Ubuntu as beautiful as Mac OS X?

[Janjiss]

Hello dear Ubuntu community,

I heard somewhere, that Canonical is planning to make Ubuntu as beautiful as MAC OS. What are your thoughts about it? I'm not talking about Compiz and Theme stuff, but about native Ubuntu look. I think Guys from ubuntu will do it, but, I think, ubuntu should change their native colors, because contrast isn't so good :(

[Fzang]

I came before canonical

http://fzang.deviantart.com/art/iWish-125131181

But in all seriousness, the default ubuntu interface is quite boring so I think it's about time they make it a little more... fresh

[UbuntuNerd]

Im so tired of the brown and orange look I think its time for some new colors and new animals for sure, why can we get something like a lion or a panther or even a tiger. I don't know maybe it just me but I just can't see how A Jaunty Jackalope can be the face of Ubuntu :)

[Tibuda]

Just take a look at the screenshot thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1175016) for what is possible without any additional programming. I personally like Orange, but I don't like the default Metacity and Gtk+ themes.

[H2SO_four]

I do the same thing, check out the screenshot thread and the conky thread to see if there is anything new that I might like. also gnome look.org is helpful.

[Sand & Mercury]

We'll see how Karmic+1 looks. I don't say Karmic because hell hasn't frozen yet and that's when we'll get an overhaul in the default Ubuntu aesthetic.

[Janjiss]

Tiger and Panter are versions of Mac-OSX :) I think openSUSE has a great color pallete and all other distros basicly. About Jaunty - I definatly agree - I want to see something more agressive, becuse THIS IS THE BEST TIME FOR LINUX TO TAKE MARKET SHARE

[Janjiss]

We'll see how Karmic+1 looks. I don't say Karmic because hell hasn't frozen yet and that's when we'll get an overhaul in the default Ubuntu aesthetic.

Ill try it out on virtualbox :)

[sabre2th]

I'm all for a new look, but I don't think it's THAT big of a deal. I actually really like the default login screen for Jaunty and I know I'll always just change things to what I want, regardless of the default. Really, I just hope they don't go crazy and try to make some kind of dock crap the default when they do get around to changing things.

[Bölvaður]

If ubuntu becomes as beautiful as mac osx then most of us would call it a great failure.
(for most people it is like saying "my house must look as beutiful as as a concrete block" some like it but the other's don't)

Why don't you just make the next theme or interface or what ever you want to fresh things up? I sent some wallpapers for ubuntu 9.10... perhaps you could contribute as well perhaps?

[Janjiss]

I don't want to say, that Ubuntu should copy anything from mac... There are just some topics, of witch ubuntu developers should think about. In MAC-OS every single detail is thought about. Just look at it - all fonts are carefully picked, color scheme is pleasant to the eye and everything else seems to be in place. What i want to say is, that Ubuntu should develop it's own, maybe more beautiful design with it's own concept.

About contribution - Only skills I can offer to Ubuntu community, is translation to my own language. I just don't have skills and talent to contribute in design part.

[Bölvaður]

About contribution - Only skills I can offer to Ubuntu community, is translation to my own language. I just don't have skills and talent to contribute in design part.

https://translations.launchpad.net/ubuntu/jaunty


I've done a little bit of translating and noticed that other's are using special methods to do it faster. But if there are many people doing a little bit each it takes no time translating everything.

[BlazeFire247]

Ubuntu shouldn't look like a Mac OS X, or get the whole look; Mac is different. Ubuntu needs something original. Something not found in operating systems. True, we have panels and all these stuff. But what does Mac have that Ubuntu doesn't?

I say, that if you want something like a Mac OS X, either buy it, or customize your computer to look like it.

[jedimasterk]

Ubuntu shouldn't look like a Mac OS X, or get the whole look; Mac is different. Ubuntu needs something original. Something not found in operating systems. True, we have panels and all these stuff. But what does Mac have that Ubuntu doesn't?

I say, that if you want something like a Mac OS X, either buy it, or customize your computer to look like it.

Would be great, but I doubt we will ever see it surpase MacOSX. Apple has allot of develpers who get paid big bucks to maintain and enhance the UI of MacOSX. Canonical hired one guy, that's it!. Compiz is still buggy, especially when running 3D games. That needs to be fixed so compiz works flawlessly, with any application. Also Nvidia and ATI need to provide better support for Linux, equal to Windows and MacOSX. Will that happen?. Money talks. Apple just came out with Open CL. Why couldn't the Linux developers come out with a graphic standard?. There is way more focus on graphics when it comes to Apple than any Linux company or community is ever willing to provide.

[Ace1989]

Hello dear Ubuntu community,

I heard somewhere, that Canonical is planning to make Ubuntu as beautiful as MAC OS. What are your thoughts about it? I'm not talking about Compiz and Theme stuff, but about native Ubuntu look. I think Guys from ubuntu will do it, but, I think, ubuntu should change their native colors, because contrast isn't so good :(

The thing is change happens slowly. The changes that happened in Jaunty ... were discussions that started 2 years ago. A lot of changes that are possible ( like better fonts, icons, and themes) still have not been implemented, due to failing leadership.

Its all about leadership, and frankly, our art team sucks at getting anything done.

That talk of it looking as good as OS X... will never happen.

[Janjiss]

Would be great, but I doubt we will ever see it surpase MacOSX. Apple has allot of develpers who get paid big bucks to maintain and enhance the UI of MacOSX. Canonical hired one guy, that's it!. Compiz is still buggy, especially when running 3D games. That needs to be fixed so compiz works flawlessly, with any application. Also Nvidia and ATI need to provide better support for Linux, equal to Windows and MacOSX. Will that happen?. Money talks. Apple just came out with Open CL. Why couldn't the Linux developers come out with a graphic standard?. There is way more focus on graphics when it comes to Apple than any Linux company or community is ever willing to provide.

About developers... Well, only real thing that Ubuntu misses is work coordination. Yes Ubuntu is great at fixing bugs and other technical stuff. But there is a lack of innovation. We have something, that Apple does not have and never will - Community that is 100x larger than MAC-OS'es. I BET on it, if Ubuntu announces some kind of contest for best theme, color palette and font combinations - The new design will born as fast as lightning. I think thats the lack of Ubuntu...

[olskar]

About developers... Well, only real thing that Ubuntu misses is work coordination. Yes Ubuntu is great at fixing bugs and other technical stuff. But there is a lack of innovation. We have something, that Apple does not have and never will - Community that is 100x larger than MAC-OS'es. I BET on it, if Ubuntu announces some kind of contest for best theme, color palette and font combinations - The new design will born as fast as lightning. I think thats the lack of Ubuntu...

I don't agree. Open Office announced a contest where users could send in design proposals for the new version of Open Office. They got ~10 designs and they were.. well, check for yourself.

http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Renaissance/Design_Proposals_for_%E2%80%9CAccessing_Functional ity%E2%80%9D

Lot's of people does not equal good design. Designing a good UI and designing themes is actually an art. It's not a coincidence that good designers are paid a lot of money, it is because good designers is hard to find.

I prefer quality over quantity and therefore Canonical should hire some good designers, with experience that know what they are doing.

Taking this seriosly is the only way Ubuntu can be better than OSX.

