Some Good Critique Of Ubuntu's Default UI

[23meg]

Here are two articles with lots of valid and well thought out criticism of Ubuntu's default visual presentation and UI behaviour:

http://architectfantasy.com/?p=1
http://architectfantasy.com/?p=25

Discuss.

(Note: Please adhere to discussing the points made in the article, not your own preferences and opinions on which software is "better".)

[macogw]

They're right. There's a lot of little inconsistencies that seem odd. I'm still wondering why the cursor I set isn't actually being used or is used one moment and then not the next.

[gn2]

Someone should tell that guy about XFCE.....?

[toupeiro]

Without digressing too much, I'll say these articles aren't really written in an unbiased fashion, so not being able to tout which software I think is better is a bit constricting.

I think the points made are points that can be made towards any GUI. I read these articles, and I ask myself "how bloated do I want ubuntu's default UI to be?" I also asked myself, how much of this functionality will I use on a daily basis? and how much of this authors settings and suggestions would I be disabling? In direct reference to the question about an iPhone as an example. I will -never- own an iPhone, and not having applications in my menu's about a voluntarily procured piece of hardware by default is a plus in my book. I also use tomboy quite frequently., but will likely never use it to sync notes to different systems. This functionality is apparently not something enabled by default within ubuntu, and didn't feel it belonged in the critique, but I will stop there before I digress again. :-)

Two important things people should consider when reading articles that question a minimalistic by default approach. Can you make the UI (not your tools) look and feel like you want/need it to relatively easy, and are your considerations about defaults taking the same world-wide user dynamic in mind like Canonical is tasked with, or are you just wanting Canonical to cater to your specific needs? There are all-inclusive distro's available. RHEL and SuSE are two examples. I think ubuntu caught on because of its minimalistic UI and graphical scalability to become what you want it to become with relatively little effort.

I think Ubuntu's default UI is just fine, and their refinements have been unobtrusive and functional improvements.

[macogw]

I was agreeing to the little details like the icons not resizing properly, by the way.

[adam.tropics]

They're right. There's a lot of little inconsistencies that seem odd. I'm still wondering why the cursor I set isn't actually being used or is used one moment and then not the next.

The cursor thing has befuddled me for the last two years! As for the transition into Gnome, these days I get a brown but blank screen for about 10 seconds, whilst both GDM and Gnome have a background image, and other than that are set to black......tiny little thing I know....drives me nuts!

Other than that...am I wrong here or is it really the community nature of Open Source, that things are released maybe still slightly lacking in features or polish. Isn't that kind of community testing and criticism perhaps just the best way to 'get things done' in such an environment? We don't have the buckets of money to pay regiments of developers to do everything, but we do have an extremely motivated and talented army of people contributing what they can, so the community do from time to time have to chip in with ideas criticism and testing on things that are already released. In this sense, we have a different development cycle than closed source, and I really don't think, given the resources we have, that is a bad thing.

[argie]

I think the article is well written. However, user switching has never failed for me, from Dapper to Feisty, though there may be a regression in Gutsy (I haven't installed it). I use fully open-source drivers.

What annoys me is that the screen flickers when the gksudo dialog pops up and/or after I've entered my password. The fade-out is particularly bad. This exists whether or not I enable desktop effects.

adam.tropics: That brown blank screen can be changed by me in the GDM settings, where you choose background colour. Perhaps you should report it is a bug if that doesn't work, because it's been working that way for ages now.

toupeiro: The comment about the iPhone, I don't think he was serious. He was just insisting that there shouldn't be a menu item that caters to only one manufacturer (Palm) and it should instead say PDAs or something like that.

[adam.tropics]

...
adam.tropics: That brown blank screen can be changed by me in the GDM settings, where you choose background colour. Perhaps you should report it is a bug if that doesn't work, because it's been working that way for ages now.
...

OT: maybe I explained it poorly...anyway, it already is up as a bug (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gdm/+bug/132833)...several times over, but it seems can be fixed by editing /etc/gdm/PreSession/Default.Yay!!

[Johan_SV]

Duplicate topic:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=604659

Edit: sorry, didn't notice the other one was locked.

But I pretty much agree with everything in the article. I think the way XFCE is going is much better, it somehow feels better (the desktop icons aligning better, same with the panels, etc.).

[buntunub]

Never have noticed any type of irregularities as reported above with screen flickers, or whatever... Perhaps this is a graphics card/driver issue?.. I just see the ugly splashscreen in all its glory.

PS. Not sure why the last thread was stifled/discussion curtailed? I did not realize that these forums were designed to represent just one viewpoint? In any case, my comment about CLI was uncalled for. Apologies. I use the bloomin thing all the time, but because I ~like~ having control of my system like that gosh darnit!

[SomeGuyDude]

I'll say this: the one big problem I had with Ubuntu's default setup was two panel bars. It feels claustrophobic to me when both the top and the bottom of the screen have a big bar running along them. Windows keeps it at the bottom, so the whole top area feels like it extends forever, Apple's is similar only upside down, the dock isn't a border so much as something else sitting ON the desktop.

