Making Ubuntu Look Like Windows 7

DeviceGuru writes "Although it won't help Linux run Windows-specific software applications, this easy hack produces an Ubuntu desktop that looks and feels a lot like Windows 7. It's particularly suitable for reviving older PCs or laptops on which the main activities will be web-browsing, email, document writing, and streaming music and videos from from the web. The process installs a Windows 7-like GNOME theme on an otherwise standard Ubuntu 10.04 installation, although it might work on other Linux distros with GNOME and appropriate other packages installed. Naturally all this begs the question: why would anybody want to do this? Why indeed!" People have been doing this sort of look-and-feel swap-out for years; it seems best to me as a practical joke.

Comments

begs the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Naturally all this begs the question

No, it doesn't. Proper use of "begging the question.

Re:begs the question

[zill]

The "improper" way is so widespread it has become acceptable usage now, perhaps even the standard usage.

Re:begs the question

[clone53421]

Actually, Wikipedia gave an example of improper use of begging the question:

More recently, “to beg the question” has been used by some to mean the same as “to raise the question”: for example, “This year’s budget deficit is half a trillion dollars. This begs the question- how are we ever going to balance the budget?” Using the term in this way has been deemed to be incorrect by usage commentators.

Proper use of begging the question:

Begging or assuming the point at issue consists (to take the expression in its widest sense) [of] failing to demonstrate the required proposition.

The article appears to be written from the assumption that I want to make Ubuntu look like Windows 7.

Now, the obvious question is, why would I want to do that? TFA tries to answer that: I would want to, because, (according to TFA)

It’s particularly suitable for reviving older PCs or laptops on which the main activities will be web-browsing, email, document writing, and streaming music and videos from from the web.

That doesn’t explain why I’d want it to look like Windows 7, though – it explains why I would want to use Ubuntu, and (once again) assumes that I want it to look like Windows 7.

Thus, it begs the question: Even supposing I wanted to use Ubuntu, why would I want it to look like Windows 7?

Re:begs the question

[MozeeToby]

You've got to admit, it's pretty frustrating when there are two meanings for a phrase and the meanings are contradictory. I suppose it's happened before (for example, there was a time when a foregone conclusion was one that was so unlikely you may as well not think about it, now it is a one that is so likely you may as well not fight against it) but I still cringe whenever I hear it said this way.

Re:begs the question

[clone53421]

One of my pet peeves is the number of people who appear to believe that “ ‘begs the question’ is always incorrect” and “everything not proven is hereby false because of Occam’s razor”.

Re:begs the question

[gandhi_2]

Hence the link?

Re:begs the question

[clone53421]

You've got to admit, it's pretty frustrating when there are two meanings for a phrase and the meanings are contradictory.

They’re not contradictory. It is possible to simultaneously raise an obvious question and assume an answer that doesn’t follow from your facts. Rare, perhaps, but possible. TFA actually managed it pretty well.

Re:begs the question

[Necreia]

Tell me about it. "I couldn't care less" and "I could care less" is a perfect example of this. It sounds simply moronic to use "I could care less" at the times that people do, but people do so often and don't even realize what's wrong.

Re:begs the question

[zill]

Of course there are better alternatives, but I don't think any alternative is good enough to warrant an off-topic post attacking the so-called "grammar mistake".

Re:begs the question

[zill]

I think this sums it up perfectly.

Re:begs the question

[MozeeToby]

That seems pretty contradictory to me. If someone raises a question, they are inviting you to think about the possible answers. If someone begs the question, they are trying to get you to assume the answer that supports your argument. It might be possible to raise the question and then assume the answer, but to me those are two separate actions not something you can do in a single statement.

Re:begs the question

[jeffmeden]

Thus, it begs the question: Even supposing I wanted to use Ubuntu, why would I want it to look like Windows 7?

You're messing with us, right? If you were to *properly* invoke "begging the question" here your counter argument would need to be along the lines of "it is not proven that potential users of Ubuntu ever want for a UI that looks like Windows 7"...

Re:begs the question

[MozeeToby]

Actually, the project kind of does beg the question "why would anyone want this". The project assumes the answer to the question is that people are afraid of migrating to Linux because it is unfamiliar or that people prefer the windows UI to the available Linux UIs. Without that assumption the project is worthless and wouldn't have been done, so it is safe to say that those who did the work did beg the question after all.

Re:begs the question

[Hatta]

for example, there was a time when a foregone conclusion was one that was so unlikely you may as well not think about it

When was that? AFAIK, "Foregone conclusion" comes from Othello, where it means not "unlikely conclusion" but a conclusion that already happened. Not quite the modern sense of "predetermined conclusion", but pretty close.

Re:begs the question

[clone53421]

it is not proven that potential users of Ubuntu ever want for a UI that looks like Windows 7

That was exactly what my question asked. If I was a potential user of Ubuntu, why would I ever want it to look like Windows 7?

There are plenty of decent answers to the question, but TFA didn’t give any. It just assumed that I would.

Re:begs the question

[Critical Facilities]

The other day I had a huge argument over the use of the phrase: "if I do say so myself".

You must be a delight at parties.

Re:begs the question

[Locutus]

ah, just like the George Bush way of continuing to say Iraq had WMD's and Iraq was tied to the 9/11 terrorists. They said this publicly and in press statements so much, people believed them and it became _their_ truth.

it is still "improper" and incorrect. Or should we continue just redefining what is right and what is the truth and pretend we are moving forward?

LoB

Re:begs the question

[Hatta]

The fact that this argument keeps coming up is proof that it's not an acceptable usage now. I sure as hell don't accept it. The phrase "begs the question" is more useful as a logical fallacy than it is as a synonym for "raises the question". That's the only argument that matters.

Did you even read the pages you linked to? I'll quote (emphasis mine):

More recently, "to beg the question" has been used by some to mean the same as "to raise the question": for example, "This year's budget deficit is half a trillion dollars. This begs the question- how are we ever going to balance the budget?" Using the term in this way has been deemed to be incorrect by usage commentators

2. to invite the (following) question. (This reinterpretation of beg the question is incorrect but is currently in widespread use.)

The sense "raise or prompt a question" came about by misunderstanding of the meaning of the expression, possibly by confusion with beg to differ, and is proscribed (denounced) by some usage guides.

In any case, whether the improper use of the phrase is more common than the proper use of the phrase is irrelevant. That just means ignorance is widespread.

Re:begs the question

[recoiledsnake]

Actually, I think "it raises the question" is a better fit for the usage that I have seen.

Re:begs the question

[nizo]

It's like a suicide booth, only there is a phone in it.

Re:begs the question

[edmicman]

I couldn't of said it better!

Re:begs the question

[Tawnos]

Except that there are ways I *could* care less, but they'd involve effort that makes the status quo level of caring best.

For example, I could care less about how the Seahawks were doing, but to do so, I'd have to go on vacation to some place where I'd never inadvertently catch a glimpse of them on TV. Somewhere tropical. That seems like a lot of work to lessen the amount of care I have about a subject, but it's certainly possible to say "I could care less" and mean "this is not even worth the effort that I would have to spend to stop caring as little as I currently do."

Re:begs the question

[camperslo]

What's really needed here are some new (or at least freshly recycled?) questions. Let me try...

Why isn't there a botnet that installs this "familiar" looking OS on a patch Tuesday?

It could download in advance, even copy user files over, then magically spring to life.
The old OS could be left for dual-boot to run games or whatever.

I know, I know, something wholesome shouldn't be associated with malware but it seems as natural as giving a thirsty dog a bowl of water

Re:begs the question

[clone53421]

It was circular, in a sense. Look at the following:

[T]his easy hack produces an Ubuntu desktop that looks and feels a lot like Windows 7. It’s particularly suitable for reviving older PCs or laptops on which the main activities will be web-browsing, email, document writing, and streaming music and videos from Pandora, YouTube, and elsewhere on the web.

The claim in bold is only a true claim if you already wanted the UI of your system to look like Windows 7, but it is given as a justification of the implication (made by the non-bolded statement) that you’d want your Ubuntu desktop to look like Windows 7.

Maybe the circular reasoning would be clearer if it was written like this:

This easy hack produces an Ubuntu desktop that looks and feels a lot like Windows 7. Now – “Why would anyone want to make a Ubuntu desktop look like Windows 7?”, you might ask. Well, Ubuntu is particularly suitable for reviving older PCs or laptops on which the main activities will be web-browsing, email, document writing, and streaming music and videos from Pandora, YouTube, and elsewhere on the web, and if you did decide to install Ubuntu you’d obviously want it to look like Windows 7.

Re:begs the question

[Confusador]

The problem with that one is the lack of sarcasm in written works, the proper inflection on it should be something like "Well, I could care less" i.e. I do have some amount of sympathy, but really I'm so far down the scale of caring it doesn't matter. Of course, so many people have only seen it written without the proper emphasis that they use it incorrectly in speech now.

I am now officially a pedant arguing with a pedant. I feel dirty.

Re:begs the question

[MysteriousPreacher]

It probably will do at some stage. Mind you, that'll hopefully be far enough in the distant future in which a state of the union address contains the expression "lol". Hmm, maybe 2012.

Re:begs the question

[dgatwood]

Indeed. We've always been at war with Al Qaeda

(Just in case they fix it, it's a Google News search that lists an article about the fighting against Al Qaeda dated January 4, 1600.)

Re:begs the question

[dkleinsc]

Why, I am, if I do say so myself.

Re:begs the question

[interval1066]

But the receiver cord is broken.

Re:begs the question

[pregister]

Obviously the people that "did the work" wanted Ubuntu to look like Win 7. No questions are being begged. THEY wanted it.

Re:begs the question

[clone53421]

Basically, yes. “Begging” means “avoiding”. The question is usually obvious enough that you should have raised it, but didn’t.

Re:begs the question

[Miseph]

Hey now, that was always a perfectly truthy statement; one might even say it still retains a strong sense of truthishness about it. And really, where would we be without truthy statements? We wouldn't have a communist US president, the US wouldn't have the best health care system in the world, the American middle-class would have spent the last 9 years in a recession and continued deregulation as an economic policy would be an utter laughing stock. Truthiness has most certainly contributed more to the world than truth ever could.

Re:begs the question

[quickgold192]

Well that's between you and a doctor, or a consenting adult.

Re:begs the question

[Coren22]

The problem with this, is how do you truely say "lol", I have heard it spelled out, and as lul, but I have never been sure how it is exactly said in normal speech. Personally, I think it should just be the act of LAUGHING OUT LOUD :D

Re:begs the question

[MysteriousPreacher]

Heh, true. I'm thinking the case of someone literally saying "lol". There are rumours of people doing this, but thankfully I'm yet to meet one of these people.

Re:begs the question

[VirginMary]

Actually you wouldn't have to go to a tropical place, pretty much anywhere in the world would be sufficient. I am from Germany and I had *never* heard of the Seahawks before.

Re:begs the question

[ChunderDownunder]

Mods on cRaCk?

This nit-picking grammar-nazi post has nothing to do with Ubuntu nor Windows 7 and yet it's scored "begs the question (Score:5, Informative)"

-1 Offtopic.

Re:begs the question

[Tawnos]

I was putting it in context many could understand. Funny thing is that I was originally going to type "I could go to Germany and practice "mein Deutsch'" but I thought a vacation in the tropics might be more appealing to most.

Then again, this is /., and most here are probably like me - in danger of catching fire in direct sunlight.

Re:begs the question

[TeknoHog]

I cringe whenever somebody uses "bandwidth" to mean data transmission rate. It is not exactly contradictory, though, as the two quantities are proportional to each other (when you ignore other factors). The use of "broadband" as a marketing term is particularly annoying, as if a certain modulation technique would guarantee higher channel capacity. But I guess people have a propensity for using fancy technical terms, even when they are incorrect.

Then people tell me, language changes, get over it. IMHO, language should be evolving into a higher complexity, in order to describe an increasingly complex world. Collapsing several meanings into one word is the complete opposite of this.

I extrapolate that future people will be content with the single word "ugh", whose meaning is apparent from the context.

Re:begs the question

[Ragzouken]

This just further begs the question: when was the last time anyone used the word "beg" to mean dodge or avoid?

Re:begs the question

[Starayo]

I said "lol" instead of laughing, once. I immediately felt ashamed and went outside for a while.

Re:begs the question

[Anonymous Coward]

ugh

Re:begs the question

[AnonGCB]

That should be e.g., not i.e.

Re:begs the question

[The_mad_linguist]

But caring extends on an infinite continuum in both directions, and it takes effort to increase the absolute value of your caring. You have to expend effort to not care to an extreme degree.

So if you're apathetic about something, you could still care less about it.

Re:begs the question

[MysteriousPreacher]

Nah, you were just being ironic, right? *nudges*

Re:begs the question

[The Archon V2.0]

Heh, true. I'm thinking the case of someone literally saying "lol". There are rumours of people doing this, but thankfully I'm yet to meet one of these people.

You've never been stuck on the bus next to teenagers, have you? I've heard "lol", "omg", and in one situation, "lololol". If ever I wanted to hurt someone....

Re:begs the question

[mqduck]

The other day I had a huge argument over the use of the phrase: "if I do say so myself".

It seems people have become so stupid that all actual meaning is lost, and any phrase can be used in any way.

I may regret asking this, but... what was it that you found objectionable?

Re:begs the question

[somersault]

"Foregone" just means pre-determined/obvious. It can be obviously likely, or obviously unlikely.

Re:begs the question

[aoteoroa]

Which begs the question...what is an "improper" use? Does it cease to be "improper" once it has become ubiquitous?

It probably depends on the audience. I appreciate good grammar when I hear or read it, and expect it from journalists and formal writers. There are definitely people who will judge you as an uneducated hick for using too much slang but sometimes in casual conversation using proper grammar just makes a person sound like a pompous ass.

Re:begs the question

[adamofgreyskull]

You've got to admit, it's pretty frustrating when there are two meanings for a phrase and the meanings are contradictory. I suppose it's happened before(...)

Like: "I could care less"? I cringe, then shout loudly, when I hear that one.

Re:begs the question

[skine]

You're just being ironic now!

Re:begs the question

[whatthef*ck]

Thanks for the link, but I can't look at it now. I'm out of pocket for a few days. But for all intensive purposes, I think you're correct.

Re:begs the question

[Thing 1]

To be honest, I've been lying to you.

