Canonical want to make Linux as "Pretty" as OSX

[Stuart C]

Mark Shuttleworth has issued a challenge Open Source coders. Make Linux prettier than OS X..

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...ple_challenge/


I won't say much here, just repost the small Essay I posted at The Register..

---
OSX doesn't succeed because it is pretty. It succeeds because the system has been designed from the ground up to be well integrated and both logical (once you get used to it) and simple to use. In fact, it isn't pretty in all areas.

The whole enlightment desktop thing (although judging from the screenshots I have seen, I wouldn't say enlightenment is "beautiful" at all) shows one of the problems of Linux. Someone comes up with a new desktop, so what do the Linux bods do?

Do they ensure that the new desktop provides a consistant and easy to follow user interface? Err, no.

Do they work to ensure that apps will work without alteration on this new desktop? Err, no.

Do they work to ensure that apps have consistant user interfaces, with certain common operations in apps having the same menu options/shortcut keys (e.g. "Save" always being in the "File" menu and help accessible by pressing F1). Not in my experience.

Do they work to ensure that some of the more confusing aspects of Linux are hidden but still available to those who know where to look? Not judging by what I have seen.

No, they create a whole new distrubution of Ubuntu to run it. So, they add another Linux distribution to a market that's already flooded with multiple Linux distros and offers no indication to the non-technical newbie which they should chose.

I mention the non-technical newbie because this is the market that Linux has to penetrate if it is to succeed as a consumer OS. These people are not interested in the technical aspects of the OS. They just want a computer that they can operate fairly simply. They want something that will surf the web, play the odd video on Youtube, let them send email, do the household accounts and word process. They may also be the sort of people who are actually scared by options that look too technical.

You can moan about OSX and Windows all you want, but with both OSes, you can be fairly sure that if you download an app, it will work on your version of the OS, and will have at least some aspects of the user interface that you recognise.

This isn't an anti-linux post. I like Linux. The problem Linux has is that it is maintained by a load of geeks who seem to have little concept of what the average user needs from an OS.

Microsoft and Apple both have the advantage that they can afford to establish huge research labs specifically to design user interfaces and they can pour millions of pounds into this research. Linux doesn't really have that.

The other problem LInux has is that the only companies who do have capital to invest in it (Redhat, Novell, Canonical) who *could* be investing in UI design are either not interested (Step forward Redhat and Novell), or are totally misjudging people's needs (Canonical), and think that people want a "pretty" OS rather than a usable one.

However, if by "Beautiful", he means a well-integrated and easy to follow user interface, he is right. If he means the same as a lot of other Linux users (a user interface with funky graphics and special fx), he is wrong. Funky graphics and special fx can look good, but after a few days of use, they can become an irritating waste of resources.

[Rob M]

[ikthius]

sweet post,

thats is the only thing keeping me from totally converting, it is not as easy as windows.

I know how to do lots of things in windows, but not in linux, and when you ask the makority of linux users how to do simple tasks you always get the same answers..... google it, that is not so helpful.

there is a small number of really good linux users who help out everyone, and for that I am thankful, (cobyd aka Kevin and others who have helped me here)

if they could make linux more user friendly and have drivers that nearly all hardware and software are easily compatible with linux (all distros) with the same effect as other OS's like when you install a prog it is easy to find and easy to put a shotcut to it.

ik

[deadite66]

depends on what you want to do with it i think, if you just browse the web and email you'll be fine, lots of apps in the repositories that will satisfy most casual users.
its when you wander off the beaten track things start to get tricky and that mostly because it gets all conf file based rather than a gui.

though i think gnome/kde are pretty enough already, plenty of scope to change the look and themes.
ubuntu could make a start and change that horrible dull brown theme.

[ikthius]

Originally Posted by deadite66

depends on what you want to do with it i think, if you just browse the web and email you'll be fine, lots of apps in the repositories that will satisfy most casual users.
its when you wander off the beaten track things start to get tricky and that mostly because it gets all conf file based rather than a gui.

though i think gnome/kde are pretty enough already, plenty of scope to change the look and themes.
ubuntu could make a start and change that horrible dull brown theme.

i found the fonts disgusting in linux, and yu really have to work hard to fix it to make it pretty.

these are basics that you should not have to play with for example, Windows, the fonts you just change, you dont have to play with all progs to get it working the same way, they look pretty and smooth first time.

things like that can put of a newbie.

[punky]

I'm surprised people hardly mentioned compiz. With compiz running Linux is every bit as pretty as OSX or Vista.

Its been said a billion times, but its true: The real problems come under the hood. The average use doesn't want to have to use console or modifiying .conf files, and they want working drivers for their hardware. There also needs to be unification, not just betwen the distros, but within the distros themselves, between the kernel and GUI, and within the GUI. It also needs to work rather than endless workarounds. I've lost count the number of times i've had to arbitarily paste in bits of code from anonymous blogs to get something working.

