Linux needs to be more Stylish

[MaZiNgA]

I'd like to share some thoughts with you:

OK we're in the 21st century and it's the minimalistic era... The living room has only one silver chair, one very low table and sci-fi stuff instead of just TV...
Linux doesn't come off the 80's or 90's, it's NOW. Windows is <kinda> stylish...you open up the desktop and there's only the background and a start button. Gives a "solid" look.

-Let's face it Totem ain't stylish but WMP with all the 3d button stuff is...

-the application-computer isn't what I'd call "a good idea"..."Start" is much more catcy and practical. It gives no thoughts or dillemmas.

-configuration tools or files (well always in mind there's ubuntu) are more "here and there" there's no such thing as a control center. i.e: there's a "configuration editor" at "applications-->system-tools" Give me one reason this shouldn't be at "computer-->system configuration"(Even my cell phone besides all the apps has a settings menu to keeps the settings stuff there...)

-there's no bootsplash. As it's more "in the mood of the era" the bootsplash should be default, it's more stylish than hackerish staff...I open up my extra-flat TFT; I don't want to see commodore 64 loading, i want to see an up to date OS!

Believe it or not people are GREATLY affected by the "wrapping" of the whole thing...Windows sells something-not-so-good in a golden package. Linux is sorta the opposite. It's all about da marketing!
Also, my view is that the comuter will work just like a fridge in the future. Simple. I think THAT'S the direction we should go...

Cheers!
PS: All of this got in my mind when I loaded proMEPIS in my cdrom. A desktop with 10 icons + a taskbar full of silly stuff + a backgroung of pyramids saying promepis! This is...ugly!

[poofyhairguy]

I'd like to share some thoughts with you:

OK we're in the 21st century and it's the minimalistic era... The living room has only one silver chair, one very low table and sci-fi stuff instead of just TV...
Linux doesn't come off the 80's or 90's, it's NOW. Windows is <kinda> stylish...you open up the desktop and there's only the background and a start button. Gives a "solid" look.

-Let's face it Totem ain't stylish but WMP with all the 3d button stuff is...

-the application-computer isn't what I'd call "a good idea"..."Start" is much more catcy and practical. It gives no thoughts or dillemmas.

-configuration tools or files (well always in mind there's ubuntu) are more "here and there" there's no such thing as a control center. i.e: there's a "configuration editor" at "applications-->system-tools" Give me one reason this shouldn't be at "computer-->system configuration"(Even my cell phone besides all the apps has a settings menu to keeps the settings stuff there...)

-there's no bootsplash. As it's more "in the mood of the era" the bootsplash should be default, it's more stylish than hackerish staff...I open up my extra-flat TFT; I don't want to see commodore 64 loading, i want to see an up to date OS!

Believe it or not people are GREATLY affected by the "wrapping" of the whole thing...Windows sells something-not-so-good in a golden package. Linux is sorta the opposite. It's all about da marketing!
Also, my view is that the comuter will work just like a fridge in the future. Simple. I think THAT'S the direction we should go...

Cheers!
PS: All of this got in my mind when I loaded proMEPIS in my cdrom. A desktop with 10 icons + a taskbar full of silly stuff + a backgroung of pyramids saying promepis! This is...ugly!


Sounds like you should try the new xfce.....

[Randabis]

The stuff you're talking about has nothing to do with linux. You're talking ubuntu specific things.


I'd like to share some thoughts with you:

OK we're in the 21st century and it's the minimalistic era... The living room has only one silver chair, one very low table and sci-fi stuff instead of just TV...
Linux doesn't come off the 80's or 90's, it's NOW. Windows is <kinda> stylish...you open up the desktop and there's only the background and a start button. Gives a "solid" look.
Don't forget hundreds of gauky icons unless you opt to remove them.


-Let's face it Totem ain't stylish but WMP with all the 3d button stuff is...
You don't have to use totem. There are alternatives, and some are skinnable.


-the application-computer isn't what I'd call "a good idea"..."Start" is much more catcy and practical. It gives no thoughts or dillemmas.
I find it much more convienient actually (well, in hoary we have applications, places, desktop) and there's always a choice to use other wms if you wish.


-configuration tools or files (well always in mind there's ubuntu) are more "here and there" there's no such thing as a control center. i.e: there's a "configuration editor" at "applications-->system-tools" Give me one reason this shouldn't be at "computer-->system configuration"(Even my cell phone besides all the apps has a settings menu to keeps the settings stuff there...)
Gnome, KDE, and xfce all have control centers.


-there's no bootsplash. As it's more "in the mood of the era" the bootsplash should be default, it's more stylish than hackerish staff...I open up my extra-flat TFT; I don't want to see commodore 64 loading, i want to see an up to date OS!
You can add this yourself now, or wait for the usplash project to finish and be implemented into hoary.


Believe it or not people are GREATLY affected by the "wrapping" of the whole thing...Windows sells something-not-so-good in a golden package. Linux is sorta the opposite. It's all about da marketing!
marketing is the least of the open source community's concerns.


Also, my view is that the comuter will work just like a fridge in the future. Simple. I think THAT'S the direction we should go...
There's a point where you can't get any more "simple". IMHO ubuntu/gnome/linux is already simple enough, and I find it easier to administrate and use than a windows machine.


Cheers!
PS: All of this got in my mind when I loaded proMEPIS in my cdrom. A desktop with 10 icons + a taskbar full of silly stuff + a backgroung of pyramids saying promepis! This is...ugly!
Guess they wanted to make it look like windows.

[DJ_Max]

I think you fail to see the fact that Linux is about choice. The default desktop look is put there because everyone has different tastes. If you don't like it, change it. Take a look at this thread
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=240&page=53&pp=10

You can do A LOT of cosmetic changes.


-the application-computer isn't what I'd call "a good idea"..."Start" is much more catcy and practical. It gives no thoughts or dillemmas.
Don't know whats so "catchy" about Start, it's been around since the beginning. Application is much more straightforward, Start makes no sense, as you aren't stating the computer. :-?

[Buffalo Soldier]

For people who prefer beautiful wrapping:
- Microsoft is still on earth.

For people who prefer quality product:
- GNU/Linux and many other GNU software exist.

For people who wants both:
- Wait for Microsoft product to get better. Or,
- Be a part of GNU/Linux. Use it, give feedbacks, report bugs, write documentation, spread the good word, assist newbie and etc.

Software of the people, by the people and for the people. It is only as good as the people and community that supports it.

Gnu/Linux is also about freedom. If there's something you don't like or would like to improve, you have the freedom to do so.

Or you can choose the other road, use a propriety software. Where you will pay, and the company will give you customer support, but you don't have freedom with the software that you paid for, you hardly have control over the development of the software/next version, the company may improve some functionality (maybe for the users sake, or maybe for something not so usefull for the end user but very useful for the company to tie the user to another product of the company).

And I don't think GNU/Linux main and only objective is to win over Windows users. I think it's more about choice and freedom.

[Rogee]

One of the main reasons I chose Ubuntu is BECAUSE of its minimalistic, eye-pleasing design. I think its look sets it apart from other distributions. In general, I think most distros look cluttered and thrown together, expecially KDEcentric distros. Ubuntu + Gnome is great combination.

Someone mentioned XFCE, and I also agree that it's great looking desktop. Very easy to use too.