That's why AWN is such a godsend for me. The difference between two big toolbars and one toolbar with a little dock is IMMENSE to my eyes.

Ubuntu, as it comes, isn't anything amazing. It's the fact that you can make it yours.

[toupeiro]

Ubuntu, as it comes, isn't anything amazing. It's the fact that you can make it yours.

When comparing the ubuntu UI to windows or OSX, I think this is a very important thing to keep in mind. Most all linux distro's give you the freedom to customize the look and feel of your UI, but which is it easiest?

Not to mention, of all the distro's I ever ran since the very first time I tried running linux in Redhat 5.2, I've never kept the default look and feel. I was too damn impressed with the fact I could change it to leave it be. If you plan on customizing it anyway, what does it matter what the default looks like, so long as you have control over it? The whole concept to mold a default UI and clutter it "out of the box" with things you can easily manipulate seems a little narcissistic. Its much like pizza toppings, a room full of people will never agree on which are the best.

[SomeGuyDude]

I wonder how many Windows users (former or current) here remember the first time they found Windowblinds. I was on Win95 at the time and I got my hands on it via someone who worked with my mother. It was a revelation, kind of a "holy **** you mean I can make it look like I want it to??"

I know the first thing everyone does is pick a wallpaper and a screensaver they like, but I have to admit on Vista and XP I did absolutely nothing to change it. There are programs to do so, but they're such a pain and bog the system down (Stardock's Objectbar comes to mind). By default all you can do is change some colors or move where the taskbar is, but have you ever met ANYONE who put the Windows taskbar not on the bottom?

Everyone WANTS to customize their system. Ubuntu's strength, to me, was that it gave me a good starting point and then just nudged me out the door and said "go get 'em tiger!" It's the difference between being able to change the paint and hubcaps on your car versus gutting it and making it YOURS.

[buntunub]

Not to mention, of all the distro's I ever ran since the very first time I tried running linux in Redhat 5.2, I've never kept the default look and feel. I was too damn impressed with the fact I could change it to leave it be.

You can also customize both XP and Vista. So what? Make your case. If that is the best arguement Ubuntu can come up with for poor aesthetics, then perhaps Ubuntu does not take its own goals seriously?


If you plan on customizing it anyway, what does it matter what the default looks like, so long as you have control over it? The whole concept to mold a default UI and clutter it "out of the box" with things you can easily manipulate seems a little narcissistic. Its much like pizza toppings, a room full of people will never agree on which are the best.

Because first impressions = ALL!

..Particularly to new Windows-to-Linux users. Particularly to the very crowd Ubuntu seems interested in courting. Add in the fact here that Ubuntu's use of the GNOME display tools is limited, compared to what exists, makes it more difficult for new users to access the huge repository of existing artwork. Also, the iconset provided by default, while not bad, could be better. There exists extremely nice iconsets currently that go unused unless you know what your looking for and how to find it. Again, shutting down new users, the very opposite of Ubuntu bug #1's intent. The current Appearance GUI could be expanded upon to include the gnome-extras, and various other open source artwork/theming products, or pull them in.

[santiagoward2000]

Someone should tell that guy about XFCE.....?

Yes!! Why are we always ignored???

[bruce89]

You can also customize both XP and Vista. So what? Make your case. If that is the best arguement Ubuntu can come up with for poor aesthetics, then perhaps Ubuntu does not take its own goals seriously?

It's tricky to change colour themes and theme engines without installing 3rd party software on these platforms.

I have used GNOME's colour scheme changer to make a few recoloured clearlooks themes for various special days. (Halloween, Guy Fawkes's night, St. Andrew's day and Christmas.)

[buntunub]

Yes!! Why are we always ignored???

Precisely. XFCE is the way to go to reach the most users with the heaviest aesthetic appeal IMO. Why? Because of its extremely light footprint, one can easily turn even an older machine with a third/fourth generation Nvidia/ATi card into probably the single most beautiful, yet still powerful Desktop around, while still maintaining all the functionality Ubuntu has to offer. It is not that much different than GNOME, more like a much less bloated version of it really, and it allows for far more customization options on older hardware, including full use of Compiz on older cards without much of a burden. Its application base is unified and extremely functional. One ~could~ make that case for e17 as well, ala gOS style, although e17 cannot do Compiz that I know of.

[maybeway36]

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nautilus/+bug/122937

[23meg]

PS. Not sure why the last thread was stifled/discussion curtailed?

It was closed because you hijacked the thread and it went offtopic from there on. Please make an effort not to stray too far off topic and refrain from inflammatory statements this time.

[gn2]

. XFCE.... is not that much different than GNOME, more like a much less bloated version of it really

Which is exactly why I use it, even though I have hardware that's very well capable of running Gnome.

As for KDE, it's far too cluttered with menus for changing this that and the next thing.

