Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX
I'm sick and tired of these "linux is ugly" comments
slave:
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
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
Here's pretty much what OS X looks out of the box to my knowledge:
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
Here's a KDE desktop screenshot I found on kde-look.org:
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
Long story short, "Linux" can look, well, however you want it to look.
[ February 09, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]
solo:
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
www.gnome.org
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.
Calum:
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.
billy_gates:
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?
--- End quote ---
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
--- End 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
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 ]
slave:
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
Then you haven't seen a lot of Linux desktops ;)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version