[clparker]

I'm sure Windows Apeals to this guy more because he likes the 'playschool' look. It looks that way to make it look fun and easy, because windows is point and click easy. It's designed for idiots, like AOL software.

[Adrenal]

Wheres the patch?

[Randabis]

Wheres the patch?
???

[Perfect Storm]

Not stylish enough? Take a look at my sig. It's all about setting it up right if you want something flashy (and ofcause it's all about taste).

If you want cool look for your dvd/media player try Mplayer or Xine.


-there's no bootsplash. As it's more "in the mood of the era" the bootsplash should be default, it's more stylish than hackerish staff...I open up my extra-flat TFT; I don't want to see commodore 64 loading, i want to see an up to date OS!

If you know howto, you can set it up by your self.

And I don't understand that people thinks that winblow looks great (again about taste), I think it's more of habit and what people are used to.


.:=The AI Dude=:.

[Buffalo Soldier]

there's no bootsplash. As it's more "in the mood of the era" the bootsplash should be default, it's more stylish than hackerish staff...I open up my extra-flat TFT; I don't want to see commodore 64 loading, i want to see an up to date OS!
And I don't understand that people thinks that winblow looks great (again about taste), I think it's more of habit and what people are used to.I agree with Artificial Intelligence. But I guess it's only human nature to be more comfortable with what they are familiar with. And from my own experience, I found that my friend who started using computer during the DOS and command prompt days tend to be more comfortable with GNU/Linux and prefer it better than Windows.

I'm not pointing to anyone in particular in this post but from what I've read in this forum and other GNU/Linux or OpenSource forum I notice one particular group of people. The kind of people that downloads, installs and uses GNU/Linux for free. And then only get involves in giving all sorts of negative comments and unconstructive criticism but not getting involve constructively such as reporting bugs, helping the newbie, sharing useful information, chipping in with the development and etc.

I don't believe we can get something from nothing. It's either we choose fork out our hard earned money and buy a propriety software. Or we can choose to be a part of a community that works together (contributing in anyway we know, small or large).

I apologize if my post is kinda "preachy". And please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure I've slipped a few invalid arguments with fallacies and unsound reasoning in there). Kinda emotional after reading news about same hackers creating virus hidden in emails relating to the Asia-Tsunami.

[nocturn]

Linux doesn't come off the 80's or 90's, it's NOW. Windows is <kinda> stylish...you open up the desktop and there's only the background and a start button. Gives a "solid" look.


My Ubuntu desktop did not have a singel icon on it.

Windows XP displays My computer, my network, trash and every MS app you intall puts an extra one on it.



-Let's face it Totem ain't stylish but WMP with all the 3d button stuff is...


I diagree. The style of WMP is inconsistent with the look of the desktop. It does not skin according to Windows itself.
This is very ugly.
Totem is a GTK2 app and themes according to your desktop theme.



-the application-computer isn't what I'd call "a good idea"..."Start" is much more catcy and practical. It gives no thoughts or dillemmas.


Start, start what?
Or the logic, press start to shut down?

Applications is a very logical menu header.



-configuration tools or files (well always in mind there's ubuntu) are more "here and there" there's no such thing as a control center. i.e: there's a "configuration editor" at "applications-->system-tools" Give me one reason this shouldn't be at "computer-->system configuration"(Even my cell phone besides all the apps has a settings menu to keeps the settings stuff there...)


Because it is an applications like registry editor on windows. It is not the control panel or center. The settings in computer do act as a control panel and I find them no less logical then the settings in Windows



-there's no bootsplash. As it's more "in the mood of the era" the bootsplash should be default, it's more stylish than hackerish staff...I open up my extra-flat TFT; I don't want to see commodore 64 loading, i want to see an up to date OS!


There will be a bootsplash included with Hoary (Usplash). They left the bootsplash out because it causes problems on some systems (framebuffer). A working system is more important then Eyecandy, although it is coming when it can be done properly.
Note that Usplash still allows you to switch to the boot messages, which is very important for troubleshooting.

[MaZiNgA]

Hmm perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I already use a *quite* tweaked ubuntu desktop with custom menu+cool icons+tranparent terminal+MPlayer+other stuff.

MY POINT IS: this is what average joe sees after first install at both OSs. That's all I say, Windows is more stylish IMHO and that ubuntu should walk that way(not the MEPIS way).

Some answers to your posts: I still think ubuntu is the most stylish of all distros =D> I've already used xfce and fluxbox(for quite a long time) plus I know you can do cosmetic changes but I'm talking about "out of the box" I think gnome is cool but needs to be a bit more pre-tweaked. Sorry I made a mistake in title I meant Ubuntu. nocturn, hmmm no I still think WMP is cooler!:p We can start a poll if you want!
Where's the patch? (lol)

[nocturn]

MY POINT IS: this is what average joe sees after first install at both OSs. That's all I say, Windows is more stylish IMHO and that ubuntu should walk that way(not the MEPIS way).


That is what you think, it is not a universal truth. I find Windows XP's default look terrible, those screamy colors. And again, WMP only matches the default XP color scheme, it looks out of place on anything else (including W2K).



I think gnome is cool but needs to be a bit more pre-tweaked. Sorry I made a mistake in title I meant Ubuntu. nocturn, hmmm no I still think WMP is cooler!:p We can start a poll if you want!
Where's the patch? (lol)

I find the color scheme that Ubuntu defaults to more generally tastfull then the screamy colors of XP.
Again, looks are a matter of taste. I personally like the OS X look a lot.

The point in creating a distro is to make choices that appeal to the general user base.

[MaZiNgA]

The point in creating a distro is to make choices that appeal to the general user base.
Agreed.

Buffalo Soldier and AI: Yes, that's exactly what I believe. It IS a matter of habit and that's what we should take advantage of in order to drag more Win users to Linux. Drawing the taskbar at the bottom and raising its pixel height so as to be EXACTLY the same as in Win is harmless for most of us and effective! 5 of my friends that tried Linux complained "I just don't feel comfortable" and switched back to Win. Let's make everyone feel like home!
Buffalo, I am not conducting a no-turning-back-criticism, I am rather sharing my thoughts with you because I have a vision. It's quite diferent from starting a "Linux suxx" thread! ;)

clparker: Hmm I wouldn't say that windows is "designed for idiots" but, "average intelligence people". That's who we're dealing with either we like it or not...

[nocturn]

Agreed.

Buffalo Soldier and AI: Yes, that's exactly what I believe. It IS a matter of habit and that's what we should take advantage of in order to drag more Win users to Linux. Drawing the taskbar at the bottom and raising its pixel height so as to be EXACTLY the same as in Win is harmless for most of us and effective! 5 of my friends that tried Linux complained "I just don't feel comfortable" and switched back to Win. Let's make everyone feel like home!

Sorry, disagree here. These elements are the way they are because of usability guidelines, Windows plainly violoates most of these guidelines.
Making Linux look like Windows to attract windows converts will turn away its current userbase.

Doing things the right way is more important then instantly attracting users, it will benefit you in the long term (though it can be a short-term loss).

[MaZiNgA]

Sorry, disagree here. These elements are the way they are because of usability guidelines, Windows plainly violoates most of these guidelines.
Making Linux look like Windows to attract windows converts will turn away its current userbase.

