Ibex Theme/Look Proposal

[apostate]

This misconception you have is that you think themes fall into three categories. Ubuntu/poop, OSX and say, Windows (the other one people would say a theme 'looks too much like').

There ARE more colors in the world than brown, grey and blue. I say it looks like OS X no only because of the grey, but also the simple black triangles in the upper left, the search in the upper right, and the use of diagonal lines to denote where you can scale the window.

I say brown/orange can look good, it just hasn't yet for Ubuntu. I actually use the Zune theme for XP at work, and that's brown and orange.

In the end though, our disagreement fits perfect with my signature.

Ubuntu *is* a rip-off. It is a rip-off of Debian GNU/Linux. Is this a slam on Ubuntu? Does it reduce the value of Ubuntu as an OS in some way? Does it trivialize the great Debian package system, or the broad selection of applications? Do you feel most people are under some illusion that Ubuntu is unique? It is not. It uses the same GNOME, has the same apps...it is a slightly different take on every other Linux distro out there. It is Linux+GNOME with the Debian underpinnings. This is not an insult, nor praise. it is an observation. Being dog-crap brown doesn't make Ubuntu better, or unique in a meaningful way. Being stable and easy to install, with sane defaults and a large selection of packages doesn't necessarily make it unique either, but it *does* make it better. Then again, Ubuntu was never meant to be a status symbol, or a form of social rebellion. It was meant to be a desktop OS which makes your computer go. It does this well. The fact that many identify Ubuntu with brown is simply due to the fact that Ubuntu is brown. Using this as an argument to continue to make it brown is a circular argument, and a non-sequitur. Brown is not a particularly versatile color in the electronic arena. This *is* a matter of opinion and aesthetics, true. However, there are certain aesthetic principles that tend to apply to the vast majority of human personalities, and I think if you ask around, you will find that very few users actually want a desktop GUI that is brown and freaking orange. The argument for retaining the Brown is simply that it has been Brown before, which is in many peoples' eyes a liability, not an asset. I PROMISE that absolutely NOBODY comes into the fold of Ubuntu because it is Brown. Virtually nobody. Maybe you did, I don't know. Maybe you said, "WOW! That OS is brown and road-cone orange it must rock", I don't claim to know for sure. It is something many people learn to get over, a few people like, and some people are indifferent to, but "ripping off" another GUI or avoiding doing so is categorically a terrible criteria for choosing the future shape of the Ubuntu desktop. Particularly because "other" OSes look the way they do for a reason. What if Chevy refused to "rip off" Ford by using round wheels?

Ubuntu was NOT created as a protest against the way OSX looks. Sorry. The hideous theme is not why Ubuntu is good, it is just an unfortunate draw-back that most people get over, and change. I find the idea that we must limit our future choices of a default look to a brown palette because that is what the unique, if horrifying PAST themes looked like, to be absurd. OSX has icons too, should we ditch the idea of icons on the Ubuntu desktop? Maybe we should make Ubuntu stand out among OSes by having a set of inscrutable bright red 92x92 icons on a magenta and lime green-striped wallpaper. That would look NOTHING like OSX for reasons that should be, but seemingly are not...obvious.

[Crafty Kisses]

I really like the Orange one.

[smartboyathome]

Ubuntu *is* a rip-off. It is a rip-off of Debian GNU/Linux. Is this a slam on Ubuntu? Does it reduce the value of Ubuntu as an OS in some way? Does it trivialize the great Debian package system, or the broad selection of applications? Do you feel most people are under some illusion that Ubuntu is unique? It is not. It uses the same GNOME, has the same apps...it is a slightly different take on every other Linux distro out there. It is Linux+GNOME with the Debian underpinnings. This is not an insult, nor praise. it is an observation. Being dog-crap brown doesn't make Ubuntu better, or unique in a meaningful way. Being stable and easy to install, with sane defaults and a large selection of packages doesn't necessarily make it unique either, but it *does* make it better. Then again, Ubuntu was never meant to be a status symbol, or a form of social rebellion. It was meant to be a desktop OS which makes your computer go. It does this well. The fact that many identify Ubuntu with brown is simply due to the fact that Ubuntu is brown. Using this as an argument to continue to make it brown is a circular argument, and a non-sequitur. Brown is not a particularly versatile color in the electronic arena. This *is* a matter of opinion and aesthetics, true. However, there are certain aesthetic principles that tend to apply to the vast majority of human personalities, and I think if you ask around, you will find that very few users actually want a desktop GUI that is brown and freaking orange. The argument for retaining the Brown is simply that it has been Brown before, which is in many peoples' eyes a liability, not an asset. I PROMISE that absolutely NOBODY comes into the fold of Ubuntu because it is Brown. Virtually nobody. Maybe you did, I don't know. Maybe you said, "WOW! That OS is brown and road-cone orange it must rock", I don't claim to know for sure. It is something many people learn to get over, a few people like, and some people are indifferent to, but "ripping off" another GUI or avoiding doing so is categorically a terrible criteria for choosing the future shape of the Ubuntu desktop. Particularly because "other" OSes look the way they do for a reason. What if Chevy refused to "rip off" Ford by using round wheels?

