It's sad that they are focusing on how it looks, instead of how well it works.

Windows XP has an ugly UI, but it has the market because of the software it can run. (almost anything)

Windows Vista is "prettier" than XP, but because it can't run all the same software as easily, and has a few glitches, it's popular to hate it.

The biggest problem stopping Linux adoption is the lack of business software that can run on it, not to mention the printing woes mentioned by a reader above.

The How-To Geek

I have Ubuntu that I use for serverish sort of uses. As ugly as I think Ubuntu looks, no that's not what's keeping me from switching over all my desktop activities (I use Windows in Classic mode so looks isn't that big)

My problem is a lot of things in Linux are half assed. Eg: There's good GUI configuration tools for some things, but not others. A lot of things "just work" but other things that are straight forward tasks in other OS's are a royal pain, with very convoluted, unintuitive steps. Eg: I had to change the keyboard mapping to something bizarre in Ubuntu to get TightVNC to work.

The other thing is Linux promoters like saying how much less bloated Linux is than Windows, and while certain distros (DSL), and certain Window managers(xfce) this may be true, KDE or Gnome (which are the closest thing to "standard" for the Linux desktop) make my old P3 run like crap and it turns into swap central. And they don't seem to provide the orders of magnitude improvement over other WM that they're promoted to have.

Not to mention dependency hell. If an app you want is in a repository for your distribution, and your version, you're laughing. If not, make make install and wait for dependency hell to begin.

Apple made a pretty *NIX OS , but installing apps is still incredibly easy, as are most tasks.

If all the focus was on "making it prettier" then all the work is going to that and not the spots that so desperately need it. It will be even more like other Open Source Software that's bug ridden, but the only "contributed work" by anyone is 45,000 stupid skins, half of which are Aqua knockoffs.

johnsmith1234

no, but making linux work better with wireless cards/USB sticks would make me happier. Windows may be a resource hog, but when I plug something into it 99%, I will be given a driver for it, and have it up and running pretty quick (even if a restart is involved!)

Also, having to search google just to figure out how to map a network drive is pretty painful

falter

A prettier linux would be absolutely useless in the long run. It *would* get me to try it. (The *oooh* factor.) However, what would keep me running linux? Killer applications. It is unacceptable for my computer to be good at only two things: browsing the web and running office applications. It MUST come with an intuitive software that always works, without freakish dependencies on packages that are outdated. For example: a media player that can easily connect to Windows shares and play mp3 files. Why must I jump through hoops to play mp3s? It doesn't make sense. Also, DVD software. Why is it so impossible to write software that will make a FULL backup copy of a DVD *without* the protections? Granted, there are only a few windows programs that do it, but they do it well, but Linux should be the stomping ground for these programs! Linux should be where DVD encryption goes to die.
Anyway, I actually dual boot linux/windows, and spend most of my time in linux, so I am well versed in the annoyances that linux can cause.
I made the switch. Things work very smoothly once all the right packages are installed to be able to have a decent web browsing experience while listening to my mp3s in the background. Flash, shockwave, Java, must be installed first, etc.

Pete Larson

A Linux that didn't make me have to go look for commands and codes on the Internet to fix basic problems would probably make me switch - problems that can be fixed in Windows with a few mouse clicks.

Oh, that and better gaming support. I'm a PC gamer.

dragon

#1 Near universal hardware support

#99 Even better looks.

badgerz

The only thing that would keeps me from using it full time is that I can't play any games. The hardware support kinda blows as well. But I guess you HAVE to use windows apparently anyway.

Al1enware

I think the eye candy is there to look as good as MAC OSX today. It does take a bit of work due to the endless customization options. I think the out of box experience is what "linux" overall needs. It has come a long way in a short time as you no longer have dig into your hardware to make it work.
One amazing thing to note everytime I had a problem UI related or not I had five answer within two hours on the Ubuntu forums. Amazing support for the new user.

Ubuntu 8.04 + Compiz + AWN + Mayanna = one sweet looking setup

This Month
[picasaweb.google.com]

When I started
[picasaweb.google.com]

techmunkey

I've always had wireless card trouble, though most of the distros I've used had been meant for network testing.

But a prettier Linux might get a few more people in,
But I think it's more of a fear of the unknown, (some people think *nix distros are just for geeks and "hackers".)

jake2600

If linux had better software that wasn't just beta's but was actually usable alternatives, (yes I know there are some decent programs). The prettier desktop is just the icing on the cake. However if Ubuntu looks better I'd chose it over a different linux distro.

LifesSweetDrug

Honestly, all I want is a Linux that works well with all of my hardware.

Gutsy was working great for me, until the upgrade killed support for my video card/monitor combo for some reason. And sorry but I've never got printers to work.

I realize the limitations of getting drivers for this stuff, but it's just one of the biggest reasons I'm not switching yet. (That and some indispensable software on Windows.)

tommertron

No, but a prettier linux keeps me interested. This is the best theme I have found recently. With a little tweaking using compiz transparency settings, it makes vista look bad.

[www.gnome-look.org]

dagwood00

@The How-To Geek: Yeah business software would be greatly appreciated.

Al1enware

I would love for Ubuntu to run everything I used in Windows, but I know that will take some time. I'm happy with what I have.

sw4383

I can't remember where I read it, but someone wisely pointed out that, for the folks that buy new pre-built computers and laptops (the vast majority), Windows is just there. You don't have to download anything, figure out what a hard drive partition is, let alone how to manage it, and you don't have to figure out software you're not familiar with.

If you want a "pretty" desktop, you're already likely to try out Ubuntu, since customization matters to you and you're not afraid to "mess with the computer." If you just want to plug in the 110 AC cable and get your email, Ubuntu will probably have a ways to go.

Kevin Purdy

I think it is the usability which keeps an average home user away from Linux! I mean in linux you need to type commands in the terminal to do advanced task (sometime even the simplest task) and an average user doesn't want to memorise those! and whenever i install linux i cant boot into windows then i have to edit grub.lst to fix the boot entries and its not me many people face these issues and these are not easy to fix in linux for a newbie

SaadIbrahim

A prettier Ubuntu does not fix the wireless problems. And I see some more commenters having problems with that. Plus, some applications are just not ported/not existent/not enough supported yet in Linux. Wine does a great job, but not with everything. The moment I can use Visual C# Express 2008 + Tao Framework via Wine I will consider switching.

And I know, I could use Mono or start programming in C++ or Java but I just don't want to ditch past programming effort just because of switching OS. I can perfectly do my things in Windows XP. Sure, sometimes things do go wrong but hey: 99.9% of the time that's my own fault by tweaking the system, installing (and uninstalling)/trying software.

Isn't that the case in all OS's?

Arutha

No.
Build a version of Linux that everyone writes hardware drivers for and software and games for, and that you don't have to program things in the terminal to do (so it has a good GUI programed for things instead, like Windows) and I will use it, and so will everyone else.

Thor

I think most of us are coming to the same conclusions.

