Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: slave on 10 February 2003, 02:37
-
I hear some people on this forum and elsewhere tell me that they think Linux is ugly. Actually, by "some people" I'm mainly referring to Zombie, who seems to think that XP is the best OS because of how it looks. Well, if looks determine the worth of an operating system, why doesn't he just use OS X? It has better "looks" than XP and better stability and reliability underneath. But I'm getting off the subject. What I want to do is point out that saying "Linux is ugly" is not only extremely vague, but also untrue.
First, let's go through some terminology. Linux itself is just an operating system, and the operating sytem (more correctly called GNU/Linux) has nothing to do with the GUI (as Microsoft would have you believe) I'm glad Zombie actually used correct terminology and called Gnome ugly in his latest post instead of Linux. But he has been known to say "Linux is ugly" quite a few times in the past.
Now suppose I went up to Zombie and told him "Windows is ugly". What version of Windows? XP? 98? 3.1? 1.0?? I'm sure he'd agree than Windows 98 is pretty ugly, and 1.0 is an abomination. When people say "Linux is ugly" do they mean *all* copies of Linux on everyone's computer? Linux in general? The newest distributions of Linux? The
oldest? What do they mean?
I agree that I have seen many ugly "Linux" desktops before, but I have also seen ugly Windows desktops. Even the Zombie himself admits that XP's Luna is ugly. So how can hey criticize the default look of many Linux distributions while at the same time ignoring how Windows XP looks out of the box?
Frankly, I can make Gnome/KDE/whatever look just as good as *anything* under XP or even OS X. But who am I to tell you what to believe? Have a look yourself:
This is how Red Hat Linux 8 looks by default (except in this picture the guy has the panel on the top instead of the bottom)
http://www.davidwatson.org/images/redhat8_screenshot1.html (http://www.davidwatson.org/images/redhat8_screenshot1.html)
Here's how Windows XP looks out of the box:
(from Microsoft's own website even)
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/newsroom/winxp/images/img016.jpg (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/newsroom/winxp/images/img016.jpg)
Here's pretty much what OS X looks out of the box to my knowledge:
http://www.macsnaps.com/snaps/screengrab/1044434193.jpg (http://www.macsnaps.com/snaps/screengrab/1044434193.jpg)
--------------------------------------------------
Ok, now here's how I have my desktop configured:
http://www.insanebaboon.netfirms.com/screenshot.html (http://www.insanebaboon.netfirms.com/screenshot.html)
Here's a KDE desktop screenshot I found on kde-look.org:
http://www.kde-look.org/content/preview.php?file=4927-1.png (http://www.kde-look.org/content/preview.php?file=4927-1.png)
I know it resembles Aqua but come on, it looks good, doesn't it?
edit: and if you're realling pining for that Luna look, you can make your desktop look like Xpee also:
http://inetman.dyndns.org/~inetman/mslinux.jpg (http://inetman.dyndns.org/~inetman/mslinux.jpg)
Long story short, "Linux" can look, well, however you want it to look.
[ February 09, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]
-
I agree. Also people who say that are probably looking at really old screenshots in like 3 year old magazines of KDE 1.x and GNOME 1.x which are not that pretty. If they want to see what KDE and GNOME look like by default and some configurations try these:
www.kde.org (http://www.kde.org)
www.gnome.org (http://www.gnome.org)
www.kde-look.org (http://www.kde-look.org)
And stop basing your opinion on microsoft-biased magazines, articles etc. Redhat 8 is beautiful, i could never call it ugly.
-
those who claim linux is ugly might be right or wrong but the only important thing to me is people who think that it even matters or has any bearing on an operating system how ugly they think it is will never ever be able to have any sense talked into them. stop trying to talk these people round. save your energy for something worthwhile.
-
Starting off,
quote:
Now suppose I went up to Zombie and told him "Windows is ugly". What version of Windows? XP? 98? 3.1? 1.0?? I'm sure he'd agree than Windows 98 is pretty ugly, and 1.0 is an abomination. When people say "Linux is ugly" do they mean *all* copies of Linux on everyone's computer? Linux in general? The newest distributions of Linux? The
oldest? What do they mean?
