
> 
> Fair enough. Compared to "mine" though it looks a bit rougher around
> the edges when used in a mintty window frame with dark background. In
> particular, some of the corner pixels stick out and the wedge has more
> pronounced stepping. (See attached pic.)

Sorry, but I really don't see that.  Not in that size.  Do I need specs?

> I wonder whether this is due to resizing algorithm. Can you be
> bothered to try different scaling algorithms, or send me the orignal
> so I can have a go with Paint.net (which says it uses
> "supersampling")?

I don't have an original other that what Warren sent:

  http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled-noshadow-rasterized.xcf
  http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled-for-small-composites.xcf

Everything I did with the C I did from there.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Andy Koppe]

On 16 August 2011 15:31, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 16 15:16, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> On 16 August 2011 10:08, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> > I created a new 64x64 icon with smaller C.  Other than that I made
>> > a longish comparison of the small 16x16 and 24x24 icons on various
>> > backgrounds, and in contrast to what I said above, I think I prefer
>> > the slightly darker frames.
>>
>> Fair enough. Compared to "mine" though it looks a bit rougher around
>> the edges when used in a mintty window frame with dark background. In
>> particular, some of the corner pixels stick out and the wedge has more
>> pronounced stepping. (See attached pic.)
>
> Sorry, but I really don't see that.  Not in that size.  Do I need specs?

Aliasing is in the eye of the beholder. Or something. ;)

>
>> I wonder whether this is due to resizing algorithm. Can you be
>> bothered to try different scaling algorithms, or send me the orignal
>> so I can have a go with Paint.net (which says it uses
>> "supersampling")?
>
> I don't have an original other that what Warren sent:
>
>  http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled-noshadow-rasterized.xcf
>  http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled-for-small-composites.xcf
>
> Everything I did with the C I did from there.

Sorry, I meant the image before scaling, but including your changes.
I'm not sure I could recreate them exactly (and it would take more
time).

Andy

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 16 19:40, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 16 August 2011 15:31, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > I don't have an original other that what Warren sent:
> >
> >  http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled-noshadow-rasterized.xcf
> >  http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled-for-small-composites.xcf
> >
> > Everything I did with the C I did from there.
> 
> Sorry, I meant the image before scaling, but including your changes.

I don't have that, sorry.  I did everything on the fly and created the
icon set from the aforementioned files.  Typically I created the grey
strokes by lowering the luminiscence to -20, -30, -40, but I can't
tell which size got exactly which value.

Apart from that, I'm quite happy with the icons as they are.  Any
further change would be very small and barely visible.  I don't think
it's worth the effort.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 8/12/2011 12:59 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 11 15:06, Warren Young wrote:
>> I haven't forgotten about my attempt, by the way.  It's just become
>> a bigger project than anticipated.  I guess you're not waiting on
>> me, which is fine.
>
> No, no, I'm curious.

I present to you now, my magnum opus:

	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/boxed-hippo.ico

Now *that*, my friends, is an angry hippo.

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Chris Sutcliffe]

On 15/08/2011 1:52 PM, Warren Young wrote:
> I present to you now, my magnum opus:
>
>     http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/boxed-hippo.ico
>
> Now *that*, my friends, is an angry hippo.

When I try to grab the file I get an error stating it's malformed.

Chris

-- 
Chris Sutcliffe
ir0nh34d@gmail.com

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 8/15/2011 11:58 AM, Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
> On 15/08/2011 1:52 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>> I present to you now, my magnum opus:
>>
>> http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/boxed-hippo.ico
>>
>> Now *that*, my friends, is an angry hippo.
>
> When I try to grab the file I get an error stating it's malformed.

You're trying to open it in Firefox, which doesn't understand PNG icons. 
  Open it in IE, or download it and open it with Windows' picture viewer.

(If you have in the past looked at .ico files in this thread, it 
probably worked because the file contained at least one standard format 
icon in the bundle.  The one I just posted has no smaller sizes, because 
I just wanted to get it out there before messing about with making 
smaller versions.)

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Andy Koppe]

On 15 August 2011 18:52, Warren Young wrote:
> I present to you now, my magnum opus:
>
>        http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/boxed-hippo.ico
>
> Now *that*, my friends, is an angry hippo.

:)

That is rather impressive, and yep, that's not a happy hippo.

Is this just for fun or are you proposing this at the setup.exe icon,
in which case of course it would need further effort to make it work
at small sizes.

Andy

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 8/15/2011 1:52 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 15 August 2011 18:52, Warren Young wrote:
>> I present to you now, my magnum opus:
>>
>>         http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/boxed-hippo.ico
>>
>> Now *that*, my friends, is an angry hippo.
>
> :)
>
> That is rather impressive, and yep, that's not a happy hippo.
>
> Is this just for fun or are you proposing this at the setup.exe icon,

A bit of both.

> in which case of course it would need further effort to make it work
> at small sizes.

If this does win out over the current gray box icon, I'd say it should 
be used as-is for 256 px, and can probably be made legible at 48 px.  At 
smaller sizes, I'd say the hippo will have to be evicted from the box. 
I'll leave as an open question whether the 32 px and below icons become 
hippo heads, or empty boxes, or C logos, or...

This is posed 3D art, so now that I have the assets, I can re-pose and 
make new renderings fairly easily.  About 90% of the effort of getting 
here was just bringing all the pieces together.

I don't think this replaces the newly finalized C logo on the first 
setup.exe wizard page.  I think the box motif works best for the .exe 
itself, the thing you click on to start unpacking things.

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 15 15:09, Warren Young wrote:
> On 8/15/2011 1:52 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
> >On 15 August 2011 18:52, Warren Young wrote:
> >>I present to you now, my magnum opus:
> >>
> >>        http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/boxed-hippo.ico
> >>
> >>Now *that*, my friends, is an angry hippo.
> >
> >:)
> >
> >That is rather impressive, and yep, that's not a happy hippo.
> >
> >Is this just for fun or are you proposing this at the setup.exe icon,
> 
> A bit of both.
> 
> >in which case of course it would need further effort to make it work
> >at small sizes.
> 
> If this does win out over the current gray box icon, I'd say it
> should be used as-is for 256 px, and can probably be made legible at
> 48 px.  At smaller sizes, I'd say the hippo will have to be evicted
> from the box. I'll leave as an open question whether the 32 px and
> below icons become hippo heads, or empty boxes, or C logos, or...

The problem for me is that the Cygwin C is only a sidenote now, and
that it lost its color.  The C is the central brand, so it should have
a matching exposition.  Only few users will see the 256x256 version of
the icon, most will see the 32x32 or 48x48, and in these cases the
simple box with C is clearer afaics.

> This is posed 3D art, so now that I have the assets, I can re-pose
> and make new renderings fairly easily.  About 90% of the effort of
> getting here was just bringing all the pieces together.
> 
> I don't think this replaces the newly finalized C logo on the first
> setup.exe wizard page.  I think the box motif works best for the
> .exe itself, the thing you click on to start unpacking things.

Not so sure about that...  http://cygwin.de/angry-hippo-setup.png
I just hope the hippo is free art.

I really like the 3D box, but I think it would be better to have a 3D
Cygwin C hopping out of the box.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 8/16/2011 2:35 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>On 15 August 2011 18:52, Warren Young wrote:
> The problem for me is that the Cygwin C is only a sidenote now, and
> that it lost its color.

On purpose.  Few cardboard boxes have full-color logos on them.

It would be trivial to bring back the color on the wedge.  I had to go 
out of my way to desaturate it for the rendering.  I may try that later.

While I could lift the box flap enough to let the entire logo show, I 
think the partial obscuration helps sell the icon's illusion.  The human 
mind is good at filling in missing bits, and gets a reward jolt when it 
figures out the mini puzzle.  Next time you're at a newsstand, observe 
how many covers have something partially obscuring the title; same reason.

In further service of selling the illusion, if I do decide to bring back 
the green on the wedge, I think I'll still keep it somewhat desaturated, 
as that's what happens when you print on kraft paper.  You rarely see 
deep black print on a cardboard box.

>> I don't think this replaces the newly finalized C logo on the first
>> setup.exe wizard page.
>
> Not so sure about that...  http://cygwin.de/angry-hippo-setup.png

That works for me, too.  I just thought you'd prefer the big C there 
instead, for branding.

Hey, here's a thought: maybe the boxed hippo is a setup.exe Easter egg. 
  Ctrl-RightShift-MiddleClick on a Thursday kind of thing.

> I just hope the hippo is free art.

The licenses and ownership of all the pieces that went into the 
rendering allow me to provide renders to the project free and clear.

The hippo model is free in the same way most fonts are free: I can't 
legally give you copies of the mesh and textures, but I can produce as 
many pixels as I'd like using it, and donate those pixels to an open 
source software project.  See section 4 in the DAZ content EULA:

	http://www.daz3d.com/sections/aboutus/eula/EULA_Content.pdf

If you want your own copy of the model, it's inexpensive:

	http://www.daz3d.com/i.x/shop/itemdetails/-/?item=4140

One could ask DAZ for a license to the mesh for the project, but I don't 
see that we really *need* that.  Rendered pixels are what we're really 
after, no?  Once we settle on the details, I can make nice high-res 
renders that would be free for future remixing.

The program you need to pose the model is free-as-in-beer for now:

	http://www.daz3d.com/i/software/daz_studio

It will go up to $50 soon, but DAZ says they'll be releasing a "light" 
version that may suit concurrently.  (Reference: http://goo.gl/auQsp)

(If you have any interest in playing with 3D, by the way, it's worth 
spending an evening playing with DAZ Studio.  Play with Google SketchUp, 
too.  Continue to ignore Blender. >:) )

If someone wants it, I can give out the DAZ Studio pose preset for the 
hippo.  With it, a single click will pose the model the way I did for my 
render.

I made the cardboard box model, and will give it to anyone who asks.

The cardboard texture is a heavily-hacked version of this photo:

	http://flic.kr/p/5EYA5Y

My version evens out the lighting and removes the distortion in order to 
make it a seamless texture.  I recolored it as part of that process.

The original is licensed CC-by 2.0.  My read of the license is that I 
can probably give out my version, since it's different enough to qualify 
as remixed art.  Attribution shouldn't be a problem, since the 
photographer disclaims the need for it on the photo's Flickr page. 
(You're being attributed here and now, Jacob Gube!)

The recycle icon on the box's front is like the hippo model: I can't 
give you the vectors, but anyone with a dingbat font installed probably 
has a direct substitute on hand.  I suppose it would be legal to give 
out the raster texture I made from the vectors.

So, bottom line, yes, some non-free software and non-free assets went 
into this composition.  But if you're still feeling your RMS senses 
tingling, ask yourself this: if I had managed to photograph this scene 
instead, would you be insisting that I provide[*] copies of my camera, 
the box, and the hippo before you could use the photo?

[*] For a reasonable shipping charge as provided under section 1 of the 
GPL v3, of course, insofar as shipping a hippo is reasonable.

> I really like the 3D box, but I think it would be better to have a 3D
> Cygwin C hopping out of the box.

I can give that a try, too.

But dang it, I *like* the angry hippo. >:)

Maybe the box art stays the same, and both a hippo *and* a beveled 
Cygwin logo are flying out of it...hmmmm...

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 16 13:28, Warren Young wrote:
> On 8/16/2011 2:35 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>On 15 August 2011 18:52, Warren Young wrote:
> >The problem for me is that the Cygwin C is only a sidenote now, and
> >that it lost its color.
> 
> On purpose.  Few cardboard boxes have full-color logos on them.

Sure.  The problem is that it's on the cardbox.  If it's on the
cardbox as is, and also jumps out of the box in color, that would
be quite different.

> While I could lift the box flap enough to let the entire logo show,
> I think the partial obscuration helps sell the icon's illusion.  The

Yep, that's nice.  I wouldn't change that.

> >>I don't think this replaces the newly finalized C logo on the first
> >>setup.exe wizard page.
> >
> >Not so sure about that...  http://cygwin.de/angry-hippo-setup.png
> 
> That works for me, too.  I just thought you'd prefer the big C there
> instead, for branding.

Actually, I don't think this icon is really feasible as an application
icon.  It's too detailed.  However, it would be fun to have a big logo
using the card box with a big 3D Cygwin C jumping out of the box on
the setup start screen.  The icon would not have to be exactly square
either.  As you can see, there's an area of about 150x260 pixel on the
left side of the splash screen, which can be used for the icon.  Maybe
if it looks like the C is bigger than the box and inflates while it
jumps out...

> >I just hope the hippo is free art.
> 
> The licenses and ownership of all the pieces that went into the
> rendering allow me to provide renders to the project free and clear.
> 
> The hippo model is free in the same way most fonts are free: I can't
> legally give you copies of the mesh and textures, but I can produce
> as many pixels as I'd like using it, and donate those pixels to an
> open source software project.  See section 4 in the DAZ content
> EULA:
> 
> 	http://www.daz3d.com/sections/aboutus/eula/EULA_Content.pdf
> 
> If you want your own copy of the model, it's inexpensive:
> 
> 	http://www.daz3d.com/i.x/shop/itemdetails/-/?item=4140

Hmm.  That's not exactly what I understand as free or open license.  The
paragraph 4 doesn't sound good to me.  In fact, I removed all traces of
the boxed hippo from my machines after reading that.

> The cardboard texture is a heavily-hacked version of this photo:
> 
> 	http://flic.kr/p/5EYA5Y
> 
> My version evens out the lighting and removes the distortion in
> order to make it a seamless texture.  I recolored it as part of that
> process.
> 
> The original is licensed CC-by 2.0.  My read of the license is that
> I can probably give out my version, since it's different enough to
> qualify as remixed art.  Attribution shouldn't be a problem, since
> the photographer disclaims the need for it on the photo's Flickr
> page. (You're being attributed here and now, Jacob Gube!)

That's fine.

> The recycle icon on the box's front is like the hippo model: I can't
> give you the vectors, but anyone with a dingbat font installed
> probably has a direct substitute on hand.  I suppose it would be
> legal to give out the raster texture I made from the vectors.

Is there a chance to replace that?