Pretty linux does not help.

What does/will help is better software. It does some things really well. For many other things it is near-rubbish. Better (not More) applications.

But, the number one thing that would increase linux adoption is EDUCATION. Many people have no idea what Linux is, or that it's even an option. And still others are burned with their impression of old-school linux where GUI support was minimal, nothing ran, and everything was text-based, meaning you had to learn a ton of commands to get anywhere, yet it still didn't do what you wanted it to do.

True story: I was talking with my father about linux. He's about 60, but well versed in computers. I could talk all I wanted, but what really blew him away was when I booted a live Ubuntu cd on his machine. He couldn't believe it was possible, and that the gui was intuitive enough he could get work done just like in windows.

Education. That's key.

Pete Larson

I think things should work more out of the box, which means more compatability, but also the developers of gnome and kde (aswell as linux programs in general) really need a good course on usability. Simplicity is key, albeit not the only point, but often the user gets overwhelmed with options of which they have no idea what they are.

This is the 'power' of Mac OS X - all these kind of things are hidden from the user. Its still unix, but on the surface one could never tell.

I think Mark should get these issues tackled, Before making it 'prettier'.

unruled

@Arutha: A prettier Ubuntu does not fix the wireless problems.

Pretty much sums it up.

johnsmith1234

Plain and simple, it wouldn't. In everything that I do, it's usibility and practicality first and looks second, from the guitars I play to the OS I use. I play games and produce music, so it's just not practical for me to use Linux. I am familiar with Linux and it's commands, having used it for a while before getting into music production, but some of the compatibility issues are astounding. Ironically, my printer is the ONLY prepherial that works with Linux. My scanner does not work, my digital camera does not work, my mixer does not work, all from a lack of drivers. These issues need to be sorted before anything is made prettier. Linux is a solid system with plenty of support. Just not from prepherial manufacturers, so you have to wait for a driver to be coded for your device, or code one yourself.

Sendaii

edit: I've been using windows since first grade*

rabiddachshund

@rabiddachshund:
I honestly boot into linux once a month just long enough to realize why I'm still using windows.

QFT. Same with me.. every time a major linux release comes out, I check it out happy, with high expectations, and then I end up going right back to windows. For me, its just not ready yet.

unruled

@myocd: "Were you all just born with an inherent knowledge of Windows?"

It's been proven that it is much easier for children to learn a brand new (to them) concept than it is for adults. I've been using computers since 1st grade (16 years ago) but I can use Linux (assuming the box it's installed on wants to run it) but I can't fix it if it's broken and I just simply cannot wrap my brain around OSX.

rabiddachshund

God, this saddens me. As someone who has developed countless applications, and dealt with many other custom applications, I can almost guarantee you that the "prettier" something is, the slower, buggier, and less compatible it is going to be.

I understand that Apple is successful because of looks. I equate it to why Brittney Spears is successful. Same deal.

Am I a dying breed of user who just wants grey boxy windows, with a minimize, maximize, and good ol' boxy "X" button? I've yet to find a better architecture to an interface that Windows Classic. Because it just works. Transparent windows, enormous animated, full-color icons- this stuff just seems to distract from the whole computer experience (or what it is SUPPOSED to be).

Its an interface, not a sci-fi movie!

downstairs

Every Linux distro I've tried touts "You don't have to have the world's fastest computer" but every experience I have had has been catastrophic. Ubuntu is the best I've tried so far but my 1680x1050 monitor is stuck at 800x600. I have switched multiple times but there's always something that fucks it all up and makes me go back. I want to leave gnome so bad it's ridiculous but me + KDE = epic fail. I honestly boot into linux once a month just long enough to realize why I'm still using windows.

I'd like to see a list of pre-built computer models that work well with linux so I know what to buy next time around.

rabiddachshund

I don't personally care what it looks like, but I think that if they are ever going to make it a mainstream OS that anyone will use, they are going to have to make it look REALLY good. And honestly, if they actually pulled of making it look better than OS X, it would be much more tempting for me to use as my day to day system.

adammhaile

One thing that kills me about people talking about why they do NOT want to switch to Linux is that they have to go search and figure out HOW to do something. Were you all just born with an inherent knowledge of Windows? You didn't have to LEARN that stuff somewhere along they way? The problem is that you don't WANT to take the time to learn something new. Which is understandable. If you are happy with windows. Happy with the way it performs and its costs. Then why would you want to switch. Its also what you already know and what you're comfortable with. Just quit bashing Linux because its something that you have to LEARN! Its different than windows, I don't know why anyone would expect it to be IDENTACLE to windows. I'm sure the first time you fired up Adobe Photoshop you were a professional and knew how to use every one of the features there too, eh? Oh well, just a little tirade there. I'm not saying its perfect. I'm not saying it might not be a little more difficult to do certain things in Linux than on Windows. But it's getting better all the time. If and when you have a need, you'll make the switch. Quit bashing it for the sake of bashing it in the meantime.

myocd

Nowadays, it wouldn't. Though I will admit that I did initially come into the Linux scene for looks as I envied some of my friends' very pretty setups, and initially I did went crazy with the effects on Compiz. Though, the more I started to use it, the more I started to enjoy its stabillity compared to Vista, especially in terms of the research project I was working on at my University. Eventually I turned my 3D settings on Compiz to just basic, minimal settings, and what keeps me with Linux is purely stability and its supporting community.

chareverie

Well seeing as how Vista and MacOS try to give you something good to go out of the box, Linux should maybe also try something along those lines as well.

8.04 is nice with Evolution, Pidgin, Firefox, Brasero, Rythmbox and all that preloaded. A prettier visual is all that lacks. OSX has purp/silver for Leopard, Vista has black/blue. White/Green for the new Ubuntu?

carignan.boy

I just set up an old PC with Xubuntu this past weekend. While I am really interested in learning Linux, I gotta say, yeah, the OS is pretty ugly. It's not going to keep me from learning and using it, but it will make me spend a lot of time trying to customize it so I don't mind looking at it so much.

bhp

Its already as pretty as could be ... the problem is that most people can't look past their nose , i.e, Ubuntu ... Linux Mint (built on Ubuntu) for one had some great artwork .. PCLinuxOS also has a great interface ... also check out dreamlinux ... you'll be surprised at the UI improvement over ol' vanilla Ubuntu.

muzee

No. Not even at home.

I used to run a windows and a Linux box in parallel at work. Linux for my research, Windows for the administrative overhead. Specifically, MS Word, Excel, and Project. Support for macros is key, sadly.

A horribly inefficient process. So I went to the Mac instead. I can run Word and Excel natively, I still have access to all the Unix-y goodness under the hood, and if I lose support for MS Project, well, that can only be viewed as a bonus (I have Virtual PC if I really need it - I'm running a Dual G5 system - but its a pig).

Until Linux can offer me a solution complete with macros support for MS programs, it offers me no reason to even consider switching. Then I'll worry about driver support, and then prettiness.

