Why is linux, including Ubuntu, so far behind with the GUI desktop???? [Archive]

finny388

July 26th, 2011, 07:52 PM

Okay, granted, with a bunch of tweaking with beryl/compiz, add a launcher of some variety, etc, etc, you can have the best GUI going.
But I'm talking out of the box distros - what a newbie gets when they first fire up that usb boot.

With the exception of jolicloud and Natty, I am not aware of any distro that even deviates from the Windows style start button and menus.

It took this long for Ubuntu (or any?) just to have a dock?
It took this long to apply window snapping mouse gestures? (I've been crying for this since Winamp - and still there is far more they could do (arrgh, Win 8)

Now I see the videos for Windows 8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo4anqp39z4&feature=player_embedded) and by all appearances they are truly departing from their startmenu/dock(whatever they call it)

I have tried
Ubuntu, kubuntu, xubuntu, mint, puppy, and fedora.
I've read up on dozens of others.

Why in the wild west of linux aren't there crazy attempts to push the boundaries with nothing to lose? Even if it's bad?

I've long known I enjoy linux for the freedom and political views it encompasses.
I used to think it was also for the boundless innovation it could bring with crazy short release cycles, endless variation of distros and a vision truly by the people for the people.

But as far as gui innovation, and I hate to say it, choosing a linux distro is like choosing any ice cream flavour as long as it is vanilla.

Jolicloud being the sole exception.

end rant:rolleyes:

el_koraco

July 26th, 2011, 07:54 PM

Didn't you try Gnome Shell?

KiwiNZ

July 26th, 2011, 07:55 PM

forrestcupp

July 26th, 2011, 07:59 PM

What?? In my opinion, the GUI/desktop is the one thing they got right. From what I've seen, they've been ahead of the times on visual effects.

snowpine

July 26th, 2011, 07:59 PM

Have you tried Unity? Gnome? KDE? Xfce? Moblin? Ratpoison? Enlightenment? Fluxbox? LXDE? etc.

Development of the Linux GUI desktop is incredibly active and diverse. I daresay there is a desktop environment for just about anybody and everybody. And each of them can be customized in a thousand ways, or even "forked" into a new project! :)

http://gnome-look.org

XubuRoxMySox

July 26th, 2011, 08:04 PM

Why in the wild west of linux aren't there crazy attempts to push the boundaries with nothing to lose? Even if it's bad?

That's exactly what Unity is! A complete, wild departure from the comfortable and familiar. A big risk. A bold innovation!

Bad according to some, good according to others, but daring and crazy nonetheless. I love that!

I think Unity looks awesome (though I'm a Xubuntu user), and I even fixed up my Xubu desktop to emulate Unity's wicked-cool look and functionality.

-Robin

3Miro

July 26th, 2011, 08:29 PM

Eevry "new" feature that appeared in Windows 7 was implemented in KDE before that.

You say you have tried fedora, but I guess you have not tried fedora 15 with gnome-shell. Windows 8 looks on the videos a lot like Gnome-shell.

As for the windows and menus, IMO this is the best setup for a desktop. With XFCE I can open/close apps, move between windows and workspaces and rearrange windows among workspaces with one move-click or one keyboard-shortcut (depending on whether I want to keep both hands on the keyboard or one hand on the mouse). It is impossible to go faster and more efficient than that.

finny388

July 26th, 2011, 08:29 PM

That's exactly what Unity is! A complete, wild departure from the comfortable and familiar. A big risk. A bold innovation!

Bad according to some, good according to others, but daring and crazy nonetheless. I love that!

I think Unity looks awesome (though I'm a Xubuntu user), and I even fixed up my Xubu desktop to emulate Unity's wicked-cool look and functionality.

-Robin

I think unity is great too - I no longer need dockbarx (great props to the developer!!:D)

I just feel that is 'catching up' with Apples dock and Win7's launch bar.

Inodoro Pereyra

July 26th, 2011, 08:31 PM

Hmmm, well, I completely agree with Forrestcup. I LOVE the Ubuntu GUI, just as it comes out of the box. I recently switched to 11.04, but my hardware can't run Unity, so I still have the traditional look.

If anything, the things I think could be improved with Ubuntu are 3:

1. The difficulty to install certain programs. If ALL programs were as easy to install in Ubuntu as they are in Windows, Bill Gates would be having nightmares right now.

2. I'd like to have the possibility of getting different backgrounds for each desktop. That'd make it much easier to know which desktop you're on.

3. I'd do some serious debugging on 11.04. 10.04 worked much better.

Other than that, I love the clean desktop, and I love the 3 buttons on the left. Makes it much more difficult to mistake them for the shut down function.

finny388

July 26th, 2011, 08:36 PM

Eevry "new" feature that appeared in Windows 7 was implemented in KDE before that.
really? Kubuntu doesn't have a launchbar does it? (been with Ubuntu for while now)

You say you have tried fedora, but I guess you have not tried fedora 15 with gnome-shell. Windows 8 looks on the videos a lot like Gnome-shell. you got me there, I'll have to try it

As for the windows and menus, IMO this is the best setup for a desktop. With XFCE I can open/close apps, move between windows and workspaces and rearrange windows among workspaces with one move-click or one keyboard-shortcut (depending on whether I want to keep both hands on the keyboard or one hand on the mouse). It is impossible to go faster and more efficient than that. sounds intriguing.

and there's a fundamental I missed: workspaces (that was an innovation I was inspired by around 9.10 time)

finny388

July 26th, 2011, 08:38 PM

but one thing about unity:
the "all apps" screen. really? 7 most used or every single app on they system alphabetically? that is a step backward

ratcheer

July 26th, 2011, 08:40 PM

2. I'd like to have the possibility of getting different backgrounds for each desktop. That'd make it much easier to know which desktop you're on.

That is high on my list, too. I was able to do it in CDE (another X Windows desktop environment) at least as long ago as 1995, maybe earlier.

Tim

uRock

July 26th, 2011, 08:41 PM

There have been plenty of Docks available. You just have to install them yourself, which is one of the great freedoms of Linux. TBH, Ubuntu has had a dock GUI available for quite some time. All you had to do was install the Netbook Edition. Not as pretty, but there none the less.