> So, bottom line, yes, some non-free software and non-free assets
> went into this composition.  But if you're still feeling your RMS
> senses tingling, ask yourself this: if I had managed to photograph
> this scene instead, would you be insisting that I provide[*] copies
> of my camera, the box, and the hippo before you could use the photo?

That's not really the same.  Copyright problems are something we should
avoid like the devil avoids holy water.  This is lawyer's playfield and
I have not enough training to play this game.  Therefore I rather not
have any of the DAZ art as part of this project.

> >I really like the 3D box, but I think it would be better to have a 3D
> >Cygwin C hopping out of the box.
> 
> I can give that a try, too.

That would be cool

> But dang it, I *like* the angry hippo. >:)

Yeah, but the potential price is too high.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Charles Wilson]

On 8/17/2011 11:46 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 16 13:28, Warren Young wrote:
>> The hippo model is free in the same way most fonts are free: I can't
>> legally give you copies of the mesh and textures, but I can produce
>> as many pixels as I'd like using it, and donate those pixels to an
>> open source software project.  See section 4 in the DAZ content
>> EULA:
>>
>> 	http://www.daz3d.com/sections/aboutus/eula/EULA_Content.pdf
> 
> Hmm.  That's not exactly what I understand as free or open license.  The
> paragraph 4 doesn't sound good to me.  In fact, I removed all traces of
> the boxed hippo from my machines after reading that.

Well, it seems clear that the 3D mesh is not libre at all, nor gratis.
However, 2D images created FROM the 3D mesh appear themselves to be
gratis at the least, and maybe libre *enough*, since the paragraph
related to them is concerned solely with the ability to (re)extract the
3D mesh.  Otherwise, you're allowed to do whatever you want with the 2D
renders:

> You may (i) access, use, copy and modify the 3-D Models stored on
> such computers at such single location in the creation and
> presentation of animations and renderings which may require runtime
> access to the 3-D Model(s), and (ii) incorporate two dimensional
> images (including two dimensional images that simulate motion of
> three dimensional objects) derived from the 3-D Model(s) in other
> works and publish, market, distribute, transfer, sell or sublicense
> such combined works; provided that you may not in any case: (a)
> separately publish, market, distribute, transfer, sell or sublicense
> any 3-D Model(s) or any part thereof; or (b) publish, market,
> distribute, transfer, sell or sublicense renderings, animations,
> software applications, data or any other product from which any
> original 3-D Model(s), or any part thereof, or any substantially
> similar version of the original 3-D Model(s) can be separately
> exported, extracted, or de-compiled into any re-distributable form or
> format. Subject to the foregoing limitations, and the rights, if any,
> of third parties in or to the objects represented by the 3-D
> Model(s), you may copy, distribute, and/or sell your animations and
> renderings derived from the 3-D Model(s). All other rights with
> respect to the 3-D Model(s) and their use are reserved to DAZ3D (and
> its licensors).

cardboard box: no issues.

>> The recycle icon on the box's front is like the hippo model: I can't
>> give you the vectors, but anyone with a dingbat font installed
>> probably has a direct substitute on hand.  I suppose it would be
>> legal to give out the raster texture I made from the vectors.
> 
> Is there a chance to replace that?

Dunno about this. What are the licensing restrictions on the recycle
vectors -- are they also DAZ (and thus, 2D rasters are covered according
to the license snippet above), or some other source?  A raster is a
derived work, so would be subject to copyright issues unless
specifically allowed, like the DAZ license appears to do w.r.t. 2D renders.

> That's not really the same.  Copyright problems are something we should
> avoid like the devil avoids holy water.  This is lawyer's playfield and
> I have not enough training to play this game.  Therefore I rather not
> have any of the DAZ art as part of this project.

Well, we can always ask redhat-legal about Warren's 2D rendered art,
given the DAZ license... Obviously the 3D mesh is Not Free At All,
Precious, so we'd need to avoid THAT.  But Warren has all the rights and
privileges associated with his purchase, so...

>>> I really like the 3D box, but I think it would be better to have a 3D
>>> Cygwin C hopping out of the box.
>>
>> I can give that a try, too.
> 
> That would be cool
> 
>> But dang it, I *like* the angry hippo. >:)
> 
> Yeah, but the potential price is too high.

Before tossing the whole idea, I'd rather get an expert opinion if one
is available.  To this layman, reading the snippet above, it sure seems
like Warren is correct: his 2D renders of #angryhippo are freely
redistributable, and because they can't feasibly be used to extract the
3D mesh, there's really no way TO violate the distribution terms above.
 Now, I'm not sure what license that allows US to slap on OUR derived
work...can we really do a CC-by-SA or GPLvN? I dunno...

I ask, because I'd consider adding some of the alternate designs to
cygicons.dll even if they are not ultimately chosen for setup.exe or the
"official" mintty-cygwin shortcut.  But only if they carry a free
(copyleft [GPL, CC-by-*, etc] or permissive [MIT, BSD, etc]) license.

--
Chuck

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 17 15:02, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 8/17/2011 11:46 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Aug 16 13:28, Warren Young wrote:
> >> The hippo model is free in the same way most fonts are free: I can't
> >> legally give you copies of the mesh and textures, but I can produce
> >> as many pixels as I'd like using it, and donate those pixels to an
> >> open source software project.  See section 4 in the DAZ content
> >> EULA:
> >>
> >> 	http://www.daz3d.com/sections/aboutus/eula/EULA_Content.pdf
> > 
> > Hmm.  That's not exactly what I understand as free or open license.  The
> > paragraph 4 doesn't sound good to me.  In fact, I removed all traces of
> > the boxed hippo from my machines after reading that.
> 
> Well, it seems clear that the 3D mesh is not libre at all, nor gratis.
> However, 2D images created FROM the 3D mesh appear themselves to be
> gratis at the least, and maybe libre *enough*, since the paragraph
> related to them is concerned solely with the ability to (re)extract the
> 3D mesh.  Otherwise, you're allowed to do whatever you want with the 2D
> renders:

Maybe, but as a non-licensee I'm not feeling overly well if the source
of the stuff is non-free.  To me that's not quite what I think of "open
source", and that's what this project is about.  Also:

> > Subject to the foregoing limitations, and the rights, if any,
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > of third parties in or to the objects represented by the 3-D
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Model(s), you may copy, distribute, and/or sell your animations and
    ^^^^^^^^
> > renderings derived from the 3-D Model(s). All other rights with
> > respect to the 3-D Model(s) and their use are reserved to DAZ3D (and
> > its licensors).

> > That's not really the same.  Copyright problems are something we should
> > avoid like the devil avoids holy water.  This is lawyer's playfield and
> > I have not enough training to play this game.  Therefore I rather not
> > have any of the DAZ art as part of this project.
> 
> Well, we can always ask redhat-legal about Warren's 2D rendered art,
> given the DAZ license...

I can do that, but it may take time.

> Before tossing the whole idea, I'd rather get an expert opinion if one
> is available.  To this layman, reading the snippet above, it sure seems
> like Warren is correct: his 2D renders of #angryhippo are freely
> redistributable, and because they can't feasibly be used to extract the
> 3D mesh, there's really no way TO violate the distribution terms above.
>  Now, I'm not sure what license that allows US to slap on OUR derived
> work...can we really do a CC-by-SA or GPLvN? I dunno...

Right, this point isn't answered by the original license.  "You may
copy, distribute, sell", but for some reason it does not talk about
"sublicense" anymore when it comes to distributing or sell the art.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: setup.exe opening page graphic

[Warren Young]

On 8/17/2011 9:46 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 16 13:28, Warren Young wrote:
>
> it would be fun to have a big logo
> using the card box with a big 3D Cygwin C jumping out of the box on
> the setup start screen.

Like this?

	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/from-box/animation.webm

If you don't have a WebM player (Firefox, Chrome, probably VLC and 
MPlayer...), here's the much-bigger uncompressed AVI file:

	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/from-box/animation.avi

If you don't want to add an animation to setup.exe -- which would be 
spiffy, IMHO -- you can pick an individual frame from that same 
directory on our web server.  I can apply treatments like motion blur to 
bring back some of the feel of an animation:

	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/from-box/frame0009-mblur.png

Notice that there is no floor under the box in this still frame, and no 
infinite void beyond.  That's the intended presentation, so it blends 
into the dialog background.

I can do the same for the animation, too.  The environment pieces have 
to be there during rendering for various technical reasons that would be 
boring to explain.  I've made masking them out after the fact possible, 
but at 15 fps x 1 second, it's more work than I want to go into right 
now for the animations and stills.

>> The licenses and ownership of all the pieces that went into the
>> rendering allow me to provide renders to the project free and clear.
>
> Hmm.  That's not exactly what I understand as free or open license.

Unless you feel the Cygwin project must have the 3D model, I don't see 
that it has to be purely open source itself.

The entire publishing industry is based on content licenses like the DAZ 
one behaving as I claim.  Fonts, clipart, stock photos, etc. all depend 
on this sort of license.

>> The recycle icon on the box's front is like the hippo model: I can't
>> give you the vectors, but anyone with a dingbat font installed
>> probably has a direct substitute on hand.  I suppose it would be
>> legal to give out the raster texture I made from the vectors.
>
> Is there a chance to replace that?

Okay, fine.  I'm using this now:

	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recycling_symbol.svg

You can also find it at U+267B in some free fonts, such as DejaVu.

Re: setup.exe opening page graphic

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 18 15:07, Warren Young wrote:
> On 8/17/2011 9:46 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Aug 16 13:28, Warren Young wrote:
> >
> >it would be fun to have a big logo
> >using the card box with a big 3D Cygwin C jumping out of the box on
> >the setup start screen.
> 
> Like this?
> 
> 	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/from-box/animation.webm

Pretty much like this :)

> If you don't want to add an animation to setup.exe -- which would be
> spiffy, IMHO -- you can pick an individual frame from that same
> directory on our web server.  I can apply treatments like motion
> blur to bring back some of the feel of an animation:
> 
> 	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/from-box/frame0009-mblur.png
> 
> Notice that there is no floor under the box in this still frame, and
> no infinite void beyond.  That's the intended presentation, so it
> blends into the dialog background.

Cool!  Here's how it looks like in the setup dialog:

  http://cygwin.de/cygwin-splash.png

> I can do the same for the animation, too.

I have not the faintest idea how to include an animation in a standard
MFC dialog.  Does MFC grok animated gif's in icon files?

Apart from that, I really like the still and I would be content with
it... except... the C jumping out of the box doesn't have this beveled
look, like all other icons have now :}


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: setup.exe opening page graphic

[Warren Young]

On 8/19/2011 9:39 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Aug 18 15:07, Warren Young wrote:
> Cool!  Here's how it looks like in the setup dialog:
>
>    http://cygwin.de/cygwin-splash.png

The faux motion blur should taper to match the logo's expansion.  Going 
straight down as it does now is optically incorrect.  I will fix this on 
future treated stills.

>> I can do the same for the animation, too.
>
> I have not the faintest idea how to include an animation in a standard
> MFC dialog.  Does MFC grok animated gif's in icon files?

setup.exe doesn't use MFC.  It's a straight-to-the-API program.  MFC is 
a Visual C++ Professional feature.

You don't want to use GIF.  It would more than double the current size 
of setup.exe, and it looks horrid besides:

	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/from-box/animation.gif

Knocking out the background will lower the size and remove some of the 
color artifacts, but it'll still be too big and too ugly.

PNG frames animated using a 66 ms SetTimer() won't work, either.  It 
adds 340 KB to setup.exe, and then only if Windows' built-in PNG decoder 
can handle transparency.  Given that IE6 doesn't do PNG transparency 
correctly and it's contemporaneous with XP, I think you'd end up 
statically linking setup.exe to libpng to fix this, again roughly 
doubling setup.exe's size.

Shipping BMPs is a complete no-go.  15 RGBA frames cost 2.3 MB.

IMHO, the right way is to use DirectShow along with a proper video 
codec.  XP shipped with WMV7 and MPEG-2 decoders, which get the 
animation down to about 60 KB:

	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/from-box/animation.asf
	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/from-box/animation.m2v

It looks like w32api might have the definitions needed for this.  I see 
w32api/dvdmedia.h, for setting up an MPEG-2 decode, for instance.

These links may be of some help:

	http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd375468%28VS.85%29.aspx
	http://stackoverflow.com/questions/530998/

I realize that DirectShow is a bit of a bear to set up, but keep in mind 
the space savings.  Ignoring the SHTDI problem, the only way DirectShow 
isn't a net win is if it costs hundreds of KB of compiled code to set 
up.  There's no way that's true.

> Apart from that, I really like the still and I would be content with
> it... except... the C jumping out of the box doesn't have this beveled
> look, like all other icons have now :}

I can bevel it, but I hope you aren't expecting the exact same look. 
The 3D render is made in a photo-realistic studio environment, which is 
going to give a much different result than Photoshop's highly idealized 
2D bevel filter.

Do you want me to try to match the look, or were you just hoping to see 
highlights and bent studio light reflections so that the animation 
suggests the logo has the same shape as in the 2D art?

Re: setup.exe opening page graphic

[Warren Young]

On 8/19/2011 4:23 PM, Warren Young wrote:
> These links may be of some help:
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd375468%28VS.85%29.aspx
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/530998/

Forgot one:

	http://www.codeproject.com/KB/audio-video/DS_Player.aspx

Re: setup.exe opening page graphic

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 19 16:23, Warren Young wrote:
> On 8/19/2011 9:39 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>On Aug 18 15:07, Warren Young wrote:
> >Cool!  Here's how it looks like in the setup dialog:
> >
> >   http://cygwin.de/cygwin-splash.png
> 
> The faux motion blur should taper to match the logo's expansion.
> Going straight down as it does now is optically incorrect.  I will
> fix this on future treated stills.
> [...]
> >I have not the faintest idea how to include an animation in a standard
> >MFC dialog.  Does MFC grok animated gif's in icon files?
> 
> setup.exe doesn't use MFC.  It's a straight-to-the-API program.  MFC
> is a Visual C++ Professional feature.

Oh, right.

> You don't want to use GIF.  It would more than double the current
> size of setup.exe, and it looks horrid besides:
> 
> 	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/from-box/animation.gif

Gosh, that looks terrible.  Are GIFs always so low on colors?  And
are they always running in a (much too fast) loop?