Re:begs the question

[butlerm]

for example, there was a time when a foregone conclusion was one that was so unlikely you may as well not think about it

On the contrary, a foregone conclusion has _always_ been a conclusion that was so definite that it was like a conclusion that was made "before" and is "gone" such that there isn't any chance of any other.

See http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/141000.html

Re:begs the question

[stormguard2099]

So by your logic I should refer to my monitor as my computer? I mean if widespread usage dictates meaning then that would in fact be acceptable, perhaps even the standard usage

Re:begs the question

[Eivind]

English is particularly funny, because even phrases that by logic SHOULD have opposite meaning, in reality have the same meaning.

I have no money.

I ain't got no money.

Re:begs the question

[johncadengo]

This angers me to no end.

Doesn't seem so appropriate for the reincarnated Gandhi...

Re:begs the question

[mqduck]

Hmm. I dunno, I don't think that's all that bad. First of all, when your friend used the phrase, the statement wasn't rendered incorrect or incoherent; the phrase simply didn't add any direct meaning. Second, saying things that don't add any literal meaning, for the sake of emphasis is a very common linguistic device.

So I dare say there might not even be anything wrong with what your friend said. If your friend really doesn't know the somewhat idiomatic meaning of the phrase, that might be a sort of problem, but I'd wager they'd understand perfectly well what someone was trying to say if they said "This is a pretty good paint job, if I do say so myself".

Re:begs the question

[mqduck]

...Mom?

Re:begs the question

[omfgnosis]

Now for the next debate, using "site" instead of "cite". Discus!

Re:begs the question

[omfgnosis]

Feeding Christians to lions!

Re:begs the question

[zmollusc]

Ook!

Re:begs the question

[DaCentaur]

It should be --> "I couldn't have said it better!" or if you like the double contraction --> "I couldn't've said it better!" The contracted 'have' sounds like 'of' which leads many to make the same mistake. :)

Re:begs the question

[DaCentaur]

You must be very patient with people who don't use grammar properly.

Re:begs the question

[metacell]

Just tell them to get off your lawn!

Re:begs the question

[heathen_01]

You deserve a +5 insightful for that - if we wern't so far off topic already...

Re:begs the question

[Compaqt]

See, you don't understand:

Just like "beg the question" is the new norm,
On Slashdot, "Off-topic" is the new norm.

On the other hand, we need a new "On-topic" rating to flag those pesky posters that actually read the article and make pertinent comments.

Re:begs the question

[ciderVisor]

The contraction "whsh" sounds a lot like "Whoooooosh".

Re:begs the question

[gandhi_2]

True, except that once upon a time everyone knew that IIDSSM had a specific purpose. When people use it incorrectly, other people learn the incorrect use. After enough years, no phrase has any idiomatic meaning.

The other day, I saw a newspaper ad that said, "Anyone can join our exclusive club." What is happening to common English that not even EXCLUSIVE has meaning?

Re:begs the question

[clone53421]

Well, the phrase "...if I do say so myself" is supposed to serve as a qualifier for the preceding phrase. It points out that the preceding statement is probably based on some bias. That is the entire point of "IIDSSM".

That may or may not be how it is used, but its literal meaning is circular: “...and if I said it, it’s true” (or “the preceding statement is true because I said it” – or the favourite of parents: “because I said so!”). Which, ironically, is an example of begging the question.

It’s better to qualify biased opinions with “but that’s just my opinion”, IMHO... YMMV, etc.

Re:begs the question

[Compaqt]

Yeah, for all intensive purposes, "broadband" means high-speed Internet. And bandwidth means total transfer for a given time period.

Which begs the question of why even have a term if your not going to use its' proper meaning.

Also the proper spelling of bandwidth is "bandwith", grammer natsi's.

Lolling while installing a Windows 7 theme on Ubuntu in an exploding Rochester airport while trying to remember what this thread was supposed to be about.

Re:begs the question

[Compaqt]

I might be mistaken, but I think you might have misunderstood what he was saying.

It's OK to say IIDSSM in regards to a paintjob you did, because IIDSSM acts as an apology or defense for your obvious bias.

It doesn't make any sense to say IIDSSM for any old statement.

It's true that some words are not strictly needed and they act to add color to a statement. Those are called idiomatic intensifiers (as in jump "up", cry "out").

But using IIDSSM where it's not an apology for bias is basically a failure to fully grasp the English language at a level Laura Engalls Wilder did by the 8th grade.

Re:begs the question

[mqduck]

Actually, you misunderstand my point. 1) The phrase has an idiomatic meaning, but it's still perfectly valid English apart from it. 2) The idiomatic meaning doesn't contradict what his friend was trying to say, it was just rendered meaningless. My point is just that what his friend said still made perfect sense.

It's quite unlike, for instance, when people say "I could care less" or many other abuses or twistings of idioms.

Re:begs the question

[Beardo the Bearded]

Uh, WTF is going on with the AC stalker?

No, really, WTF?

Re:begs the question

[Patch86]

Seems like a decent enough example of petitio principii to me.

If I remember my school philosophy classes, petitio principii is (or can encompass) arguing for an end result or conclusion which has been assumed from the start, without adequately demonstrating the logic of aiming for this result. That is, you've avoided the obvious question of "why".

TFA is someone advocating making Ubuntu look like Windows, but without providing any argument as to why you would want to do this.

It isn't exactly text book usage (not least because it isn't really advocating, in as much as just describing) but it's 1000 times closer to the proper usage of the term than the usual misuse you see. I sense that you're just criticising it because you don't really understand the proper usage either, but enjoy playing the grammar/usage Nazi on the internet.

Or in short: don't be an ass.

Re:begs the question

[clone53421]

I seem to have pissed off APK. It started, actually, with someone else’s post.

This is his modus operandi when somebody doesn’t quickly fold to his trolling, and I actually have a bit of history with him in past similar encounters so he’s a bit short-fused now.

Re:begs the question

[nadaou]

depends; do you use a mac?

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

You do want to make your distro look good? Also helps to not have to train someone where stuff is.

Might the some of the "elitists" up at arms tho. God forbid "your" linux distro goes against "your" likes.

Re:Well...

[techcodie]

Actually, I sort of like it. My friend, and her 4 year old can now both use her windows 7 machine, or my linux machine equally as easy. Win - win.

Re:Well...

[AvitarX]

Really?

I would think things like the starkly different taskbar would make it not as smooth a transition at all.

Re:Well...

[VGPowerlord]

Actually, I sort of like it. My friend, and her 4 year old can now both use her windows 7 machine, or my linux machine equally as easy. Win - win.

Wouldn't that be more like "Linux - win." ? ;)

Re:Well...

[jonbryce]

I've not tried this particular one, but for me it needs to be either precisely the same in every way, or completely different. If it is almost the same, it confuses me.

Re:Well...

[Inner_Child]

DockbarX isn't a perfect drop-in replacement, but it's actually pretty decent, even adding live previews via Compiz. Different themes are available, of course, but isn't that pretty much always the case where desktop Linux is concerned? The tray/notification area and clock are obviously quite different still, but one step at a time.

Re:Well...

[History's Coming To]

Thing is, I prefer the standard Ubuntu layout to Windows, and that's from someone who grew up (as most of us did) with Windows. So can you hack Windows into behaving like Ubuntu, even at the GUI level? Can you? Really? No. QED.

Re:Well...

[jedidiah]

> Actually, I sort of like it. My friend, and her 4 year old can now both use her windows 7 machine, or my linux machine equally as easy. Win - win.

Can't comment on the oldster.

However, the 4 year old should have no problems with some random alien GUI. The kid should not even notice or acknowledge the differences.

The differences aren't that stark and the underlying task is hardly rocket surgery.

Re:Well...

[Curunir_wolf]

Don't like it. I played around with the preference quite a bit, but I can't seem to get it to do an actual preview, it just shows a big window with an icon in the middle, and generally doesn't behave like I want it to.

I really don't want my gnome desktop to look like (or behave like) Windows 7, but having the little preview when you hover over the taskbar item is the one feature I'd really like to have in gnome. Unfortunately, DockbarX just isn't it.

Re:Well...

[herojig]

This is great. Most of my clients that I've introduced to Ubuntu 10 say things like "I feel like I'm using a smart phone interface." So this fixes that!

Re:Well...

[mocoloco]

I think you mean Win - Lin.

Re:Well...

[AvitarX]

I really like how in Win 7 when you mouse over the preview it shows the window with ever other window made clear, so it is super easy to see where it is, and where it will be if you to click to raise it.

I find zipping through windows that way even better than expose style window switching.

Re:Well...

[Curunir_wolf]

Even better is the close button is provided at the upper-left corner of the preview. So I can close windows that I don't need anymore by mousing over the preview, and close it without even raising it at all.

Re:Well...

[AvitarX]

Yeah, a lot of thought went into it.

And miraculously, it came out great. A rare MS treat, where i think they truly took what was available (3-D desktops), and innovated it in a way that makes things better.

It's kind of like Apple with the iPod (specifically their circular touch pad), but a rare case where it was MS.

Re:Well...

[clone53421]

Actually, I was used to right-click, “C”. Which they broke.

Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[gweihir]

There are far better alternatives on Linux. In fact most Linux window managers are significantly superior to Win7. Personally, I find that the pager already makes fvwm (now decades old, although diligently maintained) a lot superiour in usability, speed and features to the Win7 window manager.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[wfstanle]

I agree that the Windows 7 GUI is abysmal, but I have to use it.

The alternate GUI for Linux is not for experienced Linux users but new converts from Windows might find it useful. Certainly it helps to lessen the learning curve. Once the newcomer becomes experienced with Linux he might learn that there are better GIUs out there.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[natehoy]

Because if you want to ask someone to try out Linux, you are better off showing them something like what they are used to. And, increasingly, that's Windows Seven.

Ubuntu (and its variant, Mint) were what got Linux in my household, and I suspect that is true of many people. Ubuntu made an experience that is similar enough to Windows XP that my wife could easily switch to it. It has a start-ish sort of button, a notification-ish sort of tray, a favorite-ish sort of quicklaunchy area, boxes that show what windows you have open that allow you to click on them to go to them, and even a clock in approximately the right place and (up until recently), an underscore, minimize/restore, and "Big X" in the right places. It made it a lot easier to transition my wife to Linux when I could just install Mint and have her do very basic operations pretty much the same way she used to in XP. Later, I showed her the package manager so she could "add/remove programs", etc.

The layout, while by no means identical to Windows XP, is similar enough that people won't have their brains go boom. Try them out in KDE, IceWM, or XFCE, and their brains asplode. And I don't blame them. You can also easily configure Gnome to be all but unrecognizable to a Windows XP user, and for advanced users who want things to work a certain way, that's marvelous. But for someone who has used Windows for years, it's good to minimize the changes they'll need to go through to accept Linux as a substitute.

When I show Mint to people running Windows Seven, especially those for whom Seven is most of their Windows exposure, they get confused. Probably about as confused as I get trying to figure out how to help people do things in Windows Seven, since I use Windows XP when I use Windows. It takes me a bit longer to do things in Seven. Not that Seven is bad, it's just not what I use daily, and I'm not used to it.

I, for one, welcome a "Windows Seven"-ish variant of Ubuntu. Ubuntu is "training wheels for Linux", even though it's still a serious and solid distro that is well-supported. It's arguably the one that most people will tend to recommend to a newbie at the moment. If there's an easy way to make it look like what your newbie has already used, I'm all for it.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[war4peace]

Roughly 2% of computer users might agree with you. The others don't.
OK, I just threw in some numbers, but the reality remains: a much larger percentage of people prefer Windows-like Desktop Manager looks over the (wide area of) available Linux Desktop manager(s).
Question is: Why?
If you simply go ahead and say "Because they don't know any better" - then you already lost the war with Windows. For years and years, the Linux community members have assumed that Average Joes are simply mis- and uninformed about the alternative. Not once did they take into consideration that maybe, and I say maybe Windows Desktop manager simply looks better. More polish, better paint, nicer fonts (oh yes, that again!), ease of use, perhaps a mix of all the above, can't really say. But it works. It's something that people got accustomed to, and if you want them to switch, then you need to offer them similar appearance , at least.
Out of all this pile of computer users, a very low percentage are technical enough or interested enough to care about the Linux Window Manager's superiority. Roughly, they don't give a rat's ass on that. They don't want more efficient guts, they want the pretty. And Linux window managers rarely provide "the pretty" - they provide the "not unbearably ugly" interface instead.
Tell you what. Get a few screenshots of default desktops that appear right after an OS finishes installing. Say, for Windows 7, Vista, XP, 2000, Ubuntu, RHEL, Slackware, Debian, MacOS X, Solaris, etc., etc. and make a webpage where people can sort them in order (drag and drop would rule!) from most attractive to least attractive. Ithink we all expect no surprises in what would be on top of the preferences.
Now getting back to your comment, you mentioned usability, speed and features. They are important. To you and a very small community (weighted in size against the mass of regular users). They don't matter AT ALL to anyone else. What matters to them is design. That's exactly why Apple products sell like... well, Apple products :)
I'd say a Windows 7-like interface will only bring advantages to Linux. Maybe convince some undecided people to switch? Maybe convince me to use my now retired secondary desktop for basic tasks (browsing, music, movies) and give my gaming rig a rest every now and then?

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[Wyatt Earp]

Because a user who has used Windows all their professional life won't whine as much if they know where crap is to click on.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[dave420]

In your opinion. In the opinion of others, however, you are wrong. I've used every Linux desktop I could get my hands on, and they all don't do what I want, how I want. Windows 7 is the best I've used so far - it makes sense, and looks good doing it. If you were right, then the market share of Linux would look resoundingly different to how it looks now, as people would make do with using OSS-equivalents of their usual Windows-only software, if they can at least do it in an environment that helps their productivity.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[jonbryce]

If you ask people to switch from Windows XP to Windows 7, or from Windows XP to the default Ubuntu set up. Which would they find easier? I guess it would be a tie between the two.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[cbreaker]

I don't think so. The Windows 7 UI is just fine. The Windows 95 UI was fine, so was the 98 through Vista UI.

There's a lot of problems with Windows, but the user interface is not one of them. It's very usable and it works. The new taskbar on Windows 7 is very usable and keeps task clutter down.

