The Ubuntu Look Can be Changed, but Linux CAN NOT have a “Look”.
 
Mockup from www.portefolje.net
A Linux distro is basically someone saying: here’s a collection of packages that works well together, now keep it or change it as you wish.
Oh I get it, if GNU/Linux can’t make the user drool when he sees a Linux desktop, we’ll never get a large userbase. Here’s what I think; let’s not teach people to recognize Linux, but let’s teach people to recognize something that works as Linux.
Lots of people are still complaining about the default Ubuntu theme and while I congratulate the artists that brought us Hardy Heron (really, making brown and orange and beige almost attractive is quite a feat), aside from the background and a few Wm tweaks here & there, there was nothing new, nothing to ‘Wow‘ the users.
There have been lots of posts on other blogs about how an Ubuntu theme or color scheme change would be in order for Intrepid Ibex, but what they forget to mention is that the designers don’t have an easy job, because:
You want Ubuntu to work on computers that don’t support fancy graphics.
Most of the polished and popular stuff does use the fancy graphics support.
But wait, now we’re already talking about Linux’ look. Should Linux have a look? I think not.
AWN and Compiz work on my computer – it’s always a gamble though, because most of the time, on computers older than three years, this stuff cannot work properly. Computers are getting cheaper, so most of us think it’s not a problem. We are forgetting that many people cannot afford a brand new compatible powerhouse. Many will stick with UMPC’s. So the question is, how can we make Ubuntu attractive and functional, while maintaining hardware support?
I tried it and with the current software it’s almost impossible. You have stuff like wbar, for instance the gOS team is struggling with the stuff. I don’t believe it’ll work, especially because AWN is the only good Dock that doubles as a Window navigator & Launchers, but still retains the same smooth look and feel as Mac OSX’ Dock.
You can’t make Linux restrict your choices (except if you buy Linux XP). People know the stuff’s there and everyone’s free to do apps as they want to. If you want to upgrade, you can install what you want – install a KDE app in GNOME. These projects cannot unite, because they are using the freedom to do what they want. There would be no fun in doing something you don’t want to do as a volunteer. Companies can pay the developers to do something unified, but the community is still bigger. And you don0′t boss the community. How would you feel when you wouldn’t be able to switch to KDE just because this distro wants other users to know it’s Linux when they see GNOME?
That was my little rant, how do you feel about Ubuntu’s look? Do you also share my thoughts that it would be almost impossible to restrict Linux to a unified look & feel? Please comment, I’m excited to read what other people think about this.
I think the current 8.04 theme is quite fine. The only time I really “no” to a theme is when it attempts to emulate Mac in any way (lots do), or presents usability problems (like changes the standard _ [ ] X buttons to some ingenious and unknown symbols that normal users go “wtf” at).
It take the opposite tack, why worry about a look at all? Better that Canonical offer server and desktop base and have the install permit the user to select a theme, wm and engine of their choice. They are already there with Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Xubuntu only they are prebuilt.
How cool would it be to have a series of choices, see a representative result of those choices then ask it be installed? Linux power is choice, celebrate it and champion it.
Linux?
How about the BSDs? And OpenSolaris? And all other unices that also run GNOME and/or KDE and/or all other desktop environments and window managers that we run on our GNU/Linux systems?
Want to recognise GNU/Linux?
$ uname
This is your answer.
Making a full theme is lot and lots of work. Consider even a basic icon theme needs hundreds of creations. Overall, personally, the current theme, IMHO, seems segmented and unpolished. In my harsh opipion, Ubuntu is just waiting for someone to come along and build it. The current theme could be a lot better without having to do any hackish tricks. I just don’t think Ubuntu Engineers want to be spending the time to make one.
I normally will skip articles tha carries the name *ubuntu in the title, too many and mostly all are time wasting.
Don’t get me wrong, Ubuntu is a good distro, just too over-hyped.
To answer your question, any distro can have their “own” look, period. They have their target, they have their perference, therefore their own default (looks included), just like any other PRODUCT, e.g. osx, ms ….
Linux however, is like an eco-system, it have its own life and will vary as the environment changes, e.g. desert, jungle, rainforest …
Please do not equate *Ubuntu to Linux , it will confuse new users
I see a lot of complaining about the default Ubuntu theme on different blog sites, and honestly I really don’t get it. It’s not that hard to change one’s desktop theme. There is never going to be a single desktop theme that everyone is going to love. That’s why you are given the ability to change it. There are also web sites like gnome-look.org that offer plenty of options.
