What is Digg?232 Comments
- gubatron2, on 07/24/2008, -12/+78it'd be doable if Gnome or KDE would shutdown or merge and we'd keep just one consistent UI, but that goes against the freedom of unix.
Apple manage to do it on top of unix, but they had all their efforts geared towards a single and consistent UI with a lot of experience in usability from their past OSes. - richardhenry, on 07/24/2008, -2/+32Themes? It's more than just 'theming'. Making something shiny or beautiful is useless if something is called a "Synaptic package manager" instead of "Application Catalogue".
I'm not a total n00b, and I had trouble figuring out at first how to use the package browser in Ubuntu. Nevermind if I didn't understand the concept of packages... I would *never* look at something called "Synaptic" to install other applications.
I wish them the best of luck, but they need to look at icons, documentation and naming conventions before they make things pretty.
PS: Afterthought... they also need to buckle and apply for a license to distribute the Flash player with Ubuntu. Sure, it's not open source, but it is free and very useful. Not everything that makes money wants to slay kittens. Just do it already, please. http://www.adobe.com/licensing/ - TKn00b, on 07/24/2008, -5/+31I'd say the visual effects are more gaudy than gorgeous. To me, a gorgeous visual effect would be subtle and refined instead of most linux visual effects. For example, windows that burst into flames when they are closed.
- diggdean, on 07/24/2008, -7/+31Linux-based GUIs can improve, but the idea that Linux can be more like "art" is virtually impossible because of the culture of Open Source. At best Open Source can decide such features by committee, whose results can be no better than a corporate bureaucracy. Was there ever a time a great movie, or painting, or other great masterwork was done by committee?
By contrast Apple has one guy who decides yes or no if the GUI is good. Sometimes he gets it wrong, but art must be decided by dictatorship, the antithesis of Open Source. Therefore it's impossible for Open Source's many cooks approach to produce a GUI better than Apple's present dictatorship. - David513, on 07/24/2008, -1/+24One of the biggest problems when Linux UI developers try to compete with Apple is that they somehow think that the battle is about what looks better. It's about usability for normal users. Looking good is something that comes along for the ride when you do good design. As long as UI designers for Linux (and Microsoft) think that they can just glue a pretty layer on top of the way things are already done, Mac OS X is going to continue to be seen as "prettier." It's the difference between doing a unified project with artistic integrity (a term that most gearheads would laugh at, since they don't understand it) and doing something to just put on a layer of paint to cover up problems. It's VERY possible to compete with Apple on UI, but the problem is that the people in the Linux and Microsoft camps don't seem to understand (deep down) that the process starts at the core, not just with what the user sees.
- mazza558, on 07/24/2008, -2/+24We have the compositing and gorgeous visual effects, now we just need more designers and creative people to create the World's Best theme.
Creating a theme is so easy now that there's almost no barriers for designers. I recently got invited to join the Ubuntu Art Team due to my Futurelooks theme pack. I'm sure there's thousands of other people out there with the skills, creativity and imagination to make Linux literally a jewel of Open Source. - Badandy127, on 07/24/2008, -1/+23I could swear that this was on the front page YESTERDAY.
Jesus, diggers, ADD much? - schneb, on 07/24/2008, -5/+24Its not a pretty theme that attracts me, its what I can and cannot do with the OS. There are some major things that I can do with MacOSX-- especially iLife apps, that I am not sure is possible in Linux.
- n0odles, on 07/24/2008, -33/+51It's already prettier than OSX. You're just not theming it right.
- TomFrost, on 07/24/2008, -3/+21What most people don't realize is that it's not necessarily the look that makes Apple's desktop better, but the integration. Any program can on-the-fly interface with iTunes and give it remote commands -- in fact, ANY program can interface with ANY other program through a standard library of hooks. That's what makes Applescript work, and it's what ties the entire usability of the OS together.
KDE has the DCOP server which is the closest Linux has ever come to this kind of integration. But since Linux coders aren't nailed down to one specific programming philosophy like mac coders are, there's no way to enforce these kinds of hooks or integration. Gnome vs. KDE plays in even more here than with anything style-based. - Noctem, on 07/24/2008, -5/+20Prettier != Better.
- geoken, on 07/24/2008, -0/+13TomFrost, you're info is a little out of date. Not only has D-bus surpassed DCOP, but KDE itself has replaced DCOP with D-bus.