I don't have a problem with modern Gnome UI, it's a lot better than it used to be, and I keep waiting for KDE 4 to stop sucking some day because it has a lot of potential too.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[sleeping143]

Not likely. While the locations of item may be somewhat changed in windows 7, it's still within the same framework. Ubuntu changes where most everything is. Remember, people (i.e. large groups as a whole) don't like change.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[Hatta]

Roughly 2% of computer users might agree with you. The others don't.
OK, I just threw in some numbers, but the reality remains: a much larger percentage of people prefer Windows-like Desktop Manager looks over the (wide area of) available Linux Desktop manager(s).

Popularity has nothing to do with quality. For instance, McDonalds, Taylor Swift, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

If you simply go ahead and say "Because they don't know any better" - then you already lost the war with Windows.

There is no war with Windows. The only goal is to make the best operating system possible.

Not once did they take into consideration that maybe, and I say maybe Windows Desktop manager simply looks better. More polish, better paint, nicer fonts (oh yes, that again!), ease of use, perhaps a mix of all the above, can't really say.

Sure they did. Which is why they created Compiz. It's also why every window manager or desktop environment out there has extensive theming abilities. Compare W7 to something like this, Enlightenment wins hands down.

Out of all this pile of computer users, a very low percentage are technical enough or interested enough to care about the Linux Window Manager's superiority. Roughly, they don't give a rat's ass on that.

There's a phrase for this, "casting pearls before swine".

And Linux window managers rarely provide "the pretty" - they provide the "not unbearably ugly" interface instead.

That's simply not the case. I've had numerous comments, from artsy female types even, about how nice my Cthulhain themed Fluxbox desktop looks. Now they'd never be able to use it, but it's certainly not ugly.

Tell you what. Get a few screenshots of default desktops that appear right after an OS finishes installing. Say, for Windows 7, Vista, XP, 2000, Ubuntu, RHEL, Slackware, Debian, MacOS X, Solaris, etc., etc

Sure, if you compare mostly server distros to desktop windows you'll see the trend you expect. Throw in stuff like Mint, or Ubuntu Studio, and you'll see different results.

I'd say a Windows 7-like interface will only bring advantages to Linux. Maybe convince some undecided people to switch? Maybe convince me to use my now retired secondary desktop for basic tasks (browsing, music, movies) and give my gaming rig a rest every now and then?

If it looks like Windows but can't run Windows apps, it's just a crappy crippled version of Windows. If it looks different from Windows, then people start getting interested. Showing off the advanced theming and other window manager functions (virtual desktops) is a great way of getting people interested in trying something different.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[Draek]

Yeah, copying Windows is such a wonderful idea. If you work really really hard at it you'll get... a "Windows clone". Yeah, not exactly earth-shattering. But what you'll most likely end up with instead is a "half-assed Windows clone", which is as bad as it sounds.

And worrying about home users is an utter waste of time if you care about adoption rates, as Apple has shown for the past two decades. Face it, 'shiny' may attract you and a very small community, but what most people care about is being able to reliably run the apps they need for their day-to-day activities, and a shiny new UI won't do a thing for that.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[the plant doctor]

It makes sense to YOU, however, it does not make sense to me. I'll stick with Gnome, thank you. Seriously, when I started using Linux it didn't make sense, now after 10+ years of using various window managers and desktop environments with Linux they make much more sense to me than Windows, and look better doing what they do to me as well.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[MichaelSmith]

And since you raised the issue of fvwm, this idea of making things look like windows was interesting in 1995 but now it just seems redundant.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[MichaelSmith]

I think apple have invalidated this whole argument with the iphone, and google are doing same with android. As long as people can see how to find their stuff they are okay. They don't need a windows symbol to remind them that all is well.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

If you ask people to switch from Windows XP to Windows 7, or from Windows XP to the default Ubuntu set up. Which would they find easier? I guess it would be a tie between the two.

Until they need to install their shiny new printer, or install a piece of software.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[forkazoo]

It's something that people got accustomed to, and if you want them to switch, then you need to offer them similar appearance , at least.
Out of all this pile of computer users, a very low percentage are technical enough or interested enough to care about the Linux Window Manager's superiority. Roughly, they don't give a rat's ass on that. They don't want more efficient guts, they want the pretty. And Linux window managers rarely provide "the pretty" - they provide the "not unbearably ugly" interface instead.

I've never understood why there is so much focus on getting Windows users to comfortably switch. I see no inherent value in making an OS that makes Windows users feel at home because there is already an OS that does that. It's called Windows. If Windows users really want something that they find extremely familiar, they can buy another copy of Windows. Frankly, I think that the basic assumption that attracting Windows users is inherently valuable has been harmful to the Linux community because it basically implies an effort to spend time and effort creating something worse that would be created if most people just said "F- Windows. Let's just create something awesome without regard for familiarity for users of some other software in some other conceptual ecosystem." Obviously, if whoever made the Win7 theme in the article thinks it's cool, then more power to him. The Open Source Way is alla bout people doing stuff they find interesting. OTOH, I think that the KDE project with their "parts" and whatnot have been trying to invent some reallyc ool stuff that I personally find much more interesting.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[coerciblegerm]

Because if you want to ask someone to try out Linux, you are better off showing them something like what they are used to. And, increasingly, that's Windows Seven.

Ubuntu (and its variant, Mint) were what got Linux in my household, and I suspect that is true of many people. Ubuntu made an experience that is similar enough to Windows XP that my wife could easily switch to it. It has a start-ish sort of button, a notification-ish sort of tray, a favorite-ish sort of quicklaunchy area, boxes that show what windows you have open that allow you to click on them to go to them, and even a clock in approximately the right place and (up until recently), an underscore, minimize/restore, and "Big X" in the right places. It made it a lot easier to transition my wife to Linux when I could just install Mint and have her do very basic operations pretty much the same way she used to in XP. Later, I showed her the package manager so she could "add/remove programs", etc.

The layout, while by no means identical to Windows XP, is similar enough that people won't have their brains go boom. Try them out in KDE, IceWM, or XFCE, and their brains asplode. And I don't blame them. You can also easily configure Gnome to be all but unrecognizable to a Windows XP user, and for advanced users who want things to work a certain way, that's marvelous. But for someone who has used Windows for years, it's good to minimize the changes they'll need to go through to accept Linux as a substitute.

When I show Mint to people running Windows Seven, especially those for whom Seven is most of their Windows exposure, they get confused. Probably about as confused as I get trying to figure out how to help people do things in Windows Seven, since I use Windows XP when I use Windows. It takes me a bit longer to do things in Seven. Not that Seven is bad, it's just not what I use daily, and I'm not used to it.

I, for one, welcome a "Windows Seven"-ish variant of Ubuntu. Ubuntu is "training wheels for Linux", even though it's still a serious and solid distro that is well-supported. It's arguably the one that most people will tend to recommend to a newbie at the moment. If there's an easy way to make it look like what your newbie has already used, I'm all for it.

I don't think that's a feasible way to get people to migrate to Linux. Giving people a semi-familiar environment might make it less daunting on first boot, but it also slows the process of learning how to properly use the system by failing to challenge the assumptions new users often bring with them; it reinforces the misguided idea that everything is supposed to work the same way as they are familiar with (after all, it LOOKS the same). Linux is not Windows, and Windows is not Linux. If you'll only touch Linux because it's been skinned to look like Windows, you won't get far.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[internettoughguy]

Compare W7 to something like this

I find windows 7 to be a bit more handsome than that, with the various OS X's better still. On the other hand with a bit of theming, a Compiz desktop could be better than either, and there is certainly a great deal more choice. Personally I find clean-looks/clear-looks to be the nicest widget theme for GNU. It seems that the various Linux/Floss communities have managed to attract great developers, but very few artists.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[war4peace]

Popularity has nothing to do with quality. For instance, McDonalds, Taylor Swift, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

Um, I have no idea who Taylor Swift is, and I heard of Jay leno. Never watched his shows.
You seem to make a confusion between what's popular in the US and what's globally popular. But I got your idea. However, again you seem to misunderstand the difference between quality that makes you think and quality that makes life easy.
Either you are in the business to make tools for smart, tech-savvy people (see Linux) or you are in the business for the general population (See Microsoft). Depends how do you want to measure success, I guess.

Compare W7 to something like this, Enlightenment wins hands down.

That thing is ugly as hell.
1. Fonts are ugly.
2. Windows title bar text is almost unreadable.
3. Top-left window: has 2 panes instead of tabs.
4. Middle Window: why on Earth would you care what the HDDs full names are? Why would you put the Temp folder as Favorite?
5. All windows: the menu button and the close/maximize/minimze buttons are reversed, compared to Windows. This is a major issue for a Windows user who is interested in switching.
6. The gizmo on the lower right side looks like a patch of some sort and the text on it is barely readable.
7. I don't care about desktops depictions/thumbnails on the left, I only care where my open programs are. A list of open programs (similar to Windows Taskbar) is a lot more helpful then going through 6 desktops in my quest for the "You-Name-It" program that I remember to have had open somewhere.

All of these in just one screenshot. And I looked at it for like 2 minutes.

Tell you what. Get a few screenshots of default desktops that appear right after an OS finishes installing. Say, for Windows 7, Vista, XP, 2000, Ubuntu, RHEL, Slackware, Debian, MacOS X, Solaris, etc., etc

Sure, if you compare mostly server distros to desktop windows you'll see the trend you expect. Throw in stuff like Mint, or Ubuntu Studio, and you'll see different results.

You pick anything you'd like, man, I just threw some random examples. :)

If it looks like Windows but can't run Windows apps, it's just a crappy crippled version of Windows. If it looks different from Windows, then people start getting interested. Showing off the advanced theming and other window manager functions (virtual desktops) is a great way of getting people interested in trying something different.

I bloody hate Virtual Desktops. Why do they even exist? I'm serious... I don't get it. What's their advantage?

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[lennier]

Now getting back to your comment, you mentioned usability, speed and features. They are important. To you and a very small community (weighted in size against the mass of regular users). They don't matter AT ALL to anyone else. What matters to them is design.

While your argument may be correct, I really wish that you (and the entire rest of the technical/industrial community) would stop using the word 'design' to describe superficial aesthetics.

'Design' used to (and in my opinion still does) mean exactly the things you say it doesn't mean: usability, speed, features, general technical capability. When one talks about 'the design' of an airliner or a ship or a printing press, one does NOT mean just its superstructure or the livery or paintwork, one means what is inside and how it actually works.

Nowadays I suppose we call that 'architecture' or 'engineering'? But it used to be called 'design'.

I'm not sure who is responsible for changing the word 'design' to mean the opposite of what it means, and for creating the occupation 'designer' who does everything except design - but I wish we could get back to reality.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[westlake]

Compare W7 to something like this [flickr.com]

God that thing is ugly.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[Hatta]

Either you are in the business to make tools for smart, tech-savvy people (see Linux) or you are in the business for the general population (See Microsoft). Depends how do you want to measure success, I guess.

See, that I can agree with.

I bloody hate Virtual Desktops. Why do they even exist? I'm serious... I don't get it. What's their advantage?

Organization. Give each desktop a purpose, and you can switch between tasks much easier. Say I have a bunch of PDFs open on one desktop and I get a notification that a download has completed. I don't have to search around for whatever window in my task bar. I just go to the torrent desktop and it has the client right there and a terminal open in the relevant directory where i left it.

I don't know how people can get along without this, minimizing and maximizing all the time, just letting windows pile up, or even closing apps. With virtual desktops I can come back to a project days later, after all sorts of casual computer use, and pick right up where I left off.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[natehoy]

I can only say that my experience within my household outweighs your opinion from my point of view. I'm not saying you're wrong, it depends on the person. I tried introducing Linux initially with KDE, and Mint with Gnome went over a lot easier.

Now that the transition is done and my wife was able to ease into Linux with a minimum of "what do I do now? What does that mean?", she's experimented with several distros on her netbook and even a few desktops, and is OK with it and has a lot of fun customizing it and even insisted I rip Seven "Starter" off her netbook and install Mint when we first bought it.

But making that initial transition is important, and not at all easy in some cases. First impressions are important. If you're only avoiding Linux because it looks too different, skinning it to look like Windows can get over that initial hurdle fairly quickly, then you can ease into learning the details.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[jedidiah]

> Not likely. While the locations of item may be somewhat changed in windows 7, it's
> still within the same framework. Ubuntu changes where most everything is. Remember,
> people (i.e. large groups as a whole) don't like change.

The n00b user that is going to be unwilling to deal with Linux because of trivial issues aren't going to know anything about the more interesting things. They are willfully ignorant. They are the same sort of people that have Linux users bail them out of the simple stuff in Windows.

The only relevant framework is "WIMP".

In that regard it's anyone's guess what any random user will honestly think about the distance between any two versions of either Linux or Windows.

Clearly Office 2007 should have put this myth to rest (that Windows to Windows is always necessarily easier).

After having seen Vista and Windows 7 I can fully appreciate all of the scorn that has been heaped on both.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[jedidiah]

>> If you ask people to switch from Windows XP to Windows 7, or from Windows XP to the default Ubuntu set up. Which would they find easier? I guess it would be a tie between the two.
>
> Until they need to install their shiny new printer, or install a piece of software.

Their shiny new printer doesn't need to be installed. That's a Linux win.

They don't have to deal with the internet red light district for software. That's a Linux win.

You act like the rest of us have no experience with Windows.

It's been pretty much forced on all of us so we know when you're spouting bullshit.

Codec packs for MCE are just a f*cking hoot.

They make me a renewed appreciation Linux and MacOS both.

Windows is strictly for bottom of the pile for anything but "DOS compatiabilty".

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[jedidiah]

> I bloody hate Virtual Desktops. Why do they even exist? I'm serious... I don't get it. What's their advantage?

You can use them to organize desktop clutter, like any other desktop container.

You don't need a 2nd and 3rd monitor just to have things sorted and nicely laid out and handy.

If you do anything but use your machine as an xbox or a web kiosk, the extra real estate and organization is very handy.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[jedidiah]

> Because a user who has used Windows all their professional life won't whine as much if they know where crap is to click on.

Too late. Microsoft released another version.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[doctorpangloss]

Popularity has nothing to do with quality. For instance, McDonalds, Taylor Swift, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

Popularity is a useful proxy for quality, abstractly speaking.

There is no war with Windows. The only goal is to make the best operating system possible.

