digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

See the original image at lunduke.com —

What Ubuntu 8.10 SHOULD look like.

lunduke.com — This is a mockup that was put together for a possible look and feel for the next Ubuntu release (Intrepid Ibex), which is due out in October. And it looks amazing. And, in all reality, it is very easily doable. If Ubuntu 8.10 does not look like this... it will be a crime against humanity.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • threethirty, on 08/23/2008, -31/+9i like everything but the dock and gnome-do, but everything else rocks
    • rowjimmy, on 08/23/2008, -6/+4so don't use any of them?
      really simple.
    • leejarratt, on 08/23/2008, -2/+7GNOME Do is awesome
    • Elranzer, on 08/23/2008, -4/+12So basically, the blogger wants .Net Framework style menus, Apple's Dock and the Vista Aero Glass theme in Linux, with a black color scheme.

      Sounds a lot like Vista with the black color theme and YzDock installed.
    • dn11, on 08/23/2008, -1/+8it's the bastard child of Vista and OS X - only brown and grey. It's as if Gears of War was a GUI
    • mohtasham, on 08/23/2008, -0/+2I'd never heard about gnome-do before. I just installed it, and I love it.
  • lockerhaxor, on 08/23/2008, -34/+12If this happens, I'll be a linux only person
    • JakeW, on 08/23/2008, -12/+41So... you're only preference to an OS is that it looks pretty? Not the fact that it's free, open-source, less viruses, faster, and not a poly-nopoly?

      Cool.
      • TheWedge, on 08/23/2008, -1/+38You really know how to get new recruits.
      • magic6435, on 08/23/2008, -1/+13It already works perfect so yea looks maybe the only thing holding some people back.
      • Ramble, on 08/23/2008, -1/+6I want my OS to be quick, easy and minimal fuss so I can actually do things.
      • DarkShroud, on 08/23/2008, -4/+3@Ramble Like play games?
      • CCmachined, on 08/23/2008, -4/+2yeah DarkShroud, i play Neverball, Sauerbraten and DooM3 regularly on Linux.
        there are many many commercial titles to choose from, and considering its 100% free and a tiny minority, thats pretty awesome that the (commercial) games were ported to it for Linux' sheer merit as an awesome OS instead of having a mass market monopoly shoved up the computing industries ass. STFU.
      • rpgmaker, on 08/24/2008, -0/+3It just shows that the GUI DOES MATTER. If you don't believe me ask all those OSX new users in the recent years.
    • CaviMike, on 08/23/2008, -8/+10On what, your Mac? Buried.
    • lockerhaxor, on 08/23/2008, -5/+1JakeW: No, I use Linux for the reason already. But frankly I've been staying away from it, just because of the lack of flash. That may not be important to YOU, but it is to ME. So butt off.

      CaviMike: I don't own a Mac, just like the apple logo.
      • CCmachined, on 08/23/2008, -0/+2$ sudo apt-get install flashplayer-nonfree

        if you need the flash tools for it, you can always
        $ wine macromediaflash.exe
        flash is a ***** standard anyway, dont bug me if it crashes and you lose work.
  • samanathon, on 08/23/2008, -26/+4I can't image that this theme would be that difficult for a designer to make (I'm not one, so I really have no clue)...
    • UKsHaDoW, on 08/23/2008, -0/+22Since its already designed.
      The programmer has to implement it, and I'm not sure gtk is capable of this type of theming. Its got gradients everywhere etc. The apps are completely different layouts.

    • Elranzer, on 08/23/2008, -2/+5It just looks like Ubuntu Studio with a brown background and AWM installed.
    • WTF69, on 08/23/2008, -2/+3its photoshoped
  • abbathdoom, on 08/23/2008, -24/+13With only a couple of months until the next Ubuntu is out I can't see how we will end up with anything like this theme come 8.10 release time. I think we will end up with just be a slight variation on what we have always had on Ubuntu, as I haven't seen anything that suggests the huge overhaul of Ubuntus appearance is actually going on.

    Hopefully now everyone has seen what Ubuntu could look like there will be a big enough backlash that Canonical pull their finger out and actually hire someone to do something about it. At the moment I get the impression that while you have Mark Shuttleworth going on about wanting to look nicer than Apple really they are twiddling their thumbs until a volunteer steps up to the plate and does the work for them.

    I'm sorry but that sucks. If Shuttleworth is serious about challenging Apple he should of hired some design hotshot with his megabucks. Why isnt he putting his money where his mouth is?
    • burjzyntski, on 08/23/2008, -2/+11BECAUSE IT'S OPEN SOURCE!
      You need to learn some more about how linux works; ubuntu is not the only way. Read up on "window managers" and you will see that there is more out there than Gnome (ubuntu's default window manager), so yes, things CAN be totally "overhauled", as you put it.
      • abbathdoom, on 08/23/2008, -2/+11You are preaching to the wrong person. I use Xubuntu and are well aware of what a window manager is. Fact is, since 7.10 came out they have been on about giving Ubuntu a visual overhaul and nothing has yet happened except for a few photoshop mockups. If he was serious about making changes he would have hired someone to make changes already.
      • buu700, on 08/26/2008, -0/+1"I use Xubuntu and are well aware of what a window manager is."

