Linux users and bad GUI's?

[Cam!]

I feel like I'm in a minority. After talking to many different users of Linux spanning across many distros, looking at "Post your Desktop" threads on forums, and looking at custom GTK/KDE themes, I have one question:

What's up with a lot of Linux users intentionally having, and wanting bad, old-looking GUI's? Many of them love old, simplistic, text-based GUI's with as minimal icons. On the other hand, you get really tacky "sleek" black and red, or black and blue themes. Hell, even the monochromatic ones are worse. I'm beginning to be under the impression that many Linux users want their desktop that way to intentionally appear like an experienced user who doesn't need a flashy GUI.

Having a good-looking interface won't mean your computer will slow down. This is 2010.

[Barrucadu]

Some people, myself included, prefer the look of minimalistic GUIs. These can also make you more productive. For example, I use a tiling window manager and many console applications and so rarely have to move my hands from the keyboard to the mouse (except when browsing the web)

[RiceMonster]

I also prefer the modern looking themes, such as what you get from Aero, OSX, or KDE 4's oxygen/air theme. I prefer to have a nice looking modern interface, because why not? If it's not distracting, and it looks cleaner and nicer, I'm all for it. However, I think "bad" is rather subjective in this context. Some people do prefer the minimal look you mentioned.

[hyperdude111]

I totally agree with the OP, some screens like this one http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4140/4928399377_94085360c8_b.jpg (no offence) is quite ugly imo.

I suppose it's each to his own. I do like a minimalistic UI so I often have panels on auto hide and do my best to find monochrome or matching icons.

In a way it's good that the DE's are diverse enough to look so different and in so many ways. Beauty is subjective so one persons crap is another persons picasso.

[Cam!]

There's a way you can have a minimal look without having it look like crap, though.

[jfreak_]

Having a good-looking interface won't mean your computer will slow down. This is 2010.

yeah and in 2010 there are people like me having desktops with 256mb Ram. What do you suggest I do with it? Upgrading is not an option since SDRAMs are not kept in stock any more. Win7 requires at least 700mb ram, xp needs 250mb. But the so called tacky gui of openbox takes only 100mb of ram.


Beauty lies in eyes of the beholder.

[TyrantWave]

Mine's minimal, functional, and easy on the eyes.

Just what a desktop should be.

The one thing I don't like is docks with giant icons. Seriously, it looks hideous.

[lee shore]

Mine's minimal, functional, and easy on the eyes.

Just what a desktop should be.

The one thing I don't like is docks with giant icons. Seriously, it looks hideous.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/SMirC-cry.svg/320px-SMirC-cry.svg.png

http://j.imagehost.org/t/0743/Screen_shot_2010-08-26_at_16_34_53.jpg (http://j.imagehost.org/view/0743/Screen_shot_2010-08-26_at_16_34_53)

[beew]

yeah and in 2010 there are people like me having desktops with 256mb Ram. What do you suggest I do with it? Upgrading is not an option since SDRAMs are not kept in stock any more.Get a new computer! 256mb you got to be kidding. Even if you cut out all the desktop I don't know what software you can run with it.

P.S. If this is not your main computer then of course the discussion is moot. There is no point in making it pretty if you are just keeping it around just to squeeze the last bit of use out of it.

[slackthumbz]

make your gui look however you want and let others customise theirs to their tastes. Why do you care if someone elses desktop isn't to your liking?

[Grenage]

I once had a desktop it was so minimal, it took me ages to get things done.
I once had a desktop that had 720 video footage as a background, and a load of compiz effects.

Now I have a balance.

[Spice Weasel]

Because some of us don't care how our GUI looks, only what it can do.

[Sysqi]

Sometimes I like to have super urber awesome effects on my desktop, be able to make my windows spin 360 degrees. Everything wobble, or explode, or do something really really really cool. And sometimes I like to goof around with the lighter weight gui's.

Typically I go with out of the box Ubuntu, It's simple, its not to heavy loaded, the effects are fine... Really does it make a difference?

Some people like Ketchup, and I think that stuff is DISGUSTING!, but I wouldn't run up to someone putting ketchup on a hamburger and vomit in their face, even though that's what it makes me want to do lol.

[Cuddles McKitten]

The more towards the logical/technical end of the spectrum people get, the less people care about how things appear in the moment. They tend to think about what the thing is -- its function and long-term possibilities. This is why things like Linux usually have graphical items that look ugly to people with an artistic sense; the people who designed them are approaching "beauty" from a completely different direction.

Of course, this mirrors the frustration someone like me feels when he looks to buy something like a cell phone, house, pair of pants, Mac, or car which are often designed with aesthetic beauty as one of the primary concerns -- sometimes at the cost of unnecessary expense or even functionality.

[Cam!]

yeah and in 2010 there are people like me having desktops with 256mb Ram. What do you suggest I do with it? Upgrading is not an option since SDRAMs are not kept in stock any more. Win7 requires at least 700mb ram, xp needs 250mb. But the so called tacky gui of openbox takes only 100mb of ram.


Beauty lies in eyes of the beholder.

...So why not just buy a new PC?

[mcduck]

Having a good-looking interface won't mean your computer will slow down. This is 2010.

No, it doesn't, but what's good looking and what isn't is a matter of opinion.

Personally I prefer modern-looking but minimalistic interfaces. And often find the screenshots filled with all kinds of docks, shiny themes and desktop clutter to be horrifyingly ugly. Perhaps even uglier than the win95/BeOS-style themes some people still prefer.

What comes to old computers, One of my computers is a nice setup with 256MB of RAM and it's easily able to run any normal app I throw at it. Partly because my minimal Openbox setup only takes 42MB to run and everything else is free for the apps to use. And it's only as ugly/pretty as my current wallpaper is, since there really isn't much anything else on the desktop. :D

Besides, keep in mind that this is an international forum (for a free OS) and not everybody even has the option of acquiring a modern setup.

[Sporkman]

Some people like Ketchup, and I think that stuff is DISGUSTING!, but I wouldn't run up to someone putting ketchup on a hamburger and vomit in their face, even though that's what it makes me want to do lol.

Ketchup is frikkin awesome, what the h is the matter with you.

Mayonnaise, on the other hand...

[Sporkman]

I don't mind docks, they just seem like a major waste of space.

[bunburya]

...So why not just buy a new PC?