> [...more on animations...]

I think this is getting too complicated.  I'd rather opt for the still
picture, that's something everyone can handle, even if barely.

> >Apart from that, I really like the still and I would be content with
> >it... except... the C jumping out of the box doesn't have this beveled
> >look, like all other icons have now :}
> 
> I can bevel it, but I hope you aren't expecting the exact same look.
> The 3D render is made in a photo-realistic studio environment, which
> is going to give a much different result than Photoshop's highly
> idealized 2D bevel filter.
> 
> Do you want me to try to match the look, or were you just hoping to
> see highlights and bent studio light reflections so that the
> animation suggests the logo has the same shape as in the 2D art?

The latter.  Please keep in mind that I can't imagine how much work
that is, so if I'm asking too much, just say so.

IMHO, a beveled C just so that it resembles the 2D art, and the surface
a bit less polished, kind of semi-glossy, would be fine.  Does that
sound ok?

Btw., I asked our legal dept about licensing implications due to using
derived art from the DAZ models.  I'll keep you informed when I get a
reply, but that can take a while.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: setup.exe opening page graphic

[Warren Young]

On 8/20/2011 5:16 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Are GIFs always so low on colors?

Yes.  GIF is limited to a 256-color palette.  It's a hard technical 
limit of the format, and was one of the driving forces behind the PNG 
development effort.

Animation makes it worse because all the frames share a single palette. 
  This is why the first frame has green casts in the shadows even 
though, in the renders, frame 0 has no green: there's a fair bit of 
green in the overall animation, so the color quantization algorithm 
included some in the global palette, and that then happened to be the 
closest color when quantizing this particular frame's shadows.

I used ffmpeg to create that GIF animation, but that really isn't its 
forté.  A lot of programmer brain power got thrown at the problem of 
improving GIF animation back in the bad old Web 1.0 days, before PNG and 
Flash took over the world.  Photoshop does a lot better:

	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/from-box/animation2.gif

The color casts are gone, the dithering is gone, and the frame rate is 
fixed.  Also, I went ahead and applied the background masks, which as 
predicted made the animation a lot smaller.

animation2.gif is about 1/6 the size of animation.gif, but that's still 
41% bigger than the MPEG-2 version and twice as big as the WMV7.  I 
think Photoshop's given us as much space savings and made as good a use 
of the limited box of crayons as we can reasonably hope for.

Given that, I'd still prefer that someone decide to take on the 
DirectShow challenge.  I don't think it would be much harder than 
getting a GIF animation to show in setup.exe using only the Windows API; 
I think you'd have to embed IE, which is also a COMmy mess.

> are they always running in a (much too fast) loop?

No, that's just a bug in the program I used to create it.  The new 
version linked above fixes this.

> Btw., I asked our legal dept about licensing implications due to using
> derived art from the DAZ models.

Thank you!

Re: setup.exe opening page graphic

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 22 12:36, Warren Young wrote:
> On 8/20/2011 5:16 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >Are GIFs always so low on colors?
> 
> Yes.  GIF is limited to a 256-color palette.  It's a hard technical
> limit of the format, and was one of the driving forces behind the
> PNG development effort.
> 
> Animation makes it worse because all the frames share a single
> palette.  This is why the first frame has green casts in the shadows
> even though, in the renders, frame 0 has no green: there's a fair
> bit of green in the overall animation, so the color quantization
> algorithm included some in the global palette, and that then
> happened to be the closest color when quantizing this particular
> frame's shadows.
> 
> I used ffmpeg to create that GIF animation, but that really isn't
> its forté.  A lot of programmer brain power got thrown at the
> problem of improving GIF animation back in the bad old Web 1.0 days,
> before PNG and Flash took over the world.  Photoshop does a lot
> better:
> 
> 	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/from-box/animation2.gif
> 
> The color casts are gone, the dithering is gone, and the frame rate
> is fixed.  Also, I went ahead and applied the background masks,
> which as predicted made the animation a lot smaller.

That looks much better, I just don't know how to display it in a dialog.

> animation2.gif is about 1/6 the size of animation.gif, but that's
> still 41% bigger than the MPEG-2 version and twice as big as the
> WMV7.  I think Photoshop's given us as much space savings and made
> as good a use of the limited box of crayons as we can reasonably
> hope for.
> 
> Given that, I'd still prefer that someone decide to take on the
> DirectShow challenge.  I don't think it would be much harder than
> getting a GIF animation to show in setup.exe using only the Windows
> API; I think you'd have to embed IE, which is also a COMmy mess.

Not me, sorry.  I found a way to show a .avi file or a AVI resource in 
the dialog, it's just a couple of lines of code:

  HWND anim = Animate_Create (GetHWND (), IDC_AVI_CTRL,
                              WS_BORDER | WS_CHILD, GetModuleHandle (NULL));
  RECT rc;
  GetWindowRect (GetDlgItem (GetHWND (), IDC_AVI_BOX), &rc);
  POINT pt = { x: rc.left, y: rc.top };
  ScreenToClient (GetHWND (), &pt);
  SetWindowPos (anim, 0, pt.x, pt.y, 150, 260, SWP_NOZORDER | SWP_DRAWFRAME);
  if (Animate_Open (anim, MAKEINTRESOURCE (IDV_ANIM_AVI)))
    {
      ShowWindow (anim, SW_SHOW);
      Animate_Play (anim, 0, -1, 1);
    }
 
But there are two problems:

- For some reason it works fine to run some MSFT-provided AVI, but
  Animate_Open fails for the avi file you sent to this list a few
  days ago.

- The AVI resource is twice as big as the rest of setup.exe.

So I'd still love to see a still with a beveled, less glossy C, if
that's ok with you...


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: setup.exe opening page graphic

[Corinna Vinschen]

Hi Warren,

On Aug 23 16:14, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 22 12:36, Warren Young wrote:
> > Given that, I'd still prefer that someone decide to take on the
> > DirectShow challenge.  I don't think it would be much harder than
> > getting a GIF animation to show in setup.exe using only the Windows
> > API; I think you'd have to embed IE, which is also a COMmy mess.
> 
> Not me, sorry.  I found a way to show a .avi file or a AVI resource in 
> the dialog, it's just a couple of lines of code:
> 
>   HWND anim = Animate_Create (GetHWND (), IDC_AVI_CTRL,
>                               WS_BORDER | WS_CHILD, GetModuleHandle (NULL));
>   RECT rc;
>   GetWindowRect (GetDlgItem (GetHWND (), IDC_AVI_BOX), &rc);
>   POINT pt = { x: rc.left, y: rc.top };
>   ScreenToClient (GetHWND (), &pt);
>   SetWindowPos (anim, 0, pt.x, pt.y, 150, 260, SWP_NOZORDER | SWP_DRAWFRAME);
>   if (Animate_Open (anim, MAKEINTRESOURCE (IDV_ANIM_AVI)))
>     {
>       ShowWindow (anim, SW_SHOW);
>       Animate_Play (anim, 0, -1, 1);
>     }
>  
> But there are two problems:
> 
> - For some reason it works fine to run some MSFT-provided AVI, but
>   Animate_Open fails for the avi file you sent to this list a few
>   days ago.
> 
> - The AVI resource is twice as big as the rest of setup.exe.
> 
> So I'd still love to see a still with a beveled, less glossy C, if
> that's ok with you...

did you have a chance to look into that?


Thanks,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: setup.exe opening page graphic

[Warren Young]

On 8/30/2011 2:31 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> So I'd still love to see a still with a beveled, less glossy C, if
>> that's ok with you...
>
> did you have a chance to look into that?

Still plinking away at it, an hour or so a night, off and on.

It requires completely rebuilding the 3D model.  Unlike with Photoshop, 
there is no "make beveled" slider.  There are beveling tools in 3D, but 
the previous model wasn't built to allow it, so beveling trashes it.

Don't worry, I'll get you something eventually.

Re: setup.exe opening page graphic

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 30 13:51, Warren Young wrote:
> On 8/30/2011 2:31 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>So I'd still love to see a still with a beveled, less glossy C, if
> >>that's ok with you...
> >
> >did you have a chance to look into that?
> 
> Still plinking away at it, an hour or so a night, off and on.
> 
> It requires completely rebuilding the 3D model.  Unlike with
> Photoshop, there is no "make beveled" slider.  There are beveling
> tools in 3D, but the previous model wasn't built to allow it, so
> beveling trashes it.
> 
> Don't worry, I'll get you something eventually.

But that sounds like a lot of work.  I really thought that would be
simpler.

Here's the reply from legal:  We can use your 2D results from the DAZ
art, as long as you put your resulting work under a free license which
plays nice along the GPL.  You don't have to assign copyright to some
other entity like, say, Red Hat.

GPL or FAL(*) both sound good to me; FAL matches the intent better, I
guess.


Corinna

(*) http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: setup.exe opening page graphic

[Charles Wilson]

On 8/31/2011 5:42 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Here's the reply from legal:  We can use your 2D results from the DAZ
> art, as long as you put your resulting work under a free license which
> plays nice along the GPL.  You don't have to assign copyright to some
> other entity like, say, Red Hat.
> 
> GPL or FAL(*) both sound good to me; FAL matches the intent better, I
> guess.

YAY!!

--
Chuck

Re: setup.exe opening page graphic

[Warren Young]

On 8/31/2011 3:42 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 30 13:51, Warren Young wrote:
>> On 8/30/2011 2:31 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>> So I'd still love to see a still with a beveled, less glossy C, if
>>>> that's ok with you...
>>>
>>> did you have a chance to look into that?
>>
>> Still plinking away at it, an hour or so a night, off and on.
>>
>> It requires completely rebuilding the 3D model.
>>
>> Don't worry, I'll get you something eventually.
>
> But that sounds like a lot of work.  I really thought that would be
> simpler.

It's not really difficult.  Most of the delay comes from playing, 
procrastination, and perfectionism.

If you're trying to get something released, give me a deadline.  That 
will concentrate my efforts.

> Here's the reply from legal:  We can use your 2D results from the DAZ
> art, as long as you put your resulting work under a free license which
> plays nice along the GPL.  You don't have to assign copyright to some
> other entity like, say, Red Hat.
>
> GPL or FAL(*) both sound good to me; FAL matches the intent better, I
> guess.

Lacking any recommendation, I would have gone with some CC variant. 
I'll look into FAL first now.

If it turns out that I still like CC better, I'll check for GPL 
compatibility.  I can already rule out all the "Attribution" variants, 
for the same reason 4-clause BSD is incompatible, right?

Re: setup.exe opening page graphic

[Charles Wilson]

[moved to cygwin-licensing]

On 8/31/2011 2:48 PM, Warren Young wrote:
> Lacking any recommendation, I would have gone with some CC variant. I'll
> look into FAL first now.
> 
> If it turns out that I still like CC better, I'll check for GPL
> compatibility.  I can already rule out all the "Attribution" variants,
> for the same reason 4-clause BSD is incompatible, right?

The Creative Commons FAQ explicitly says that the CC licenses (all of
them, except CC0) are incompatible with the GPL -- but they say that in
the context of applying CC licenses to *software*.
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_use_a_Creative_Commons_license_for_software.3F

In fact, there ARE no non-attribution CC licenses anymore.  They used to
have some, back in the v1.0 days:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/
but they are now "retired" and not recommended.


OTOH, debian-legal says that CC-BY-SA v3.0 (*not* 2.0) is compatible
with the DFSG...which is not, of course, the same as saying it is GPL
compatible.
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Creative_Commons_Attribution_Share-Alike_.28CC-BY-SA.29_v3.0

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
gnu.org says that neither CC-BY-2.0 nor CC-BY-SA-2.0 are GPL compatible.
They make no statement concerning v3.0 of those licenses, but I rather
suspect the 3.0 versions are also incompatible (-BY-).


On this page:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html
FSF says "We don't take the position that artistic or entertainment
works must be free, but if you want to make one free, we recommend the
Free Art License (http://artlibre.org/licence/lalgb.html)


The basic problem is, most "strong copyleft" licenses are mutually
incompatible; this really can't be avoided because it's the part of each
license that makes it "strong" that causes the difficulty; each license
implements "strong" differently (usually by requiring derived works to
carry *the same* license: you can't do that if two different licenses
apply [*]).

[*] Dual licensed software is different: it says you can accept one OR
the other license: e.g. GPL OR MPL. GPL OR Proprietary.  Not
both-at-the-same-time.


Old article, but contains quotes from FSF legal beagles:
http://www.linux.com/archive/feed/119212
Short version: even the v3.0 CC-BY-SA licenses are probably incompatible
with the GPL.  You can get around that if your "derived work" --
software + art -- is a "mere aggregation".  So, Q: is bundling an icon
as a resource in an .exe  "mere aggregation"?


I think it CAN be -- in fact, I rely on it, in building cygicons.dll as
a "mere aggregation" of several different icons with different licenses.


OTOH, I dunno if you can plausibly make the argument that *the icon
developed specifically for setup.exe*, when linked into that exe as a
resource, it actually a "mere aggregation"!


Anyway, Corinna's email above reports that the Red Hat lawyers say the
'free license' applied to the art, must "play nice along the GPL".  If
that means specifically "compatible with", then it rules out
	CC-BY-SA-2.0, CC-BY-2.0, and all other CC-BY-* (ND, NC)
		variants except CC0
	It may -- probably does -- rule out CC-BY[-SA]-3.0
	GPL itself is problematic, given the "preferred form for
		modification" of the source requirement.  What IS that?
		I've looked over a ton of debates, incl. debian legal,
		and nobody seems to have a good answer.
	FAL -- is this really GPL compatible?
		http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Art_License
		says "no"

Section 5 of the FAL:
5. COMPATIBILITY
A license is compatible with the Free Art License provided:
it gives the right to copy, distribute, and modify copies of the work
including for commercial purposes and [1]****without any other
restrictions**** than those required by the respect of the other
compatibility criteria; it [2]****ensures proper attribution of the work
to its authors**** and access to previous versions of the work when
possible; [3]****it recognizes the Free Art License as compatible
(reciprocity);**** it requires that changes made to the work be subject
to the same license or to a license which also meets these compatibility
criteria.