Ummmm…. You can change EVERY aspect of the default Ubuntu desktop. And if your computer cant run compiz, oh well, it isnt *that* important. Want to install xfce? Run ‘sudo apt-get install xubuntu-desktop’. Want to change the theme, goto gnome-look.org. Want to claim ubuntu locks you into a certain look, Ok, Ubuntu is brown, Fedora is blue, and SuSe is bad looking, but they are all Linux kernel born operating systems, and they can be changed easily. If you feel they cant, then install Gentoo like I did once, and go insane. Other than that, the design team has to make a choice on how they want to ship their distro, and its up to you after that. The only orange or brown on my system is the firefox logo and a few other icons, and it is a *mostly* stock Hardy install.
And, I am a linux server admin, so please, dont call me a noob.
[...] The Ubuntu Look Can be Changed, but Linux CAN NOT have a “Lookâ€. Oh I get it, if GNU/Linux can’t make the user drool when he sees a Linux desktop, we’ll never get a large userbase. Here’s what I think; let’s not teach people to recognize Linux, but let’s teach people to recognize something that works as Linux. [...]
OMG dude, I love “the Look”! LOL
Jiff
http://www.anonymize.us.tc
As a open source developer I was a bit confused by your rant. New users in general want a GUI which looks sleek (I’m talking western users as developing nations are much more open to Linux and FOSS), these users are the market which Ubuntu is designed to target so I understand Mark’s reasons and intentions for putting his $ into these aspects (though really he hasn’t much thus far), it also benefits the Linux community as a whole to have some paid designers and interaction experts working for Canonical, it isn’t just a looks thing but that aspect sure doesn’t hurt. These designers and interaction experts will be making contributions to the Linux upstream, you know, the ones that make ppl recognize something “that works”.
I don’t think I ever taught ppl to try and recognize Linux by a “look” and have never seen that.
A simple solution for supporting high end graphics and still allowing the OS to run on old hardware is simply by making it optional.
Other users have mentioned the ability to change themes and I agree but I think the author was hinting towards new users whom would be less likely to change. I donno, because it is a rant his point is kind of lost in the translation
I have been interested in linux for years because you can run the o.s how you want and change it how you want not how they want, i dont really know how to explain what i want to say, open source.i am still very very new to linux and just installed the 8.04.1 ubuntu yesterday and still cant figure out how to install applications.
but the software is open source and better than ms its just a little more work to figure it out. and i love computers and learning so i want to stick with it until i understand it more about them and the software.
if people are complaining about it,(especially default theme?come on!!!)well… “don’t let the door hit ya in the a$$ on the way out” i don’t know if im making sense but if they dont like the default them then change it or go back to ms.They/we should be thanking each and everyone of the people who devote their time and effort into these distros,packages or what be it.
thank you
What you wrote about not run KDE apps on GNOME or the other way around is crazy. The teams of both work for interoperability. For instance, Qt 4.5 is going to have a QGnomeStyle class and if you run a Qt-based app in GNOME it will automatically use the current Gtk theme.
Linux desperately need a more consistent look. And it doesn’t mean to restrict the theming capabilities of it. KDE 4 is a good example of polished desktop environment that is pleasant to use in both new and old hardware.
We don’t need just to enlarge our user base. I use only Linux in my home, notebooks and work and want to have visual consistency among all the apps I need for entertainment and work.
If linux had a program like Apple’s Numbers 8….. the feature of free form sheets is just awesome. Makes the excel and open office seem rather plain.
[...] but Linux CAN NOT have a “Look A Linux distro is basically someone saying: here’s a collection of packages that works well together, now keep it or change it as you wish.http://www.internetling.com/2008/09/10/the-ubuntu-look-can-be-changed-but-linux-can-not-have-a-look/ [...]
Hey all.
I’m chiming in from the designer camp, and here are my thoughts:
It is nearly impossible to unify Linux distros into a discernible theme – and that’s a good thing. Let each distro decide what features are important, be they design-related or not.
However, I do think that, if a common goal of the Linux community is to gain marketshare, there need to be big changes.