3Miro

July 26th, 2011, 08:43 PM

really? Kubuntu doesn't have a launchbar does it? (been with Ubuntu for while now)

Is this what you are talking about? XFCE has it, I don't remember using it in KDE, but it has to be one of the widgets. Also the quicklaunchbar wasn't introduced in Windows 7, or you are talking about something else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Natw473_oIs

and there's a fundamental I missed: workspaces (that was an innovation I was inspired by around 9.10 time)

I started using Red Hat in 2001 and it had workspaces for quite some time before. Mac introduced them only recently and you can only get workspaces in windows with some hacks on the video card (or so I heard, I don't know anyone actually doing it). Workspaces are like tabs in the browser, you don't know you need them until you start using them, then you cannot go back.

bowens44

July 26th, 2011, 08:44 PM

Okay, granted, with a bunch of tweaking with beryl/compiz, add a launcher of some variety, etc, etc, you can have the best GUI going.
But I'm talking out of the box distros - what a newbie gets when they first fire up that usb boot.

Why would you want to do that? Linux is about choice. Unity is an attempt to lock newbies in and it's a miserable failure.

With the exception of jolicloud and Natty, I am not aware of any distro that even deviates from the Windows style start button and menus.

There are other options but why mess with something that works? People like menus.

It took this long for Ubuntu (or any?) just to have a dock?

Huh? I have been using docks with Linux ever since I started using Linux. Not just one dock but a whole range of different docks with different functionality.

I have tried
Ubuntu, kubuntu, xubuntu, mint, puppy, and fedora.
I've read up on dozens of others.

Why in the wild west of linux aren't there crazy attempts to push the boundaries with nothing to lose? Even if it's bad?

It happens all the time. Linux just doesn't force users to use bleeding edge technology

I really disagree with you on every point. Everything you say linux isn't or doesn't it is and it does...

3Miro

July 26th, 2011, 08:47 PM

Hmmm, well, I completely agree with Forrestcup. I LOVE the Ubuntu GUI, just as it comes out of the box. I recently switched to 11.04, but my hardware can't run Unity, so I still have the traditional look.

If anything, the things I think could be improved with Ubuntu are 3:

1. The difficulty to install certain programs. If ALL programs were as easy to install in Ubuntu as they are in Windows, Bill Gates would be having nightmares right now.

The programs from the Software Center are better than anything Windows currently has in terms of an installer. You only run into trouble if you go outside the Software Center, but that would be like trying to install a windows program without an installer.

2. I'd like to have the possibility of getting different backgrounds for each desktop. That'd make it much easier to know which desktop you're on.

You can do that in Compiz and you can do that in KDE. Are you sure you cannot do that under Unity?

3. I'd do some serious debugging on 11.04. 10.04 worked much better.

11.04 is experimental, with the many changes that they introduced. Things will stabilize.

el_koraco

July 26th, 2011, 08:54 PM

Gnome Shell!

Inodoro Pereyra

July 26th, 2011, 09:04 PM

The programs from the Software Center are better than anything Windows currently has in terms of an installer. You only run into trouble if you go outside the Software Center, but that would be like trying to install a windows program without an installer.

Oh, I LOVE the Software Center. I think it's just gorgeous. But in Windows you can download pretty much any program, straight up (though you may have to pay first), without having to go to the terminal and spend sometimes hours researching to get a program working.
I've had to install several of those programs lately, and, if it wasn't for the invaluable help I received in these forums, I wouldn't have been able to do it at all.

You can do that in Compiz and you can do that in KDE. Are you sure you cannot do that under Unity?

I'm not sure of anything. As much as I love Ubuntu, I'm the definition of a rookie when it comes to it. Actually, I don't have the slightest clue what Compiz and KDE are...:oops:
As per Unity, I don't know. I can't run it in my computer. And, to be honest, I'm not crazy about it. It makes the desktop feel cluttered. What I would love is to have the Unity system for switching screens on the traditional view.

11.04 is experimental, with the many changes that they introduced. Things will stabilize.

Hmmm, had I known that a week ago, I'd still be using (and loving) 10.04... :(

3Miro

July 26th, 2011, 09:16 PM

snowpine

July 26th, 2011, 09:35 PM

Oh, I LOVE the Software Center. I think it's just gorgeous. But in Windows you can download pretty much any program, straight up (though you may have to pay first), without having to go to the terminal and spend sometimes hours researching to get a program working.
I've had to install several of those programs lately, and, if it wasn't for the invaluable help I received in these forums, I wouldn't have been able to do it at all.

A bit of a thread derail/tangent, but I'll bite. :)

Yes, it is very easy to install software you download from the Internet in Windows. But this is a double-edged sword! There is no guarantee the software will work on your computer, no guarantee the software is safe and trustworthy, no guarantee the software won't conflict with a different application you installed from another source, no guarantee the software will receive timely bug fixes and security patches, no guarantee the software is virus and malware-free.

Ubuntu Software Center and the official repositories provide a perfect solution to all these concerns. Software is tested and trusted, the repos are protected by a keyring, the apps are all cross-tested for compatibility with each other, there is a pre-determined period of support and update policy.

But that's only one side of the coin! You've heard the phrase "open source software," well what it means is that the safe, stable, trusted, tested software officially provided and supported by Ubuntu is just the starting point. Many users will be perfectly content with the defaults for web browsing, word processing, movie watching, etc. But for those who don't there is an entire world of open-source applications waiting to be compiled from source. This is typically as easy as reading the README and then typing two or three easy commands (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/CompilingEasyHowTo) in the terminal. Furthermore because the software is "open source" you can inspect the source code yourself to see whether it's trustworthy, or even modify it to suit your needs!

So in conclusion YES it is easy to install software in Windows, including malware, spyware, bloatware, etc.! But it is EASIER to install supported software in Ubuntu (a couple clicks in Software Center, you don't even need to open your web browser to track down a download site like you do in Windows) and SLIGHTLY HARDER to install unsupported software by design--because you are expected and encouraged to take responsibility for your system by carefully inspecting any unsupported software you wish to install.

finny388

July 26th, 2011, 09:54 PM

Is this what you are talking about? XFCE has it, I don't remember using it in KDE, but it has to be one of the widgets. Also the quicklaunchbar wasn't introduced in Windows 7, or you are talking about something else. I'm talking about the superbar - not sure what it's called but the Win 7 version with task specific commands, window previews, pinning

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Natw473_oIs

I started using Red Hat in 2001 and it had workspaces for quite some time before. Mac introduced them only recently and you can only get workspaces in windows with some hacks on the video card (or so I heard, I don't know anyone actually doing it). Workspaces are like tabs in the browser, you don't know you need them until you start using them, then you cannot go back.
indeed! that's what I found inspiring!

Inodoro Pereyra

July 26th, 2011, 10:26 PM

You are either doing something very rare or you are doing something wrong.

That wouldn't surprise me at all, but not these times.
For example, I've been trying to install Emc2 and ReplicatorG.