D-bus now supports inter app communication on Gnome, KDE and Windows. It is part of the FreeDesktop standard. For example, the standard media hooks allow a panel applet to retrieve album art, control playback, display playlists, etc. for multiple players since they're all using the same standardized dbus commands. - Stewdean, on 07/24/2008, -3/+15If you want to attract users away from OS X or Vista then you need to understand what pretty is for an operation system. It's not custom themes, it's not transparent effects or cool 3D transitions, it's none of that at all.
Pretty to the user is making the user experience work in a way that the technology can be messed with if they want to but for most of the time is very much out of the way. As many in the open source movement are into technology they may not simply get that, it's more about hacking than designing and more about cool things to impress their peers than thinking broader.
Designing is UI is about getting the functionality right and being brutal about trimming back what is fluff. As pointed out by diggdean, as long as it's designed by committee you'll get lots of fluff in there and it'll continue to not appeal to non techie users if given a choice. OSX doesn't look that amazingly pretty, it's just a very well thought out user interface and that's what you need if you want to get a job done. - PhailQuail, on 07/24/2008, -3/+13You dare insult Mark Shuttleworth?! I shall dispatch my minions to eliminate you promptly.
- lolcoderer, on 07/24/2008, -3/+13Exactly... When the days comes that I can connect my iPod and automatically sync my playlist... listen to my audio apps through my MOTU 828mkII firewire audio interface ... plug in a firewire HD cam and easily edit the footage... open up a CS 2 photoshop document sent to me by a work associate and edit the appropriate shape layers...
you get the picture?
an OS is much more than a pretty UI - which Ubuntu is still not even close to achieving... have you ever noticed how bad the kerning is of their fonts? - vat0r, on 07/24/2008, -6/+15Apple fan boy fail.
- Buu3, on 07/24/2008, -2/+11Bollocks, what about having a desktop experience that you DONT HAVE TO THEME!?
- grexeo, on 07/24/2008, -0/+8That's so stupid and unfair to past contributors. It's not about the money or lack of it. Money does not = good design, in the same way money does not = good programming.
The problem is the artwork isn't open. Until "the Ubuntu team" stop guarding/limiting what people can do, the artwork will keep sucking. I've given up putting my proposals forward, and I've seen a dozen others stop doing so too. The fact is, the Ubuntu team themselves are preventing Ubuntu from having decent artwork, not the community. - laowai101, on 07/24/2008, -2/+10Given how flexible the appearance of Gnome is, I think a lot of it's in Ubuntu's court as to how 'beautiful' they make it.
The current brown theme certainly needs some work and it can't be that difficult. - inactive, on 07/24/2008, -3/+10It's not only the UI that makes OS X beautiful. It's the fact that you can download almost ANY 3rd party application, be it freeware, shareware, etc and the craftsmanship will usually be very high and the app will fit perfectly into OS X's look and feel. It's as if the developer community for Mac OS X truly cares about their creations. I used Windows for 13+ years before switching to the Mac platform, and the opposite is true with Windows developers, for the most part. 90% of the applications I used for Windows didn't match the OS and it felt like they were created by robots, not humans who actually gave a ***** about their product. I have used Linux a decent bit, but not enough to make educated statements about it, so I'll refrain.
So, to me, that is he beauty of OS X. You can download any ***** shareware app and it will STILL be gorgeous, useful and mostly bug free. ( I know there are SOME that defy that rule, but the percentage is much lower than some other OSes ) - renegadeafk, on 07/24/2008, -0/+7I would definitely bet the vast majority of ubuntu users know what kde is.
- wigry, on 07/24/2008, -4/+11It is not so much a fancy user interface, that makes Apple so attractive. It is more about that "just works" attitude. And thats what Apple promises, delivers and thats what people like. Also don't forget the product packaging that makes it possible to ask price above average.
- flamingduck, on 07/24/2008, -0/+7they have windows that burst into flames?? Sometimes I wish my PC would do that...
...literally - bcamp1973, on 07/24/2008, -2/+8just curious, do you find the baby-***** brown in Ubuntu more attractive? ;)
- majikmixx, on 07/24/2008, -1/+7I could've sworn it was Steve Balmer who said this....
- HonoredMule, on 07/24/2008, -1/+7What, like windows?
- atariby, on 07/24/2008, -0/+6It's not about how it looks, it's the end to end user experience that matters, doesn't matter how much you make your desktop look like OS X if you don't have that.
- thinsoldier, on 07/24/2008, -1/+7And it was amended
- Rosco, on 07/25/2008, -0/+5Why you're right! I've been tinkering with Kubuntu for a while and I still have absolutly no clue what KDE is.