Doing things the right way is more important then instantly attracting users, it will benefit you in the long term (though it can be a short-term loss).
Nocturn, what makes you think that Linux goes the "right way"?
Do you have a link or something about these "usability guidelines" you speak of?
IMHO, (unfortunately) I see more loss than gain when applying these guidelines...
Cheers!

[nocturn]

Nocturn, what makes you think that Linux goes the "right way"


There is no way to be sure about 'the right way', but without doing usability studies, you are destined to get it wrong.



Do you have a link or something about these "usability guidelines" you speak of?
IMHO, (unfortunately) I see more loss than gain when applying these guidelines...
Cheers!

Check the Gnome project for interface guidelines. There is a reason behind the way things are done.

MS just makes a mess of things (have you seen XP hiding menus yet). Partly because they ripped to many ideas from different sources.

[Buffalo Soldier]

Nocturn, what makes you think that Linux goes the "right way"?
Do you have a link or something about these "usability guidelines" you speak of?
IMHO, (unfortunately) I see more loss than gain when applying these guidelines...

Some reading that could enlighten you.

GNOME Human Interface Guidelines - specific to Gnome
http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/


All other related readings:

Apple Human Interface Guidelines - Not as same as Gnome, but some shared vision.
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/OSXHIGuidelines/XHIGIntro/chapter_1_section_1.html#/

Why Are Good User Interfaces So Hard to Make?
http://www.uiweb.com/issues/issue01.htm

Golden Rules for Bad User Interfaces
http://www.sapdesignguild.org/community/design/golden_rules.asp

Human-Computer Interface Design Guidelines (Book)
http://www.intellectbooks.co.uk/books.php?isbn=1871516544

Interface Design for Computer-based Learning Environments
http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwitr/docs/idguide/

User Interface Design & Usability Testing
http://www.usernomics.com/user-interface-design.html

Centre for HCI (Human Computer Interface) Design - City University, London
http://www-hcid.soi.city.ac.uk/

CS-615: User Interface Design (University of Massachussetts, Boston, USA) A course description. They do teach Interface Design in university and colleges. I assure you that Nocturn did not simple make up this subject out of thin air.
http://www.cs.umb.edu/~mweiss/cs615_f04/

User Interface Design Compromise: Taking the Good with the Bad (by IBM, link to pdf file)
http://www-306.ibm.com/ibm/easy/eou_ext.nsf/publish/1120/$File/paper1120.pdf

When Interfaces Kill: What Really Happened to John Denver (interface is not only important in computers, but in every machinery that humans operate. now that microsoft is trying to put windows on other appliances; this issue will become more important)
http://www.asktog.com/columns/027InterfacesThatKill.html

Discussion on Interface in embedded system
http://weblogs.asp.net/mikehall/archive/2004/12/20/327498.aspx

Human-Computer Interface Limited (pricate company)
http://www.interface.co.uk/

[MaZiNgA]

There is no way to be sure about 'the right way', but without doing usability studies, you are destined to get it wrong.



Check the Gnome project for interface guidelines. There is a reason behind the way things are done.

MS just makes a mess of things (have you seen XP hiding menus yet). Partly because they ripped to many ideas from different sources.

I think there's no "right way" and the only way you can do it is make win users feel more friendly at linux. Well I mean for Ubuntu 80% of it is already done (I wouldn't like to think the _OX pattern at the title bar is the ONLY way to do it...:p) I just want the rest 20% to be done so that my friends (and thus all windows users) can feel comfortable.
(So as not to be misunderstood I'm concentrating my thoughts on the look n feel of Ubuntu-it's great but it can be better...)

[Buffalo Soldier]

I think there's no "right way" and the only way you can do it is make win users feel more friendly at linux. Well I mean for Ubuntu 80% of it is already done (I wouldn't like to think the _OX pattern at the title bar is the ONLY way to do it...:p) I just want the rest 20% to be done so that my friends (and thus all windows users) can feel comfortable.
(So as not to be misunderstood I'm concentrating my thoughts on the look n feel of Ubuntu-it's great but it can be better...)

There is a word called "compromise". Any system is always a compromise of each of its component. Speed, stability, usability, security, mobility, marketability (i'm not sure if there is a word like that) and etc.

What Microsoft did was sacrifice security and many others for marketability. By doing what is most simple, likeable, easiest thing does not always makes the system the best.

(driver A)It is easier to : get in car -> start engine -> drive.

(driver b) It is a bit harder to: get in car ->put seatbealt -> adjust mirror -> start engine -> drive.

Tell me which driver is you.

[MaZiNgA]

C'mon it's much more simple you don't lose anything in Linux if you make some aesthetic changes!
Just like the monster-knight comparison:
Windows: Monster in a white knight's disguise
Linux: White Knight in a monster's disguise <--(ok this is exaggerating a bit but you get my point :p)

Anyway seems like I'm unable to pass out something very simple...:(

BTW, I'm the driver that enters car and says "Blue Square" and belt,seat & mirror adjust automatically and the car takes me there :D

[jdodson]

Hmm perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I already use a *quite* tweaked ubuntu desktop with custom menu+cool icons+tranparent terminal+MPlayer+other stuff.

MY POINT IS: this is what average joe sees after first install at both OSs. That's all I say, Windows is more stylish IMHO and that ubuntu should walk that way(not the MEPIS way).

Some answers to your posts: I still think ubuntu is the most stylish of all distros =D> I've already used xfce and fluxbox(for quite a long time) plus I know you can do cosmetic changes but I'm talking about "out of the box" I think gnome is cool but needs to be a bit more pre-tweaked. Sorry I made a mistake in title I meant Ubuntu. nocturn, hmmm no I still think WMP is cooler!:p We can start a poll if you want!
Where's the patch? (lol)

thanks for the screenshots. though it seems that winxp comes with no icons on the desktop and everything via the "start" bar. actually as one person already stated i dont think "start" is very intuative. we are all used to start. so we want to see it in other places. we all like the what we are used to. so we want ubuntu to be a clone of our own preferences.

i honestly believe that ubuntu is intuative. in fact i think that ubuntu is more intuative that the windows default install counterpart. now i think that it is also worth mentioning that ubuntu comes preloded with more stuff than standard xp, but that is another thread altogether. in the end if gazillions of users are used to xp then they want to see things made that way. people who have never touched a computer before and get an intro on using a mouse, etc would find ubuntu to be a bit easier to understand that xp. i believe the gnome desktop puts a bit more stock into usability than windows does. windows is about keeping market share. if they switched to a more intuative design, the market would be upset as most people dont enjoy change, even if it makes them more productive.

[Daniel G. Taylor]

The answer to all your problems is just one click away (http://www.apple.com/macmini/). What? Reality distortion field (http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif)? :roll:

More seriously, any change in a user's environment will immediately become anything but comfortable for most users. I can easily see how someone having used Microsoft Windows 9x and moved to Windows XP with its new and "improved" pretty interface will see a move to something resembling the former as a step backwards. In reality GTK+ as a technology is quite advanced, and has the priceless advantage of being free (as in freedom). If you'd like something smoother and more modern looking, I'd suggest looking at the Clearlooks GTK+ theme engine (http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php?content=19527) or maybe even Bluecurve. In fact, I dare to say that the Windows GUI can be completely redone using GTK+, Metacity, GNOME and a custom panel applet (the precious "start" button).

