PDA

View Full Version : Why are the default installations so ugly?



Tristan_Williams
March 7th, 2014, 05:19 AM
This may be just my opinion, but it seems as though the default installations for pretty much all of the distros (Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, etc...) are realy ugly.

Take Xubuntu, for example.
250912
Who ACTUALLY leaves their desktop like this?

My point is, don't you think people would be more inclined to join the Linux world if we didn't have desktops that looked like they came from 20 years ago?



Opinions?

monkeybrain20122
March 7th, 2014, 06:39 AM
Well I agree that xubuntu is ugly. But the default installation of Ubuntu is beautiful. I leave mine pretty much as default :) The launcher has not been populated yet since this is just a 14.04 test installation. See screenshot


My point is, don't you think people would be more inclined to join the Linux world if we didn't have desktops that looked like they came from 20 years ago?


well I think the 'classic look' (i.e looking like something from 20 years ago) is exactly the selling point of Xfce and Mate, not to mention Trinity (kde3). It doesn't appeal to me but they cater to their markets :)

craig10x
March 7th, 2014, 07:14 AM
Not to start any "war" here but the standard ubuntu install with the unity desktop is (in my opinion) the most attractive linux desktop i have ever seen in all my years running linux (7 yrs)...
Pretty and polished enough to compete with commercial systems...to me, all the others look dated and old fashioned...sorry to be blunt about it, but that's how i feel! In my younger years, i had a brief experience with graphic arts (printing) and i have an "eye" for these kind of things and that's the way ubuntu w/unity strikes me...and i think it would attract people over from windows and mac...
The fonts, colors, the icons in the launcher and dash, etc have the "eye candy" people like...plus it is easy to use and very logically laid out...

Elfy
March 7th, 2014, 08:48 AM
This may be just my opinion, but it seems as though the default installations for pretty much all of the distros (Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, etc...) are realy ugly.

Take Xubuntu, for example.
250912
Who ACTUALLY leaves their desktop like this?

My point is, don't you think people would be more inclined to join the Linux world if we didn't have desktops that looked like they came from 20 years ago?



Opinions?
What you can do is Get Involved (http://xubuntu.org/contribute/).

Then people can blame you ;)

monkeybrain20122
March 7th, 2014, 08:58 AM
The funny thing is, Debian is butt ugly out of the box no matter which DE it uses. Gnome shell looks beautiful on Fedora and Manjaro, but not on Debian. Though not a big fan of kde but I admit that it does look polished on openSuse, it is ok in Kubuntu and Fedora's KDE spin. But again it is butt ugly on Debian, Ugliness is the trademark of Debian. :)

john_burns2
March 7th, 2014, 12:44 PM
Thing is,,, How many people using Windoze or Mac OS use the default desktop? Not many I reckon. So why should Linux be any different? First thing I did was to change my desktop background, then hide the launcher. Have a look at the monthly desktops people post on here. Some are fantastic and in no way reflect the default desktops of their installation.

Jake_Paine
March 7th, 2014, 12:48 PM
At the risk of getting shot... I think Unity is pretty ugly too. Gnome 3 on the other hand is fantastic - Looks really fresh and modern. I can't get enough of it haha

My desktop is just standard with a default Ubuntu Gnome wallpaper.

David_Wright
March 7th, 2014, 01:01 PM
I don't really get this obsession with "what does the desktop look like?"

I'm a newcomer and am running Lubuntu on two PCs - selected for its lightness as they are old/netbook but kept, so far, because it's fast and functional.

Because I'm a newcomer, I've been both experimenting and thinking about what I actually want. And it's this:
- Speed
- A dock/panel/equivalent to launch programs

And actually, that is more or less it. I spend all day at work on a Win7 laptop, and I never see or use the desktop on that either - what I'm doing is using programs.

(I confess to installing and playing with Conky, which I think is a fantastic live system monitor, but it's not really essential.)

vasa1
March 7th, 2014, 01:26 PM
I don't really get this obsession with "what does the desktop look like?"
...
It's fashionable to criticize :)

Jake_Paine
March 7th, 2014, 01:26 PM
As a designer/dev by trade I can't have or use things that don't look pretty!

Elfy
March 7th, 2014, 01:56 PM
As a designer/dev by trade I can't have or use things that don't look pretty!