But really, I am happy with my Mac, and I am switching my sideline work to iWorks (I have found no Linux equivalents that I like), so I suspect that Linux has missed it's window of opportunity for me.

WallaceB

I'm on Linux, it does what I want it to, is faster than Windows was on this laptop and I feel more secure using it :)

pauricthelodger

That's a good start. I want to be able to play games and do graphic design on ubuntu.
Sure I can use the gimp(and others like that) and play ut2004, but it's still pretty slow compared to windows xp with the graphic rendering. Even if you have all the nvidia drivers installed. Please fix that.

srudes2

@Pete Larson: DVDFab HD Decrypter and DVD Shrink work fine on Linux. Install the wine package, download the windows installers for the two apps, and double click them.

Incidentally, you have to jump through hoops to play mp3s because even though it's contrary to the law and the public interest, the U.S. patent office allows people to patent software and obvious ideas. That means that if Ubuntu included mp3 support out of the box, they could get sued.

I rip all of my music to the Ogg Vorbis format, which was designed from the ground up to be patent-free. This doesn't really fix the problem, though, since people can still file obvious patents and my iPod doesn't play Vorbis files natively.

nighttimestereo

I think this is a good idea but what needs to be realized is it's the usability of the OS X interface along with a little bling that makes it sexy. If you get it to look sexy, you might win over Joe User plus some CEO's.

bronskrat

Linux is already "pretty." Maybe not out of the box, but neither was anything up until vista, leopard, and buntu. Changing appearance; and with compiz, Linux is better looking than anything out there! Lets work less on appearance and more on the wifi and gaming issues.. That's what's keeping Linux back.

Jayz

for the record, I have had little problem with wireless and ubuntu. It has always "just worked" for me.

But what really keeps me coming back to osx for my main laptop is the fact that in addition to all of the core OS features, the third party software is so consistent to the high quality of user experience. So while gnome continues to be fleshed out in a very professional way, each new program I download feels completely different and I have to re acclimate myself. Granted, sometimes I like totally geeking out with something I've never tried before, but when I just wanna get stuff done, I don't want to think about when in the menu hierarchy am I going to find this setting, or whatever. I mean if I really wanted to do that, I could just go back to windows (but I guess I've just memorized them by now)

If ubuntu (or any other linux distro) can not only create a solid linux enviroment, but also create set guidelines for creating programs (I guess gnome and kde sort of do this, but its all just suggested (a la windows) rather than enforced ( mac os x) then it will be my full time distro of choice

mbs348

No chrome looks good but does nothing, we need stuff under the hood ... Hardware support faster booting seem to be more important... security will become more of an issue as Linux takes off

I have used wobbly windows but after five minutes you get bored :-)

neergrm

I tried to put Linux on a Dell laptop that, when I ordered it, gave me the option to come with Linux (I went with XP), so I thought it would be able to handle it. After a week of trying to get the wireless and video working right, I decided I wasn't ready for Linux yet. I found a few fixes for it, but when I tried to install them, I would got a "not found" message. I'm an average computer user, so I can't pop the hood and poke around. It seems like getting wireless to work is a major issue for linux.

minealone6

As many have said, the looks factor is a nice addition, but doesn't need to be a top priority. Hardware support needs to be at the top, with good, stable software on its heels.

I love linux in all its forms (I mainly use ubuntu, but also fedora, knoppix and puppy) and do 99% of my computing on it.

What made me switch and stick with it? Aside from being tired of "lock-down," I love the support of the community. Most people are friendly and helpful. Ask a question, and you know people are listening and working to find an answer for you. There seems to be less elitism in the linux community and people love to help.

I also enjoy when things don't work and I can fix them. I guess I enjoy tinkering with things alot and love the sense of accomplishment. Of course, I love when things "just work" as well.

If they want a sweet looking ui, they should hire a few people from deviant art to collaborate.

gforster

@ Bill Clark
It wouldn't take much to make NextG look better than Vista.

I do agree though that NextG as is doesn't look better.
It's all eye of the beholder...

ThaMofo

I make Ubuntu look way better than OSX or Vista (IMO) on every build. It's not that hard either, especially with these latest releases.

@dagwood00
That NextG looks really nice. I'll have to try it out and do a little modding here and there on it.
That little guy (whatever it is) on the top left of the windows has to go.

ThaMofo

@dagwood00: THAT makes Vista look bad? It still looks like a 5th grade art class designed the interface.

Bill Clark

In the end ... looks really don't matter, as long as it is user friendly. In fact looks sometimes get in the way of good. I am on the brink of switching but having to support everyone else in my firm on Windows makes it really hard. I can run all the apps I use for my daily work in Ubuntu.

However I think there are still a few things Ubuntu (and linux in general) has to improve for mainstream adoption. We all know about the hardware compatibility issues but those are rapidly improving. To me the main hurdle is the complicated structure for installing new apps. With Windows you can download an instaler, run it and presto! you're up and running. In Ubuntu ... you have to dig through repositories, dependencies and gizillion other buzz-words that would scare most mainstream users. I think until *nix simplifies the way people can install applications to customize their system a la Windows/Mac ... (Click, Download, install) it won't go mainstream.

vicbelt

I rather see the adobe and office packet working. Now it still isn't suitable for students who are forced to work with MS office and adobe for their school projects, and it's not suitable for the industry, there should be much more integration with the osx and windows platform. (without virtualisation)

pieterc

I've already switched. Been a Windows user for 15 years. I will never go back to Windows as a primary OS.

UnleasheD1

There are two things preventing my complete abandonment of Windows in favor of Ubuntu- IE-specific web apps (we use Quickbooks Online at work and Netflix at home) and solid, native or near-to support for Windows games (at this point, specifically Warhammer Online).

Wine is getting better all the time, so hopefully those last couple of hurdles will be cleared sooner rather than later- I really do prefer the Compiz UI, even with its idiosyncrasies, and I am solid enough as a Linux user to get through just about anything.

loopgru

We're addicted to iTunes. Not having it would be a deal-breaker for us. Other than that, I love the idea, as well as OpenOffice.

Speedmaster

they could at least make ubuntu, not brown!

0zSpitt

Less graphics == faster/more efficient. I switched over to debian linux (what ubuntu is based off) and toned down the eye-candy because I thought it was too much. I dual-boot so I have windows xp on the same comp as well. I still use windows classic view. It maximizes my screen space and doesn't distract me from getting thins done.

AvgJoe

WIRELESS SUPPORT. NOW. GO!

dekay46

Prettier shmittier. Doesn't matter how pretty it is if I can't get the damn thing to work. I've tried about four different versions and distros on three different PC's and lappys. Never could get video and print drivers to work even 50% of the time. A lot of time I get stuck in an endless loop of trying to sign in. The geek in me really wants to like Linux, but she keeps pushing me away.... wait, maybe she's just playin hard to get.... maybe I'll try just one more time....

bobbismal

I also love Linux's looks. There is little you can't customize in Linux, which is more than I can say for either OSX or Windows. Linux is almost like Windows + the Stardock suite.