Emc2 (http://linuxcnc.org/) won't even run on 11.04. It runs beautifully on 10.04 though.
Replicatorg (http://replicat.org/start) has a specific set of install instructions for 11.04. It works, yet upon installing it, there's no entry on the applications menu, so the only way to run it (unless you want to pollute your desktop with the icon) is to go to the folder, and manually run it from there. If it wasn't because a member here too the time to figure out the problem, and guide me through the solution, I'd still be fighting it.
Then, there's some other programs. Brasero comes preinstalled. Most times it doesn't work, or it works badly I can't tell you how many CD's and DVD's I had to thow in the garbage because of a failed burn. Thanks again to this forum, I learned about K3b, and haven't had a problem with it, ever. Same with Rhythmbox, or Xsane. Movie player works perfectly on my desktop, but won't work on my laptop.

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm the kind of guy that actually enjoys learning this stuff. But I can understand why most people won't touch Ubuntu with a stick. Sure, you take more risks with Windows (and I personally hate it), but most people just want to sit on their computers and do what they want/have to do, not to spend hours troubleshooting their programs.

Compiz is a Window Manager for Linux that lets you do a lot of cool effects. I don't know if you will be able to start it on your computer (check additional drivers, you may need a driver from Nvidia or ATI to get it working). Here is a tutorial, you can go to her channel and search for compiz. NixiePixel does a pretty good job showing the fundamentals, you can google for even more tutorials.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFqj2hS_0iQ

Thank you. I will check it out. :D

Snowpine: I'm 100% with you. The only reason I have Windows in my desktop is because Solidworks won't work on Ubuntu.
But, for most people (including me. You could say I'm 99.9% Ubuntu illiterate) it's not a matter of responsibility, but a matter of knowledge, or lack thereof. Again, I consider myself somehow weird, in that I like messing with this stuff, but I realize most people don't. That's what (whether we like it or not) made Windows what it is. It's not that it's good, or safe, it's that it's user friendly for everybody, not only for programmers and programmer wannabes, like myself.

3Miro

July 26th, 2011, 10:34 PM

I'm talking about the superbar - not sure what it's called but the Win 7 version with task specific commands, window previews, pinning

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Natw473_oIs

Are you talking about the default bottom bar with all of its functionality?

- KDE can preview minimized windows by mouse-hover.
- KDE has several taskbars with tons of options for sorting opened windows.
- You can have as many launchers as you want (i.e. pinning)
- You can add and rearrange to it a ton of widgets, three different manus, several taskbars, notification areas, quick access to the HDD, applets for gmail and facebook, several clocks/calendars ... the list is really long.

Lookup tutorials on KDE widgets.

3Miro

July 26th, 2011, 10:37 PM

That wouldn't surprise me at all, but not these times.
For example, I've been trying to install Emc2 and ReplicatorG.

Those are programming tools and maybe they are making the assumption that you have sufficient skills. One does have a ppa and it may be possible to get the 10.04 ppa to work for 11.04.

You can add your own shortcut to the menu by right-click on the menu and say "edit".

You are doing something rare.

cgroza

July 26th, 2011, 10:41 PM

Those are programming tools and maybe they are making the assumption that you have sufficient skills. One does have a ppa and it may be possible to get the 10.04 ppa to work for 11.04.

You can add your own shortcut to the menu by right-click on the menu and say "edit".

You are doing something rare.
I will also add that, getting a good programming environment set up on Windows is much harder compared to Ubuntu or any Linux distro.

Inodoro Pereyra

July 26th, 2011, 11:01 PM

Those are programming tools and maybe they are making the assumption that you have sufficient skills. One does have a ppa and it may be possible to get the 10.04 ppa to work for 11.04.

You can add your own shortcut to the menu by right-click on the menu and say "edit".

You are doing something rare.

They're not programming tools. Emc2 is a CAM program, and replicatorg is a program to run 3D printers.

What's a PPA?

I tried adding the icon to the menu like that. Didn't work. Ended having to create a .desktop file, and then copy it into a hidden .local folder...
It was fun...for me.

cgroza

July 26th, 2011, 11:03 PM

What's a PPA?

That explains some things...

snowpine

July 26th, 2011, 11:11 PM

Emc2 (http://linuxcnc.org/) won't even run on 11.04. It runs beautifully on 10.04 though.

They only have pre-compiled binaries for Ubuntu LTS releases (8.04, 10.04, etc.) but if you dig a little deeper on their site, you'll find the source code and instructions for compiling on any distro (which I assume includes Ubuntu 11.04, though I confess I haven't actually tried it).

Replicatorg (http://replicat.org/start) has a specific set of install instructions for 11.04. It works, yet upon installing it, there's no entry on the applications menu, so the only way to run it (unless you want to pollute your desktop with the icon) is to go to the folder, and manually run it from there.

You can use the command "which" to find the full path to your app. For example "which firefox" returns "/usr/bin/firefox."

Inodoro Pereyra

July 26th, 2011, 11:26 PM

What's a PPA?

That explains some things...

Yet that doesn't explain what a ppa is, does it?
I have already said I'm Ubuntu illiterate. How is not knowing what a ppa is gonna explain anything further?

They only have pre-compiled binaries for Ubuntu LTS releases (8.04, 10.04, etc.) but if you dig a little deeper on their site, you'll find the source code and instructions for compiling on any distro (which I assume includes Ubuntu 11.04, though I confess I haven't actually tried it).

Even if I could find what you're talking about, you don't really expect me to know what to do with it, do ya?:lolflag:

You can use the command "which" to find the full path to your app. For example "which firefox" returns "/usr/bin/firefox."

Oh, that one is already working great. It's the Emc2 that I can't get to work.

Phrea

July 26th, 2011, 11:27 PM

OP, a good example is KDE 4.x.
In the beginning, it was horrible to work with [very unstable]. BUT it was very smooth and advanced looking [at the time].
Since then, it's been developed and developed, and it's become stable, very workable and still quite 'cool' to look at. But, people complained now that it didn't keep up with 'other OS's' GUI's because it then focused on stability.

There is no way to satisfy everybody.
The average Linux user does not care a lot about looks at all, they want a stable environment to work in.

If you want something cool and flashy, try out E17 with docky or so. I'm sure that can be made into something beyond cool.

snowpine

July 26th, 2011, 11:36 PM

Even if I could find what you're talking about, you don't really expect me to know what to do with it, do ya?:lolflag:

All I can say is, the information is out there and well-documented. Compiling an application is basic Linux 101. You either want to learn about it or you don't. An analogy I like to use is the difference between automatic and manual transmission on an automobile. Linux has a clutch. :)

kaldor

July 26th, 2011, 11:40 PM

The answer is simple... resistance to change.