Ubuntu was NOT created as a protest against the way OSX looks. Sorry. The hideous theme is not why Ubuntu is good, it is just an unfortunate draw-back that most people get over, and change. I find the idea that we must limit our future choices of a default look to a brown palette because that is what the unique, if horrifying PAST themes looked like, to be absurd. OSX has icons too, should we ditch the idea of icons on the Ubuntu desktop? Maybe we should make Ubuntu stand out among OSes by having a set of inscrutable bright red 92x92 icons on a magenta and lime green-striped wallpaper. That would look NOTHING like OSX for reasons that should be, but seemingly are not...obvious.

Even if it is a ripoff of Debian, it is Debian done right for new users to linux. How many new people to Linux would actually be able to install and use Debian? Not many, whereas Ubuntu doesn't make it as hard to configure the proprietary drivers, and lets people install their OS with more ease than with Debian. If brown/orange wasn't a good combo, then Microsoft's Zune should have sunk (thanks for reminding me Merk). It did use black/brown/orange, and many people liked it. This isn't like Chevy choosing not to use tires, its like Chevy choosing not to implement the looks of the Thunderbird on it's model of cars, because that would make Ford mad and make them come after Chevy.

Brown can look good. Think of chocolate, leather sofas/chairs/etc, wood. All these are brown, but they all can look good, its just implementation. The reason most people don't want Ubuntu to look like OSX/Vista because it DOES make Ubuntu look like a cheap ripoff of another OS to new users (which is doomed to dissapoint many when it doesn't act like *insert OS which Ubuntu's theme ripped off here*), and because Ubuntu users want Ubuntu to be unique, and not just "follow the crowd" like most other Linux distros.

You are confusing innovation with looks. What Ubuntu users don't want is for Ubuntu to have one of those themes which immitates OSX (for example) to a fine point (ie, window border layed out the same/with the same type of buttons, theme looks like it was snatched from OSX and just layed out on Linux, etc). Ubuntu users are not against using icons, windows, or such which other OSes use. They are just against having the theme look like a face transplant from one OS to it.

[apostate]

Even if it is a ripoff of Debian, it is Debian done right for new users to linux. How many new people to Linux would actually be able to install and use Debian? Not many, whereas Ubuntu doesn't make it as hard to configure the proprietary drivers, and lets people install their OS with more ease than with Debian.

If you read my post, this is exactly what I'm saying. All of this is true, and none of it requires the wallpaper and icons to be ugly.

If brown/orange wasn't a good combo, then Microsoft's Zune should have sunk (thanks for reminding me Merk).

The theme I am looking at is slick black and industrial gray, with orange *highlights*. It looks more like Vista than Ubuntu. In fact, this theme might be one good way to get orange into a computer GUI, with *restraint*. But if Ubuntu went this way, you guys would say "It looks too much like Zune..."

Brown can look good. Think of chocolate, leather sofas/chairs/etc, wood. All these are brown, but they all can look good, its just implementation.

I agree. If we implement Ubuntu as a chair or sofa, brown would be a good choice. Sofas are soft too, we should also make Ubuntu soft.

The reason most people don't want Ubuntu to look like OSX/Vista because it DOES make Ubuntu look like a cheap ripoff of another OS to new users (which is doomed to dissapoint many when it doesn't act like *insert OS which Ubuntu's theme ripped off here*), and because Ubuntu users want Ubuntu to be unique, and not just "follow the crowd" like most other Linux distros.

I challenge that "most people" look at the issue in those terms at all. Moreover, that is not the choice being offered. The issue was that another Ubuntu user proposed a great blue/gray theme, and it was shot down for "looking too much like..." A refrain I've heard before. When in fact, neither OSX or even vista looks much like that theme. And to the extent they do, there is a reason. Anyone who installs Ubuntu and suddenly, inexplicably expects it to act just like OSX because the default wallpaper is blue, is an idiot. But really, I don't think that is a real danger, it's a straw man. Suse is green and laid out in a somewhat Windows-esque way (ie KDE, Kickoff, etc). Linux users seem to have no difficulty with it, and it is often praised for its beauty. RedHat and Mandriva are blue. I've yet to learn of anyone who installed Mandriva linux and was horrified to discover it didn't act just like OSX. Let's not be disingenuous. NO OTHER Linux is brown, and they all seem to get along fine. To suggest Ubuntu cannot stand on it's own as an OS unless it is a retro- 1970's color scheme is sort of disrespectful to all the real technical prowess that went into making it. Even Kubuntu isn't brown, and I don't see people complaining on the forum that they can't find iTunes.

You are confusing innovation with looks.

No, I'm confusing no such thing....you are. I am making the opposite argument. Brown wallpaper != innovation, it is just a look. And an unpopular one. If you don't believe me, maybe someone should set up a poll?

What Ubuntu users don't want is for Ubuntu to have one of those themes which immitates OSX (for example) to a fine point (ie, window border layed out the same/with the same type of buttons, theme looks like it was snatched from OSX and just layed out on Linux, etc). Ubuntu users are not against using icons, windows, or such which other OSes use. They are just against having the theme look like a face transplant from one OS to it.