What I think is and will continue to keep running Linux to an impasse is the hardware support. Everything worked fine on my computer, but the battery life really sucks. Battery is an important issue for laptop users. I hear it is supposed to be much better in the next kernel, though.

hkucuk

I use linux anyway, so my opinion on what makes users switch may be less relevant.

The reason I use Ubuntu is because while I have the option to configure the hell out of it I don't have to. I was a big Debian fan until Ubuntu came out. I stuck with Ubuntu because it had sensible defaults. I didn't have to do "apt-get install xorg-server gnome mozilla-firefox" every time I did a new install. I could just use the system.

The exception to that has been Ubuntu's theme. Too brown. Granted it's more fun and less effort to set up a new combination of metacity and gtk2 than xorg.

Anyway, what I'd like to see is a revamped art.gnome.org specifically for Ubuntu with a repackaged gnome-art app. Maybe even have some quality control for what themes go up there, like requiring them to have configurable colors. Or maybe letting users download whole theme suites rather than gtk/metacity/icons/background separately.

valadil

Linux would be great if it worked out of the box on the same level as a PC or a Mac. The whole reason I like Linux is because you can tweak it and modify it and do cool and new things with it, but its a double-edged sword because when it comes to getting work done, I just need something to be simple and just work properly so that I can get things done quickly.

saint88

Sorry to go ot, but does anybody know where I can find the theme / screenshot that's being used at the top?

arqbrulo

I had Ubuntu dual boot on my macbook during the bootcamp beta. It was a nice system but nowhere near ready for prime-time when it comes to the average user. The looks could use a little sharpening up, I feel they are just a step behind XP. But the biggest issue was aesthetics and usability (which in turn rely quite a bit on looks). Certain things were just too hard to setup/install/modify etc. I'm considering trying again in a year or so to see the progress.

5cents

Yes, a better-looking and easier-to-use Linux would make me use Linux instead.

They should make it easier to add applications, more like the way it works in Windows, where you download an .exe and run it, and it installs all dependencies.

MePerson

i find the hardware support to be pretty good, except of course for the newer stuff. that said, they need better hardware support for the newer stuff :/ . also: adobe.

cakezula

If you want a "prettier" operating system, go buy whatever Apple is offering this week. Linux is/was supposed to be about functionality, not aesthetics. It used to be that Linux would run on a bare bones system. If developers build all this consumer crap into the OS, Linux will just be another bloated Windows OS variant. If you're not so inclined to learn a little command line and read about how to get a computer to do what you want it to do (beyond point and click), then you're not missing anything as far as Linux is concerned. Linux is a different set of tools and a different skill set. Where is the benefit from making all operating systems look and act the same?

Mark

Mark

A prettier linux desktop would definitely have made me switch sooner. I've seen lusers (as Linux Hater's Blog calls them) tout beautiful desktops that actually look terrible. I have settled on the Futurelooks 2.0 theme, tweaked slightly and with a different wallpapr. Had Ubuntu looked like this before I'd become a user i would definitely have got into it quicker.

christophski

"Think of the way the iPhone uses a pure software experience, it abstracts away all the hardware," -- That's not about looks; it's about interface. Basically, he's saying he wants the hardware to be simply a means of interface. Only problem is that Ubuntu doesn't make hardware. It works on the iPhone because Apple designed both ends of the device. Ubuntu simply cannot take the same approach.

Furthermore, on the iPhone, the OS is virtually invisible. The experience is one where the users interact with the device and applications directly. It's definitely there, but the end-user doesn't notice it. It's not more attractive; it's less noticeable.

sumocat

@dragon: Most of the problems one encounters in Linux actually can be solved by the GUI. Most Linux gurus just give you the command prompt way because it's faster and easier to communicate.

@Gina: You're right about the inability to natively run Windows and Mac apps being a bigger issue, but that's an issue that, to some degree or another, will never be overcome (though the WINE and Cedega teams are making great strides, their work is never going to be as efficient as an XP install). Far better to increase the user base through other means (e.g. a better user experience), and then present the increased market as an incentive for developers to port their own apps to Linux.

@MePerson: There already is such a thing; it's called .deb files on Ubuntu and other Debian-derivatives, and .rpm files on Red Hat-derivatives. The problem is that every distro is different, and thus not all the dependencies are guaranteed to be there on every distro, so many software makers don't bother to package them -- though, with Ubuntu getting more and more popular, you're seeing more software packaged in .deb files designed for Ubuntu. Still not to the degree that you can just go download a program for XP, but between that and the repository system, it works fairly well.

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

The first thing I do when I log onto a Windows box for the first time is turn off all the eye candy, so no. When I build a Linux box, I use a lightweight environment like IceWM. I care a lot more about speed than I do about what the thing looks like.

There's one and only one reason both of the computers I use at home are running Windows, and that's because of a couple of highly specialized Windows-only applications my wife and I have to run that aren't likely to become available for any other OS.

Prior to needing those apps, I'd been running Linux as a desktop OS for several years and was happy with it. The big thing is checking out compatibility of any hardware you're considering buying before you buy it.

Dave-Farquhar

I should add that if they want to update any part of the user experience, maybe they should consider changing the name and the default brown. I no of few who see the word and know what it is. Ubuntu? How do you say it? What is it? I love the OS, but the name is not "powerful" like vista, leopard/tiger/other big cat, or even XP.

And the colors. Who sees brown and goes "ooh?"

gforster

I've been all-linux for 8 years now. Personally, whenever I'm forced to use a Windows machine I'm completely frustrated by all the things that I can't do, that I do all the time and take for granted in linux. I think Linux is not only ready for mainstream desktops, it's being used there. The problem is the hurdle of porting specialized software and games. Its circular: there has to be demand for it to be worth it to game makers, and there won't be more demand for desktop linux until people start seeing more of their software ported to linux, round-and-round. Thankfully I don't play video games, and Linux is a better more usable and more productive OS for me.

wern0122

The only things holding me back from using Ubuntu for everything are:

- Wireless configuration with WPA security requires all kinds of research and hacking.

- Basic power conservation functions have never worked for me, including turning off the LCD backlight after a few minutes, suspend, and hibernate, which makes it unusable on a laptop as a practical matter.

So I find it discouraging that Ubuntu thinks that the only thing holding it back is cosmetic.

AndyFromTucson

If Ubuntu would stop eating itself on my laptop, I'd be using it right now.

After 3 re-installs for 3 different problems, I'm back to running XP. Slowly.

dwarf74

@Mark: The beauty of Linux is that you can do so many things with it. You can go get your bare bones Linux (whether that be in "expert" flavors like Gentoo and Arch, or easier-to-use like DSL and Puppy), and the folks who want a bigger OS with an easier UI and more functionality built-in can go get Ubuntu. Ubuntu has always been positioned as a third "desktop" OS; they're just making greater strides towards that.