Either way, as with any new interface, one must give it a good chance. This doesn't mean playing with it for a few hours and giving up. This means, for example, spending a month using it, getting your natural movements to loosen and start to form a feeling for the new way of doing things. When I first moved from Windows to GNU/Linux and more recently started using OSX, I constantly found myself saying things like "hmmm, I could do this in Windows, why can't I do it here?" Well, as it turns out I could do those things and much more after a few months of working with the new systems. My desktops are sexy, my themes are sleek, my windows have shadows and fades (http://programmer-art.org/images/composite.avi) (in both OSX and GNOME), and my interface is hardware accelerated.

Now, the thing that has always made me want to take a fork to my own eyes (even more so than this (http://service.t-online.de/)) in Windows is the fact that everyone and their mother have to create their own GUI widgets and "cool" shaped windows and such. People, wake up. It's slow, it's confusing, and it's entirely unnecessary and stupid. I can't believe you mentioned Windows Media Player. I suppose you love MSN Messenger's interface, too? To each his/her own I guess, but I prefer to run and hide from those apps.

I think I'll stick to my Xorg (http://xorg.freedesktop.org), GTK+ (http://gtk.org), GNOME (http://gnome.org), and Mac OSX (http://www.apple.com/macosx/). :-P

[Yukonjack]

I don't get it with this windows thing, it stink, the gui is darn right ugly and was design for ms drones.

[Buffalo Soldier]

Windows: Monster in a white knight's disguise
Linux: White Knight in a monster's disguise <--(ok this is exaggerating a bit but you get my point )

It is exaggerating



BTW, I'm the driver that enters car and says "Blue Square" and belt,seat & mirror adjust automatically and the car takes me there)

Still did not answer the question. A or B.

But now that you bring up that interesting point. I believe in the future GNU/Linux can be the car that you can enter, says "Blue Square", follows the safety procedure and take u there safely. If you said this is far off because GNU/Linux lacks even simple voice recognition here's a link http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/01/13/1445211


I still think WMP is cooler! We can start a poll if you want!

Why don't you?


Nocturn, what makes you think that Linux goes the "right way"?
Do you have a link or something about these "usability guidelines" you speak of?

I have answered that question for Nocturn. Have you gone through the list of links?

[TravisNewman]

OK... First off, the WMP interface is ass-nasty. I haven't liked it since version 6.4. Second, the Windows interface has always been nasty and counter-intuitive.

Now, think about this one... if you want Ubuntu or any distribution to mimic the simplicity and useability of Windows to a T, why not just use Windows? Because it's not stable? Because it's slow? Well, that's in large part BECAUSE of the way Windows does things that people love so much. Now, tell me truthfully, do you think the exact pixel height of the taskbar really matters? No. You're right, there's a comfort zone that takes some work to get around, but even if the interface were EXACTLY the same as windows, the user that gives up when he/she can't use the awkward blue and green start menu to get to everything is the same user that will give up when ANYTHING he/she tries to do is different. The only way to get around that is to... yep, you guessed it. Do it the same way as Windows. But what's the point? Windows already exists. Linux is an alternative, providing many alternative ways for doing things. Personally, I don't think many people involved in creating Linux/GNU software are as interested in getting more users as they are in making good, intuitive software. The day that Ubuntu ships with a blue taskbar with a green button that says "start" on it is the day I switch distributions. I am a Linux user because I don't like Windows, and I honestly don't see how anyone can say that a distribution should sacrifice all the hard work at making an intuitive interface just to get more users. It's selling out, honestly, and it DEFINITELY shouldn't be done, and as my experience on mailing lists and forums suggests, if you suggested this to higher-ups in Gnome development or specific distribution development, you might get laughed at a bit.

[Daniel G. Taylor]

... I am a Linux user because I don't like Windows...
I am a GNU/Linux user because I value freedom, and because I see the advantages of free software.

I wonder how many other people are here because they dislike Microsoft Windows.

[Randabis]

I am a GNU/Linux user because I value freedom, and because I see the advantages of free software.

I wonder how many other people are here because they dislike Microsoft Windows.
I'm here for both reasons myself. :)

[TravisNewman]

I should rephrase that.

I STARTED using Linux because Windows was annoying and didn't work, and because the philosophy was interesting. I CONTINUE to use Linux because I value freedom, see the advantages of free software, etc.

[Adrenal]

???
It means, if your gonna bitch about something open source, take the initiative to improve it
That said, i do agree with you that Linux could use a facelift

[Randabis]

It means, if your gonna bitch about something open source, take the initiative to improve it
That said, i do agree with you that Linux could use a facelift
Ah.

I don't think it needs a facelift at all, but I know you were refering to the OP.

[nocturn]

I think there's no "right way" and the only way you can do it is make win users feel more friendly at linux. Well I mean for Ubuntu 80% of it is already done (I wouldn't like to think the _OX pattern at the title bar is the ONLY way to do it...:p) I just want the rest 20% to be done so that my friends (and thus all windows users) can feel comfortable.
(So as not to be misunderstood I'm concentrating my thoughts on the look n feel of Ubuntu-it's great but it can be better...)

I'm sorry to say this, but the Linux community is not out to make your windows-friends feel more comfortable. We will help them make the switch as much as we can, but we will not change the design of our entire software portfolio to do so.

The Linux/Free software way is to do things the right way. If that gains you users, that's a good thing, but gaining users by doing things wrong is not how the community works. That is one of the biggest reasons that Free Software is of such high quality.

[Buffalo Soldier]

It means, if your gonna bitch about something open source, take the initiative to improve it.

I agree. Open source is not the place for whinners.

[Dylanby]

Personally I love Gnome.

It was quite a pleasant surprise when I first started using it a few months ago.
I've never at any time found it to be frustrating or confusing. Still trying to adjust to spatial (haven't switched it off yet).

But of course, it may not be for everyone.
You should let your friends try other DE's & WM's.
Sounds like they might like XPde (http://www.xpde.com/)

[Lynx]

I used a Mac my entire life, they are fantastic machines and OS X and it's companions are great software. I switched to a PC now because they are more cost effective than my precious mac. I was raised with a special aversion to the windows operating system because of my Macintosh roots. So the first time I ever used Windows was when I bought this computer in April. I liked it for three days. After the honeymoon period it all went down hill fast, I couldn't do what I wanted to do, it was impossible to find any decent freeware, the only changes I could make to the operating system were cosmetic. I decided to switch to linux so I picked up suse 9.1. Much better than Windows but I felt that there must be something better out there, with more choices that was less klunky (if you get my drift) so I started to look over some stuff and found debian, which lead me to Ubuntu. I got into Ubuntu and it has been the OS of my dreams, it is intuitive, things were right where I expected them to be, where it made sense. I can always find things and change whatever I want. I gave Ubuntu to my girlfriend (not a computer literate person at all) and explained a few things and she got everything up and running and loves it much more than Windows. Windows looks and feels like a toy rather than an industrial strength product. Honestly to me, the "Windows Feel" that seems so important to you would drive me away faster than anything else, if I wanted Windows I would use Windows. You don't get anywhere by offering the same thing as everybody else, you offer something better.

[J. S. Jackson]

I'm sure Windows Apeals to this guy more because he likes the 'playschool' look. It looks that way to make it look fun and easy, because windows is point and click easy. It's designed for idiots, like AOL software.