[Janjiss]

Yes, I agree - Good designers are hard to find. But, I just don't believe, that there are no volunteers, whom are using UBUNTU. If Canonical will put in first page, that they are announcing new design contest, there should be some good responses.

I don't agree. Open Office announced a contest where users could send in design proposals for the new version of Open Office. They got ~10 designs and they were.. well, check for yourself.


That maybe happened, because it has not been announced in main page. It has been duged somewhere deep and no one even knows about it... :)

[Janjiss]

https://translations.launchpad.net/ubuntu/jaunty


I've done a little bit of translating and noticed that other's are using special methods to do it faster. But if there are many people doing a little bit each it takes no time translating everything.

Already did some translations, thnx

[olskar]

Yes, I agree - Good designers are hard to find. But, I just don't believe, that there are no volunteers, whom are using UBUNTU. If Canonical will put in first page, that they are announcing new design contest, there should be some good responses.



That maybe happened, because it has not been announced in main page. It has been duged somewhere deep and no one even knows about it... :)

~4300 views at least ;)

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1156684

[Anastasis]

Well, everyone is free to have opinions and tweak out their themes as they wish. I actually enjoy the Ubuntu human theme. I'm sure they'll probably get rid of it after a while, but personally, I'm trying to maintain it and even expand on that theme in my own personal backup/live distro.

But Ubuntu can look like anything you want it to look like. When I first saw the Ubuntu look in Hardy Heron, to tell the truth that's one of the things that attracted me to Ubuntu. Yeah, it sounds shallow, but its true. Most of the Linux looks I remember from back in the 90s were on X11 and seemed to always and anon have a palor of Death surrounding them. That's how it used to be with linux. It was always weird, abnormal, sickening, or attempting to be scary.

In those days Linux = DETH.

But Ubuntu has opposed this thinking of late in saying, No, no, friends! Linux doesn't just have to be about DETH, Hacking, and twisted dreams of the macabre. It can also be about divers and sundry winged and furry animals, coffee, and Peace...man!

[Janjiss]

~4300 views at least ;)

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1156684

Not much :)

[Janjiss]

Found this in fridge:


The desktop will have a designer’s fingerprints all over it - we’re now beginning the serious push to a new look. Brown has served us well but the Koala is considering other options. Come to UDS for a preview of the whole new look. (http://fridge.ubuntu.com/node/1831)

[cph05a]

this may sound hippyish, but I don't care, I'll say it anyway...

I think the beauty of Ubuntu is that it isn't necessarily up to cannonical to make Ubuntu "as beutiful as MAC OS X". We are free to do whatever we want. I'm not a fan of making it look exactly like any other system, but if you like that stuff, go for it. I personally think my desktop looks and operates better than OS X, and if you don't agree, just make your own!

I'm always interested in designs others have come up with as well.

[xXchibidudeXx]

I think we should move to new colors and themes but still distinctly linux...
Making the "New Wave" theme for 9.04 IMO was a big step, and we should make more lighter versions of this... Possible use blue or green as a base color? Brown is dull and boring. Orange isn't much better. However, I think ubuntu should offer different themes with different base colors.

[Merk42]

Found this in fridge:


The desktop will have a designer’s fingerprints all over it - we’re now beginning the serious push to a new look. Brown has served us well but the Koala is considering other options. Come to UDS for a preview of the whole new look. (http://fridge.ubuntu.com/node/1831)

He later said this:

it has taken a long, long time to pull together a design team i had hoped to have that team in place six months ago, but it's still forming i think we will make good progress in the next cycle you can already see a few things that have borne fruit from that team notifications, time zone selector in installer, etc but it's fragmentary i'm pretty darn confident we'll have a new look for 10.04 but i think only pieces of that will emerge for 9.10

So it doesn't matter what is said, or by who. A new theme not in the blueprints as Approved and Started, so it is not going to happen.

For more information, check out my (second) thread on the subject in Development & Programming > Karmic Koala Testing and Discussion > The "New Look" for Karmic Koala (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1178810)

[eilios]

Ubuntu IS as beautiful as mac os x. Look in the attached image, it's my new theme, and it's lovely <3. BTW: If you want it just get the wallpaper from the mockup thread, new wave theme, and gnome-do docky.

Ubuntu is customizable, mac os x is not. If you don't like the mac UI, you shouldn't get a mac. If you don't like the Ubuntu UI, then switch it up a bit(Like I did)

[Merk42]

Ubuntu IS as beautiful as mac os x. Look in the attached image, it's my new theme, and it's lovely <3. BTW: If you want it just get the wallpaper from the mockup thread, new wave theme, and gnome-do docky.

Ubuntu is customizable, mac os x is not. If you don't like the mac UI, you shouldn't get a mac. If you don't like the Ubuntu UI, then switch it up a bit(Like I did)

But that's not by default, which is what this thread was talking about. So I would slightly modify what you said to be "Ubuntu can be as beautfiul as mac os x."

[千寻cc]

yeah,Mac OSX is very beautiful.

[BlazeFire247]

I agree that Mac OS X is beautiful. I never used a Mac before but I do look at screenshots. What I noticed about Ubuntu's defaut Human theme is that the panels aren't, well, shiny or glossy. Just flat. If Ubuntu should be as beautiful as Mac OS X, I think that the panels should have a little more design in it.

[Dml]

I own mac mini. OS X is outright ugly in comparison with ubuntu. The graphical style (blue shiny buttons, etc) lacks any artistic taste whatsoever, or if you wish, its plain bad taste, the font rendering is awful for reading, and there is practically no customization (which means that you're stuck with blue "ohh shiny" crap and with blurred fonts).
Don't make derogatory (for ubuntu) comparisons that it is "as beautiful" please. Especially those of you whom never used OS X.
edit: by the way. I personally do not like ubuntu's default theme, but at least it shows some artistic taste, not just fad-at-the-time blue&shiny, and most importantly, it can be tweaked to look the way you want, unlike OS X.

[Fzang]

I own mac mini. OS X is outright ugly in comparison with ubuntu. The graphical style (blue shiny buttons, etc) lacks any artistic taste whatsoever, or if you wish, its plain bad taste, the font rendering is awful for reading, and there is practically no customization (which means that you're stuck with blue "ohh shiny" crap and with blurred fonts).
Don't make derogatory (for ubuntu) comparisons that it is "as beautiful" please. Especially those of you whom never used OS X.
edit: by the way. I personally do not like ubuntu's default theme, but at least it shows some artistic taste, not just fad-at-the-time blue&shiny, and most importantly, it can be tweaked to look the way you want, unlike OS X.

I tried hard but I couldn't find anything right about this. OS X is very easy to skin and tweak and has a HUGE customization community, way bigger than linux's. The font rendering is a matter of preference I'd say because personally I love the OS X font rendering. Because you hate the "blue ooh shiny crap" doesn't mean everyone else does. Why do you think the OS X interface is so successful ? Surely it's not because it was designed with a bad taste and lack of imagination.

[Dml]

I tried hard but I couldn't find anything right about this. OS X is very easy to skin and tweak
any links?
edit: ahh, lol, third party hack pack shapeshifter. Don't want to touch third party skinning hacks with ten feet pole.

