Wallpaper and theme complaint megathread

[Steve Fisher]

You've not heard of GNOME 3.0 being planned for winter 2010. See some mockups.

Interesting. It's exactly this kind of push that Gnome needs.

I hate to make this comparison, but take Explorer as an example. Microsoft aren't afraid to make UI, and to an extent, usability changes. There's an initial learning curve, but from a purely aesthetic perspective, there's no denying that each version of Windows looks better than the last, and you soon get used to the slight changes in functionality.

Sure, they have the resources to do this, but the longer Gnome/Ubuntu stick with their current UI, the further they slip behind.

(I say Gnome/Ubuntu, but of course Gnome development benefits Debian, Fedora, Suse et al... which is no bad thing.)

[Mason Whitaker]

The new theme would have to follow the orange/brown colors.

Oh? Then I can't see the problem of a new theme for 9.04 as long as they offered the older themes if we wanted to use them.

[Skripka]

I would like a new theme, but there are two things I would like more in Ubuntu 9.04 than a new theme.

1. A better Human color scheme.

The current Human color scheme is too vibrant. The oranges and browns used in the Intrepid theme are overly saturated and bright. If the Ubuntu art team could come up with a color palette made up of more subtle browns and oranges, I think the default theme would look much more attractive.

2. A better default font.

I don't mean to insult or offend anyone, but the default font (Sans) sucks. It's ugly. Look at the default fonts of Windows Vista. Those fonts are incredibly attractive. The Ubuntu developers should come up with their own attractive set of default fonts.

Yea...the 1st thing I do after install/reinstalling *buntu is change the font...fortunately I have a few neat simple yet elegant ones handy.

[eternalnewbee]

I'm not voting.
I'm grateful for the creators give me.
And then of course I customize...

[gabhla]

Why care about the theme? Doubt very few actually keep the default theme for long. I change mine all the time. Doesn't look anything close to the default Intrepid theme. Same will happen with the next upgrade.

We can make our theme whatever we want. And, life is good.

[peakpc]

I'd like to see something a little more aqua, not OSX but, I prefer water to earth, and I use blue window border from clearlooks and the controls from glossyP the ubuntu standard icons make for good contrast. But that's what is so great about Linux...Freedom of choice.

[Giant Speck]

Why care about the theme? Doubt very few actually keep the default theme for long. I change mine all the time. Doesn't look anything close to the default Intrepid theme. Same will happen with the next upgrade.

We can make our theme whatever we want. And, life is good.

It's a marketing thing. The more unattractive the default theme looks, the less people are going to want to make the switch. Ubuntu should market their operating system by the way it looks by default, not by the ease of changing themes.

I'd like to see something a little more aqua, not OSX but, I prefer water to earth, and I use blue window border from clearlooks and the controls from glossyP the ubuntu standard icons make for good contrast. But that's what is so great about Linux...Freedom of choice.

Unfortunately, the Ubuntu developers are dead set on the brown/orange color scheme. It's product identity. Windows has Aero and OS X has Aqua, or whatever they call it now.

They should be able to keep that product identity, but they should also present it in a more professional way.

[inobe]

its really all based on the desktop environment !

you have gnome and kde, i think they are far more responsible ...

of course in ubuntu they can modify colors around a window and choose the the default wallpaper, with regards this discussion should be directed at the gnome and kde folks.

what we get with ubuntu is its functionality, meaning' its not how it looks, how it operates a system.

[sstusick]

2. A better default font.

I don't mean to insult or offend anyone, but the default font (Sans) sucks. It's ugly. Look at the default fonts of Windows Vista. Those fonts are incredibly attractive. The Ubuntu developers should come up with their own attractive set of default fonts.

I agree with the font. I always change it. I find it too big at 10pt, it should be 9, but a change, perhaps to Dejavu sans would even be better.

[Giant Speck]

I agree with the font. I always change it. I find it too big at 10pt, it should be 9, but a change, perhaps to Dejavu sans would even be better.

It just doesn't scream "product identity." I mean, look at Windows. They have fonts like Calibri and Consolas. OS X has fonts like Apple Garamond and Lucida Grande.

Where is the font that says "Ubuntu"? And don't say ubuntu-title. That font isn't meant for system use.