You know, not everyone really gives a crap about computers, anymore than they care about configuring their dishwasher. They just want clean dishes. They could care less about the inner workings of the freakin' thing. This does not mean they are idiots, just that their area of expertise lies elsewhere.

I don't want to flame you, but in my view, your comments are a perfect example of the sort of thinking that will keep Linux down.

Everyone loves eye candy, why else would anyone go out and spend $400 bucks on the newest 6800GT and a $1800 Wide screen LCD? To display Gnome Terminal in all it's glory? I think not.

I love COLOR, I love art, I love graphics. I love beautifully designed fonts. I love things to be as easy as possible on the computer and that the mundane aspects of computing are taken care of automatically for me. That is the WHOLE POINT of using a computer in the first place. To allow it to do the grunt work.

99% of computer users accomplish amazing tasks with them with VERY little knowledge of how to configure them. I work with graphic artists every day that are totally clueless about how to configure their MAC, yet they produce amazing designs that are only possible through the use of a computer.

Luckily the developers at Gnome, Ubuntu, and others realize this, and are working full steam ahead to keep Linux on top, and make it even better.

[Lynx]

Well buddy, it doesn't take a whole hell of a lot to configure the desktop in Gnome, it's actually pretty freakin easy... I just did it, put together a sexy theme in just five minutes. If I choose to use the terminal then I will but I don't have to, though it makes some things a whole hell of a lot easier. Color, art and graphics are wonderful and you can have all that and more and the fun of putting it together yourself in a way that pleases you, most who share your passion for color, art and graphics, would enjoy configuring their desktop and having complete control over it. With Linux you get a basic theme so that you can make it whatever you want. Another thing is that last time I checked, your whole life is not on a dishwasher. Computers however for most people play a very significant role in their lives. People should care that their computer is secure, that they are protected against those that would harm them and that the companies who produce the products that they use do not lie about security holes that could cost people thousands of dollars and their identity. Linux offers a safter computing experience, one free of spyware and adware threats and companies with THE USER at heart and not MONEY. So having to educate yourself for three and a half days to become a competent computer user should be COMMON SENSE in this day and age. The Linux community wants people who realize just what they are getting and appreciate the effort that goes into providing this amazing computing environment for FREE and realize that while things may be differen, it is worth learning. So, perhaps peoplewho ignore a faulty, low security Windows operating system that puts their financial lives at stake, all for the sake of eye candy, perhaps they are idiots.

[jdodson]

hey now, lets be nice. i mean this in a nice and firm manner. everyone has there own version of what is a "good" interface and what is a "bad" interface.

some people value freedom and some people do not. (this is not directed at anyone) it seems odd to value freedom when you play a DVD or install the w32codecs as those codecs limit your freedom. i guess lately i have just wanted stuff to work. i know when i install ut2004 and libdvdcss2 i am limiting my freedom, but dammit i want to watch movies! anyways, that is the world i live in. one where if i want to watch a movie that i purchased legally i must limit my freedom. so be it.

anyways, in the end lets all just be cool with each other. to each his own, we can disagree and debate, but being angry is worthless.

oh and lets stop saying "you are the reason gnu/linux will fail." because honestly no one in the forum has the power to do that on thier own..... unless bill gates and sco frequent this forum as i am sure they do not and its debatable where they can stop the flood of GNU.

[Lynx]

I apolagize for getting too heated. Freedom is important and while installing libdvdcss and such may limit that, the most important thing for me with linux is security. Windows does not do a good job of protecting the consumers that it makes billions off of and so when people say that eye-candy is what is going to fail linux it just pisses me off, but again, sorry for getting too heated.

[jdodson]

I apolagize for getting too heated. Freedom is important and while installing libdvdcss and such may limit that, the most important thing for me with linux is security. Windows does not do a good job of protecting the consumers that it makes billions off of and so when people say that eye-candy is what is going to fail linux it just pisses me off, but again, sorry for getting too heated.

right and if security is your bag i agree, gnu/linux is where it is at. i think it is great that people come to gnu/linux for different reasons. in the end, you get it all(freedom, security, stability, performace) if you chose(being that you can run an insecure, non-free, unstable, non-performance based gnu/linux if you want to).

rock on.

[Lynx]

Security and development. I plan on learning how to program eventually and with Linux small time programmers can still contribute, linux continues to value individuals whereas microsoft squishes them.

[wallijonn]

-there's no bootsplash. As it's more "in the mood of the era" the bootsplash should be default, it's more stylish than hackerish staff...I open up my extra-flat TFT; I don't want to see commodore 64 loading, i want to see an up to date OS!

Why not just install Fedora, SUSE, Mandrake, Gentoo, VidaLinux or Fedora then? Or you could just wait for Hoary to be finalised. Or get a Mac.

I'm the type that when the Splashscreen comes up I hit the escape key to see what's booting up. Yeah, it's pretty, but so what. I'd rather have the other 99.99% of the OS working right than having a good looking bootscreen. It's a bootscreen, for goodness' sake, a bootscreen, mere eyecandy, nothing more. It's because of the same love of eyecandy that so many people want gDesklets - even if it sacrifices stability, because it is Hoary.

After a little customising I think my desktop is great looking. I tried the WXP and W2KP desktop custmisation packages and found them all wanting.

As far as eye candy goes, I chose GNOME 2.8 over GNOME 2.6 and KDE.

[jdodson]

bootsplash is just the "gripe of the week." i will admit that ubuntu will look more "professional" when it has bootsplash, but in the end it is purely an astetic and adds no increase in any kind of performance of functionality.

i am glad they are adding it, however when it is added, and boot time diminishes signifigantly and we all get xorg and the latest patches and versions of programs and...... there will be more suggestions that often look like gripes :mrgreen:

that is the way of the free(dom) world. once you get something that works, you keep wanting more that works better. good thing there are people working on this 24 hours a day all over the world.

[Lynx]

To me special is seeing that my security tools and network configuration and everything is booting as it should. I can see the point of a bootsplash but it really isn't of any use to me. I always hit f2 in suse to watch my bootup and it came in handy a whole lot in the beginning because I was able to identify problems.

[Randabis]

i am glad they are adding it, however when it is added, and boot time diminishes signifigantly and we all get xorg and the latest patches and versions of programs and...... there will be more suggestions that often look like gripes :mrgreen:

Why would a bootsplash image increase boot times? Am I missing something here?

[J. S. Jackson]

[snip]

So, perhaps peoplewho ignore a faulty, low security Windows operating system that puts their financial lives at stake, all for the sake of eye candy, perhaps they are idiots.

I think you misunderstood my message. I was replying to the guy who said that people who like eye candy and an easy interface are idiots.

I was arguing FOR linux, not against it, and trying to point out that security and eye candy are not at odds with each other. An easy GUI is not at odds with the idea of security either. Apple has proven this point over and over.

The main point I was trying to drive home, to the other guy, is that most people who use computers, do just that. They *use* them to accomplish some other purpose - computing a spreadsheet, sending email, graphic design, etc. They do not care one iota about programming. All they want is a SECURE OS which allows them to accomplish these goals. They expect that when they check their email, it will be secure and private, PERIOD. They shouldn't have to jump through hoops to make it so. It's the responsibility of the developer, not the user, to make sure this happens. The user should not be required to have intimate knowledge of computer programming to use a computer.