So he should go out and spend a few hundred quid on a PC just so you can be happy in the knowledge that he doesn't have a GUI that you don't like? Ridiculous. Some people (a lot of people in fact) are not currently in a financial position to buy a new PC, and have to make do with what they have. If he can fit everything he needs a PC for into 256MB RAM (which is quite possible if he uses a lightweight WM and doesn't need the PC for anything majorly resource-intensive) there's no reason to go out and buy a new one.

[TNT1]

ould be.

The one thing I don't like is docks with giant icons. Seriously, it looks hideous.

Yeah. Docks rule, but keep it in context... small(er) icons just look better...

[TNT1]

...So why not just buy a new PC?

Are you paying? some of us use the "dated" machines we do, cause that's all we can afford.

More of us use the so called dated machines, cause they work just fine for our needs, and we realise there's more to life than the next best technological piece of crap. There's a simple statement, "what will you do for one dollar, what will you do with one dollar", maybe a lot of people could learn from that. No, wait, they'd have to take their braincell off their fast food and youboob to do so. Nevermind.

[jfreak_]

...So why not just buy a new PC?

I hate to repeat this over and over again. EVERYONE does not live in places where gadgets are cheap. There are countries where buying a computer is considered as a luxury. Why? Because computers here cost about two months income for an average family. So this money could be better spent on more , let me say, needed stuff.

[RiceMonster]

I hate to repeat this over and over again. EVERYONE does not live in places where gadgets are cheap. There are countries where buying a computer is considered as a luxury. Why? Because computers here cost about two months income for an average family. So this money could be better spent on more , let me say, needed stuff.

I didn't realize computers were so expensive behind me. I guess you learn something new every day!

[TNT1]

I hate to repeat this over and over again. EVERYONE does not live in places where gadgets are cheap. There are countries where buying a computer is considered as a luxury. Why? Because computers here cost about two months income for an average family. So this money could be better spent on more , let me say, needed stuff.

Exactly.

[jazzerit]

@baracudu:
you don't need the mouse to browse the web; you could use w3m or lynx (or similar)

[MooPi]

Mine is not a need to be thrifty, but a desire for speed. Even a clean Gnome desktop is considerably slower than my Openbox minimal desktop. I have a newer PC and it can easily handle the fancy gui's but that's not what i enjoy. Besides that I would rather use a terminal for lots of things versus the gui interfaces. I use terminal for cdparnoia with oggenc for music, ffmpeg, mencoder, and mplayer, with mkisofs for video work. Don't get me wrong I enjoy the gui for some things but lean on the terminal. I've watched rhythmbox slog through encoding while my terminal encoding zipps. Same goes for video encoding.

[koenn]

What's with that obsession about what your (or anyone's) desktop looks like. I use my computer to run applications I need, or enjoy. I really couldn't care less about a desktop wallpaper, the color of a window border, or the appearance of an icon that I'll only see during a split second when I click on it to start an application.




I'm beginning to be under the impression that many Linux users want their desktop that way to intentionally appear like an experienced user who doesn't need a flashy GUI.


I am an experienced user who doesn't need a flashy GUI.

Furthermore, it seems to me that this eagerness to beautify a desktop is a noob's way of feeling in control. Who cares about configuring the appearance of a GUI when you're in a position to configure entire systems, services and networks ...

[msandoy]

I love that my desktop might look awful to someone. It just means that I'm human, and I decide what is nice/practical to me. But if OP wants a more mainstream desktop that millions of others have, I know just the OS for him.

[bunburya]

I am an experienced user who doesn't need a flashy GUI.

Furthermore, it seems to me that this eagerness to beautify a desktop is a noob's way of feeling in control. Who cares about configuring the appearance of a GUI when you're in a position to configure entire systems, services and networks ...
Plenty of people actually. Yourself and the OP represent the two extremes of this debate, whereas I imagine most people reside somewhere in the middle.

[CraigPaleo]

I can understand the minimalism but what I don't get are the desktops with transparent windows - especially with busy wallpapers and Conky running in the background. I sometimes wonder if they use them that way or if they just do it for the screenshots and then change to something else.

Many of them do look good. I just can't imagine working with them.

[MooPi]

Plenty of people actually. Yourself and the OP represent the two extremes of this debate, whereas I imagine most people reside somewhere in the middle.

I would have to agree strongly with this statement. My desktop is as alien and different as some of the fancy gui flip flop desktops. Most folks are just glad it works and does the job. My sister has a desktop I installed for her last year. She has had the same wallpaper since day one and only two icons to choose from on her desk. I'd say she is everyone else.

[Austin25]

Some people don't want to use their gpu for their desktop environment because they need it for other programs.

[keithpeter]

Hello All


Plenty of people actually. Yourself and the OP represent the two extremes of this debate, whereas I imagine most people reside somewhere in the middle.

Its that Linux choice thing. The GUI can be customised to both these extremes and we have various teams trying to put together a middle way for most that looks attractive and is functional.

Isn't that great?

[lee shore]

I hate to repeat this over and over again. EVERYONE does not live in places where gadgets are cheap. There are countries where buying a computer is considered as a luxury. Why? Because computers here cost about two months income for an average family. So this money could be better spent on more , let me say, needed stuff.


I know many people who work computers everyday that would argue that a PC is anything but a luxury, they say being behind a PC all day lessens your quality of life and I would agree.

Most nations have net cafes that give online time limits to each user that I think are perfect,

Computers in moderation is the key.;)

[beew]

So he should go out and spend a few hundred quid on a PC just so you can be happy in the knowledge that he doesn't have a GUI that you don't like? Ridiculous. Some people (a lot of people in fact) are not currently in a financial position to buy a new PC, and have to make do with what they have.Well with 256 mb of ram you can hardly run anything even without the gui, so don't make it sound as though everyone is coming from the angle that pretty looking desktop is the be all and end all. Secondly how much does it cost to have an internet connection? I don't imagine a guy with a 10-15 year old desktop is getting free internet from wificafe or the public library. Probably pays a lot to s phone company using an antique modem. This is very expensive considering the functionality he gets.

I am not saying everyone should rush to buy the latest computer, --I am typing this from a 6 year old machine which I got for free and it works great, I collect old laptops but anything before 2003 is a waste of time for my purpose, but a 2003 laptop which you can get for almost free probably still has more ram than 256mb. At some point it just doesn't worth it. Surfing the internet with Lynx? Sorry, that is like using a slide rule, yes, it works, and it gives some old timers the perverse pleasure of having some secret knowledge, but I would get a cheap calculator instead.

[koenn]

... Secondly how much does it cost to have an internet connection? I don't imagine a guy with an old desktop is getting free internet from wificafe or the public library. Probably pay a lot to s phone company using an antique modem. This is very expensive considering the functionality he gets.

and what if it's a choice between decent internet OR a newer computer, because you simply can't afford both ?