        ORLY? Because last time I checked, GNOME wasn't one. (This goes for both of you btw.)
    • dimension128, on 08/23/2008, -0/+2I totally understand what your trying to say here. The fact is, getting a look like this is something that would be very doable for someone in the right position.
      I cant go to the gnome dev's and say, "hey guys, will you change/add this functionality here, so I can do this idea I have with a new theme?". To be specific, I actually can do that. But someone with a title like, "Lead art director for Canonical" is probably going to have his/her requests listened to quite a bit more.
    • armo, on 08/24/2008, -0/+2August 28th - Artwork Deadline 1
      September 11th - UI Freeze & Artwork Deadline 2
      September 25th - IntrepidArtworkFinalDeadline
  • trogdoor, on 08/23/2008, -19/+333This is not a simple "very easily doable" change. Nautilus for one looks almost unrecognizably different, not just a different theme but an entirely different layout. Going with a composited dock is not an option for those that cannot, or do not want to run compiz. Without a composite manager all that neat transparency becomes a beautiful rectangular block and "falling back" to a standard gnome-panel is not an option, the default interface can't just randomly change that drastically. That is just at a glance. This "mockup" was not designed with any consideration of making something viable. PLEASE don't spam IRC, Digg, or any other place trying to get this "theme" to be made, let alone demand that this non-existant theme be made the default for Intrepid.
    • 3242130193, on 08/23/2008, -2/+20Metacity supports compositing so I think you can run awn with metacity - not 100% sure though.

      I sure wish you could run awn without compositing though, it's still damn useful without the effects.
      • r3negadeX, on 08/23/2008, -0/+10Yes, metacity supports compositing, but you still need to have GL desktop running, which means that you must have graphics drivers installed.
      • Abatrour, on 08/23/2008, -3/+4Puppy Linux's "OSX" distro has awn by default with their zoom effect, transparency and it runs fast too.
        Puppy Linux is meant for oooold computers.
      • r3negadeX, on 08/24/2008, -1/+3"Puppy Linux's 'OSX' distro"? What???
      • LeeSoong, on 08/24/2008, -1/+1WOOD

        puppy:

        http://www.puppylinux.org/
    • ywwg, on 08/23/2008, -2/+11Compositing just means you can't get transparency. You can still have shaped windows, which gets you most of the way there
    • douglas1991, on 08/23/2008, -8/+1Take a look at this article which says Ubuntu Ibex wont be so ugly after all:
      http://helpforlinux.blogspot.com/2008/08/ubuntu-in ...
    • over9k, on 08/23/2008, -8/+2Ubuntu is open source. Surely all the stuff you've mentioned can be added.
    • comwiz7, on 08/23/2008, -3/+4I wish I could digg you twice. 100% agreed.
    • pandorazboxx, on 08/23/2008, -4/+1Also you can't have two folders with the same name :-P
    • svivian, on 08/23/2008, -5/+5I hope they don't use folder icons like that. Vista went really wrong with its icons, they're way too complex, you can hardly tell them apart.
    • erikerikerik, on 08/24/2008, -3/+4"Nautilus for one looks almost unrecognizably different, not just a different theme but an entirely different layout."

      Some times a fresh start is what is needed.
      example mac going from
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mac_OS_9_screen ...

      to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SnowLeopardDesk ...
      • RSterkenburg, on 08/24/2008, -1/+4Umm you can't really compare those, a lot happened between those 2 OSes.
      • vsthesquares, on 08/24/2008, -1/+4Umm, no.

        Mac OS went from Mac OS 9 tot Mac OS X 10.0.
        http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Maco ...

        It's but ugly, if you ask me. They only got where they are now by incrementally improving their new interface. It took them 8 (eight!) years to go from the first screenshot to the last.
      • erikerikerik, on 08/24/2008, -1/+1And how long has Debian +GNOME (or KDE if you like) been out?
    • rpgmaker, on 08/24/2008, -1/+3That isn't Nautilus, is just a frickin 'shopped File Manager! You can only dream for Nautilus to be that beautiful...
    • neko, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1I like the colourscheme and everything, except the Nautilus window - the navigation arrows are not very usable, and though it might be nice to have a 'details' pane on the left and the 'places' on the right, I think that it should be a configurable thing and not necessarily the default.

      I'm very much against the 'details' view that you get in, for instance, explorer.exe. That damn thing will happily preview .html with IE and .eml with Outlook, exploits and all. Ever used a system with a broken DirectShow pipeline (which is the effect of most codec packs, in my experience)? Single-clicking on a video file which I didn't have the codec for caused a freaking POPUP to appear informing me of that fact. Great job, guys.

      okay end rant. just opened nautilus on my machine - a plain window with tango file icons in it. all better now.
  • amdlinux, on 08/23/2008, -12/+70Shuttleworth is a brilliant guy but has a really strange taste when it comes to colours and appearance. He will not allow this, I fear.

    The current colours / theme are /is so incredibly ugly (except the Heron background pic) that you know that Ubuntu is really good on the technical side to hedge its ugly appearance. Just thinking of the pinkish / meatish colour of the current standard GDM screen makes me puke :-(

    • ArthurArchnix, on 08/23/2008, -2/+12GDM = Greeter Displaying Meat.
    • championchap, on 08/23/2008, -5/+12I think i must be one of the only people out there that really likes the Ubuntu theme!
      • NGliam, on 08/23/2008, -13/+1I think it's ok, I'd say it's as good as vista :P
      • bobbarkerbilly, on 08/23/2008, -2/+3I actually like it too.
    • douglas1991, on 08/23/2008, -9/+2Ubuntu Ibex will be the most Ugly Ubuntu ever according to this article:
      http://iampriteshdesai.blogspot.com/2008/07/ubuntu ...
    • slugicide, on 08/23/2008, -1/+8I really like orange and brown. They look good together. I just don't think they need to keep that color scheme year after year. They should spend some time on colourlovers.com.
    • greywolfexcel, on 08/23/2008, -0/+4So then start your box up in CLI mode, login at the terminal, and run gnome from the startx script.
    • Litespeed, on 08/23/2008, -0/+0I think you need to adjust your screen. It's not pinkish at all here.
    • silfiriel, on 08/23/2008, -0/+2actually the heron background is the ugliest thing in Ubuntu, the reset of looks just fine, human some might say
  • Vadi0, on 08/23/2008, -6/+35http://www.ubuntu-pics.de/bild/2371/screenshot015G ... is the current reality, if you're going for that...
    • sloppychris, on 08/23/2008, -0/+17They're just testing that new theme, the newest beta went back to the old one.
      • zwaldowski, on 08/23/2008, -0/+6It wasn't the old one. It was actually a fashionable Murrine theme that used almost entirely orange; the Metacity colors were still brown.
    • Ratty, on 08/23/2008, -5/+39That looks terrible.
      • BrendanSheehan, on 08/23/2008, -1/+4You ain't kidding. It actually looks like they deliberately went for an ugly look.
    • defrex, on 08/23/2008, -1/+14Dark themes will always look like ***** in firefox. It's not firefox's fault, it's web designers who don't take dark widgets into consideration.
    • Dylson, on 08/23/2008, -2/+4DO NOT WANT!
    • d4ni, on 08/24/2008, -1/+1I think it looks rather nice. As for 'looking ***** in Firefox', I think it actually puts focus where it should be - on the webpage. This is just like Opera's philosophy as you can see in their new (dark) theme that came with 9.5 Thus far I really like it, and I really wouldn't want the old skin back. I've been using it for some months now.

