Linux is ugly

belovedmonster · Post by **belovedmonster** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:31 pm

I've just seen some screenshots of the new beta for Ubuntu 7.04 and boy is it ugly. People for a long time have dissed the brown, but I think this release seems even more ugly than I ever remember it being in the past.

It kinda worries me that of all the big distros, the one that is becoming the most well known to the general public is also the ugliest one out there. Wont it put the general public off from going near linux? It worries me because theres a new slick looking black themed Windows just out, and we will soon have a new slick looking OSX, but when people come into contact with Linux they will be treated to horrible looking brown poo. It worries me that the main representatives for Linux to the general public obviously have no concept of style what so ever.

With all their thousands of supporters is it really so hard to come up with a theme that uses earthy tones that isnt fugly? Evidently so.

Its kinda indicative of the problem of techie-geek boys being in charge that everyone is more concerned with adding useless 3D desktop effects than making sure the basic look of the interface is attractive and professional.

The most damning thing I can say is that if Ubuntu was a product sold in shops for real money then there's no way it would be allowed it to get out there looking so ugly.

I'm sure the community will get over this problem in a couple of years, but at the moment it has to be said that Linux just totally falls short on the presentation side of things. Endless text based websites with ugly graphics and 3D penguin wallpapers do not appeal to the general public in any way at all.

Post by **clem** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 6:13 pm

I kinda disagree on this, but it's just me. The brown is different, it's human and it's relaxing. I actually think a lot of people like it, and rightly so.

As for Linux in general, I really think distributions like Fedora are way ahead in terms of look than what has been done by Apple or Microsoft.

Clem

scorp123 · Post by **scorp123** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 6:43 pm

clem wrote:The brown is different, it's human and it's relaxing.

I disagree. I find the brown highly ugly and not relaxing at all ... au contraire! That's why I actually stayed with "Barbara" -- because of its indeed relaxing blueish theme. And of the various Ubuntu (= non-Mint) distros I clearly prefer Kubuntu: KDE + blueish. Ubuntu with that ugly brownish and orangeish color tones everywhere???

Thanks but ... NO THANKS!

Ubuntu is ugly

scorp123 · Post by **scorp123** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 6:46 pm

belovedmonster wrote:Linux is ugly ...

Linux per se is not ugly ... You should make clear that you are talking about one specific distribution of Linux ... not Linux in general.

gabhla · Post by **gabhla** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 10:38 pm

During my two years or so use of Linux, I've managed to go through more wallpapers, themes, colors and icons then I could shake a stick at. And, it's one of my favorite things about Linux - I can make it look anyway I want. And what I want seems to change sometimes daily.

belovedmonster · Post by **belovedmonster** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:30 am

While I totally agree that Linux can be altered to change its appearence far greater than other OS thats kinda not the point...

When someone looks at a product and decides whether to invest in it or not (be that investing time or money or both), they do so based in part on the general appearance of the product in its default state. They don't think "well I can probably change that later", they look at what's there and judge the product based on that.

If Ubuntu really does become the poster boy of the linux scene for the general masses as it appears to be becoming then Ubuntu needs to look really nice. It needs to be that people look at it and think "wow that looks really slick", not "wow that will look really slick once I learn how to customise it".

Fact is, I use Mint 2.2 now as my main linux distro because its desktop is set up exactly how I want it straight out of the box. I dont have to go about customising the "start bar" because its how I want it already. I could just install Ubuntu and then customise it, but thats not why I use a computer. I use a computer to save on the amount of work I do, not create more jobs I have to do. The average computer user doesnt want to have to customise things.

telic · Post by **telic** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 9:54 am

but when people come into contact with Linux they will be treated to horrible looking brown poo.

Poo?

Do you realize that poisoned rats can produce blue feces?

The medical treatment for thallium poisoning is ferric ferrocynate, which causes patients to have blue poo.

Eww. Don't want poo on my PC!