A recent experience. A mate wanted me to install Firefox 3.0.1 on his Ubuntu box. Tried the packaging manager GUI and non-GUI, both kept re-installing 2.0.0.16. Searched the non-GUI package manager, and see there is a 3.0 package. Except its 3.0a. Lots of Googling later and it seems that 3.0.1 is only available for Hardy, and my mate has Gutsy, despite Gutsy still being supported until April 2009. So I have to paste the linux link to the tarball from my machine into wget. Then I need to google the untar command because the untar GUI won't do it because its not running as su. So after 90 minutes, googling, console commands I have Firefox 3.0.1 running.

From OSX you click the link which downloads a file. You double click it and it opens a window. You drag the icon inside that window into your applications folder.

From Windows, click you click the link that downloads a file. You double click it and it installs

This isn't an isolated incident.

[admars]

i found the fonts disgusting in linux, and yu really have to work hard to fix it to make it pretty.

I agree, I've been distro hopping for a ages now, actually I've been using Madnriva 2008.1 and recently upgrded openSUSE10.3 to 11.0 and fonts is the thing I still have trouble with.

On a 17" CRT, and on the 14" on my laptop it's ok but on my 19" LCD monitor I've had no joy getting fonts as nice as they are in XP I've tried so many different guides such as http://www.sharpfonts.com/ and at http://www.howtoforge.com but can't get it as good as MS Cleartype which is funny cos on my monitor at work, I prefer cleartype turned off!

The competition is a nice idea, and I know some ppl do liek to customise their desktop, but I just turn off flashy 3d effect, and keep it plain and simple. the compiz 3d box novelty thing wore off pretty quick. As long as I have 4 2d workspaces I'm happy, I don't need them to spin and wobble, and catch on fire

[Jefferson T]

Originally Posted by punky

I'm surprised people hardly mentioned compiz. With compiz running Linux is every bit as pretty as OSX or Vista.

Its been said a billion times, but its true: The real problems come under the hood. The average use doesn't want to have to use console or modifiying .conf files, and they want working drivers for their hardware. There also needs to be unification, not just betwen the distros, but within the distros themselves, between the kernel and GUI, and within the GUI. It also needs to work rather than endless workarounds. I've lost count the number of times i've had to arbitarily paste in bits of code from anonymous blogs to get something working.

A recent experience. A mate wanted me to install Firefox 3.0.1 on his Ubuntu box. Tried the packaging manager GUI and non-GUI, both kept re-installing 2.0.0.16. Searched the non-GUI package manager, and see there is a 3.0 package. Except its 3.0a. Lots of Googling later and it seems that 3.0.1 is only available for Hardy, and my mate has Gutsy, despite Gutsy still being supported until April 2009. So I have to paste the linux link to the tarball from my machine into wget. Then I need to google the untar command because the untar GUI won't do it because its not running as su. So after 90 minutes, googling, console commands I have Firefox 3.0.1 running.

From OSX you click the link which downloads a file. You double click it and it opens a window. You drag the icon inside that window into your applications folder.

From Windows, click you click the link that downloads a file. You double click it and it installs

This isn't an isolated incident.

Ah yes, but I'm sure he appreciates all your hard work

p.s. I would upgrade to 8.04 but i'm not sure it won't stuff up the server...

[RizzyKing]

I have looked at linux in the past and i am definately your average user. three things put me off really the complexity of the os and navigating around it (this was two years ago so might have changed), I play games and doing it on linux was more haslle then it was worth and lastly the superiorness of a lot of linux users i came across when trying to get help they seemed more interested in making fun of me and making themselves feel special so i binned the whole idea. I would love to have an alternative to windows but i don't think linux is going to be it unless something very major happens at some point.

[Cobbydaler]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

I have looked at linux in the past and i am definately your average user. three things put me off really the complexity of the os and navigating around it (this was two years ago so might have changed), I play games and doing it on linux was more haslle then it was worth and lastly the superiorness of a lot of linux users i came across when trying to get help they seemed more interested in making fun of me and making themselves feel special so i binned the whole idea. I would love to have an alternative to windows but i don't think linux is going to be it unless something very major happens at some point.

Agreed, games are never going to be a strong point for Linux for a long time (if ever). Of course, you can get Windows games running under the penguin in a few ways (see here).

If the Linux users who you've turned to for help are coming over as superior, then you're talking to the wrong ones! Join a distro's community forums or a local Linux User Group. There's a list of the latter here...

[admars]

The only reason I keep XP on my PC is for games.

My missus isn't that PC literate, but she happily uses Linux to check her email, and browse the web, and knows to go into XP fromt he boot menu to play Sims 2.