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

@HeartBurnKid, creepy...
Agreed. However, I would not want to see a trend where Linux distributions include all this excess baggage by default, such as graphics-intensive wallpaper/icons/whatever that really add nothing to the functionality of the OS. The idea of Linux is that you add what you want or need as packages. If you start out having to remove all the pretty, non-functional "features" you don't need right after installation of the OS then you really just have another Windows machine.
By the way, for all the people getting frustrated or burned trying to install and use Linux, try a LiveCD.

Mark

I'm not sure if it's changed much lately, but it just needs to be easier to manage and install software. My issue with Linux has always been that I don't have the time to figure out what command line programs I need to run to unpack a file and then what command line program I need to run to execute the file, etc. etc. If they made the file management and application management easier, it would be a much greater competitor to Windows.

quagmire0

I don't find Ubuntu hideous now. I certainly find it "prettier" than my Windows PC at work. Granted I've had to find a few things on my own but it wasn't that difficult.

While there are a few things I would like to see work better with Linux I don't plan on switching back any time soon. I'd rather see those issues fixed than look at a prettier screen while grumbling about something giving me problems, specifically the wireless issues.

I have had no issues printing, using either one of the two digital cameras that I've owned since switching, with my USB drives, and whatever else I've plugged in aside from my mp3 player, although I solved that problem by using a Windows PC on my network and sharing my files.

kimmp12

Prettier is a nice touch, but the only thing keeping me from switching to Linux is three words:

Adobe Creative Suite.

The problem with Linux now is the same problem its always had; lack of the commercial software we NEED (and no, the lame OSS alternatives to Creative Suite are not good enough for me to make a living with).

Zundfolge

Ubuntu is already sexy. Vixta is trying this too.

AlexCrafter

After reading all of the comments here (and TFA of course) I think there needs to be a bit more clarification on a "pretty" OS. Sure Vista, Compiz Fusion and Mac desktops make fruity little animated gestures when clicking around but perhaps the focus should be shifted to the basic OS elements.

Maybe it's me, but Ubuntu's core "Sans" fonts are absolutely hideous, and everything from the buttons (regardless of the theme applied) to the check boxes make me want to rip my eyes out. Even when you load the Microsoft core font package the desktop and panel icons are so freakin' big that Gnome feels the need to truncate everything so you can only see 3 or 4 items at a time. You can change this, but it takes editing the gtkrc file for every single theme you want to load...what a complete waste of time and desktop space.

I absolutely think that Ubuntu needs a facelift, whether it be a more refined window manager (neither Gnome or KDE really does it for me) or simply more useful UI options...and by useful I mean visually productive, not the option to load thousands of themes that I would give up in a heartbeat for just one that didn't look like complete horseshit.

Don't get me wrong, I think Compiz Fusion is great but at the present time it's like putting makeup on a dead pig's ass...

cdoggwsu

@quagmire0: I use Ubuntu every day, and unpacking a file is as easy as double-clicking, just like in every other OS. And, frankly, the software management is my favorite thing about Ubuntu. Windows has nothing like the repository system, and the "Add/Remove Applications" applet that interfaces with it. It's a godsend.

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

I'm typing this on the eee pc and I would love it if ubuntu came pre installed instead of the crippleware os. so, 1. get the builders to install from scratch. 2. work on making the install of new software like windows 3. don't worry about pretty

eatrip

I find the issues with installing software to be puzzling... The repos are a dead-simple way to install guaranteed safe software, and they provide a great way to discover new software you hadn't even known about previously. Ubuntu provides both the Add/Remove Programs app and Synaptic, both of which are much simpler and safer than hunting around on various websites for an app.

But if you do like to hunt around on websites, most programs available for Linux offer a .deb package for download (and/or a .rpm file for RedHat/Suse-based distros), which can be installed once it's downloaded by either double-clicking (and that process is almost always much faster and simpler than the vast majority of Windows installers), or if you want to make it complicated going to a terminal and typing dpkg -i PackageName.deb.

Speaking of the CLI... these days, there are fewer and fewer reasons to even use the command line. It's there if you need it, and once a user gets familiar with the provided GUI tools, they may find that the CLI maes it possible to do things quicker and even *gasp* easier than a GUI interface, but the choice is up to the user.

And on the usability complaints: Say what you want about Gnome, but stuff is where it should be. Want a browser or IM client? Go to the Applications menu, then to Internet, and there you go. Want a music player? Applications --> Sound & Video. Need to setup a Printer? System --> Administration --> Printing.

I understand that on some systems people have trouble getting the hardware to work after a fresh install... but you can have the same headaches with a Windows system. I had to reinstall XP on my father-in-law's Dell, but he had lost the driver CD, so when the install had finished, there were no drivers for anything, not even the NIC. I had to use his son's laptop to download the NIC driver, but then there were several different sound drivers on the Dell webite, without any good clues as to which one to use. It took quite a bit of time and trouble to get things up to where they needed to be. Then we had to run Windows Update, restart and repeat several times just to get the system up to date. The fresh install took forever. Tools like nLite can take some of these headaches away, but since this is not a common situation for me (or my in-laws) anymore, I didn't have anything like that prepared.

Oh, and one more thing... I don't mind the brown themes in Ubuntu, but mostly because I think of it as chocolate, not poop.

krn

I really love Ubuntu, but AutoCAD keeps me away from a full install...

ninjaviking

Linux is pretty enough and you can make it prettier if you care to.

What it needs is better software support for everyday apps (a stable flash player for instance) and flawless hardware support (like not letting my P3M run with 200MHz more then necessary and eating up battery life in the process). Add stable MS Office 2007 on Wine and they'll get run over by users.

WhiteStar

give me native photoshop (not some super slow gay wine emulation), itunes (although it sucks balls, i need it for my ipod and the alternatives for that suck), native microsoft office (openoffice sucks balls...), some of my favorite games to kick back and relax once and a while, make it easy to use like they claim... give it some decent visuals and maybe we'd be in business but not likely... windows vista ftw (i still don't get y people hate it... it's sooo good and all the big bugs have been fixed... and of course there will be small ones but those are in every os...)

Crispus

no

christian ross

I like Linux, and sometimes I like learning how to get it to do stuff. But for the most part, I enjoy knowing my Windows PC too much. If I need to do something, I KNOW that I can get my Windows PC to do it. With Linux, I have to find a wiki somewhere and start copying and pasting sudo's and wget's all over the place.

Pretty is nice, but ease of use out of the box is best.

Tony Bullard

If it could run Quickbooks and run it well, then I would switch.