"and has a HUGE customization community, way bigger than linux's"
patently a lie, as any google search shows. (edit: whoo shapeshifter is actually the *only* third party hack, and it does not even work with OS X 10.5 (http://macthemes2.net/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=248746). And yes, surely, even on closed source platform with hard-coded GUI, if you like to waste your time, you can reverse engineer it, overwrite image files, or even overwrite colours in the binary. I hope you are not going to argue that this is reasonable)

"The font rendering is a matter of preference I'd say"
On Linux, font rendering is matter of my preference (i set it to whatever I want), on OS X, font rendering is a matter of Steve Jobs preference.

[Viva]

The only thing I find beautiful about Mac OS is the icon theme. I find everything else boring and dull.

[Fzang]

any links?
edit: ahh, lol, third party hack pack shapeshifter. Don't want to touch third party skinning hacks with ten feet pole.

"and has a HUGE customization community, way bigger than linux's"
patently a lie, as any google search shows. (edit: whoo shapeshifter is actually the *only* third party hack, and it does not even work with OS X 10.5 (http://macthemes2.net/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=248746). And yes, surely, even on closed source platform with hard-coded GUI, if you like to waste your time, you can reverse engineer it, overwrite image files, or even overwrite colours in the binary. I hope you are not going to argue that this is reasonable)

"The font rendering is a matter of preference I'd say"
On Linux, font rendering is matter of my preference (i set it to whatever I want), on OS X, font rendering is a matter of Steve Jobs preference.

Actually, there's also Magnifique.... Anyways, a community is a group of people that support a project (eg Gnome-look.org for linux themes). A community is not a single application.

And saying "it's a third party hack, I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole!" is just ignorant. Just because it's not bundled with OS X doesn't mean it's dangerous and will punch your babies when you look the other way. Just because it's not built into the OS doesn't mean it's buggy and likely to fail hard.

Do you even know what the term "a matter of preference" means? Just because I can't change something doesn't mean I have to hate it. Just because I can't change the font of Mac OS I can still like it, I can still prefer it.



Awaiting counter attack.

[UbuntuNerd]

The only thing I find beautiful about Mac OS is the icon theme. I find everything else boring and dull.

I definitely agreed with that I love the icons but not the rest.

[alex.rayu]

I see the theme comes up again and again. Face it, the problem of Ubuntu VS MacOS X is this:

1. MacOS X focuses on how technology interacts with design. For them, design is not how things look, but what they are. Ubuntu is a lasting attempt to make geeky red-eyed technology look nicer and friendlier.

2. Apple has a bright design philosophy, with objective standards and demands, that objectively make interface more intuitive and powerful. Ubuntu has some "human interface guidelines", that are weak, but that also no one reads seriously. Ubuntu end up taking lots of programs from other projects, who may not be concerned wth any guidelines.

3. Apple has world's best pros work on their system, both code and design. Linux has enthusiasts who can afford only so much time to work on it, mostly not well enough educated.

4. Apple has an effective centralized system of filtering and selecting ideas. Ubuntu has Mark on one hand, and community on the other hand. Community that is quite uneducated in area of designs, interfaces, etc. - take for example Dml's saying that Ubuntu design is better that MacOS X's - and you have an idea about the kind of aesthetical tastes. Interfaces need to be created by design professionals, not by a marketplace majority vote.

5. Apple has a plan. Ubuntu seems to be taking Debian, Gnome, adding a few features and that's it. Ubuntu guys are out of control. Now, GTK team is lagging, Gnome community is splitting - everything is lagging, KDE 4.2 came just in time before Win 7, which is fast, intuitive, beautiful, and stable - and Gnome is out of time. In fact, KDE was strongly criticized, but they really made a point to make a fast switch. They look like Win 7 in many ways, aiming on Vista and Win 7 users. And with Gnome - I am not sure. It seems more and more each day, that Gnome will come down.

So, I hope you see the difference. In creating designs and writing software, numbers of community don't count. Hundreds of thousands of community but the average aesthetic taste is ranging between a pink Kittie and a black Mesa. Numbers of good pros - this is what counts here.

[alex.rayu]

Have a look at this: http://www.apple.com/macosx/refinements/

1. Unobtrusive gray interface that does not distract. Colorful icons and buttons that should draw attention.

2. Pixel-perfect, refined to every detail.

3. Have a look at those beautiful icons and compare them to the plastic horror that Tango is.

4. Better, faster backup, no need to type obscure parameters in console for it (think of RemasterSys).

5. A better and delicate video player. Win 7 has caught them up here though. Windows Media player is a candy in Win 7, with least distraction on the screen (Totem is a win ME player level).

6. An improved interaction between applications, not just that forced gnome-indexer-evolution monstrocity thing.

7. OpenCL - use video processor power for other apps.

What does this tell you? It costs $. But if Mark used money wisely he could have build a comparable system out of Linux just as Jobs once built MacOS out of BSD.

[Fzang]

As much as I really love and worship the mac OS design.... do you really think tango is THAT ugly? I think they give the OS a feeling of cute simplicity... or something... :p

[alex.rayu]

There's a place for different designs. But when toyish simplicity is all you have...

See, icons is a HUGE problem, because they are very many, a HUGE amount of work. You can draw a Gnome theme, or a wallpaper. But Quality, hi-res icons, man! Of course we have Tango. They are not detailed, and have been adding up for a dozen of years now. The looked cool when they first started, but they are now morally outdated.

Have a look at the picture below. Look at the detail. Look at the quality. Who much time do you thing was spent to draw each icon?

http://www.striderlance.com/repository/images/icons.jpg

Then, look at what you see. Apple: a nice realistic full-color home. Tango. What is it? A folder? A mutant folder. Have to think to recognize it. Blue and gray. Now, imagine your desktop of icons. How much would you have to THINK trying to identify icons? Cause they deviate from real-life shapes of things they are supposed to represent. Off course, you will get used in time...

[Tibuda]

You have good points, but you can't compare these two icons. You should compare a folder with a folder, a home with a home.

http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=118134&stc=1&d=1245366224
http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=118136&stc=1&d=1245366768

[Fzang]

While Tango may look "old", "overly simple" and "boring" it does follow the standard guidelines for icons pretty well. You can see what the icons look like and they're angled right out at you.

Windows icons on the other hand... *shiver*... I don't know who created those icons or why they even bothered. You can't see what most of them are supposed to look like, they're placed in weird angles and most of them are dull blue and grey colors which makes it harder, mentally, to differentiate between the icons.

[The Phoenix]

Why are we discussing Tango icons? Doesn't Ubuntu use Human icons? And personally I think the Human icons look great. I haven't really seen many Mac icons but I'm pretty sure Human is just as good if not better.

[jedimasterk]

Have a look at this: http://www.apple.com/macosx/refinements/

1. Unobtrusive gray interface that does not distract. Colorful icons and buttons that should draw attention.

2. Pixel-perfect, refined to every detail.

3. Have a look at those beautiful icons and compare them to the plastic horror that Tango is.

4. Better, faster backup, no need to type obscure parameters in console for it (think of RemasterSys).

5. A better and delicate video player. Win 7 has caught them up here though. Windows Media player is a candy in Win 7, with least distraction on the screen (Totem is a win ME player level).

