Is standardization a good reason for lack of customization options?

[Dustin2128]

On one of those 'look at my insanely modified desktop' threads, I read a post stating something to the effect of 'microsoft/apple won't let you customize the looks of your operating system (that much) so that anybody will be able to sit down and use your computer'. And I understand what they're saying; when I feel like breaking out some of the more insane or unusual GUIs (awesome anyone?) and themes I've used and made, I wouldn't really expect just anybody to be able to sit down and use my computer; whereas 99.5% of windows computers look nearly identical, minus wallpaper and window decoration preferences. Do you think this is fair?

[Ctrl-Alt-F1]

On one of those 'look at my insanely modified desktop' threads, I read a post stating something to the effect of 'microsoft/apple won't let you customize the looks of your operating system (that much) so that anybody will be able to sit down and use your computer'. And I understand what they're saying; when I feel like breaking out some of the more insane or unusual GUIs (awesome anyone?) and themes I've used and made, I wouldn't really expect just anybody to be able to sit down and use my computer; whereas 99.5% of windows computers look nearly identical, minus wallpaper and window decoration preferences. Do you think this is fair?

This is just my own opinion, but I don't think usability is why Windows/MacOS aren't by default as customizable. I think Gnome (I assume this is what you're talking about) is more customizable because it was made by the users. Linux Dev's tend to make stuff that they would actually use.

[Dustin2128]

This is just my own opinion, but I don't think usability is why Windows/MacOS aren't by default as customizable. I think Gnome (I assume this is what you're talking about) is more customizable because it was made by the users. Linux Dev's tend to make stuff that they would actually use.

I think this is a contributing factor, but not the only reason. And I wasn't really referring to any WM in particular (though KDE is one of the most customizable I've ever used), as the very choice of about a dozen different window managers is one of the major points I'm trying to make. Want something unusual? Check out ratpoision or awesome. Want something easy to use? KDE GNOME or xfce. Want something light? open/black/fluxbox, or LXDE.

Whoops, forgot to add a poll.

[bunburya]

I bet I can guess what the most popular option will be...

[Marlonsm]

When I read the thread title, something else came to my mind: the standardization of programs. For example, when the theme of your file manager matches the theme of your web browser and your text editor. Think of Internet Explorer and Windows Explorer, they both look the same, although they have different uses. It makes up for a good user experience. It's also a good starting point for a greater integration between programs.
Making this kind of thing happen, IMO, is worth the loss of some customizability (some, not all of it). When it's completely up to the developers to choose the looks of a program, they will all have different looks.

But when you have toolkits like QT and GTK, it's possible for it to happen. The problem is that there are many other options besides QT and GTK.
Many times I've installed programs that just looked out of place in my desktop, and I (and most users) don't want it to happen.
Using standard toolkits, when I install my own custom theme, it'll be equally applied to all programs, which is nice. It will also make it easier for other people to use my computer.

I still want to choose if I want Gnome or KDE, but there shouldn't be programs that are completely out of place no matter where you use them.
Having just some WM and toolkits is a good thing, as we know, both Gnome and KDE can run each other's programs without much problem but when you start adding zillions of ways to develop programs, it's impossible for all of them to have a standardized look.