      Black really is easier for the eyes, I'd like to see at least some more experimental dark skins for Ubuntu, and it would be nice if a talented team works on it instead of 1 single person like most custom themes.
      • FLarsen, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1He means the widgets *on* the page. Like the button.
  • n0odles, on 08/23/2008, -40/+67Very ugly.
    • leejarratt, on 08/23/2008, -3/+25Vugly

      ^_^
    • exonyte, on 08/23/2008, -12/+4Kind of like your sister, but that didn't stop me from doing her.
    • Waterrat, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1Unless they fix the bleedin' Linux docks so they don't jump out at you when you get your mouse pointer near um,the dock will be the first thing to go.
      For the love of little golden gophers,fix the farkin' dock!!!!!
      Just because I'm going to the bottom of the desktop does not mean I want to mess with the dock! (rolls eyes)
  • Darkhacker, on 08/23/2008, -2/+115This may sound like a stupid complaint, but one of the biggest reasons I don't like dark themes is that there is such a stark contrast between it and a web page with a white background that it looks ugly when browsing the web. If the website also had a dark theme I wouldn't mind. And strangely, I don't seem to mind light themes when visiting dark websites.
    • andywatts, on 08/23/2008, -0/+15Agreed. The white background in browser does kinda kill it.

      Coding in a dark shell rocks tho.
      Vim with syntax highlighting works great.
      • mrBitch, on 08/24/2008, -0/+2RE: " Coding in a dark shell rocks tho.
        Vim with syntax highlighting works great. "

        Agreed, makes the syntax highlighting stand out, and is easier on the eyes.
    • defrex, on 08/23/2008, -9/+3It's simply the fact that web designers don't take dark widgets into consideration when designing.
    • championchap, on 08/23/2008, -4/+4Even the black taskbar in Vista actually annoys me for that very reason.
    • ethana2, on 08/23/2008, -6/+1Web pages need to honor theme settings. I wish there was a greasemonkey script for that, I'd totally use it-- thing is, lot of images in web pages don't use alpha correctly, they use white instead, like most google logos, so.. those would look ugly..
      Light themes are more efficient on LCD screens though, and most people are using them now I think.. but all CRT and OLED and such should be using dark themes, certainly.
      • Scaryclouds, on 08/23/2008, -1/+5It is already hard enough to make a site cross browser compatible. Now you want web designers to also take into account a users theme?! Relatively few people even have dark themes, few web designers are going to spend a bunch of extra time making there website look nice for those ~3% that have a dark theme.
    • homeagain1, on 08/23/2008, -1/+6I feel that dark themes have a more depressing mood than light themes, so that's another reason to avoid them. At least for me.
    • BrendanSheehan, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1Having a simple design with a bright look is "one" of the reasons YouTube is the king of video sites on the web. Looking at content on a white background makes it easer to see things, which is good.
    • gureyes, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1this is the same reason, i dont use dark themes. browsing the web just looks bad
    • kwilliam, on 08/24/2008, -1/+1I just live with it, because Obsidian Coast is sooo awesome. It takes a few days to get used to webpages being brighter than everything else, but it's not really that bad, because it emphasizes the content.
    • Waterrat, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1 Agreed...I also find dark themes rather depressing.....
    • kevjaun, on 08/25/2008, -0/+1you could always add personal css rules, linux is all about the tweak
  • abszint, on 08/23/2008, -18/+40fugly
  • JakeW, on 08/23/2008, -21/+671 diggs and it's down... mirror, anyone?

    Found it: http://www.ubuntu-pics.de/bild/2371/screenshot015G ...

    Thanks, Vadi0!
  • werthog, on 08/23/2008, -24/+4hey

    hey linux people

    do this
  • Tribis, on 08/23/2008, -1/+19It just looks like it looks now, but dark and with a dock.
  • Rowwen, on 08/23/2008, -5/+0The text on the transparent title bars should be more readable.
  • daxz, on 08/23/2008, -2/+12why the transparent window borders if the application itself is opaque?
  • ZerawBanned, on 08/23/2008, -36/+24But this is still better - http://static.pcinpact.com/images/bd/news/48955-le ...
    • AhronZombi, on 08/23/2008, -7/+13no really, mac themes are very unoriginal and any linux distro can look just like em
      • jonsterling, on 08/23/2008, -15/+6No, they can't. Morons often try to make it look kind of like it, but it never looks anything like it.

        I agree that we shouldn't try to make it look just like a mac, but we must concede that Macs look AND work better. You have to be delusional to think that Ubuntu can stand up to Mac in either looks or functionality (this is coming from someone who uses Ubuntu often, and was once a die-hard).
      • LucasJ218, on 08/23/2008, -2/+7@jonsterling

        Are we forgetting that OSX is built on *nix? I would imagine that anyone with the time and motivation could create a distro that stands up in both looks and functionality.

      • CCmachined, on 08/23/2008, -0/+3jonsterling: "You have to be delusional to think that Ubuntu can stand up to Mac in either looks or functionality (this is coming from someone who uses Ubuntu often, and was once a die-hard)."