6. An improved interaction between applications, not just that forced gnome-indexer-evolution monstrocity thing.

7. OpenCL - use video processor power for other apps

What does this tell you? It costs $. But if Mark used money wisely he could have build a comparable system out of Linux just as Jobs once built MacOS out of BSD.

I agree with everything you said. But if you want those great looks and features in a Unix based operating system. You will have to pay. Professional design doesn't come for free. It never will!. Ubuntu is great, but it will never be Mac OSX. Why?. Because the goals are different. Plus Apple employees get paid way better than any Canonical, Novell, or Redhat employee will ever make. Plus Apple employs the best developers they can afford. Know matter what anyone says, money talks!. KDE right now is the future of Linux. Gnome and GTK well, is getting very boring. MacOSX is what Gnome should have become. But than again most Linux companies care more about pleasing the Developers/Server maintainers vs Desktop/Workstation users. Hence why companies like Adobe will not port their apps. And why Windows and MacOSX will always be first for hardware manufacturers of home/workstation desktops. Money!!. Communities are great and Linux is great, but you will never get what Apple or Windows can produce for home users and in the same time frame. And finally, hardware manufacturers, like Nvidia, ATI, motherboard manufacturers, tend to work allot more with companies like Microsoft and Apple than they will ever do with a Linux based company. OpenCL is a great example. Nvidia and Apple working together.

[alex.rayu]

It never will!. Ubuntu is great, but it will never be Mac OSX. Why?. Because the goals are different. Plus Apple employees get paid way better than any Canonical, Novell, or Redhat employee will ever make. Plus Apple employs the best developers they can afford. Know matter what anyone says, money talks!. KDE right now is the future of Linux.

I am not blaming anybody for not making Ubuntu beautiful. But what I am saying - is that I am saddened by the waste of money. MacOS is proprietary, but Linux has a potential in the fact that it is open. So, I company can use an existing OS to make it human. And that is what a whole series of companies have been trying to do, one of whom is Canonical.

Ubuntu - if you look at CentOS - is a huge step forward in usability and experience. But when I use MacOS, there is a feeling of a thing, that was designed with beauty and usability in mind, like some beautiful Mercedes car. And when I use Ubuntu, I have a constant feeling of a agricultural tractor engine, on whom the shiny apparel has been forced. But the tractor parts keep sticking here and there, and then you have apps with non-native look, terrible java apps, monstroid combinations between scripts and GTK that are launched from terminal. Just get a step away from the initial set, and it gets out to the sunlight.

I agree that Canonical can't take and rewrite the apps. But hey - Apple does not write all apps either. Canonical needs to control the process and that's it.

As for the icons in Windows - Win 7 has some of the worst icon sets I have ever seen. Icons are so indistinct in both form and color, that yo can browse for dozens of minutes trying to find your windows firewall or install software icon. Now, M$ has lots of money, but they still do it. I have no comments. In fact, Win NEVER had good icons. But... At least the rest of the Win 7 is a candy.

KDE the future - I don't like KDE and will leave linux if Gnome goes on like this.

But I also see when you say that Ubuntu is in many ways beautiful. In Win 7, I badly miss Evince. I also miss in integrated arhive manager like file roller. I use WinRAR in Win 7 - but it's not as well integrated. Miss a good disk burner. Nero is expensive! Miss a good image viewer like Gthumb and EOG. For some reason. Win 7 viewer won't let me view the images fullscreen.

So, you see, there ARE good sides to Ubuntu. But they are balanced by a load of problems, one of which is the outdated toolkit.

Fzang said that Tango is not that bad. I agree. But you need to see the wider picture. The current uprise of Linux was due to the fact that it wanted to stop being a red-eyed system, and wanted to become modern and human. Lots of enthusiasts joined in. It has made some impressive steps forward. But now it just seems to start waving in the course.

Oh - enjoy the most expensive bad icons that the world has seen:

http://www.striderlance.com/repository/images/oymama.jpg

[Dml]

Actually, there's also Magnifique.... Anyways, a community is a group of people that support a project (eg Gnome-look.org for linux themes). A community is not a single application.

Links to OS X customization community that's "way bigger" than Linux's?
Until you provide any, you're, in my eyes, just a liar. Like, in my experience, all the mac fanboys. People whom bought overly expensive system and then have to lie to themselves and to everyone else to justify it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias


And saying "it's a third party hack, I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole!" is just ignorant.
Its not. I value stability. Read their changelog of "no longer crashes with abc". Don't refer to applications which you didn't use, OK?
There is a huge quality difference between third party tools which are using documented API, and third party tool hacking at binaries and using undocumented APIs.
edit: more exact.

[Dml]

also, about preferences. You may prefer MacDonalds uniformly manufactured pizza (where main ingredient is food colourings). I don't care.

But please quit making comparisons like "homemade pizza as beautiful as Mac pizza?", or worse yet telling that homemade pizza can never be as beautiful. On a pizza making forum. I like my custom pizza, thank you very much, and no, my custom pizza is not like your mac pizza with a little third party sauce on top.

[ubuwatson]

One of my hobbies has always been art, I have a great eye for looks and on the side I do photography. I suppose I am in the minority, but I find the Mac OSX look a little too polished, and that silver/jewel button look is a little long in the tooth IMHO. The Mac look was all the rage about 5 or 6 years ago, I remember everyone tried to emulate the look on their pc, and even though I was one of those people trying to achieve that look, I now feel the look is a little long in the tooth and don't find it attractive as I once did.

Looking at current trends in desktop design (spend some time looking at lifehacker desktops for example), the new 'trendy' look is soft and earthy palettes, minimalist desktops with flat controls and windows. The Mac goes for glitz and glamour, something that IMHO is no longer stylish and often a bit overbearing (I also find the Vista/Windows 7 look to be the same).

I think Ubuntu is more in line with the current trends in design.

Regardless of whether you like the Ubuntu selection of themes, keep in mind it is also the most customizable and allows one to achieve whatever 'look' one wants.

[alex.rayu]

It's not about emulation of Mac. It's about the design principles. And the trends are not set by some few designers. They are set by the leading market products.

[jesterthejedi]

The home in my theme seems much more aesthetically pleasing than that Mac home. Apple may pay their designers more, but lest you forget that just 10 years ago, their systems were dull and boring and useless. Its only the artwork that elevated Macs by introducing bolder eye candy.

Mashup > http://www.gnome-look.org/content/show.php?action=content&content=86452

[alex.rayu]

Yes, your home icon is very good.
If you and guys like you were in the design team I would be optimistic about what you could to together.

[gnuskool]

I have been using linux longer than I care to remember and while I enjoy the experience, I note with some annoyance that in the 'looks' arena we're a distant second. On all other fronts, linux is arguably on 'bleeding edge' - why can't this spill over to looks too?

Should we be content with Mac looks, or windows looks? As an example, just look at what's been achieved in enlightenment desktop - they are forging their own territory.

If a lesson needs to be learnt that 'looks count' - just see how adobe is cutting java's lunch. Some would say java got no lunch left - but that's another argument. Adobe went from design, to VM, to script, to full blown OOP language, to mobile ....who knows where to next (designer's OS to rival Mac maybe??) ...all on the back of 'looks'..

Linux is THE confluence of variety , I'm confident in 'collective wisdom' to get us a good looking OS too.