Using ubuntu as an example look at the outcry when ubuntu moved three little buttions from the top right corner to the top left corner.

Unity another huge outcry.

+1

Nothing is stopping Linux from looking good, but every little thing that changes sparks a huge "That's it, Distro X is doomed!" movement.

Though, I think the OP just described Fedora 15 + GNOME Shell pretty accurately.

samigina

July 26th, 2011, 11:55 PM

qyot27

July 27th, 2011, 12:05 AM

Yet that doesn't explain what a ppa is, does it?
I have already said I'm Ubuntu illiterate. How is not knowing what a ppa is gonna explain anything further?
PPA = Personal Package Archive

Basically, repositories meant for personal use that are external to the four main system repositories (Main, Restricted, Universe, Multiverse). They've simply been made available for the general public to use as well, with no guarantees that they'll work properly/at all, or cause conflicts. Some programs are only available through a PPA or other sort of external repository, other times it's simply that a PPA contains a newer version of the program than the system repositories do.

3Miro

July 27th, 2011, 12:09 AM

PPA = Personal Package Archive

Basically, repositories meant for personal use that are external to the four main system repositories (Main, Restricted, Universe, Multiverse). They've simply been made available for the general public to use as well, with no guarantees that they'll work properly/at all, or cause conflicts. Some programs are only available through a PPA or other sort of external repository, other times it's simply that a PPA contains a newer version of the program than the system repositories do.

+1

Google is your friend. PPA is a way to distribute programs from Ubuntu. You have the official ones from Canonical and you can add any number of unofficial ones.

https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Repositories/CommandLine

Whenever you have trouble you should start support threads.

Inodoro Pereyra

July 27th, 2011, 12:34 AM

All I can say is, the information is out there and well-documented. Compiling an application is basic Linux 101. You either want to learn about it or you don't. An analogy I like to use is the difference between automatic and manual transmission on an automobile. Linux has a clutch. :)

Compiling (assuming it's the same as in C) is taking a program written in a high level language and translating it into machine code. Is it the same here?

PPA = Personal Package Archive

Basically, repositories meant for personal use that are external to the four main system repositories (Main, Restricted, Universe, Multiverse). They've simply been made available for the general public to use as well, with no guarantees that they'll work properly/at all, or cause conflicts. Some programs are only available through a PPA or other sort of external repository, other times it's simply that a PPA contains a newer version of the program than the system repositories do.

+1

Google is your friend. PPA is a way to distribute programs from Ubuntu. You have the official ones from Canonical and you can add any number of unofficial ones.

https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Repositories/CommandLine

Whenever you have trouble you should start support threads.

Hmmm...so it's an unofficial repository. A repository without an "oh, *****" warranty...

But yeah, you're right.
Sorry OP, back on topic. I think Ubuntu looks great.

snowpine

July 27th, 2011, 12:42 AM

Compiling (assuming it's the same as in C) is taking a program written in a high level language and translating it into machine code. Is it the same here?

Correct. "Open source software" means that you can read and modify the pre-compiled "source" or human-readable code. "Binaries" are the compiled machine-code version of the application (like an .exe in Windows).

These links explain the basic terms and concepts:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/InstallingSoftware
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/CompilingEasyHowTo

Inodoro Pereyra

July 27th, 2011, 12:56 AM

Correct. "Open source software" means that you can read and modify the pre-compiled "source" or human-readable code. "Binaries" are the compiled machine-code version of the application (like an .exe in Windows).

These links explain the basic terms and concepts:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/InstallingSoftware
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/CompilingEasyHowTo

Thank you.
I used to program in hex, back when that was not that uncommon.

So, time to do some reading now...:)

doas777

July 27th, 2011, 01:00 AM

Strange thread...

While the linux world is in the middle of a GUI revolution, while every blog, every forum has turn into a battle field about "desktop paradigms", widow controls, menus and docks... You come and say " I am not aware of any distro that even deviates from the Windows style start button and menus."

Ey, you are definetly outdated in this things...

Read some news, taste the reality, and then, you can say whatever you want.

I'm kinda curious; what would you suggest, other than a desktop full of icons like android/iOS?

the "start button" if thats what you want to call it, is a core element of the "Desktop" design paradigm (it goes back to Xerox PARC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_interface#Xerox_PARC ), making its origins somewhat older than MS Windows). it allows the user to keep the surface clean yet allows with one gesture, access to a hierarchical selection of options. the paradigm is repeatedly in innumerable features that all desktop os'es use to a greater or lesser extent.

Touch interfaces, combined with small display dimensions do present issues for intricate user interfaces, and some of these refinements are falling away, exactly because no one can come up with a better idea than just putting big icons on the desktop surface. its feels more of a regression to 1985 than a step into the future. Mabey if someone did a decent LCARS, but until then...

life in color

July 27th, 2011, 01:05 AM

el_koraco

July 27th, 2011, 01:08 AM

I'm kinda curious; what would you suggest, other than a desktop full of icons like android/iOS?

Well, a clean desktop, and a button to make it full of icons. Everybody is doing it, Apple, Ubuntu, Gnome...

doas777

July 27th, 2011, 01:10 AM

Well, a clean desktop, and a button to make it full of icons. Everybody is doing it, Apple, Ubuntu, Gnome...
sorry, could have phrased that better. I replied to another user maligning the "Start Button" usage in linux, and implying that we should all be past that paradigm. that subject was (I thought) implicit in my statement as quoted. I do in fact prefer a clean desktop.

life in color

July 27th, 2011, 01:16 AM

Now I see the videos for Windows 8 and by all appearances they are truly departing from their startmenu/dock(whatever they call it)

Looks like a mess, all it is, is the Windows Phone look which looks awful. If anything Windows is actually REGRESSING from a computer to a smartphone. Unity's a lot cooler than Windows 7 or Mac OSX 10.whatever. You can't compare Unity to stuff that's in development, Ubuntu 11.11 is the next release look into that because essentially that's our 'windows 8' while Ubuntu 11.04 would be more like 'windows 7' timewise.

really? Kubuntu doesn't have a launchbar does it? (been with Ubuntu for while now)

Why would it? It's designed to be more of a traditional look really. If Kubuntu had a dock I think they're would be mass out-rage, Kubuntu is more for people who don't like the look of regular Ubuntu.

life in color

July 27th, 2011, 01:20 AM

With the exception of jolicloud and Natty, I am not aware of any distro that even deviates from the Windows style start button and menus.

Jolicloud just looks like Chromium OS with some cool add-ons, it might be flashy but what can it actually do?