        Looks Better: Compiz. Out the Box. Install CCSM and set up a bunch of *****. Done.
        More Functional? out the box we have all the IM you could want, office suite, graphic editor etc... all those are extras for extra $$ on a Mac, but i'll agree many are higher quality.

        "functionality" is a really broad term. an OS is "functional" as long as all the hardware supports that OS (mac/linux/whatever/drivers are available) and all hardware works as it should(drivers install and work easily), applications can run no problem and use any installed hardware, and the user interface is intuitive and allows the user to get things done. Ubuntu will definitely be more "functional" for a Windows user, e.g. as it has a "taskbar" (panel) and proper window titles - unlike a Mac. Easier to switch. Macs are just different, I guess. Not a bad thing. ...

        Take it like this: Ubuntu is prettier, and functionality is better considering what comes with it out the box is duty of the OS, compatibility with extra add-on apps is not. Macs are more supported, although not as pretty, cost more, and cost even more after that to add applications, but the hardware and software work seamlessly no matter what (as apple packaged it together). Take your pick.
      • jonsterling, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Mac OS X being based on Unix has nothing to do with Linux being able to look like it. Aqua is not provided with Unix.

        As for Linux looking better, that is your decision to make. All I took issue with is that “any linux distro can look just like em”, which is not true at all.
    • RTFishUL, on 08/23/2008, -5/+4yeah, kinda funny, my linux desktop actually looks just like that...
      • jonsterling, on 08/23/2008, -8/+3Um, no, it doesn't.
      • Acglaphotis, on 08/23/2008, -0/+5jonsterling:It could. You just never found out how. Anyways, I never understood people who used OSX or Windows themes on Linux. I mean, c'mon, you got effectively unlimited potential for skinning and you decide to go with a competing OS. Why don't you just use it then?
      • aforce369, on 08/23/2008, -1/+2Jokes on you Jon, I've seen his desktop.
        It looks just like that. Maybe a different background, but yeah, the layout is the same.
    • SSUK, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1Haha, good one.
    • Maxpower57, on 08/23/2008, -0/+4"What's that say? .. make the buttons bigger, 20 times bigger!" ~steve
  • paulvq, on 08/23/2008, -2/+35Crime against "humanity"? Clever.
  • mickstephenson, on 08/23/2008, -2/+26Mock up's for the most part are a big waste of time unless the "man with a plan" actually has the skill to implement it. Guess what, perhaps what the art team are lacking isn't you're artistic genius and photoshop skillz, but people who will actually learn how to theme and create themes.
    • douglas1991, on 08/23/2008, -14/+0
      Ubuntu Ibex will be the most Ugly Ubuntu ever according to this article:
      http://iampriteshdesai.blogspot.com/2008/07/ubuntu ...
      • Acglaphotis, on 08/23/2008, -1/+1Who gives a *****? The first thing most people do is customizing to whatever they want at the moment.
      • burrgrinder, on 08/23/2008, -0/+0A broken blog...what a credible and trustworthy source of information.
    • abbathdoom, on 08/24/2008, -0/+4Digg for this sexy Ubuntu theme that is actually possible...

      http://digg.com/linux_unix/A_really_sexy_Ubuntu_th ...
    • VVho, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1The problem here is that people rather misinterpret the nature of the art team - they aren't actually the people who make the _default_ theme - though too many members of the team join and participate it in believing that it IS - there are regular emails to the art list explaining this, but it still doesn't seem to quite get through!

      Ubuntu is not democratic, and rightly so - design by committee sucks. IF the art team can step up and get some packaged themes into Universe, or even Main, then there is a chance the sabdfl will take them seriously and start thinking about letting some of the responsibility for a default theme rest on them. As it is, paid employees of Canonical make a default theme with the tools available, often taking the input from the community where they can and pushing Mark Shuttleworth towards newer and more exciting design - something that people seem to think he isn't currently supporting. I think they do a good job working in a difficult position.

      The art team needs people to make FULL themes, NOT mockups, package them and maintain them. We need people with time and commitment - and the really important thing is that they need NOT to focus, at least for now, on making the default theme.

      So, it comes down to this: Mark Shuttleworth pays for Ubuntu, and he'll put a theme on it that he likes. No matter how much he likes these mockups that get posted (and I have no idea how much that is) if somebody doesn't make it a reality he sure as hell doesn't have the time to do it.

      At the expense of pushing my own list posts, please have a look at
      https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-art/2008- ... (by me) and
      https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-art/2008- ... by Kenneth Wimmer - the leader of the Art Team (paid by Canonical) to get an idea for how the team currently does (and doesn't) work
  • fuhrysteve, on 08/23/2008, -0/+13it looks kinda slick, but it's not *that* impressive.
  • IanPR, on 08/23/2008, -0/+12What it needs is better dual screen support.
    I've got Hardy Heron dual booted with XP, and I rarely touch Hardy Heron because I cannot make changes to my xorg.conf file for dualscreen X|
    • farbeyondriven, on 08/23/2008, -1/+6It's actually quite easy to do if you're willing to take the time and look into it. Works like a charm.
      • almighty, on 08/23/2008, -1/+3Agreed, I got dual monitors working in Hardy in 10 mins.
      • vegr, on 08/23/2008, -0/+2All you need is a free driver with xrandr support, and you are golden...
      • IanPR, on 08/23/2008, -0/+2I have the driver from nVidia, but it gives me an error when writing to the xorg.conf file.
        Plus, if any messagebox comes up, its centered in between the screens X|
      • ptemple, on 08/23/2008, -0/+7My dual monitors worked out of the box as I used the nvidia config tool and clicked to enable the second monitor.