You're dodging the point here. Saying "because [users] don't know any better" is a failure of both marketing and understanding an average Windows user's needs. So the goal is still to make the best operating system possible. But if making a desktop appear aesthetically pleasing and functional requires "showing off the advanced theming and other window manager functions (virtual desktops)," you aren't likely to make a great operating system. An average user barely understands the word function, window, theming and window manager, as they pertain to computers, let alone "virtual desktops."

I would say these are serious flaws in design and marketing, in the sense that the best theming design is to eliminate theming altogether (Mac OS X) and the best marketing is to turn complex functionality off by default (Mac OS X and Windows 7).

Compiz... Compare W7 to something like this. Enlightenment wins hands down.

Compiz is a drawing framework, not a design philosophy. Enlightenment in your example by no means wins hands down. It has serious design flaws, at least compared to its commercial peers.

Sure, if you compare mostly server distros to desktop windows you'll see the trend you expect. Throw in stuff like Mint, or Ubuntu Studio, and you'll see different results.

None of these Linux operating systems are "server distros;" companies pay Red Hat real money to have employees use their RHEL on a daily basis as an end-user computer. Unless you're telling me these operating systems are improperly marketed towards a typical end user. On that we can properly agree.

If it looks like Windows but can't run Windows apps, it's just a crappy crippled version of Windows.

One hundred percent true. This is the single greatest reason to never ship Ubuntu with Windows-style theming. You couldn't have said it better.

If it looks different from Windows, then people start getting interested.

From a design perspective, it is more prudent to find a middle ground between Windows and 'typical Linux' in terms of appearance. We obviously want the benefits of user interface familiarity and increased functionality without any of the tradeoffs. Apple and Ubuntu have gone to great lengths in their default operating system designs to take advantage of familiarity (a close, minimize and maximize button) while introducing new features through familiarity (search boxes which search the entire indexed contents of the computer).

Remember, the vast majority of people use Windows XP. It is the standard against the average new computer buyer compares. It is no surprise that in spite of vast improvements in the aesthetics and design of Linux desktops, your average netbook buyer prefers running (realistically pirating, though many buying) Windows instead of Linux. Like you pointed out, it's the Windows apps, not the Windows aesthetic, that keeps people on board—but it's not necessarily what *buyers* (as opposed to users) of computers care about most.

People who buy computers care about aesthetics. Improve aesthetics to their taste, and Linux desktop adoption will grow.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[poptones]

Not once did they take into consideration that maybe, and I say maybe Windows Desktop manager simply looks better. More polish, better paint, nicer fonts (oh yes, that again!), ease of use, perhaps a mix of all the above, can't really say.

Sure they did. Which is why they created Compiz.

And, of course, Compiz brings to linux all that fantastic stability windows is known for. It truly makes linux more "Windows like."

I really thought ubuntu had gone around the bend about three releases back until I stripped virtually all that crap out of my machine. I'd been through several desktops and every one had terrible stability including this one - until I replaced the nvidia card with an ati , stripped out any traces of compiz and the other crap that came along with it, and went to the open source driver. Tada, I get an X11 lockup maybe twice a month now even with essentially 24/7 usage.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[Runaway1956]

"Ubuntu made an experience that is similar enough to Windows XP that my wife could easily switch to it."

It worked for my wife, as well. She looked at several Linux installations, and just didn't like them. Ubuntu Intrepid did the trick. We had Intrepid and WinXP dual booting on a shared machine. The kids would boot to Ubuntu, and she found that it was faster and easier to switch users than to reboot. This went on for a few weeks, then I caught her powering the system up after a storm had killed the power. She went straight to Ubuntu. I asked her why, and she admitted that she actually LIKED the way Ubuntu ran better than XP. I didn't press her for a detailed explanation - but XP hasn't been booted on that machine for at least a year. Some day I'll have to move files around, and recover all that space being wasted by the old isntallation of Windows.

If the machine doesn't die first! It's an old Abit board with an AMD 2400+ XP chip. The thing has run almost 24/7 since I bought it all those years ago!

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[Tom]

a much larger percentage of people prefer Windows-like Desktop Manager looks over the (wide area of) available Linux Desktop manager(s).

That is a meaningless statement. You assume from the market share of the OSes in question that people prefer the desktop manager. But there are many aspects the determine market share, and look&feel is probably one of the least important. In the particular case of windows, OEM deals, familarity and a massive existing installed base are bigger contributors, as are ability to run more software, or even preference of the entire OS over the other alternatives - which still doesn't mean the preference extends to the desktop manager.

If anything, then this is a demonstration that your claim is not true, because if you can make Linux look exactly like windows, and it still doesn't fly off the shelves, then very obviously there are other factors that result in its miniscule market share, and the desktop manager doesn't really mean all that much.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[xorsyst]

I've used single and virtual desktops on Windows and Linux. And, for me, I find it much easier to navigate using Windows with a single desktop. I have my taskbar down one side of the screen, and when I want to work on something, I click on the thing I want to work on and work on it. Simple.

If virtual desktops work for you, more power to you. But, really, don't assume that they are inherently superior and that the poor Windows users don't know what they are missing.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[gknoy]

I bloody hate Virtual Desktops. Why do they even exist? I'm serious... I don't get it. What's their advantage?

You might hate them, but I love mine. I have dual monitors, and use VirtuaWin to have three virtual windows (in Windows XP). They are not "connected", and I can only swap between them with a keystroke, per my own configuration choices.

They let me easily switch between six different screens worth of software, without having to play "which layer is on top". Most importantly, let me separate windows by task, or by conceptual differences. E-mail client on screen 1, out of the way. Code editor on the right monitor in all three views, because I want it visible in all three. Full-screen runtime environment used or testing code is on Screen 2. Folder windows are usually in screen 3, while documentation is often in Screen 1.

In short, it lets me re-purpose my workspace on the fly, so that I can mentally change modes, and avoid visual clutter. I /hate/ having to always bring different windows to the front, and this lets me swap between them with Win-1, Win-2, and Win-3. (On Linux, where I first used them, my shortcuts were different. Not a big deal.)

I consider them like using dual monitors. Until you've seen how they can change your workflow, you might see them as useless. Once you have, people will have to pry them from your cold, dead hands. (Well, we hope not.)

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

I was talking about "people" not geeks. I know plenty of people who are computer literate enough to be able to use one but who after a time are stumped by Linux when they veer off the path because everything is different enough that their experience doesn't matter. Linux is OK when you install it for people with a static hardware setup and software need, when you can "set it and forget it."

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[Zebedeu]

I think the point is that it's nice to have the possibility, if you want it.

In windows, you have no choice. In Linux, you can set it however you preffer -- setting a single desktop has no effect whatsoever on your experience (i.e. the system never assumes that you have multiple desktops).

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[xorsyst]

Microsoft's virtual desktop manager:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx

I've tried all 4 ways - to me, single desktop on Windows is the easiest to use. Other combinations work for other people. I'm just sick of being told that virtual desktops are automatically superior and a reason to switch to Linux.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[Zebedeu]

It doesn't work right.

Seriously, I tried them all, and they all had problems of one kind or another.
Particularly problematic were some pieces of software which did not respect the standard windows guidelines (i.e. using custom controls instead of the default ones).

BTW, some of that software is from Microsoft, so you can't say it's not their fault.

In the end, virtual desktop software for Windows is a hack, and as all hacks, it doesn't work 100% right.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[Saunalainen]

I have my taskbar down one side of the screen, and when I want to work on something, I click on the thing I want to work on and work on it.

This is only an efficient way of doing this if each `thing I want to work on' maps onto a single application, or a single window.

What if you're working on a number of projects, each of which requires the use of a spreadsheet, a graphics program, a web browser, and some software for writing or presenting? If you assign each project to a separate virtual desktop then switching between these projects is a one-click operation. Without virtual desktops, you spend a lot of time hunting through windows.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[xorsyst]

I do work on multiple projects requiring multiple windows at the same time. I don't find there's a lot of time hunting at all. It's very easy to identify the correct window from the task list and click on it.

If I really want to organise things, I order the task list so project windows are grouped together, but I rarely find that's an issue.

For example, right not I have 25 items on my task bar, including several dos boxes, several spreadsheets, a handful of vim sessions, etc. It's really not a problem for me to see which one I want instantly.

Like I said, it works for me. I'm not suggesting it will be the best for everyone. I'm just fed up with being told that virtual desktops are superior when I've tried them, and prefer not to use them.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[clone53421]

Windows (and its volume control utility) simply isn’t supposed to work with focus-follows-mouse-without-autoraise. Windows didn’t break its interface’s usability, your hack broke the default Win7 volume utility.

Suggestion: You could, of course, stop using the hack, or you could look around and see if you can find a volume utility that replaces the default Win7 one and doesn’t break when you turn on focus-follows-mouse. For instance, a quick search turned up this. Caveat: I haven’t tried it... it might have the same issue. However, it’s open source, so if it’s broken in the same way someone ought to be able to make it work. Simply closing after x milliseconds instead of immediately when it loses focus would probably fix the problem, if it exists.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[war4peace]

The comparison is laughable. I have a triple-monitor configuration at work, the number of monitors (virtual or not) is NOT the issue. The issue is not having an equivalent for Task Manager which is always present on the current screen.
Want the equivalent of virtual desktops? Win+Tab in Windows 7.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[war4peace]

Nowadays I suppose we call that 'architecture' or 'engineering'? But it used to be called 'design'.

Nowadays we call them "iPad". They used to be called "Science Fiction".
Times change. You don't keep up, you fall behind.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[war4peace]

It might not mean much right now, but it did mean a LOT back when Windows had a (bad) GUI and Linux had no GUI.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[Compaqt]

The funny thing is when ZDNet Australia asked random people about KDE4, people said they thought it was the next version of Windows.

So yeah, we're still keeping up hope 2011 is going to be the Year of the Linux Desktop.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[Compaqt]

It's so much easier to organize yourself with virtual desktop. Here's two ways:

A. Organize different projects that you may work on at different times of the day into virtual desktops (like client 1, client 2, etc. or office management files, accounting, etc.). Switch among them and have all your files immediately in front of you. You can have your desktop environment save your virtual desktop layout and reload upon login.

B. Organize a single project into different aspects:
1. SQL desktop
-Graphical query browser
-mysql client shell or equivalent
-SQL command reference in Firefox

2. PHP desktop
-PHP editor/debugger
-terminal
-SVN browser
-PHP.net in Firefox

3. etc.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[Risen888]

I bloody hate Virtual Desktops. Why do they even exist? I'm serious... I don't get it. What's their advantage?

Two responses to that.

1. Have you ever had more than >5 windows open while working on >1 project?
2. You are the only person I have ever heard say that ever. Virtual desktops are always the #1 "oooh" feature every time I've ever shown someone a free desktop.

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[robsku]

I was talking about "people" not geeks. I know plenty of people who are computer literate enough to be able to use one but who after a time are stumped by Linux when they veer off the path because everything is different enough that their experience doesn't matter. Linux is OK when you install it for people with a static hardware setup and software need, when you can "set it and forget it."

I know people to whom I...:
* installed it
* asked what they do with computer
* if there was anything in the answers that I felt better to educate them about I did
* I showed program and system menus with brief explanation (including comparisons and differences to windows there)
* told them to follow instructions and like in windows do what it tells when it tells you there are updates and then showed them synaptic package manager (simple interface) and told them that all new programs they want they can look for in here and just select one that they like for install * ...and then forget it.
...who then later after not calling for me to help told me that they were surprised to find it really was easier and better to use than windows (hell, even the "start menu" is organized logically under clean easy-to-look submenus instead of cramming the whole load of programs in one menu as huge eye-hurting list where there was no grouping of whatsoever by category, just a long list of entries, some by software some by manufacturer name).

Too much to do? We *are* putting them in front of a whole new system with different interface and inner parts and they are normal people not geeks (as for geeks we would not have to even perform the installation), this is very short thing (takes much less than the installation itself). If not ready to take this short time to educate them then maybe one should not be setting up new operating system on regular non computer savvy people who have already gotten used to some other system - specially adults will often fail at that without any instructions but the instructions really needed are often amazingly simple (to get them to trust themselves that they CAN use this system and start to learn without live guidance).

That's a very short "educational moment" in addition to the time spent

Re:Why use a sub-standard Desktop?

[Tom]

That was when?

Linux had X since 1992 (http://www.linux.org/info/linux_timeline.html). At that time, GUI or no GUI made no difference whatsoever to market share, as it was entirely unknown by anyone outside academic circles.

Dual boot...

[PmanAce]

So one one partition, boot Ubuntu that looks like Windows 7, and on the other partion, boot Windows with an Ubuntu theme? Ah, those would be the days...

Re:Dual boot...

[Archangel Michael]

Almost as funny as my mac, running virtualPC running Windows with a Mac Theme pack installed. Good times

Re:Dual boot...

[aztracker1]

It's funny, but Windows 7 is probably the first version of windows I haven't felt compelled to install a replacement shell (litestep, etc)... I like the new taskbar and start menu, which is about the biggest thing I miss in OSX/Mac... I run spretty much ootb gnome on Ubuntu, and haven't tweaked OSX much, but always tweaked windows. I do miss a few of my favorite toys in windows, but use VMs for that.

That is dumb...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure it's better to have something behaving differently actually look different.

Re:That is dumb...

[Joce640k]

Menu at top and bottom of screen? Yeah, that's really just like windows.

PS: The "Menu at the top" thing is the reason I don't install Ubuntu for normal people.

I see you are running Windows 7...

[swanzilla]

...Gnome I'm not.

Re:I see you are running Windows 7...

[Neil Watson]

Mmm Kay

I don't get it

[zill]

Why couldn't they just switch back to the default theme?

idea 105 anyone?

[linhares]

export look and feel anyone?

I think a more interesting thing here would be to share desktops in (hopefully) a one-click magical and revolutionary solution. Idea 105's time has come.

Re:idea 105 anyone?

[retchdog]

I'd be happy if I only didn't occasionally have to go into the "Appearance" preference, just to make Ubuntu remember that it's supposed to be using a theme.

Re:idea 105 anyone?

[linhares]

oh, and if anyone out there is interested in this idea, be sure to check out project epidermis

because...

[polle404]

it could be to ease the transition from windows to *nix for those that are unaccustomed to the rapid OS changes we /. users are.

Re:because...