Xubuntu has full use of the "K" apps as well as the Gnome apps and you can do the 3D effects thing as well if you wish.
I find the 3D effects to be just a nuisance and have disabled them.

Each to their own though, which is the real beauty of Ubuntu, you can run it any way you want.

[plutoprime]

I'll say this: the one big problem I had with Ubuntu's default setup was two panel bars. It feels claustrophobic to me when both the top and the bottom of the screen have a big bar running along them. Windows keeps it at the bottom, so the whole top area feels like it extends forever, Apple's is similar only upside down, the dock isn't a border so much as something else sitting ON the desktop.

That's why AWN is such a godsend for me. The difference between two big toolbars and one toolbar with a little dock is IMMENSE to my eyes.

Ubuntu, as it comes, isn't anything amazing. It's the fact that you can make it yours.

This point regarding the "claustrophobic" feel was an argument I was going to make when I wrote the article, but it's difficult to prove such psychological phenomenon to people who don't study this area as a science. These effects are subconcious for many people and not everyone can put them to words like you do. For many casual computer users it simply translates to "I like OSX better" or "I like windows better" (visually). They can't specifically say why.

In reality the clausrophobia of the panels is one of the subconcious reasons of making such a statement.

Ever wonder why Google left "I'm feeling Lucky" button in the search engine even though a very small minority of people use it?

Studies show the button gives a sense of comfort to the interface. It's there because its presence makes people happy.

[bruce89]

One panel at top -- People say it's copying Mac OS X.
One panel at bottom -- People say it's copying Windows.
Two panels -- People moan it wastes space.

You can't win.

[buntunub]

KDE4 changes that a bit with Plasma. Still, the more Windows/OSX copying continues on, the more M$'s FUD will start to have some real teeth to it. For although Software Patents are a very large black hole of uncertainty in legal circles, things like how menu bars are structured, or how panels function, can turn around and bite us hard should the courts decide in M$'s favor. The Linux world must start to differentiate itself in more ways than just "But, the windows panel cant resize". This may prove to be entirely incorrect as interpreted by the legalese, and end users will suffer badly. WM's like Fluxbox and XFCE are different enough that they are most likely safe from any threat. They are also a better choice IMO for aesthetics IRT those posts.

[p_quarles]

To me, the most important critiques in the article were three things:
1) The Compiz effects would randomly not work (specifically, he said it felt "hackish")
2) The bug that caused alternate icon sets to use some incorrectly resolved icons for some programs.
3) The problem with moving panel applets around.

Of those, only the last one really has anything to do with Gnome. While I'm not a programmer, this is something that I imagine would be relatively easy to fix by implementing a kind of mini-dock inside the panel. This would allow the user to group applets and move them around together, and then use the "lock in place" function on the entire group.

I could be entirely wrong about that being "easy," but if I'm right, it strikes me as a worthwhile improvement that might even make it's way upstream into the next release of Gnome.

On the issue of the number of panels, I just disagree with the author. If Ubuntu were to put all the panel applets (launchers, trash, network manager, update manager, printer, the "show desktop" button), the system menus, the window switcher and the desktop switcher into a single panel, it would look extremely cluttered.

[SomeGuyDude]

This point regarding the "claustrophobic" feel was an argument I was going to make when I wrote the article, but it's difficult to prove such psychological phenomenon to people who don't study this area as a science. These effects are subconcious for many people and not everyone can put them to words like you do. For many casual computer users it simply translates to "I like OSX better" or "I like windows better" (visually). They can't specifically say why.

In reality the clausrophobia of the panels is one of the subconcious reasons of making such a statement.

Ever wonder why Google left "I'm feeling Lucky" button in the search engine even though a very small minority of people use it?

Studies show the button gives a sense of comfort to the interface. It's there because its presence makes people happy.

That's probably the most valid critique of Ubuntu, but most likely because it's a balancing act and is the biggest reason most aren't going to switch over.

Like we pretty much agree, Ubuntu "out of the box" feels a little stifling. Between the foreign filesystem, the dual bars, and the larger fonts on things, you're gonna feel both lost and cramped. At least I did. I still don't have a clue how to navigate the filesystem (usr? bin? lib? etc?), and I've gotten used to the size difference. Despite both being at 1280x800, Ubuntu is "bigger" than Vista, which initially felt like I was always zoomed in.

It wasn't until I spent a day customizing it that I felt comfortable.

One thing OSX and Windows work on is the "not touching it" customer. The people who are going to buy it and use it, but never tweak it. One thing you can say about the mainstream OS's is that while not particularly inspiring, you can work with them right out of the box and not feel compelled to change them.

There's a reason that there are very popular Ubuntu customization packs that emulate Vista and Leopard.

A Linux user has to go into it realizing that a day will be spent simply making the thing look like you want it to. The distro makers seem to realize this and make the "default" appearance more than adequate, but not the kind of thing that "wows" a potential user.

Now, there is a GIANT number of people who dislike that approach. Think Apple's "Mac vs PC" ads. They center on the premise that people want to buy a computer that needs to be set on the desk and plugged in, and then you don't need to do ANYTHING ELSE.