I think [1], [2], and [3] might be problems:
	[1] the GPL imposes a restriction that the FAL does not: GPL
	    requires distribution of source code, while the FAL
	    requires only "access to the previous version when possible"
	[2] isn't this like the advert clause in the original BSD?
	[3] the GPL certainly doesn't make any explicit reference to
	    the the FAL, and the FSF doesn't seem to give any advisory
	    opinion on whether the THEY recognize the FAL as compatible.


But here's the elephant in the room: almost ALL discussions of license
compatibility have to do with whether *software* under one license can
be combined with *software* under another license.  E.g. GPL apple + MIT
apple.  NOT GPL apple + FAL orange.



So even though the FSF "recommends" the FAL for artistic works, they
don't say how doing so would impact a derived work created by combining
GPL software with FAL art.


I think we're actually restricted to either:
	1) the GPL -- but then there's that thorny "source" issue
	2) a permissive license, like MIT/X, 3-clause BSD, CC0/public
		domain, etc.
--
Chuck

Re: setup.exe opening page graphic

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 31 16:57, Charles Wilson wrote:
> [moved to cygwin-licensing]

Rejected.  No generic licensing discussion on cygwin-licensing, please.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: setup.exe opening page graphic

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 31 12:48, Warren Young wrote:
> On 8/31/2011 3:42 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Aug 30 13:51, Warren Young wrote:
> >>On 8/30/2011 2:31 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>>>So I'd still love to see a still with a beveled, less glossy C, if
> >>>>that's ok with you...
> >>>
> >>>did you have a chance to look into that?
> >>
> >>Still plinking away at it, an hour or so a night, off and on.
> >>
> >>It requires completely rebuilding the 3D model.
> >>
> >>Don't worry, I'll get you something eventually.
> >
> >But that sounds like a lot of work.  I really thought that would be
> >simpler.
> 
> It's not really difficult.  Most of the delay comes from playing,
> procrastination, and perfectionism.
> 
> If you're trying to get something released, give me a deadline.
> That will concentrate my efforts.
> 
> >Here's the reply from legal:  We can use your 2D results from the DAZ
> >art, as long as you put your resulting work under a free license which
> >plays nice along the GPL.  You don't have to assign copyright to some
> >other entity like, say, Red Hat.
> >
> >GPL or FAL(*) both sound good to me; FAL matches the intent better, I
> >guess.
> 
> Lacking any recommendation, I would have gone with some CC variant.
> I'll look into FAL first now.
> 
> If it turns out that I still like CC better, I'll check for GPL
> compatibility.  I can already rule out all the "Attribution"
> variants, for the same reason 4-clause BSD is incompatible, right?

BSD 4-clause is really not ok.  What's ok is a license which grants the
right to copy, yada, yada, yada, if the license doesn't require us to
add the attribution to all the affected boilerplates.

I'm not an expert in attribution requirements, but in our case that
means, if you choose some attribution license, it should be one which
allows us to keep the attribution in the sources only.  For setup.exe,
for instance, that would be the setup.exe CONTRIBUTORS file, and I would
add you to the affected ChangeLog entries.  There would be no "(C) for
the icon art: Warren Young" in the splash screen.

Having said that, you would get that for free with the GPL anyway :)


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: setup.exe opening page graphic

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Sep  1 09:26, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 31 12:48, Warren Young wrote:
> > Lacking any recommendation, I would have gone with some CC variant.
> > I'll look into FAL first now.
> > 
> > If it turns out that I still like CC better, I'll check for GPL
> > compatibility.  I can already rule out all the "Attribution"
> > variants, for the same reason 4-clause BSD is incompatible, right?
> 
> BSD 4-clause is really not ok.  What's ok is a license which grants the
> right to copy, yada, yada, yada, if the license doesn't require us to
> add the attribution to all the affected boilerplates.
> 
> I'm not an expert in attribution requirements, but in our case that
> means, if you choose some attribution license, it should be one which
> allows us to keep the attribution in the sources only.  For setup.exe,
> for instance, that would be the setup.exe CONTRIBUTORS file, and I would
> add you to the affected ChangeLog entries.  There would be no "(C) for
> the icon art: Warren Young" in the splash screen.
> 
> Having said that, you would get that for free with the GPL anyway :)

Reminder to self:  If Warren chooses a non-GPL license, add a matching
license file to the setup sources.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 15 11:52, Warren Young wrote:
> On 8/12/2011 12:59 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Aug 11 15:06, Warren Young wrote:
> >>I haven't forgotten about my attempt, by the way.  It's just become
> >>a bigger project than anticipated.  I guess you're not waiting on
> >>me, which is fine.
> >
> >No, no, I'm curious.
> 
> I present to you now, my magnum opus:
> 
> 	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/boxed-hippo.ico
> 
> Now *that*, my friends, is an angry hippo.

Boy, is she pissed.  I would be, too, if I had been confined to the box
that long.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 8/16/2011 1:50 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 15 11:52, Warren Young wrote:
>>
>> Now *that*, my friends, is an angry hippo.
>
> Boy, is she pissed.  I would be, too, if I had been confined to the box
> that long.

The other way to look at it is that she is about to be unleashed upon 
the world.  Fitting, for a setup program.

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 10 02:47, Warren Young wrote:
>     http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/terminal-with-c-aa-32.png

That's http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/mintty-icon/terminal-with-c-aa-32.png btw.

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 8/6/2011 2:28 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Is that one ok as default Cygwin icon?

Works for me.

Did you figure out your problem seeing the 256 px icon?  Was it just a 
caching issue?  If not, I wondered if reordering the icons in the 
aggregate .ico file would help, so they're sorted biggest to smallest.

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug  8 10:57, Warren Young wrote:
> On 8/6/2011 2:28 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >Is that one ok as default Cygwin icon?
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Did you figure out your problem seeing the 256 px icon?  Was it just
> a caching issue?  If not, I wondered if reordering the icons in the
> aggregate .ico file would help, so they're sorted biggest to
> smallest.

I'm not sure what problem you mean.  I can see the 256x256 icon just
fine.  Which of my mails are you referring to?  I lost track due to the
number of mails in the thread :}


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 8/8/2011 2:45 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug  8 10:57, Warren Young wrote:
>>
>> Did you figure out your problem seeing the 256 px icon?
>
> I'm not sure what problem you mean.  I can see the 256x256 icon just
> fine.

I was half-remembering this message:

	http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.os.cygwin.applications/22298

So, did you fix it, and if not, does reordering so the 256 px one is 
first help?

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug  8 16:37, Warren Young wrote:
> On 8/8/2011 2:45 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Aug  8 10:57, Warren Young wrote:
> >>
> >>Did you figure out your problem seeing the 256 px icon?
> >
> >I'm not sure what problem you mean.  I can see the 256x256 icon just
> >fine.
> 
> I was half-remembering this message:
> 
> 	http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.os.cygwin.applications/22298
> 
> So, did you fix it, and if not, does reordering so the 256 px one is
> first help?

Uh, *that* problem.  No, nothing helped.  For testing I created icon
files with only one icon, 256x256 and 64x64, but whatever I gave the
dialog to feed upon, it always ended up as a 48x48 icon.  Either it is a
restriction in this kind of dialog, or there's a bug in windres.  Or
there's a trick I don't know about.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug  9 09:17, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug  8 16:37, Warren Young wrote:
> > On 8/8/2011 2:45 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >On Aug  8 10:57, Warren Young wrote:
> > >>
> > >>Did you figure out your problem seeing the 256 px icon?
> > >
> > >I'm not sure what problem you mean.  I can see the 256x256 icon just
> > >fine.
> > 
> > I was half-remembering this message:
> > 
> > 	http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.os.cygwin.applications/22298
> > 
> > So, did you fix it, and if not, does reordering so the 256 px one is
> > first help?
> 
> Uh, *that* problem.  No, nothing helped.  For testing I created icon
> files with only one icon, 256x256 and 64x64, but whatever I gave the
> dialog to feed upon, it always ended up as a 48x48 icon.  Either it is a
> restriction in this kind of dialog, or there's a bug in windres.  Or
> there's a trick I don't know about.

Btw., note the original line in the .rc file:

  ICON   IDI_CYGWIN_SETUP,IDC_SPLASH_ICON,114,114,21,20,WS_GROUP

It sets the size of the icon to 21x20.  Nevertheless, the icon is
displayed as 48x48.  Go figure.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul 29 08:11, Warren Young wrote:
> On 7/29/2011 3:42 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Jul 29 03:14, Warren Young wrote:
> >> Is there official vector logo art I can use?
> > I don't think so, sorry.
> 
> Okay, here's my take:
> 
>     http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/traced-icon.svg
> [...]

I'm too tired today.  I'll have a look over the weekend.


Thx,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul 29 08:11, Warren Young wrote:
> On 7/29/2011 3:42 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Jul 29 03:14, Warren Young wrote:
> >> Is there official vector logo art I can use?
> > I don't think so, sorry.
> 
> Okay, here's my take:
> 
>     http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/traced-icon.svg
> 
> This should probably be archived somewhere on cygwin.com.  I won't
> guarantee hosting for it.
> 
> >I'd prefer to go for a lone C in the <= 32x32 sizes.
> 
> Here's a combined icon -- same 5 sizes as before -- based on the new
> vector logo, with the two parts individually stroked for contrast
> against both light and dark backgrounds:
> 
>     http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/stroked.ico
> 
> Here's a version with heavy chiseled bevels and shadows added:
> 
>     http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled.ico
> 
> It only includes a 256 px version, since it's too much detail to
> work at small sizes.  You'd want to fill in the smaller sizes with a
> simpler style, like the stroked C or the plain Konsole.
> 
> The bevel depth and style can of course be varied, as can the shadow
> angle, opacity, etc.  If you don't like it but can describe what
> you'd like better, I'll take a shot at creating it.

What I'd like to see is the stroked and beveled variants in 48x48 with a
light grey border of only 1 pixel, standalone, as well as in a terminal
frame.

> Here are some 3-D variants of the Cygwin logo, one inside the
> Konsole terminal frame for MinTTY, and one with the logo alone for
> broader purposes:
> 
>     http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/mintty-icon/3d.ico

In 256x256 this looks excellent, but I don't think this would work
in 48x48.

>     http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/3d.ico
> 
> Again, 256 px only, for detail reasons.
> 
> >>>What if the green glow around the black C glows a bit more?
> 
> Try this on:
> 
>     http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/glowing.ico
> 
> It's not bad, but I prefer the stroked variants.

Uh, uhm... no, that's not nice.  It looks kind of sick.

So far I like stroked and beveled, just the thick white frame is a bit
too much.  I don't know if and how that works, but the optimum would be
a light frame which is just light enough to set the icon apart from a
dark background, while it's not too light to be unpleasant on a light
background.  Is that possible at all?  I don't know.  Gimp is really
uncooperative to me.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Cygwin Icons (Re: 256x256 px icons)

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2096 bytes --]

On Jul 30 20:33, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> What I'd like to see is the stroked and beveled variants in 48x48 with a
> light grey border of only 1 pixel, standalone, as well as in a terminal
> frame.
> [...]
> So far I like stroked and beveled, just the thick white frame is a bit
> too much.  I don't know if and how that works, but the optimum would be
> a light frame which is just light enough to set the icon apart from a
> dark background, while it's not too light to be unpleasant on a light
> background.  Is that possible at all?  I don't know.  Gimp is really
> uncooperative to me.

I'm not sure I was clear enough.

As far as I can see, we need two sets of icons.  One with a terminal
frame for the default "Cygwin Terminal" shortcuts, one just the Cygwin C
standalone for setup.exe and as project identity icon.

In the terminal frame the stroked, beveled, or bubbly C should have a
thin frame, which is light enough to set the C apart from the dark
background.  Simple green is ugly, antialiased green is too dark to do
the job.  So, afaics, only light grey would do it, but that's just me.
Other than that I like Andy's terminal frame for the 48x48 and 32x32
sizes.

As for the standalone C, that's the one which needs a carefully colored
frame to set it apart on dark desktops while being unobtrusive on light
backgrounds.  This sounds like it's impossible, though.

Hmm...

[...hours passing...]

Hey, wow.  I managed to use gimp for a first cut of what I'm thinking of
without breaking all my fingers.  Attached are the terminal and the
standalone variation, each of which in all resolutions from 256x256 down
to 16x16.  Actually I have just shamlessly stolen from both of you,
Warren and Andy.  Both icon sets use the beveled icon with a light grey
frame.  I removed the shadows for clearness.  The 16x16 icon is based
on the original cygwin icon, with a thin medium grey frame, downscaled
from 32x32.

Please have a look.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

[-- Attachment #2: cygwin-standalone-grey.ico --]
[-- Type: image/vnd.microsoft.icon, Size: 68584 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: cygwin-terminal-grey.ico --]
[-- Type: image/vnd.microsoft.icon, Size: 81894 bytes --]

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Andy Koppe]

On 29 July 2011 15:11, Warren Young wrote:
> Here's a version with heavy chiseled bevels and shadows added:
>
>    http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/logo/beveled.ico
>
> The bevel depth and style can of course be varied, as can the shadow angle,
> opacity, etc.  If you don't like it but can describe what you'd like better,
> I'll take a shot at creating it.

Could you do that one without the shadow, or perhaps just a small
shadow below? That appears to be the done thing elsewhere. Also,
Corinna's idea of toning down the edge to light grey seems a good one.
Light green might be worth trying as well.

Also, does this originate in a vector format, i.e. could you make it
available as an SVG? Or otherwise as a hires PNG? (768 seems good
because it's divisible by both 256 and 48.)

Finally, the white edge line at the bottom seems to be slightly too
low, because there are a couple of rough corners there.

Andy

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 7/27/2011 11:50 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
 > To me, the black/grey border just looked like something went wrong
> with transparency during the conversion. Also, at 16px, the left and
> right sides of the terminal screen's frame have actually gone.

So far, my focus for the small icons has been quick and dirty for fast 
idea turn-around over perfection.

For the final icons, I'm willing to do deeper cosmetic surgery.  In this 
case, I can redraw the frame, 1 px wide.