155

I love Linux. I use it exclusively for all of my server-side needs. I have multiple distributions installed for desktop use on various computers in my house. There are two things keeping me from using it 100% of the time (appearance is NOT one of them): - inability to run some of my favorite games - inability to run Quicken

CallieCeyx

Sorry, guys, but the _real_ nerds would take a Hole Hawg any day ;)

windsurfer619

I used linux for several years in the late 90's/early 00's and was mostly happy with it. But I had to keep a mac around to do multimedia work. Once OS X 10.2 came out I finally migrated from 9 and quickly determined that all the things I loved about linux (stable, fast, low maintenance cost (both time and money), a real shell with all my beloved unix tools) were there AND all the multimedia stuff. GIMP is not equivalent to Photoshop. Inkscape is not equivalent to Illustrator. And when it comes to audio/video production that's where linux really fell down for me. I've messed about with Kino, that's not going to work as a replacement for Final Cut Express. I've checked out Ardour, it won't replace Logic Express + Garage Band. Yes, I can run Windows apps under Crossover, but then I'd have to go out and buy new software or crossgrades in order to do so and there *is* a performance hit going through a translator.

So a prettier linux wouldn't make a difference to me. I am seriously considering an Eee when my old iBook finally dies to use as a simple web surfing/email/python development machine (which is what my laptop is for now) and Ubuntu looks like it could handle all that just fine.

revmatty

I'll move back to Ubuntu the day I dont have to freaking "sudo apt get install blah blah blah look in some godforsaken "repository" for some godforsaken "dependency" blah blah blah" to install the simplest of applications. Instead of making Ubuntu as pretty as OS x, I'd rather the Ubuntu guys buy/merge/takeover the Xandros guys and give me Xandros' amazing out of the box functionality without its godawful looks. Not sure there are many Xandros fans here, but it has got to be the only Linux distribution out there which will recognize Windows and Apple computers on the network and let me remote into them and swap files regardless of what kind of partition it is .. and does all this.. OUT OF THE BOX. After having tried dozens of Linux distributions, Xandros is the only one I'd ever move back to and it has N.O.T.H.I.N.G to do with 'looks'! Sad to say, but looks like the Ubuntu folks have got their priorities totally effed up. If linux is to ever make a dent in the "normals" market, they have to focus on two things - "Out of the Box" and "Standards".

sisya

What would make me switch to Linux is that if all these guys making separate distros would drop their ego and make one super Linux OS. Stop making a spin off every time you have ONE good idea. If the Linux community worked together, maybe something good that is marketable would actually get produced.

Joseph

@AndyFromTucson: It's not the only thing, but it's what you call a "low-hanging fruit". I.E. it's an easy problem to solve.

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

I wish that making it more pleasing to the eyes was seen as important as making it easier for the common guy. I'm kind of casual nerd and installed linux a couple times and every process needs a bunch of steps. While Windows is crap, it works for common folk.

VakeroRokero

As some people already stated, I would also switch if linux is more user friendly, adobe is supported and if it looks a lot nicer. There is a lot of clutter on the screen and big icons. The screenshots in the gallery are nice but the time and effort needed to get it that way is to much for me. Mac OS and WinXP look fine out of the box.

madsurfer

@sisya: Applications | Add/Remove.

You don't have to "sudo apt-get" anything if you don't want to. You never have; as I said, the Linux-heads just tend to give their directions that way because it's easier.

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

@rainrunner87:

It has nothing to do with "keeping our brains sharp". It has to do with finding an easy-to-use tool for getting things done.

I love to learn new things. I'm always learning, and for me, software and hardware are two of my favorite things to learn about. But if you think the average person cares one lick about "learning software" and keeping their brains sharp so that it's easier to learn Linux, you're insane.

Most people see software and hardware for exactly what it is: a tool that enables them to do the things they want to do. They don't care about Linux, Windows, OS X, etc. They just want to check their email, print photos, surf the web, and whatever else. It's simply a tool, and they want the easiest one that will get the job done.

If I were building a dog house and I went to the hardware store to buy a hammer and nails, can you imagine if the clerk tried to talk me into buying a "better" hammer. He'd say, "You want this one. It's prettier, and it's open-source. The only thing is, when you want to use it with certain nails, you'll have to compile a new head for it yourself, and then figure out how to install it on the handle. But don't worry, we're working on making it prettier."

I would say, "Dude! I just want to build my freaking dog house and get on with my life!"

Vertigo50

@ninjaviking: Same here. That's the only thing keeping me from 100% ubuntu. Well, that and full (easyer) iPhone support. But do check out Wine. Autocad 2005 can now be installed. Follow the tutorial at Wine's AppDB.

arqbrulo

Now that I'm using a Mac, it would take a LOT to make me use Linux. Heck, I'm already using a Unix system, with a better interface.

The thing is, it's not that hard to make Linux look better. People are already customizing it to look good.

The problems are these:
1. Making Linux look better, while it's a good idea, is not going to get more people using it. The reasons people don't use Linux (hardware incompatibilities, poor usability, no gaming) have nothing to do with the look.

2. Also, just when Linux starts to look "better than OS X", Apple will have gone in a whole new direction, and Linux will still be trying to catch up. Apple hires the best in the business for design, and they're always thinking outside the box, well into the future. Unless the Linux folks are willing to pay great designers a lot of money, you'll always be playing catch-up.

Vertigo50

@rabiddachshund: Here's the thing: if people actually kept their brains sharp and practiced learning new things, then we'd have an easier time of learning new things as adults. I learn new things on a daily basis. I always focus on learning something new, or honing something I know. People wonder why America's not innovating as much as it used to, and this is why: we don't want to learn anymore. Learning and growing is what keeps us moving, so pitch in some mental processing cycles to the task of keeping the world changing.

rainrunner87

As a former (long-term) Linux sysadmin and embedded Linux software developer who switched to the Mac and hasn't looked back since:

The Linux crowd doesn't seem to get why Mac OS X is so successful. I didn't until I started using it. That's the key: usability. Yes, OS X looks pretty on top, but even more importantly the user interfaces are *consistent* and functional.

In general, switching from one OS X app to another does not require you to learn new keyboard shortcuts. Common navigation and UI themes mean that it's easy to navigate around in a new app. Things behave as you expect them to (well, except maybe the drag-to-trash to eject a disk).

Contrast this with Linux, where the desktop UI developers tend to be more interested in adding (and in many cases borrowing) features from other operating systems, rather than refining what they already have. The Gnome and KDE projects have many software engineers, but how many of them are usability specialists and what are their backgrounds?

Linux devs: It's not about having the flashiest UI with the most OpenGL effects. It's about having a *nice* looking UI with consistent functionality and ease of use. Once you get that, then you have a shot at getting more desktop marketshare.

Of the 14 Linux developers and sysadmins I worked with at my last job, 12 of them have switched full-time to OS X.

WoogleMuffin

I think the goal shouldn't just be to make Ubuntu prettier, but to make it EASIER to make it prettier.

Right now there's a lot of extra stuff one can install in a standard Ubuntu install that will make the desktop pretty. Compiz, AWN, all this stuff.

But, being an Ubuntu user at home and a Linux user for the past 10 years, I can tell you that although it is a lot easier now, it still isn't out of the box easy that MacOS or Windows lets you do.

And this requires a coalescing of the community to achieve. Instead of a million different window managers, ways to install themes for said manager, etc, just go with one and let it come out as the de-facto.