        Phillip.
      • stuffradio, on 08/23/2008, -8/+1I dual boot Ubuntu 8.04 with XP. The trick is to install Windows first, THEN install Ubuntu :D
      • BoneheadFarker, on 08/23/2008, -1/+2@IanPR

        I think I know your pain. I have several Nvidia cards, and they all have given me problems with loading the drivers and making dual screen work. They only way I got around it was several hours of work compiling the driver and repeatedly changing the xorg.conf back and forth between dual screen and other configurations until it just suddenly worked. I couldn't tell you why it worked, but I did get it working. Though I've had similar problems with Windows and various pieces of equipment. Sometimes I think these things have a mind of their own, and they just like ***** with my head...



        Edit: Oh, and keep in mind that Ubuntu seems to like a reboot before video setting changes take effect.
      • IanPR, on 08/23/2008, -1/+3stuffradio... I'm not retarded.
        Thats the only way GRUB will play nice with XP and Ubuntu.
        I'm only saying that its a bitch to save the xorg.conf file through nVidia's tool.

        And Bonehead... they definitely do have a mind of their own sometimes. :)
      • Frost9999, on 08/23/2008, -4/+2Wow, if anyone asks why Linux is not doing so great on the desktop - I will point them to this thread. Had no idea it was such a mission to make dual monitors work... something that was easy back in Windows 98.
      • stuffradio, on 08/23/2008, -0/+2I was wondering at first why I was getting buried... but I guess it's because I was stating the obvious. Bury away! I was also talking about dual booting while you were talking about dual monitors... DUH
      • BoneheadFarker, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1@Frost9999

        It isn't that bad with most equipment. Nvidia does a pretty good job on their drivers for the most part, but they aren't perfect. Especially after a card is no longer part of the main driver package. That was the start of my problem with my Ti4200.

        But really, both their Linux and Windows drivers have issues. I had a hell of a time with this machine from the first time I put it together and through all the upgrades I've made. And at first it was using Windows. I had drivers not loading, hardware not being recognized, random and mysterious errors, blue screens all over the place. Half of the time, the OS has absolutely nothing to do with the problem.

        Right now, I'd say Ubuntu and most other distros are at least at the same level as a fully loaded and fully updated version of XP or OSX. The amount of work you have to put in to get to that state varies by OS, but you can make any relatively recent OS work very well on most hardware. Though I wouldn't compare it to Vista, because Vista has taken a step back by removing features and making security a pain in the ass.

        Honestly, the OS fanboy wars are a little bit funny. The reason I recommend Ubuntu to people is because it's usually dead simple to setup and use by people with at least some technical skill. Regular people who can't be bothered to learn, I recommend Windows. That's because most people will have to use a computer at work, and that will usually have Windows or a terminal program in Windows to get to the old-ass AS/400 system. And yes, that XKCD reference was on purpose. Anyways, if the regular people use Windows at work, it's best that they use Windows at home. That way, they don't have to learn anything new about those damn computers.

        OSX fanboys, on the other hand, can kiss my ass. Or at least the one that's related to me can...
      • dawnraid101, on 08/23/2008, -1/+3 "It's actually quite easy to do if you're willing to take the time and look into it. Works like a charm."

        And thats exactly why I use XP and OS X. Becuase they just work.
      • silfiriel, on 08/23/2008, -0/+2I took the time, and gave up after spending a lot of it.
      • BoneheadFarker, on 08/24/2008, -0/+2@dawnraid101

        XP doesn't "just work". It takes me more effort to set up then Ubuntu, and that was even with the extra time it took to setup the video card after my first experience with it. I can usually get a full Ubuntu system up and running with all necessary updates and software in 1 to 2 hours, depending on how lazy I am. An XP system usually takes a minimum of 4.

        OSX, on the other hand, I don't have much experience with. As I understand it though, they come preloaded on the system. Unless you're buying a knock-off from Psystar, that is. But for an Apple, there usually isn't much to do. However, you're going to pay a lot more money for that convenience...
      • DontThinkSo, on 08/26/2008, -0/+0Just use nvidia-settings... why would you edit xorg.conf manually when nvidia ships a configurator that will allow you to set everything up?
    • zwaldowski, on 08/23/2008, -0/+3If you have an nVidia card, definitely look into Envy. That'll help a lot.
    • IanPR, on 08/23/2008, -3/+3Tried it before.
      I think I'm gonna stick with XP anyways.
      Centered pop-ups suck.
    • warriorscot, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1Its a bugger with an ATI card but it doesn't take long to set up with nvidia, the only thing you need to do is add a little startup script to start a separate X-session for both monitors if you want compiz effects on both.
    • comwiz7, on 08/23/2008, -1/+2It's doable in most cases but I see your point. When you can set it up in XP in a few clicks why should you half to edit config files in Ubuntu? This does need to be improved.
    • shethinkmefunny, on 08/23/2008, -1/+2@IanPR

      You have to run the nvidia tool as root (sudo). If you don't, it doesn't have permission to access xorg.conf, and thus will error out. Why they don't make it run as root by default is beyond me.
      • neko, on 08/24/2008, -1/+2Because this is NOT WINDOWS!
      • shethinkmefunny, on 08/25/2008, -0/+1I didn't say make the system run as root, just that one app. When an app needs root permissions, it asks you for the password. Much different.