Look pretty in your opinion I guess ;)

Jake_Paine
March 7th, 2014, 02:16 PM
Look pretty in your opinion I guess ;)

Haha! Exactly but that's why we have choice :D

buzzingrobot
March 7th, 2014, 02:36 PM
This may be just my opinion, but it seems as though the default installations for pretty much all of the distros (Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, etc...) are realy ugly...

My point is, don't you think people would be more inclined to join the Linux world if we didn't have desktops that looked like they came from 20 years ago?


Well, 20 years ago was 1996 and interfaces really didn't look that spiffy. Hardware constraints had a lot to do with it. Pixels were bigger.

Tastes vary. Hardware varies. Ability to see colors varies. No one single default look will appeal to everyone.

Example: I rather like the default Xubuntu look. I've never really liked the purple/orange/brown/earthy default Ubuntu themes. (I like blues and greys.) I'm not fond of shininess, animation, and transparency. I don't like dark color schemes and themes.

Those preferences probably are in the minority in Linuxland, so anyone building an interface to please me would be making a mistake.

(I use the Cobibird theme on 13.10; Ambiance with an orangeish background on 14.04 since Cobibird doesn't seem to have been updated for its GTK version.)

Those are just my tastes, though, and it takes just a few minutes to adjust a default install accordingly. (FYI: Stash your favorite themes, icons, fonts, etc., away on a USB stick.)

One specific thing does annoy me: When Ambiance windows are pushed up against the default top panel, it can be difficult to tell where the panel ends and the Ambiance window begins. I see this particularly on laptops when the top of the screen is angled to be a bit more distant than the bottom of the screen.

3rdalbum
March 7th, 2014, 03:26 PM
This may be just my opinion, but it seems as though the default installations for pretty much all of the distros (Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, etc...) are realy ugly.

Take Xubuntu, for example.

Xubuntu is not a good example. It's built for speed, not for attractive looks. It doesn't look too bad. Maybe ten years old, but certainly not 20 years; remember, twenty years ago people were using Windows 95.


My point is, don't you think people would be more inclined to join the Linux world if we didn't have desktops that looked like they came from 20 years ago?

Ahh, but if you actually try and do anything innovative with a Linux desktop, lots of people complain about the differences and seem to be personally insulted that their desktop UI has changed. Gnome 3, KDE and Unity are innovative and modern-looking desktops. Cinnamon and Mate are terribly, terribly old-fashioned. Guess which two desktops are GAINING market share!

lykwydchykyn
March 7th, 2014, 05:02 PM
Well, 20 years ago was 1996


twenty years ago people were using Windows 95.

Unless I stepped out of the Tardis too soon, 20 years ago was 1994, fellas :D.

Desktops looked like this in 1994 (if you even had one; I was still using DOS with Norton Commander):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/Windows_3.11_workspace.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0e/Wb_20.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f9/Mac_OS_7_6_1.png

Linuxratty
March 7th, 2014, 05:10 PM
If you don't like it, you can change it. Easy enough to do. Add in transparencies,change the desktop pic.and there ya go.

lykwydchykyn
March 7th, 2014, 05:18 PM
This may be just my opinion,

Good guess. You're Right!


but it seems as though the default installations for pretty much all of the distros (Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, etc...) are realy ugly.

All the distros? Or all the official Ubuntu flavors?


Take Xubuntu, for example.
250912
Who ACTUALLY leaves their desktop like this?

If it shipped the most gorgeous desktop in the universe, I'd still change it. People like to personalize.



My point is, don't you think people would be more inclined to join the Linux world if we didn't have desktops that looked like they came from 20 years ago?


What defines a "modern look"? When it comes to what a modern computer desktop is supposed to look like, what exactly sets the standard? Can you put it into concrete terms?

buzzingrobot
March 7th, 2014, 07:21 PM
Unless I stepped out of the Tardis too soon, 20 years ago was 1994, fellas :D.

My Tardis is a bit sloppy early in the morning. ;)


Desktops looked like this in 1994 (if you even had one; I was still using DOS with Norton Commander):


There's a very good chance I was running Slackware in '94, along with Win 3.1. FVWM may have been on Slackware, I'm not sure. I was into using things like MKS Toolkit and Allen Holub's code out of Dr Dobb's to sort-of emulate Unix on DOS. MKS gave me the basic toolset, including vi. I could replace command.com with either Holub's sh or the ksh in the MKS package.

endlessinstant
March 7th, 2014, 10:05 PM
Well Xubuntu uses Xfce which stresses function over form (though I still think it looks fairly decent). I'd disagree that Unity is ugly in comparison to Windows 7 and OS X. I'm not overly enthusiastic about how it works but it does look good IMO. There are a few different desktop environments out there, some of which try to look as beautiful as possible. If eye candy is what you are in search of, you can certainly find it.