I’ve used 4 Linux distros and have been vastly impressed by the power and flexibility of what’s under the hood. And, while most of them had a pretty slick look to them, there were glaring holes in the interface that needed some TLC.
I am fine with the look of Ubuntu 8.04. I chose the human-murrine theme, have default wallpaper, all looks pleasant, distinctive and doesn’t distract.
I think interface is very important in terms of usability, and thus greatly affects the user’s experience. And I think that taking a lead in furthering the interface for Gnone/KDE is a great investment. It is time the major distros started looking forward in terms of interface, and this is a great step.
perhaps the look common to all linux distros is the terminal. as far as i’m concerned, the best look is the one with the least amount of “look” — my answer: fluxbox. make everything that isn’t what you are working on small, put it out of the way, and don’t be caught up with eyecandy that distracts you from noticing how slow it makes your machine.
I think the central issue really is the lack of integration and direction of the UI and core apps. Given 10 unrelated OSS apps, you’ll have to learn 10 different ways for performing some task they all have in common.
As far as such integration goes, it can and should very much be an effort that spans all distros. Unfortunately, large scale collaboration towards a common goal is a preposterous notion in the OSS community.
Until OSS developers learn to collaborate, rather than proceeding to branch a project at the slightest of disagreements, the despicable state of the Linux desktop will persist.
people will have some ruse or the other, but will not shift to linux unless there’s some really life shaking event – thats true for most people. linux is really mature now, at least its been so in the last 2 years, more than ever. that things just work is proof – asus eepc. people dint mind it one bit. linux just works, and windows users just wont shift. they are too comfortable within their own windows preferences. they will want linux to be windows!
unless bill gates cracks down hard and makes it impossible to pirate – things will not change. and clearly MS only makes the noise – but will never crack down hard. they will foreve be priced less than apple. they will continue with the same scheme of monopoly thats worked them for so many many years. only a concerted effort from governments, people, NGOs can bring MS and its corrupt empire down. users ? naah, they are too lazy to shift from windows. like i said, for them to shift from windows to linux – they want linux to be like windows!
As far as the Ubuntu developer team is concerned, there is a certain guideline in coming up with a standard theme for Ubuntu. Of course, if you would like to re-design the graphical side, it’s up to you, but over the years, it seems infallible that there is some kind of characteristics behind those looks. What do you think?
I don’t see the big about the brown. It’s so easy to change with the built in GUI tools that most personal desktop end up unique anyway. One I find the icon’s I like I stick with but still change wallpaper whenever I see an image I like.
[...] here’s a collection of packages that works well together, now keep it or change it as you wish.read more | digg [...]
Personally I like the darker themes and some of the mock-ups lately have been nice. Although I have to admit that extended periods of reading light text on dark or relatively dark backgrounds gets tiring.
I like that Shuttleworth is pushing on making Ubuntu better than the Mac, but I want to see what they come up with before throwing too much praise.
BTW: I prefer Gnome to KDE as to me KDE seems to have Windows envy.
[...] the Linux look alone There’s been talk recently about re vamping Linux themes mainly the Ubuntu Distro. A lot of people are saying that the current look and feel is boring and [...]
I’m using ubuntu since 7.04 Don’t like the default theme at all. I have a strong tendency of using MacOSX themes but for the time being Ubuntu Studio seems more than satisfactory to me. Themes can be added and customized, memory consumption and restart after updates though remain unacceptable ‘features’!
If canonical really does want to keep up with everyone else, they’re going to have to include eye candy with the distro. Most end-users don’t understand what’s going on under the hood, so they tend to grade an OS by its level of prettyfulness.
Seeing the successfulness of Dell, HP, and the rest of the crew to push the latest crap out the door and convince everyone that newer is better, most people should be able to run Ubuntu, even if it is all dolled up. If not, there’s always Xubuntu. I run it on my laptop even though I could easily run GNOME or KDE. I like to leave my resources free for apps, not spinning my windows around on a cube while they wiggle around like jello.
As proven by Our Desktops! http://www.ourdesktops.com. The Ubuntu people are taking over! And they look great too.
I’ve heard some good things about this blog. Remember to balance the pics with the text tho. cheers!
Anything can be changed. It’s open source. Gosh!
[...] The Ubuntu Look Can be Changed, but Linux CAN NOT have a “Look†[...]