But the problem with that is, it sort of defeats the idea of Linux (to an extent). But I don't see anything wrong with one or two solutions emerging as the best method. It's what happened with Gnome and KDE.

fuzzycuffs

@cdoggwsu: I think you're absolutely right about the font. All the above comments on functionality aside (how's that for arrogance?), I'm sure that something as simple as moving to a nice, strong, reliable looking font would do wonders for Linux adoption.

What everyone above doesn't seem to realize is the overall role of aesthetics. If something is prettier (in the sense of being aesthetically pleasing to use) and better designed for usability, then more people *will* care about it. And functionality will improve. It makes no sense to say "we need to fix the functionality first, then we'll make it pretty". Pretty is functional. Usability is functionality. Apple seems to understand this, at least sometimes.

After years of Windows and more than occasional flirtation with Linux, I'm very happy with OS X. But I'd love to see Linux win out over Windows. Start with the fonts.

quarker

I could see this as either a great point of interest to getting more people to switch, or it could break their population of fans all together if not well executed.

Example (the thing that actually has gotten a lot of people to switch): Windows XP to Vista.

ddthesm

It depends on what he means by pretty. The jiggly windows and slick alt-tabbing in Ubuntu is fun, but what I really want is a consistent interface. Menus and keyboard shortcuts are still way too different from distro-to-distro and, worse still, from app-to-app. I enjoy using Linux, but every second I have to spend figuring out how to make it work is a second less I have to do productive things (like reading Lifehacker).

gmcmullen

#1 improve hardware & drivers
#2 improve config management
#3 apps & games
#4 awareness & market channels

Linux can already be made prettier than windows or mac. It's just not built into most distros, and most don't have good config tools that a typical windows user could use.

The fact that you don't see linux-based machines at the typical pc outlets, and that a typical user isn't very aware of linux are both limiting factors. Mac has a small fraction of the market that windows does, but not less brand recognition.

Also, I don't think linux can steal much of MAC's users. Most MAC users are MAC users because of the style and not the substance. There are dev/tech geeks using MAC, but that's because they want something that works for them. They might switch, but that's not a large portion of the MAC user base. Don't bother trying to out-MAC the MAC.

jcoffman

I am surprised to see so many people cry for MS Office support. What is wrong with Open Office? Unless you are running some obscure XL Macro function thingy ... For everyday use Open Office fits the bill. Am I missing something?

vicbelt

What would get me to switch 100% to Linux:

1) Stable OS.
2) Software that I can use. I mean, Gimp is fine, but I rather use Photoshop on Linux. Matter of fact, I rather use most of the native Windows applications on it.
3) Easy configurations. Right now, I need a manual to configure some parts. That's not right.
4) A consistent interface.

What does he mean by "pretty" anywayz? That it don't have that smooth look?

I hope that's not the only goal... because that's a ballsy goal.

Nu Digi

@qrius:

1. flash doesn't work well on my amd 64 machine (had to install/reinstall countless times to make it work), and I was flustered and frustrated to find out that Ubuntu doesn't really have an answer as of 8.04

Yeah, much like with Windows, 64-bit support is still in its infancy. Best to go with 32-bit right now, even if you're running an amd64 chip.

2. why do I need to go to terminal to install software? I can do it, but can't see my non-nerdy friends doing it.

You don't have to. Try going to Applications | Add/Remove.

3. I've only used linux to play around with compiz and browse the web, but not for anything serious. I don't see any area where it does better than my windows xp and mac leopard.

Personally, I find the GNOME environment just plain easier to work with. I don't have as many problems as with Windows. If you're looking for a real killer app, though, hit the repositories and get Amarok. It's the best music player ever made.

4. It needs a workable dock system. I tried whatever mac doc imitation (avant something) didn't work right, didn't disappear correctly when it should nor appear correctly when it should. frustrating.

Yeah, AWN is known to be problematic. Fortunately, there's several other dock substitutes available from the repositories. I don't use them, so I can't make any recommendations.

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

Personally, I already use linux (and had loaded it up with eyecandy within a week of installing), but many people I know would do it if it was preloaded with a sleeker interface. In fact, I have set up linux computers for friends that wanted linux with a bit of flair.

Also, there is an independant program called Ubuntu Ultimate Edition, the developer of which takes Ubuntu and loads it with eyecandy and other, more functional features.

JBu92

my gripes:

1. flash doesn't work well on my amd 64 machine (had to install/reinstall countless times to make it work), and I was flustered and frustrated to find out that Ubuntu doesn't really have an answer as of 8.04

2. why do I need to go to terminal to install software? I can do it, but can't see my non-nerdy friends doing it.

3. I've only used linux to play around with compiz and browse the web, but not for anything serious. I don't see any area where it does better than my windows xp and mac leopard.

4. It needs a workable dock system. I tried whatever mac doc imitation (avant something) didn't work right, didn't disappear correctly when it should nor appear correctly when it should. frustrating.

overall, usability is something someone has to own, like steve jobs does for his mac os x.

Unless someone's going to be anal about it and make it consistent and a simple but elegant experience, ubuntu and linux overall will just remain something not for the common folk who don't want to touch terminal.

qrius

I compized the @#^! out of my Ubuntu setup and now am using it pretty much full time because it looks better but mainly the effects provide subtle visual cues all the time that make it easier to keep organized. It did suck that I had to spend 2 days doing it.

CWW

@rainrunner87: People don't have to time to learn, they are to busy doing the everyday stuff, not to mention, most of the linux stuff is extremely geeky, there isn't a website of tutorials that explains stuff you want to do without going into command prompt. And if someone wants to learn, the least they wanna do is learn to use another OS, maybe some software or a real life hobbie.

VakeroRokero

@revmatty Ubuntu on the eee pc is great, try to install the distribtion provided by www.ubuntu-eee.com, and use the 'Human ultraCompact theme' for more screen real estate.

I'm now running Ubuntu on all my computers, and me & my wife love it

ludovicc

It isn't just the 'pretty' factor ! I've had a dual boot set-up of Win XP and Ubuntu for over a year and a half now and for a non-nerd end-user like me, every time Ubuntu makes me use Terminal it drives me back into Windows' waiting arms. If I was that fond of the CLI I'd switch back to DOS !"apt get install", "make make install" may be faster, may even be someone's idea of fun but for me it's one heck of a turn-off. And if that makes me an unfashionable hick, so be it.

Cheshire Cat

@Vertigo50: I've been using Ubuntu for 6 months, and never had to compile a thing. Well, I compiled a PS2 emulator, but that's only because I wanted to use the development version rather than the release version (i.e. I'd have had to compile it on Windows too).

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

If we're talking about what's important to the 'average' computer user, then gaming is likely the current big problem for Linux, IMO. But for users who want to check email, surf the web (with less worry), manage photos and write letters, then a PC preinstalled with Ubuntu is every bit as good as any PC or any Mac.