That said - get designing ;D

[alex.rayu]

Nobody says "apply the MAC OS look". Don't misunderstand. Was are saying, that there are objective norms and patterns in what makes a good interface, that would be good to see applied.

[Sand & Mercury]

Apple may pay their designers more, but lest you forget that just 10 years ago, their systems were dull and boring and useless.
Whoa, hold up. Just 10 years ago, GNOME looked like this:
http://www.ne.lug.org.uk/pix/oldgnome.png

[eamon63]

Nobody says "apply the MAC OS look". Don't misunderstand. Was are saying, that there are objective norms and patterns in what makes a good interface, that would be good to see applied.

++

[alex.rayu]

Whoa, hold up. Just 10 years ago, GNOME looked like this...

And 30 years from now a real strong computer would take a whole room and work on tapes, so what? Don't look back man!

[days_of_ruin]

And 30 years from now a real strong computer would take a whole room and work on tapes, so what? Don't look back man!

He was replying to jester. No os looked good 10 years ago.

[philcamlin]

i like the ubuntu desktop :popcorn:

[PrimoTurbo]

I agree with much of what alex.rayu has said. Tango was a good idea at the time, it has created a great deal of uniformity on Linux systems, but it still falls short in providing a beautiful experience.

OSX by far has the most uniform, modern and beautiful design. Ubuntu should not aim to reach OSX but instead be inspired and attempt to surpass OSX. We should not be mimicking the interface and copying various elements, we should be focusing on creating the NEXT-GEN designs, interfaces and customizations. Ubuntu design team should focus on not replicating the past but creating the a standard in interface design for the future generations.

Imagine if Ubuntu by default looked MUCH better then OSX, it would attract a bigger audience, which would only make Ubuntu better. (More support, more availability, more exposure)

Ubuntu is no longer the old generation Linux, which said if you don't like it use something else or change it yourself. Instead Ubuntu is attempting to bridge the gap between Linux and usability, it has already archived more then most distributions in the past few years. The focus now should be usability, design and function.

Last but not least, if you examine OSX icon you will notice how well they are designed. Look at the presentation, every icon is facing you in a forward direction. Not slanted in various positions, not obscured, not cartoonish but detailed and identifiable.

[JDorfler]

The default theme in Ubuntu does what it is supposed to do. It gives the user an interface that is simple, yet clean to keep things from getting too complicated. But underneath it all, Ubuntu is still Gnome with Debian. With that in mind you can make it look like anything you want, and not to mention you can make it do anything you want. Yes, it takes some time for tweaking, like installing Compiz and Emerald, but it can be done.

I'm not going to lie. I'm really not liking OS-X. I don't see what the big deal is. It's a dumbed down Unix with an ok GUI. Linux is where it's at. For customisation, usefulness, and down right media playing you can't beat a well set up Linux desktop. It's a shame that there aren't many mainstream games for it. Otherwise I would be able to get rid of my Windows Partition.

I know it sounds sad, but I hate Apple so much I would rather use Windows. Itunes is nothing more than malware with a virus type installation method. The Ipod is a bottom of the line overpriced portable player with too many restrictions, and the Mac is nothing more than an overpriced mid-range PC with the proprietary OS-X installed. God forbid you want to upgrade anything.

To upgrade from OS-X 10.1 to 10.2 you have to pay. What the heck? It should be a downloadable update, not a whole new OS package.

Want to upgrade your video card? Good luck with that. Not to mention your soundcard. Does Apple even support soundcards?

Every time I see a Mac or an Ipod, I just want to lurch. If you have Windows or Linux, you are free to upgrade a way, and if something breaks it's a lot easier to fix in some form or another without losing your whole system.

I know this thread was for Ubuntu looking as nice as OS-X, but in my eye it is a lot nicer. I'm not trying to persuade others from loving their Macs. They have the right. It's just not for me.

[Kmetamorphosis]

I agree largely with what alex.rayu has said. Ubuntu does not need to emulate Mac OS X to find success -- whether it even can is debatable. What it can do is work to make sure all aspects of its interface are consistent. If they take the 100 Paper Cuts idea and apply it to the GUI, it would be a big step in the right direction.

For example:
-- Gnome has the ability to apply emblems to folders in order to mark what the contents of the folder may be. The Gnome Brave icons available on Gnome-look.org contain a large number of emblems to chose from. The default Human icons provide very few, making the option to use emblems seem tacked on.
-- Some system tray icons are svg images while others are png. As a result, stretching the taskbar away from the default size will bring less than desirable results. This makes the ability to resize the taskbar to also seem tacked on.
-- Compiz settings work for most windows, but there are some that seem immune to whatever open/close animation the user has chosen. This is distracting.

Ubuntu doesn't have to go out and buy a new dress for the dance. The dress already in its closet can serve just fine, just so long as it puts on makeup, does its hair, and wears that dress with confidence.

[Scnd101]

The home in my theme seems much more...

Not to be rude or anything but you shouldn't call it "your theme" when you didn't make any of the icons yourself. You did a good job packaging them though.

3. Have a look at those beautiful icons and compare them to the plastic horror that Tango is.

The problem is that while a complete icon theme for OSX is just 300 icons, while for linux it could be 10 times as many.

[Janjiss]

One of my hobbies has always been art, I have a great eye for looks and on the side I do photography. I suppose I am in the minority, but I find the Mac OSX look a little too polished, and that silver/jewel button look is a little long in the tooth IMHO. The Mac look was all the rage about 5 or 6 years ago, I remember everyone tried to emulate the look on their pc, and even though I was one of those people trying to achieve that look, I now feel the look is a little long in the tooth and don't find it attractive as I once did.

Looking at current trends in desktop design (spend some time looking at lifehacker desktops for example), the new 'trendy' look is soft and earthy palettes, minimalist desktops with flat controls and windows. The Mac goes for glitz and glamour, something that IMHO is no longer stylish and often a bit overbearing (I also find the Vista/Windows 7 look to be the same).

I think Ubuntu is more in line with the current trends in design.

Regardless of whether you like the Ubuntu selection of themes, keep in mind it is also the most customizable and allows one to achieve whatever 'look' one wants.

Do you have some screens of your desktop? Just interesting how u configured it :)

[alex.rayu]

Again, the fact that Ubuntu designers/developers are not paid as compared to Apple's is just another "pro" for saying to Canonical, Novell, and RedHat, "Guys, stop doing the parallel work! Join your efforts!"

[The Phoenix]

Ok, well instead of wasting time complaining, and debating why don't we do something constructive? Lets make a list/outline of what makes a good theme. That way theme designers know what we want and how to make a good theme. Because I don't really know a lot about this and I am interested in and would like to get started with designing themes, so I at least would like to know what exactly makes a good theme.

[Aaron.A]

that's a fallacy. lol
i don't know about making it "as beautiful" as a mac but it definitely needs something fresh. as a new user i, personally, am stunned by the amount of customization available to ubuntu users. utilized properly, it is probably as beautiful as any operating system can be right now. =)
<3 me some ubuntu

[alex.rayu]

I helped with what I can - with the Karmic upstream website. Will help where I can in the future as well.

[germclown]

I can give my Ubuntu a passable-to-good user experience. I'm fairly good with computers, though, and no one in my family would/could bother to do what I've done.