[koenn]

Its that Linux choice thing. The GUI can be customised to both these extremes and we have various teams trying to put together a middle way for most that looks attractive and is functional.

slight correction : I simply don't customize my desktop. Just can't be bothered.

[Duncan J Murray]

I don't mind docks, they just seem like a major waste of space.

Totally agreed! I really don't get what all the fuss is about. When I've been using OS X, I find the Dock gets in the way, and seems to be an inefficient use of space. Getting it to hide is just annoying! I much prefer Gnome 2's set up - where the two bars top and bottom provide a good compromise between ease of use and minimal space.

I know someone who worked in a SFX firm in London, using top-end Linux workstations with maya. They had a very spartan interface. I guess to leave the computer's resources for the 3D stuff, and also to not distract their workers.

Like another poster here - I just don't get the translucency effects - I find them incredibly distracting.

My favourite UI so far was Ubuntu 9.04, but I am enjoy 10.04 as of the moment.

Duncan.

[Duncan J Murray]

PS speaking of themes - can anyone help me to get the theme from 9.04 onto my 10.04 desktop?

Cheers,
Duncan.

[Ric_NYC]

Gnome is oudated...("Back to the 90's")
The new KDE is good... But there's something strange about it... I can't explain what.

[beew]

Well if one thinks functionality is all that counts and doesn't give a darn to the aesthetics of the work environment this is fine, but please don't make it into a virtue and try to argue that it somehow conveys more depth in personality, that is in itself a statement of image of sort. It is kind of like a guy who doesn't shave, keeps a messy hair and wears the same coffee stained shirt for days in order to make a statement that he is a creative genius who lives in the world of ideas and concepts.

He may be a creative genius, but then not all creative geniuses eschew showering and shaving. On the other hand, he may not be a creative genius but just a guy with poor hygiene and no sense of aesthetics.

[Sporkman]

I much prefer Gnome 2's set up - where the two bars top and bottom provide a good compromise between ease of use and minimal space.

I cram everything into one bar - launchers, windows list, desktop switcher, system tray, useful applets, system monitors, clock - everything. That way I get a good amount of vertical space in my long and narrow 17" laptop monitor.

Same with my work computer, except it's a big desktop screen, so the panel is much longer.

[urukrama]

Get a new computer! 256mb you got to be kidding. Even if you cut out all the desktop I don't know what software you can run with it.

P.S. If this is not your main computer then of course the discussion is moot. There is no point in making it pretty if you are just keeping it around just to squeeze the last bit of use out of it.

Until I upgraded it to 192 MB, a computer I use almost daily for ordinary work had only 64 MB RAM. 256 MB is very doable. People throw away way too many functional computers.

[bunburya]

I cram everything into one bar - launchers, windows list, desktop switcher, system tray, useful applets, system monitors, clock - everything. That way I get a good amount of vertical space in my long and narrow 17" laptop monitor.

Same with my work computer, except it's a big desktop screen, so the panel is much longer.
I have two bars, and I play around with auto-hiding them. Generally if I'm only working in one program I'll fullscreen it anyway.

[koenn]

Well if one thinks functionality is all that counts and doesn't give a darn to the aesthetics of the work environment this is fine, but please don't make it into a virtue and try to argue that it somehow conveys more depth in personality, that is in itself a statement of image of sort. It is kind of like a guy who doesn't shave, keeps a messy hair and wears the same coffee stained shirt for days in order to make a statement that he is a creative genius who lives in the world of ideas and concepts.

He may be a creative genius, but then not all creative geniuses eschew showering and shaving. On the other hand, he may not be a creative genius but just a guy with poor hygiene and no sense of aesthetics.

why do you feel such a need to judge people who deviate from your narrow norm ? Why do you feel such a need to pin ideas and motivations on them, and then criticize them for what you imagine they think ?

[LowSky]

Until I upgraded it to 192 MB, a computer I use almost daily for ordinary work had only 64 MB RAM. 256 MB is very doable. People throw away way too many functional computers.

Your definition of functional is very different than mine.

[Quake]

Two words...: Who cares!, this is linux, meaning people can do whatever they want to do with it because it's open. If people like minimalistic stuff? GOOD! IF people like having a dock and special effect? GOOD!
What matters is if a person is happy with the configuration.

And about new computers, not everybody live in Rich countries.
For exemple: the average Moroccan salary is $800 US per month. Buying a computer with that salary means it's a heavy investment, one cannot buy a new computer just because they feel like it.

[andras artois]

Anyone saying but they're pc runs 256 ram is having a laugh. This isn't 2000 anymore. A new, decent computer is cheap as. You can get better netbooks for 200. A desktop for 300.

[Quake]

Anyone saying but they're pc runs 256 ram is having a laugh. This isn't 2000 anymore. A new, decent computer is cheap as. You can get better netbooks for 200. A desktop for 300.

You're forgetting poor countries...

[sxmaxchine]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/SMirC-cry.svg/320px-SMirC-cry.svg.png

http://j.imagehost.org/t/0743/Screen_shot_2010-08-26_at_16_34_53.jpg (http://j.imagehost.org/view/0743/Screen_shot_2010-08-26_at_16_34_53)

hahaha

and i dont mind what my desktop looks like as long as it looks good.

[andras artois]

You're forgetting poor countries...

If you're living in that poor of a country then I think other things are going to take priority over having an internet connection/computer otherwise it's pretty safe to say people who come on forums and mess around with linux are computer enthusiasts and in so would like to put some money into something they enjoy doing.

[Paul820]

I don't mind docks, they just seem like a major waste of space.
I'll admit i was using a dock, but i kept going to the applications menu all the time and not clicking on the dock so i took it off.

[Quake]

If you're living in that poor of a country then I think other things are going to take priority over having an internet connection/computer otherwise it's pretty safe to say people who come on forums and mess around with linux are computer enthusiasts and in so would like to put some money into something they enjoy doing.

I don't live in "that" poor country. But don't assume that if a person lives in one, they "won't" have the internet, far from it. What I'm saying that is it's easy to buy a new computer when your salary is that of Canada or the UK, but harder for someone who doesn't live in a rich one.

Therefore, there's nothing wrong with having pentium 4 that has 512 megs of ram. If he can have his work done with a minimalist desktop, what's the harm?

[Quake]

I'll admit i was using a dock, but i kept going to the applications menu all the time and not clicking on the dock so i took it off.