Maybe there should be no black border at all, just a silver bezel to the 
icon edge?

> Nice work removing the prompt. Did
> you go back to the original SVG to do that?

That would have been one way to do it, but I'd have had to go dig up the 
SVG again (tossed it after rasterizing the first time days ago) then go 
through an Illustrator and re-rasterizing pass.

Given that, it was just as easy to use Photoshop's content-aware fill 
feature (awesome!) to cover the prompt text with reconstituted gradient, 
then repair the gloss line with a bit of cloning.

> Thanks again for putting in this effort to have something tangible to
> compare with.

Certainly.  Far easier to argue about concrete examples than handwavy 
possibilities.

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Charles Wilson]

On 7/27/2011 1:30 PM, Warren Young wrote:
> - Do we need more sizes?  I've seen reference to odd sizes like 64x64
> and 96x96, but surely we can trust Vista+ to scale the 256x256 to these
> sizes without needing hand-tweaked versions?
> 
> - Something I read talked about the 16x16 being 4bpp, but I can't see a
> need for that since the the old Windows 95 Plus Pack days.  Everything
> from Win98 up should actually be fine with 16bpp and up.  The only
> reason I used 8bpp for the smallest ones is that's a big enough box of
> crayons.

Read this:
/usr/share/doc/cygutils/cygicons/README
==============================================================
First, 4bpp is not just ANY 16 colors. Its required to be exactly the
old EGA colors.

8bpp can use any 256 colors, but many use the web-safe 216, plus 40
others. These don't support alpha, but just a single 'transparent'
color. Windows XP style guidelines say that magenta (#ff00ff) should be
used for this purpose.

24bpp has no alpha, instead uses a single color (out of your 16M) for
transparency.

32bpp is the only one with alpha.

Main icon sizes:
----------------
   16x16    : used on the TaskBar
   24x24    : uncommon. used on the left half of
              the Start Menu in Windows XP.
   32x32    : default icon size for desktop icons
   48x48    : DisplayProperties->Appearance->Advanced,
              Item=Icon, set size.  Not often used.
   64x64    : New icon size for Vista.
   256x256  : New icon size for Vista. Stored in compressed
              PNG format within the .ico file; completely
              violates all the rules described above.
==============================================================
plus:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997636.aspx (WinXP icon style
guide)

Icon Sizes
There are four sizes of Windows icons—48 × 48, 32 × 32, 24 × 24, and 16
× 16 pixels.

We recommend that your icon contains these three sizes:
    48 × 48 pixels
    32 × 32 pixels
    16 × 16 pixels

Each Windows XP icon should contain these three color depths to support
different monitor display settings:

    24-bit with 8-bit alpha (32-bit)
    8-bit (256 colors) with 1-bit transparency
    4-bit (16 colors) with 1-bit transparency
==============================================================
and
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511280.aspx (Vista style guide)

Icon files require 8-bit and 4-bit palette versions as well, to support
the default setting in a remote desktop. These files can be created
through a batch process, but they should be reviewed, as some will
require retouching for better readability.

Bit levels: ICO design for 32-bit (alpha included) + 8-bit + 4-bit
(dithered down automatically—pixel poke only most critical). Only a
32-bit copy of the 256x256 pixel image should be included, and only the
256x256 pixel image should be compressed to keep the file size down.
Several icon tools offer compression for Windows Vista.

Bit levels: Toolbars 24-bit + alpha (1 bit mask), 8-bit and 4-bit.
Toolbars or AVI files: Use magenta (R255 G0 B255) as the background
transparency color.

Application icons and Control Panel items: The full set includes 16x16,
32x32, 48x48, and 256x256 (code scales between 32 and 256). The .ico
file format is required. For Classic Mode, the full set is 16x16, 24x24,
32x32, 48x48 and 64x64.

Additional sizes: These are useful to have on hand as resources to make
other files (for example, annotations, toolbar strips, overlays, high
dpi, and special cases): 128x128, 96x96, 64x64, 40x40, 24x24, 22x22,
14x14, 10x10, and 8x8. You can use .ico, .png, .bmp, or other file
formats, depending on code in that area.

[ed: uhm, NO. NO NO NO to 128, 96, 40, 22, 14, 10, and 8.]

==============================================================

>> The only problem to look out for is licensing.  If you use foreign
>> art, you have to make sure that the icon is published under a free
>> license.
> 
> There are two source pieces, the fattbuttlary Cygwin icon and the KDE
> Konsole icon.  I assembled and massaged them on work time.  Red Hat has
> a copyright assignment on file for me, from way back.

the fatbuttlarry icon is GPL.
not sure about the KDE Konsole icon.

--
Chuck

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Andy Koppe]

On 27 July 2011 23:26, Charles Wilson wrote:
> the fatbuttlarry icon is GPL.
> not sure about the KDE Konsole icon.

It's LGPL.

Andy

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Andy Koppe]

On 27 July 2011 18:30, Warren Young wrote:
> - Do we need more sizes?  I've seen reference to odd sizes like 64x64 and
> 96x96, but surely we can trust Vista+ to scale the 256x256 to these sizes
> without needing hand-tweaked versions?

Picking up on an old point here. As Warren suggests, the 64x64 doesn't
actually seem to be used if 256x256 is present. For example, when
setting the desktop icon size to large, a downscaled 256x256 is used.
Shall we drop the 64x64s for a bit of a size saving (particularly as
they're in BMP rather than PNG format)?

Andy

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 14 09:18, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 27 July 2011 18:30, Warren Young wrote:
> > - Do we need more sizes?  I've seen reference to odd sizes like 64x64 and
> > 96x96, but surely we can trust Vista+ to scale the 256x256 to these sizes
> > without needing hand-tweaked versions?
> 
> Picking up on an old point here. As Warren suggests, the 64x64 doesn't
> actually seem to be used if 256x256 is present. For example, when
> setting the desktop icon size to large, a downscaled 256x256 is used.
> Shall we drop the 64x64s for a bit of a size saving (particularly as
> they're in BMP rather than PNG format)?

You're saving 12K or so.  Given that we already have the icons, is it
worth it to delete them for just a few K?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young]

On 8/14/2011 5:16 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 14 09:18, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> On 27 July 2011 18:30, Warren Young wrote:
>>> - Do we need more sizes?  I've seen reference to odd sizes like 64x64 and
>>> 96x96, but surely we can trust Vista+ to scale the 256x256 to these sizes
>>> without needing hand-tweaked versions?
>>
>> Picking up on an old point here. As Warren suggests, the 64x64 doesn't
>> actually seem to be used if 256x256 is present. For example, when
>> setting the desktop icon size to large, a downscaled 256x256 is used.
>> Shall we drop the 64x64s for a bit of a size saving (particularly as
>> they're in BMP rather than PNG format)?
>
> You're saving 12K or so.  Given that we already have the icons, is it
> worth it to delete them for just a few K?

Are you calculating the setup.exe size delta after upx, or are you 
looking at the .ico file?  upx should provide similar benefit as Vista 
PNG icons, as compared to standard BMP style icons.

My reason for asking if we can skip the other sizes was more a matter of 
removing unnecessary work than saving single-digit KB in the binary.

(I tried upx on cygicons-0.dll, by the way, but it apparently broke 
something.  On trying to use my compressed version to supply an icon for 
a shortcut, Windows complains it doesn't contain any icons.  *shrug*)

Re: 256x256 px icons

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 15 08:44, Warren Young wrote:
> On 8/14/2011 5:16 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >You're saving 12K or so.  Given that we already have the icons, is it
> >worth it to delete them for just a few K?
> 
> Are you calculating the setup.exe size delta after upx, or are you
> looking at the .ico file?

Rule of thumb, actually.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Charles Wilson]

On 7/26/2011 7:01 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Nice one.
> 
> This discussion reminds me of the new icon format in Vista, which
> support icons of up to 256x256 bytes in PNG format.  Is that something
> we should add, too?

Hippo already has that.  However, this particular icon doesn't -- and I
don't have any original svg or line art from which to create such a
high-res instance.

Fortunately, fatbuttlarry also provided a linux version (PNG, 237 x 256,
RGBA, 8 bit) that we could use to enhance the existing .ico
http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=36393

I'll probably do that, at some point.

--
Chuck

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Warren Young]

On 7/26/2011 7:45 AM, Charles Wilson wrote:
>
> Fortunately, fatbuttlarry also provided a linux version (PNG, 237 x 256,
> RGBA, 8 bit) that we could use to enhance the existing .ico
> http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=36393

I've updated my http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/mintty-icon-glowy-wedge.png 
composite to use this instead of the 48x48 one I found in the DLL.  The 
result is a little bit less crunchy.

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 09:18:13PM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote:
>On 25 July 2011 12:49, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> On 25 July 2011 10:11, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> [This time *with* patch...]
>>>
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> we discussed this back in May already, but somehow we didn't get a
>>> final result. ??The thread was kind of confusing, so I re-open a new
>>> one now.
>>>
>>> We talked about using mintty as our default shell. ??I created a setup
>>> patch which I attached to this mail again. ??Instead of "Cygwin Bash
>>> Shell" in the start menu and "Cygwin" on the desktop, it creates
>>> "Cygwin Terminal" shortcuts in both of them.
>>>
>>> Is that ok?
>>
>> If I remember correctly, we were going to go with just "Cygwin" on the
>> desktop. I'll have a proper look later.
>
>Problem: the shortcuts have the classic Cygwin icon whereas the
>resulting terminal window has the mintty (n??e Konsole) icon. Worse, on
>Windows 7 at least, the Cygwin icon also appears in the taskbar. It
>needs to be the same icon throughout.
>
>That raises the obvious question: which one? I vote for mintty's, but
>of course I'm biased. I don't think the classic Cygwin icon is fit for
>purpose anymore, because of its jagged lines and because the black 'C'
>is invisible on dark backgrounds.

FWIW, I agree.

cgf

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul 25 21:18, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 25 July 2011 12:49, Andy Koppe wrote:
> > On 25 July 2011 10:11, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> [This time *with* patch...]
> >>
> >> Hi guys,
> >>
> >> we discussed this back in May already, but somehow we didn't get a
> >> final result.  The thread was kind of confusing, so I re-open a new
> >> one now.
> >>
> >> We talked about using mintty as our default shell.  I created a setup
> >> patch which I attached to this mail again.  Instead of "Cygwin Bash
> >> Shell" in the start menu and "Cygwin" on the desktop, it creates
> >> "Cygwin Terminal" shortcuts in both of them.
> >>
> >> Is that ok?
> >
> > If I remember correctly, we were going to go with just "Cygwin" on the
> > desktop. I'll have a proper look later.
> 
> Problem: the shortcuts have the classic Cygwin icon whereas the
> resulting terminal window has the mintty (née Konsole) icon. Worse, on
> Windows 7 at least, the Cygwin icon also appears in the taskbar.

Not on my W7.

> It
> needs to be the same icon throughout.

Why?

> That raises the obvious question: which one? I vote for mintty's, but
> of course I'm biased. I don't think the classic Cygwin icon is fit for
> purpose anymore, because of its jagged lines and because the black 'C'
> is invisible on dark backgrounds.

I have no problems with either.  I like the mintty icon, but I also don't
want to remove the Cygwin icon entirely since, as ugly as it may be, it's
kind of a brand and has a recognition value, collected over the years.

What about modernizing the Cygwin icon?  Or, what about having a mintty
terminal icon with a small C in it?  The only problem with this is, I'm
anything but an artist...


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: modernized icon

[Warren Young]

On 7/26/2011 2:17 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> What about modernizing the Cygwin icon?

Check the other options in cygicons-0.dll.  The one with the glowy green 
wedge is okay.

> Or, what about having a mintty
> terminal icon with a small C in it?  The only problem with this is, I'm
> anything but an artist...

Here's a few icons from cygicons-0.dll composited with the original 
Konsole icon in SVG format that I found on Wikipedia:

	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/mintty-icon-glowy-wedge.png
	http://etr-usa.com/cygwin/mintty-icon-happy-hippo.png

I vote for the glowy green wedge.  The hippo does not look mean.

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Andy Koppe]

On 26 July 2011 09:17, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 25 21:18, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> On 25 July 2011 12:49, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> > On 25 July 2011 10:11, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >> [This time *with* patch...]
>> >>
>> >> Hi guys,
>> >>
>> >> we discussed this back in May already, but somehow we didn't get a
>> >> final result.  The thread was kind of confusing, so I re-open a new
>> >> one now.
>> >>
>> >> We talked about using mintty as our default shell.  I created a setup
>> >> patch which I attached to this mail again.  Instead of "Cygwin Bash
>> >> Shell" in the start menu and "Cygwin" on the desktop, it creates
>> >> "Cygwin Terminal" shortcuts in both of them.
>> >>
>> >> Is that ok?
>> >
>> > If I remember correctly, we were going to go with just "Cygwin" on the
>> > desktop. I'll have a proper look later.
>>
>> Problem: the shortcuts have the classic Cygwin icon whereas the
>> resulting terminal window has the mintty (née Konsole) icon. Worse, on
>> Windows 7 at least, the Cygwin icon also appears in the taskbar.
>
> Not on my W7.

But it does here. Cygwin icon on shortcut, Konsole icon on window,
Cygwin icon in taskbar. I'm afraid I've got no idea what determines
this. Could be to do with pinning, although I haven't got it pinned at
the moment.

>> It
>> needs to be the same icon throughout.
>
> Why?

Because they're meant to help users identify stuff. Perhaps the window
icon being different from the shortcut icon the user clicked on to
start it is just about tolerable, but the taskbar icon not matching
the window is very very wrong.

> I have no problems with either.  I like the mintty icon, but I also don't
> want to remove the Cygwin icon entirely since, as ugly as it may be, it's
> kind of a brand and has a recognition value, collected over the years.
>
> What about modernizing the Cygwin icon?

I quite like Chuck's take on this.

>  Or, what about having a mintty
> terminal icon with a small C in it? The only problem with this is, I'm
> anything but an artist...

Me neither, which is why I just picked an existing generic terminal
icon that I liked.

Regarding Warren's effort, the challenge is that it still needs to
look good at 16x16.

