Does Linux have a "Look"?

Question

When some one mentions a Windows computer, you instantly know what it looks like, and you picture blue and green for XP and Aero and black for Vista. The same thought applies to Apple’s Operating System. But when Linux is brought up, not only do some people not know what Linux is, they could have a plethora of ideas of its Graphical User Interface. For a long time I personally thought that Linux always looked so “childish”. I didn’t like its icons or themes in many cases. However, even if you do like the colors, etc., there are so many different window managers, from KDE to Gnome to Xfce. In addition to this the huge leaps in Visual appeal and usability have been made by Compiz-Fusion, Beryl and Emerald, but these again can vary. To only further a loss of uniformity, there are a multitudinous amount of distributions available.

Answer 1

In my opinion, I do not believe that a uniform look for the desktop will help users all too much. I teach a course on learning Windows, and many of my students do not have any experience using Windows at all.



They have no expectations as to what the desktop is supposed to look like. They are told "This is Windows" and that is enough for them. If it looked like Linux, they would not care -- because they would not know the difference.



What they *do* know is that it is Windows -- and they know what Windows is -- "everybody" uses it, and that is why they are taking the course.



If I told them we were going to be learning Linux, they might look at me funny (even if I were showing them Windows instead). If I told them they were going to learn Windows but were actually showing them Linux instead, they would probably still be okay with it (as long as I teach them well) -- because as far as they know, they are learning Windows -- and that is what's important to them. Not necessarily how it looks.



I have other thoughts, but as far as "look" is concerned, that pretty much sums up my initial cursory thoughts about it.



Riven

Answer 2

I guess that with all the different distros there really in not a Linux "look". But that is one of the attractions I think. I hear a LOT of people complain about the brown of Ubuntu but I happen to like it! I have tried out 8 or 9 different distros and seeing the different GUI's is quite interesting. If it is quite easy for a user to change the look of their GUI I don't think it will be a drawback to new users. The one thing Linux does need to improve on if it is going to be a more widely accepted operating system is 'out of the box' compatibility and usability. As it stands now there is just too much stuff which requires configuration and terminal command line use for the average user to adopt Linux.



Have you looked at Sabayon Linux? Beautiful GUI.

Answer 3

You are missing the point of Linux



Linux is supposed to be a freely customisable operating system, so there is no 'look' as such.

Sure most Linux distros come with a default style for the desktop (be that KDE, Gnome or whatever) but this can be completely customised to suit your tastes.



The bottom line is choice - choice that you dont get with other operating systems.

Answer 4

Oh yeah, all the latest distributions of Linux are amazing to see. Their look and feels are awesome. The latest Ubuntu has more look and feel and display than Windows Vista.

Try posting at www.zyxware.com. The company is called Zyxware Technologies. (Try googling) They are really helpful and they promote GNU'/Linux (Especially they now promote Ubuntu as it is a very simple to use version of Linux) and Open Source Applications. They will definitely guide you regarding this.

You can visit their Linux page by clicking the given link. Select a relevant topic or use their contact us page to post.

Answer 5

I think that the best and the worst thing about Linux is that everything is just so different. From distro to distro you go from a movie making suite to a musicians ideal computer, which is great, because windows is windows and mac is mac you may be able to change a few things but its still a mac or a PC.

Answer 6

this is extraordinary, I even have in no way seen it do this to everyone else's device. thinking it truly is a nicely favourite, extremely maintain working gadget which does no longer be afflicted by virus and secret agent ware infections, and is swifter and extra effectual than homestead windows, it often improves overall performance. And 80 % of the servers on the information superhighway are working Linux. And while setting up it does no longer something except you tell it to. it continually grants the choice to establish with homestead windows and run twin boot, or to do away with homestead windows and run on my own. by using fact the thousands and thousands of folk who've put in it and used it effectively have controlled to stay with the setting up training wisely, you are able to no longer blame the working gadget for somebody's failure to study them or to elect the perfect strategies. So it could advise that it replaced into no longer the gadget that did the wear however the stupidity of the installer. And while setting up it exhibits a licence settlement the place it of course states that by using fact it truly is unfastened utility it could no longer carry any criminal accountability for losses incurred. so which you blew it. by ability of ways, i'm replying to this on a device working Linux very very similar to the masses of alternative linux based machines lots of my purchasers use. So strengthen up. You of course have no clue what you're doing and should no longer be messing with computers. Ubuntu IS a Linux working sytem. that's not homestead windows.

Answer 7

I don't think that Linux has a "look", and I think that's just fine.



People can bring whatever look they want to Linux, and work with it however they want. It can be as uniform, or as unique as you want it to be.



Let's say you didn't like the icons or themes in Windows or MacOS. What other choices would you have? With Linux, if you don't like KDE, you can use Gnome, or XFCE, or whatever, and still keep your underlying OS and environment.



With Linux, you are free to configure, change, replace, or even rebuild components as you desire. With Windows, it's sort of "One interface to rule them all." The "Linux look" is whatever you want it to look like.

Answer 8

Ubuntu has "a look". Sabayon definitely has a distinctive visual style. But with 360+ different distros, your are not going to get the same boring uniformity that you have with windoze or mac.



I guess the probability of a distro maintaining its "look" is inversly proportional to the computer expertise of the user - the more people know about the distro, the more likely they are to modify it to their own liking and needs. This is distinctly outside of the windoze and (I assume) mac bounds.

Answer 9

i disagree it will take quite time for average user to learn LINUX. dude we still have people you don't know how to work with Windows. common.beside people in general are really resisting changes. In Widows World you "point and click" and that made people absolutely lazy LOL< nooffense folks> in Linux you have to know what are you doing otherwise you'll be ****** up