[rndmtim]

Bingo. One word: Parents. Think it's ridiculous to take the worst computer users and give them Ubuntu? Consider a 75 year old dad who seems to want to click on every pr0n site or anything else that loads up windows with massive amounts of malware. I didn't make him root, didn't give him java, and I'm sure it's not airtight... but he hasn't been able to break it. It's about as fast as it ever was years later. But he complained in the difference that it looked different... so with this... why, he'd just never know.

Re:because...

[Wyatt Earp]

Office drones is another word.

Its easier to train someone with "it's right there, just like Windows", rather than "well on Windows it was there, but now it's going to be up here and behind this there and see, click."

Re:because...

[fandingo]

But this doesn't make any sense. Windows 7 is almost brand new. You can't emulate a brand new design so it's comfortable for new users.

I think emulating Windows' DE, but I understand that it could help very ignorant users, although I would seriously question the wisdom of moving them to Linux. However, emulate something familiar like Windows XP.

Re:because...

[polle404]

precisely.
My dad's 72 and clicks on every. frakking. thing. in. sight.

I'm gonna try this out on him when I get the chance.

Re:because...

[noc007]

This is why we still deploy computers with XP and Office 2003 at the company I work for. On occasion I have to argue against deploying the latest version of Windows or Office. Some have suggested we contract a trainer and do classes for everyone. I have to pull out my former trainer card and give them a reality check that mostly everyone is either going to not pay attention or sleep through the class; then they're going to whine that it's SO different when they actually have to use it and IT will have to do individual training. We've got enough on our plate with daily issues, maintenance, lack of competent IT staff, and this stupid "merger" that hand holding the whole time they're "working" isn't feasible since they forget how to do it the moment we walk away.

Perhaps if Microsoft had released something between XP and Vista, people would be more use to the slight GUI changes every few years. I'd love have an option in Office 2007+ to be able to switch the Ribbon bar back to the old menu layout.

Re:because...

[MysteriousPreacher]

Dealing with "compulsive clickers" during my time in tech support made me realise why a general anesthetic is probably better than using a local. Leave the patient awake and you'll need to keep one hand free to prevent them from from prodding and pulling out their internal organs.

I'm not personally a fan of the Windows UI, but certainly it's a nice way to ease people in to another OS. Even the most amazing UI requires decent marketing to be accepted, and most people are going to need a decent reason to uproot themselves from the OS that's familiar and probably pre-installed on their machine.

Re:because...

[CxDoo]

Training office drones is one (costly but doable) part of the transition. The other (AD, Exchange, Office, Sharepoint, 3rd party stuff available only for Windows...) is not so simple, and often impossible.

Transitions

[sv_libertarian]

One problem I've had with showing some people (especially older folks, or folks who are very set in their ways) a linux desktop is that they get bogged down fairly quick when they see something that doesn't look "right." Having a Windows-esque desktop could be helpful in transitioning people over.

Re:Transitions

[cptdondo]

My wife uses XFCE; she's not a techie. In her words: "I don't see the difference".

For most people a computer consists of a browser and possibly an email client, although that's less and less.

Add an mp3 downloader app and you've got about 99% of home users covered.

Re:Transitions

[sv_libertarian]

Indeed. Still, I let a friend use my laptop with Fedora 12 and Gnome, and first they looked for a start menu-esque feature in the usual place, then poked around some more until they found the applications toolbar, and then couldn't figure out the network manager...

Nearly all people will pick it up fairly quickly, but if you are moving someone into a new system anything you can do to set them at ease will make it better.

Re:Transitions

[natehoy]

Right.

For the absolute and utter basic user, there's no difference at all. Even if they've been using Windows for years, all you have to do is give them three icons and spend 5 minutes telling them which is the email and which is the web browser and which one plays music, and they're good. Their experience has almost nothing to do with the launching of programs and everything to do with finding programs that work similarly enough that they can operate the new software.

For the geek, there's lots of difference, but it doesn't matter - they have some comprehension of what is going on behind the scenes and are willing to invest time in learning the new way of doing things.

It's the "semi-experienced" user that this is shooting for. The ones who do a lot with their computing appliances. My wife maintains a couple of websites, does newsletters, edits graphics, etc. For her, the transition to XFCE would probably have been too much while at the same time transitioning her FTP software, her web page maintenance software, her music player, etc all to new things that worked "just a little differently" from what she used in XP. So I installed most of the tools she was going to transition to in XP (where a Windows version was available), picked similar tools where it wasn't, got her used to those, then when I switched the main house computer to Linux I picked Mint because it was very XP-like. That prevented any one moment where everything changed all at once.

Now that she's used to Mint and all the software she uses, she could probably accept XFCE or KDE or pretty much any windows manager, though there's not really all that much point to doing so now.

Re:Transitions

[Locutus]

Speaking of transistions, with an theme making Firefox or Chrome look like MS Internet Explorer and this Gnome-7 theme, I wonder how long it would take people to figure out they were not running Windows 7? I'm talking about the vast majority of the people who used webmail and browsing.

And maybe, also change OpenOffice so that it just says Office and leave out anything which might give a clue it's not from Microsoft. Then just tell them it's another update to Office so things are just moved around a bit but it's the same Office underneath.

Would make for a great video IMO.

LoB

Re:Transitions

[tepples]

For most people a computer consists of a browser and possibly an email client

And if the browser's icon doesn't look like a blue e (or like whatever other non-free browser the user is used to, such as Safari or the full version of Chrome), the user might get confused.

Re:Transitions

[Unoti]

These Chinese pirates did.

Re:Transitions

[Tom]

People are amazing at adapting, yes including old folks.

What they're not good at is handling negative feedback. Very few of us ever learn that art. And most non-techie people have received a lot of negative feedback from computers, especially windows. That leads to reluctance and a kind of fear. The main difference between a techie confronted with a new system or progam and a non-techie is the willingness to explore, to just try out things. Non-techie folks are careful if they dare at all, for fear of breaking something. Us techies we have a good guess at what could possibly go wrong and what to look out for and among that don't fear to explore and thus discover the new thing.

And the fragility of a windows system is, due to its popularity, a major contributor to this fear. Who hasn't been to a friend or family member to "fix" their machine when it was really just that they changed something (like hiding the menu bar) and didn't know how to get it back?

Re:Transitions

[BlindBear]

Just say "Microsoft has been replaced", they will nod knowingly... then show them how to use the good stuff.

If the only way...

[mandelbr0t]

...people will use Linux is if it looks like Windows, I don't think we'll be seeing the Year of the Linux Desktop anytime soon.

Re:If the only way...

[badboy_tw2002]

Wait...we're still doing that one?

Re:If the only way...

[Steauengeglase]

Whats the difference? We have had year of the Linux wireless router for almost a half decade (WRT54GL) and year of the Linux cell phone (Android) and almost no one noticed that Linux was under the hood. It was good for the consumer, good for the tinker and good for the manufacturer.

As for this, I'm seriously tempted to buy my mom "a new computer", just to see what happens.

Re:If the only way...

[H0p313ss]

Wait...we're still doing that one?

Only on Thursdays, most of the rest of the week we're too busy complaining about Apple's walled garden and pretending that Android is a clear sign of the age of Aquarius.

Still has all that gnome wasted space

[gauauu]

Unfortunately, if you look at the picture of the explorer windows (particularly, the "icon view" dropdown), it still has the ridiculous amount huge UI widgets and wasted space that the default gnome does. Why do they insist on wasting so much screen real estate? I never understood this.

Re:Still has all that gnome wasted space

[blair1q]

Why? What semi-naked celebrity are you going to have to scrunch into the empty part of the screen?

Re:Still has all that gnome wasted space

[gauauu]

It's not about the empty part of the screen, it's about having more CONTENT on the screen (the web content, code, etc), and less toolbar bloat. And I'm just a little sad that this was marked offtopic. My point was that it DOESN'T look like windows 7 in one aspect that is important to me. Ah well.

"But look! You can make it look like Windows 7!"

[Em Emalb]

"Why wouldn't I just use Windows 7 then?"

Obvious comment

[Kupfernigk]

I'd really rather have a Windows 7 theme that works like standard Gnome on Ubuntu 10.04, please. Cue (perhaps) irate responses, but I work with both and I prefer Gnome. Add a proper terminal and sudo rather than uac, and my life as a developer would be significantly easier. Oh, and a decent package manager. I have one on my phone, it shouldn't be too hard.

Re:Obvious comment

[blair1q]

Not for nothing, but I kind of dislike Gnome. Too much irrelevant junk in the right-click menus, not enough relevant stuff there. But my installation here is a good piece of a decade old, so yours may be newer and improveder.

The best part is

[Culture20]

The window buttons are on the top right again. Yay!

Re:The best part is

[mrmeval]

I've asked for this for over a decade. I'm not a coder and don't pretend to be one but if I could set up a locked down box that let a user feel comfortable with it even though they could not install programs I'd have been able to at least make a dent in getting people to use something other than windows. It may only have been useful for libraries, schools and other limited uses but it would have been a breach. What I received when I requested that was mockery, derision and comparisons between pintos and Ferraris.

Re:The best part is

[amazeofdeath]

You can "easily" change the button positions in Gnome: Open terminal, type "gconf-editor", go to /apps/metacity/general, and edit "button_layout" key value. "menu:minimize,maximize,close" is the Windows-like layout, IIRC.

Re:The best part is

[_xeno_]

If you're in the terminal anyway, you can just edit it straight from the command line:

gconftool -s /apps/metacity/general/button_layout --type string menu:minimize,maximize,close

And, yes, that is the way Windows lays out their window buttons.

Re:The best part is

[amazeofdeath]

Thanks for the tip.

Coming up:

[Thraxy]

Next week we feature: Make your Ferrari look like a Ford Escort.

Re:Coming up:

[Anonymous Coward]

Make your Ford Escort look like a Ferrari.

-- There I fixed that for ya.

Re:Coming up:

[SleazyRidr]

I think you missed the joke in the most complete way possible.

Re:Coming up:

[rcamans]

Next week we feature "Make a geek look good". Oh, wait, that's impossible.
Never mind.

Re:Coming up:

[RealGrouchy]

Or "Make your train look like a bus"?

- RG>

Re:Coming up:

[mandelbr0t]

Your joke is more true than you know: Search for "Unreliable Ferrari". Looks great, goes fast, expensive to maintain because it's constantly falling apart.

Put it in a library or lobby

[odin84gk]

The end user just needs to Feel comfortable. Once a user gets into a web browser, they don't really care about the OS. Something like this would be great for hotel lobbies (with free internet), libraries, and other public access sites.

My wife (a linux hater) used it in a hotel lobby to print out some airline tickets. She had no idea it was Linux, but I noticed the differences. She had a great experience (managed to get her items printed out without an issue), and just assumed it was a windows machine.

Her view of the hotel improved because of a simple amenity that helped her out. The hotel had a PC without a costly OS, saving them money. I can easily see the value in something like this.

Re:Put it in a library or lobby

[war4peace]

Parent ghost-modded "Insightful" by me. :) - the least I can do!

Re:Put it in a library or lobby

[Whorhay]

That's the issue exactly.

I've recently started playing around with a ubuntu guest OS through virtual box. And while I appreciate how it works in many ways. I am also annoyed in various other ways because I have had 15+ years using Windows and am not accustomed to the very different way some things work just on the UI level. I'll probably eventually get over it but why bother learning a whole new layout if it's unnecessary.

Reskinning a linux install to look and act in all the user friendly ways that the majority of the population is used to is a huge advance. If most people don't notice the difference in the way a linux system acts and windows it'll be easier to get them to switch to linux. For instance my wife never plays graphics intensive or modern games on her computer. The only reason she isn't using a linux OS is that A. she already paid for Vista and B. I don't know enough yet to troubleshoot linux quickly.

Come to think of it I might try and sell her on switching to ubuntu this evening. If I can show her that she'll still be able to do all the stuff she normally does but faster and safer on linux she might go for it.

Re:Put it in a library or lobby

[cbreaker]

No no no... There's no reason to make a Linux distribution look like a Windows. You need to give people a LITTLE bit of credit.. I mean, they can figure out how to use web sites, and they aren't all exactly like Microsoft.com, so I see no reason every desktop has to look like Windows or else somehow people can't even open a web browser.

Re:Put it in a library or lobby

[martin-boundary]

I've recently started playing around with a ubuntu guest OS through virtual box. And while I appreciate how it works in many ways. I am also annoyed in various other ways because I have had 15+ years using Windows and am not accustomed to the very different way some things work just on the UI level.

Unless you've been stuck on Windows95 for the last 15 years, your experience of how the UI works and how it is laid out has evolved dramatically in the intervening years. If you're honest and add up all the little annoyances and differences you've already gone through on that platform, then the little differences you find on Ubuntu will seem much less difficult to master.

Re:Put it in a library or lobby

[Grishnakh]

You need to get a divorce.

Re:Put it in a library or lobby

[jimicus]

The hotel had a PC without a costly OS, saving them money.

How did it save them money?

I'm serious, while I know Dell are selling PCs with Ubuntu installed, I can't remember the last time I saw a vendor selling PCs without Windows without making you jump through at least some hoops.

IMV, it's far more likely that they called up their friendly local PC support guy and explained they wanted a publicly-usable internet PC set up. This PC support guy, forseeing an ongoing nightmare dealing with that PC being inundated in keyloggers, viruses, spyware and other assorted garbage thought to himself "I've got a better idea....".

Re:Put it in a library or lobby

[Pharmboy]

Not exactly for everyone. I set Win2k, XP and 7 to be as "Win95-ish" as possible, both on my machines and all the machines at work. This made the transition from 95, to 98, to XP fairly easy as it looks the same to them. The ONLY features I use that aren't from 95 are the transparent backgrounds under the desktop icons and font smoothing. I can't stand all the zooming in and out of windows, and the crappy, fat status bars and rounded windows that XP had, and Aero made even worse. I want a computer to be quick, responsive, simple and run my APPLICATIONS properly. I even disable all sounds except for boot and shutdown. I don't WANT to hear pops and clicks as I'm trying to get work done: I know I just closed that window, I don't need the sound effect to confirm it.

If I want a computer that has rounded windows and jeweled bars and "pretty" zooming in and out, I would buy a fucking Mac. Nothing personal, but I buy a computer to run the apps, NOT to look pretty (and slow) while doing it. Simplicity is beautiful.

Re:Put it in a library or lobby

[Whorhay]

I've been doing much the same, I changed the look of XP before I did anything else on that operating system.

