This is a fairly good tutorial, and I can understand why someone might like to make their desktop look more like OS X, but why would you ever want to replace the Ubuntu icon with an Apple one?? That just seems like a slap in the face to Ubuntu.
There's several compile-from-source-oriented distros out there, and they're all leagues more complicated than Ubuntu. They're not impossible to use by any stretch of the imagination - I am by no means a genius and manage to run Gentoo on AMD-64 without any trouble- but the amount of custom configuration required for such distros is in direct opposition to the entire concept behind Ubuntu, which is to make things easy and give the novice every-day user a better chance at getting "desktop Linux" going without too much trouble. Dapper's not quite "idiot proof" but it's damn close (this is why so many folks can't shutup about it: the progress made in Ubuntu's short existence is rather astonishing compared to other "easy" distros); I myself have no doubt that Ubuntu's going to be mind-blowingly simple to setup two releases from now. Having to spec compile options would be detrimental to the concept and would alienate the intended userbase. If someone's concerned with maximum optimization, Ubuntu's probably not the right distro for them. They can instead go for Gentoo or Slackware or LFS and "rice" to their heart's content.On a purely factual point, Ubuntu doesn't use it's own "special package system". Apt is present on most Debian-based distros out there, and as such isn't particularly obscure. Either get your statements organized is some way vaguely resembling the facts, or opt to keep quiet in the old Wittgenstein "what we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence" sort of way.
Yeah, it's pretty nice, I like the ubuntu layout overall as it is.. I modified a few things for my own use though.. I'm using the OSX icons already, but using the G4_White theme, with the clearlooks borders... much cleaner imho.. only thing that throws it off, is having to sudo the theme manager to set the root theme to match, not a huge deal, but helps for consistancy...would be nice if the gtk su stuff for admin, would do a virtual symlink to the user's theme for that instance... would make it consistant for all users.
One example doesn't prove your point. Fact is Macs ARE more expensive in general. I dunno about you, but I don't have $2,800 to drop on any computer right now (thus converting my old p900 to Ubuntu and giving it a Mac look).
thefinalruinJul 29, 2006
I agree. Ubuntu is starting to look a lot better compared to when it first came out, but you really can't beat that good 'ole OS X feel.
billyfoxtrotJul 29, 2006
This is a fairly good tutorial, and I can understand why someone might like to make their desktop look more like OS X, but why would you ever want to replace the Ubuntu icon with an Apple one?? That just seems like a slap in the face to Ubuntu.
rahufnaglJul 30, 2006
Another XP to OSX.<a class="user" href="http://www.winosx.com/">http://www.winosx.com/</a>
nickiankJul 30, 2006
There's several compile-from-source-oriented distros out there, and they're all leagues more complicated than Ubuntu. They're not impossible to use by any stretch of the imagination - I am by no means a genius and manage to run Gentoo on AMD-64 without any trouble- but the amount of custom configuration required for such distros is in direct opposition to the entire concept behind Ubuntu, which is to make things easy and give the novice every-day user a better chance at getting "desktop Linux" going without too much trouble. Dapper's not quite "idiot proof" but it's damn close (this is why so many folks can't shutup about it: the progress made in Ubuntu's short existence is rather astonishing compared to other "easy" distros); I myself have no doubt that Ubuntu's going to be mind-blowingly simple to setup two releases from now. Having to spec compile options would be detrimental to the concept and would alienate the intended userbase. If someone's concerned with maximum optimization, Ubuntu's probably not the right distro for them. They can instead go for Gentoo or Slackware or LFS and "rice" to their heart's content.On a purely factual point, Ubuntu doesn't use it's own "special package system". Apt is present on most Debian-based distros out there, and as such isn't particularly obscure. Either get your statements organized is some way vaguely resembling the facts, or opt to keep quiet in the old Wittgenstein "what we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence" sort of way.
snakeyJul 30, 2006
@awhiteflameYou don't have to doubleclick to submit a comment :pOn every submit button you just have to do a single click to submit the form ;-)
Closed AccountJul 30, 2006
Err, with XGL and Compiz, you still need a theme for the windows it fiddling with..- Ben
tracker1Jul 30, 2006
Yeah, it's pretty nice, I like the ubuntu layout overall as it is.. I modified a few things for my own use though.. I'm using the OSX icons already, but using the G4_White theme, with the clearlooks borders... much cleaner imho.. only thing that throws it off, is having to sudo the theme manager to set the root theme to match, not a huge deal, but helps for consistancy...would be nice if the gtk su stuff for admin, would do a virtual symlink to the user's theme for that instance... would make it consistant for all users.
pillowfightNov 18, 2006
One example doesn't prove your point. Fact is Macs ARE more expensive in general. I dunno about you, but I don't have $2,800 to drop on any computer right now (thus converting my old p900 to Ubuntu and giving it a Mac look).