But then for her she probablu doesn't know or care that she's using Linux, I'm certain she wouldn't know what flavor it is, I think she commented once that the pc looked different when I was playing with a different one

Anyway I digress, my point is, for her, she sees a thunderbird icon, and a firefox icon on the desktop, and uses them, that's it, so it doesn't matter what OS she is using, which is fine for her, she's happy with it. She has seen me switching between workspaces etc, but isn't bothered by all that, she is happy to use it the way she would use Windows.

There are a few Linuxes these days aimed at beginners, such as PCLinuxOS, which is good, I used it for a while, but I broke it trying to be bug and clever editing config files, so took the opportunity to try a new distro. As a whole, with most of the new main distros you can avoid editing config files unless you want to. Sure I write the off shell script now and again, but in XP I've wrtten batch files now and again. Linux has come a long way in the last few years, but sadly it's "beardy" image, and the elitist snobs you get on some forums do put people off.

www.distrowatch.com is a good place to get an idea of what different distros there are, and the differences between them.

[Stuart C]

The availability of commercial software and games on Linux is another good reason that people don't seem to be going for it. However, it's a bit of a wierd situation. While people don't install Linux, the software companies will not see a market for their products, so will be less likely to develop for Linux. While people don't see their favourite software brands (MS Office, Photoshop, Half Life etc), they are less likely to install Linux.

Yes, I know that Linux has Open Source equivalents that are in some cases better than the brand name software, your average joe soap, who has just bought his PC from Pcworld (or any other high street computer shop) isn't necessarily going to know that.

---------- Post added at 18:07 ---------- Previous post was at 17:50 ----------

Also, the comments made on this thread highlight some of the problems..

Someone said "their are a few Linuxes aimed at beginners". This, in some ways, is good. In other ways, it is bad, as it means that the average consumer is presented with a whole load of different distributions and no clue as to which one to use. You can argue that as Linux is free, he/she can try a few. That is true. However, installing a new OS is a frightening thing for a new user (been there myself), and they may not want to spend the best part of half a day getting their PC up and running, when, with both OSX and Windows, they can be up and running within 20 minutes.

Also, the user groups, while helpful are another thing that joe soap may not know about or want to be bothered with.

I think that what needs to happen (but for various reasons probably never will) is that the entire Linux industry needs to get together. They need to adapt one of the existing distributions (or create a new one) so that the following is true.

• It is well integrated.
• It is easy learn and use.
• It hides more technical stuff from the casual user, but in a logical way (look at OSX for a good example of this).
• It does not require messing around on the command line to configure.
• It has a software update system that is as easy to use and operates as well as Windows Update or Apple Software Update. They may need to remove other packages (such as Firefox and other software) from this system.
• They need to ensure that the system has drivers built in for a good selection of hardware (I gave up on Linux when I couldn't find a driver that worked with the SATA interface on my Motherboard and I am very technical).
• They need to ensure that all software provided in the OS distribution has a consistant and logical user interface. They also need to try and ensure this consistancy is enforced in other software (although to be fair, both Microsoft and Apple seem to have trouble with this).

You may say that is impossible to do given the open source nature of Linux. It isn't. Apart from the drivers, OSX manages all that, despite being built upon an open source distribution of BSD.

Finally, they need to ensure that the resulting distribution is marketed as well as (if not better than) OSX and Windows.

[punky]

The trouble with linux is that its own construction. Windows and OSX are monolithic in the sense that there's one team accomplishing one goal. You get one product but its consistent and accompishes its functions. Now with linux its the opposite. You have loads of different linux developers developing loads of different distros, in loads of different ways. Its great for variety. Linux can run power everything from supercomputer clusters down to embedded systems like mobile phones. The downside is that there is no consistency among the distros. Not even the kernel is consistent.

Imagine how different it would be if the world's entire linux construction resources were piled into one distro (like Ubuntu), with one consistent design. It would easily stand a chance at seriously beating Windows. This is essecially what OSX does. It took one distro, freeBSD, and put serious resources into producing a final consistent distro out of it.

I don't think linux will ever be a serious homeuser player until something like this happens.

[RizzyKing]

To be honest i am not going to bother with linux till it is as easy to use as windows. I accept i may have run into the bad segment of linux but there were quite a few of them lol. It's a nice idea but then many ideas are nice and until it has that ease of use it will never be taken onboard by the vast majority a conumdrum indeed for linux.

[deadite66]

depends on the use for me.
on my msi wind ubuntu runs fine, does all i need it to.
on my htpc i use ubuntu again.
but on my desktop i want games and that means windows, i tend to play for a bit then stop and keep going like that so dual boot is pointless for me.
if games weren't involved i would use linux all the time.