So they want a computer that works fine and looks good right off the bat. Of course they're going to dislike Linux. It's not catering to them.

I'll agree that Ubuntu may be plagued with some display problems and we probably agree on why, but I think it's largely irrelevant because by now my system looks almost nothing like it did when I first installed aside from the top bar (which I'll probably toy with sometime tonight).

However, in the mind of a marketing strategist, you're entirely accurate because those problems, though quick to "fix" and mostly inconsequential to most users, are going to prevent a large number of people from making the change.

...and I'm rambling. Sorry folks. I get a little over-verbose sometimes.

[urukrama]

Like we pretty much agree, Ubuntu "out of the box" feels a little stifling.

That was not at all my experience.The two panels never made me feel claustrophobic, and I never felt them to be stifling. Rather, they were an aspect of ubuntu I really liked. Some of my friends that use or have tried ubuntu felt similarly. It is different, but positively different.

[SomeGuyDude]

That was not at all my experience.The two panels never made me feel claustrophobic, and I never felt them to be stifling. Rather, they were an aspect of ubuntu I really liked. Some of my friends that use or have tried ubuntu felt similarly. It is different, but positively different.

Well obviously I can't account for all tastes, but if I was to take bets I'd say more have that issue with it than don't. It certainly wasn't enough to turn me away, but I had to scrap the bottom panel and get AWN. Not everyone will feel that way, but many will.

Like I said, there's a reason that people try to get Linux to look like Windows or OSX, and it isn't necessarily familiarity.

[hessiess]

personally, ive never had any problems with having 2 panels. makes more room for quick launchers, and have lots of programs running. there small and plain enough to not be an eyesore, unlike the HUGE pannel on KDE. or the ugly panel on xp. the dock on osx is abit to big.
i have them on autohide, besides that my ubuntu install is pretty standerd

[adam.tropics]

Well obviously I can't account for all tastes, but if I was to take bets I'd say more have that issue with it than don't.....

I'd probably agree with that, however, you tend to hear more from people with issues on the forums, than those who are happy. Not so long ago, forgive my not digging it out now, there was a very very long thread with regard to the apparently terrible grub splash theming and such. It was fairly raw. Anyway, that thread quickly became a 'brown' issue (#dab082), and all of a sudden, shed loads of people started popping up with 'don't change it'...'we like the brown' sorta stuff. Surprised the hell outta me. But as mentioned before, for me, the fact that it isn't too tough to make Ubuntu or most any Linux your own, is a great strength and I hope despite Gnome's current tendency towards simplifying, it will remain so.

[bobbybobington]

I gotta agree with the article on:
*Adding color themes
*the floating volume slider
*smooth login

I think a sane way of letting a user know about useful compiz effects, like expo and shift switcher (my two favorites) could impress new users a lot. What is the point of all these new effects if they don't know about them? Consistent Key bindings for effects similar to the ones in vista or leopard could help in this respect.
I think that a balance in the effects settings has to be struck between the "visual effects" tab in Appearance and the "advanced desktop effects settings" program. The "visual effects tab is simple and easy for basic users but has no room for any customization. the "advanced desktop effects settings" is fully customizable but too complex for normal users. What if they just want to get rid of or add one effect? The terms and names form effects are confusing and requires fiddling around, mouse over explanations could go far to help clear this up.

One more comment on "advanced desktop effects settings". The bindings tab for the effects is completely asinine. The bindings first must be expanded once in the "actions" tab to actually expanded from some vague term like "general" or obvious and unnecessary like "bindings" from there to change certain bindings you must actually double click on it to bring up a window where you do the changes. Having all the bindings shown from the get go in the "actions" tab and changing them with drop down or pop up menus would dramatically clean up the interface.

[SomeGuyDude]

Rule of the internet #something: more people will log on to complain about something than will do so just to say it worked. After all, I wonder how many here registered initially to get a problem fixed versus people who registered just to talk about how much they liked it.

hessiess makes a great point about the fact that it gives you room to add stuff. And I'd agree that's one reason they did that. But for aesthetics (which I'm huge on), it's not the best decision. It works great if you're the type who aims for functionality primarily and appearances secondary.

Consider, though, how much money Apple has made by targeting the aesthetics crowd. An iPod isn't a particularly great mp3 player. Sound is fairly middle of the road, it was only recently that the nano played video, the screens aren't great, and they're expensive relative to storage.

Where'd the business come from? Apple knows how to make something simply "feel good" in your hands, even if there's a knock in functionality.

One reason I'm adoring Gutsy. Prettier than OSX or Windows (after tweaking), and it does everything I could ask. Actually, that's EVERY reason. :)


I'd probably agree with that, however, you tend to hear more from people with issues on the forums, than those who are happy. Not so long ago, forgive my not digging it out now, there was a very very long thread with regard to the apparently terrible grub splash theming and such. It was fairly raw. Anyway, that thread quickly became a 'brown' issue (#dab082), and all of a sudden, shed loads of people started popping up with 'don't change it'...'we like the brown' sorta stuff. Surprised the hell outta me. But as mentioned before, for me, the fact that it isn't too tough to make Ubuntu or most any Linux your own, is a great strength and I hope despite Gnome's current tendency towards simplifying, it will remain so.