The Linux community has done a pretty good job of mimicking specific desirable features, but seem to fail miserably at figuring out why an interface solution is a good one. This prevents unique and novel solutions from appearing. The best work seems to come in the form of
copy this, but fix/add this part" seen easily in panels/docks/compiz.

Computer artists have long lost the need to be programmers as well. Every new GIMP or CS version makes this even more true. Hacking around text files as a matter of course is keeping the best Ubuntu themes on the drawing board; literally. I guarantee it. Good documentation is lacking, and is critical, but far better would be GUI front ends for the major themeable parts of the interface. At the very least, exhaustive documentation of what consitutes a "complete" icon/gtk/metacity theme would at least allow an artist to put something together in a way that lets others in the community with scripting/textfile skills to finalise the theme. So...

Things I want from Ubuntu/Canonical/upstream in a very easy to find/access/understand way:

An "add/remove"-style interface for metacity/gtk/icon themes. Repositories should be simple for providers and should be as specific as possible. Examples: deviant art should be able to have their own; gnome-look should be able to have separate ones for dark/glossy/clone/ etc themes. The default repository should have 25+ complete and bugless themes for each of GTK, metacity and icons (even 50+ would not be hard to find at all).

Way better pre-installed themes. Most of what comes with Ubuntu looks at least 10 years old, and even the newer stuff looks at least 5. Spend an hour finding a dozen of the better community themes and toss those into 9.10 instead of Redmond and Crux. This one is especially easy. There is no excuse for crappy pre-installed themes these days. (But by all means, keep a low-resource, hi-contrast option as well)

For icon themers, a complete and exhaustive list of icon file names and sizes with where and when they will appear in the GUI. A separate list (by popularity) of applications that need their own icons. This all needs to be as clear and thorough as a checklist so that a given icon theme can be confidently labeled as "complete for Ubuntu". I don't know how many amazing themes I install and then reject because some very critical icons defaulted to gnome or tango defaults and ruined the unity.

Metacity needs to allow Emerald-style button options. I need to have at least 'above' and 'stick' indicators on my windows. Metacity also desperately needs antialiasing. So many rounded themes, so many ugly, XP-like pixelated curves.

If Metacity can't do this, then Emerald needs to fix its f***ing shadow issues. I keep harping on them about it, and I can't fix it myself.

GTK and its engines need proper documentation. There needs to be a very simple to use pixmap engine (think WinAmp c. version 3) with a complete list of images needed and proper descriptions of where and when those images will appear, and all of the possible style options for that widget. I've tried to make a decent theme, but I'm just an artist and the extent of my programming knowledge is css/xhtml and some c++. I have found it impossible to track down documentation of any GTK/engine combo that doesn't require a massive trial and error session to get enough info to actually plan a design. Hacking and tweaking others' guess work isn't good enough.

A media player/library program inspired by the very useable Zune interface (inspired by, but improved on). It needs to play movies, music, podcasts and organize photos; and be able (with codec packs or whatever else) to play/view on it's own, without other programs any media file format. This one's critical for 'average' home users and I'm sure everyone else would love it, too. It seems the only programs Linux has that are actually better than those on MS/Apple platforms are the really 'geeky' stuff. A top-notch centralised media program, plus Firefox and Evolution/Thunderbird are all a lot of people would ever want or need from their computer.

---

That's it for now. More if I think of it. There are artists chomping at the bit to create a beautiful, authentic-to-Linux user space, but are hogtied by the need to be scripters and textfile whizzes (and this without decent documentation). Give them the tools to work on just the art and theme quality/diversity will skyrocket.

I'd gladly try all this myself, but I'm just an artist. Programmers: get on this and I'll draw you some spiffy buttons.

[alex.rayu]

Right. Centralized organization!

[Merk42]

You don't want organization, dude, cuz like, that's the man telling us how to do things, Linux is all about choice.

That was sarcasm in case no one noticed...

[alex.rayu]

Linux devs and designers are like sheep, each one gone in it's own way. No Steve Jobs, no Bill Gates.

[Merk42]

I don't think that's a good analogy. "Sheeple" means a group of people that just blindly agree with what they are told. No doubt what people against standards would call those for standards.

And hey Linux/FOSS has people, like Richard Stallman. Here's a lovely video of him eating something from his own foot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ#t=1m46s

[kayosiii]

Many consider the Music of the orchestra a thing of beauty - all the parts seem to be part of a greater whole, blending seamlessly with each other. Each player follows the conductor. The musical instruments used are usually of the finest quality available. Each musician is professional and makes a living from their music. If you wish to see an orchestra you better believe you are going to pay for the experience.

Many consider the music of the Gypsy's a thing of beauty. It is wild and made with passion. It comes from the heart, there is no conductor the participants need to work together create the song. Instruments are typically the cheapest available, quite often damaged and repaired many times. When they play each instrument can be individually heard.

It would be foolish to expect a band of gypsy's to produce a symphony for they would have to squash their fiery gypsy spirit and fierce independence in order to do so. And it would be foolish to ask the orchestra to play the music of the gypsey's as they would be far too inhibited to play with the wild abandon and ability to adapt to changing conditions that characterises this music.

I say that both music's are beautiful - and what would most people prefer to listen to. Well the truth is that most people listen to neither the symphony or the wail of the gypsies but to rather bland pop music.

[alex.rayu]

Exactly so. And today's linux is an orchestra of people each playing his own tune and enjoying their "freedom", so to say. The result is cacophony.

[Grishka]

Exactly so. And today's linux is an orchestra of people each playing his own tune and enjoying their "freedom", so to say. The result is cacophony.

perhaps it is you who is lacking in musical taste, so to speak. Mahler's music was also called 'cacophony' by his peers, Tchaikovsky's as well, not to mention Prokofiev's, Stockhausen's or Xenakis'. we don't need no stinkin' gurus, we don't want another Apple. atomisation prevents stagnation, and stimulates progress. Linux is not to be had by a single entity, else it will become 'a franchise', 'a product' to be sold, abandoned, and betrayed at the whim of 'the Boss'. that said, I don't like the 'kitchen appliance' looks of OS X. and it's getting uglier and more bloated all the time. add an extreme difficulty in changing the default looks, an awkward interface, the lack of the most obvious usability options... and an insolent marketing campaign. there's no comparison, really.

[Merk42]

perhaps it is you who is lacking in musical taste, so to speak. Mahler's music was also called 'cacophony' by his peers, Tchaikovsky's as well, not to mention Prokofiev's, Stockhausen's or Xenakis'. we don't need no stinkin' gurus, we don't want another Apple. atomisation prevents stagnation, and stimulates progress. Linux is not to be had by a single entity, else it will become 'a franchise', 'a product' to be sold, abandoned, and betrayed at the whim of 'the Boss'. that said, I don't like the 'kitchen appliance' looks of OS X. and it's getting uglier and more bloated all the time. add an extreme difficulty in changing the default looks, an awkward interface, the lack of the most obvious usability options... and an insolent marketing campaign. there's no comparison, really.


Who said that if there were standards it'd be run by one 'guru' or 'boss'? A lot of standards are committees, W3C, ISO, etc. To elaborate on W3C, they don't 'own' the Internet, you don't even have to follow the standards. You're better off if you, and when you do they aren't exactly limiting.

alex.rayu wasn't attacking a particular 'orchestra player'. He was saying when they all do their own thing, at the same time, the result is a cacophony.