(Btw, mintty's --icon/-i option can be used to stick any icon on its window.)

Andy

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Charles Wilson]

On 7/26/2011 3:36 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> What about modernizing the Cygwin icon?
> 
> I quite like Chuck's take on this.

Err...what's my take, again? <g>

"there's no need for the "C" icon 'branding'" or

"Although, if folks DO think the 'branding' is important, this
/particular/ shortcut could be created with the icon below, rather than
using the one built in to mintty itself."

--
Chuck

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Andy Koppe]

On 26 July 2011 20:52, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 7/26/2011 3:36 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
>>> What about modernizing the Cygwin icon?
>>
>> I quite like Chuck's take on this.
>
> Err...what's my take, again? <g>

I meant cygicons-0.dll,9.

Andy

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul 27 08:24, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 26 July 2011 20:52, Charles Wilson wrote:
> > On 7/26/2011 3:36 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
> >>> What about modernizing the Cygwin icon?
> >>
> >> I quite like Chuck's take on this.
> >
> > Err...what's my take, again? <g>
> 
> I meant cygicons-0.dll,9.

Yes, I like that one, too.  we could use it as the default 48x48 and
64x64 icons.  Per the MSFT guidelines in
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511280.aspx#size, smaller
sizes should stick to a 2D look.  Maybe we can simply use the old
icon for these sizes?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Andy Koppe]

On 27 July 2011 08:46, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 27 08:24, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> On 26 July 2011 20:52, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> > On 7/26/2011 3:36 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> >>> What about modernizing the Cygwin icon?
>> >>
>> >> I quite like Chuck's take on this.
>> >
>> > Err...what's my take, again? <g>
>>
>> I meant cygicons-0.dll,9.
>
> Yes, I like that one, too.  we could use it as the default 48x48 and
> 64x64 icons.  Per the MSFT guidelines in
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511280.aspx#size, smaller
> sizes should stick to a 2D look.  Maybe we can simply use the old
> icon for these sizes?

The way I understand it, I think it's just that they shouldn't use
perspective. Compare for example the drive icons in the "Computer"
window, where they appear tilted in the main part of the window, but
straight-on at 16x16 in the sidebar. The small icons do still have
some depth to them.

Andy

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul 27 09:07, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 27 July 2011 08:46, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Jul 27 08:24, Andy Koppe wrote:
> >> On 26 July 2011 20:52, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >> > On 7/26/2011 3:36 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
> >> >>> What about modernizing the Cygwin icon?
> >> >>
> >> >> I quite like Chuck's take on this.
> >> >
> >> > Err...what's my take, again? <g>
> >>
> >> I meant cygicons-0.dll,9.
> >
> > Yes, I like that one, too.  we could use it as the default 48x48 and
> > 64x64 icons.  Per the MSFT guidelines in
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511280.aspx#size, smaller
> > sizes should stick to a 2D look.  Maybe we can simply use the old
> > icon for these sizes?
> 
> The way I understand it, I think it's just that they shouldn't use
> perspective. Compare for example the drive icons in the "Computer"
> window, where they appear tilted in the main part of the window, but
> straight-on at 16x16 in the sidebar. The small icons do still have
> some depth to them.

Well, ok.  I was just thinking that at 16x16 there's no such thing
as edginess.  And at that size an icon should make a rather clear,
simple impression.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Andy Koppe]

On 27 July 2011 10:43, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 27 09:07, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> On 27 July 2011 08:46, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> > On Jul 27 08:24, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> >> On 26 July 2011 20:52, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> >> > On 7/26/2011 3:36 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> >> >>> What about modernizing the Cygwin icon?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I quite like Chuck's take on this.
>> >> >
>> >> > Err...what's my take, again? <g>
>> >>
>> >> I meant cygicons-0.dll,9.
>> >
>> > Yes, I like that one, too.  we could use it as the default 48x48 and
>> > 64x64 icons.  Per the MSFT guidelines in
>> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511280.aspx#size, smaller
>> > sizes should stick to a 2D look.  Maybe we can simply use the old
>> > icon for these sizes?
>>
>> The way I understand it, I think it's just that they shouldn't use
>> perspective. Compare for example the drive icons in the "Computer"
>> window, where they appear tilted in the main part of the window, but
>> straight-on at 16x16 in the sidebar. The small icons do still have
>> some depth to them.
>
> Well, ok.  I was just thinking that at 16x16 there's no such thing
> as edginess.  And at that size an icon should make a rather clear,
> simple impression.

FWIW, 'cygicons-0.dll,9' looks better to me even at 16x16, not least
because of the anti-aliasing. Also, it's this size that appears in the
upper-left corner of windows, and I think it's good to have this
correspond closely to the 32x32 icon appearing in the Windows 7
taskbar.

Andy

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul 27 16:15, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 27 July 2011 10:43, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Jul 27 09:07, Andy Koppe wrote:
> >> On 27 July 2011 08:46, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> > On Jul 27 08:24, Andy Koppe wrote:
> >> >> On 26 July 2011 20:52, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >> >> > On 7/26/2011 3:36 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
> >> >> >>> What about modernizing the Cygwin icon?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I quite like Chuck's take on this.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Err...what's my take, again? <g>
> >> >>
> >> >> I meant cygicons-0.dll,9.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, I like that one, too.  we could use it as the default 48x48 and
> >> > 64x64 icons.  Per the MSFT guidelines in
> >> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511280.aspx#size, smaller
> >> > sizes should stick to a 2D look.  Maybe we can simply use the old
> >> > icon for these sizes?
> >>
> >> The way I understand it, I think it's just that they shouldn't use
> >> perspective. Compare for example the drive icons in the "Computer"
> >> window, where they appear tilted in the main part of the window, but
> >> straight-on at 16x16 in the sidebar. The small icons do still have
> >> some depth to them.
> >
> > Well, ok.  I was just thinking that at 16x16 there's no such thing
> > as edginess.  And at that size an icon should make a rather clear,
> > simple impression.
> 
> FWIW, 'cygicons-0.dll,9' looks better to me even at 16x16, not least
> because of the anti-aliasing. Also, it's this size that appears in the
> upper-left corner of windows, and I think it's good to have this
> correspond closely to the 32x32 icon appearing in the Windows 7
> taskbar.

Fine with me.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 05:52:32PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Jul 27 16:15, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> On 27 July 2011 10:43, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> > On Jul 27 09:07, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> >> On 27 July 2011 08:46, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >> > On Jul 27 08:24, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> >> >> On 26 July 2011 20:52, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> >> >> > On 7/26/2011 3:36 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> >> >> >>> What about modernizing the Cygwin icon?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I quite like Chuck's take on this.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Err...what's my take, again? <g>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I meant cygicons-0.dll,9.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, I like that one, too. ??we could use it as the default 48x48 and
>> >> > 64x64 icons. ??Per the MSFT guidelines in
>> >> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511280.aspx#size, smaller
>> >> > sizes should stick to a 2D look. ??Maybe we can simply use the old
>> >> > icon for these sizes?
>> >>
>> >> The way I understand it, I think it's just that they shouldn't use
>> >> perspective. Compare for example the drive icons in the "Computer"
>> >> window, where they appear tilted in the main part of the window, but
>> >> straight-on at 16x16 in the sidebar. The small icons do still have
>> >> some depth to them.
>> >
>> > Well, ok. ??I was just thinking that at 16x16 there's no such thing
>> > as edginess. ??And at that size an icon should make a rather clear,
>> > simple impression.
>> 
>> FWIW, 'cygicons-0.dll,9' looks better to me even at 16x16, not least
>> because of the anti-aliasing. Also, it's this size that appears in the
>> upper-left corner of windows, and I think it's good to have this
>> correspond closely to the 32x32 icon appearing in the Windows 7
>> taskbar.
>
>Fine with me.

I haven't really been following this discussion but I'm fine with
whatever you all decide.

cgf

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10401 bytes --]

On Jul 27 17:52, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 27 16:15, Andy Koppe wrote:
> > On 27 July 2011 10:43, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > On Jul 27 09:07, Andy Koppe wrote:
> > >> On 27 July 2011 08:46, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >> > On Jul 27 08:24, Andy Koppe wrote:
> > >> >> On 26 July 2011 20:52, Charles Wilson wrote:
> > >> >> > On 7/26/2011 3:36 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
> > >> >> >>> What about modernizing the Cygwin icon?
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> I quite like Chuck's take on this.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Err...what's my take, again? <g>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I meant cygicons-0.dll,9.
> > >> >
> > >> > Yes, I like that one, too.  we could use it as the default 48x48 and
> > >> > 64x64 icons.  Per the MSFT guidelines in
> > >> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511280.aspx#size, smaller
> > >> > sizes should stick to a 2D look.  Maybe we can simply use the old
> > >> > icon for these sizes?
> > >>
> > >> The way I understand it, I think it's just that they shouldn't use
> > >> perspective. Compare for example the drive icons in the "Computer"
> > >> window, where they appear tilted in the main part of the window, but
> > >> straight-on at 16x16 in the sidebar. The small icons do still have
> > >> some depth to them.
> > >
> > > Well, ok.  I was just thinking that at 16x16 there's no such thing
> > > as edginess.  And at that size an icon should make a rather clear,
> > > simple impression.
> > 
> > FWIW, 'cygicons-0.dll,9' looks better to me even at 16x16, not least
> > because of the anti-aliasing. Also, it's this size that appears in the
> > upper-left corner of windows, and I think it's good to have this
> > correspond closely to the 32x32 icon appearing in the Windows 7
> > taskbar.
> 
> Fine with me.

Ok, here's my final(?) patch to make setup install mintty as "Cygwin
Terminal" desktop and start menu entries.  Apart from the cygwin.ico
file, there's now also a cygwin-terminal.ico file and a cygwin-setup.ico
file.  The latter is used as the default application icon.  Only the
first two are installed into / as Cygwin.ico and Cygwin-Terminal.ico.

See below for the patch.  Attached are the new ico files for the setup
repository.  If that's fine with everybody, Andy will also have to
change the mintty postinstall script so that the mintty entry is not
added to the start menu anymore.


Corinna


	* cygwin-setup.ico: New file.
	* cygwin-terminal.ico: New file.
	* cygwin.ico: New icon.
	* desktop.cc (make_link): Add argument parameter.  Create
	link string adding additional argument.
	(start_menu): Add argument parameter.  Add in call to make_link.
	(desktop_icon): Ditto.
	(save_icon): Replace fixed strings with arguments for filename
	and resource name.  Check if Cygwin.ico is the old icon.  If so,
	replace it with new icon.
	(do_desktop_setup): Call save_icon for /Cygwin.ico and
	/Cygwin-Terminal.ico.  In non-legacy mode, use mintty as
	target for desktop and start menu items.
	(DesktopSetupPage::OnActivate): In non-legacy mode, check for
	/bin/mintty.
	* res.rc: Use IDI_CYGWIN_SETUP as icon in start dialog.
	Add IDI_CYGWIN_SETUP, IDI_CYGWIN_TERMINAL, CYGWIN-SETUP.ICON
	and CYGWIN-TERMINAL.ICON entries.
	* resource.h (IDI_CYGWIN_SETUP): Define.
	(IDI_CYGWIN_TERMINAL): Define.


Index: desktop.cc
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/cygwin-apps/setup/desktop.cc,v
retrieving revision 2.56
diff -u -p -r2.56 desktop.cc
--- desktop.cc	25 Jul 2011 08:59:15 -0000	2.56
+++ desktop.cc	3 Aug 2011 14:37:27 -0000
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
 
 #if 0
 static const char *cvsid =
-  "\n%%% $Id: desktop.cc,v 2.56 2011/07/25 08:59:15 corinna Exp $\n";
+  "\n%%% $Id: desktop.cc,v 2.55 2010/11/19 15:49:54 cgf Exp $\n";
 #endif
 
 #include "win32.h"
@@ -78,7 +78,8 @@ DesktopSetupPage::DesktopSetupPage ()
 static void
 make_link (const std::string& linkpath,
            const std::string& title,
-           const std::string& target)
+           const std::string& target,
+           const std::string& arg)
 {
   std::string fname = linkpath + "/" + title + ".lnk";
 
@@ -96,7 +97,7 @@ make_link (const std::string& linkpath,
   if (IsWindowsNT ())
     {
       exepath = target;
-      argbuf = " ";
+      argbuf = arg;
     }
   else
     {
@@ -105,6 +106,8 @@ make_link (const std::string& linkpath,
       GetWindowsDirectory (windir, sizeof (windir));
       exepath = std::string(windir) + "\\command.com";
       argbuf = "/E:4096 /c " + target;
+      if (arg.size ())
+	argbuf += " " + arg;
     }
 
   msg ("make_link_2 (%s, %s, %s, %s)",
@@ -115,7 +118,8 @@ make_link (const std::string& linkpath,
 }
 
 static void
-start_menu (const std::string& title, const std::string& target)
+start_menu (const std::string& title, const std::string& target,
+	    const std::string& arg)
 {
   LPITEMIDLIST id;
   int issystem = (root_scope == IDC_ROOT_SYSTEM) ? 1 : 0;
@@ -137,11 +141,12 @@ start_menu (const std::string& title, co
     }
 // end of Win95 addition
   path += "/Cygwin";
-  make_link (path, title, target);
+  make_link (path, title, target, arg);
 }
 
 static void
-desktop_icon (const std::string& title, const std::string& target)
+desktop_icon (const std::string& title, const std::string& target,
+	      const std::string& arg)
 {
   char path[MAX_PATH];
   LPITEMIDLIST id;
@@ -161,7 +166,7 @@ desktop_icon (const std::string& title, 
       msg ("Desktop directory for deskop link changed to: %s", path);
     }
 // end of Win95 addition
-  make_link (path, title, target);
+  make_link (path, title, target, arg);
 }
 
 static void
@@ -204,11 +209,11 @@ make_cygwin_bat ()
 }
 
 static void
-save_icon ()
+save_icon (const char *path, const char *resource_name)
 {
-  iconname = backslash (cygpath ("/Cygwin.ico"));
+  iconname = backslash (cygpath (path));
 