In fact, everybody seems to gloss over the fact that Windows doesn't come with any usable form of Office suite software included. Ubuntu does. (I'm not sure where OSX is on that front). And don't go on and on about how OpenOffice is behind. Remember we are talking about the same people who don't care about the bleeding edge. That goes for office software as well.

Indeed, besides video editing software, a default Ubuntu installation gives quality photo management, office productivity, email and web browsing capabilities right out of the box. Plus it gives you access to lots of other software for free right from the get go.

Let's remain consistent when we're talking about the 'average user' demographic here. These people would not even understand the differences between the capabilities of the Gimp and Photoshop so that makes no difference. These are not potential Photoshop (or GIMP) users we're talking about here.

And as far as adapting to a new UI scheme, let's also remember that Ubuntu's UI much more closely resembles that of XP than OS X does. Having a menu that changes depending on which app is currently focused would be something considerably more alien to the 'average' windows user.

There are a lot of challenges for Linux distros to overcome (*legal* DVD and MP3 playback for example). But let's remember that Ubuntu launched in 2004. It's still just a baby but it's come a long long way in a short amount of time. I expect it will continue to improve.

It takes time to boil the ocean. :)

rfquerin

I used to use Linux exclusively, both at home and at work, because I was doing lots of wacky development and computer science/modeling and simulation stuff. I was a Linux Freak, since 1995 (Slackware/SuSE/Ubuntu). Then, I changed jobs, and have been locked into using XP almost exclusively. And I'm finding it to be just fine.

Why?

Because I don't have time to be my own sysadmin anymore. All I want to do is collaborate and communicate in an environment that doesn't need me to fix it every once in a while (or every day). Yeah, no kidding, I've had little to no problems with XP. Hard for me to believe, too.

It's not the beauty of it, it's the fact that I'm DONE with tweaking and hacking and futzing around with my computer. I don't care if my kernel is optimized for my needs. I just need it to work. I spend ALL DAY on my computer, and often times, all night, too. I could give a damn about what it looks like. I need it to work. Period.

Linux works, and works fine -- it isn't easily compatible with my current needs.

You know what, though? I miss it sometimes, but NEVER when I'm in super power user mode and working virtually with my Microsoft-burdened brethren.

legweak

Linux is already pretty.
It just doesn't tends to not run on my 2002 dell hardware.

ankeet

#1. Something that works. 100% of the time. With games, with drivers, the whole shabang.

Actually, XP does all that I need, so why switch to anything? Even if Microsoft *DID* release the next version of Windows, and it *was* awesome, I would have no reason to upgrade.

Kashell

@Vertigo50: "If I were building a dog house and I went to the hardware store to buy a hammer and nails, can you imagine if the clerk tried to talk me into buying a "better" hammer. He'd say, "You want this one. It's prettier, and it's open-source."

You are missing an important point. The second hammer is "free". But you have to tweak it here and there to get it working, whereas the non-free hammer works right out of the box. That is the essential tradeoff for everyday user.

As for the looks. Linux already looks great with compiz. So the answer is no. More eyecandy is not the answer.

othello

Looks are important but in the end I would like it much if I didn't have to deal with ndiswrapper and video issues.

My wife is on a Mac and I am on Ubuntu except for apps that must be run on Windows. The reason I made the switch to Ubuntu is that if I must fiddle, I don't want to have to pay for the privilege.

cyberhiker

No.

I abandoned Linux for Mac OS X in early 2002, not because the latter was prettier, but because it helps me get things done quicker and easier.

For me, those things are: e-mail, web surfing, personal finance (Quicken), digital media management (i.e., my music and videos), image processing, and now video editing.

The GNOME Desktop was already pretty enough in 2001.

Prettiness, functionality, and usability are all separate. And no, Apple doesn't get all three correctly all the time; sometimes they screw up too.

Deprong Mori

Why can't the author run Windows software on Linux? I can. It's not hard.

Deadhacker

Looks have almost nothing to do with it for me. Work out of the box (or at least with minimal driver downloading) with wireless networking, multiple monitors, bluetooth, and printers and you're on your way.

jallison

What is keeping me from Linux is the lack of Adobe or Adobe quality tools for it. Gimp covers about 3/4 of what I do with Photoshop and I haven't seen good replacements for Premier or InDesign.

lapillus

Nope. I don't really care about eye candy. What would make me switch is better wireless support. I can't get on the damn internet with my laptop. That's a dealbreaker.

dkong1026

Everyone loves eye candy on their desktop-Apple's record-setting Mac sales can attest to that-but is looks is the main hurdle for Linux adoption amongst Normals?

Back the truck up...Apple's sales are up because people like eye candy? What in the linked article supports that logic?

The phrase "crock of shit" leaps to mind.

Brian Little

I'm a web/graphic designer I would switch if Linux could support Adobe Creative Suite on it's own. Until then I have to stick with Apple and Windows.

damnflanders

@Brandonvalentine. So what you're saying is that you'd like more expensive hardware, and that you like Shareware more than Opensource?

Makes sense, Macofiliacs seldom understand the greatness of the idea of opensource...

krank23

I've already switched, and it is with dread I read these ideas about the future of Linux. There are ENOUGH operating systems with pretty surfaces and eyecandy for the blind masses.

On the other hand, Linux is very much an opt-in thing. It's easy to choose Xubuntu or even old-fashioned Debian in stead of the more and more bloated Ubuntu. It will always be possible to run a barebones-computer using only basic X and, say Blackbox.

The article seems to inticate that A, Linux is Ubuntu (not true, though Ubuntu is Linux) and B, that Linux "as a whole" will somehow get a facelift. Both are completely wrong.

And this is why Linux is so much better than Windows and OSX: Apart from the fact that it's free and open-source (let's face it, Apple is as much a Big Evil Company as Microsoft), it's also MODULAR. Users get to choose their interfaces, libs, apps, everything.

The point on OSX made by WoogleMuffin is a valid one. I just wish there was a way to get OSX's internal consistency and functionality in *buntu WITHOUT a lot of crappy eyecandy and Vista-wannabe effects cluttering everything up....

krank23

Here are the things that would make it possible for me to use Linux as a desktop operating system:

1) Not only a prettier Linux environment, but prettier Linux hardware. If a company sprang up based around Ubuntu that operated like Apple Computer in terms of providing a unified hardware product line and shipped Ubuntu with guaranteed 100% out of the box driver support for everything in that intentionally limited hardware range, and made the hardware appealing and sexy instead of standard economy PC fare, that would go a long way.

2) Integrated rootless virtual machine support for running Windows or Mac apps side-by-side with X apps. Integrate something free like VirtualBox so that any user can quickly and easily install Windows or Mac OS X and fire it up in rootless/seamless mode.

3) A real shareware economy. What makes the Mac so great is that there are countless $20-50 apps that work really really well on scratching some specific itch and the Linux desktop is completely missing that. Open source doesn't always address my needs and can't always do that. Would be nice to have this kind of focused, for-pay community software available on Linux.

brandonvalentine