Every version of every OS you listed there is ugly, does that help? And if you say for instance that Linux is just like dos, so you can't call it ugly because linux itself does not have a GUI. I don't know about you, but a bunch of white text on a black background looks pretty ugly to me.
Granted that Redhat 8 running Gnome looks pretty damnd good until you open a program other than the file browser and a lot of RedHat's redesigned programs. If you open Mozilla, your greeted with the same ugly interface that windows and KDE and older Gnomes had.
quote:
Here's pretty much what OS X looks out of the box to my knowledge:
]http://www.macsnaps.com/snaps/screengrab/1044434193.jpg
(http://www.macsnaps.com/snaps/screengrab/1044434193.jpg[/QUOTE)
Thats appears to be an extremely hacked version of OSX, not only is there no background on the dock, there is also a minimized window on the desktop. Apple tooks this out of the final releases, Don't ask my why, I liked it. Here is a better example of out of the box OSX, from Apple:
http://www.apple.com/pr/photos/macosx/jaguar.html (http://www.apple.com/pr/photos/macosx/jaguar.html)
Now onto your screenshots of customized Linux UI's. To be blunt, they are all the most ugly things I have seem in a long time. I think the only thing worse than an ugly UI is taking a good UI and in your attempt to copy it it turns into shit. This happens in a big way with the aqua theme, and happens a little less extreme on the XP theme. However, linux user, your RH8 is not that bad. But the ccopies of OSX and XP are just repulsive.
Now that I think I am done (i'm sure I missed something) I was wondering how you got Mozilla's text to be antialiased, because it really enhances the looks of the whole Screenshot
I think, in conclusion, I have never seen a Linux system with a truly good looking, innovative UI.
[ February 09, 2003: Message edited by: Billy Gates: Comrade Captain ]
-
quote:
And if you say for instance that Linux is just like dos, so you can't call it ugly because linux itself does not have a GUI.
Perhaps I should have been more clear. Linux is an OS kernel. You do not look at a "kernel" when you look at the screen, even with text mode. You're looking at the bash shell in that case. If Apple made Aqua open source, I could put it on Linux and have it look just like OS X.
quote:
Now onto your screenshots of customized Linux UI's. To be blunt, they are all the most ugly things I have seem in a long time. I think the only thing worse than an ugly UI is taking a good UI and in your attempt to copy it it turns into shit. This happens in a big way with the aqua theme, and happens a little less extreme on the XP theme. However, linux user, your RH8 is not that bad. But the ccopies of OSX and XP are just repulsive.
Matter of opinion. Of course, all that I say is just opinion, too, like the opinion that I think the aqua-kde pic looks pretty good. I really think it looks almost as good as Aqua. Sorry if you disagree.
(The luna pic is repulsive though!)
quote:
I think, in conclusion, I have never seen a Linux system with a truly good looking, innovative UI.
Then you haven't seen a lot of Linux desktops ;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
Then you haven't seen a lot of Linux desktops ;)
Do you have examples of innovative good looking UI's? Also I really do want to know how you got Mozilla to have Antialiased Text
-
Dear Linux User #5225982375:
It seems that you fail to understand that all those frustrated (lower case on purpose) bill gates' ass kissers, who bearly can click the mouse and only have brains to type a MSWord doc., can only feel good by puting down LINUX. They can't accept the fact that windoze is a failure, due to its lack of security and overwhealming flaws, and that Linux is a major threat to their slave-master.
Bad boy "billy" mesmerize them by puting a "smooth" desktop look; let me spank them by showing them what a beautiful desktop looks like:
http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/fscreenshots.php3 (http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/fscreenshots.php3)
All of us fans of Linux need to support each other despite our preferences towards any distro and combat the legion of M$ puppets.
-
Furthermore, I propose that we don't waste our precious time arguing with worthless f***heads. Let them dwel in their own world.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Commando:
Do you have examples of innovative good looking UI's? Also I really do want to know how you got Mozilla to have Antialiased Text
I would consider GNOME and KDE to both have some innovative features like multiple desktops, panel design and the like, but it doesn't really matter to me. If I find a desktop fun, intuitive, pretty, and easy to use then that's all that counts for me. And I think Gnome has all of those features.
If you want to see a really innovative GUI, check out the SlicKer project for KDE (http://slicker.sourceforge.net/)
By the way, I get the nice font rendering in Moz by downloading an XFT enabled RPM. It was very easy. Red Hat linux 8.1 will come with it by default too.
-
The Linx=Ugly thread said
"For example RH8 Gnome File Browser is awesome looking, but when I go into Mozilla or something all the text is not antialiased. Then I open a program like the thing used to rebuild the kernel and it is horribly ugly with little triangles for buttons? What is up with this?"
GUI don't mean shit. I could run windows with an aqua or gnome gui if I gave a rats ass, but when I surfing, the text isn't nothing but jaggies searing my eyes in numbing pain. There is a lack in visual quality and uniform in many programs.
While on the subject, is it possible to increase taskbar size in KDE without getting quickstart icons in giant porportions?
-
When did people become so picky that if their browser didnt feature antialiased text, the entire gui was a P.O.S? Listen to yourself. The first thing you must realize is that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. What I see as beautiful has little bearing on what anyone else sees as beautiful. Check out my screenshots
http://www.badconnections.net/mandrakescreenshots/ (http://www.badconnections.net/mandrakescreenshots/)
-
<irony>Nice to see that you're all arguing about such an important and constructive matter</irony>
Look guys, every OS is beautiful in its own way, and whether you like it or not this issue is TOTALLY subjective! What I find appealing may be beautiful for another person and vice versa. Personally, I think that the Linux desktop environments are infinitely customizable and could look really beautiful and sleek AS LONG as you do some tweaking around. On the other hand, Aqua is REALLY BEAUTIFUL by default and takes TONS of tweaking. Oh, and before you jump to any conclusions, I've been using Linux for 7 years, since more or less KDE 1.0 and I'm still using KDE and GNOME in OS X!
[ February 10, 2003: Message edited by: Panos ]
-
Linux User would you have any clue on howto make your desktop to look like the aqua one. I am using kde3.0 and i went to look for that theme or whatever. I found the page here (http://kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=4927&xexpand=all)
All You can dl is the screenshot. I would like to know if you knew how to do it all. Especially the p0rn folder cause that was great. I am emailing the guy about it. His email happenes to be one of our own fuckmicrosoft.com ones to. So i wonder who he is on the forum? if he even posts
[ February 10, 2003: Message edited by: wild_jester / BOB ]
-
The style he's using is called "high performance liquid" and the icon set is a converted SNOW.E icon theme for OS X. I don't know where he got the icon set, but you can get high performance liquid from www.mosfet.org. (http://www.mosfet.org.) As for the p0rn folder, that's just a link with a custom image. They're easy to make (http://tongue.gif)
As for the custom things like black border around the desktop text, and the prettier shadows under the menus, those are custom hacks now in CVS, they aren't in KDE 3 or even 3.1.
-
quote:
Originally posted by xinix:
Dear Linux User #5225982375:
It seems that you fail to understand that all those frustrated (lower case on purpose) bill gates' ass kissers, who bearly can click the mouse and only have brains to type a MSWord doc., can only feel good by puting down LINUX. They can't accept the fact that windoze is a failure, due to its lack of security and overwhealming flaws, and that Linux is a major threat to their slave-master.
Bad boy "billy" mesmerize them by puting a "smooth" desktop look; let me spank them by showing them what a beautiful desktop looks like:
http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/fscreenshots.php3 (http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/fscreenshots.php3)
All of us fans of Linux need to support each other despite our preferences towards any distro and combat the legion of M$ puppets.
Ouch, harsh words. But I think you've taken my name wong (maybe I should change it back to Mac Commando) however, I hate windows. I like Linux, it is really fast, powerful, etc, etc. But I just can't take X11 and its GUI system. They all seem to be just Windows copies, with the addition of a desktop switcher. I don't know about you, but one of the reasons I hate windows is its interface, so copying it doesn't work for me. I want to learn linux, I actually am for server purposes, but one of the things stopping me from learning it from a desktop standpoint is that the graphics and UI are very inconsistant, especially when dealing with Software that doesn't come from your distro. I think I will be ready to completely switch when WINE works 100% perfect. That will be the day I would enjoy erasing shit off of my computer. I do like Linux, I like the command line, I like how everything (before the gui comes in ) makes perfect sense and works. I have just been spoiled from my Mac because it use Unix, so I get all the stuff I listed above that I like, it is Mac so it is also easy, unlike some things that I could tell you about with my past experiences with Linux, and it has a nice Aqua interface with a modern X Server. I have heard that there is development for a new X Windowing system on linux, i hope so because X11 is just aging.
Also in response to every screenshost I saw or have seen on my own accord, none of them looked very good (at least to me) and none of them had an innovative (un windows) UI system.
I can't wait for 8.1, I will download it right when the release it.
-
I've always thought, and knew ever since I used NeXTStep on an old next box and then OS X, that Linux needed to jettison some of the UNIXish underpinnings. use the Linux kernel, but build a complete OS over it, instead of just pulling from GNU UNIX code. Develop a set of high level APIs, a Quartz-like PDF based graphics framework, and some kind of package system.
Hell, you could keep the UNIX layer so you could run older Linux apps... so essentially you're creating... Mac OS X.
Yeah... I'd love to see an open source Mac OS X copy, and it could be done with Linux as the kernel. Just develop a good graphics framework (for God's sake, don't use X11, LET IT DIE!), and some very good APIs (maybe use Apple's Yellow Box as published with Rhapsody, and of course... USE PACKAGES.
Packages has to be one of the best ideas I've seen in a decade. Everything that the app needs is stored in its own folder tree... but the user only sees a single icon. No shitty dependencies to worry about, no compiling, no spewing of files all over the filesystem. No registry, and no DLLs. This is how you beat MS, you do something BETTER. The reason OS X is so much more attractive than Linux is because it feels much more polished. Linux feels like UNIX with a GUI on top. I don't EVER use the terminal in OS X. Last time I used it was when I sent something via FTP.
The endless customization offered by X11 can actually be a roadblock, because there IS NO INTERFACE STANDARD. the "OSS X" (seems appropriate) would need a rather strict set of UI guidelines.
Appearance? Why not base the appearance on Bluecurve? Use Gnome or KDE as the basis for the UI framework (my vote is for Gnome, even though I like KDE more... Gnome is... just more open, and a little more original). Let it be skinnable, but all it changes is appearance, not UI behavior. I know all you guys hate the idea of someone taking away your endless customization, but it's too much for average users. You could still tweak it in the same ways you've been doing for years, though. It just wouldn't be *quite as easy*.
But, I think some of the biggest strengths that most Linux users dwell on are also some of its biggest weaknesses on the desktop. Lack of a good graphics framework is one problem, lack of a good UI framework, and a good high-level API. It needs those things. Nothing more to say.
[ February 10, 2003: Message edited by: Jimmy James: Mac Commando ]
-
Do not bash X11. It is more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
Do not bash X11. It is more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
Three words:
Laugh Out Loud
or...
Seven Words
Rolling on the Floor Laughing Out Loud
You Choose
-
oh yeah? where can i download something better that will run all my X programs in mandrake 9?
until then i will continue to opine that X11 is very good.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:
Three words:
Laugh Out Loud
or...
Seven Words
Rolling on the Floor Laughing Out Loud
You Choose
Are you trying to start a mac vs. linux war? Ive got three words for you too in concern to linux.
Free
Secure
Stable
Beat that!!!!
-
I set up vnc on X yesterday and it's pretty cool. I can log into my b0x from any location. xfree86 4.3 will also come with several new features like the resize and render extension.
-
Preacher, noone is starting a mac vs linux war. That would be way too childish and really pointless. We all know that OS X is not free of course but it is equally stable and secure as Linux is. Yes, I like OS X, yes I like it more than Linux in many areas, but that's just me. I could as easily as you put a little statement of mine on my sig like "OS X is the best UNIX based OS and not Linux", but that would be stupid on my part since I've used and I'm using both OSes. On the contrary, I don't think you've ever used OS X, or you haven't mentioned it so far, hence you can't be jumping into conclusions which are based in pure assumptions!
As for X11, it is REALLY powerful like Linux user pointed out but needs a lot of improvement and more intense work on behalf of those who are into the project. Again, my opinion. So far unfortunately, you can only get commercial X servers as an alternative to X11.
-
About X11 (the program): it does have some rather nasty qualities, but it allows for beautifull stuff. I can (and have) run programs from the school servers on my home PC through ssh and X tunneling. Graphical programs, that is. I'd like to see one of my not-yet-converted classmates do that (don't worry, they'll be converted - the amount of frequent Windows users under the senior students is rather small).
Besides, X - or rather, a window manager on top of X - can be made as beautifull (or ugly) as you want to. Pretty easy too, if you don't want all to odd stuff. I use Mosfet's Liquid (mentioned above) and it's the most beautiful GUI I have ever seen.
However, there is one thing wrong. As others stated (in other words), themes are usually applied to a single widget styles, and the windows itself. So KDE apps, who use QT, blend perfectly with Liquid. Mozilla, using the GTK widget, has the same title bar, but plain, square, grey buttons. I do not mind that much, but I understand that some may see this as ugly. Also, there is as far as I know no easy way to solve this (it is probably possible, but it'll be development hell, with all different licenses and stuff thrown in for good measure).
Developing a whole new windowing system *may* look like a good idea, but it'll break compatibility. What if not everyone accepts the new standard? What do we do with the ability to run graphical apps on different screens - useless for mose home users, but incredibly usefull for others. How will people connect with X11 boxes (remember, having backwards compatibility is impossible, since it will break the whole "new system" thing and will be cruftingly slow)? That is one of the strengths of X and Unix.
X has a lot of problems, but all things considered it is a good system.
-
Yeah, X11 has had "remote desktop" long before XPee Professional.
-
quote:
Originally posted by ThePreacher:
Are you trying to start a mac vs. linux war? Ive got three words for you too in concern to linux.
Free
Secure
Stable
Beat that!!!!
I really don't want to start a stupid Mac vs Linux war. However...
Secure
Stable
Easy
I didn't add pretty because I think you previsouly mentioned that you didn't like Aqua.
I think this topic should end here. We are not going anywhere but down with this post.
[ February 11, 2003: Message edited by: Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain ]
-
Mac Comrade: Couldn't agree more, free, secure, stable. That's why I'm using Linux (I am actually re-installing it now because the hard-drive got dropped a few times, its a 170Mb HDD on a 486, in case that scares you, I'm using Slackware).
In my opinion, whoever says they think Linux sucks and that Windows is better should be eradicated from this site and be left to enjoy the eye-candy. Obviously this person can't think properly or has never used DOS because he can't find the mouse cursor. At least with DOS you get fast access to your files, graphics card and everything else because you don't have 500Mb of DLL files blocking up your memory.
On Windows 1.01, I have used it on an IBM XT (4.77 Mhz 8088 CPU, 20Mb HDD, CGA 640x200 2 colours) and I am amazed that Windows ever took off at all!!!
-
X11 needs to shed the bitmapped engine for a vector-based engine. end of story. bitmapped graphics frameworks need to find their way out. they're hopelessly outmoded.
X11 has the most advanced features of any framework, but it has one of the poorest (albiet flexible) renderers.
-
Im sorry if my sig offends, Im just promoting my website. My response above was to the person who thought all linux looked like shit. Sometimes the elitist attitudes that some mac users have is too much. Its almost like slackware users on drugs.
-
quote:
Originally posted by ThePreacher:
Im sorry if my sig offends, Im just promoting my website. My response above was to the person who thought all linux looked like shit. Sometimes the elitist attitudes that some mac users have is too much. Its almost like slackware users on drugs.
Don't get me wrong. I hate elitist and discriminating attitude myself, whether that comes from Mac or Linux users. BTW, I like your "slackware users on drugs" remark. :D
-
i agree with preacher and panos.
not that any of you care, since those of us whom i agree with are all elitist fascists who don't listen to anybody's opinion but our own. </sarcasm>
-
I want to apologize for my earlier comments. I sometimes get that asshole elitist attitude myself. Linux isnt everything.
-
only MOST things