Ubuntu DE

[oasmar1]

If Ubuntu is to challenge OS X in terms of style and UI, then I think that Ubuntu should start to develop its own DE.
I know KDE, gnome and millions of others exist, but I think that Ubuntu needs something that seperates it from all the other distrobutions.
With it's own DE, with both developers and designers working together - sometimes, i believe that a bit of money spent on professional designers (both for looks and usability) could make Ubuntu the best looking and most friendly operating system to use. It wouldn't need to be created from scratch, building it on a light weight DE like LXDE could be a good starting place.
At the moment, I also feel that Ubuntu isn't a single OS, feels more like parts from here, parts from there - there is less consistancy with the UI than Windows - just watch the boot and see how many times the screen will flash black (Windows 7 now fades in each new screen which makes it far better which would be good to use in ubuntu).

Please don't think I am critising opensource, free software, ubuntu, KDE, Gnome etc. I just think that if Ubuntu has the resources, this would be a good thing to do.

Just thought I would add - I didn't mean replace GTK+ or QT just the Desktop environment.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Resources, maybe but not time...

[abyssius]

If Ubuntu is to challenge OS X in terms of style and UI, then I think that Ubuntu should start to develop its own DE.
I know KDE, gnome and millions of others exist, but I think that Ubuntu needs something that seperates it from all the other distrobutions.
With it's own DE, with both developers and designers working together - sometimes, i believe that a bit of money spent on professional designers (both for looks and usability) could make Ubuntu the best looking and most friendly operating system to use. It wouldn't need to be created from scratch, building it on a light weight DE like LXDE could be a good starting place.
At the moment, I also feel that Ubuntu isn't a single OS, feels more like parts from here, parts from there - there is less consistancy with the UI than Windows - just watch the boot and see how many times the screen will flash black (Windows 7 now fades in each new screen which makes it far better which would be good to use in ubuntu).

Please don't think I am critising opensource, free software, ubuntu, KDE, Gnome etc. I just think that if Ubuntu has the resources, this would be a good thing to do.

I think maybe you're missing the basic philosophy of open-source, community-driven software such as Linux. I interpret the Linux philosophy as the development of an operating system based on distributed resources, rather than a monolithic, centralized core. I also believe this strategy is an advantage rather than a detriment. The solidity of OS-X is based on tight control of the hardware and software. If OS-X was distributed as software only, and allowed to be installed on any combination of hardware components, like the Windows OS or Linux OS, then I'd bet it wouldn't prove to be any better or more reliable than either of the other contenders.

The concept of a distributed system means a much quicker development cycle than monolithic OS's. In the Windows and Apple worlds, users are sometimes stuck for years before benefiting from advances in their OS. Not so for Linux. Ubuntu currently has a six-month cycle which neither OS-X or Windows can match. If you measure the growth of Ubuntu as a mainstream desktop OS compared to the evolution of the Microsoft or Apple offerings, you'll see that Ubuntu advances will dwarf both those proprietary systems within a very short time-frame - primarily because of its distributed nature.

[jimi_hendrix]

i like the idea but i dont see it happening...but i wouldnt base it off of LXDE...i would use gnome personally (not heavy but not light)

maybe we should just take gnome or KDE and make a heavily modded theme that looks great...draw some attention

[Kvark]

Ubuntu's strength is that it is the mainstream Linux distro. There are so many distros out there which one to choose, I don't know just stick with the popular default choice: Ubuntu. It needs to keep that strength and become so mainstream average users start to think of it as a third choice next to Windows and OSX. That's the opposite of heading off in it's own direction trying to be different like Symphony OS does.

Besides, a new DE wouldn't separate Ubuntu from the other distros because if it's any good other distros will start to use it too. Not all of them but enough for it to cease being a unique Ubuntu thing.

[swoll1980]

there is less consistancy with the UI than Windows

WOW!!!! Where does that come from? I think people loose credibility when they say things like this. With gtk I maintain a constant look, and feel throughout all my apps. Every app I open with Windows has a completely different look and feel to it(different colors, window borders, interface...). Give some examples of this consistent UI on Windows you speak of please.

[abyssius]

WOW!!!! Where does that come from? I think people loose credibility when they say things like this. With gtk I maintain a constant look, and feel throughout all my apps. Every app I open with Windows has a completely different look and feel to it(different colors, window borders, interface...). Give some examples of this consistent UI on Windows you speak of please.

Most Windows apps do maintain borders and controls consistent with the your selected Windows theme. Some apps, like Nero for example, provide a unique interface, but I would say that's the exception rather than the rule. Claiming that EVERY windows app that you open presents a completely different look and feel doesn't establish your credibility, since this is simply false. For example, are you claiming that if you open Firefox, you won't have the same colors, window borders, etc. as if you opened Word? I'm looking at exactly the same theme in both applications right now!