The "fugly" warm brown is a nice change to cold blue.

And I favor Mint's dark green wallpaper, though green could also be described in unflattering ways. Kermit says green ain't easy.

----

sanguinemoon · Post by **sanguinemoon** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:17 am

belovedmonster wrote:The average computer user doesnt want to have to customise things.

This I'm not sure is true. People always like to invoke the "average user" argument, but I'm not even sure he exists because everybody is so different. But I find people do like to customize, hence the success of products such as StarDock in Windows and the numerous themes and wallpapers you can get even in Windows.

But you are correct that people do start judging based on the default appearance.

bigbearomaha · Post by **bigbearomaha** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:54 am

Depending on what word you want to use. "customize" can infer t oa person a need for some sort of technical ability. However, ask any user if he or she wants their PC personalized, well, that is almost totally a resounding yes.

Also, default installs are made to be lightweight, and "easy" so as to improve speed and interaction on a livecd.

I have been preparing custom installs of PC's with Mint and PCLOS for awhile now. the end users never have to do all the "customization' they just see a machine that's ready to use.

Big Bear

scorp123 · Post by **scorp123** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:44 am

telic wrote:Do you realize that poisoned rats can produce blue feces?

Depends on the poison, e.g. the poison causes rats to produce blue poo so that we humans know that the rat has been successfully poisoned and is soon to die a slow and painful death. Rats usually retreat into hard-to-reach corners when they feel they are diying ... so that's why someone came up with slow-acting rat poison that will cause them to produce blue feces.

But I for my part when I think of the color blue I usually associate it with the deep blue see, the sky, a beautiful summer day, and so on.

The fact that you associate the blue color with poisoned rats and their feces is rather worrying ...

carlos · Post by **carlos** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 1:11 pm

I totally agree, any one can change the default look to anything they want. But with that being said it doesn't hurt to have an excellent looking default theme.

Most new users just don't realize then can change things and sometime they are just scared to do that, thinking they will mess something up. So starting off with a nice theme is definitely high on the priority list.

belovedmonster · Post by **belovedmonster** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:10 pm

tommyj12 wrote: If you bought a new house would you leave things the way they were or how you want them.

Thank you for supplying with a succinct way of making my point, although Im sure you didnt mean to!

When you go look at someone's house with buying in mind, you know fine well that you are going to decorate it to your taste, but its appearance when you look at it still has a big effect on you. A house that has horrible wallpaper and is really messy is off putting, even though you know fine well that the mess will be gone when you move in, and you can easily paint over that horrible wallpaper.

This is exactly the point I am getting at... Linux users always come up with this argument of "well you can change it", but thats not good enough. You cant show someone around your house and say "well you can change it" as an excuse for not bothering to make it look nice before selling. You will get less interest in the property if you do that, and the exact same is true with Linux. People need to go "Wow! that is beautiful" not "Meh, well I can change it laters".

Boo · Post by **Boo** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:34 pm

I agree that people need the visual WOW factor when they install mint.

This is the same argument behind why mint is around at all.
people install mint and go "WOW It all just works" and not oh well i can install it later cant I?
if you can change it later or install it later why not just build it later, I'm sure everyone wants to compile source code.

NiksaVel · Post by **NiksaVel** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:10 am

This is exactly the point I am getting at... Linux users always come up with this argument of "well you can change it", but thats not good enough. You cant show someone around your house and say "well you can change it" as an excuse for not bothering to make it look nice before selling. You will get less interest in the property if you do that, and the exact same is true with Linux. People need to go "Wow! that is beautiful" not "Meh, well I can change it laters".

this line of thinking is exactly why we started the mintArt project... to help make mint look better... because most distros I've seen really are UGLY to look at....

It can even be quite a pain to get it all tweaked to look right when you're a new user... I've spent over two weeks getting my first install to look just right...

Linux Mint Forums

Linux is ugly

Linux is ugly

Re: Linux is ugly