My dock is hidden at the bottom, so it acts as "shortcut" bar. This leaves me the top bar empty to add some "gnome" widgets.

[blur xc]

yeah and in 2010 there are people like me having desktops with 256mb Ram. What do you suggest I do with it? Upgrading is not an option since SDRAMs are not kept in stock any more. Win7 requires at least 700mb ram, xp needs 250mb. But the so called tacky gui of openbox takes only 100mb of ram.


Beauty lies in eyes of the beholder.

This stuff? http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007611%20600006041&IsNodeId=1&name=168-Pin%20SDRAM

BM

[urukrama]

Anyone saying but they're pc runs 256 ram is having a laugh. This isn't 2000 anymore. A new, decent computer is cheap as. You can get better netbooks for 200. A desktop for 300.

It is not always about the money. I use a laptop with 192 MB RAM (and a 300 Mhz CPU) because I can do all I need to do with that laptop: writing (even in OpenOffice if I want to), reading documents, listening to music, browsing the internet, email, watching movies, etc. This used to be a great computer when it first came out, it still is, and my habits haven't changed, as I still do the exact same things with it as I would have done ten years ago. Why should I throw it away?

[red_Marvin]

Well if one thinks functionality is all that counts and doesn't give a darn to the aesthetics of the work environment this is fine, but please don't make it into a virtue and try to argue that it somehow conveys more depth in personality,[snip]

I don't see anybody making that argument. Why do you percieve that this might be the standard* reason why one might choose the minimalistic route?

Also, upgrading the hardware just to run more eyecandy - no thanks. If I want unrivaled visual stimuli I'll go to the cinema.

(* Since it is what you use as the base for your generalization/stereotype, I assume that you consider it quite common.)

[Frogs Hair]

Mine's minimal, functional, and easy on the eyes.

Just what a desktop should be.

The one thing I don't like is docks with giant icons. Seriously, it looks hideous.

Both Awn and GLX docks have the ability to change icon size. There are some nice dock icon sets that don't look like cartoons.

[matthew.ball]

Anyone saying but they're pc runs 256 ram is having a laugh. This isn't 2000 anymore. A new, decent computer is cheap as. You can get better netbooks for 200. A desktop for 300.
Why? A computer with 256mb ram works. That's the point. To just throw it away is encouraging the whole disposable society mentality which is so rampant in this world at the moment. I hate to be stereotyping but it really only comes from Western cultures.

[hhh]

Even a clean Gnome desktop is considerably slower than my Openbox minimal desktop.
Considerably is a non-quantity, let's replace it with milliseconds.


Gnome is oudated.
2.30 is 6 months old.

At the OP, you need to post a screenshot.

@matthew.ball, I don't know why you threw that last statement in. Australia is a Western culture.

[matthew.ball]

And it's certainly rampant in Australia (I never said it wasn't).

[Windows Nerd]

Well with 256 mb of ram you can hardly run anything even without the gui, so don't make it sound as though everyone is coming from the angle that pretty looking desktop is the be all and end all. Secondly how much does it cost to have an internet connection? I don't imagine a guy with a 10-15 year old desktop is getting free internet from wificafe or the public library. Probably pays a lot to s phone company using an antique modem. This is very expensive considering the functionality he gets.

I am not saying everyone should rush to buy the latest computer, --I am typing this from a 6 year old machine which I got for free and it works great, I collect old laptops but anything before 2003 is a waste of time for my purpose, but a 2003 laptop which you can get for almost free probably still has more ram than 256mb. At some point it just doesn't worth it. Surfing the internet with Lynx? Sorry, that is like using a slide rule, yes, it works, and it gives some old timers the perverse pleasure of having some secret knowledge, but I would get a cheap calculator instead.
It is possible to run the minimalist types of desktop environments or WMs with ~50 mB of RAM in use. Get your facts straight. I myself run Openbox, with a compositor, and I think it looks great. Nothing gets in the way. 42.5 mB of RAM on boot. I do have more RAM in use (about 512) with Chrome (about 10 tabs) , Transmission, Audacious, and several terminal sessions. Not sacrificing any beauty or functionality.

Additionally, please do not assume everyone else on this forum has the same income as yourself. This is an international forum, and some users come from many different walks of life. It does cost a decent amount of money for an internet connection.

Scott

[juancarlospaco]

Because i can

That response the 99,9% of the question "Why LiGNUx users ... "

[bshosey]

I use default everything on ubuntu. Why because I want to. Same reason anyone els changes. I don't see the problem here. What I may like some one else may not. I don't care. It is my computer. Now yes I have plaid with other DEs and I like gnome best.

[hhh]

And it's certainly rampant in Australia.
That sucks.

[beew]

It is possible to run the minimalist types of desktop environments or WMs with ~50 mB of RAM in use. Get your facts straight. I myself run Openbox, with a compositor, and I think it looks great. Nothing gets in the way. 42.5 mB of RAM on boot. I do have more RAM in use (about 512) with Chrome (about 10 tabs) , Transmission, Audacious, and several terminal sessions. Not sacrificing any beauty or functionality

Yes, it is possible, it is also possible to surf the internet with Lynx and take 5 minutes to load a pdf file. I have seen some 'minimalist' systems at work. I used to have one with 256mb ram and a 56kb modem. I taught in a college and I had the option of submitting the grades through the internet. It took me 3 -5 minutes to submit a grade (they had to be entered separately) I had about 100 students and in the end I just took a trip to the college to enter the marks there.

Yes, the abacus works too and some old guys in Asia still use them, not because they can't afford a decent calculator, but because they consider that an art form.

You are presuming much about my economical condition as well as the other poster's. I am typing from a 5 year old computer which I got for free. When I got it it was full of virus and after some tinkering windows Xp wouldn't even boot, it was/(is still) overheating and the wireless card was dead. But it has a decent 1g ram and Ubuntu runs comfortably on it.

I know quite a few people who use ridiculously outdated technology, not because they can't afford newer machines, but it is a challenge to be able to make these old gadgets semi functional using a "minimalist" setup. You can even find tutorials on youtube by old timer geeks on how to tweak some 15 year old 'laptops' (they are bigger and heavier than a phone book) to work and those guys would insist that they had better sound than modern one. Nothing to do with poverty.

Now I am not sure what the poster's economical condition is but he never said he couldn't afford a new computer, but that the kind of ram he uses is no longer supported. Well what is the cost of adding ram as oppose to buying a newer computer? A 7-8 year old desktop would probably cost next to nothing even if you have to pay for it, and it would still have around 500mb of ram instead of 256.