-  HRSRC rsrc = FindResource (NULL, "CYGWIN.ICON", "FILE");
+  HRSRC rsrc = FindResource (NULL, resource_name, "FILE");
   if (rsrc == NULL)
     {
       fatal ("FindResource failed");
@@ -220,10 +225,14 @@ save_icon ()
   FILE *f;
   if (!is_legacy)
     {
+      WIN32_FILE_ATTRIBUTE_DATA attr;
+
       size_t ilen = iconname.size () + 7;
       WCHAR wname[ilen];
       mklongpath (wname, iconname.c_str (), ilen);
-      if (GetFileAttributesW (wname) != INVALID_FILE_ATTRIBUTES)
+      if (GetFileAttributesExW (wname, GetFileExInfoStandard, &attr)
+	  && attr.dwFileAttributes != INVALID_FILE_ATTRIBUTES
+	  && attr.nFileSizeLow > 7022)	/* Size of old icon */
 	return;
       f = nt_wfopen (wname, "wb", 0644);
     }
@@ -239,19 +248,22 @@ save_icon ()
 static void
 do_desktop_setup ()
 {
-  save_icon ();
+  save_icon ("/Cygwin.ico", "CYGWIN.ICON");
+  save_icon ("/Cygwin-Terminal.ico", "CYGWIN-TERMINAL.ICON");
 
   make_cygwin_bat ();
 
+  std::string target;
+
+  target = is_legacy ? batname : backslash (cygpath ("/bin/mintty"));
+
   if (root_menu)
-    {
-      start_menu ("Cygwin Bash Shell", batname);
-    }
+    start_menu (is_legacy ? "Cygwin Bash Shell" : "Cygwin Terminal", target,
+    		is_legacy ? "" : "-i /Cygwin-Terminal.ico -");
 
   if (root_desktop)
-    {
-      desktop_icon ("Cygwin", batname);
-    }
+    desktop_icon (is_legacy ? "Cygwin" : "Cygwin Terminal", target,
+		  is_legacy ? "" : "-i /Cygwin-Terminal.ico -");
 }
 
 static int da[] = { IDC_ROOT_DESKTOP, 0 };
@@ -425,8 +437,11 @@ DesktopSetupPage::OnActivate ()
       else
 	{
 	  root_menu =
-	    check_startmenu ("Cygwin Bash Shell",
-			     backslash (cygpath ("/cygwin.bat")));
+	    is_legacy
+	    ? check_startmenu ("Cygwin Bash Shell",
+			       backslash (cygpath ("/cygwin.bat")))
+	    : check_startmenu ("Cygwin Terminal",
+			       backslash (cygpath ("/bin/mintty")));
 	}
 
       if (NoDesktopOption) 
@@ -436,7 +451,10 @@ DesktopSetupPage::OnActivate ()
       else
 	{
 	  root_desktop =
-	    check_desktop ("Cygwin", backslash (cygpath ("/cygwin.bat")));
+	    is_legacy
+	    ? check_desktop ("Cygwin", backslash (cygpath ("/cygwin.bat")))
+	    : check_desktop ("Cygwin Terminal",
+			     backslash (cygpath ("/bin/mintty")));
 	}
     }
 
Index: res.rc
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/cygwin-apps/setup/res.rc,v
retrieving revision 2.92
diff -u -p -r2.92 res.rc
--- res.rc	20 Jul 2011 19:26:08 -0000	2.92
+++ res.rc	3 Aug 2011 14:37:27 -0000
@@ -270,7 +270,7 @@ BEGIN
                     "default.  You can always run this program at any time in "
                     "the future to add, remove, or upgrade packages as "
                     "necessary.",IDC_SPLASH_TEXT,115,25,195,90
-    ICON            IDI_CYGWIN,IDC_SPLASH_ICON,114,114,21,20,WS_GROUP
+    ICON            IDI_CYGWIN_SETUP,IDC_SPLASH_ICON,114,114,21,20,WS_GROUP
     LTEXT           "Version (unknown)",IDC_VERSION,115,137,195,10
     LTEXT           "Copyright 2000-2010",IDC_SPLASH_COPYR,115,150,195,8
     LTEXT           "http://www.cygwin.com/",IDC_SPLASH_URL,115,162,90,8
@@ -454,14 +454,18 @@ CREATEPROCESS_MANIFEST_RESOURCE_ID RT_MA
 
 // Icon with lowest ID value placed first to ensure application icon
 // remains consistent on all systems.
+IDI_CYGWIN_SETUP        ICON    DISCARDABLE     "cygwin-setup.ico"
 IDI_CYGWIN              ICON    DISCARDABLE     "cygwin.ico"
+IDI_CYGWIN_TERMINAL     ICON    DISCARDABLE     "cygwin-terminal.ico"
 
 /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
 //
 // FILE
 //
 
+CYGWIN-SETUP.ICON       FILE    DISCARDABLE     "cygwin-setup.ico"
 CYGWIN.ICON             FILE    DISCARDABLE     "cygwin.ico"
+CYGWIN-TERMINAL.ICON    FILE    DISCARDABLE     "cygwin-terminal.ico"
 
 /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
 //
Index: resource.h
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/cygwin-apps/setup/resource.h,v
retrieving revision 2.42
diff -u -p -r2.42 resource.h
--- resource.h	20 Jul 2011 19:26:08 -0000	2.42
+++ resource.h	3 Aug 2011 14:37:27 -0000
@@ -77,7 +77,9 @@
 // icons
 
 #define IDI_SPIN                          400
-#define IDI_CYGWIN                        401
+#define IDI_CYGWIN_SETUP                  401
+#define IDI_CYGWIN                        402
+#define IDI_CYGWIN_TERMINAL               403
 
 // controls
 


-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

[-- Attachment #2: cygwin.ico --]
[-- Type: image/vnd.microsoft.icon, Size: 34494 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: cygwin-setup.ico --]
[-- Type: image/vnd.microsoft.icon, Size: 66023 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #4: cygwin-terminal.ico --]
[-- Type: image/vnd.microsoft.icon, Size: 81894 bytes --]

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Charles Wilson]

On 8/3/2011 10:43 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Ok, here's my final(?) patch to make setup install mintty as "Cygwin
> Terminal" desktop and start menu entries.  Apart from the cygwin.ico
> file, there's now also a cygwin-terminal.ico file and a cygwin-setup.ico
> file.  The latter is used as the default application icon.  Only the
> first two are installed into / as Cygwin.ico and Cygwin-Terminal.ico.
> 
> See below for the patch.  Attached are the new ico files for the setup
> repository.  If that's fine with everybody, Andy will also have to
> change the mintty postinstall script so that the mintty entry is not
> added to the start menu anymore.

Builds fine for me, and works as advertised with new pretty icons.  One
thing of note: I haven't locally built setup since January, and even
after stripping and upx'ing:

-rwxrwxr-x  1 user group 889K Aug  3 11:33 setup.exe*
-rwxrwxr-x  1 user group 648K Jan 26  2011 setup.exe-save*

Most -- but not all -- of that is due to the new icons, which are only:

-rw-rw-r-- 1 user group 34K Aug  3 11:20 cygwin.ico
-rw-rw-r-- 1 user group 65K Aug  3 11:20 cygwin-setup.ico
-rw-rw-r-- 1 user group 80K Aug  3 11:20 cygwin-terminal.ico

I guess Jon's changes have added a lot of code :-)

I'll wait until (a) a new setup with these changes and new icons has
been 'officially' released, and (b) it's had time to 'settle', before
attempting to add the new ico's to the cygicons dll.

--
Chuck

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Andy Koppe]

On 3 August 2011 15:43, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 27 17:52, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Jul 27 16:15, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> > On 27 July 2011 10:43, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> > > On Jul 27 09:07, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> > >> On 27 July 2011 08:46, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> > >> > On Jul 27 08:24, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> > >> >> I meant cygicons-0.dll,9.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Yes, I like that one, too.  we could use it as the default 48x48 and
>> > >> > 64x64 icons.  Per the MSFT guidelines in
>> > >> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511280.aspx#size, smaller
>> > >> > sizes should stick to a 2D look.  Maybe we can simply use the old
>> > >> > icon for these sizes?
>> > >>
>> > >> The way I understand it, I think it's just that they shouldn't use
>> > >> perspective. Compare for example the drive icons in the "Computer"
>> > >> window, where they appear tilted in the main part of the window, but
>> > >> straight-on at 16x16 in the sidebar. The small icons do still have
>> > >> some depth to them.
>> > >
>> > > Well, ok.  I was just thinking that at 16x16 there's no such thing
>> > > as edginess.  And at that size an icon should make a rather clear,
>> > > simple impression.
>> >
>> > FWIW, 'cygicons-0.dll,9' looks better to me even at 16x16, not least
>> > because of the anti-aliasing. Also, it's this size that appears in the
>> > upper-left corner of windows, and I think it's good to have this
>> > correspond closely to the 32x32 icon appearing in the Windows 7
>> > taskbar.
>>
>> Fine with me.
>
> Ok, here's my final(?) patch to make setup install mintty as "Cygwin
> Terminal" desktop and start menu entries.  Apart from the cygwin.ico
> file, there's now also a cygwin-terminal.ico file and a cygwin-setup.ico
> file.  The latter is used as the default application icon.  Only the
> first two are installed into / as Cygwin.ico and Cygwin-Terminal.ico.
>
> See below for the patch.  Attached are the new ico files for the setup
> repository.

The Cygwin-Terminal.ico isn't good enough IMNSHO, and I'm disappointed
with how this has suddenly become the "official" proposal, riding
roughshod over much of the previous discussions.

- Above you'd agreed that fatbuttlarry's bulgy icon was fine in the
16x16 version, and that was before making it bigger and turning its
outline grey to lose that "eerie" look. Yet here we are with a murky
flat effort that looks no better than ye olde Cygwin.ico. (This size
is used for the window icon, so arguably this is the most important
one.)

- The terminal frame at the 32..64 sizes isn't as sharp as it could
be, because it's copied from one of my attempts before I worked out
how to render it like in the original Konsole icon.

- The 256x256 version still has Warren's dark border around the
terminal. Not only is this spoiling the KDE Oxygen team's work, but it
also makes it pointlessly different from the smaller versions.
Furthermore, the "C" still has rough corners due to the bottom line
being too low, and its shadow makes little visual sense inside the
terminal frame.

- The Cygwin-symbol-in-terminal approach remains a dodgy compromise.
It doesn't fit into 16x16, and as Warren pointed out, the removal of
the prompt means that the terminal is hard to recognise as such. I
can't remember a case for why this compromise is preferable over the
Cygwin symbol on its own.

To avoid being entirely negative, here's my proposal: forget about
Cygwin-terminal.ico and just use Cygwin.ico.

I like the setup.exe parcel idea, but this also needs improvements. In
particular, the 16x16 version doesn't work, with the parcel just an
ill-defined grey blob behind the C. Also, the shadow behind the C on
the 256x256 makes even less visual sense here than in the terminal
frame.

> Andy will also have to
> change the mintty postinstall script so that the mintty entry is not
> added to the start menu anymore.

Yep. (That should make for a fair few complaints about how mintty has
suddenly disappeared from the start menu though.)

Andy

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Warren Young]

On 8/3/2011 2:37 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
>
> - The 256x256 version still has Warren's dark border around the
> terminal. Not only is this spoiling the KDE Oxygen team's work,

There's a 50% transparent black (so, gray when composited over white) 
border in the original KDE artwork.  Are you saying you want to drop 
this, and make it like the silver terminal bezel goes to the icon edge?

> To avoid being entirely negative, here's my proposal: forget about
> Cygwin-terminal.ico and just use Cygwin.ico.

What's wrong with using the lone Cygwin logo in 16 px through 32 px, 
then switching to logo-in-terminal for 48 px and up where there's enough 
resolution to allow it?

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Andy Koppe]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1760 bytes --]

On 4 August 2011 00:38, Warren Young wrote:
> On 8/3/2011 2:37 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
>>
>> - The 256x256 version still has Warren's dark border around the
>> terminal. Not only is this spoiling the KDE Oxygen team's work,
>
> There's a 50% transparent black (so, gray when composited over
> white) border in the original KDE artwork.

It's not solid 50%. It fades away going away from the icon.

> Are you saying you want to drop this, and make
> it like the silver terminal bezel goes to the icon edge?

No. I want the original to be left untouched in that regard. It's
fine. Nobody asked for it to be changed.

Attached it is with the prompt removed, as SVG and ICO, in case this
helps with anything. (I can PM a high-res bitmap if necessary. The ICO
got a bit too big to attach when including the 256px version.)

>> To avoid being entirely negative, here's my proposal: forget about
>> Cygwin-terminal.ico and just use Cygwin.ico.
>
> What's wrong with using the lone Cygwin logo in 16 px through 32 px, then
> switching to logo-in-terminal for 48 px and up where there's enough
> resolution to allow it?

XP defaults to 32px on the desktop whereas Vista/7 default to 48px, so
you'd get different icons depending on OS and which size you choose.
The Cygwin symbol fits into the 32x32 terminal ok, so I don't see an
improvement over having the logo-in-terminal from 32px up as in
Corinna's cygwin-terminal.ico.

Furthermore, it doesn't address this:

"The Cygwin-symbol-in-terminal approach remains a dodgy compromise.
It doesn't fit into 16x16, and as Warren pointed out, the removal of
the prompt means that the terminal is hard to recognise as such. I
can't remember a case for why this compromise is preferable over the
Cygwin symbol on its own."

Andy

[-- Attachment #2: blank-terminal.svg.gz --]
[-- Type: application/x-gzip, Size: 7601 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: blank-terminal.ico --]
[-- Type: image/x-icon, Size: 34494 bytes --]

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug  4 06:17, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 4 August 2011 00:38, Warren Young wrote:
> > On 8/3/2011 2:37 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
> >>
> >> - The 256x256 version still has Warren's dark border around the
> >> terminal. Not only is this spoiling the KDE Oxygen team's work,
> >
> > There's a 50% transparent black (so, gray when composited over
> > white) border in the original KDE artwork.
> 
> It's not solid 50%. It fades away going away from the icon.
> 
> > Are you saying you want to drop this, and make
> > it like the silver terminal bezel goes to the icon edge?
> 
> No. I want the original to be left untouched in that regard. It's
> fine. Nobody asked for it to be changed.