IWantFroyo

July 27th, 2011, 01:22 AM

I feel that its good the beginning configuration looks like Windows.

Newbies get a familiar desktop, while old hats can tweak the life out of it.

Also, if you don't like an element, you can just replace it.

This is the best compromise to make people happy.

luceerose

July 27th, 2011, 01:23 AM

What?? In my opinion, the GUI/desktop is the one thing they got right. From what I've seen, they've been ahead of the times on visual effects.

Hmmm, well, I completely agree with Forrestcup. I LOVE the Ubuntu GUI, just as it comes out of the box. I recently switched to 11.04, but my hardware can't run Unity, so I still have the traditional look.

If anything, the things I think could be improved with Ubuntu are 3:

1. The difficulty to install certain programs. If ALL programs were as easy to install in Ubuntu as they are in Windows, Bill Gates would be having nightmares right now.

2. I'd like to have the possibility of getting different backgrounds for each desktop. That'd make it much easier to know which desktop you're on.

3. I'd do some serious debugging on 11.04. 10.04 worked much better.

Other than that, I love the clean desktop, and I love the 3 buttons on the left. Makes it much more difficult to mistake them for the shut down function.

I completely agree with all of these points. Honestly Windows is the absolute epitome of an interface that's behind the times. You don't even have to go any further than the 'Start' menu to prove that point.

IWantFroyo

July 27th, 2011, 01:25 AM

Jolicloud just looks like Chromium OS with some cool add-ons, it might be flashy but what can it actually do?

It's a distro for those who use the web a lot, and it does its job well. I know people who never do anything outside their browser. Guess what I install for them.

Another advantage Jolicloud holds over Chrome OS, is that you can install native apps quite easily. Chrome OS computers certainly have the power, but for some reason Google decided against it.

3Miro

July 27th, 2011, 01:26 AM

Why would it? It's designed to be more of a traditional look really. If Kubuntu had a dock I think they're would be mass out-rage, Kubuntu is more for people who don't like the look of regular Ubuntu.

KDE is the most customizable DE out there (some would say Gnome-shell, but customizing shell requires coding in JavaScript). KDE panels are more akin to dock than anything else and with the mass of widgets available you can get all the functionality. For all practical purposes the panel is a dock.

Only default KDE resembles the "traditional" windows view, but default KDE has been mimicking windows look for years (and while copying the look, they are staying way ahead in features).

neu5eeCh

July 27th, 2011, 01:56 AM

Checked out the Windows 8 video. Don't need it. Don't want it.

I love docky - the only thing that's visible on my desktop (besides the app). Simple is beautiful.

beew

July 27th, 2011, 03:01 AM

I think Unity looks awesome (though I'm a Xubuntu user), and I even fixed up my Xubu desktop to emulate Unity's wicked-cool look and functionality.

Then why not just use the real thing? :)

beew

July 27th, 2011, 03:09 AM

2. I'd like to have the possibility of getting different backgrounds for each desktop. That'd make it much easier to know which desktop you're on.

http://ubuntuguide.net/ubuntu-11-04-unity-enable-different-wallpapers-in-each-workspaces

This has been around for a while, see some old Youtube clips showing off the desktop cube with a different wallpaper for each cube face.

Bandit

July 27th, 2011, 03:13 AM

Okay, granted, with a bunch of tweaking with beryl/compiz, add a launcher of some variety, etc, etc, you can have the best GUI going.
But I'm talking out of the box distros - what a newbie gets when they first fire up that usb boot............

Compared to what? Windows & OSX? Your kidding right..
If your talking about other Linux distros, then Ubuntu is no further or behind then any other. SuSE boot screens are nicer and have been for centuries, but after the desktop is loaded up. They are the same other then default theme. And they are no better nor worse. This thread smells of troll so bad I had to check my feet to see if I was standing on a bridge..

|{urse

July 27th, 2011, 03:31 AM

I just turned on my tv aand everytime I watch a show here in the US and theres a computer screen in the shot its either Dell running linux or xp (or using linux to look like windows) or a Mac clone running linux made to look like osx. I guess you're entitled to your opinion of linux's aesthetics (which is funny because there is no default "linux desktop") but my tv and almost all of it's tv shows totally disagree with you.

Inodoro Pereyra

July 27th, 2011, 04:11 AM

http://ubuntuguide.net/ubuntu-11-04-unity-enable-different-wallpapers-in-each-workspaces

This has been around for a while, see some old Youtube clips showing off the desktop cube with a different wallpaper for each cube face.

Just tried it. Doesn't work on 10.04, nor 11.04 without Unity.

wolfen69

July 27th, 2011, 04:38 AM

I've seen some very good looking linux desktops. Windows and Mac desktops don't especially do anything for me.

It's all a matter of personal preference anyway.

beew

July 27th, 2011, 04:41 AM

Just tried it. Doesn't work on 10.04, nor 11.04 without Unity.

So it works in 11.04 with Unity?

For 10.04, maybe this would help
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1466614

dinamic1

July 27th, 2011, 05:19 AM

The answer is simple... resistance to change.

Using ubuntu as an example look at the outcry when ubuntu moved three little buttions from the top right corner to the top left corner.

Unity another huge outcry.

dude, stop trolling, people are not resisting change there is a simpler explanation ... unity is awful

cariboo

July 27th, 2011, 06:17 AM

dude, stop trolling, people are not resisting change there is a simpler explanation ... unity is awful

So, just don't use it, use what works for you. This is Linux, you aren't stuck with the defaults.

wolfen69

July 27th, 2011, 06:38 AM

So, just don't use it, use what works for you. This is Linux, you aren't stuck with the defaults.

Exactly. I don't think any DE's suck, as I think they are all functional in their own way. I just use what works for me, and let the other DE's do what they do. It's not worth complaining about.

uRock

July 27th, 2011, 07:06 AM

unity is awful

Says a small,but vocal group of folks. Everyone I know who has tried it, has been very happy with it.

maqtanim

July 27th, 2011, 07:24 AM

My post is quite derailed from from the original one, apologies for that!

1. The difficulty to install certain programs. If ALL programs were as easy to install in Ubuntu as they are in Windows, Bill Gates would be having nightmares right now.

Software Installation is a breeze in Ubuntu, IF you have an internet connection. But who doesn't have any internet facilities, installation of any softwares in Ubuntu is very much similar to hell to them! :( In reality, for the offline users, the way of the software installation in MacOSX/Windows is quite easier and smooth. Sometimes back I've written about this particular problem (http://adnan.quaium.com/blog/1900). I hope to see an easy solution for the offline users.

el_koraco

July 27th, 2011, 07:25 AM

sorry, could have phrased that better. I replied to another user maligning the "Start Button" usage in linux, and implying that we should all be past that paradigm. that subject was (I thought) implicit in my statement as quoted. I do in fact prefer a clean desktop.