I am an Ubuntu user, and you do not represent me, or any "Ubuntu users" I know in real life. I know several. Never has one said to me, "I was up late last night worrying that Ubuntu might start looking like OSX."

And again...this is a straw man you created. No theme yet proposed in this thread looks remotely like something that even the uninitiated would mistake for Vista.

[smartboyathome]

If you read my post, this is exactly what I'm saying. All of this is true, and none of it requires the wallpaper and icons to be ugly.

Thats your opinion that the wallpapers and icons are ugly. I happen to like them (except for the most recent Ibex wallpaper, which is bound to change because it was a *test*).

The theme I am looking at is slick black and industrial gray, with orange *highlights*. It looks more like Vista than Ubuntu. In fact, this theme might be one good way to get orange into a computer GUI, with *restraint*. But if Ubuntu went this way, you guys would say "It looks too much like Zune..."

Fair enough, I think you'd like Dust then, its brown but uses it "with restraint".

I agree. If we implement Ubuntu as a chair or sofa, brown would be a good choice. Sofas are soft too, we should also make Ubuntu soft.

My comment didn't require that type of reaction from you. I was giving examples of things which are brown and advertisers can make look good. If brown was as bad as you seem to lead, then no one would buy any of the items I mentioned.

I challenge that "most people" look at the issue in those terms at all. Moreover, that is not the choice being offered. The issue was that another Ubuntu user proposed a great blue/gray theme, and it was shot down for "looking too much like..." A refrain I've heard before. When in fact, neither OSX or even vista looks much like that theme. And to the extent they do, there is a reason. Anyone who installs Ubuntu and suddenly, inexplicably expects it to act just like OSX because the default wallpaper is blue, is an idiot. But really, I don't think that is a real danger, it's a straw man. Suse is green and laid out in a somewhat Windows-esque way (ie KDE, Kickoff, etc). Linux users seem to have no difficulty with it, and it is often praised for its beauty. RedHat and Mandriva are blue. I've yet to learn of anyone who installed Mandriva linux and was horrified to discover it didn't act just like OSX. Let's not be disingenuous. NO OTHER Linux is brown, and they all seem to get along fine. To suggest Ubuntu cannot stand on it's own as an OS unless it is a retro- 1970's color scheme is sort of disrespectful to all the real technical prowess that went into making it. Even Kubuntu isn't brown, and I don't see people complaining on the forum that they can't find iTunes.

Fair enough. Its all opinion, after all, since what can look like OSX to one person might not to another.

No, I'm confusing no such thing....you are. I am making the opposite argument. Brown wallpaper != innovation, it is just a look. And an unpopular one. If you don't believe me, maybe someone should set up a poll?

There have been polls set up, and all of them have either been inherently biased (ie, they give options which try to coax you to vote one way), or when they have not been biased, show that at least on this forum the amount of people who like and dislike a theme is about 50-50.

I am an Ubuntu user, and you do not represent me, or any "Ubuntu users" I know in real life. I know several. Never has one said to me, "I was up late last night worrying that Ubuntu might start looking like OSX."

I do not represent you, no, but I didn't mean it that way. Here it shows you have a different experience then I do with Ubuntu users. The few that have looked at Ubuntu and told me what they thought actually liked the theme ("fresh" was what one of them said it was like). Of course, they probably would/do change their theme frequently, but that doesn't mean they don't like it.

And again...this is a straw man you created. No theme yet proposed in this thread looks remotely like something that even the uninitiated would mistake for Vista.

It isn't a straw man argument. I was just arguing a different point from you. I was talking about the many, very apparent OSX and Vista like themes on ie gnome-look.org (you can't deny there aren't many, there are). You were talking about the mockup back there, which does have the OSX style of coloring and gradients, as well as the windows style buttons, giving it a feeling like a cross between OSX and Windows. Thats my opinion of course, so take it with a grain of salt.

[jinjanjaa]

hey mrgnash ...............
ur theme is gr8
canu tell me the name of the theme or where can i dload it????

[smartboyathome]

hey mrgnash ...............
ur theme is gr8
canu tell me the name of the theme or where can i dload it????

Its not a real theme, its a mockup. So you can't download it.

[sianxian]

i like the idea from the first post

[alex.rayu]

From the first post. The guy has things right (http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.p...3&d=1209528892) - his mockup is technically far from perfect, but he has the right understanding.

Unobtrusive theme, elegant, modern, good contrast. Without kindergarten tango icons. I would definitely listen to him.

Did somebody say it looks too much like mac/vista? Whoever says that should be able to produce something more unique but usable, I suppose? Not that orange semi-translucent blurred orange low-contrast theme that somebody proposed, of course.

The "it looks too much like" should never be an argument in the 1st place. The goal of any design is not to make something very unlike. The goal is to make something elegant, usable, friendly, organic, unobtrusive. And the guys who posted the first post here definitely has sense for it, though his technical implementation is imperfect. You you want special wheels you may want to stop using round wheels, "cause it looks too much like Mercedes", and go try build your own Mercedes with triangular wheels.