As far as attracting new users - I probably wouldn't recommend Xubuntu first, even though it is my preferred flavor of Ubuntu. If I was trying to get a friend with relatively recent hardware to check out Ubuntu, I'd have them go with the vanilla install. I don't think much of Unity's function but it is attractive, bright, and friendly. Good choices for attracting new users IMO.

monkeybrain20122
March 7th, 2014, 11:42 PM
Well Xubuntu uses Xfce which stresses function over form (though I still think it looks fairly decent). I'd disagree that Unity is ugly in comparison to Windows 7 and OS X. I'm not overly enthusiastic about how it works but it does look good IMO. There are a few different desktop environments out there, some of which try to look as beautiful as possible. If eye candy is what you are in search of, you can certainly find it.


Actually unity is very functional if you know how to use it and enabling the right plugins in ccsm. I find it more functional than xfce by a long shot (I use both)

IMO often people complain about its functionality because they try to fight it at every turn based on learned habits instead of opening to do things in different, even better ways. For instance, many people are used to having an ineffective 'classic menu' and then scatter launcher icons all over the desktop (because the 'classic menu' they claim to be essential to their productivity is a pain to navigate) while Unity has a much better way to handle it. Since these people can't do things in their old ways (rather inelegant and clumsy IMO),they conclude that unity lacks functionality.

3rdalbum
March 8th, 2014, 05:58 AM
Unless I stepped out of the Tardis too soon, 20 years ago was 1994, fellas :D.

Desktops looked like this in 1994 (if you even had one; I was still using DOS with Norton Commander):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/Windows_3.11_workspace.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0e/Wb_20.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f9/Mac_OS_7_6_1.png

I mistakenly thought Win 95 came out in 1994. I was using Macs at the time anyway. Xubuntu looks a lot nicer than System 7.

d-cosner
March 8th, 2014, 01:33 PM
Honestly, I think Ubuntu has a very nice default look to it these days. I have tried out other distros lately on a spare hard drive but none look as refined as Ubuntu. Never thought I would be able to say that but they have really given Unity some real polish and it just keeps getting better.

oldos2er
March 8th, 2014, 07:14 PM
I don't really get this obsession with "what does the desktop look like?"

Agree, most desktops are easy enough to change, those that are less configurable can be replaced with ones that are more so. There's never going to be one default look of one particular desktop environment that will appeal to everyone.

ralph-beeby
March 10th, 2014, 11:48 AM
This may be just my opinion, but it seems as though the default installations for pretty much all of the distros (Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, etc...) are realy ugly.

Take Xubuntu, for example.
250912
Who ACTUALLY leaves their desktop like this?


I must admit, I'm a little surprised that it provokes such a strong reaction! Granted, it looks a bit less slick than the Ubuntu/Unity desktop, and the recent Lubuntu one, but I thought it was fairly innocuous. I've no experience with actually using Xubuntu, so I don't know how it compares functionally, but that to me is easier on the eye than the last few times I've had to boot up in Windows!


I don't really get this obsession with "what does the desktop look like?"

I'm a newcomer and am running Lubuntu on two PCs - selected for its lightness as they are old/netbook but kept, so far, because it's fast and functional.


Like you, I'm more interested in functionality than appearance...but on the other hand, I have installed Ubuntu for a couple of friends who wanted to try it because, and I quote, "it looks pretty"!

PondPuppy
March 10th, 2014, 03:15 PM
Personally, I don't the aesthetics of Ubuntu's default desktop ugly. But it's such a personal thing ... I'm confounded by the desktops that some people find attractive. Matter of taste. The Windows 8 "modern" desktop looks to me like something I'd expect from about 1993 and 16-bit color, but some people love it.

A while back I did a USB install of Puppy 3-headed-dog release. That has a fun desktop. I don't know that I'd want to work on it full-time, but I get a kick when I see it come on-screen.

Rob Sayer
March 10th, 2014, 06:21 PM
... don't you think people would be more inclined to join the Linux world if we didn't have desktops that looked like they came from 20 years ago?