[Chris1274]

Now I am not sure what the poster's economical condition is but he never said he couldn't afford a new computer, but that the kind of ram he uses is no longer supported. Well what is the cost of adding ram as oppose to buying a newer computer? A 7-8 year old desktop would probably cost next to nothing even if you have to pay for it, and it would still have around 500mb of ram instead of 256.

A Dell Latitude laptop with 1gb ram is currently going for .99 on ebay, with free shipping too :neutral:

[TheNessus]

make your gui look however you want and let others customise theirs to their tastes. Why do you care if someone elses desktop isn't to your liking?

You're right here.

But I actually get a bit of an irritation when I see people, in any OS, using a browser full of toolbars they don't or rarely use, and don't know or care that they can remove them to actually see more of the websites they do use.

[v1ad]

default gnome with some background, login screen and some compiz.

[renkinjutsu]

When I first used Ubuntu, I was wow'd by the wobbly windows and compiz effects and its flexible configuration. I spent hours customizing it D;

Moving on.. As I learned more and more, I became a little more cli oriented and did less things with a GUI.

fast forward.. Reinstalled (because i became slightly OCD) Ubuntu when the new release came out (9.10).. guess what? I decided to do a mini install from the mini usb image (because I didn't want to download a whole CD and I didn't want to burn another CD) and set up a minimal system with pekwm.

Pekwm was so minimal, so fast, so highly configurable.. I became addicted. Also, it doesn't play well with compiz or with docks and whatnot that require compositing... so i dumped all that stuff behind, and now my systems are always minimalistic.

[ElSlunko]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Aesthetic opinion is just that, an opinion.

[Delvien]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Aesthetic opinion is just that, an opinion.

I'm mid 20's and my eyes are failing me, so simple UIs and minimalistic features is what I like now.

Leave the shiny panels to the windows guys :)

[Legendary_Bibo]

To each their own I guess. For me I like having good appearances on my desktop, I like to keep things colorful mostly. I use a dock with auto-hide for my favorite and most used applications, gnomenu with the favorites tab with all those same applications plus the ones I use a lot, but not quite as often, and I got rid of the bottom panel. I liked the two panels at first, but I realized I could make it more flashy, as functional, and more organized than two panels with my top panel just loaded with icons. I also had issues with icons moving and being out of place 1/3 of my boots. I don't like the alpha blur on anything but my terminal and gnomenu.

[renkinjutsu]

I used to have a dock, but honestly, I don't even know what I'd do with a dock anymore.. I hardly ever 'click' to open my applications ;) .. I love PekWM.

[jfreak_]

To each their own I guess. For me I like having good appearances on my desktop, I like to keep things colorful mostly. I use a dock with auto-hide for my favorite and most used applications, gnomenu with the favorites tab with all those same applications plus the ones I use a lot, but not quite as often, and I got rid of the bottom panel. I liked the two panels at first, but I realized I could make it more flashy, as functional, and more organized than two panels with my top panel just loaded with icons. I also had issues with icons moving and being out of place 1/3 of my boots. I don't like the alpha blur on anything but my terminal and gnomenu.

that's definitely colourful............

[andras artois]

Why limit yourself when you could save a few quid and get your self a new one.

It just seems odd to stick with such outdated computers when the majority of smartphones now have equal or better specs.

I know it encourages this throw away culture but at the same time it helps speed up progression.

To the guy who said he still uses his 300MHZ pc, I bet that things huge, ugly, horribly unefficent and runs hotter than needed.

New PC's are better designed now. They're more efficient. When I used to have a Pentium 4/768MB computer it used to make a proper indent to the electricity bill leaving it on overnight torrenting or whatever. Now with my lovely new quad core/8GB of ram/now slightly aging graphics card it doesn't.

There's a reason people move onto newer, better things and thats because they ARE better.

[TyrantWave]

Both Awn and GLX docks have the ability to change icon size. There are some nice dock icon sets that don't look like cartoons.

I use an AWN theme I created as a quicklauncher / window list, and it autohides.

Also custom other stuff - I put the info on the first image.

Annoyingly I had to scale it down to attach the images, if you want the full size (1440x900) I can host them.

[koenn]

it is also possible to surf the internet with Lynx and take 5 minutes to load a pdf file.

[...]

Yes, the abacus works too and some old guys in Asia still use them, not because they can't afford a decent calculator, but because they consider that an art form.

[...]

I know quite a few people who use ridiculously outdated technology, not because they can't afford newer machines, but it is a challenge to be able to make these old gadgets semi functional using a "minimalist" setup.
[...]

Why are you so obsessed with other people's choices and preferences. They don't affect you, do they ?




Now I am not sure what the poster's economical condition is but he never said he couldn't afford a new computer, but that the kind of ram he uses is no longer supported.
supported by who ?
http://www.puppylinux.org/wikka/MinReq

[evenrelation]

If I wanted glamurous GUI, I would have opted for Windows 7 or Apple.

But I didn't, because I wanted minimalistic GUI.

[pommie]

I've got what I've got cos I got what I like, I do not need to justify my choice to anyone, and no-one else needs to justify their choice to me.

Why the need to put down some-one else's choices just to justify your own [-X[-X

Its whatever floats your boat / turns you on / rocks your canoe, so party on dude :guitar:

Cheers David

[Ric_NYC]

NO... Thanks.

http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/1863/getimageaspx1262365086.jpg

[Ric_NYC]

It got to a point where it is just bad taste.

[The Real Dave]

I feel like I'm in a minority. After talking to many different users of Linux spanning across many distros, looking at "Post your Desktop" threads on forums, and looking at custom GTK/KDE themes, I have one question:

What's up with a lot of Linux users intentionally having, and wanting bad, old-looking GUI's? Many of them love old, simplistic, text-based GUI's with as minimal icons. On the other hand, you get really tacky "sleek" black and red, or black and blue themes. Hell, even the monochromatic ones are worse. I'm beginning to be under the impression that many Linux users want their desktop that way to intentionally appear like an experienced user who doesn't need a flashy GUI.

Having a good-looking interface won't mean your computer will slow down. This is 2010.

It's simply a thing of taste. To them, it's obviously preferable. I doubt that it's anything to do with looking more experienced.