How about a car analogy then? Instead of Linux coming together to build a great car, you have dozens of groups all reinventing the wheel.

[jimmyhacker]

you all guys learned to wash brains so all people can change their decission imeddiately.;););)

[wayne_cat]

How about a car analogy then? Instead of Linux coming together to build a great car, you have dozens of groups all reinventing the wheel.

There was (almost) no competition in the former east german car industry ... They had the "Trabant"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant

Nobody "reinvented the wheel" for a long time ... look at he result. ;)

[Merk42]

There was (almost) no competition in the former east german car industry ... They had the "Trabant"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant

Nobody "reinvented the wheel" for a long time ... look at he result. ;)

No, nobody reinvented the entire car in that scenario.

[Grishka]

Who said that if there were standards it'd be run by one 'guru' or 'boss'? A lot of standards are committees, W3C, ISO, etc. To elaborate on W3C, they don't 'own' the Internet, you don't even have to follow the standards. You're better off if you, and when you do they aren't exactly limiting.

alex.rayu wasn't attacking a particular 'orchestra player'. He was saying when they all do their own thing, at the same time, the result is a cacophony.

How about a car analogy then? Instead of Linux coming together to build a great car, you have dozens of groups all reinventing the wheel.

that's a great car analogy, only what you describe just ain't happening, buddy. what's happening is steady progress at all fronts. with an occasional hiccup: a failed project, a dead end, a regression, a stupid idea or two, an ugly theme... stuff like that happens to organizations or big companies as well, all the time, so it's not the downfall of FLOSS, but perhaps just a mark of humanity's nature? and a price of growth.

[germclown]

Right. Centralized organization!

Wrong, actually. Standards aren't the same as centralised organisation. And documentation isn't anything like standards, it just tells you how something that exists works. The only reason I called for canonical, upstream, etc to get involved is because I know it's not all done by the ubuntu team or for their sole benefit.

All I think is needed for great art and themes in Linux is a way for artists to avoid all the programming-like work necessary for them to get their visuals onto the interface. Such programs could easily be put together in the same way as anything else that's written for the platform. A bunch of GUI front ends for the arcane text files and comprehensive info on core objects (like icons). No centralisation is needed for this, just a few people with the skills and time to pull it off.

I don't want a symphony. I don't want a bunch of toddlers with macaroni shakers. I want jazz: a little agreed on structure with sensitivity to tradition, but always room for someone to improvise and add a new idea, something of themselves.

[alex.rayu]

And Jazz is everybody playing what they want and how they want? No music is like that. And standards will not ensure a good taste on part of a designer/developer.

[Grishka]

And Jazz is everybody playing what they want and how they want? No music is like that. And standards will not ensure a good taste on part of a designer/developer.

you, sir, are obviously no musician. but pray tell, what will ensure a good taste on a designer's part, then?

[alex.rayu]

you, sir, are obviously no musician. but pray tell, what will ensure a good taste on a designer's part, then?

But of course, sir. Nothing ensureth good taste better than a strict art director with a good taste, the one who sendeth you to redo your design again, and again, and again, until it becometh but a candy. Nothing indeed is as helpful an asset in developing a new designer's taste and ensuring the good design quality as that. But that becometh only the pro studios and companies. But for Ubuntu, a good art director with a good taste and a sense of direction would suffice.

[Merk42]

...But for Ubuntu...a sense of direction would suffice.

:p

[Grishka]

But of course, sir. Nothing ensureth good taste better than a strict art director with a good taste, the one who sendeth you to redo your design again, and again, and again, until it becometh but a candy. Nothing indeed is as helpful an asset in developing a new designer's taste and ensuring the good design quality as that. But that becometh only the pro studios and companies. But for Ubuntu, a good art director with a good taste and a sense of direction would suffice.

alas! good taste is a purely subjective matter. you'd trust one person's sense of aesthetics with... everything? could you really believe that their views, no matter their skill, experience, education, could be universally fitting? you're looking for a one-size-fits-all solution. this is acceptable for a closed, monolithic system, where 'the Boss', the holy pharaoh, the queen, sits at the top of their hive, 'managing' worker ants that scurry busily beneath, gathering precious pennies... OS X being an example here, with it's honed to perfection, but bland and awkward interface. Linux is modular at it's very core, there is no way to consolidate it without tearing it apart. about your concept of perpetual labour: what you describe is slavery at it's worst. should the art director use a whip, or a bat? perish the thought. I prefer my candies sweet with sugar, not salty with sweat.

[issih]

Right...various points to make here.

1) Most important one, any visual interface's beauty is an utterly subjective thing..no one thing is EVER beautiful to all people (except maybe the golden ratio, but I'd say even that is dodgy). Consequently aiming to be all things to all men is pointless, and those that complain that xyz is ugly and hideous miss the point entirely. The best you can hope for is to please as many as possible as much as possible...and that is about where mac's are. Whether you personally like it, or agree with it or not, the generally perceived opinion is that macs have the best, most consistent, and "beautiful" interface.

2) Linux provides the freedom to do as you please, with your personal copy...that is the freedom you are guaranteed, no more nor less. That freedom to do whatever you want does not mean that your own personal whims should necessarily by catered to by a specific distro..if you don't like it, then you roll your own.

3) Consequently, a mainstream distro (like ubuntu) should be looking to match the universality of the mainstream aesthetics of something like mac's interface. On the assumption that you want increased market share, then we need ubuntu to be as pretty as possible to as many people as possible straight out of the box. New users do not know how, nor have the time and inclination to customise the way many of us do. They want something sleek, attractive, modern, consistent and usable. If you want a steam punk desktop, or no gui whatsoever, then I'm sorry but you are niche, and you really can't expect ubuntu to cater for you and you alone.

4) "Linux's diversity is its strength, so we can't impose uniformity on it"....Well yes, and no. Linux is not one distro. as a developer you can fork and branch to your hearts content, you can prove the worth of your new methods and then they can be adopted, the dirty washing does not have to be done in public nearly as much as it is.

Lets assume that ubuntu produces a set of house design rules and guidelines, and that only apps, or ports of apps meeting them are officially packaged in the main repos, what precisely is the freedom you have lost? If you personally want to install lots of apps that don't follow ubuntu's hypothetical design guidelines then that is your choice and right, and those rights are not curtailed by the existence of those guidelines in any way. The only change is that a new user is greeted by a more consistent and sensible system.

The job of a distro is to bring together a specific subset of OSS software to produce a cohesive, consistent whole, as it stands they basically all fail in this regard to a greater or lesser extent, and I for one am all for more dictatorial control of the core distro in order to preserve the consistency of that experience.

Overall the point here is that Apple's walled garden approach is highly successful for non technical users, and we can easily match that if we just stop the infighting and do it...and the only difference will be that the walls will have big doors in them, and the key will be under the plant pot by the door.

End of whinge :)

[kayosiii]

Exactly so. And today's linux is an orchestra of people each playing his own tune and enjoying their "freedom", so to say. The result is cacophony.

Hmmm if there was a point to my analogy it is that Linux is not an "Orchestra" at all.