Right on, my bad.

Syndicalist

July 27th, 2011, 07:32 AM

Linux is not far behind at all. Its just a matter of choosing a distro that is fully customized like Pinguy, and also includes those nifty codecs.....OR you can go with something bare bones like Vanilla Ubuntu or straight Debian and customize it yourself.

Personally, I like something a little more intermediate. I dont like having to hunt down the current repos for medibuntu, so I almost never bother downloading regular Ubuntu. Pinguy has actually been pretty good to me and I like the repositories that they added out of the box.....I like getting Urban Terror from Synaptic rather than having to compile it from source. BOOO!

So if you want a more finished and tailored product, go with a distro that caters to that...If you want to customize it yourself, then expect starting with some really bland graphics.

Windows and Mac are not exactly exciting GUIs. Gnome with Compiz blows it out of the water, not just competes. KDE starts off looking at least as nice as Windows, maybe nicer. With tweaking, it makes Windows look like a toy.

Copper Bezel

July 27th, 2011, 08:53 AM

Yeah, I really think that UI is the last thing to need more attention in Linux. It needed a serious face lift a couple of years ago, there have been intensive efforts to make improvements, and the two or three flavors of the Gnome desktop environment that are being actively worked on now need a lot of refining, but all of the big ideas are there.

I do think we're past the Start Button, but Unity, Shell, and Pantheon all agree with me, so we're cool. = )

Syndicalist

July 27th, 2011, 09:07 AM

I really hate Unity. Im probably going back to XFCE now that its matching the functionality of Gnome from 5 years ago....that gap is closing faster than Gnome itself was developing.

keithpeter

July 27th, 2011, 09:15 AM

With the exception of jolicloud and Natty, I am not aware of any distro that even deviates from the Windows style start button and menus.

Elementary OS has a dock and a top bar. All works from the Live CD. I'm using it now. Very nice.

The key element of Linux is choice. Some like the familiarity of an XP / Xerox PARC like arrangement and some like other metaphors.

Try dwm for a week. The experience might alter your whole perception of the design of a GUI :twisted:

Syndicalist

July 27th, 2011, 09:20 AM

Does Windows really own the idea of a start menu? Isnt that a bit of an Ad Hominem attack? Im pretty sure other operating systems had a start menu before Windows.

Also, you dont HAVE to have a start menu in XFCE or E17. You can right/left click and get your start menu.

Copper Bezel

July 27th, 2011, 09:38 AM

I was indecisive about which thread to reply in, here.

As noted in this thread, no, the Start Menu idea apparently comes from the Xerox OS that inspired Apple. That's not at all the issue. It's just clunky.

KiwiNZ

July 27th, 2011, 09:43 AM

When one considers the angst caused by very small changes such as moving three little coloured button from right to left on the GUI, removing the Start menu would induce mass catatonia.

el_koraco

July 27th, 2011, 10:02 AM

When one considers the angst caused by very small changes such as moving three little coloured button from right to left on the GUI, removing the Start menu would induce mass catatonia.

:confused:
The "start menu" is removed in Unity, Gnome Shell, it never existed in most of the simplistic WMs...

KiwiNZ

July 27th, 2011, 10:09 AM

:confused:
The "start menu" is removed in Unity, Gnome Shell, it never existed in most of the simplistic WMs...

My point, look at the reaction to Unity

el_koraco

July 27th, 2011, 10:13 AM

Well, yeah, but it's already happened. Hitting the ubuntu button doesn't give you a "start menu" in the traditional sense. People get used to interfaces that work well. Unity's problem is the overall bugginess.

XubuRoxMySox

July 27th, 2011, 11:47 AM

Then why not just use the real thing [Unity]? :)

Unity is too resource-hungry for my modest, hand-me-down hardware. But I think Unity is pretty! And I think it's going to improve by leaps and bounds (might take awhile, but it'll happen) and set a whole new standard in interface design.

Perhaps when I get a new 'puter I'll try it out "for real," but I've become such a Xfce fan I don't know if I'll even go there, lol. I've got my Xubu looking as pretty as Unity does (without nearly the drain on resources) in just a few mouse clicks.

-Robin

Bandit

July 27th, 2011, 11:51 AM

The only issues that really plague Unity at the moment is 1)being able to move the "docky bar thing" (forgot name, its 5am here) and to gets its functionality and customization up. But these will be fixed soon as the devs can. Unity is coming up fast, by the time the LTS is released the whole community will be setting back LOL'ing at that everyone thought they would have never got it fixed.. :)

XubuRoxMySox

July 27th, 2011, 11:55 AM

LOL, "Start" menu. Never saw one in Linux, though I suppose you can rename it in any DE so it says "Start" when you mouse over it.

I was always struck by the fact that when you're using Windows and want to STOP, you have to use the START button to log off. :)

-Robin

Copper Bezel

July 27th, 2011, 12:56 PM

I'm suddenly perfectly okay with calling them Start Menus, though, after finding out that the original (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Alto#Software), on Xerox's Alto, really was a big button that said Start on it.

But yes, using Start to log out is very silly. = ) I much prefer having a little power button in the corner of the screen.

StephanG

July 27th, 2011, 01:41 PM

While I agree with most of the comments on Linux being the first to innovate, and having a lot of features that Windows still doesn't have. (My personal godsend is KRunner...)

But, the orignal poster does have a point.

On Windows, with Aero, you get the transparent borders, etc. On Kubuntu, I use oxygen-transparent, tuned with just a hint of transparency. And, although the effect, in my opinion, is stunning, the problem is that every GTK app stands out horribly. And with Firefox, it's painfully obvious that it's not a native KDE app.

I'm not saying all apps should be KDE or Qt... It's just... It seems like developers have a really hard time with Linux users. If they create an app, we want it to be free. If they make it free, we want it to be open source. If they make it open source, we want it to be in GTK, or Qt. It they make both GTK and Qt apps, we complain about how it doesn't look native. And that's not even getting to the deb, rpm, ebuild, etc. packages that everyone wants the software in. And, heaven forbid they not keep their eyes glued to the Linux stack for changes! Then, their software might not work at all in a year or two!

I mean, with Windows it's easy. They know what Windows apps look like, and they can make their apps fit in. But, with Linux it just seems like an enormous headache if you want to satisfy every linux user on every distro, with every desktop environment running on every package management system.