[K.Mandla]

Just wanted to say thanks for one of the most amusing threads I've read in a while. ;)

For what it's worth, here's a 120Mhz Pentium, 80Mb and an 8Gb CF card, using the framebuffer and screen on 2.6.31-something:

http://omploader.org/tNWN2YQ (http://omploader.org/vNWN2YQ)

This is a 150Mhz Pentium MMX, with 32Mb and also with an 8Gb CF card, this time running Musca against xserver 1.8.2 and 2.6.32.2:

http://omploader.org/tNWN2Yg (http://omploader.org/vNWN2Yg)

These, to me, are beautiful GUIs. If you don't like them, or think it's ridiculous to use 14-year-old hardware to handle day-to-day tasks, I don't really care.

Linux gives me the freedom to do those things, and questioning how someone else uses those freedoms is, in my opinion, beside the point. The point is there are no ugly GUIs.

[stars]

i prefer openbox and icewm over any other window manager or desktop environment. i use cli only applications whenever i can regardless the amount of ram the computer may have. though lately, icewm has been my main choice - to me, it's a beautiful and logical window manager.

great blog K.Mandla! meant to tell you that a few days ago!

[TheNessus]

If I wanted glamurous GUI, I would have opted for Windows 7 or Apple.

But I didn't, because I wanted minimalistic GUI.

I want a glamurous GUI, and that is exactly why I use KDE. How are Win7 and OSX relevant at all? how is paying good money relevant to endless customization options linux natively has?

[malspa]

Just wanted to say thanks for one of the most amusing threads I've read in a while. ;)

+1

I got a good laugh out of it, too!

[matthew.ball]

... Snip ...
They are indeed some very beautiful desktops :)

[beew]

Why are you so obsessed with other people's choices and preferences. They don't affect you, do they ? I have no problem if some people choose to stick with old technology, either for the challenge or out of nostalgia, but don't tell me they are too poor to do a reasonable upgrade,--there are people in abject poverty but they probably have other priorities than to spend hours online arguing, -that is bull.

By being deliberately provocative, I am getting all these people who use ancient computers and floppies to admit that it is a choice rather than a result of poverty. Thus proving my point :) While I don't really care about your choice,--even though I sound as though I do to get the reactions I intended,--don't expect sympathy if your things are no longer supported.

Also, it is not I who is putting down others for not doing what I do, well yes , I am, but only as a reaction to people who think that they are somehow superior because they don't want or need guis or care for appearance while in fact making a statement of their own image as geeks. Someone said earlier that nice laptop and pretty guis are a noobish thing, or another guy telling you to use Windows if you want a nice interface.. etc. I find this a rather common attitude among some linux users, though the condescension usually more subtly expressed.

[koenn]

I have no problem if some people choose to stick with old technology, either for the challenge or out of nostalgia, but don't tell me they are too poor to do a reasonable upgrade,--there are people in abject poverty but they probably have other priorities than to spend hours online arguing, -that is bull.

By being deliberately provocative, I am getting all these people who use ancient computers and floppies to admit that it is a choice rather than a result of poverty. Thus proving my point :) While I don't really care about your choice,--even though I sound as though I do to get the reactions I intended,--don't expect sympathy if your things are no longer supported.

Also, it is not I who is putting down others for not doing what I do, well yes , I am, but only as a reaction to people who think that they are somehow superior because they don't want or need guis or care for appearance while in fact making a statement of their own image as geeks. Someone said earlier that nice laptop and pretty guis are a noobish thing, or another guy telling you to use Windows if you want a nice interface.. etc. I find this a rather common attitude among some linux users, though the condescension usually more subtly expressed.

so, in short, you're trolling.

[Quake]

By being deliberately provocative, I am getting all these people who use ancient computers and floppies to admit that it is a choice rather than a result of poverty. Thus proving my point :) While I don't really care about your choice,--even though I sound as though I do to get the reactions I intended,--don't expect sympathy if your things are no longer supported.


Well... you're obviously missing the point of Linux because people will always help each other if a hardware is no longer supported.

All in all, it doesn't matter what's the interface someone has, as long as it works for him/her... problem solved, move on.

[proxess]

My Desktop (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1298388/Printscreens/Screenshot-20.png) is so damn awesamz it makes me hornai!

[hhh]

The point is there are no ugly GUIs.
Hang on now, if you have normal vision there was this...
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2005/07/a-tribute-to-the-windows-31-hot-dog-stand-color-scheme.html

[Spice Weasel]

Who needs window borders when you can use the keyboard for everything? :D

Incidentally, why did MS take away colour customization from XP+? I thought that was really cool. Especially when I changed my friend's PCs to black text on a black background. :P

[koenn]

that's probably the reason they took it out

[kamaboko]

Having a good-looking interface won't mean your computer will slow down. This is 2010.

So long as they can play with compiz, they don't care.

[beew]

Quake


Well... you're obviously missing the point of Linux because people will always help each other if a hardware is no longer supported.

So how do you help the guy who is stuck with 256mb of ram because his kind of ram is no longer made? It is not like someone is missing a legacy driver. To tell hnim to further reduce functionality by going for some weirdo OS that can run on 64mb ram and meanwhile not being able to use any application?

Don't get me wrong, I never said you should always rush to get the newest, shinest machine,--this is what many gamers do and I find that completely wasteful, though because of that others can get cheap and fairly new second hand PC. But technology has a life span and you can only go so far to accomodate outdated technology. I remember someone was complaining that Lucid (or maybe even Karmic) no longer support floppies. Hello? Unless you are like a car manufacturer who got stuck with some multi million dollar machine which was state of the art 20 years ago who still would use flobbies, let alone trying to boot a modern OS from floppies? The only thing floppies are good for is to put your coffee cup on.

Do we still build roads along highways to support horse and buggy transportations?

[bowens44]

There's a way you can have a minimal look without having it look like crap, though.

Are you the guy we should be checking with to determine whether or not our GUI is crap?????

[98cwitr]

only thing I ever do on all my Gnome GUIs is make the task bars transparent, turn on the extra desktop effects (I like the wobbly windows), and change the background...im set :)

If I could figure out how to get the icon to disappear when a drive is mounted, i'd like that too, I like having no icons. Even on my windows machines, I'd even hide the Recycle Bin via GPO, I hate icons.

nm: found it :) http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/ubuntu/hide-removable-drive-icons-from-your-ubuntu-desktop/

[koenn]

Quake



So how do you help the guy who is stuck with 256mb of ram because his kind of ram is no longer made? It is not like someone is missing a legacy driver. To tell hnim to further reduce functionality by going for some weirdo OS that can run on 64mb ram and meanwhile not being able to use any application?

one way of helping would be to point him to puppy linux, which is, when you ignore the sad looking dog on the default wall paper, not a weirdo OS but a fully functional GUI system with very usable applications.

alternatively, you give him a link to K.Mandla's blog

[hhh]

If I could figure out how to get the icon to disappear when a drive is mounted, i'd like that too, I like having no icons.
It should be in gconf-editor (Alt+F2, enter gconf-editor, then navigate to apps>nautilus>desktop and uncheck "volumes_visible".) HTH

[urukrama]

Yes, it is possible, it is also possible to surf the internet with Lynx and take 5 minutes to load a pdf file. I have seen some 'minimalist' systems at work. I used to have one with 256mb ram and a 56kb modem. I taught in a college and I had the option of submitting the grades through the internet. It took me 3 -5 minutes to submit a grade (they had to be entered separately) I had about 100 students and in the end I just took a trip to the college to enter the marks there.