Is there any reason to be hostile?  Did I miss something?

> > What's wrong with using the lone Cygwin logo in 16 px through 32 px, then
> > switching to logo-in-terminal for 48 px and up where there's enough
> > resolution to allow it?
> 
> XP defaults to 32px on the desktop whereas Vista/7 default to 48px, so
> you'd get different icons depending on OS and which size you choose.
> The Cygwin symbol fits into the 32x32 terminal ok, so I don't see an
> improvement over having the logo-in-terminal from 32px up as in
> Corinna's cygwin-terminal.ico.

I like the 32x32 terminal icon.  It looks good on my XP desktop.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug  4 06:17, Andy Koppe wrote:
> Attached it is with the prompt removed, as SVG and ICO, in case this
> helps with anything. (I can PM a high-res bitmap if necessary. The ICO
> got a bit too big to attach when including the 256px version.)

I don't quite understand.  I sent three icons which included the 256x256
variation in a single mail.  Did you get a refuse message?
Can you send the 256x256 version alone, perhaps, so I can reattach it
to the rest of the icons?


Thanks,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Andy Koppe]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1550 bytes --]

On 4 August 2011 11:26, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug  4 06:17, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> Attached it is with the prompt removed, as SVG and ICO, in case this
>> helps with anything. (I can PM a high-res bitmap if necessary. The ICO
>> got a bit too big to attach when including the 256px version.)
>
> I don't quite understand.

Hmm, me neither, actually.

> I sent three icons which included the 256x256
> variation in a single mail.  Did you get a refuse message?

No, but I didn't even try,  because it was >300K.

Going back to the 256x256 PNG I put into the icon though, it's
actually only 16KB, so do find that attached. Also attached is the
52KB 768x768 version exported from InkScape that I'd generated the
smaller ones from by scaling them down in Paint.net.

Which leaves the question how the icon with the 256x256 became so big.
I'd used a Cygwin build of 'icotool' from 'icoutils' for that, which
generally seems very nice for extracting and creating icons. But it
would appear that it doesn't support the .ICO format extension that
allows to embed PNGs directly, instead storing them in whatever less
efficient bitmap format .ICOs have used before.

How do you create icons including a 256x256 version? I haven't managed
to get the 'icobundl' utility that Warren linked to to do it.

$ icobundl -o blank-terminal-256.ico blank-terminal-256.png
blank-terminal-256.png
blank-terminal-256.png
No icons found, wrote empty icon suite
## ERROR: invalid BITMAPINFOHEADER; skipping icon
## ERROR: can't read BITMAPINFOHEADER; skipping file

Andy

[-- Attachment #2: blank-terminal.pngs.tar --]
[-- Type: application/x-tar, Size: 71680 bytes --]

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Warren Young]

On 8/5/2011 2:04 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
>
> Which leaves the question how the icon with the 256x256 became so big.
> I'd used a Cygwin build of 'icotool' from 'icoutils' for that,

icotool's --help is confusing.  The magic incantation is:

	$ icotool -c -o cygwin-term.ico -r cygwin-term.png

where cygwin-term.png is the 256 px Vista icon.  -r is the trick.  You 
then append the PNG files for the smaller sizes to the list to have them 
translated to BMP style "standard" icons within the aggregate .ico.

> allows to embed PNGs directly, instead storing them in whatever less
> efficient bitmap format .ICOs have used before.

.ico is originally based on BMP, which is a trivial uncompressed file 
format, basically a small header containing obvious things like width, 
height, color depth, pixel format and such, followed by raw pixel data.

So, a 32 bit RGBA 256x256 .bmp or .ico will be 262,144 bytes plus header 
overhead.  (I get 270,398 bytes here.)  Your 300K+ file probably got a 
bit bigger due to having more icon sizes bundled in.

> How do you create icons including a 256x256 version?

I use the ICO file plugin for Photoshop from Telegraphics, the same 
people that put out icobundl.  You get a dialog on saving the icon, 
asking if you want a standard or Vista PNG .ico; I say Vista for the 256 
px one, and standard for the smaller four sizes.  Then, I use icobundl 
to take the resulting 5 .ico files and assemble them.

I can do final compression and assembly if you need me to, but I think 
the icotool incantation will fix your problem.

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Andy Koppe]

On 5 August 2011 21:45, Warren Young wrote:
> On 8/5/2011 2:04 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
>>
>> Which leaves the question how the icon with the 256x256 became so big.
>> I'd used a Cygwin build of 'icotool' from 'icoutils' for that,
>
> icotool's --help is confusing.  The magic incantation is:
>
>        $ icotool -c -o cygwin-term.ico -r cygwin-term.png
>
> where cygwin-term.png is the 256 px Vista icon.  -r is the trick.  You then
> append the PNG files for the smaller sizes to the list to have them
> translated to BMP style "standard" icons within the aggregate .ico.

Thanks! (I'd only looked at the man page, where the -r option doesn't
appear at all.)

>> allows to embed PNGs directly, instead storing them in whatever less
>> efficient bitmap format .ICOs have used before.
>
> .ico is originally based on BMP, which is a trivial uncompressed file
> format, basically a small header containing obvious things like width,
> height, color depth, pixel format and such, followed by raw pixel data.
>
> So, a 32 bit RGBA 256x256 .bmp or .ico will be 262,144 bytes plus header
> overhead.  (I get 270,398 bytes here.)  Your 300K+ file probably got a bit
> bigger due to having more icon sizes bundled in.

That makes plenty of sense.

>> How do you create icons including a 256x256 version?
>
> I use the ICO file plugin for Photoshop from Telegraphics, the same people
> that put out icobundl.  You get a dialog on saving the icon, asking if you
> want a standard or Vista PNG .ico; I say Vista for the 256 px one, and
> standard for the smaller four sizes.  Then, I use icobundl to take the
> resulting 5 .ico files and assemble them.
>
> I can do final compression and assembly if you need me to, but I think the
> icotool incantation will fix your problem.

Right. Now we just need to work out what exactly to put in it. :)

Andy

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Charles Wilson]

On 8/5/2011 4:04 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
> How do you create icons including a 256x256 version? I haven't managed
> to get the 'icobundl' utility that Warren linked to to do it.

I used gimp...see this:
http://gimp-tutorials.net/How-to-make-an-icon-from-a-picture
(scroll down to the end for the bit about multires ico files)

--
Chuck

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug  5 21:04, Andy Koppe wrote:
> Going back to the 256x256 PNG I put into the icon though, it's
> actually only 16KB, so do find that attached. Also attached is the
> 52KB 768x768 version exported from InkScape that I'd generated the
> smaller ones from by scaling them down in Paint.net.

*grab*


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug  3 21:37, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 3 August 2011 15:43, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Ok, here's my final(?) patch to make setup install mintty as "Cygwin
> > Terminal" desktop and start menu entries.  Apart from the cygwin.ico
> > file, there's now also a cygwin-terminal.ico file and a cygwin-setup.ico
> > file.  The latter is used as the default application icon.  Only the
> > first two are installed into / as Cygwin.ico and Cygwin-Terminal.ico.
> >
> > See below for the patch.  Attached are the new ico files for the setup
> > repository.
> 
> The Cygwin-Terminal.ico isn't good enough IMNSHO, and I'm disappointed
> with how this has suddenly become the "official" proposal, riding
> roughshod over much of the previous discussions.

Huh?  Calm down.  Read again:  "final(?)", "If that's fine with
everybody".

It's not fine with you, so let's discuss further.  My intent was to
show how it looks like in the context of setup.exe.  The advantage
of the icon files is that they can be easily replaced.

> - Above you'd agreed that fatbuttlarry's bulgy icon was fine in the
> 16x16 version, and that was before making it bigger and turning its
> outline grey to lose that "eerie" look. Yet here we are with a murky
> flat effort that looks no better than ye olde Cygwin.ico. (This size
> is used for the window icon, so arguably this is the most important
> one.)

Well, it *is* the old Cygwin icon.  I said "fine with me", yes, but
every time I look at it, the old Cygwin icon still looks better in
16x16.  But still, if everybody else thinks the 16x16 must look
different, too, fine with me.

> - The terminal frame at the 32..64 sizes isn't as sharp as it could
> be, because it's copied from one of my attempts before I worked out
> how to render it like in the original Konsole icon.
> 
> - The 256x256 version still has Warren's dark border around the
> terminal. Not only is this spoiling the KDE Oxygen team's work, but it
> also makes it pointlessly different from the smaller versions.
> Furthermore, the "C" still has rough corners due to the bottom line
> being too low, and its shadow makes little visual sense inside the
> terminal frame.
> 
> - The Cygwin-symbol-in-terminal approach remains a dodgy compromise.
> It doesn't fit into 16x16, and as Warren pointed out, the removal of
> the prompt means that the terminal is hard to recognise as such. I
> can't remember a case for why this compromise is preferable over the
> Cygwin symbol on its own.

Boy, that sounds like we're having kind of a competition.  You didn't
say anything about Warrens efforts from
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2011-07/msg00166.html but instead just
sent your own take.  You didn't say anything about my miserable tries
but instead sent more of your own.  Now that I tried to make an effort
to move this forward, you're shredding the icons to pieces.  What is
that supposed to tell me?

> To avoid being entirely negative, here's my proposal: forget about
> Cygwin-terminal.ico and just use Cygwin.ico.

No, I don't think so.  I like the terminal icon and I even still like
it in 32x32 on the XP desktop.  It just looks nice.

> I like the setup.exe parcel idea, but this also needs improvements. In
> particular, the 16x16 version doesn't work, with the parcel just an
> ill-defined grey blob behind the C. Also, the shadow behind the C on
> the 256x256 makes even less visual sense here than in the terminal
> frame.

Almost nothing works in 16x16.  As long as one can see the C I'm not
overly concerned.  However, there's something wrong.  While the
desktop icon is the right setup icon, the 16x16 icon in the window title
and (on Vista) the big taskbar icon only shows the default cygwin icon.
That's strange.  I reordered the icons explicitly so that the setup icon
comes first.  Why does that work on the desktop but not in the window
titlebar and the taskbar?!?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug  4 11:07, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug  3 21:37, Andy Koppe wrote:
> > I like the setup.exe parcel idea, but this also needs improvements. In
> > particular, the 16x16 version doesn't work, with the parcel just an
> > ill-defined grey blob behind the C. Also, the shadow behind the C on
> > the 256x256 makes even less visual sense here than in the terminal
> > frame.
> 
> Almost nothing works in 16x16.  As long as one can see the C I'm not
> overly concerned.  However, there's something wrong.  While the
> desktop icon is the right setup icon, the 16x16 icon in the window title
> and (on Vista) the big taskbar icon only shows the default cygwin icon.
> That's strange.  I reordered the icons explicitly so that the setup icon
> comes first.  Why does that work on the desktop but not in the window
> titlebar and the taskbar?!?

There's another problem, albeit not a big one.

The setup icon also exists in 256x256, so I had the idea that to use
that in setup's start screen.  But it just didn't work.  I change
the line

  ICON            IDI_CYGWIN_SETUP,IDC_SPLASH_ICON,114,114,21,20,WS_GROUP

to

  ICON            IDI_CYGWIN_SETUP,IDC_SPLASH_ICON,1,1,256,256,WS_GROUP

but it had no effect at all.  What ever sizes I tried, the icon had
always the same size, 48x48.

Does anybody know if and how I can force Windows to use the 256x256 icon
in that dialog?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Warren Young]

On 7/26/2011 1:36 PM, Andy Koppe wrote:
> Regarding Warren's effort, the challenge is that it still needs to
> look good at 16x16.

It's rather lazy to simply create the 16x16 by scaling down the 256x256. 
  It'd be better to take the existing 16x16 and package it with my 
256x256, since the current 16x16 is better fit for purpose.

In my own icons, I have in the past almost completely redrawn the 16x16 
pixel by pixel to make it look good.

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul 26 20:36, Andy Koppe wrote:
> On 26 July 2011 09:17, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > What about modernizing the Cygwin icon?
> 
> I quite like Chuck's take on this.
> 
> >  Or, what about having a mintty
> > terminal icon with a small C in it? The only problem with this is, I'm
> > anything but an artist...
> 
> Me neither, which is why I just picked an existing generic terminal
> icon that I liked.
> 
> Regarding Warren's effort, the challenge is that it still needs to
> look good at 16x16.
> 
> (Btw, mintty's --icon/-i option can be used to stick any icon on its window.)

So setup could create the default shortcuts with the -i option and
just use the Cygwin icon?

[...trying...]

Cool!


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Re: SETUP: default to mintty

[Andy Koppe]

On 27 July 2011 08:08, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 26 20:36, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> On 26 July 2011 09:17, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> > What about modernizing the Cygwin icon?
>>
>> I quite like Chuck's take on this.
>>
>> >  Or, what about having a mintty
>> > terminal icon with a small C in it? The only problem with this is, I'm
>> > anything but an artist...
>>
>> Me neither, which is why I just picked an existing generic terminal
>> icon that I liked.
>>
>> Regarding Warren's effort, the challenge is that it still needs to
>> look good at 16x16.
>>
>> (Btw, mintty's --icon/-i option can be used to stick any icon on its window.)
>
> So setup could create the default shortcuts with the -i option and
> just use the Cygwin icon?

Yep.

(I might also have a go at making mintty automatically pick up the
icon of the shortcut it's invoked from, if any. Won't happen quickly
though.)

Andy

SETUP: default to mintty

[Corinna Vinschen]

Hi guys,

we discussed this back in May already, but somehow we didn't get a
final result.  The thread was kind of confusing, so I re-open a new
one now.

We talked about using mintty as our default shell.  I created a setup
patch which I attached to this mail again.  Instead of "Cygwin Bash
Shell" in the start menu and "Cygwin" on the desktop, it creates 
"Cygwin Terminal" shortcuts in both of them.

Is that ok?

If not, what should we do better?

Apart from that, why is mintty still not in the "Base" category?
Just laziness on our side?  Some really important reason?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat