Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: billy_gates on 31 January 2003, 04:30
-
Why is it that Linux seems to be very ugly. Some things look good then others look ok and then some thing look horrible. 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?
-
Shame Shame Shame
-
themes, skins, font and colour settings. surely they even have these control panel type applets in windows? have you ever looked for a settings dialogue to adjust these things you criticise? almost every program i have used has settings to change how it looks.
-
why can't they make it look good off the bat. I admit Windows has some inconsistancies (especially when dealing with outdated software). But I don't use Windows. I'm spoiled by OSX's good looks. I try to use Linux of my "leftover" pc's but it is so damn ugly, and I can rarely compile a program without getting an error, its very frustrating.
-
What are you talking about?
Everything looks good in Linux. I have RH8.0 and it makes M$ look ugly, ugly, ugly.
My question is why do graphics look better in Linux than M$, why do images look 10x better on a system running Linux, why do so many fonts look better in Linux?, some look worse and there is anti-aliasing issues it seems, but none the less, everything looks better in Linux.
Just open your browser on a site with well written code, and it looks fugly in Windows, but not in Linux. I have yet to see ugly in Linux, occasional issues with certain things yes, but never ever ever ugly.
-
I like the way linux looks.
-
How can a kernel look ugly? I suppose KDE or GNOME could be judged, but not Linux.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
How can a kernel look ugly? I suppose KDE or GNOME could be judged, but not Linux.
Totally right - but he specifically said Linux was ugly. Hrmm i guess some people arnt into the way source code looks???
-
Could always pop in some ASCII porn.
-
I said linux because I feel that all Linux's should be the same, like osx. then there would not need to be any of that shit ass complying.
-
billy gates, you were doing so well and then all of a sudden yesterday you started posting all that crap - numerous rubbishy pointless posts, why? bad mood or something? just bored?
BG: "Why oh why do i have to put up with this? All my titlebars are blue!!! Why can't it be white like on my mac?"
SOMEBODY: "Why not just change the colour in the control center?"
BG: "I shouldn't have to! It should just know that i want it to be white! Linux is obviously not ready for the desktop yet..."
BG: "When I type a letter, it always comes out using a Lucida font, I really think linux should get its act together and make it a better font, like Arial or Gill."
SOMEBODY: Uh, why not just change the font in the pull down menu?"
BG: Goddamnit! you geeks are always trying to confuse me! I'm not a programmer! Linux is obviously not ready for the desktop yet"
You see what i'm saying?
most of these things you complain about would take a LOT less time to fix than they would to bitch about in a forum.
[ February 01, 2003: Message edited by: Calum: Member # 81 ]
-
Gilly its not that linux isnt ready for the desktop, i dont think your ready for linux. but you can learn...
Why do you want all linux to look the same why do you want linux to look like OSX??? i dont think your very much at all ready for the way of the future, so you may aswell stick with your little mac that shows you nothing at all, just plain stupid really. Pretty colours are nice and all but i reckon it just kinda over did it.
to Billy Gates : Stay away from linux till you learn how to use a computer.
Linux has nothing to do with looks. Bare linux has no look, none at all. at its barest you would have to add bash and thats pretty much what linux looks like, and by god it should do aswell.
Do you understand window managers? do you understand the XWindow system? Do you know that looks have nothing to do with how well an OS performs.
Does your Mac hugging mind have a clue how to change a theme preference in a drag down menu?
to me it sounds like you have some kinda brain connection with your mac i mean :
quote:
BG: "I shouldn't have to! It should just know that i want it to be white! Linux is obviously not ready for the desktop yet..."
i am interested in this new technology, are you telling me your mac JUST KNOWS WHAT COLOUR YOU WANT? Are you out of your fucking mind?
Why should Linux GUIs have to look like mac anyway? and it could be done but KDE, Gnome and other window managers' devs dont just work there asses off to make a GUI that looks like a fucking Mac i mean give me a break.
God im just ranting on but i cant fucking beleive you. i will continue later
-
quote:
Originally posted by Doogee : Mandrake Trooper:
Gilly its not that linux isnt ready for the desktop, i dont think your ready for linux. but you can learn...
Why do you want all linux to look the same why do you want linux to look like OSX??? i dont think your very much at all ready for the way of the future, so you may aswell stick with your little mac that shows you nothing at all, just plain stupid really. Pretty colours are nice and all but i reckon it just kinda over did it.
to Billy Gates : Stay away from linux till you learn how to use a computer.
Linux has nothing to do with looks. Bare linux has no look, none at all. at its barest you would have to add bash and thats pretty much what linux looks like, and by god it should do aswell.
Do you understand window managers? do you understand the XWindow system? Do you know that looks have nothing to do with how well an OS performs.
Does your Mac hugging mind have a clue how to change a theme preference in a drag down menu?
to me it sounds like you have some kinda brain connection with your mac i mean :
i am interested in this new technology, are you telling me your mac JUST KNOWS WHAT COLOUR YOU WANT? Are you out of your fucking mind?
Why should Linux GUIs have to look like mac anyway? and it could be done but KDE, Gnome and other window managers' devs dont just work there asses off to make a GUI that looks like a fucking Mac i mean give me a break.
God im just ranting on but i cant fucking beleive you. i will continue later
Rubbish! If you had the faintest clue about Macs you wouldn't post this nonsense. At least Billy Gates has a knowledge of both OSes!
PS: Have a look at this and what those people say! (http://www4.macnn.com/macnn/articles/unixad.jpg)
[ February 01, 2003: Message edited by: Panos ]
-
no no no im not REALLY bagging macs but the guy is making out like looks make an OS where it of course doesnt, if it did OSX would be the best OS, but it isnt is it, cos Linux exists fortunatley
-
Actually no i take that back, to be honest im not actually all that fond of the Mac OSX look.
-
Sorry Doogee, I seem to have misinterpreted your post. If that was your point, then I agree wholeheartidly with you. Also, let me say that I disagree with Billy Gates. Desktop environments with or without specific window managers (like KDE or GNOME), look MUCH better than they did a few years ago. When I first used KDE 1.0, I thought it was a f***ing disaster and now they look a lot better than windows. Talk about progress. (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Doogee : Mandrake Trooper:
Actually no i take that back, to be honest im not actually all that fond of the Mac OSX look.
It's another thing not liking the Aqua look in OS X and another bashing the whole OS, which according to your post was not your intention. ;)
Oh, and if you didn't like Aqua (can't see a reason why not)and owned a Mac, you could always get XWindows and run KDE or GNOME on top of Darwin. That simple! :D
-
yer i was on a bit of a rage i was really amazed at this person can magically say what his colours shoul be just by his mind "it should just know" i just dont get it???
-
yeah i could get X for Mac OSX that would be great but i can do the same thing for free with linux just fine thankyou very much
-
quote:
Originally posted by Doogee : Mandrake Trooper:
yer i was on a bit of a rage i was really amazed at this person can magically say what his colours shoul be just by his mind "it should just know" i just dont get it???
Again, I agree with you. (http://smile.gif)
-
Ill leave it at that then, maybe BG will control his computer via mind control and post a reply to us (http://tongue.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Doogee : Mandrake Trooper:
Ill leave it at that then, maybe BG will control his computer via mind control and post a reply to us (http://tongue.gif)
LOL :D
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum: Member # 81:
billy gates, you were doing so well and then all of a sudden yesterday you started posting all that crap - numerous rubbishy pointless posts, why? bad mood or something? just bored?
BG: "Why oh why do i have to put up with this? All my titlebars are blue!!! Why can't it be white like on my mac?"
SOMEBODY: "Why not just change the colour in the control center?"
BG: "I shouldn't have to! It should just know that i want it to be white! Linux is obviously not ready for the desktop yet..."
BG: "When I type a letter, it always comes out using a Lucida font, I really think linux should get its act together and make it a better font, like Arial or Gill."
SOMEBODY: Uh, why not just change the font in the pull down menu?"
BG: Goddamnit! you geeks are always trying to confuse me! I'm not a programmer! Linux is obviously not ready for the desktop yet"
You see what i'm saying?
most of these things you complain about would take a LOT less time to fix than they would to bitch about in a forum.
[ February 01, 2003: Message edited by: Calum: Member # 81 ]
Did I really say those things? I totally don't remember and they definitely did not come out the way I wanted.
Now back to my point, I do like the way RH8 gnome looks, but then you open Mozilla and it looks totally different, the text is not antialiased, etc,etc. I just wish linux programmers would work a little more on making the interface of their software looks the same as the interface of linux. My gripe is this is impossible because SuSE, Mandrake, and RH8 all looks completely differently and there are far more distros than that. So Linux can never, at least without the major invention of some cool UI converter, have a universal UI. This makes Linux Ugly. OSX can look great, but if the programs you use looks like shit then I call it ugly. Like I hate using Thoth newsreader because it looks like shit.
I'm sorry I dais those things about the Mac reading my mind shit. I probably just wanted to change the default font to a different font, not sure though. I'm sorry I wasted all of you time with badly written, confusing english.
Good by, I hope some day that I will be able to regain my reputation on FuckMicrosoft.com
-
(http://smile.gif) The people that work on gnome, that work on KDE and that work on mozilla are three entirely different groups of people. i know where your coming from, changing a theme in the GUI nezer changes it in mozilla, but did you know you can still get mozilla themes, did you know you can MAKE mozilla themes. make it look how you want or look for what you want.
-
Linux doesn't need a unified look. In fact, it's not even a logical statement since Linux is simply a kernel. Gnome and KDE are desktop environments which run on Linux but can also run on FreeBSD, OS X, Solaris, and other OSes. Personally I think the choice I get with Linux is a good thing, and while "Joe Sixpack" may not like it, that doesn't mean I can't like it. Besides, there are many Linux distributions such as RHL 8 which do have a fairly unified look across all applications and environments. I know mozilla doesn't have antialiased fonts, but it *will* in Red hat linux 8.1.
-
Don't get me wrong, I want Linux to have a unified desktop for it, but that doesn't mean I want to eliminate all other desktops. Frankly I think GNOME and KDE are just as "unified" as the Windows desktop, and certainly can be as pretty. I have an updated version of Mozilla on my computer that has AA fonts enabled and the rendering looks just as good as Windows or OSX. When Galeon 2 comes out I'll have a fast, gnome-integrated browswer based on mozilla. I think both Gnome and KDE are certainly very usable, pretty when used on a modern distribution, and will only get better with time. Remember Gnome 1.2 and KDE 1.x in Red hat linux 7.0? Those looked like shit!
-
Hey, why *not* make a standard UI layer... we just make a universal translation layer that each UI system will speak and then create libraries for translating *to* the unitrans layer and libs for translating *from* the unitrans layer. This might be slow tho...
-
quote:
Originally posted by Solo:
Hey, why *not* make a standard UI layer... we just make a universal translation layer that each UI system will speak and then create libraries for translating *to* the unitrans layer and libs for translating *from* the unitrans layer. This might be slow tho...
yah, what he said. I can handle slow, I've dealt with it in OSX for a long time. And X86 is faster than Mac and gets faster more quickly than just about anything else. Hell, by the time something like this is finished we will have like 5GHz cpu's
-
that would be something that would send linux straight into the desktop market. everything would be completely consistent! anyone else seriously considering this? i am. ill help with the universal layer and the kde layers!