When you press start on your dishwasher, you take for granted that qualified people have designed it in such a way that you will not be immediately electricuted, or all of your fine china destroyed. You should not need intimate knowledge of electronics and plumbing to use a dishwasher. Maybe you think this analogy is too simple, since a computer is far more complicated than a dishwasher. But you can substitute anything in place of dishwasher - telephone, automobile, elevator, airplane, whatever.

The best minds involved with linux understand this, and are working very hard to achieve this goal - allowing people to be productive with computers in their area of expertise, and have all the bells and whistles, but at the same time making it secure, at the most basic level.

[Lynx]

Well your persistant faulty reasoning about the dishwasher aside. I understand better now, what you said before. Thanks for clearing that up.

[wallijonn]

...most people who use computers, do just that... computing a spreadsheet, sending email, graphic design, etc. They do not care one iota about programming. All they want is a SECURE OS which allows them to accomplish these goals. They expect that when they check their email, it will be secure and private, PERIOD. They shouldn't have to jump through hoops to make it so. It's the responsibility of the developer, not the user, to make sure this happens. The user should not be required to have intimate knowledge of computer programming to use a computer.

Well, perhaps not programming but if they are that security minded they will probably have to know about PGP, security certificates, ssh, https, etc. Linux is already a lot more secure than Windows, but some here will still install BSD or a security hardened kernel. Since I also do Windows I have to have a firewall running in Ubuntu. Is it really necessary? Probably not, but I still do, just as I have been tempted to run Pretty Good Privacy for my email; not that I am paranoid, mind you. :D

If anything a user wants an editor, for example, that will write a document which can be read in MSWord, MSExcel, MSProject, MSMail or MS Outlook Express, MS Outlook, etc. MS of course does not want this, anymore than they want people to be able to play MS media files, DX, etc. on non MS OSes.

[davro]

Hi all

Linux is an open-source operating system derived from the Unix operating system.
Linux is stylish by its own definition, we work/play with Linux not or windows/macs for example.

Needs are generally the desire of a 'person' who feels something is worthwhile.
Style === Fashionable: being or in accordance with current fashion, "the fashionable side of town"

Which promts this question 'Sanity' or 'Vanity'


Davro

[Leif]

I think people are getting too excited about things for the wrong reasons. I really do not agree with the "go back to your eyecandy windows moron" attitude.

Can you please tell me just how much effort would be involved in adding an installation option where you can choose the default ubuntu settings or the switching-from-xp eyecandy ? Everybody is quick to point out how easy these things are to do by yourself, but they are not when you've just started using a new distro.

There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism.

p.s. just so we're clear, I prefer the way ubuntu is myself ;)

[jeremy]

I prefer a gnu/linux that could be more stylish to a windows that could:
a) be more secure
b) be more stable
c) need I go on?

[Randabis]

If you want your system to look like winblows, why not just use XPde? Better yet, why not just use windows?

[Leif]

"If you want your system to look like winblows, why not just use XPde? Better yet, why not just use windows?"

Because you like the stability and power of linux, but -heaven forbid- would like to use the menus the way you're accustomed to ? I'm not suggesting any redesign here, but just a simple rearrangement of the menu and such so that things are where a newbie might expect them to be. Why does it have to be all or nothing ?

And no, the reply "then use lindows etc." is not good enough either. Consider that I've heard of this fantastic thing Debian, and an even better thing, Ubuntu, but I've used windows all my life. Why should things not be made a bit easier for me ? So you can feel superior for figuring out how to change settings ? Bravo !!!

[Perfect Storm]

I perfectly understand where the author of this thread is going. It have nothing to do with stability, secuirty, free of choise etc.
Lots of win users worldwide "doesn't really care" about these things, the main thing they want is ease of use and a something nice to look at, I know it's it's a generalizing alot of people, but it's habit question what people are used to.

Take for instance my parents and my sister, I've try to learn how to use linux and tell about the philosophy but without luck, simple because things don't go flashy colours and press one button then and things is done. As my father stated: "Why change OS, when windows works" and "Do have I to learn all over". And I'm pretty sure it aren't just in my family.

This isn't a rant just a state of facts and it's sad.
I think Linux at the moment are to those who thinks a little more than "just it works"-sentimentality.


.:=The AI Dude=:.

[Marquis_de_Carabas]

Maybe you think this analogy is too simple, since a computer is far more complicated than a dishwasher. But you can substitute anything in place of dishwasher - telephone, automobile, elevator, airplane, whatever.

And how long does it take to learn to drive a car? Okay, maybe if it's an automatic you could manage to start driving within a few minutes but the chances are you'll end up lying bleeding to death in a ditch before too long. And though I've never flown an aeroplane, I imagine it takes quite a while to learn how to fly one, and understanding some of the theory behind it - aerodynamics etc. - is pretty much essential.

In my workplace are several people who've never used a computer before, and they have quite a lot of problems. Silly little things, like accidentally closing a program and not knowing how to start it up again ("Start" may be relatively intuitive in this instance, but then spending five minutes searching through the list of "All programs" is a nightmare. I much prefer the Gnome method here), or not being able to check their email because they haven't changed the user name. To someone who's new to PCs, Windows isn't particularly intuitive. It only seems intuitive to the rest of us because it's what we've always used (at least that's the case for most - they certainly didn't have any other OSes at my school).

I was wondering a couple of days ago - is there a danger of making things too user friendly? If it wasn't a legal requirement for people to spend a lengthy period of time learning to drive safely - if people could just jump into a car, press the accelerator and go - the roads would undoubtedly be a far more dangerous place. And the same with OSes. Being logged on as root (or a member of the administrators group in Windows parlance) all the time is undoubtedly more convenient, but what happens when you inadvertently open a virus? Bye-bye system is what happens.

Maybe someday Star Trek's promises will be fulfilled and we'll just say "Computer, play back the last message from my mother" but until that point I'm not sure that trying to eliminate the learning curve is such a great idea. You can buy phones with email built in, you can send email through your cable TV box, but if you want the power and flexibility of a PC then I don't think it's unreasonable to expect you to spend a little time learning how to use it effectively, and safely.

(By the way, none of this is directed at anyone in particular. J.S Jackson's quote started me off, but from there everything is just general thoughts)

[ubuntu UsER]

I was wondering a couple of days ago - is there a danger of making things too user friendly?

Yes it is! OS can't be secure and easy in use at the same time (maybe it will be in the future, but not now) . You can't be just "normal" user who doesn't know anything about computers because you will be the most dangerous part of your OS. If you have Windows or Linux it is very important to know "something" about viruses and firewalls, because without it you can easily make many holes into your OS (i.e.running services that are not needed and not secured). Any OS can't be too easy in use , because there are no OS that is secure enough.

[TravisNewman]

Why should things not be made a bit easier for me ? So you can feel superior for figuring out how to change settings ? Bravo !!!

No, its a matter of making things easier for new users vs. making quality software. Linux developers for the most part (from what I understand) DO NOT give a damn how many users they have, they just want to make quality software, following human interface guidelines as closely as possible, so that things are where they should be. Once a new user gets used to this method, perhaps he'll see that this works much better than Windows.

But like I've said before, if this hypothetical new user leaves after 5 minutes because his menu entries aren't where he expects them, then he would leave after 10 minutes when he tried to set up his printer, or 15 minutes after he tried to set up his home networking.