Personally I think a lot of the eye candy on newer desktops is largely there to try to disguise the fact that they don't actually DO anything much different than they did 20 years ago really.

I think Unity is the best looking linux desktop I've seen. But I don't really like the way it works as much, and it's not fast enough for me.

I've tried numerous other linux desktops and always ended up uglifying them as much as possible to speed them up. KDE is great for this ... you can even make it use raster graphics.

Now I'm using lubuntu on my netbook and it's really ugly. And really fast. Though I may bump up the RAM to 2Gb and install kubuntu 14.04 when the stable comes out. KDE runs amazingly well in a 1GB netbook ... if you uglify it.

monkeybrain20122
March 10th, 2014, 06:52 PM
Now I'm using lubuntu on my netbook and it's really ugly. And really fast. Though I may bump up the RAM to 2Gb and install kubuntu 14.04 when the stable comes out. KDE runs amazingly well in a 1GB netbook ... if you uglify it.

"Bump up the ram to 2Gb", that says it all. How many computers today don't have 2G of ram? You are using hardware from 10 years ago so of course DE from the same era would be more compatible. :) It is like saying computers slow you down because without enough power they just sit there, the abacus can do more. :)

PondPuppy
March 10th, 2014, 07:40 PM
Yes. Some pretty recent netbooks came out with 1 gb RAM and an Atom processor. They're light and portable, but pretty underpowered. My netbook is only a little faster. Good thing Linux has so many options to make even low-powered machines snappy. Especially since there's the tablet trend coming up, with systems boasting 256 mb - 1 gb RAM and ARM processors.

samwillc
March 12th, 2014, 10:29 PM
Take Xubuntu, for example.
250912
Who ACTUALLY leaves their desktop like this?



Lol, I tried xubuntu and removed pretty quickly after seeing the above. It did feel like a time warp. I like ubuntu but I would tend to agree that default installs do not look that great. I have more niggling personal issues with unity though:

http://distrowatch.com/images/screenshots/ubuntu-13.04-dash.png

1) The 8mm thick greyish border thing around the dash. Starts thin, then thick, then thin again, why is that even there? I've never seen so many borders around something! Kind of like web design from the past.
2) The borders around the icons in the launcher, that coupled with the 'colour effect' when a program runs, even the best icons look rubbish surrounded by all that.

Just my personal opinion, but I care about design, that's why I use elementary OS. I'd use standard ubuntu though if they sorted out the design, the dash is actually really useful.

buzzingrobot
March 12th, 2014, 10:42 PM
http://distrowatch.com/images/screenshots/ubuntu-13.04-dash.png[/URL]

1) The 8mm thick greyish border thing around the dash. Starts thin, then thick, then thin again, why is that even there? I've never seen so many borders around something! Kind of like web design from the past.
2) The borders around the icons in the launcher, that coupled with the 'colour effect' when a program runs, even the best icons look rubbish surrounded by all that.

Just my personal opinion, but I care about design, that's why I use elementary OS. I'd use standard ubuntu though if they sorted out the design, the dash is actually really useful.

Agreed. Strongly. Unity needs a redo.

Why, for example, is there what looks like a one-pixel white border down the right side of the launcher? I'd like to set the Launcher to be transparent enough to allow the wallpaper color to bleed through. I.e., I want the icions to appear as if they are sitting on the wallpaper, with the launcher itself being invisiable. I can get pretty close. But, the results are *uglified* by the insistent white border. Totally unnecessary.

monkeybrain20122
March 13th, 2014, 12:45 AM
Why, for example, is there what looks like a one-pixel white border down the right side of the launcher? I'd like to set the Launcher to be transparent enough to allow the wallpaper color to bleed through. I.e., I want the icions to appear as if they are sitting on the wallpaper, with the launcher itself being invisiable. I can get pretty close. But, the results are *uglified* by the insistent white border. Totally unnecessary.

What are you talking about? I don't see any white border. The icons do appear to be sitting on the wall paper and the launcher is almost invisible.

buzzingrobot
March 13th, 2014, 01:07 AM
What are you talking about? I don't see any white border. The icons do appear to be sitting on the wall paper and the launcher is almost invisible.

Add unity-tweak-tool, adjust panel transparency, and panel color to map to background, and I see a white border down the right side. I haven't measured it, but it sure looks like one-pixel to me.

I see it in your second image, as well.

monkeybrain20122
March 13th, 2014, 01:10 AM
Ok, that is tiny, it doesn't bother me. I suppose it depends on the colour of the background at the angle at which you view the screen.