Re:Put it in a library or lobby

[Tom]

For special-purposes like this, it would be much, much better and more convenient to have a UI designed for the purpose. If web-surfing is the only thing that the thing should do (as most lobby PCs), set it up so that it will have the browser running at all times, the browser is always maximized and can not be closed (or if closed, relaunches instantly).

If it has more, but still a small set of functions, a big full-screen menu to choose among them is a ton better than Start->Programs->Manufacturer->Program Name.

As you said: Once inside the browser, most users don't care anymore. So why put even the smallest hurdle between them and it?

Who else is disappointed?

[valeo.de]

Am I the only one who was disappointed upon visiting the linked "story" only to find a desktop that doesn't look anything like Windows 7? Windows 7 doesn't (by default) use dark UI elements, there's no transparency for the task/menu bar, I could go on... I use Windows way more that I'd like, alas, and to me that just looks like Gnome with an (admittedly quite nice) gtk-engine theme.

Slow news day?

Re:Who else is disappointed?

[valeo.de]

Err, forget what I said. I just refreshed the page to find a whole bunch of images that do actually resembly Windows.The shame... :(

Re:Who else is disappointed?

[Steauengeglase]

Windows 7 doesn't (by default) use dark UI elements, there's no transparency for the task/menu bar,

Win7 Grue edition?

Windows wouldn't be my first choice but

[Cro Magnon]

it does look better than Ubuntu's default desktop (even Ubuntu's old brown looked better).

Copyright Lawsuit waiting to happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think its a good idea to help ease people into using Ubuntu by making the desktop work the same sort of way as Windows. They're already going to have to relearn a lot of the applications (except the applications that are cross platform like Firefox) without having to learn a new desktop too.

Actually putting Microsoft icons, wallpapers, registered trademark logos on is probably going to kill this though. (Not a lawyer but) it looks like the pure intent is to make people think this is Microsoft Windows which is misrepresentation.

Re:"But look! You can make it look like Windows 7!

[linhares]

for a hundred bucks I'll answer your question

Re:"But look! You can make it look like Windows 7!

[$RANDOMLUSER]

A real CLI? One with regular expressions, proper tokenizing, proper program flow constructs, pipelines (backtics results too) and redirection, etc., etc.?

Gnome should look like gnome.

[Murdoch5]

Why are people always wanting to change the way the desktop looks, add pointless effects or even make transparents bars. The point is why not just have your desktop look the way it shipped, sure put a new background on it and maybe change the icons but then leave it. Even the default gnome icons are great, really I can't see any practical reason for screwing around with what already works.

Re:Gnome should look like gnome.

[Lunix Nutcase]

The point is why not just have your desktop look the way it shipped

Because not everyone likes the default way the desktop looks? Opinions, lol.

Re:Gnome should look like gnome.

[Murdoch5]

Okay, but making gnome look like windows 7 really is a dumb idea. I mean I looked at the theme, it's weird. When I sit down at a gnome environment I want it to feel like gnome and act like gnome. If I want to use the Windows 7 desktop, I'll reboot into windows. It's the same theory behind making Windows 7 look like Mac. If you like the other desktop better then just use that OS.

Re:Gnome should look like gnome.

[Whorhay]

I think the answer is about the same as why some women buy knock off purses. They like the look and design of the purse but realize it's not worth hundreds of dollars.

logo?

[AffidavitDonda]

At least they could have omitted the windows logo.
And why did they exchange the FF logo with the one from IE?

Oh for the love of Linus...

[supersloshy]

Ubuntu is not Linux. Ubuntu is not GNOME. This is not Ubuntu specific and it should not be posted as such.

Also, scripts like this have existed for months and even years. I remember a recent story about getting GNOME to look like Windows XP as well. Exactly how is this news, and even if it is news, how is it Slashdot-worthy?

It's particularly suitable for reviving older PCs or laptops on which the main activities will be web-browsing, email, document writing, and streaming music and videos from from the web.

Exactly how is Windows more usable than GNOME? Yes, more people are used to Windows than GNOME and GNOME-based operating systems, but I find GNOME to be much, much, much more usable than Windows has ever been to me for various reasons. Also, how exactly do these activities benefit from a windows-like visual environment? They're just as easy to do in vanilla GNOME (if not easier) compared to Windows. As the great Wikipedia has often said, [citation needed], and I'm saying this to the original article, not the poster himself.

Re:Oh for the love of Linus...

[tepples]

Also, how exactly do these activities benefit from a windows-like visual environment?

Fewer tech support phone calls from family members to the effect "Why does this look different? Did I screw something up? Did I get hacked? Do I have a virus?"

Re:Oh for the love of Linus...

[supersloshy]

Also, how exactly do these activities benefit from a windows-like visual environment?

Fewer tech support phone calls from family members to the effect "Why does this look different? Did I screw something up? Did I get hacked? Do I have a virus?"

Unless you switch them to GNOME without telling them first or guiding them through it, that shouldn't be a problem.

Re:Oh for the love of Linus...

[tepples]

Unless you switch them to GNOME without telling them first or guiding them through it

Except this is exactly what GNU/Linux hardware makers might do. I guess one of the reasons why GNU/Linux PCs failed in the United States marketplace is that end users were overtrained on Windows and expected the product to work just like Windows except cheaper.

Re:Oh for the love of Linus...

[rcamans]

Windows is more usable than Gnome for the majority of people, who have never learned to use Gnome. Hello, why is there this vast echo in here? Is anyone home?

Re:Oh for the love of Linus...

[blakedev]

You beat me to this post. A lot of the people who started using Ubuntu over the years are the people who saw Compiz and just had to install it. They're the kind of people who think Compiz, Ubuntu, and Linux are the same thing. To them, learning how to make Ubuntu look like Windows 7/OSX/whatever is totally a big deal and requires an article on Slashdot. These people make me sick.

Re:Oh for the love of Linus...

[mdielmann]

Exactly how is Windows more usable than GNOME?

The same way a car with the steering wheel on the left is more usable than one with the steering wheel on the right - because more people are used to it.

Re:Oh for the love of Linus...

[FoolishOwl]

That's hard to credit, with the rapid rise in popularity of Apple laptops.

Dock

[steveha]

The basic idea of a theme isn't new. A friend of mine had an XP theme on his desktop, and had a guest at his home using his computer for over half an hour without noticing anything. He asked "Do you find my Linux computer easy to use?" and the guest hadn't even realized it wasn't Windows XP.

That sort of thing is mainly useful as evidence to counter the idea that a Linux desktop is "hard to use".

The major new thing with Windows 7 is its dock. I have never much been interested in docks but it seems like they are popular. Do you use a dock in Linux? If so, could you please answer these questions:

0) Which dock do you use?

1) Why do you prefer your dock to others you have tried?

2) Is your dock similar to the one in Windows 7?

I know someone who uses Gnome Do and Docky, so I'm interested in those, but I know there are others around.

steveha

Re:Dock

[il1019]

0) Gnome-Do in Docky mode 1) Gnome-Do is a incredibly flexible launcher, allowing you to start any program with the keyboard only. Most docks that I know of have zero keyboard integration. Having this makes it much more useable. 2) Gnome-Do with Docky is missing some things (pinning and unpinning of icons, drag and drop ordering) that I enjoy in Windows 7. I just read what came after your questions and feel like I've added nothing.

Re:Dock

[Archangel Michael]

Linux Desktop isn't hard to use. That hasn't been the case for years now. Linux Desktop (KDE or GNOME) are acceptable for most people. THE problem with Linux, even to this day, is the underlying system(I'm looking at you wireless drivers), and applications. Ubuntu makes this much easier, and once a system is fully setup and working it is very usable.

The second major problem is "Programs", on Gnome and KDE programs are often clumsy impersonations of Windows applications. Clumsy in as much as one might have to touch the underlying system to get them to run right. These applications are written by power users, for power users. If these same programs had a "grandma mode" that just worked, it would be awesome.

But once setup Linux is very usable by just about everyone. One of the things I like about Android, is that it is "Linux" and it is looking polished. It works very nicely and I was able to get things working on my co-workers phones fairly easily. THIS is the year of the Linux Desktop (ANDROID).

Re:Dock

[tknd]

Just wait till he tries to connect his ipod and download/install itunes.

Re:Dock

[stepdown]

I use Avant Window Navigator or AWN.
https://launchpad.net/awn

I like it because it's very simple and just sits there and doesn't do any special launching stuff. It has a nice "squish" animation and handles custom icons nicely. More than anything else it was the main one around when I first got one and I've stuck with it, Docky didn't offer enough benefit for me to make the transition.

It's more akin to OSX than Windows, here's what my desktop looks like...
http://stepdown.deviantart.com/#/d2te728

Re:Dock

[KozmoStevnNaut]

I've begun using Windows 7 since upgrading my PC. Arch Linux didn't mind the new hardware, but Windows XP certainly doesn't like having the motherboard+cpu+ram switched out from underneath it :-)

Anyway, I must say the new taskbar in 7 works pretty damn well. I've set it to only combine multiple instances of the same app into an icon once the bar is full, I think it works really well this way with my 5 or 6 most-used applications pinned. I love how for instance the current download progress in Chrome is displayed by the taskbar entry gaining a progress bar, I think it's a very slick idea.

I'd love to have something similar in KDE, either by making icons in the panels act like pinned apps in Windows 7 or by adding application launcher functionality to the taskbar so it acts like the Windows counterpart.

For me, MS definitely got the taskbar spot-on in Windows 7.

Re:Dock

[xMilkmanDanx]

I use avant window navigator for a doc and gnome-do for quicksilver like launcher. found I couldn't quite get the gnome-do dock to do what I wanted visually or functionally but awn worked nicely.

Re:Dock

[russlar]

I use Smooth Tasks in KDE4, and it's identical to the Win7 taskbar. It'll even do full-sized window previewing if you hover over the a program in the taskbar.

Re:Dock

[Petskull]

Avant Window Navigator - Standard in a new install on my system

Re:Dock

[GoatEnigma]

If you think that the Major New Thing with Windows 7 is "its dock", then you clearly don't use Windows 7....

Re:Dock

[Tom]

"Do you find my Linux computer easy to use?" and the guest hadn't even realized it wasn't Windows XP.

Which means the answer was probably "no, it's got this horrible UI, but I can manage because I'm used to it."

Really, grow up, people. Copying good examples is a great way to catch up. Copying the bad stuff isn't. And MS is getting ripped new ones every time they change their UI again, because despite all the talent they hire, they apparently don't let the UI experts actually design the UI.

Re:Dock

[FoolishOwl]

I've met people who think that LInux is all command line, all the time, despite the fact that *nix systems had GUIs before Linux was invented, and despite the fact that OS X and Windows also have command line interfaces.

Re:this is new how ?

[linhares]

Or if you want to be more avant-garde about being modded down, rant about how Ubuntu is vastly inferior to your favored microdistro.

Ubuntu is for noobs; Microsoft Linux is vastly superior for those that know what they're doing.

That's appropriate

[Arancaytar]

Because with lucid, Ubuntu's interface is already on the way to looking like Windows Vista.

Re:That's appropriate

[AmonTheMetalhead]

As long as it's only looking like Vista & not working on my nerve like Vista (and Win7) i suppose i can live with it, besides, you can disable the screen candy

I am amazed that this was approved as an article.

[ourcraft]

Move to linux if you like freedom and privacy, don't if you don't. But "it looks like windows" ???? sheesh, how 1995 can you get.

look and feel of ubuntu?

[macbeth66]

Is there something that I can load on a Windows box that will make it look like Ubuntu?

Re:look and feel of ubuntu?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu.

Re:look and feel of ubuntu?

[The MAZZTer]

This works for me.

Re:look and feel of ubuntu?

[bazorg]

aye

Re:look and feel of ubuntu?

[glwtta]

Anyone else?

It's still not too late to jump in there with an awesome joke!

Re:look and feel of ubuntu?

[lahvak]

I don't think awesome runs on Windows.

Hiding from the corporate network police

[inshreds]

One really great use for a theme like this is hiding your "frowned upon" use of non-standard software if you work in a corporate environment with locked-down computers. Thankfully, hacking Window$ permissions locally is easier than quieting a toddler with tranquilizer laced candy. Once through MS$ tissue security, VirtualBox , a lot of ram, and one of these theme packages will allow running the Nix flavor of choice without alerting passers by. Best of all, all the corporate installed default software can stay intact.

Can Linux snobs be more arrogant?

[Jakobud]

Can you Linux snobs possibly be more arrogant or are you really just this short-sighted?

Giving people a familiar-feeling interface is 100% always going to be one of the best first steps you can take to convince someone to move from Windows to Linux. If someone is taken from Windows straight into a unfamiliar Gnome interface can be very daunting and scary (not matter how much better Gnome behaves). The user will most likely feel unsure, insecure and not confident in exploring the operating system. All of this will usually lead to the user simply giving up and going back to familiar old Windows.

I use Linux on a daily basis. The more people that use Linux the better it will be for them and everyone else out there. But when the Slashdot crowd comes across with comments and posts like this, you are simply reassuring any Windows users out there that Linux is a playground for the big boys and if they can't handle it then go home. You will not win over any potential converts with that attitude. Simple as that. If this is what snobby Linux users want, fine. You'll get it. But stop complaining about why more people don't switch from what is familiar to them to a better operating system.

Re:Can Linux snobs be more arrogant?

[bsDaemon]

Or, like how Apple made such an effort to have Mac OS X look and feel like Windows, they hyped that as a sell-point in their switch campaign... or not.

I know you'll just make some remark about how snobby Apple users are, but honestly I think that attempting to emulate the user experience of another product beyond instances where form follows function is just asinine. It lulls people into a false sense of security, and then when things don't work the way they expect, then all of a sudden its "X's fault that it doesn't do Y like Z," rather than "X isn't Z, so Y probably works differently."

It's not about being a snob. It's about acknowledging reality. But then again, I don't really have any political Free Software motivations and don't give a crap if people use Linux or not. I barely use Linux, but when I do, I'm not going to spend my time trying to make it look like Windows. Why bother?

Re:Can Linux snobs be more arrogant?

[AmonTheMetalhead]

It took me 5 minutes to get 3 kids using Ubuntu after they had only known Windows, the kids were 9 & 15 years old...
Making the OS look like something it isn't raises expectations that the system might work the same as well.

Re:Can Linux snobs be more arrogant?

