Ubuntu is nice, but ugly?

[kokoshmusun]

I've been using Ubuntu as my primary OS for more than 2 years now. I switched from Windows Vista and it was an AMAZING relief. I've tried other linux distros (mostly for fun), and they all looked and behaved well, but I never found enough reason to leave Ubuntu. I've also used various DE/WMs, and similarly, I liked them all but stuck with Gnome2 mostly.

Then came Unity and around the same time Gnome3. I was sad Gnome2 had to be abandoned, but welcomed Unity as best as I could. In the meanwhile, my attempt to make music in linux failed horribly (Windows 7 is so much easier in this area) and married my gf who used Mac (and now also Linux).

So, I began to have a comparative perspective and I just started developing this feeling that Ubuntu is ... yes, still a relief to use mostly over Win and Mac but... maybe uglier than both. I currently use Gnome3 (and sometimes Unity), and while I don't have a big problem with the behavior of the system, everytime I see a Win7 or Mac OS desktop, I keep thinking that my Ubuntu desktop pales in comparison.

There's just something missing... The colors even look nicer somehow on the other OSs than Ubuntu. Granted I don't try to theme my Ubuntu desktop so much, but out of the box, I believe a Win and Mac desktop still somehow look slicker and prettier.

I will continue to use Linux for sure as my primary OS. But I would really like Ubuntu and some of the software (LibreOffice) to look as pretty and polished out of the box as their counterparts in Win and Mac world. I shouldn't have to find themes, etc. to do this.

Yes, looks are just the surface of things, but if other OSs look nice, so can Ubuntu. So my big hope for the coming years of linux and ubuntu is a more polished look.

P.S. Maybe some other distros are more polished out of the box (mint?) but I've really spent enough time distro and DE/WM hopping. AFAIK, Mac and Win users don't hop anywhere...

[kokoshmusun]

Also, I would really like to see more developments for pdf highlighting.

[Tamlynmac]

kokoshmusun

Everything shiny isn't gold. How much bloat is necessary and why? You use and prefer Linux as your primary OS, but you really didn't define why. Is it stability, speed, security, etc. that attracts you to Ubuntu/Linux?

Do you only use OOTB for everything or do you add/delete apps, alter setup, etc? Keeping in mind that much of the issue may be associated with video drivers. Which Linux distro's have limited (if any) control over. I view the installation of individually chosen themes, as just being part of the initial setup.

This issue has been discussed many times in these forums (since I joined). What one may see as polished, another might see as unnecessary or undesirable. I worry more about functionality and performance than I do OOTB appearance. I've learned that appearance is only makeup and does zero to actually improve product performance. Shiny, glittering objects do little to improve performance under the hood.

In my mind, this could be construed as extremely positive feedback to Canonical. Suggesting that Ubuntu/Linux has out grown many of the original stumbling blocks and is now being assessed primarily based on appearance. The concept that visual appeal has become as or more important than performance, might say a lot about both the existing level of product performance and present user expectations.

Just my $0.02

[mastablasta]

Kubuntu (KDE desktop) seems quite polished to me. i mean if i look at applicaitons KDE apps in their look are so much better than Gnome. i think your experience might be because the applications haven not switched to newer Gnome interface yet. so the gnome applicaitons have that old look, that is kind of windows 2000 look. the buttons, icons and such remind of that era.

have a look at Calligra Suite for example. it's not quite there yet in it's development, plus plenty of annoying bugs (they are getting fixed though). but if you check the look and compare it then to Libre office you will see it doesnt' look so 2000's

i find this kind of buttons and interface OK in low memory desktops such as XFCE and LXDE. it's functional Gnome 3 (&unity) is probably still like that since most apps are still with old look.

if you try KDE, well at least to me everything there looks so smooth when you click, switch etc... (I have only a few of special effects turned on). it's the Gnome apps that look kind of strange there.

[Linuxisfast]

If you like looks, if you like configurable desktop and speed, nothing comes close to KDE. Kubuntu looks beautiful especially with latest KDE added via backports ppa.