/sarcasm
you are a dumbass - richardhenry, on 07/24/2008, -1/+6PPS: Once you've written an operating system, adding the Flash player seems like child's play. But it's important. To the common user, the Flash player practically IS part of the OS. Being able to go on YouTube and watch videos without any extra steps? Do you have any idea how silly the idea of not being able to do that is to the normal computer user? Sure, you'd have to re-apply with every distribution, but once you've written 10,000 lines of code, filling in a form is like scratching your ass. Business sense, 'cmon. Just because you're not making money doesn't not make it a business. You want more users? Be aggressive. Partner. Do some *****!
- thinsoldier, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5Hope they keep in mind that "better than Apple" doesn't mean "just like apple". I've been using OS X for 5 years now and Finder (among other things) still annoys me.
- geoken, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5I'm gonna have to disagree with that.
Re-coloring an existing theme is extremely easy now. Actually creating a new theme still requires writing a theme engine (in C++) or using slow pixmap based engines which usually behave strangely.
I don't think we'll be at the point you think we're at until we have a theme engine that will accept an SVG and be able to use that as the basis for drawing a specific widget. - Phocion55, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4Did someone pry your eyes open and jamb your face into the screen to make you read the article? If so, I agree, that's horrible.
If not, you probably just can't locate the scroll bar on your web browser. - thirdeyeopen666, on 07/24/2008, -2/+6Please elaborate...
- jonshipman, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4More like diggers, Alzheimer's much?
- DeathGod321, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4We strive for an 8% market share.
- dmsean, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4what was BSD built on?
from wiki: "Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD, sometimes called Berkeley Unix) is the Unix operating system derivative developed and distributed by the Computer Systems Research Group of the University of California, Berkeley, from 1977 to 1995." - Origin415, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4I wish dbus could be controlled by a command line the same way dcop could. I'm going to miss sshing into my computer and doing
dcop amarok player start
to annoy my roommate, if amarok switches.
Maybe it can be, and I just don't know how though :/ - FSHero, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3I think that integration and stuff is important. I still am waiting for Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird to be able to use KDE file dialogue boxes out-of-the-box...!
- RenoKb, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3It does tend to lead to such gems as this - http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=415773
Why should the user care which window manager libraries their apps are running? =p - inactive, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4Maybe someone a little more up on unix/linux/and apple's os could help me out here:
How difficult would it be for a company to make an OS similar to Leopard yet be able to run on the variety of machine configurations that linux and windows can? Also why has it not been done? I'd like the stability of unix/leopard but still being able to run windows and windows apps like you can on a mac with ease compared to using wine. - sg7791, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Would you prefer pastels?
- mickstephenson, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4The people digging this comment are as ignorant as the digger who wrote it, people can write plugins for anything they want, some people want windows that burst into flames in linux you have that option, if OSX had the option of windows that burst into flames there would be some who use it but most wouldn't, unfortunately on OSX it isn't an option, because they know better than you how your desktop should operate.
- FSHero, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Why don't the Ubuntu team accept your artwork, out of interest?
- vagarach, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4Grey works well, it worked well in windows 95 and even os x uses it! Something there must be just right.
- hugolp, on 07/24/2008, -4/+7Hope that never happen and we can keep on choosing. What makes you think that only one desktop will make it better?
- sg7791, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3No, He's not talking about an OS that looks like Leopard. He wants one similar to it.
I don't think it's possible. Basically, because apps for Leopard are made to run on Apple software, Not Unix. - supersoundguy, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Presentation Layer -- you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model - richardhenry, on 07/24/2008, -2/+5@equisow: Flash does NOT automatically install the first time you use it. YouTube and many other sites use a method of Flash implementation that does not cause Flash to automatically install. And the Add/Remove menu offers about ~ten applications, whereas the Synaptic package manager offers the whole host. Do you use Ubuntu? How did you not notice these things?
Sure, packages "make more sense" technologically. But to the user? No.
You say that "many people choose not to install Flash"... Where are they? Are they the type of people that Ubuntu is trying to appeal to according to this press release? I don't think so. "Why can't I use Break?" "Why can't I use YouTube?" "Why can't I watch the videos on College Humor?" Umm... because you won't get annoyed by ads? "Right... Can I install Flash now?" - matt0r, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3um..no it isn't
linux was created as a free alternative to unix
it is not unix -
Show 51 - 100 of 232 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is