[Swarley]

Agreed. "Linux is about freedom to do what you want with your own hardware and software instead of letting corporate interested dictate what you can do... unless you want to make it look like Windows then f*ck you!"

This happens whenever anyone brings up the possibility of a linux distro or theme that makes things easier for windows users. The same people who speak out of the other side of their mouth about how Linux isn't one single experience, it's whatever you want to make it into are the same people who bitch about any attempt to change the common Linux trappings into something that makes it "less Linux". If it was really about freedom to do what you want, then you can't simply discount what other people want because it's not consistent with some cloistered view of what "real Linux" should be. And then they act all confused about why people don't all switch just because some people on Slashdot said that Windows 7's UI is objectively worse than Linux (which once again, isn't any single OS, UI, use case, etc..).

I use Windows 7 regularly as well as Linux Mint and I simply don't see this clearly, objectively, unavoidably, irrefutably worse UI that people love to assert as given truth passed down by our ancestors (or some other linux people on a different forum).

Re:Can Linux snobs be more arrogant?

[inshreds]

I really don't think switching to Gnome is really that much of a change for MS users. I switched my 64 year old mother, a complete computer novice, to a laptop with Ubuntu on it nearly 2 years ago. She had no problem at all with the minor location differences. Really, the biggest transition for her was learning a few new applications. Now that she has had time to familiarize, she claims to find Ubuntu much cleaner, easier, and more trouble-free.

Re:Can Linux snobs be more arrogant?

[BlindBear]

I can see your point, but my personal experience as the 'geek' for two grannies, my two 20 something kids, my 49 yr female cousin and myself is that they take to Ubuntu (8.04,9.04,9.10 and 10.04) like ducks to water if you give them the same attention that you give a newbie windows user. After a week or so they are hooked and love it. People can learn and some are eager to do so, just give them a little help, we all had it when we were 'windowed'. My 62 yr old granny is my best learner so far.

Acting "wrong" worse than looking "wrong" ...

[perpenso]

One problem I've had with showing some people (especially older folks, or folks who are very set in their ways) a linux desktop is that they get bogged down fairly quick when they see something that doesn't look "right." Having a Windows-esque desktop could be helpful in transitioning people over.

I'm not sure. Once they get past the initial superficial impression of "looking right" they may quickly fall into this "acts wrong". Acting wrong is probably a greater negative than looking wrong. Especially since the words "right" and "wrong" are being overloaded here. Looking wrong is more synonymous with looking different but acting wrong is more synonymous with being defective.

There is also a "false advertising" aspect, the look gave the expectation of certain behavior. With a different look the different behavior is far more acceptable.

Re:Acting "wrong" worse than looking "wrong" ...

[sv_libertarian]

Mmmm you have a point there. I think a comfortable "looking" environment might serve as a suitable jumping off point for certain people. If you handed them a Linux system, with a Windows looking desktop, carefully eased them into what "acts wrong", it can facilitate transition. Different people have different learning curves. It's not too hard for a person to transition from one windows version to another, but harder to transition from Windows to Linux. But there is no reason to deny the opportunity to give them a comfortable looking desktop if that's what helps. Sooner or later most will realize that it's silly to go that route anyway.

Re:"But look! You can make it look like Windows 7!

[Anonymous Coward]

use Microsoft powershell then, once you get to know it's oo model, it is stronger than bash

Re:"But look! You can make it look like Windows 7!

[drinkypoo]

For the same reason I have a mac-esque desktop on my Ubuntu system (well, if OSX had frosted glass window borders and buttons that meant something) ... I want to run Linux, but I find the Mac desktop attractive. (And yes, my launch menu wandering around does get confusing, but I have launchers for my favorites.)

Ugh

[mewsenews]

After reading Slashdot for a decade I've finally got Linux on my home desktop and I'm very happy with it, I have it playing my movies and songs, interfacing with my iPhone, and playing World of Warcraft under Wine and connecting to Ventrilo with Mangler. I just installed a native version of Google Chrome a couple of days ago! None of this requiring text editing, and I got a default desktop that looks very pretty with the nVidia proprietary drivers. I'm running legal when there was no way I was going to pay for a Windows retail package.

So.. 2010 is my year of the Linux desktop, and someone is saying "hey here's how to hose your system so that it looks like Microsoft fucked a penguin". I'll pass on that one..

On the other hand, if anyone wants to point me to how to move the minimize/maximize/close buttons to the top right hand side of windows I'd appreciate it

Re:Ugh

[Quartinus]

On the other hand, if anyone wants to point me to how to move the minimize/maximize/close buttons to the top right hand side of windows I'd appreciate it

This is quite simple to do, but it does require some text editing. Here is a simple step-by-step guide -Quartinae

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

it's very easy, just one line has to be copied and paste at the commandline:

to move minimize,close and maximize buttons to the right; use the command (in the console):

gconftool-2 --set /apps/metacity/general/button_layout --type string :minimize,maximize,close

Re:Ugh

[Confusador]

I'm sure this has been posted a bunch of places, but the quick version is a one-liner in the terminal:

gconftool -s /apps/metacity/general/button_layout -t string menu:minimize,maximize,close

It's kind of useful to know how to use gconf-editor, though, so I'd recommend firing it up and going to apps/metacity/general to change the value of button_layout manually.

Re:Ugh

[Xyrus]

So.. 2010 is my year of the Linux desktop, and someone is saying "hey here's how to hose your system so that it looks like Microsoft fucked a penguin". I'll pass on that one..

The last time Microsoft fucked a penguin we got Mono.

*runs for cover*

Re:Ugh

[stretch0611]

To move your buttons to the right side of windows...

Right click on the desktop and select "Change Desktop Background." This will bring up the appearance preferences.

Click the "Theme" tab.

Choose one of other themes. When you click on a theme, you will get an instant preview. When you select a theme that you like and the preview moves the buttons to the right click ok. (or you can customize it.)

The above will work, however, if someone knows a specific preference that will allow me to change it I would like to learn how. (I assume that there is a setting that will specifically set one side or the other, but I do not know it.)

Re:Ugh

[Cato]

The easiest way is to install Ubuntu Tweak, it has a specific feature to drag these buttons to the right hand side: http://ubuntu-tweak.com/

Re:Ugh

[Zebedeu]

I know you already got a lot of answers to your question, but if you're using Ubuntu (I guess so, since you have the window buttons on the left side), then I recommend you install Ubuntu Tweak.

That software is amazing in discovering what you can do with your Ubuntu instalation.
And of course, it also has a 1-click solution to the window button problem.

http://ubuntu-tweak.com/

Re:Ugh

[mcgrew]

Use KDE instead of Gnome.

Windows 7?

[rgo]

Looking at the screenshots, it seems they made Gnome look like KDE 4!!

That's all well and good, but...

[insnprsn]

Why cant someone do something more constructive? Like make a working (read:functional) LCARS theme!!!

Re:That's all well and good, but...

[mcgrew]

Because nobody wants to be sued by Paramount.

Re:"But look! You can make it look like Windows 7!

[Lunix Nutcase]

Then use Services for Unix or PowerShell. Problem solved 11 years and 6 years ago respectively.

Re:Step one: Create themed Ubuntu virtual image.

[linhares]

wrong forum, anon

Does this mean

[sea4ever]

Doesn't this mean that if we can make ubuntu look like windows 7, and using wine it can run windows 7 programs..then if wine is fixed up well enough couldn't that mean that theoretically ubuntu would become a sort of 'free implementation of windows 7'? Also bundled with linux features?
I'm sure the people at microsoft should be feeling a little bit disturbed that their operating system can be implemented as a series of layers on top of linux. I've gotten linux to do just about everything else windows can do, so if it looks like windows the transformation is just about complete.

Side note here, this theme won't cause any evil fleets of lawyers to descend upon ubuntu, would it?

Re:"But look! You can make it look like Windows 7!

[Whorhay]

That should be $100 to what $500?

Realistic uses.

[w0mprat]

Realistically this would be helpfull for installing Linux for friends and family. Looking and working exactly like Windows 7 which my aging parents use, is a huge selling point. Especially since they only do basic web, email, the OS choice matters little, only the interface needs only to be familiar and just work. While my dad has expressed interest in linux (use ubuntu happily on occasion) I don't want to go through the trauma of re-training my mother to use a different interface, in this case she would honestly not pick the difference.

Unfortunatley desktop linux has yet to catch up on some of the usability smarts Windows 7. One killer redeeming feature of 7 is the way the start menu search feature includes a lot of administrative functions. I recall a phone conversation with my dad:
Dad: "How do I change my account password?"
Me: "Click on start menu and type 'password' in the box you see there"
Dad: "Oh there it is, change password, it came up before I finished typing, I click on that ja?"

This is refreshingly easy and saves me time - he'll likely remember the trick for other tasks, and not call back.

In gnome or something else it would be several layers deep under a drop down menu that isn't even categorized correctly, and I'd likely have to boot up one of my gnome machines to talk him through it.

It's perhaps unfair to beat up on gnome over it's infamously poor menu system, it's an easy targt.

Needless to say I'm not into supporting novices in linux in the same way i'm not into plucking hairs individually with tweasers.

Re:Realistic uses.

[slapout]

"he'll likely remember the trick for other tasks, and not call back"

Windows breaks up yet another family...

Re:Realistic uses.

[dremon]

Unfortunatley desktop linux has yet to catch up on some of the usability smarts Windows 7. One killer redeeming feature of 7 is the way the start menu search feature includes a lot of administrative functions.

Gnome-Do has all this plus tons of plugins for every possible function you can imagine (like virtual machine control or interface to google maps). Just press hot key (e.g. Win-Space) and start typing. Linux is light years ahead of anything MS can offer right now in their OS.

Re:Realistic uses.

[russlar]

Unfortunatley desktop linux has yet to catch up on some of the usability smarts Windows 7. One killer redeeming feature of 7 is the way the start menu search feature includes a lot of administrative functions. I recall a phone conversation with my dad: Dad: "How do I change my account password?" Me: "Click on start menu and type 'password' in the box you see there" Dad: "Oh there it is, change password, it came up before I finished typing, I click on that ja?" This is refreshingly easy and saves me time - he'll likely remember the trick for other tasks, and not call back.

I know it's KDE, and not GNOME, but the Lancelot launcher has this exact functionality.

Re:Realistic uses.

[thejaded1]

> Needless to say I'm not into supporting novices in linux in the same way i'm not into plucking hairs individually with tweasers.

Curiously, my view is also like that, but s/linux/windows/g first. ;-)
Of course, they have to be willing to learn in the first place, otherwise I'm not interested either.

Not sure about the parent post, or anyone else, but I find the menus in Ubuntu to be very structured and easy to find. Heaven forbid I have to /think/ about where something would be. There's a general structure that once you acquainted, things are in "the right place". Really, if we start from zero computer knowledge, I'd wager that Ubuntu's layout is easier. I much prefer sorting by application type (Internet, Sound and Video, etc), and what not, than the.... whatever method Windows uses to sort. "Start > Programs > $CompanyName > $CompanyProduct". Man I hated that crap.
(Disclaimer, I haven't used anything past XP, and it hasn't been my main OS for many years; for home, work, or any family member. Perhaps there has been some improvements since)

In the specific example you cited:

System -> Preferences -> About Me (for a self specific set of options, including password modification)
System -> Administration -> Users and Groups (for a global list of users and management)

This is one-two clicks away at most. Any curious user would have found it if they actually looked around.

Just my two cents.

Really reviving older machines?

[edmicman]

I love my Ubuntu install, and have used some minimal installs before on older machines...but can the stock 10.04 desktop with enhanced GUI effects that look like Win7 really *help* older machines? I guess if they won't even install Win7 then you've got a leg up, but it seems like the best Ubuntu experience requires similar specs that would give you the best Windows experience, too.

On another note, does this replicate the taskbar? I actually like that part of Win7, especially how everything seems to be draggy droppy rearrangeable. The stock GNOME install seems kinda cumbersome in that regard.

Re:Really reviving older machines?

[robsku]

3D desktop effects to mimick Aero certainly would not be good for older machine, however the good thing seems to be (I only checked the webpage and screenshots there, I don't even use Gnome - nor Ubuntu but that is not the issue since the theme is not Ubuntu- but Gnome-specific) that the enhanced GUI effects are included in the themes customization menus as optional preferences. So the GUI effects don't have to "help" older machines in any way :p If it is not capable to run those effects in Compiz Fusion it would not run them on Win 7's Aero either so nothing is lost there.

From my understanding it does replicate the taskbar - I have not used Win 7 and didn't test this either as I don't use Gnome, just an extremely light and efficient window manager without any Desktop Environment on top of it. Also in my experience Ubuntu on (*really*) older machine is much lighter than WinXP and I doubt that Win7 is... And that's just with regular unmodified install without any actions done to lighten up the system - and there is quite some things you can do without changing gnome to some lighter windowing/desktop setup so you can get it to run with quite a lot smaller systems req's.

...and at last, lightness at side you get some other extras (stability, security, etc...) and lose some unnecessary things that waste your or your computers time/resources (filesystem does not need defragging, bloated antivirus software is not necessary, system updates also automagically update any linux software installed via ubuntus package management from repositories)...
So in the end I see quite a few benefits to gain :)

Meh

[lennier1]

I'd much rather have a theme which gives Ubuntu the look&feel of BeOS (the ones over at gnome-look.org are too superficial).

Re:"But look! You can make it look like Windows 7!

[cbreaker]

Powershell isn't so bad, you know. Supports all of that nifty whiz-bang stuff plus interfaces for directly manipulating documents, files, registry keys, etc etc. Remotely, too.

No

[DaFallus]

People have been doing this sort of look-and-feel swap-out for years; it seems best to me as a practical joke

Because they can. That should be a good enough reason for any linux or OSS enthusiast. No need to be pretentious just because people prefer a Windows theme if they are used to it.

Re:No

[Red_Chaos1]

Or, you know, $deity forbid that things like this are done to Linux to help increase adoption rate. I mean, quite a large portion of computer users only use their PC to check their e-mail, maybe do some banking and a little bit of surfing, with the occasional research, and it's all done on Windows. Make Linux distros look and feel like Windows everywhere the average user is likely to go, and you'd probably be able to bring a lot of folks into the fold. And don't bother mentioning Lindows or Linspire. The people I speak of don't need WINE, as there are perfectly good browsers and e-mail clients available for Linux that work pretty much exactly the same as their windows counterparts, and for the rare site that was written in ASP or something, there are basic workarounds that can be used that work just fine.