        And shouting is not necessary. Bill O'Reilly shouts. Don't be like Bill.
  • Rocco03, on 08/23/2008, -5/+178Why would you want Ubuntu to look like a 404 page?
    • ethana2, on 08/23/2008, -0/+6It actually didn't load far enough to show me a 404... lucky.
    • webcrumb, on 08/23/2008, -0/+8Some people will do anything to avoid a brown theme.
    • drgmdp, on 08/23/2008, -2/+3it's a concept.
      understand? a concept.
      • noreality, on 08/24/2008, -0/+2like a concept car? they only exist in someones mind?...wait, the 404 page is a concept? odd
  • InorganicMatter, on 08/23/2008, -14/+4What Ubuntu SHOULD look like, but NEVER will look like because the Ubuntu project always lets their idiotic "principles" get in the way of including (not post-installing) the manufacturer's video drivers by default. (Yet they include closed-source modem drivers by default. Hypocrites!)
    • Aitese, on 08/23/2008, -2/+14It's not about closed or open source...it's about permission. Nvidia own their drivers and no one has the right to go packaging them into their distro without permission...which Ubuntu doesn't have.
      • InorganicMatter, on 08/23/2008, -10/+2So go get permission instead of complaining you don't have it. Sabayon Linux sure doesn't seem to have this problem; all video cards are 100% function out of the box.
      • Aitese, on 08/23/2008, -2/+13@InorganicMatter

        Oh wow!!! You're right!!! *****! I'm sure NO ONE has ever just thought to ASK for permission to freely give away someone else's property! *****, why hasn't anyone thought of this before? Here we are pirating stuff when we could have just fired off an email and ASKED for ***** free! Thank you...thank you SO much.
      • mrBitch, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1/sarcasm
      • bhalo05, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1If propietary drivers were truly easy to install nobody would give a ***** about if drivers come preinstalled or not. The eternal Linux problem, always discussed, never resolved.
      • Aitese, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1bhalo...they ARE. Well the Nvidia drivers are...you just have to confirm that you WANT them once you're up and running. The same with DVD codecs...they ask you if it's legal for you to have them in your region.
  • anksrivastava, on 08/23/2008, -3/+4The site is down. I wouldn't like Ubuntu to be such
    • ethana2, on 08/23/2008, -11/+0What the frick is taking us so long to switch to bittorent for web page hosting?!
      • lulzitsadigg, on 08/23/2008, -0/+8It would help if it was possible.

        Yes I know anything is possible, but using p2p to host websites isn't really a good idea
      • lowtolerance, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1Wow...I really hope that you're joking.
  • MicronXD, on 08/23/2008, -7/+23yay dddos'ed

    Digg Distributed Denial of Service
  • salomejones, on 08/23/2008, -2/+11Needs more orange.
  • seltaeb4, on 08/23/2008, -25/+13If you Linux people think this turd-colored screenshot is worth crowing about, PLEASE don't ever look upon Mac OS X... it will cause your heads to explode from envy.

    On second thought... please DO look upon Mac OS X, as it will save us all from wading through all this Linux trash on digg.
    • Krissam, on 08/23/2008, -5/+8oh you mean like this?
      http://maketecheasier.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/ ...

      cut the trolling, please, if you dont like linux stories, then filter them?
      • Flummoxer, on 08/23/2008, -7/+4I actually did that, and it looked like crap compared to my Mac.

      • t0x2c, on 08/23/2008, -1/+5To be honest, being a heterosexual, I think mac is for a bunch of fags.
    • Aitese, on 08/23/2008, -3/+7You see across the top? See the part that says "All>>Technology>>Linux/Unix"? You know you can stop that part from showing up and bothering you right? You know if you didn't know that then you're an idiot right? Now ***** off back to "All>>Technology>>Apple" and stop bothering us with your pointless poorly thought out opinions.
      • Junior612, on 08/23/2008, -0/+3"All>>Technology>>Apple"

        The /A/ of Digg
    • jonsterling, on 08/23/2008, -6/+1Amen.
    • seltaeb4, on 08/23/2008, -10/+1Hey then, keep your Linux cartoons off the front page.

      Whomever posted this screenshot commented thusly: "And it looks amazing." Evidently, you are all VERY easily impressed.

      I have a genuine curiosity about Linux, and want to know what's going on in the community... but when I check out a story and find out that that fecal screenshot is what you're all so excited about... good God...

      You guys almost make the Ron Paul people look sane... *almost*. If you want people to take your OS seriously, cut the douchebaggery.
      • lowtolerance, on 08/23/2008, -0/+4What could possibly be more douchebaggish than throwing a crack at a politician into a argument over linux vs mac?
  • jaikob, on 08/23/2008, -12/+7THE DIGG EFFECT!

    "May cause unwanted server crashes, and or explosions of catastrophic proportions."
  • willwillywilson, on 08/23/2008, -16/+85Give me this anyday: http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/7/73 ...
  • kirk23, on 08/23/2008, -3/+85Mirror:
    http://www.valeriovalerio.org/images/Ubuntu_Mockup ...
  • TaintBrush, on 08/23/2008, -22/+7People need to stop wanting linux to be some sort of mainstream desktop environment anyone can use. That's not what it's for.

    Most of those applications aren't even available for Linux. If that's what you want, get a Mac.
    • jugglingjon, on 08/23/2008, -1/+19Don't you think that's the goal of some distributions, like Ubuntu?

      I agree this guy just wants a Mac but doesn't realize it yet.
    • fixty, on 08/23/2008, -1/+10That's a pretty absolutist statement. It's a good thing it's not true. The "open" in "open source" negates your point - it doesn't matter what you think "it's for", and to say otherwise is to miss the point of open projects almost entirely.
    • c0baltfish, on 08/23/2008, -2/+1I was with you until you said "get a Mac."
  • nekuia2, on 08/23/2008, -6/+1Word? what is this?
  • ginestony, on 08/23/2008, -4/+11Once Adobe ports their software over to linux the market share of linux users will jump I'm sure.
    • webRat, on 08/23/2008, -1/+8"Once Adobe ports their software" - Have they made an announcement that they were going to? You're implying they have. Until then, keep dreaming.
      • ethana2, on 08/23/2008, -4/+1GIMP 2.6 will leave them with a very clear choice. I hope they make the right one.
      • burrgrinder, on 08/23/2008, -0/+2Hahaha. Gimp isn't going to phase Adobe. Photoshop is an industry standard, Dreamweaver is head and shoulders above any free alternative, Flash has no challenger. While I wish they would port it to linux, they could continue to ignore linux forever and they'd still have a huge business.
      • neko, on 08/24/2008, -1/+1Considering they want to push their AIR platform as much as possible, I wouldn't be surprised if they started porting some of their desktop software to AIR. Even if it was just some Photoshop CS4 Lite Edition, can you imagine how many people would be interested? Especially as most people only want Photoshop to remove red-eye and attach captions to cat pictures.
      • burrgrinder, on 08/24/2008, -0/+0How many home users actually buy their products? Almost none. How many linux users are going to buy it? Even less than current Windows/Mac home users; it's a smaller market share and it's a userbase accustomed to not purchasing software and not needing formal support.