Hello! fort worth breast augmentation
[...] Windows kennen we door het grafisch geweld. Gebruikers klagen dan ook vaak dat Linux niet over dergelijk lekkers beschikt. Zelfs Ubuntu is niet echt een grafische schoonheid. Volgens deze blogger is dat ook helemaal niet nodig: Linux wil je immers ook op pc’s zetten die niet zo’n grafische hoogstandjes kunnen weergeven. Was dat immers niet de basis van het besturingssysteem? [...]
Рможно на Ñвой блог повеÑить пару ваших заметок? Обещаю поÑтавить ÑÑылку на автора в конце еÑли нужно. СпаÑибо. Ðнтон.
[...] The Ubuntu Look Can be Changed, but Linux CAN NOT have a “Look†[...]
I don’t know what the big deal is with the Ubuntu default look. While I admit the brown scheme is hideous, I change everything anyway. Since there is the constant battle between the white bright themes and the dark themes, none will ever be the only look of Ubuntu or Linux. I have changed every aspect of my computer, the only thing that looks the same now is the bar with the applications and such, but I’ll get to that as some point. I also like the dark themes, so that’s what I use. I do agree with the person above that said KDE was trying to be Windows though, I put in a Kubuntu cd, saw the desktop and left.
You can get a decent look and feel on Linux. I ran 7.04 on a 7 year old laptop (Compaq Armada with 384 mb of ram and a S3 integrated graphics chip), and I managed to have compositing through Metacity without too much slowdown. Granted Xfce would have ran better, but the wife wanted something that looked decent. As a non-linux person, look and feel mattered.
So while all the old-hats of linux can whine and moan about just changing the settings. The new PC users just want something that works while looking decent. The current defaults for Ubuntu (and most other distros I’ve tried) fail at this.
Likewise a standard look and feel doesn’t require surrendering freedoms, it means that you desire the best experience for a user. Something like the Print Icon should look the same on all apps, and generally be located in the same spot in the menu.
I love and support Chris always!
Recently one of my friends started an obsession with the actor Nicholas Cage (mostly because their names are both Nicholas – sounds strange but he is strange and that isn’t the point). After asking around the rest of my friends he seems to be a very controversial figure.
What does the forum think? do you love the all action superhero? Or do you hate the droning voice of the man who does nothing but action shooters?
Ubuntu has set me free! No more blue screens of death, no more sudden freezes, no more hard-drive loading, no more slowing down whenever, no more B.S. communications with Microsoft, no more foolish super heavy word files, no more sudden failures of spreadsheets, no more virus protection B.S. I like the set-up, mostly because every time I see the brown theme, I feel certain my computer will be good for computing another session, no cursing, no idiot remarks popping up, fast easy switching from page to page, two complete desktops, as many pages, programs open as I chose without noticeable slow-downs, and Firefox for the net – very fast and totally compatible with openOffice software, a computer freak’s wildest dreams, all in one download. Do it today, you will miss the American flash and commercial flair, like the cars in the fifties with wings on the trunks, but if you like plain practical working solutions to life’s small problems, you will soon grow to love Ubuntu, and be glad you have it! No glitter no loud sirens, no pretty dancing girls, no loud promotions no glitter no tinsel, not even flashing lights, fancy naming, complex English, bells and fancy colors, just a damn good, dependable working system, the best I have found in the world, and growing fast in popularity if I can help it!
So, what’s a better idea, instead of giving Ubuntu an attractive look, give Ubuntu (or any mainstream distro for that matter) to the lowest common denominator? What’s the point of keeping something up to date if it isn’t going to change with the times, and that includes appearance along with a number of things. Ubuntu will never be a distro that people choose for the barest installs. There’s other distros that do that better, and the software that works on Ubuntu should still work on them, so why try to make something all things to all people. Ubuntu is popular for a reason, so let it do what it does because it does it well. Ubuntu is designed to be a popular OS. That’s a very big reason why it has been designed to have an attractive look.
Other distros will continue to do what they do, and users who want a lightweight OS that’s up to date will find them.
Hint: those distros never did it because they wanted to be popular. They’re not suddenly going to disappear because Ubuntu has more users than them.
You’re dangerously close to being on a Linux “high horse” that people often get on when they rant about Ubuntu.