[ScottDeagan]

I agree with the opinion of the OP. It would be nice if Ubuntu was a little more polished in the UI department. I agree with this so much that when I donated (using the sliders on the Ubuntu donate page), I donated more to "making the desktop more amazing".

There are always those who will insist eye-candy isn't everything (yes, I pointing the finger firmly at you, Tamlynmac! ). I strongly disagree with this. It's the reason why we don't produce cars that are functional but ugly (although I'm sure we could all name a few automobiles that we do not like the design of).

Appearance adds tremendously to the end user experience. During my career, I've noticed this. I've seen what happens, first hand, when someone produces great software that is functional but lacking in the design department. Users treat it like bland high fibre bran cereal - they will eat it because they know it's good for them, but they won't enjoy it (sometimes you have to "force feed" said users).

People are attracted to beautiful things, and for Ubuntu to reach its maximum potential, it needs to beautify (in my humble opinion). I was so happy with Ubuntu 10.10 because of how easy it was to get rid of the browns, purples and oranges that I resisted upgrading to the "modern" Ubuntu as much as I could. The configuration options in Ubuntu 10.10 made Linux exciting and fun. See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VwoUYKE2is for an example. Emerald + Elementary + Compiz = awesomeness++.

My suggestion for a "quick win" for Ubuntu: offer another default theme that is very similar to (if not exactly the same) as the blue "Elementary" theme! Greys and blues are always a winner on the desktop!! Blue folders, grey windows, blue selections of text and menus (etc etc etc). By all means keep the default Ubuntu theme, but add an "Elementary" theme that can be activated by simply right-clicking on the desktop, selecting "Change Desktop Background", and then choosing "Elementary Theme" in the dropdown (instead of having to hunt around for a PPA, mess around with gconf etc etc etc).

End of rant.

[ScottDeagan]

"Seek and Ye Shall Find"

Just a quick update - after posting my last post, I decided to spend 10 minutes trying to theme 12.04 (Unity) to something more aligned to my tastes. The result:

Set the selection color to "steel blue":

gsettings set org.gnome.desktop.interface gtk-color-scheme 'selected_bg_color:#63B8FF;'

Then to change the icon theme:

sudo apt-get install myunity

I then:

1. Ran MyUnity.
2. Clicked on the "Themes" tab.
3. Selected the Oxygen theme.

Now my desktop environment is better suited to my tastes .

If you want to install the blue Elementary theme:

sudo apt-get install elementary-icon-theme

And then run MyUnity again and select the Elementary Icon theme.

I also found a bunch of cool icon themes in another repo:

sudo add-apt-repository ppa:webupd8team/themes
sudo apt-get update

Then you can install, for example, the Linux Mint theme using:

sudo apt-get install sudo apt-get install mint-x-icons
gsettings set org.gnome.desktop.interface gtk-color-scheme 'selected_bg_color:#4e9a06;'

(and then start MyUnity and select the Mint icons under the "Themes" tab).

So it looks like Ubuntu 12.04 is customizable. I'd still like to see something to make it easier to switch themes (something where you don't have to install PPAs and the like). Strange that such beautiful icon sets are hidden away and can only be installed by "those in the know".

[Euroman]

I agree with you somewhat. Windows 7 feels a bit snappier and polished. Yet I prefer the 'warmer' look and feel of my Linux distro (atm Kubuntu but I also like Unity from aesthetic point of view).

[kokoshmusun]

Everything shiny isn't gold. How much bloat is necessary and why?

I think this is a bit didactic. I neither think everything shiny is gold nor does glittery shiny things immediately catch my attention and make me forget about everything else that is actually improvement.

Nor do I think that looking a bit more polished out of the box equals BLOAT. The main reason I use linux is that it has proven to me that looking and behaving well can be done in the absence of bloat (unlike Windows).

This is where we freely express our experience with Ubuntu and that's what I've done, so share your opinion but try to refrain from thinking that I just get carried away by shiny things.

[the8thstar]

To OP :

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

If you feel that something is off, it most probably is. But what is it? Colors can be calibrated, window managers can be customized... is it what you need? How can we help you achieve what you want for your desktop to look like?