        Adobe Air is being pushed because they have to compete with Silverlight, which is fine, but don't expect any of their development tools to be ported. I'm an avid linux user, but I'm realistic, the development cost to port to and maintain for linux is either below the profit margin of that market, or at the breakeven point and not worth the extra hassle. If it wasn't, they would have already ported it.

        Most companies don't have OS preferences, they have bottom lines. If it were profittable to port to linux, they would. If all you need to do is remove red-eye and caption pictures, you don't need Adobe.
      • webRat, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1@neko : Because, removing red-eye and attaching captions is TOTALLY what are holding people back from switching to linux. Come on. Please think a little harder. Adobe Air is nice (I like it!), but it's not the end-all, be all.
    • bjarkebech, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1Why? Photoshop users are already on Windows or Mac, so i don't see a reason to switch just for that...
    • silfiriel, on 08/23/2008, -1/+2Photoshop works on Ubuntu under wine, flawlessly
  • ambiescent, on 08/23/2008, -1/+50Here are more proposed themes, which I think are more feasible. (not just because one of them is mine)
    https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Artwork/Incoming/Intrepid/ ...
    https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Artwork/Incoming/Intrepid/ ...
    https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Artwork/Incoming/Intrepid/ ...
    • elambing, on 08/23/2008, -0/+38the first one looks really good, i like how its sort of minimalist :D
    • PaulRay, on 08/23/2008, -0/+14I also like the first one. In fact it looks really similar to what I'm using now.
      This theme (I'm guessing it's your design) seems very well thought out. I like the neutral colors since they don't influence your eye whan looking at artwork.


      If anyone cares, here's what I'm using now.
      Dark Ice with XNTricity and Black-White 2 neon. Only real difference is that my theme is glossy.
    • douglas1991, on 08/23/2008, -17/+04m 7s…)
      Ubuntu Ibex will be the most Ugly Ubuntu ever according to this article:
      http://iampriteshdesai.blogspot.com/2008/07/ubuntu ...
    • davidlick, on 08/23/2008, -2/+9I will switch to Ubuntu in a heartbeat if it looks like the first screenshot. Pure sexy.
      • Evolutuon, on 08/23/2008, -0/+2You can make it look almost like that, if not better now. Join the community!
      • greywolfexcel, on 08/23/2008, -0/+3Err, are you sure switching operating systems based on its look is the wisest decision?
    • ssavoy, on 08/23/2008, -2/+7The last one it says: Free Space 700TB

      That's over 9,00...ahh nevermind.
    • djbon2112, on 08/23/2008, -0/+3I greatly like the first one.
    • motang, on 08/23/2008, -0/+4Love the way the first one looks, hoping that would be one of the choice in final 8.10 release.
    • thethunderbird, on 08/23/2008, -0/+2The first one is excellent, I agree. Very clean, very sharp.
    • unrealmp3, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1The first one is the best.
    • alex141, on 08/24/2008, -0/+0Anyone know where I can get the wallpaper from the first theme?
    • kwilliam, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1I sure hope ambiescent made the first one, because everybody seems to like it.
    • srg13, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1Yeah, the first one is really nice, except for the buttons in Firefox (they look terrible in my opinion)
    • abbathdoom, on 08/24/2008, -0/+2Digg for this sexy Ubuntu theme that is actually possible...

      http://digg.com/linux_unix/A_really_sexy_Ubuntu_th ...
  • jakereilly, on 08/23/2008, -0/+24They really need to ditch TheSans as a system font. Looks absolutely horrid.
    • zwaldowski, on 08/23/2008, -0/+7Aw, I like it. It's just as much Ubuntu/Gnome's font as Lucidia Sans is OS X's and Calibri/Segoe UI is Vista's.
      • Galaxylander, on 08/23/2008, -0/+2I thought OS X's font was Helvetica.

        Huh. Learn something new every day.
      • zwaldowski, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1Galaxylander: That too. Helvetica and Lucidia Sans. A little bit of both. Just like Calibri and Segoe UI.
    • infiniphunk, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1no
    • ethana2, on 08/23/2008, -0/+0meh?
    • aaron552, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1Would you prefer Comic Sans?
  • dnite, on 08/23/2008, -1/+5Looks OK, but what's the point of this? Anyone can make Ubuntu (or any Linux distro) look and feel however they want.
    • championchap, on 08/23/2008, -0/+5But that's not the point of Ubuntu is it?
      It's meant to be an easy to use, just get right to it distro!

      So the idea is to eliminate the need for faffing around picking a theme and messing with config files.
      • ethana2, on 08/23/2008, -1/+1yes. You shouldn't /have/ to mess with it to get it to not look awful.
  • orcishstra, on 08/23/2008, -2/+3This theme is available on gnome-look.
    it's called willibex.
    • teefs, on 08/23/2008, -2/+1It is not the same...

      You got me all excited..
  • mirunit, on 08/23/2008, -2/+18Like KDE?
  • andywatts, on 08/23/2008, -2/+3Most of this is doable now.
    I have something pretty close with the ubuntu-studio theme and 'Avant Window Manager' dock.

    The window borders are cool, but I'm sure that's possible with something from http://www.gnome-look.org/
  • ggriffit, on 08/23/2008, -15/+6There is WAY too much OS X going on there. If that's really the goal, get a Mac and skin it
    • Aitese, on 08/23/2008, -2/+11Basically you're the sort of guy who says "You're trying to tell time on a Seiko? Why not buy a Breitling?"