I don't think our desktops are less advanced than Windows, but until we can give developers a stable API that does the same thing across ALL desktop environments, I can't help but feel that we'll be always have pieces of software that just don't fit in with the rest of the desktop's 'look-and-feel'.

DangerOnTheRanger

July 27th, 2011, 02:23 PM

I'm not saying all apps should be KDE or Qt... It's just... It seems like developers have a really hard time with Linux users. If they create an app, we want it to be free.

Only those users who are under the misconception that open source = $0. I'd be fine with paying for FOSS software.

If they make it free, we want it to be open source. If they make it open source, we want it to be in GTK, or Qt. It they make both GTK and Qt apps, we complain about how it doesn't look native. And that's not even getting to the deb, rpm, ebuild, etc. packages that everyone wants the software in.

I don't really see your point here. I package generic graphical binary installers for my game development kit, and I haven't heard one complaint from my users. Sure, they'd prefer .deb/.rpm packages, but they're completely fine with a generic installer.

I don't think our desktops are less advanced than Windows, but until we can give developers a stable API that does the same thing across ALL desktop environments, I can't help but feel that we'll be always have pieces of software that just don't fit in with the rest of the desktop's 'look-and-feel'.

So, then, you've never heard of http://freedesktop.org (http://freedesktop.org/)? All my Qt apps work and look just fine (and take on my GTK+ theme) under my GNOME desktop.

Copper Bezel

July 27th, 2011, 02:48 PM

Well, yes, and my UI is all-Orta, all the time, but StephanG did describe the one case where that's not possible, since he's trying to use an Aero-like RGBA theme, which exists for Qt or GTK but not for both at once. But I'd consider that rather an odd case, and certainly not a point to complain about Linux in comparison to Windows, given how many Windows apps are skinned and don't take the system decorations.

To your larger point, however, StephanG, I understand that you're concerned about the fragmentation of Linux development, but it's often pointed to as a way that Linux is able to innovate more than it would otherwise. It's a chance to try out a lot of different things and then use what works. And there is a lot of effort put into interoperability, so that as many users as possible can take advantage of those developments. It's not seamless, but you can't really expect that from so many different projects with so many different goals.

Edit: I mean, if you want a seamless, unified OS, there's nothing wrong with OSX. = ) Having options means having a diverse set of tools to draw from. That can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your point of view, but it's kinda built in, either way.

Second Edit: But I don't think that's the claim that the OP was trying to make, and I don't think that it means that the UI is weak for any particular Linux distro. There are things you can choose to install that will not fit well, whether visually or functionally. That's about the extent of it.

3Miro

July 27th, 2011, 02:51 PM

Only those users who are under the misconception that open source = $0. I'd be fine with paying for FOSS software.

+1. This a common misconception of people. Free software doesn't mean that you cannot make money from it, including from sales.

I don't really see your point here. I package generic graphical binary installers for my game development kit, and I haven't heard one complaint from my users. Sure, they'd prefer .deb/.rpm packages, but they're completely fine with a generic installer.

+1

I had trouble installing one game under wine couple of years ago and I had to compile my own wine binary. I have been using this very same binary from Ubuntu 9.04 to 11.04 as well as Arch and Gentoo. The need to keep track on the changes in Linux is a myth.

I have also been using MATLAB, which is a commercial program and comes with a very windows-like installer. In fact, I wouldn't want MATLAB to come as a .deb/.rpm. Some applications should have their own separate installers.

So, then, you've never heard of http://freedesktop.org (http://freedesktop.org/)? All my Qt apps work and look just fine (and take on my GTK+ theme) under my GNOME desktop.

+1.

When I use one DE I try to stick to only GTK or only QT apps, but I have never had issues with looks with one under the other. You just need an extra theme installed.

StephanG

July 27th, 2011, 03:38 PM

I don't really see your point here. I package generic graphical binary installers for my game development kit, and I haven't heard one complaint from my users. Sure, they'd prefer .deb/.rpm packages, but they're completely fine with a generic installer.

The point I'm trying to make is just that there are a lot of different forces acting on the Linux community. An example, waaay back when, I bought the game Uplink. I could download it in both Linux and Windows installers. The windows version of the game still installs and runs perfectly on WIndows 7. But, the Linux version simply informes me that it can no longer find one of the needed packages... Hmmm...

So, that means if I make a game for Windows, my customers can happily play it for the next 5 years. But, if I make the same game for Linux, I have to check to check that it still runs on Ubuntu after every new release, just in case something like PulseAudio sneaks in somewhere.

And then you have Google Chrome, that has clashes horribly with the drastically different look of the Oxygen Decoration surrounding it. (See screenshot) It looks fine if you use compact borders. But then, it doesn't respect KDE Activities any more.

So, then, you've never heard of http://freedesktop.org?

Yes, I have heard of it. But, it seems that most developers don't take it very seriously. Skype for example refuses to use the notification infrastructure already present. Instead it has its own annoying notifications.

All my Qt apps work and look just fine (and take on my GTK+ theme) under my GNOME desktop.

Yes, but the GTK app Gadmin, for example, for some reason wants to install gksu rather than simple using Kdesudo which is already installed.

My point is, that we can't yet claim, (as Windows can), that you're app will smoothly, seemlessly fit into any computer that it is installed upon. And, I think that is what the original poster was trying to get at.

P.S. Sorry if I sounded like I'm complaining. But, I just had a long and painful discussion with a Linux Zealot. And I'm getting tired of people like that claiming "Linux is superior in every way" and that it's the Evil Microsoft's fault that we don't have a larger market share, but when you ask him why the computer still plays through the speakers after you plug the headphones in, it's because YOU aren't smart enough to figure it out... *Sigh*... Again, sorry, I guess I've just built up quite a bit of anger over the last week of living with this guy.

3Miro

July 27th, 2011, 04:04 PM

StephanG: if your program uses libraries and you want to be independent from any future changes, then you have to hard-link to them. One of the reasons why Linux uses so much less RAM is because everything is split into libraries and there are no copyright issues with sharing between those. In windows, it is far more often that programs simply include everything that they need. You can do the same in Linux, you will just have a bigger program

The issue with your program may be that a library just got renamed. I have to make a simple symlink to use an older version of TexMaker.

Very few developers don't comply with freedesktop.org and those are usually the proprietary ones like Skype (Gnome 3 is a big exception as they are trying to come up with a new standard). Try using Kwin under Gnome 2 or Metacity under KDE. Compiz runs on all environments. You can even run KDE-plasma on Gnome 2. IMO this is one of the most amazing things in Linux.

Also, I don't think kdesudo and gksudo are the same. I don't think you can run a GTK app as root with kdesudo.