-
why not contribute to GNOME as the standard? i think kde will drag linux down if it is allowed to stay being the standard. it is too windows-like (complete with terminal ugliness and bugs/crashes)
-
I'm sorry but I must agree with Calum. I just re-installed Yoper and upgraded to KDE 3.1 to see what all the fuss was about, and it's very disappointing. The KDE developers must be applauded for trying to cram so many features into KDE, but they really need to test their product before they release a "stable" version. There are so many problems with it, usability-wise and more importantly bug-wise that I hardly know where to begin! It reminds me of running Windows XP (eww)
Here, briefly, are some problems I've encountered during the past day of using KDE 3.1:
1. Menu shadows are really cool, but when you move your mouse between menus the transparency goes away, which looks very ugly.
2. Menu transparency, also very cool theoretically but when you move between menus it doesn't redraw what's behind the menu correctly; you end up seeing ugly artifacts left over from the previous menu. What astonishes me is that this bug has been in KDE since 3.0 and they still haven't fixed it, making using transparency at all pointless.
3. Selecting text in Konqueror is very sloooooww, I don't know why this is.
4. When I drag icons around on the desktop, they frequently leave ugly text artifacts behind them and I have to move the icon over the artifacts to make them disappear.
5. Some text in web pages rendered by Konqueror are anti-aliased, others (such as this forum) are not. Go figure.
6. None of the style GUI options work as they should. Menu fade does *not* fade every time, in fact it only fades about 1/3 the time, same with animate.
7. The control center is very poorly designed, with many similar or redundant options hidden all over the place under different menus. It makes the Windows 98 control panel look elegant by comparison. For instance, the option to enable a desktop menu is located under desktop behavior, which makes sense, but there's also an "enable menubar on top of screen in the style of MacOS" is located under appearance and themes > style.
8. Clicking on a link in Konqueror creates an ugly selection artifact occasionally which won't go away.
9. the kicker is ugly. sorry for speaking the truth, but it is.
In general, there are way more bugs in KDE that I'd like, and the overwhelming number of options in the interface make it very hard to find what I want. GNOME may be a bit lacking in features, but at least it doesn't include broken features. (like kde does with its menu transparency and shadows)
Furthermore, none of the apps that I like are KDE apps! Xchat, Evolution, GIMP, etc. are all GTK+ apps. KDE has kSirc, kMail and so on but they aren't nearly as advanced.
One more annoying thing I seem to notice is that the KDE developers seem to take forever acknowledging bug reports. Whenever I reported a bug in GNOME, I almost always got some sort of response within 24 hours. I looked at bugs.kde.org and there are month-old bug submissions for the menu shadow redraw error, all of them marked "unconfirmed" and with zero comments!!
[ February 05, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]
-
February 4, 2003: Desktop Linux Consortium Formed
A consortium dedicated to improving the look and feel of desktop Linux distributions was formed Tuesday. eh?
-
HAHA you guys just wasted your time! i meant that i would make the kde LAYERS you should be able to switch what layer makes the gui, of course i want gnome and any other tk to be included!!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
I'm sorry but I must agree with Calum. I just re-installed Yoper and upgraded to KDE 3.1 to see what all the fuss was about, and it's very disappointing. The KDE developers must be applauded for trying to cram so many features into KDE, but they really need to test their product before they release a "stable" version. There are so many problems with it, usability-wise and more importantly bug-wise that I hardly know where to begin! It reminds me of running Windows XP (eww)
Here, briefly, are some problems I've encountered during the past day of using KDE 3.1:
1. Menu shadows are really cool, but when you move your mouse between menus the transparency goes away, which looks very ugly.
2. Menu transparency, also very cool theoretically but when you move between menus it doesn't redraw what's behind the menu correctly; you end up seeing ugly artifacts left over from the previous menu. What astonishes me is that this bug has been in KDE since 3.0 and they still haven't fixed it, making using transparency at all pointless.
3. Selecting text in Konqueror is very sloooooww, I don't know why this is.
4. When I drag icons around on the desktop, they frequently leave ugly text artifacts behind them and I have to move the icon over the artifacts to make them disappear.
5. Some text in web pages rendered by Konqueror are anti-aliased, others (such as this forum) are not. Go figure.
6. None of the style GUI options work as they should. Menu fade does *not* fade every time, in fact it only fades about 1/3 the time, same with animate.