This sounds like you were using the wrong type of applications and possibly the wrong OS for your hardware then. My 300Mhz/192 MB RAM laptop is reasonably fast: it boots in about 30 seconds, and accessing files is not that much slower than on other computers. It depends largely on what applications you use or how you configure them. Browsing the internet with Opera is really not significantly slower on that laptop than on my computer at work.

[Brunellus]

GUI aesthetics is highly personal and subjective. Linux desktop users have an almost unlimited ability to configure their GUIs to suit them, so they will configure them to look good to THEM, and not to some design guru.

GUI setup depends on what your intended use is. Users that need to monitor a number of servers remotely will be working with multiple terminals open. Many of these will abandon "pretty" GUIs for more functional tiling window managers, such as Ratpoison, Ion, awesome, or Xmonad. They may not look pretty to you, but they are excellent at displaying information quickly and effectively.

Other users tend to go overboard, enabling more desktop effects. They are the desktop GUI equivalents to guys who drive around with spinning rims on their cars. They can make it flashy, so they make it flashy.

I will confess: when I set up my GUIs, I set them up NOT to look like OSX or Windows as much as possible. If that makes my GUI ugly, well--you don't have to look at it.

[malspa]

If that makes my GUI ugly, well--you don't have to look at it.

That's really the bottom line!

[Duncan J Murray]

Just wanted to say thanks for one of the most amusing threads I've read in a while. ;)

For what it's worth, here's a 120Mhz Pentium, 80Mb and an 8Gb CF card, using the framebuffer and screen on 2.6.31-something:

http://omploader.org/tNWN2YQ (http://omploader.org/vNWN2YQ)

This is a 150Mhz Pentium MMX, with 32Mb and also with an 8Gb CF card, this time running Musca against xserver 1.8.2 and 2.6.32.2:

http://omploader.org/tNWN2Yg (http://omploader.org/vNWN2Yg)

These, to me, are beautiful GUIs. If you don't like them, or think it's ridiculous to use 14-year-old hardware to handle day-to-day tasks, I don't really care.

Linux gives me the freedom to do those things, and questioning how someone else uses those freedoms is, in my opinion, beside the point. The point is there are no ugly GUIs.

Damn I am truly jealous.

I thought it was pretty cool that I could press ctrl-alt-F2 and type Mutt and show off thus, but this so-called-tiling-manager blows my Mutt right out the water.

Anyone know how I can downgrade my 7 year old T40 laptop to run this?

Dunc

P.S. Screw the 9.04 theme for 10.04 I wanted - anyone got this theme?

[Legendary_Bibo]

Other users tend to go overboard, enabling more desktop effects. They are the desktop GUI equivalents to guys who drive around with spinning rims on their cars. They can make it flashy, so they make it flashy.

I will confess: when I set up my GUIs, I set them up NOT to look like OSX or Windows as much as possible. If that makes my GUI ugly, well--you don't have to look at it.
:-\"

[juancarlospaco]

I make some GUI on Tk and NCurses, and i love it

[kamaboko]

Are you the guy we should be checking with to determine whether or not our GUI is crap?????

No, that would be me. lol.

[wojox]

I like mine. Pretty simple and basic. ;)

[FlameReaper]

... I think it's good to have a minimalist desktop to the very minimum level, but for new users they might find it a bit too inconvenient. Most new computer (not just Linux) users I know nowadays depend a lot on graphical solutions to get things done, and simply asking them to learn to use the terminal is like telling them to shoo on their part (just what I think they might think).

Especially when they are Windows users who use their computers for some ordinary stuff like typing documents, listening to music, surfing the Net etc. And I know most of them like to customize their desktop, and what would be better than downloading some themes and using them right away with a single click etc.

I'd like to think that Linux is for everyone to use like how Windows and maybe even Macs are, even those without any skill of using the terminal (and are not willing to due to various circumstances). So I don't think there's anything wrong for providing them a GUI solution for everything which they can understand in layman's terms.

[Legendary_Bibo]

I use GUI stuff because usually when I'm on my computer I'm too tired really. I can lay my head on my desk and move around the mouse with one hand and just look at a screen and point and click and do stuff, if it takes me longer so be it.

Now if I had a thirty button mouse or something then that would be totally awesome. I would link several of the buttons to compiz effects. :D

[FlameReaper]

I use GUI stuff because usually when I'm on my computer I'm too tired really. I can lay my head on my desk and move around the mouse with one hand and just look at a screen and point and click and do stuff, if it takes me longer so be it.

Now if I had a thirty button mouse or something then that would be totally awesome. I would link several of the buttons to compiz effects. :D

If it takes longer while you're tired it's actually a good thing, because you can take a nap while your computer's at it! Making the process too simple and fast might won't get you time for a break between operations! :lolflag:

... I'm partly serious on that though. LOL.

[Ric_NYC]

For some people the GUI's were ready... 30 years ago!
:popcorn:

[handy]

There is no accounting for taste.

There are a variety of prime ways that peoples' brains function. The vast majority of us apparently have primary & secondary ways that we perceive our existence, e.g. we may be primarily a visual person, with the kinesthetic functions in our consciousness playing very much a secondary roll (we don't feel much).

Someone else will be the opposite, they aren't effected by what they see. You can have people that are primarily kinesthetic with strong visual perception also & everything they see in the external world, they also feel.

Some are very week at both feeling & seeing, but they think in a very linear, logical fashion & may be able to clearly visualise there thoughts & concepts in their minds eye, & on it goes.

Because we personally are the way we are, & others have been born with different cognitive strengths & weaknesses it doesn't make them any less valuable.

Differences are what makes existence interesting instead of boring.

As far as desktops are concerned I use a very simple one, as that is all I need. I have Firefox, Sakura (tabbed Terminal) & Worker (dirutil) automatically opened when Obenbox starts, these app's sit on different screens & they are what I use 90% of the time. I rarely ever see my desktop, which is black (I don't need to have an image on something that I don't look at?). I modified the Aero GTK2 theme to suit my eyes, as dark is how they like it.