Nobody is trying to feel superior here (though I'm sure there are a lot of Linux users who do feel superior). It's a matter of the values of the developers. And I can relate. Why would you lower the quality of your software, even if it's just in the arrangement of the desktop, just to get more users. Again, it's selling out. I don't like that idea. Human Interface Guidelines are just one more standard that Microsoft continues to break into 1000 pieces. When something should be done one way, you do it that way. You don't meet the other company halfway that has been butchering it.

Lets also think about another thing... Microsoft probably has the "Start Menu" copyrighted, and possibly the arrangement of the start menu. I know that this conversation has gone away from exactly replicating the start menu, but I just thought about that when I was talking to my fiancee about this the other night. Just so you know, before I even gave my opinion, she said something to the effect of "why do they want these developers to break their own apps?"

So let me attempt to summarize:
It's NOT about winning over more users. Most people don't care about getting more users, they just want QUALITY SOFTWARE. When the quality of the software is put against getting more users, keeping the software high quality is the top priority.

[Buffalo Soldier]

Take for instance my parents and my sister, I've try to learn how to use linux and tell about the philosophy but without luck, simple because things don't go flashy colours and press one button then and things is done. As my father stated: "Why change OS, when windows works" and "Do have I to learn all over". And I'm pretty sure it aren't just in my family.

True. There are a lot of these kind of people. I think majority of computer users are in this category. I think it's not their time for GNU/Linux and they should continue using MS Windows if they chose to do so.

I don't think we should try to convert everyone to use GNU/Linux and while doing that we sacrifice the security of GNU/Linux.

I believe GNU/Linux should continue with its current design philosophy of security & stability over beautification.

Let those who prefer MS Windows continue to use MS Windows. It is their choice.

[JeffS]

I agree with Marquis. Windows has the same learning curve Linux does. Case in point, I recently helped my mother, a complete computer newbie/illiterate, buy a new PC, one with Lindows/Linspire installed (she was attracted to the low price and my saying Linux was more secure). She was going to take a class in basic computer usage, which was taught using Windows. So I set it up as a dual boot with Windows.

In the learning process, my mother required the exact same amount of tutelage in Windows as she did with Lindows/Linspire. She needed to master the basics of using the mouse, getting connected to the internet, browsing, getting and sending email, using games, and using a word processor. Windows was not any easier for her by any means.

Thus, people just assume that Windows is easier, and that's only because of familiarity.

[Leif]

panickedthumb, thanks for the reply. I see your point, and yes, if a user isn't willing to spend any time adapting to a new interface then maybe they don't want to use linux after all. But there's one thing I didn't quite get :



But like I've said before, if this hypothetical new user leaves after 5 minutes because his menu entries aren't where he expects them, then he would leave after 10 minutes when he tried to set up his printer, or 15 minutes after he tried to set up his home networking.


Is this an argument for or against the way things are done ? The first time I connected a network printer, I found it easier under windows. I think you'll agree that the ubuntu counterpart can use work. If a user gets frustrated at this point, ok, they are giving up too easily, but I feel that they are less to blame than for the windows-ish menu argument.

[CowPie]

panickedthumb, thanks for the reply. I see your point, and yes, if a user isn't willing to spend any time adapting to a new interface then maybe they don't want to use linux after all. But there's one thing I didn't quite get :



Is this an argument for or against the way things are done ? The first time I connected a network printer, I found it easier under windows. I think you'll agree that the ubuntu counterpart can use work. If a user gets frustrated at this point, ok, they are giving up too easily, but I feel that they are less to blame than for the windows-ish menu argument.
Oh yeah, Ubuntu needs a lot of work in regards to printing and networkingw ith Windows. Xandros is a good model for this aspect.

ANyway, I agree. Totem is ugly and a piece of crap as totem-gstreamer. We need more apps like WMP10, its a nice all in one app. PLus its is very pretty :)

[CowPie]

Oh yeah, Ubuntu needs a lot of work in regards to printing and networkingw ith Windows. Xandros is a good model for this aspect.

ANyway, I agree. Totem is ugly and a piece of crap as totem-gstreamer. We need more apps like WMP10, its a nice all in one app. PLus its is very pretty :)
and that new XFCE4.2 splash screen is a great example of style. I think its exactly what Linux needs :)

[TravisNewman]

and that new XFCE4.2 splash screen is a great example of style. I think its exactly what Linux needs :)
I do love that splash screen :)

But I still think WMP is major crap *L*

leif: But my point is that with things as they are in almost any distro, its going to be differnet and sometimes more difficult, and if they're going to go back to Windows because they don't like the interface, they're probably going to go back when they find out they can't do things the same way they did in Windows, whether it's networking, printing, or anything. I do agree that the graphical config apps could use work, not for new users or being more user-friendly or anything, jsut out of convenience. As long as it's kept secure and reliable-- that's one of the things I always DESPISED about RedHat. Their system tools never really worked.

[Buffalo Soldier]

But I still think WMP is major crap *L*Can't argue with that :)

To me MS windows and MS apps are like drugs. Sparkling, shiny and beautiful. All design to entice. But deep inside, it's like poison. Leaving your defense system open to virus, malware, spyware and many other things you're unaware.

[nocturn]

Oh yeah, Ubuntu needs a lot of work in regards to printing and networkingw ith Windows. Xandros is a good model for this aspect.

ANyway, I agree. Totem is ugly and a piece of crap as totem-gstreamer. We need more apps like WMP10, its a nice all in one app. PLus its is very pretty :)

Again, I disagree with the WMP looks.
But, that aside. Do you really prefer a DRM crippled application?
Do you want an app that allows its DRM wrapper to connect you to any given URL, which can be used to download spyware to your PC? Because this is the reality with WMP today.

[nocturn]

Is this an argument for or against the way things are done ? The first time I connected a network printer, I found it easier under windows. I think you'll agree that the ubuntu counterpart can use work. If a user gets frustrated at this point, ok, they are giving up too easily, but I feel that they are less to blame than for the windows-ish menu argument.

Although some things are easier to configure on Windows, that does not mean anything.
My Ubuntu was configured on install, it works perfectly now.

My Windows XP at work regularly needs to be reconfigured because it looses the printer, turns on the firewall after a crash, ...
All in all, it flunks out several times a week, often when I need it the most.

My Ubuntu works after configuring and it keeps working.

Sure, some things could be enhanced, I'm not against that. But not at the expense of breaking other stuff.

[Buffalo Soldier]

Do you have a link or something about these "usability guidelines" you speak of?

An article at NewsForge.com titled Security myths and architectural realities (http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/01/21/1453247)
More features inevitably means more ways for things to go wrong. That violates the principle of simplicity, to which security happens to be very sensitive. To put it another way, if you can see a way to improve security by removing a feature, that's always better than to get the same effect by adding a feature.

Definitely an article to read both by user and developer.

[#Greg]

I can honestly say Gnome/KDE beat the **** out of Window's GUI. I look at my desktop now and 'wow, so pretty', at work I use win2k 'ugh, my eyes'.

Right now, MS could learn a huge amount of Linux/Mac in terms of GUI management.

[jeremy]

Whenever I see the default ******* ecks-pee desktop, I think of Telly-Tubbie land, now if that's style, we are all better off without it.
Big hug to all!