[Skripka]

For example, are you claiming that if you open Firefox, you won't have the same colors, window borders, etc. as if you opened Word? I'm looking at exactly the same theme in both applications right now!

If you're on Win XP, open Firefox and Word '07. That was easy to shoot down.


Most professional softwares don't match the Windows GUI, OTTOMH.

[abyssius]

If you're on Win XP, open Firefox and Word '07. That was easy to shoot down.


Most professional softwares don't match the Windows GUI, OTTOMH.

Sometimes, pictures speak louder than words, so I've taken the liberty of attaching one. BTW, I haven't used Word '97 in over ten years. Here'll you'll see Word, CorelDraw, Firefox and Windows Explorer all exhibiting a consistent interface. This sequence can be demonstrated with any combination of professional Windows software you choose, since I have quite a collection installed. Would you like to see Dreamweaver, Adobe Acrobat, Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Flash all showing the same consistent interface?

[Skripka]

Sometimes, pictures speak louder than words, so I've taken the liberty of attaching one. BTW, I haven't used Word '97 in over ten years. Here'll you'll see Word, CorelDraw, Firefox and Windows Explorer all exhibiting a consistent interface. This sequence can be demonstrated with any combination of professional Windows software you choose, since I have quite a collection installed. Would you like to see Dreamweaver, Adobe Acrobat, Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Flash all showing the same consistent interface?

You ought to note I said "Word '07", as in 2007...before proceeding to waste bandwidth.

As in this:
http://www.viemu.com/ViEmu-Word-2007.gif


Or how about Google Chrome and the rest of Win XP?

[abyssius]

If you're on Win XP, open Firefox and Word '07. That was easy to shoot down.


Most professional softwares don't match the Windows GUI, OTTOMH.

Sorry, I read 97 instead of 07. Anyway, I wouldn't expect a program designed for Vista to be 100% in sync with ones designed for XP. Vista presents a somewhat different GUI to XP. However, as you can see your claim that EVERY Windows program presents a completely different interface, colors, etc. is obviously false.

[abyssius]

You ought to note I said "Word '07", as in 2007...before proceeding to waste bandwidth.

Or how about Google Chrome and the rest of Win XP?

Google Chrome (which I am not presently interested in) is also designed for Vista. I'm not a Windows apologist by any means. My days with Windows are over. I'm committed never to use Vista or Windows 7 or whatever MS wants to call it. I maintain an XP machine with software that I need professionally - only because there are no Linux equivalents that I'm aware of. As soon as I find equivalents for e.g. Dreamweaver, or Flash - Windows will be history!

[swoll1980]

Most Windows apps do maintain borders and controls consistent with the your selected Windows theme. Some apps, like Nero for example, provide a unique interface, but I would say that's the exception rather than the rule. Claiming that EVERY windows app that you open presents a completely different look and feel doesn't establish your credibility, since this is simply false. For example, are you claiming that if you open Firefox, you won't have the same colors, window borders, etc. as if you opened Word? I'm looking at exactly the same theme in both applications right now!

I'm running xp with windows classic theme, When I start word it's in a vista-ish sky blue theme. When I open chrome It's a darker plastic looking blue, vmware is orange-ish and blue, wmp11, is black/modern looking, nero is candy apple red, sopcast is silver with a roundish look, my lexmark fax software is silver, and red, my security soft ware is a white, and green. This is literately every app I have, and everyone is different.
(firefox that I don't even use on Windows might match)
even internet explorer doesn't match Windows classic. What your saying is If
I own the new version(vista), and don't change anything on it at all, some of my apps will match my theme. That's not very consistent.

[swoll1980]

Sometimes, pictures speak louder than words, so I've taken the liberty of attaching one. BTW, I haven't used Word '97 in over ten years. Here'll you'll see Word, CorelDraw, Firefox and Windows Explorer all exhibiting a consistent interface. This sequence can be demonstrated with any combination of professional Windows software you choose, since I have quite a collection installed. Would you like to see Dreamweaver, Adobe Acrobat, Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Flash all showing the same consistent interface?

Even in your examples the only thing consistent is your window borders. The interface of the apps themselves change in every one. With my apps I don't even have that much consistency, my window borders don't even match. In Ubuntu every app I have uses the same new wave theme, even nero and, limewire.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Sometimes, pictures speak louder than words, so I've taken the liberty of attaching one. BTW, I haven't used Word '97 in over ten years. Here'll you'll see Word, CorelDraw, Firefox and Windows Explorer all exhibiting a consistent interface. This sequence can be demonstrated with any combination of professional Windows software you choose, since I have quite a collection installed. Would you like to see Dreamweaver, Adobe Acrobat, Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Flash all showing the same consistent interface?

I think you've just disproven your own point with the picture (http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=104099&d=1235180697). Aside from the window borders, (which are out of their control) those are all completely differently designed. Further, they all use diffent UI toolkits.