      People want the same level of stability and usability and an attractive desktop to boot with the equipment they own now, a level of openness and at an affordable price...I'm puzzled that such a concept confuses you.
    • aquapete, on 08/23/2008, -6/+2while i dont agree with "get a mac and skin it", there really is a lot of os x going lol
    • andrewa, on 08/23/2008, -1/+1I have about 7-8 computers at my house, 5 of them are Macs with OS X, the others are running Ubuntu Linux. On the Linux boxes the themes generally loosely resemble OS X just because I like that look and feel. So as Aitese mentions above, there are more reasons for "skinning" your Linux systems than just making it an OS X-wannabe.
    • ethana2, on 08/23/2008, -1/+0Seems my comment didn't post.

      I said I'm torrenting JaS' Leapord for my new Ubuntu Dell, is that what you mean?
  • MrViklund, on 08/23/2008, -11/+4I don't give much for Ubuntu. It's all about the hype...
    There are allot of other great distros out there.
  • Greg2k, on 08/23/2008, -7/+16Why do Linux icons always look amateurish? Both Apple and Microsoft go totally out of their way to make some awesome looking icons...isn't there anybody in the Linux community who can come up with professional looking icons?
  • BesideYouInTime, on 08/23/2008, -2/+10If this is what I think it is, you can see it here:
    http://willwill100.deviantart.com/art/Interpid-Ibe ...
    • nedzeve, on 08/23/2008, -1/+2Oh yeah, we'll see that on a Linux desktop -- shortly after Office is ported and hell freezes over.
    • Keithamus, on 08/23/2008, -1/+2I really don't understand what the ***** people love about this theme. It is a wallpaper, which you can download and use now, a black gnome-panel, and songbird. It can practically all be done now - there's no depth to it, its not even complete!

      Granted, the login screen is good, and would be very nice to see implemented (especially if it works with the main users background wallpaper), but the rest is basically a screenshot with a half attempt superimposed onto it.
  • andywatts, on 08/23/2008, -5/+0If those icons are to be trusted, the greatest thing about this would be MS Office on Gnome (sans wine)...

    If MS can port it to Apple's bsd, seems reasonable that a Linux version would be possible.
    • zwaldowski, on 08/23/2008, -0/+4They'd never do that. That's just a guy using Word's icons for Writer.
    • ProfBagelwood, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1OpenOffice is the way to go for Linux, and is included with Ubuntu. OpenOffice is also the way to go for Windows and Mac, but since these users have a higher tendency to just use whatever they get handed without looking and seeing what else is out there, they're less likely to know about it. Yes, there are some rare cases where employees for some companies need some obscure function in Excel that isn't supported by OpenOffice, but for the vast majority of computer users of all types, there is no reason to not go with OpenOffice.
      • Galaxylander, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1Open Office is slow and buggy on the Mac, and it's really bloated, but on Linux it's great. It's slow on Windows too though.

        Honestly, I don't get why people would buy MS Office over iWork, iWork is $79 and Office is like $32489723498.99
  • ghaefb, on 08/23/2008, -0/+4I don't see anything new on this screen except that weird looking nautilus window with so much exaggerated rounded shapes(I hate that) and altered layout. And what tha hell it songbird doing there? It doesn't even fit with GTK+ theme...
  • alexnb185, on 08/23/2008, -1/+3Not that impressed. I think the white was better. Just looked cleaner. But I wish you could mix and match and have some apps have the white skin and some black and a translucent menu bar blacker at one end and whiter on the other. That would be trippy.
  • agentlame, on 08/23/2008, -1/+7Again?
  • lebaige, on 08/23/2008, -12/+6Why don't you just buy a Mac if you want your OS to look like OSX? God, the Linux community is so derivative.
  • alexnb185, on 08/23/2008, -1/+38I do however like this theme more:

    https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Artwork/Incoming/Intrepid/ ...
    • abbathdoom, on 08/23/2008, -1/+6As I wrote above before it got voted down by retards, Ubuntu needs something today, not in 6-12 months time when all the new code has been written. If this theme is already 100% real and can be achieved today then I say Ubuntu should run with it.
  • Gneisbaard, on 08/23/2008, -2/+15Do not want
  • stikkitjim, on 08/23/2008, -3/+51I dont even know where to start -

    1. Too much change. Learning fro other's mistakes (ahem... vista) radical interface changes are damaging to the "old dog new tricks" crowd of people, who are still learning to familiarise themselves with the old interface.

    2. What's this fascination with Docks!? I hate the things... so much wasted real estate on the bottom left and right of the screen... yea i know I can hide it, but I also like working with things at the bottom of the window without a poxy dock popping up.
    • webRat, on 08/23/2008, -13/+10I agree. If you linux peeps want a mac so bad, GO BUY A MAC.
      • loyx, on 08/23/2008, -2/+5Linux users for the most part like to save money, and don't want to throw away $500 extra just to have a legitimate mac GUI when it can be duplicated almost exactly the same on linux, thanks
      • ethana2, on 08/23/2008, -2/+1I'm torrenting JaS's Leapord for a dual boot on my new Ubuntu Dell, if that's what you mean.
      • infernal6, on 08/23/2008, -2/+2I did.
    • calebh, on 08/23/2008, -1/+5I would have to agree. I would like a theme change on ubuntu, but not to a dark one.
    • stimpack, on 08/23/2008, -0/+9Docks are horrific at the best of times and a large bottom dock on a widescreen display leaves me speechless.

      The rest looks quite nice.
      • Waterrat, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1 Yup,not impressed with the docks and i hate having to hide and unhide um (Just lazy i guess.)
    • CactusAus, on 08/24/2008, -0/+0I like the eye candy of a dock, each to their own. I wouldn't want the dock to be installed by default though, would much prefer having the choice of turning it on in the desktop effects area as an option if you turn on the full effects to enable compiz plugins.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 155 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.