[yatt]

When comparing the ubuntu UI to windows or OSX, I think this is a very important thing to keep in mind. Most all linux distro's give you the freedom to customize the look and feel of your UI, but which is it easiest?

Not to mention, of all the distro's I ever ran since the very first time I tried running linux in Redhat 5.2, I've never kept the default look and feel. I was too damn impressed with the fact I could change it to leave it be. If you plan on customizing it anyway, what does it matter what the default looks like, so long as you have control over it? The whole concept to mold a default UI and clutter it "out of the box" with things you can easily manipulate seems a little narcissistic. Its much like pizza toppings, a room full of people will never agree on which are the best.Not everyone wants to spend all day customizing their desktop. It is nice for those who want it (like me), but most people wouldn't just as happily bitch about every installed theme for months on end (as my sister did until I found her a nice pink theme). Then there is school/work to worry about. My school has Ubuntu in the CS lab. I am not allowed to install themes. It is not my machine, and I respect that. It does however leave me with few good choices. There are only three themes included that are of any good. Human, Clearlooks, and Glossy. Orange, blue, and blue. None of the others have been freshened up, and all show there age. So Ubuntu gives me two color choices at school. So does Apple. What I think should be done is allow gtkrc files to contain multiple named color schemes, then allow the user to select from theme OR create their own custom scheme (see attachment). I suck at Gimping, but it gets the point across.

Some other things that irk me. Changing my theme causes problems in Firefox. The menubar becomes twice as thick, but all the menus are the same size, there is just free space sitting there.

Allot of the other complaints I have where covered in the article. Logging out can cause compositing apps to panic as Compiz closed before they do. Logging in, Compiz adds yet another flicker to my KDE Desktop (my Gnome box is ATI -- no compiz yet). Does Gnome/KDE need to add some sort of way of setting the order of apps opening and closing on login/logout?

The panel in Gnome needs work too. The Gnome team is saying they are finally going to get to it, which is good as it needs allot of help. In its current state, it basically cannot be themed. Unless the panel is using the system theme, your window list and workspace switcher are gonna stick out.

EDIT: Something I wanted to mention, but forgot. Compositing aware theme engines. We have composite aware window managers, composite aware window borders, but we do not have composite aware widget (GTK/QT) themes. Really, I think this makes things look a bit tacky. We have these great window manager themes, but then we put them around GTK/QT and we see a huge clash between old and new. I know it would be allot of work to implement this in either widget set, but with the huge development explosion that came about Compiz/Beryl you would think someone would have taken a crack at it.

[bruce89]

Some other things that irk me. Changing my theme causes problems in Firefox. The menubar becomes twice as thick, but all the menus are the same size, there is just free space sitting there.

Firefox is not GNOME.

Your customise dialogue looks like a good idea, expect if you have a predefined colour scheme selected, the colour boxes below would be insensitive. It is also too tall.

[tashmooclam]

I almost got through the second one of those articles.
I too was freaked out when I saw the screen go black while the computer starts up.
I like the idea of lighter desktops. I found a nice couple of tan backgrounds to keep. I guess that darker backgrounds are made to keep battery use low?
Little things do make a difference.
Other OS flavors of Linux will continue to develop and improve.
I only hope they never lose the little jingle after you log in. That's clever.

[yatt]

Firefox is not GNOME.True, but it is pretty much the default Gnome browser, and it appears to use GTK. I know Epiphany is the actual default, but who ships it as the default? Debian does, but does anyone else? I have also never seen anybody actually use it, either.

Either way, Firefox not being official Gnome shouldn't prevent us from patching it.

Your customise dialogue looks like a good idea, expect if you have a predefined colour scheme selected, the colour boxes below would be insensitive. It is also too tall.
As I said, I suck at Gimping. If I attempted to change grey the color boxes, I would have surely tossed my PC out the window by now.

The question is, would it be something we could implement without creating "Ubuntu only" gtkrc files, before it hits mainline Gnome (if it does). I suppose it depends on what the GTK (engine?) decides to do when it hits a line it does not understand.

[bruce89]

True, but it is pretty much the default Gnome browser, and it appears to use GTK. I know Epiphany is the actual default, but who ships it as the default? Debian does, but does anyone else? I have also never seen anybody actually use it, either.

Firefox's interface is XUL, not GTK+.

Distributors don't define what upstream's defaults are.

http://ubuntu-tutorials.com/2007/11/07/how-to-install-the-epiphany-browser/ :


So as many of you know I recently got back from the Ubuntu Developer Summit in Boston where we hashed out the details for the upcoming 8.04 release. It was loads of fun, I met a lot of cool people and I’m excited to get a lot of work done between now and then. In the meantime I thought I’d share something with you all that I noticed while I was there. Nobody seemed to use Firefox.