Linux is not better in "EVERY" way, but there is nothing that Windows can do that cannot be achieved in Linux. If companies decide to invest the money, there is nothing to stop them from making the system into anything. However, companies don't invest money and one of the main reasons is the domination of MS (see earlier posts on antitrust laws).

StephanG

July 27th, 2011, 04:39 PM

3Miro

July 27th, 2011, 05:00 PM

3Miro: Thank you very much for your calm, controlled reply. I've calmed down now. :)

I know what you are saying very well, and I greatly appreciate those aspects of Linux. It's just that it annoyed me to see everyone lining up to take a shot at the OP (or that's what it looked like to me anyway) and prove him wrong.

I always try to be calm, although I don't always succeed.

The OP has some valid points, he also made some very strong claims, including an accusation of lying. I don't deny that there are brainless fanboys out there, but the accusation was aimed at the entire community and I think it was completely unjustified. What the OP considered lying was his lack of understanding on what we mean.

When I think he made a valid scientific observation. And those should never be dismissed out of hand. He is right. Windows does look good. And, in a lot of cases, Linux does not. Firefox, on my Linux machine, for example, looks no where near as gorgeous as it does on Windows.

Windows looks great by default, but it doesn't really go beyond that. I also think that when Linux looks bad it is mostly due to bad QT/GTK themes. Have you tried PCLinuxOS (you can try it in VirtualBox), they use KDE by default by Synaptic Package Manager for software and they have good compatible themes by default, you wouldn't know it was a different toolkit. Ubuntu and Kubuntu don't come with good QT/GTK integration by default.

Firefox under Kubutnu does look ugly, but I think the reason is that they want you to use Rekonq. Have you tried the extra themes for Firefox. FF uses XUL which can use either the GTK theme (with good QT/GTK compatibility) or you can install additional FF themes. FF 3 has a very nice QT Oxygen theme, I am not sure about FF 4.

And, rather than trying to 'prove' him wrong. I think we should be asking ourselves, "Why?" And then, "What can we do about it?"

I guess, in the end, I got riled up on principle, rather than any concrete thing that was bothering me.

Some time ago I saw a youtube video of a guy giving a lecture titled "Linux SUX" in front of a bunch of Linux geeks. Surprisingly they didn't trow rocks at him and the reason was that he actually knew the system very well and had very constructive things to say. Sometimes it is not just whether something deserves bashing or has flaws, it is what do you list as a flaw and how do you present it.

wolfen69

July 27th, 2011, 07:11 PM

When I think he made a valid scientific observation.
Scientific observation? <scratches head>

He is right. Windows does look good. And, in a lot of cases, Linux does not.

Whether someone thinks something is good looking or not, is purely personal opinion. I'm sorry you can't see this very basic premise.

If I think Windows doesn't look good, does that make me wrong, or is it just my personal preference?

Inodoro Pereyra

July 28th, 2011, 01:03 AM

Whether someone thinks something is good looking or not, is purely personal opinion. /.........../

If I think Windows doesn't look good, does that make me wrong, or is it just my personal preference?

I agree. If that makes you wrong, I guess we both are.

Like I said before, I'm completely Ubuntu illiterate. You guys are talking about things way above my head. Now, I don't consider myself a "fanboy" or a "zealot". In my opinion, I already said what I consider to be Ubuntu's shortcomings. The one I forgot to mention, which ultimately is the only reason I haven't fully converted yet, is the spotty compatibility with Windows. Specifically, I use Solidworks 2011, which doesn't run on Ubuntu at all.
Other than that, I'd be hard pressed to find a single Windows feature that I like over Ubuntu. Everybody keeps talking about the "start" menu. Now, maybe we're talking about different things, but, as far as I'm concerned, there's no start menu on Ubuntu, or, if there is one, I've been unable to find it.
Windows "start" menu is a mess. You have a "programs" submenu, in which everything is bunched together, like crap in a hole, and then buttons to other submenus. In Ubuntu, what I see is an "applications" menu, in which everything is nicely organized, a "places" (pretty much the "computer" in Windows), and "system" (control panel) menus, in which I don't have to open an extra window just to go where I want to go, and a panel where I can pin the icon of any program I want to run, without having to go through the menus.

Now, I don't think the Ubuntu GUI is behind Windows at all. Unlike most of you (for what I can see) I don't have the knowledge to customize my GUI, so, besides several pieces of great advise I've received here, I have to pretty much stick with the default GUI. Now, I LOVE the default GUI. Sure, it could be fancier, but it's clean, easy to use, and I like the way everything is distributed. And now that I've learned about Compiz, and could run it in my desktop, I can't get enough of it.

Anyway, sorry for the long post. Maybe I'm completely off, and you're talking about things that are beyond my level of understanding. All I can say is, IMHO, Windows can't possibly hold a candle to Ubuntu, ever.

Bandit

July 28th, 2011, 01:08 AM

I guess these pics of my desktop proves that linux GUIs are far behind..

wolfen69

July 28th, 2011, 02:13 AM

I guess these pics of my desktop proves that linux GUIs are far behind..

Lookin' good.

Bandit

July 28th, 2011, 03:27 AM

Lookin' good.

Thank you..

I feel the colors work well together, easy to read and thus dont cause eye strain.

I work around my computer far far more then I should. I find many themes while may look very very nice, end up hurting your eyes after some time. I seek balance and usability.

I dont want to seem like hijacking a thread. But linux isnt dragging behind at all.
There are some hic-ups and possibly may seem like some regression is going on. But that's because open source software is normally more visual to the public unlike Windows in which except for a few leaked pics, you really cant test or take a real look at it. It may take a while for Gnome3 or Unity to really shine, but isnt like anyone here is hiding it from the public. Patience will provide a quality product in the long run.

finny388

July 28th, 2011, 06:03 PM

Well I spoke too soon and am humbled by Gnome 3.:oops:

Awesome, intuitive, unobtrusive.

May very well (uh, yeah I am going to) give Fedora a go until Canonical switches back/fixes Unity. (tried it on Ubuntu1104 last night but I'm 95% of my 4GB space and I'd like to see fedora's implementation)

Thanks for all the discussion; it's great to see the passion and defense of all the varied linux UI possibilities thriving and alive.

Especially those shouting gnome shell.

My linux love is TOTALLY rekindled!:p

ninjaaron

July 28th, 2011, 06:12 PM

I'm glad we settled that.

Let's make out.

doas777

July 28th, 2011, 07:02 PM

I'm glad we settled that.

Let's make out.
nah, I never mess around with ninja's

el_koraco

July 28th, 2011, 07:12 PM