Edit: but gnome shell's dock doesn't blend in at all and its white border is more prominent, yet on other threads you said you like it. :).

buzzingrobot
March 13th, 2014, 02:36 PM
Ok, that is tiny, it doesn't bother me. I suppose it depends on the colour of the background at the angle at which you view the screen.

Edit: but gnome shell's dock doesn't blend in at all and its white border is more prominent, yet on other threads you said you like it. :).

The white edge on Unity's Launcher looks unintended to me. If it was intended as a border, I'd think it would extend over the top and bottom of the Launcher. In contrast, the edging of Gnome Shell's dock (Dash to Dock is what I see) is obviously a deliberate design element.

It's not a big deal, just an illustration why I think Unity needs a bit of polishing.

Rob Sayer
March 13th, 2014, 08:27 PM
"Bump up the ram to 2Gb", that says it all. How many computers today don't have 2G of ram?

Umm ... netbooks? Like mine?


You are using hardware from 10 years ago so of course DE from the same era would be more compatible. :) It is like saying computers slow you down because without enough power they just sit there, the abacus can do more. :)

It's not 10 years old. It's a year or so old. It's a typical netbook. I don't use it at home that much, and it's fine for going out and about.

And BTW it's surprising how fast KDE (kubuntu) can be made to run in a 1Gb netbook if you config it properly. It runs LXDE fine. I just want more RAM if I reinstall kubuntu when 14.04 comes out. KDE in 1Gb, tweaked, is still a lot faster than Windows 7 Starter was.

samwillc
March 16th, 2014, 12:58 AM
I'm actually liking ubuntu 13.10 at the moment. Using moka gtk theme (which is good if you like purple) and faba icon set. They go well together. Plus that lizard wallpaper which is also a hint of purple. Pretty satisfied and I'm fussy as hell. I appreciate the trendy flat look is not everyones cup of tea though.

Frogs Hair
March 16th, 2014, 01:16 AM
Expressing opinions is fine, but please watch the choice of words !

TeamRocket1233c
March 19th, 2014, 07:32 AM
Unless you go with Archbang, Calculate, or Sabayon, Arch and Gentoo's default installations are a blank tty. -shrug-

help_me2
March 19th, 2014, 08:15 AM
It's not the OS that's ugly, it's this forum. Many forums have moved on as far as "you are advised when someone quotes you" or you get a PM. Not here. We're still in the stone ages. When someone quotes me. I'd like to know about it, and be able to react to it immediately. It's different here. They've decided to have old school message boards. Which is why I don't post much here.

I can't believe people are in 90's mode.

sffvba[e0rt
March 19th, 2014, 08:34 AM
It's not the OS that's ugly, it's this forum. Many forums have moved on as far as "you are advised when someone quotes you" or you get a PM. Not here. We're still in the stone ages. When someone quotes me. I'd like to know about it, and be able to react to it immediately. It's different here. They've decided to have old school message boards. Which is why I don't post much here.

I can't believe people are in 90's mode.

The functionality of the site has nothing to do with the aesthetics of said site. Also this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

buzzingrobot
March 19th, 2014, 12:08 PM
Unless you go with Archbang, Calculate, or Sabayon, Arch and Gentoo's default installations are a blank tty. -shrug-

All Linux versions can be booted directly to a shell, aka terminal. (So can OS X, for that matter.)

PartisanEntity
March 19th, 2014, 04:23 PM
Beauty is subjective, hence not something one can argue about constructively IMHO.

You will never be able to make everyone happy. This is a fundamental law.

For me personally, the design and style direction Ubuntu is taking is something I find appealing. I like the colours and I like the minimalism.

But the beauty of it all is that the ability to customize it the way you like it is open and endless. That's the most important thing isn't it?

Old_Grey_Wolf
March 19th, 2014, 11:29 PM
LOL.

I remember when Ubuntu 8.10 came out. People were saying the default wallpaper looked like a cow or horse stepped in excrement.

craig10x
March 19th, 2014, 11:37 PM
Actually, that's what it was :lolflag:

PartisanEntity
March 19th, 2014, 11:38 PM
LOL.

I remember when Ubuntu 8.10 came out. People were saying the default wallpaper looked like a cow or horse stepped in excrement.