Foresight uses Epiphany too.

[FG123]

Interesting articles. I tend to agree with pretty-much everthing he said. Polish is something that shouldn't be taken lightly - it helps a lot to present a sense of quality.

[toupeiro]

You can also customize both XP and Vista. So what? Make your case. If that is the best arguement Ubuntu can come up with for poor aesthetics, then perhaps Ubuntu does not take its own goals seriously?



Because first impressions = ALL!

..Particularly to new Windows-to-Linux users. Particularly to the very crowd Ubuntu seems interested in courting. Add in the fact here that Ubuntu's use of the GNOME display tools is limited, compared to what exists, makes it more difficult for new users to access the huge repository of existing artwork. Also, the iconset provided by default, while not bad, could be better. There exists extremely nice iconsets currently that go unused unless you know what your looking for and how to find it. Again, shutting down new users, the very opposite of Ubuntu bug #1's intent. The current Appearance GUI could be expanded upon to include the gnome-extras, and various other open source artwork/theming products, or pull them in.

It's ludicrous to even say you can customize vista and XP to the level you can linux. I'm sorry, The closest thing to Compiz-Fusion windows had going for it before vista was Object Desktop (which has a reoccurring cost) and that was a bigger resource hog than Aero. If you want to dedicate the performance of your system to looking pretty, then go ahead. I prefer to have my system resources open to doing productive tasks. Ubuntu is extremely lean out of the box. Leaner than most linux distro's and WAY leaner than windows. Efficiency, scalability and functionality over bloat, unwanted extra's to clean up, and non-functional bling. I don't care how flashy it looks and how many themes it has out of the box, if its a pig, I'm not going to waste my time on it, and if you follow the complaints about vista neither will a lot of people. Is my case made well enough for you?

As far as first impressions. If Ubuntu were making bad first impressions, I don't think it would have developed the following it has. Ubuntu's USE of gnome may be limited, but your use of gnome isn't limited to what ubuntu chooses to configure. The great thing about open source is that you can do a distro making gnome look and feel any way you want by default. Linux Mint and many other distro's have done this. Maybe people's first impressions of your distribution will be as good as ubuntu's... then again, maybe not. When I was a new ubuntu user, I didn't have a problem using google to find gnome-look.org. Nor has any of the 40-50 people I've gotten using ubuntu.

If you don't want to spend all day configuring your desktop, then don't. Personally, I think that is an exaggeration because realistically... it does NOT take all day. And, if it does, the level of detail and customization you are wanting in your desktop is more than ANY vendor should be expected to provide out of the box. (especially being that the software AND the tools are absolutely free and at your disposal.)

EDIT:

After all, I wonder how many here registered initially to get a problem fixed versus people who registered just to talk about how much they liked it.
Actually, that is exactly what my first post was for. :)

[SomeGuyDude]

It's ludicrous to even say you can customize vista and XP to the level you can linux. I'm sorry, The closest thing to Compiz-Fusion windows had going for it before vista was Object Desktop and that was a bigger resource hog than Aero. If you want to dedicate the performance of your system to looking pretty, then go ahead. I prefer to have my system resource open to doing productive tasks. Is my case made well enough for you?

As far as first impressions. If Ubuntu were making bad first impressions, I don't think it would have developed the following it has. Ubuntu's USE of gnome may be limited, but your use of gnome isn't limited to what ubuntu chooses to configure. The great thing about open source is that you can do a distro making gnome look and feel any way you want by default. Linux Mint and many other distro's have done this. Maybe people's first impressions of your distribution will be as good as ubuntu's... then again, maybe not.

On the first point, you're kinda right. You -can- customize Windows to a great extent, but you'd better have a monstrous system to handle it. It can be done, it just sucks. And it requires a hell of a lot more effort.

On the second, I think the people who get a "good first impression" of Ubuntu aren't REALLY going on first impressions. They get a taste for it knowing that all of the things they don't like can be fixed to their liking. You know that what's important is how well it functions because you can make it look however you want.

[buntunub]

It's ludicrous to even say you can customize vista and XP to the level you can linux. I'm sorry, The closest thing to Compiz-Fusion windows had going for it before vista was Object Desktop (which has a reoccurring cost) and that was a bigger resource hog than Aero. If you want to dedicate the performance of your system to looking pretty, then go ahead. I prefer to have my system resources open to doing productive tasks. Ubuntu is extremely lean out of the box. Leaner than most linux distro's and WAY leaner than windows. Efficiency, scalability and [QUOTE=toupeiro;3729212]functionality over bloat, unwanted extra's to clean up, and non-functional bling. I don't care how flashy it looks and how many themes it has out of the box, if its a pig, I'm not going to waste my time on it, and if you follow the complaints about vista neither will a lot of people. Is my case made well enough for you?