[CowPie]

Again, I disagree with the WMP looks.
But, that aside. Do you really prefer a DRM crippled application?
Do you want an app that allows its DRM wrapper to connect you to any given URL, which can be used to download spyware to your PC? Because this is the reality with WMP today.
I like their UI, that's all :)

[bitfoo]

I'm sure Windows Apeals to this guy more because he likes the 'playschool' look. It looks that way to make it look fun and easy, because windows is point and click easy. It's designed for idiots, like AOL software.
When did people decide computers should be complicated? They shouldn't. There's a reason Apple's are easy to use. Linux should strive for the same ease of use.

[Lynx]

Linux should keep doing what it's doing. Eventually we will get the ease of use that accomanies apple's products, combined with the free nature of open source and the versatility already present in linux. We just have to keep being patient, this stuff doesn't happen overnight.

[ankitmalik]

I think you fail to see the fact that Linux is about choice. The default desktop look is put there because everyone has different tastes. If you don't like it, change it. Take a look at this thread
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=240&page=53&pp=10

You can do A LOT of cosmetic changes.


Don't know whats so "catchy" about Start, it's been around since the beginning. Application is much more straightforward, Start makes no sense, as you aren't stating the computer. :-?
Just remembered a quote!

******* is the only OS where you have to click @ Start to shutdown/stop the computer!

[eBopBob]

**NOTE: I never read all of Page 3, and never read any of Page 4**


Wow - This is a very heated debate indeed.

In regards to Linux not being classy - not being aesthetically pleasing - I'd have to disagree. It can be very "sexy" to look at. It is true however that many distributions do not look that good out of the box, however after a few minutes it can look amazing. Ubuntu IMO is ok out of the box, however it only takes a minute or two to turn it into what I want it to look like. So is Linux not classy and will it never be classy? No. Is it usually not classy out of the box? I guess some could think this.


Also, another person said "It looks that way to make it look fun and easy, because windows is point and click easy. It's designed for idiots, like AOL software." - Someone previously said the downfall of Linux would be that it's not aesthetically nice to look at. IMO this is wrong - I rather think the downfall of Linux would be the attitude of many of its users (This is not Ubuntu specific, however the worst users I've seen in terms of manners, respect, etc. are Linux users). What I find ironic is that there are quite a few Linux users who say Windows users are idiots or retards yet at the same time say they must come over to Linux - Then what? Are they all of a sudden no longer an idiot or retarded or are they now just idiots/retards using Linux? :confused:
People who move from Windows to Linux get into the "Linux groups" and so on, chat with fellow Linux users, and when you start to see so many Linux people be rude, arrogant, ignorant and so fourth - You wonder if these "circles" are the right ones for you. You start to say "I don't want to end up like one of them".


Now, back on topic.

In my opinion, Linux is not that great looking out of the box - I think SuSE tries to hard, and the icons used in Ubuntu could be better out of the box. However, having said that, it does not take long at all to customise it to your own liking - You just go on the Internet, download a GTK theme and an icon set, install them and you've a great looking system. It does not take long at all to get Linux to look great - even on 56k.

Will its looks be its downfall? I don't think so. Not at all.

[chele]

Also, my view is that the comuter will work just like a fridge in the future. Simple. I think THAT'S the direction we should go...This part is easy, and addresses the issues you have with looking at text scroll by when you boot the machine.

Let me ask you a question. How often do you reboot your fridge? Never, right? So do the same with the computer. Never turn the damn thing off. I also hate watching computers boot, even if they where to show me a pretty video while doing it. Enable sleep support (suspend to ram) and away you go.

[MaZiNgA]

Hey!sorry I've been away of this thread because I got food poisoned(!)..
Anyway I liked some of the thoughts I read here.

Randabis: Thanks for suggesting XPde, I'll definately try it!
Ubuntu User: Hmm an OS CAN be secure and easy to use! It's not the one or the other!
panickedthumb: Yes I understand that Quality software is top priority but (I think) some (only a bit) more time can be spent at the looks.

I do begin to understand one thing more and more. It IS all about familiarity; and the fact that I've been using Windows for 5 years isn't of minor importance. I admit it, I was addicted after all... :)
I'll not enter Windows again for at least 2 weeks to see the results!!Thanks all!

[Buffalo Soldier]

Windows security is a myth. (http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/30723/index.html)
Paul Ferris, an IT professional with over a decade of experience using both Windows and Linux platforms said that the myths surrounding the proprietary operating system are rapidly being exploded, and that customers are leaving the Windows platform for free and other proprietary platforms in droves due to it's overly complex nature and lack of mission-critical security.

[lmunro]

As far as the default desktop in Ubuntu (and Gnome) goes, I do think it could be improved in terms of looks. I feel like a facelift is about due. But instead of comparing it to windows (I find the XP desktop ugly as hell) why not compare ourselves to the best? Apple and Be in it's day showed that you can have a good system and a great looking desktop. It's not either/or...
It wouldn't take much. Why not have something like a competition where the winner gets to have his or her icons/theme as the new basis for the Gnome desktop? Do the same for fonts maybe? There are plenty of people I'm sure who aren't programmers but have other skills that they'd be willing to share with others and who would be eager to participate in the free software movement in their own way.
Sure you can make you destop look good if you know how (not that it's very hard to find out), but since we're going to have a default look anyway, why not make the most of it? Something clean and simple with the emphasis on usability could be just the thing to entice people to give linux a second look if the first impression is appealing.
Blindly copying windows isn't going to do the trick anyway. So why not make it different and beautiful? Why not challenge ourselves to be Free, secure, stable and nice?

[Randabis]

I think ubuntu's default theme is just fine. The only suggestion I would make is to create different colored variations of it (a blue human theme, a green one, etc)

[adbak]

I think ubuntu's default theme is just fine. The only suggestion I would make is to create different colored variations of it (a blue human theme, a green one, etc)
There's already a blue Human theme called Glider. :)

[Dylanby]

I like the default theme too.
The only thing that I found 'too brown' was the default wallpaper.
Easily fixed!

[Randabis]

There's already a blue Human theme called Glider. :)
Yeah, but I mean bundling wallpapers to match the theme as well that look like the default chocolate one, except colored differently. It would be nice a to one for most of the colors of the rainbow. :)

[panabar]

I think Linux is more stylish than Windows, because ( It'S windows didn't you get bored with it! ) :

You can change every icon, menu, window border, controls without having to buy software that is not a part of of your windows manager.

just go to http://art.gnome.org

If you want a bare desktop you clean everything remove the panels and only have the right click menu.

Start menu is a trademark (sort of) windows and seeing it makes me sick, I prefer applications.

I'm using hoary and Places and system menus are great you get your job done faster.

bootsplash does not bother me. In fact it's better than a moving column, at least you know where you are.

I've used Suse, mandrake vector yoper arch and some other linux distributions and I think that ubuntu is the best packed one.

Simplicity is the best strategy for usability.

[primeirocrime]

the good thing about every other gnu/linux distribution I tried to the day is that they where all configurable, be it with KDE, Gnome, E16 or barebones WMs. With windows there is no way to do this without making in even more unstable.

And why does it really need to be more Stylish? I like the zen quality of the unscreaming colors. And for that kind of thing there is already xandros or lindows [I don't understand them but well they are there]

[defkewl]

Why don't you use Mac OS X that is stylish and as powerful as Linux?