Which reminds me of the wallpaper in Dapper Drake. That was one of my favorite wallpapers for a long time :-)

Old_Grey_Wolf
March 19th, 2014, 11:51 PM
Which reminds me of the wallpaper in Dapper Drake. That was one of my favorite wallpapers for a long time :-)

I think Dapper Drake was the first release to use an orange rather than brown theme. It was a LTS that was delayed by 2 months because it wasn't ready. I didn't know what a LTS was :)

samwillc
March 20th, 2014, 12:06 AM
LOL.

I remember when Ubuntu 8.10 came out. People were saying the default wallpaper looked like a cow or horse stepped in excrement.

I only got into this at 12.04 so I just had to look this up. Your description seems quite accurate :)

Old_Grey_Wolf
March 20th, 2014, 12:25 AM
I only got into this at 12.04 so I just had to look this up. Your description seems quite accurate :)

I laughed at the description some people had because cows have a cloven hoof :)

slooksterpsv
March 20th, 2014, 11:44 PM
Geeze I'm offended! Just kidding. I can understand where the OP is coming from, but the first poster is right, you can always contribute.

Personally I always change my Xubuntu install to something a bit different. I don't need "fancy kills 50% of your cpu just for looks" kind of system. I need a stable functioning system. Ubuntu is a bit more intensive graphically, which I don't care for. Kubuntu is great just the way it is. Xubuntu is more fit for me cause less use of my resources means I can work faster.

You should have seen Ubuntu 4.10 when it came out, XP had been out for approx 3 years and boy oh boy did Ubuntu look terrible, but through the help of the dedicated community, it looks fantastic now.

EDIT: Made correction to Ubuntu version (Warty Warhog)

TeamRocket1233c
March 21st, 2014, 01:28 AM
For your pleasure, here's 9.10's default desktop, and of course I have Human available as a theme in MATE currently, along with Human-Clearlooks, although I pieced Human-Clearlooks together myself by editing Clearlooks-Phenix and saving it as Human-Clearlooks.

In addition, my interpretation of Human from 9.10 uses the older-style Human icons because I personally think they suit the theme better than Humanity, but to each their own.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Ubuntu_9.10.png/800px-Ubuntu_9.10.png

And here's my implementation of Human for comparison.

http://i800.photobucket.com/albums/yy284/MegaNerd1200/2014-03-20-193551_1024x768_scrot_zps1eea9563.png

slooksterpsv
March 21st, 2014, 01:37 AM
Here's my nice Xubuntu theme appearance. With Xubuntu you can customize it =P

251352

su:bhatta
March 21st, 2014, 08:12 AM
Oh well, here is my 10.10 Maverick screenshot, When I first found Ubuntu :)
251354

And, Studio 14.04 Installation with KDE
251355

I do customize, but looking at the two, I like to keep it the same way year after year :)

mattlach
March 24th, 2014, 06:51 AM
It really is a matter of personal taste IMHO. Some people like it simple, others like it more gussied up.

In my personal opinion, while fancy desktops with lots of effects and transparencies and stuff like that look really pretty, they wind up being distracting and less efficient in real use. I find the default mint 16 cinnamon desktop is exactly to my liking. (with my own wallpapers, of course)


Click for bigger:
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3744/13472475353_3fc4b46476_b.jpg (https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3744/13472475353_1be6452ccb_o.png)

stylintile
March 27th, 2014, 03:35 AM
IMO it's only as ugly as you let it be. That's the beauty of open source.

Xubuntu 12.04 on home built desktop with MSI Z68MA-ED55 (MS-7676) mobo, Intel core i5-2400, 8GB RAM, & onboard graphics.

clean & with my (always in progress) conky running:

Luch_Don
March 30th, 2014, 05:10 AM
Yes, that's why we need to customize ubuntu:) Go to find some beautiful wallpaper and it will look great then.

monkeybrain20122
March 31st, 2014, 05:18 AM
Actually I like Ubuntu's default wall paper (maybe not so much 14.04's, the colour is too orange and looks a bit too angular) I hate those that are just photographs of the sky, flowers and landscapes. I prefer something abstract and show a bit of design, not just copying from nature.

deadflowr
March 31st, 2014, 05:39 AM
I like Kubuntu's Elarun wallpaper.
Without doing much it makes the system seem more modern.

As a whole though, the systems were made to be used, not to be stared at.
If you want to stare at something that pleases you, frame a photo of something you like.
You'll probably save on electricity, maybe.