No. As stated by SomeGuyDude, you can customize XP to be anything you like, and its not as hard as some think at all! :)

As far as resource consumption on XP vs. Ubuntu. Please explain this. My tests show the exact opposite on a base XP install vs. a base Gutsy install on the same hardware. I never said you could customize XP to the level that you can a Linux system anyway, and im NOT saying XP is better than Linux on any day; just that it CAN be highly customized if you know what your doing. Apples and Oranges though, because XP is made to be the way it is due to M$'s restrictions placed upon it. Regardless, Windows and OSx has an aesthetic appeal that Ubuntu lacks out of the box, for whatever reasons. You think Ubuntu aesthetics are fine, and thats great I respect that. Many other people dont agree with you.


As far as first impressions. If Ubuntu were making bad first impressions, I don't think it would have developed the following it has. Ubuntu's USE of gnome may be limited, but your use of gnome isn't limited to what ubuntu chooses to configure. The great thing about open source is that you can do a distro making gnome look and feel any way you want by default. Linux Mint and many other distro's have done this. Maybe people's first impressions of your distribution will be as good as ubuntu's... then again, maybe not. When I was a new ubuntu user, I didn't have a problem using google to find gnome-look.org. Nor has any of the 40-50 people I've gotten using ubuntu.

Ubuntu has the following it has because of its functionality. Nobody is saying Ubuntu needs much improvement there, even though there is always a need for more refinements and new innovations and bug fixes for existing issues. It also has the following it has because of that 10 Million Pound foudation which ensures it gets alot more PR and support than other, possibly much better distro's. It is also based on Debian, so whats to go wrong there? Its standing on the shoulders of a giant, who did most of the work prior to Ubuntu even being an idea! So there is alot of reasons there, but it could have much more if it had the look n feel going for it as well. As many have tried to point out, Ubuntu just "feels" incomplete out of the box exactly because of this.


If you don't want to spend all day configuring your desktop, then don't. Personally, I think that is an exaggeration because realistically... it does NOT take all day. And, if it does, the level of detail and customization you are wanting in your desktop is more than ANY vendor should be expected to provide out of the box. (especially being that the software AND the tools are absolutely free and at your disposal.)

I dont think anyone spends all day actually sitting around customizing their system like that. Maybe someone who is artistically inclined would, but thats more of a hobby anyway. The point I think is that with Ubuntu in its current state, the look n feel is bad enough that people feel the need to have to make big changes to their setups to get it to a passable state. One should never have to do this on a base install because Ubuntu should have that look n feel aspect should be pleasing enough that one would only feel the need to make minor adjustments.

[toupeiro]

[QUOTE=toupeiro;3729212]
As far as resource consumption on XP vs. Ubuntu. Please explain this. My tests show the exact opposite on a base XP install vs. a base Gutsy install on the same hardware.


I'm on my way to work, so I can't comment on everything but I will say that the only explanation I have is.. your results are inaccurate. Changing the color of the Startmenu bar is not "changing the GUI" and their are no other tools which let you customize the Graphical Shell of a Windows OS before vista available out of the box in the manner you can with gnome and compiz-fusion. The only tools prior to vista that gave you that were tools like Object Desktop I used Object Desktop for 3+ years and am EXTREMELY anal about system resources. I have written dialogue in e-mail archives somewhere with Object Desktop support personnel about system resources because I was looking at them for my old company to create an entirely new and hardened GUI for an XP machine keyosk at a bank. The resources, however, it took from the system to do this hindered the performance greatly. The CPU overhead and RAM usage are near triple that of what gnome/Compiz-Fusion's overhead is because in windows, your SHELL is graphical, and protected. It HAS to be there for the OS to function. This means any GUI customizations were bloat sitting on bloat. It wasn't truly "changing" anything techically. It was just GUI shell overlays. Thats why the performance took such a hit. Vista is a different beast. I don't honestly know how much of the actual GUI Shell and Kernel is being customized, replaced, or is receiving an overlay when you customize it (and its not high on my list to find out.) Gnome and KDE are true GUI customizations. Attached are a few examples of my XP desktop back in 2002 to show you what I consider "customizing the GUI" means on windows.

Its obvious you aren't willing to budge on your opinion, so I am not going to argue aesthetics anymore. My stance is, ubuntu's placed priority on aesthetics in the right place, behind efficiency. The aesthetics they have now aren't horrible, and they certainly aren't permanent. I'd prefer to see new tools to make customization easier than I would a bunch of canned themes which will likely never be uses eating up resources. I"m not claiming that I think ubuntu's aesthetics are great, I'm claiming that the control I have to make it look like I want it to without the sacrifice of system resources is better than Canonical trying to predict what my artistic tastes will be. Taste in Aesthetics will be different from person to person, Canonical realizes this so they give you tools. That is a much better approach.

[elvinatom]

Couldn't agree more with that. To go even it further, I really like the look from start to finish, it's simple practical and warm - makes me feel welcome. As far as I am concerned they don't have to "improve" on any artwork. The technical side of Ubuntu (bugs) could use many improvements, but since it's free and open I'm happy the lay back and watch the versions evolve.