7. The control center is very poorly designed, with many similar or redundant options hidden all over the place under different menus. It makes the Windows 98 control panel look elegant by comparison. For instance, the option to enable a desktop menu is located under desktop behavior, which makes sense, but there's also an "enable menubar on top of screen in the style of MacOS" is located under appearance and themes > style.
8. Clicking on a link in Konqueror creates an ugly selection artifact occasionally which won't go away.
9. the kicker is ugly. sorry for speaking the truth, but it is.
In general, there are way more bugs in KDE that I'd like, and the overwhelming number of options in the interface make it very hard to find what I want. GNOME may be a bit lacking in features, but at least it doesn't include broken features. (like kde does with its menu transparency and shadows)
Furthermore, none of the apps that I like are KDE apps! Xchat, Evolution, GIMP, etc. are all GTK+ apps. KDE has kSirc, kMail and so on but they aren't nearly as advanced.
One more annoying thing I seem to notice is that the KDE developers seem to take forever acknowledging bug reports. Whenever I reported a bug in GNOME, I almost always got some sort of response within 24 hours. I looked at bugs.kde.org and there are month-old bug submissions for the menu shadow redraw error, all of them marked "unconfirmed" and with zero comments!!
[ February 05, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]
I agree with you about a lot of these bugs, but I still use KDE, just because it is more usable than Gnome to me. My suggestion for you is to send this list to the kde developers. Maybe the next relaese will get these things fixed if they know that people are sick of the problems.
-
Here we go, we're about to start a war.
quote:
1. Menu shadows are really cool, but when you move your mouse between menus the transparency goes away, which looks very ugly.
umm the transparency never goes away. unless you are talking about mousing OVER an item, and on the keramik style which i use, it makes it a 3D blue color
quote:
2. Menu transparency, also very cool theoretically but when you move between menus it doesn't redraw what's behind the menu correctly; you end up seeing ugly artifacts left over from the previous menu. What astonishes me is that this bug has been in KDE since 3.0 and they still haven't fixed it, making using transparency at all pointless.
yes, this is a bug that they could quite easily fix, i agree. however it doesnt make transparency pointless... unless you have the transparency REALLy transparent, because i cant see the menus at all unless i look real close
quote:
3. Selecting text in Konqueror is very sloooooww, I don't know why this is.
hmm i have a celeron 600mgz and selecting is perfectly fine for me... unless you have like a 100 mhz system
quote:
4. When I drag icons around on the desktop, they frequently leave ugly text artifacts behind them and I have to move the icon over the artifacts to make them disappear.
never happens to me... are you sure you have kde 3.1 and not some rc?
quote:
5. Some text in web pages rendered by Konqueror are anti-aliased, others (such as this forum) are not. Go figure.
say thanks to helvetica! helvetica doesnt seem to render antialiased in mozilla either, but i dont know about galeon
quote:
6. None of the style GUI options work as they should. Menu fade does *not* fade every time, in fact it only fades about 1/3 the time, same with animate.
umm maybe you havent noticed but it only fades when you ENTER a menu window. when you switch between menus it wont and it wont if you click on a menu twice (so it appears then disappears) and then click it again. they definitely could make that more forgiving tho and make it animate in that situation. as for fading same thing, but i dont use it because i want the transparent menus (u cant have both! that sucks!)
quote:
7. The control center is very poorly designed, with many similar or redundant options hidden all over the place under different menus. It makes the Windows 98 control panel look elegant by comparison. For instance, the option to enable a desktop menu is located under desktop behavior, which makes sense, but there's also an "enable menubar on top of screen in the style of MacOS" is located under appearance and themes > style.
yes but do you have any other examples? and dont you ever call the win98 control panel elegant.
quote:
8. Clicking on a link in Konqueror creates an ugly selection artifact occasionally which won't go away.
you are talking about the selection box i presume and it DOES go away, all you have to do is click somewhere else...