Really, all this snobbery needs to stop. Most folks use Windows because it's what comes with the PC, and it's what they learn. No one offers them a choice, and no one offers to help them learn it. It's ridiculous how many customers I talk to (I work for a company that contracts with ISPs to do phone tech sup) that had the computer given to them by their son/daughter, and were expected to just figure it out. Newsflash! Not everyone is a geek, not everyone is as quick at learning things as others. Most people are of average intelligence, and have little experience with highly technical devices like a PC. We sit around an bitch about these people, but I don't seem to know many people willing to take the time to teach them. It's easier to just complain about it and look down your nose at them I guess.

Seriously folks, if you want Linux to *really* succeed, then a simple working solution needs to be made. WINE seems to work for the odd Windows app that "mom and dad" or "gramma and grandpa" might need, such as family tree programs or what have you, and the rest runs native to Linux. Is it *really* that hard?

Re:No

[blackpaw]

Word. I recently moved my wife's desktop to Kubuntu 10.04. Its just a low power Atom but its easily powerful enough for web/email/wp/basic games which is all she wants.

I tweaked the desktop and menu to the same layout as her windows desktop, installed wine and some old windows games she's addicted to (they worked perfectly under wine). Setup Thunderbird and Firefox, which was what she used under windows and added some desktop links to the KDE card games.

No problems from day one, she was straight into it. Now addicted to the KDE games :)

Contronyms

[tepples]

it's pretty frustrating when there are two meanings for a phrase and the meanings are contradictory.

You mean like "cleave" and other contronyms?

Other users of the same PC

[tepples]

Even supposing I wanted to use Ubuntu, why would I want it to look like Windows 7?

So that other users of the same machine don't object to the change in appearance. "Where did my flag menu go?" "Where did the blue E go?" "Why does this look like some chinese knockoff of Windows and Mac mixed up?"

Re:Other users of the same PC

[clone53421]

Those are fine answers, but TFA overlooked the question and didn’t give any of them.

Windows, Office, and IE icons?

[CjKing2k]

I can understand why one would like to make their desktop look similar to the Windows 7 default theme, but do we really need to use the same application-specific icons as Windows? When I'm in Windows, I don't change my Firefox shortcut to show an IE icon.

That's why Stallman talks about GNU/Linux

[tepples]

We have had year of the Linux wireless router for almost a half decade (WRT54GL) and year of the Linux cell phone (Android)

Linux on routers and on Android phones is Linux, but it's not GNU/Linux. (There's a difference.) Embedded Linux need not implement the POSIX and X11 APIs that mainstream UNIX and GNU/Linux use. Maemo/MeeGo, the operating system on high-end Nokia smartphones, on the other hand, is GNU/Linux and benefits from the Qt application ecosystem.

Microsoft usability research

[MpVpRb]

I realize that it's fashionable to hate Microsoft...

But, they do spend a lot of time and money on usability testing.

Yes, it's not perfect, but it's not just a bunch of morons throwing crap on the screen either.

I remember seeing the presentation they posted on the development of the ribbon. Seems like smart people doing reasonable things.

Re:Microsoft usability research

[jedidiah]

> But, they do spend a lot of time and money on usability testing.

        Really? You can't tell from the end result.

        I can't imagine that they ever sat a n00b down in front of a
Vista or a Win7 box and just observed them. They can't have. They
wouldn't have put out their current nonsense otherwise.

> Yes, it's not perfect, but it's not just a bunch of morons throwing crap on the screen either.

        Sure it is. It's management that's in charge.

        You're under some sort of fanboy dellusion that it's
        all laid out for the benefit of the end user when it's
        really just about seeing how much you can put up with
        and how much they can suck you dry.

Microsoft's business is monopolies and taking your cash, not making good technology.

At least Apple seems to aspire to making good technology (for someone at least).

Re:Microsoft usability research

[MpVpRb]

>Really? You can't tell from the end result.

Yes I can. To me, many of Microsoft's UI choices seem right. Not all, but many.

I am not a fanboy. I hate many of Microsoft's policies. In particular, restricting kernel mode driver development royally pissed me off.

>At least Apple seems to aspire to making good technology (for someone at least).

Apple is far more totalitarian and less tolerant of freedom. Given the choice, I would pick Microsoft any time.

Of course, I still dream of a good software company that doesn't suck at all...

Re:Microsoft usability research

[gweihir]

But, they do spend a lot of time and money on usability testing.
Yes, it's not perfect, but it's not just a bunch of morons throwing crap on the screen either.
I remember seeing the presentation they posted on the development of the ribbon. Seems like smart people doing reasonable things.

Well, what I don't get is why they are having so bad usability despite all this testing? The ribbon is really an awful idea. I cannot find anything there plus it takes far too much precious vertical screen area. I also know that basically all our customers (a lot and very IT savvy people) use pre-ribbon Office.

Then there is the fact that win7 does not have virtual screens. I find that I am not happy with at least a 3x2 grid of them and usually use 3x3. Is this why some people doing development work on Windows want two monitors? They would not nearly be enough for me. And with edge-scroll (fvwm has had this 20 years ago) it is actually faster to switch virtual desktops than turn your head.

There are other things, like no icon boxes, hard to customize menus and the like.

I guess, I am just not in their target group, possibly because I have not only seen how to do it better, but also used something better for more than 20 years.

Can you...

[Halifax Samuels]

...install a different theme on each of the virtual desktops? Say, have the Ubuntu theme on one, this on another, and a Mac OSX theme on a third? I realize this will make it quite processor-intensive to switch between virtual desktops, but can it be done?

Because it just looks better?

[SchizoDuckie]

Okay, i'd not go as far as adding the windows logo and microsoft copyrighted styling, but you have to admit: The windows themed one looks a *lot* better than the default theme of gnome which feels a bit '90s http://library.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/2.30/figures/rnusers.nautilus.png.en_GB vs http://gnome-look.org/CONTENT/content-pre2/113264-2.jpg

Re:"But look! You can make it look like Windows 7!

[Peaker]

Isn't it extremely slow?

Linux Looking Like Windows

[helix2301]

I thought this was a great idea. I myself being a big linux user and open source user like the Ubuntu distro. One thing that makes open source suffer is the difficulty of use. This idea would make Ubuntu look like Windows it would make the use easier on the users that just want to use the web, e-mail and word processing. This would also help elevate the scare of using something else besides Windows. I myself see enough Windows computers in a day and enjoy the different look and feel of Ubuntu. Buts its great to see what you can do with open source.

15 years ago...

[johno.ie]

We had FVWM95

Linux: Making Ubuntu Look Like Windows 7 ???

[LordBullGod]

Maybe just load Windows 7....? "My linux distro looks and feels like Windows 7 !" - Why? If you want you distro to look and feel like 7, load it? "It's particularly suitable for reviving older PCs or laptops on which the main activities will be web-browsing, email, document writing, and streaming music and videos from from the web" Can Linux do anything but the aforementioned ?

Really versatile

[nexttech]

Shows how Linux can change to make people more comfortable with it

Now, Lets see windows with the look and feel of my Awesome Window Manager (Dynamic Window Manager). Maybe then I wouldn't feel sick to my stomach everytime I work with windows.

Re:"But look! You can make it look like Windows 7!

[coerciblegerm]

Stronger? Hardly.

Trademark and IP Infringement

[Roobles]

How is it legal in western countries to use the icons, backgrounds, and logos of Microsoft Windows from inside of Gnome? Am I missing out on something, or is this massively illegal?

Convert my Ferrari?

[Ossifer]

I'd like to make my Ferrari look more like a Ford Pinto, because more chicks have driven Pintos that Ferrarris.

You can Sudo under Windows 7

[osssmkatz]

It's called RunAs. More information is available at: http://www.intelliadmin.com/index.php/2007/09/elevate-processes-from-the-command-prompt-in-vista/

You can also right click on any application/executable icon and select "Run As..." (XP) or Run As Administrator (7/Vista.) You can also although this is a bad idea elevate the entire command prompt.

--Sam

Wideband vs. broadband

[tepples]

The use of "broadband" as a marketing term is particularly annoying, as if a certain modulation technique would guarantee higher channel capacity.

As I understand it, "wideband" refers to the modulation, and "broadband" has since come to refer to data throughput greater than a quarter megabit per second. But even certain "wideband" methods might be more amenable to some error-correcting codes, which put channel capacity closer to the Shannon limit.

I extrapolate that future people will be content with the single word "ugh", whose meaning is apparent from the context.

In H.G. Wells's The Time Machine, the Eloi of A.D. 802701 have fallen into retardation due to having been bred for docility by their underground masters who make the equivalent of Soylent Green out of them. Yet they still have a language with nouns and verbs, which some have conjectured is reminiscent of the constructed pidgin Toki Pona. (I have come to a different conclusion however, involving of all things Ernest Hemingway.)

For the luv of linus and older folks...

[PrivacyDeath]

Urm Gnome isn't Linux? I was under the impression that gnome was simply a GUI, and that the "core" of the OS or "Kernel" was Linux, a UNIX derivative originally developed by Linus. Also,that open source projects were based on standards that may have deviations in the implementation, but still try to follow the standards. Please have tolerance before you blast me, as this is my interpretation and observations without any definitive answers. Additionally, I don't get the "making Linux look like windows for older folks". Are you sure this hangup isn't in your head? Personally, I installed Ubuntu about 2 years ago on my 83 year old grandmothers PC. After two months, I asked her how the computer was doing, and she said "It is running faster than it used to, and I like the version of Mahjong, because I can read the letters easier." I did not tell her I changed her PC to Linux, I just took the time to explain that her computer was gonna be different now, and that she needed to do things slightly differently.

Perfect for Schools!

[WhiteHorse-The Origi]

Oh man this is PERFECT for my school! Now we can pretend we're obeying the status quo while eliminating 90% of our problems with malware, viruses, security vulnerabilities and maintenance. Now we can continue to get another 5 years of productive use out of our machines without having to buy all new machines and waste money on windows licenses and upgrading all the software. Yay! We can finally use our machines for education instead of force-feeding the status quo on a whole generation.

Looks and feels like win7 ????

[FragHARD]

So does this mean I can make the hard lock in ubuntu turn blue like win???? or do I just have to do a screen shot and make that the screensaver in ubuntu set to about an hour.... just curious ;-)

But at least the window controls are on the right!

[yadda yoda yadda]

Sorry, needed to be said. The first thing I do is move the window controls to the right side of the screen.

Please mod this comment -5 : trying to hard to be funny. Thank you.

How many of you use the Dvorak keyboard?

[Rsriram]

QED. Habits cannot be broken easily. And what is the ultimate goal of Linux? Change the way people use a windowing system or shift people to an open source alternative.

Re:"But look! You can make it look like Windows 7!

[IrquiM]

because this happens after you download a source tar-ball:

C:\TAR\BALL\>configure
'CONFIGURE' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.

C:\TAR\BALL\>

trademarks?

[crimperman]

From the screenshots it looks like this theme infringes on some MS trademarks - wallpaper, start button etc. Is this wise?

Re:"But look! You can make it look like Windows 7!

[the entropy]

Not exactly because the vast majority of windows programs aren't written with command line usage in mind. So you've got a powerful shell but no tools to use from it, still useless. And yes I could get ports of most of the unix tools but then, I'd rather use *NIX and have them all there or available from a single repository :)

You're forgetting the DOS theme.

[tuxish]

I made Ubuntu 10.04 look like DOS. export PS1=C:\>

Timothy is clearly trolling

[Mgns]

There is simply no way any Slashdot editor could be oblivious to how fucking mad the users here get when someone borks that phrase.

This is quite simply Timothy sticking it to all the grammar Nazis to get more comments to an otherwise uninspired thread.

Re:"But look! You can make it look like Windows 7!

[Lunix Nutcase]

You don't need ports of the tools. That's the point of SFU. It's a POSIX compatibility layer and includes a whole host of GNU and various other Unix tools.

Re:"But look! You can make it look like Windows 7!

[Lunix Nutcase]

Besides, PowerShell commands are too wordy.

Then use the abbreviated aliases. Wow, that was hard.

Re:"But look! You can make it look like Windows 7!

[mcgrew]

Because you're tired of getting pwned?

Most people just want a Web browser

[FoolishOwl]

Most often, when people ask to borrow a computer, they just want a Web browser. As more and more services are available via Web-based front ends, this becomes more true. In this, I think Google is on the right track.

I sometimes think that in a decade or two, most people will regard the question of what operating system supports the browser as of interest equivalent to the question of whether power is alternating current or direct current -- that is, it's just for specialists to worry about.

Why can't they can learn the new interface?

[FoolishOwl]

Why is learning to use GNOME instead of Windows such a big deal?

Sure, learning a new interface can be frustrating. There's a learning curve. But that's a problem when someone switches Web browsers, mobile phones, televisions, cars, or any number of other complicated devices. There are conventions in play that ease the transitions. GNOME follows conventions familiar to users of Windows and OS X, and includes tutorials.

I don't understand why learning a new GUI is regarded as more difficult.

Re:Why can't they can learn the new interface?

[Compaqt]

No kidding. The same people who weaved through DOS command lines and WordPerfect reveal codes suddenly become flailing amoebas when presented with a GUI menu that organizes programs by category (Internet, Office, Graphics, Games) instead of by manufacturer.

Does not compute.

[Beelzebud]

My only question is this: Why? If I want to use Windows 7, I'll just use it. Why make a Linux install appear to be a clone of Windows? I just don't get it.

Re:"But look! You can make it look like Windows 7!

[robsku]

Does not, can not include "a whole host of GNU tools" because those are licensed under GPL (and that package is not) - however GNU tools are mostly (emphasis on mostly - and most) more evolved but backwards compatible rewrites of original UNIX tools of various sort and Services for UNIX do provide similar toolset, just not as evolved in functionality.

And yes, I have actually tried it. I find cygwin more useful for me - and that one actually comes with GNU tools.

Re:"But look! You can make it look like Windows 7!

[robsku]

Does not include all the "whiz-bang stuff" you can do with bash and GNU toolset, let alone some more usual tools - and naturally if the scripting is so advanced that bash is not efficient or comfortable there is always external languages like perl (to mention a more high-level one that still also fits for writing small (or big) scripts too.