[the yawner]

I definitely agree with the comment on the locking of applets. I've experienced them applets moved for no reason when they're supposed to be locked into place, and when I resize the panel to large and back to small. And that locking per applet, E17's lock the whole panel (forgot what's it called) made more sense.

[Solicitous]

Most standout issue with the usability of the UI that I have found is the location of the Log Off/Switch User/Shutdown button in the top right hand corner. Too close to the Close Window on the title bar of the open window. Move a fraction of an inch up and next thing you know instead of closing the current window you're being asked about logging off/shutting down.
Maybe I'm just being picky.

[ace007]

I think the article is amazing. I am always obsessing over OS GUI's and he makes some very interesting points, and is very concise in his description. It made me realize how absurd a lot of my tinkering is, the default GUI is great.

[SomeGuyDude]

Most standout issue with the usability of the UI that I have found is the location of the Log Off/Switch User/Shutdown button in the top right hand corner. Too close to the Close Window on the title bar of the open window. Move a fraction of an inch up and next thing you know instead of closing the current window you're being asked about logging off/shutting down.
Maybe I'm just being picky.

That's one reason I took it out of there and replaced it with a button in my AWN dock. Still trying to eliminate my top panel entirely, but it seems like I'm stuck with it for now.

[Niniel]

Coming from Windows, Ubuntu out of the box to me looked nice and shiny, even compared to an XP with Alienware's Invader skin, or a vistaisation pack. It was new and fresh and something completely different.
I also don't think the two panels are constricting in any way, on the contrary, it's a cool idea that takes very little time to get used to. And if you turn them transparent they pretty much disappear. Things like the Mac dock - I played with Object Dock for while - look nice if all you do is admire your desktop all day long, but I tend to have several windows open that take up the entire screen so prefer to have my quick launcher in the task bar/panel(s). (In XP I have the taskbar on the right, but that's no fun in Ubuntu since the writing doesn't change orientation).
I also found it fairly easy to do some light customization - drop in new icons (btw,, just because icons look neat doesn't mean they are fun to use - case in point, the transparent icon set, which I had for a whopping 30 seconds before I switched them out for the OldGnome set; right now I have the Iris set), window borders, control themes... piece of cake. What I did find difficult is modify things on my own, ie alter existing themes' colours, or even the panel colours (until I found out that gtkrc is my friend, well, sort of).

Regarding the fractured configuration dialogs mentioned in the article, I only noticed that after reading that blog entry. I guess coming from Windows I'm used to searching for configuration options in various places so it didn't strike me as odd at all. And it's not like things are very difficult to find. Except of course those things that can't be edited via GUI. That's something I'd like to see improved - more ways to configure things that don't require you to know that they can be configured, where you can look through some dialogs and explore things.

Some people suggested XFCE as an alternative to GNOME. I happen to like GNOME, and I did try Xubuntu... it was quite horrible compared to Ubuntu proper, so that was a very short experiment. Maybe XFCE can be configured to look great, but then it'd have to be vastly superior to the current Xubuntu implementation.

And finally, to those who say the allegedly uninspiring looks of Ubuntu are preventing people from migrating to it - I think that's not true at all. In the end, it's how well the OS works with hardware, and what software it has. The eye-candy is nice, sometimes even useful, but ultimately, no amount of prettiness is going to make me switch over unless I can do the things I want to do. For me, that means I will not ditch Windows since I need it for games; but having used Ubuntu for a while now I do plan on using it for pretty much everything else now.

[vek]

It is true that a few HID principles are mostly wasted in ubuntu.

For example, the philosophy that the edges of the screen are much easier to hit... is mostly unused. Even worse, the philosophy that the four corners of the screen are the easiest to hit... are totaly unused, or in fact, made even worse by putting a useless or infrequently used panel item there, or making a gap between that panel item and the corner of the screen such that clicking there does nothing.

Those are some of my biggest frustrations, because it could be so much better. Example in windows - people often click the X to close apps - so when they are full screen (maximised), even though it doesnt LOOK that way (depending on theme), microsoft extends the hit area of the X (close) button to be on the top rightmost pixel of the screen. This allows users to exploit the easiest-to-hit (with mouse) top right pixel of the screen to flick their hand to close any app. Same for the minimise / restore buttons - when maximised, even though they might not look like it, their 'hit area' extends to the top row of pixels, meaning that the user can move their hand upwards and let the 'edge' of the screen catch the cursor and then just click, eliminating the vertical factor. Again, ubuntu makes this unused by either putting a gap between the edge and the actual hittable buttons, or worse, in theme managers like emerald, intentionally preventing the buttons from meeting the edge, ever.

I mean, yeah, linux coders are not usualy HID experts, but some of these things are no brainers.
At least the AWN dock seems to understand this, so the hit zone for launchers on it includes the bottom row of pixels. Pity the dock itself is hard to click on, and most of the applets malfunction.