quote:
9. the kicker is ugly. sorry for speaking the truth, but it is.
the kicker is literally as beautiful as you want it to be. of course you can change it to be whatever the hell you want. for instance check out my desktop in the 'quest for linux desktop' topic. its quite nice. however im thinking of dewindows'ing it (right now it looks too windows-like). the only complaint i have is that you cant do something like lock it so the dragbars disappear because those look ugly in some themes
maybe this will help you understand the universal ui thing:
-----------------rendering layer----------------
V^V^V^V^ communication layer V^V^V^V^
--------------------api layer----------------------
the user would be able to choose what style they wanted (ie kde, gnome, or even Tk if someone made an output layer).
lets say a kde application is launched and the current rendering layer was gnome. ld tries to load the kde libs but instead loads the universal ui version of it. the uni-ui libs use the communication layer functions/objects to communicate with the active rendering layer, and the rendering layer renders the windows and widgets described in the objects/structures given to it (via the comm layer)
[edit: forgot to put quotes on]
[ February 05, 2003: Message edited by: Solo ]
-
quote:
umm the transparency never goes away. unless you are talking about mousing OVER an item, and on the keramik style which i use, it makes it a 3D blue color
from http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50311 (http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50311)
Bug 50311: Menu shadow not transparent
Version: unknown (using KDE 3.0.9)
Compiler: gcc version 3.2
OS: Linux (i686) release 2.4.19
If I open a menu with shadows on it looks fine. If I move the mouse left (eg, from settings to tools in konqueror) then the shadow will lose its transparency. If I continue moving left it does this for every menu. However if I move the mouse from left to right through the menu's then the shadow remains transparent.
I can send you a screenshot of the oddity if you like.
[this is the exact bug I get]
quote:
hmm i have a celeron 600mgz and selecting is perfectly fine for me... unless you have like a 100 mhz system
No, it happens on every system I have KDE on, you really notice the difference if you select text while making the screen scroll at the same time - especially anti-alised text.
quote:
never happens to me... are you sure you have kde 3.1 and not some rc?
Yes I'm sure. I even clicked on the "about KDE" button conveniently located in the menu of every KDE program in existence. It said "KDE 3.1"
quote:
say thanks to helvetica! helvetica doesnt seem to render antialiased in mozilla either, but i dont know about galeon
Actually it was the TTF font Arial.
quote:
you are talking about the selection box i presume and it DOES go away, all you have to do is click somewhere else...
Trouble is, when I click somewhere else it does exactly as I said - leaves an ugly partial drawing artifact behind of the selection box.
KDE has just always sucked for me! If it's my fault, I'm sorry. What distribution are you using?
-
slackware 8.1 (well, at least calix is based on slack 8.1)
as for the menu shadow bug, that is jsut the menu transparency bug! when you move left, you are seeing the crud left from the other menu under the shadow, but when you move right, there is no crud because there was never a menu there!
whoever sent in that bug shouldve looked closer
selecting really works pretty good for me, i think i see what your saying, it is slower than mozilla, but its really not that slow.
-
I see. Well they certainly should fix that transparency bug since it not only affects transparency effects but also menu shadows!
-
maybe i should get into kde development. seriously, this stuff cant be hard to fix!
-
quote:
quote:
say thanks to helvetica! helvetica doesnt seem to render antialiased in mozilla either, but i dont know about galeon
Actually it was the TTF font Arial.
Wrong! That is NOT Verdana!!! THIS is verdana:
http://www.geckosoftware.net/exp/windowed.html (http://www.geckosoftware.net/exp/windowed.html)
Gee, looks GREAT in konq 3.1 (http://smile.gif)
<FONT size="2" face="Lucida Grande, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Theres a font tag from the forums
-
verdana and arial are not the same font.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
KDE has just always sucked for me! If it's my fault, I'm sorry. What distribution are you using?
I understand your troubles with KDE, and its not your fault. Im not gonna try to force you to use KDE, Im just glad you use linux now.