Firefox uses the horrible beast that is XUL.

Note that Windows Explorer in your picture has the menu bar and toolbar on the same line. The menu bar is larger than usual. There is text to the right of some toolbar buttons. This happens nowhere else.

CorelDraw has absolutely no icons from the stock icon set. Not sure if this is Windows' fault, although my own foray into Windows UI design told me there was no such mechanism as a desktop-wide icon theme. CorelDraw's icons look even more awful than the normal Windows ones.
(And GAAAAH I see a vertically oriented tab bar. I hope that thing can be configured).

MS Word has the very short-lived, glossy, detachable toolbars design. No other toolbars or menubars are detachable.
Another fun tip: MS Word has a Compose key type solution, but this happens nowhere else. This is the same functionality you see in MacOS or Linux, where you hit the Compose key (for Ubuntu you'll need to set that in Keyboard preferences) then e and ' for example to get é. Note that in Linux and MacOS, however, the magic happens consistently across the environment no matter where you are typing.
Adobe PDF plugin for MS Word has placed its menu header at the end of the menu bar, after Help. Kind of a bad thing to do.

To the microscopic. Take a look at the combo boxes in Corel Draw and MS Word. One has a flat style, the other a bubbly one. No obvious reason for this distinction except that one app chose the new bubbly UI toolkit while Corel Draw is using something a bit more native. (The most basic Windows GUI API gives out widgets that look like some of Corel Draw's).
Corel Draw's document close / minimize buttons are inconsistent with MS Word's.

Note that Corel Draw and Word have similar detachable toolbars, but both behave profoundly differently and are built on distinct UI toolkits.

Top right of window content in Firefox: Search box. Top right in Explorer: A throbber. Top right in CorelDraw: Close document button on a menu bar. Top right in Word: Close Document, menu bar, help search box. Horrendous mash of single-button toolbars.

Also note that the UI in Windows is not a flowing layout but based ENTIRELY on fixed positions. Except with some friendlier abstractions of the core libraries, translations and usability-enhanced fonts are often ridiculously broken because They Don't Fit.

GTK is content-focussed. It puts less concern behind glamour (coming soon (http://blogs.gnome.org/carlosg/2009/02/20/dublin-theming-hackfest/)), more on managing / presenting content sensibly so that it can be interpreted by all users; big fonts, small fonts, Webdings or Verdana; whether you speak Japanese or Spanish, or rely entirely on screen readers, GTK works as if it was always designed for you. (Or that's the hope).

Windows? Size comes first.

Now, don't get me wrong, some Windows GUI toolkits work just fine. Qt, for example, uses fluid layouts. The newer APIs from Microsoft are happier.

But that's really the source of the problem: A lot of these are abstractions of the core UI toolkit. That core UI toolkit was meant to be used by developers, but it is completely impractical. Enter 500 alternatives built on top to solve that problem, all clashing in the picture you show us. Now Microsoft is hoping that the Windows environment will all flow back into having just one common user interface toolkit, but their failure thus far at providing universal bindings makes that even less likely.

The core user interface toolkit for the GNOME environment (and most of desktop Linux) was designed to be usable, and it is widely accepted as such. It has fluid layouts, the tab key works automatically and intuitively to toggle between widgets without any mandatory effort on the developer's part (aside from choosing the right UI toolkit), toolbar style is applied across the desktop, there are stock icons / widgets with localization, things like the scroll wheel immediately work to scroll the contents (both horizontally and vertically) inside of a scroll container without any additional effort, there are themes and applications can have their own themes.
People don't just have to use GTK to be consistent; they want to use GTK.

And here is my screenshot. (Note my bias: I am a total GNOMEy and have, outside Wine, only one app for another desktop installed: KSimus). I have configured the toolbars to have text and icons, with text to the right on the important items. (System Preferences -> Appearance -> Interface).
104112
No, it's not perfect, but I think it does a fair bit better. Oh, and all those menus have configurable accelerator keys, too!
(I guess I should have been fair and used Inkscape as an example, but we all know that fits as well).


Thus, I don't think Ubuntu should ever even think about building a new desktop environment. GNOME is perfectly happy to be improved upon upstream, within reason. It and KDE have had astounding success in standardizing the Linux desktop and their work is really starting to come together.

[chucky chuckaluck]

if ubuntu were to go into the mac&cheese business instead of making an os, it would come up with the best traditional mac&cheese it could, borrowing from all the great traditional recipes. leave the flame grilled bobby flay mac&goat cheese to another distro.

edit: that seemed to make a lot more sense in my head. hm...

[oasmar1]

I guess it was silly of me to suggest Ubuntu was less consistant than Windows. Last time I used Windows was the 7 beta on a friends laptop and he didn't have ny 3rd party programs yet so everything seemed very consistant. Sorry about that :(