[Edit:] I should add, that because I use Worker for handling files & directories, I never use windows & icons. Therefore I don't see my desktop.

[Mulenmar]

Hang on now, if you have normal vision there was this...
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2005/07/a-tribute-to-the-windows-31-hot-dog-stand-color-scheme.html

Hey, that was one of my favorite Windows 3.1 themes! :razz:

Anyway, here's my take on it. Some people like their maximalist setups because THEY DO THE JOB. They don't need or want anything fancier. They don't see why they should have to throw perfectly good hardware in the trash, where it would further-poison the environment.

Others don't want a compositing manager running because it hurts their 3D performance in games. (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=compiz_speed_test&num=1)

Then their are people like me, who were raised on the hand-me-downs of family and friends and came to truly ENJOY making ancient hardware do modern-day work. My first computer was an IBM AT, with a 386 processor, 40MB hard drive, and about 4MB of memory.

It wasn't until 2004 that I got the equivalent of a low-end Pentium I system. I spent hours learning the guts of MS-DOS and Windows 95/98. And it paid off -- I was running software that called for a Pentium II or better with ease, and outrunning computers with 450MHz AMD K6-2's and 3x the memory.

I still have a Sears Video Arcade II, and I play Defender and Solaris on it from time to time. I can pull out the Gamecube and play games on that, or a modded Xbox for more power-hungry games and 1080i movie playback. Why do I do it? Because I ENJOY IT.

If you like a psuedo-OS X 11.2 interface, by all means enjoy your Compiz, Avant Windows Manager, and your 15-seconds-to-start-on-a-dual-core-Athlon-64-CPU overloaded-with-add-ons Ubufox. I'll stick with my IceWM themes, LXTerminal, and lightweight Firefox, running on my circa-2002 laptop.

(Why not, it beats my stupid GMA500-laden netbook for most things. :mad:)

[sir fer]

Well with 256 mb of ram you can hardly run anything even without the gui...etc etc

You are about as wrong as wrong can be.

I run a web&chat server using lighttpd and ejabberd which uses 40MB at idle. Openbox running adds another ~10MB to that so that leaves 200MB for apps.

Heck, until recently I ran WinXP with 256MB of RAM on an 'old' 1.6GHz AMD and while it wasn't stellar, it still worked. I also ran Debian + openbox with a bit of eye candy on the same machine and it used 30MB at idle...this was because I am a tech and sold my 2 512MB sticks to some people who needed them more urgently than I did...this is what makes GNU/Linux such a great option for many people who have older machines. So long as they don't need photoshop and friendbook etc, they can get by just fine. I have 768MB in the trusty laptop now...

[koenn]

...this is what makes GNU/Linux such a great option for many people who have older machines. So long as they don't need photoshop and friendbook etc, they can get by just fine. I have 768MB in the trusty laptop now...

true,
except that (some) people seem to expect that linux will allow them to run a fullblown DE with all sorts of eye candy, glitter, special effects, and all the latest versions of all the latest software, all of it out of the box, without any tweaking or configuration effort, on a PC that even 10 years ago was only rated 'average'.
that usually doesn't work.

[red_Marvin]

But unreasonable expectations is not the issue at hand here.

[koenn]

But unreasonable expectations is not the issue at hand here.


what was the issue at hand again ?
Whether people should be allowed to still use computers with only 256 MB RAM ?
Or was it whether people should be allowed to run desktops that other people find ugly ?

Something along those lines, iirc

:-)

[red_Marvin]

Something like that yes, also I reserve the right to combine the two and run desktops other might find ugly on old and slow hardware.

[Brunellus]

The original poster was wondering why many users seemed to prefer "old"-style interfaces over slicker, better-looking ones.

The general tone was "It's not 1995 any more--why not make a prettier desktop?"

To which the responses have been, generally, "I like mine as it is--why should I change?"

To be fair, we in the Ubuntu community generally confronted this back in 2006, when Mark "sabdfl" Shuttleworth posted his infamous ""Pretty is a feature" (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/63) blog post.


If we want the world to embrace free software, we have to make it beautiful. I’m not talking about inner beauty, not elegance, not ideological purity… pure, unadulterated, raw, visceral, lustful, shallow, skin deep beauty.

We have to make it gorgeous. We have to make it easy on the eye. We have to make it take your friend’s breath away.

Now, that's all right, and I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment. Modern desktop Linux distributions ship with reasonably "pretty" desktops by default.

Nor do I necessarily disagree with guys who configure their desktops to look like the current trendsetter in desktop UI design, Apple.

But just like fashions in clothes, fashions in desktop GUI setup do not necessarily fit all people for all purposes. For instance, there is a trend, apparently, for men's suits to be cut to give a much slimmer profile than was recently the case. Many of my friends, when buying new suits, have opted for this new cut, and it suits them.

I haven't, because, well, I'm a lot fatter than they are. Trying to wear that fashion would be silly for me--not to mention impractical and uncomfortable.

Or, think about it another way: a set of mechanic's coveralls are pretty ugly, as far as clothes go. I certainly wouldn't go to the opera wearing them. But I wouldn't wear a tuxedo to change the oil in my car, either.

So it is with GUIs.

[gutterslob]

Yes, I have an ugly, tacky desktop.
Yes, I have bad taste.
Yes, I'm poor.
Yes, I'm a poser.

These are completely honest answers, btw.
I revel in my tastelessness.

[Nick_Jinn]

I like modern and intuitive graphically pleasing GUIs..Why? Because I spent a thousand dollars building a gaming rig to handle the graphics, so I see no reason to skimp on the eye candy for a negligible performance boost. I am perfectly capable of using a mouse.



But linux is about choice. I like that we have the choice between desktop environments and GUIs.....I do think that the minimalist trend is more popular among the older generation of linux users and less popular among the newer generation of kids raised on windows XP or OSX, but it will always have a following.

[mips]

My laptop is about 6yrs old and pretty slow if I use a fancy DM Like Gnome, KDE, XFCE etc. When I use Openbox or LXDE it feels very fast and it also feels less cluttered from a use interface perspective. Pretty is nice but I prefer functionality.

[Sporkman]

Yes, I have an ugly, tacky desktop.
Yes, I have bad taste.
Yes, I'm poor.
Yes, I'm a poser.

These are completely honest answers, btw.
I revel in my tastelessness.

We accept you. :)