With Gypsy music (and a lot of Jazz) there is structure but there is also space for each player to express their individuality. These types of music are as much for the enjoyment of the musicians as for the audience. The dynamics are completely different to classical music and the result just as different. To my ears both types of music are equally valid though the classical music fans would call jazz and gypsy music a cacophony and fans of the later would refer to classical as boring and lacking in passion and life.

Open Source is meant to be a participatory art form. It's real advantage is is that anybody can pick up and instrument and express themselves even if it is just stamping their feet and clapping their hands to the Rhythm (Try doing that in an Orchestra). The strength of Linux and open source is in the size and health of the community building it. Onlookers are welcome but not really the aim of the exercise.

An Theme for Linux shouldn't be consistent it should be a Beautiful patchwork... Each piece should tell a story. This is my challenge to you.
Design one little thing - maybe an Icon. Put your heart and your soul into that one little piece work. If we can get a couple of thousand people to do that. We will end up with something that is beautiful and truly represents what is beautiful about linux.

[issih]

An Theme for Linux shouldn't be consistent it should be a Beautiful patchwork... Each piece should tell a story. This is my challenge to you.
Design one little thing - maybe an Icon. Put your heart and your soul into that one little piece work. If we can get a couple of thousand people to do that. We will end up with something that is beautiful and truly represents what is beautiful about linux.

No no no no no no no!

This is not going to work, gypsy music and jazz only works because all the players are in the same room feeling the same groove. they collaborate through meaningful looks, gestures, well known spaces in the music where solos can be taken, an underlying structure, a common understanding of the musical goal.

No matter how much you want to believe it, no one can take musical tracks from 10 different instruments all created in total isolation and meld them into a whole without doing a LOT of work on them. There has to be an overiding key or mode, a consistent tempo, an agreed number of beats to each bar, etc. If someone pitches up with a gazoo at a gypsy music concert and starts droning out one note in a completely different time to everyone else, they will not be welcome.

Same goes for interface design and indeed software design in general, lots of little pieces, no matter how beautifully made are useless without an overall vision to bind them together, you can be as free as you want or as stiff as you want within the guidelines, that is your freedom. Making a beautiful app or icon or whatever that obeys none of the rules of existing design is fine, just for gods sake don't try and force that to be the default that everyone sees. Individuality is for individuals, not for "everyone", ubuntu is meant to be for "everyone", so by default it should not resemble a patchwork quilt.

[kayosiii]

I agree with you that there can't be total anarchy. That there needs to be an agreed upon structure. I am not advocating ignoring the rules of design.

Open Source development is exactly what you are describing, It is the product of individuals working together and feeling things at the time. There are agreements in place on a structure around which everything is based. You will not be welcome if you make everybody else look bad.

A group of musicians improvising around a structure though is still a very different experience to musicians sight reading and following a conductor.

Remember a patchwork quilt still needs to fit together. It can still have an overriding theme or feeling. Each piece however has a life of it's own.

I disagree with you however when you say that individuality is not for everyone. Individuality most certainly IS for everybody. Also a piece of software lacking in overall vision IS NOT useless. It maybe more valuable if meets more peoples expectations but there is a big jump between that and being useless.

Apple nearly died not before the second coming of Steve Jobs. They were trying to pretty much compete with the PC as a PC alternative, with clone manufacturers and everything. Apples fortunes really changed when they started to look to their strengths and started offering products that the pc market wasn't offering. Ubuntu likewise needs to play to their inherent strengths and be realistic about their limitations. Realising what sort of musicians they have to deal with will be a key factor in all of this.

[issih]

The rules of design as it stands are not obeyed in linux land...and that is the problem, too many toolkits, no consistent menu names or positioning, no sensible defaults which are adhered to unless there is a good reason..Everyone just does what they want, and the result is not good, simply because of that lack of structure.

Even gypsy groups and jazz groups have a leader, who the others look to for cues...that is what we lack. If you accept a structure is required then that is all I want, A structure, a proper sensible set of guidelines of what an "ubuntu friendly" app should look like. It can only be done at the distro level, hence saying ubuntu not linux. We need proper standards for where apps put options, preferences, etc in the menus, proper systems for how they should apply theming and ideally consistency of keyboard shortcuts and so on as much as possible. Give me that and I'll be happy, and astonished, because it WILL NOT HAPPEN unless there is someone with an overriding vision (again a distro specifically should have an overriding vision or it has no point in exisiting)

A patchwork quilt only works as a whole if one person has overall vision and commissions the patches to fit it. Or indeed if there are millions of submissions and one person selects those that best suit (that is closer to what a distro does). All I am arguing for is that we stick up a set of guidelines as to what type of patches we want..the developers then have a better chance of being selected to be in this quilt if thats what they want.

You miss the point about individuality, a highly personalised interface is suitable for exactly that, a person, just the one, like a custom tailored suit. We need ubuntu to be an off the rack line that fits as many as possible and looks as good as it can whilst doing it. It cannot be as perfect for one individual, but that is the point. If it fitted you perfectly it wouldn't fit me, mass market distros HAVE to be for the masses, its in the name. The right to do what you want with your copy is enshrined in OSS philosophy, but that is all, just your copy. what comes down the pipes when you download the iso needs to be as palatable as possible to as many as possible, and that means bland inoffensive, modern and consistent, like neutral paint in a rented house.

You may not like it and immediately change it, in actual fact so will I, but that is entirely missing the point, the default distro is not for you..it is for the new user, for the technically naive, for your grandmother.

Oh and apple started succeeding once it played to its strengths....good design!

[Tibuda]

Even gypsy groups and jazz groups have a leader, who the others look to for cues...that is what we lack. If you accept a structure is required then that is all I want, A structure, a proper sensible set of guidelines of what an "ubuntu friendly" app should look like. It can only be done at the distro level, hence saying ubuntu not linux. We need proper standards for where apps put options, preferences, etc in the menus, proper systems for how they should apply theming and ideally consistency of keyboard shortcuts and so on as much as possible. Give me that and I'll be happy, and astonished, because it WILL NOT HAPPEN unless there is someone with an overriding vision (again a distro specifically should have an overriding vision or it has no point in exisiting)
Gnome HIG (http://live.gnome.org/UsabilityProject)? Gnome is the Ubuntu DE, so a "ubuntu friendly" app should use the Gtk+ toolkit and follow the Gnome guidelines.

[issih]

Gnome HIG doesn't go far enough and is not followed by the vast majority of apps in the ubuntu repositories...

[NinjaNumberNine]

I will do anything to help Ubuntu...
Um, has anyone got some crayons I can borrow? :mrgreen:

Face it, drawing the hitech graphics is NOT easy.
I'll release my own in a while.

Here.

Never mind-
Ultimate beat the pants off mine.

[JOHNNYG713]

Ubuntu's initial install is a shell and never is going to be a stellar looker, if it was they would have done it by now ! BUT thats not to say that you can't make it more awesome looking than any other o/s . Ubuntu is built on the fact that it is for the individual,and therefore totally customizable , so go ahead and load it ! then goto "gnome look"or "ubuntu art" and start customizing,and tweaking your own custom installation of ubuntu! check out my ubuntu powerpc !

[NinjaNumberNine]

Luv at first sight!!!

I am already downloading the iso!

:lolflag: Thanx!!:lolflag:

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/ok-ready-4-walk-lol.jpg