5 ms·

The problem with other distros is the lack of a design. Ubuntu was the first Linux distro I used that did not look like a donkey's ass (back in 2008~). Even tod

The problem with other distros is the lack of a design. Ubuntu was the first Linux distro I used that did not look like a donkey's ass (back in 2008~). Even today's Gnome Shell does not look as good as Unity... it also does not scale well for my display's 1600x900 resolution (top bar icons are way too small). The other distros might work well technically, but imho they don't look as good and they require more tweaking, which is a hassle for me.

0X1A 13y ago
That is completely subjective. A lot of people hate Unity, the same way people hate every DE that exists. So much so that some do not even use a DE. Using a DE as an argument for Ubuntu's advantage is weak as they're usually ambiguous. I say usually because it tends to be that Unity, like Mir, isn't really adopted into any other distribution in official repositories. Even more so after Mir's release, since it'll be dependent on it.
- dragonshed 13y ago
  Aesthetic and taste are subjective, effective and coherent visual design is not.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    However, the distinction between "aesthetic" and "design" is once again subjective.
- stackcollision 13y ago
  Reporting in from the "I hate Unity" department. If I wanted to use something that looks like a mac, I would just get a mac.
  - emn13 13y ago
    Favorite "bonus" feature: annoying semi-transparent blurs you can tweak but not turn off. Gratuitous fades. Choppy animations on an underpowered GFX.
laumars 13y ago
> The problem with other distros is the lack of a design. Not true - plenty of distros ship pretty default themes (ArchBang, Mint, ElementoryOS, etc). And themes are just that - a theme. They can easily be installed on any distro - even ones that look "ugly" out of the box. > Ubuntu was the first Linux distro I used that did not look like a donkey's ass (back in 2008~). They key bit there is "I used" - ie there's been plenty but you're unaware of them. Ubuntu wasn't the first to place emphasis on aesthetics (I remember being wowed by Mandrake back in 2002) and it's certainly not the only distro to care about that at the moment. Ubuntu is just the distro that shouts the loudest because Shuttleworth has deep pockets. > Even today's Gnome Shell does not look as good as Unity. Subjective. Personally I think Unity is the ugliest of the heavyweight desktop environments. And Unity is certainly the least attractive part of Ubuntu (the colours, icons and font rendering is what makes Ubuntu look good, in my opinion)
- Goladus 13y ago
  I realize you're just responding to the previous commenter but what Ubuntu did before all the other distros was get all the common desktop devices (network/wireless/video/etc.), apps(browsers, multimedia, pdf-readers, office, mailreader, etc.), and tools installed and working with no need for tinkering. It wasn't missing fonts or video codecs. The UI defaults were familiar to windows and mac users. Boot times were fast. Installing new apps was easy and since it was based on debian there were tons of packages available. Ubuntu was the first one to really nail ALL of those problems. By 2008, others may have mostly caught up, but by then the word was already out that Ubuntu was the distribution of choice for users who just wanted good linux desktop OS but didn't want to spend any up-front time tinkering with it. This also made it the first choice for windows users switching to a linux desktop. It wasn't just a matter of shouting the loudest. It was word of mouth that did it. Linux users (developers, sysadmins; not necessarily linux desktop power users) were chosing Ubuntu and recommending it to their peers and family. Where the parent poster gets it wrong is that there wasn't one thing in particular that all the other distros were doing wrong (eg "design"), it's that each one had something thwarting users trying to use it as a desktop OS. Whether it was spotty driver support, strict "free software" mentality, minimal base installs missing key software, or bad default settings, there was something.
neverminder 13y ago
I don't like Canonical's privacy trips, but I do prefer Unity because of it's most refined interface and modern look in comparison to others. Looks clean and consistent on any display. I have dual 1920x1200s.

0X1A 13y ago

That is completely subjective. A lot of people hate Unity, the same way people hate every DE that exists. So much so that some do not even use a DE. Using a DE as an argument for Ubuntu's advantage is weak as they're usually ambiguous. I say usually because it tends to be that Unity, like Mir, isn't really adopted into any other distribution in official repositories. Even more so after Mir's release, since it'll be dependent on it.

dragonshed 13y ago
Aesthetic and taste are subjective, effective and coherent visual design is not.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  However, the distinction between "aesthetic" and "design" is once again subjective.
stackcollision 13y ago
Reporting in from the "I hate Unity" department. If I wanted to use something that looks like a mac, I would just get a mac.
- emn13 13y ago
  Favorite "bonus" feature: annoying semi-transparent blurs you can tweak but not turn off. Gratuitous fades. Choppy animations on an underpowered GFX.

laumars 13y ago

> The problem with other distros is the lack of a design. Not true - plenty of distros ship pretty default themes (ArchBang, Mint, ElementoryOS, etc). And themes are just that - a theme. They can easily be installed on any distro - even ones that look "ugly" out of the box. > Ubuntu was the first Linux distro I used that did not look like a donkey's ass (back in 2008~). They key bit there is "I used" - ie there's been plenty but you're unaware of them. Ubuntu wasn't the first to place emphasis on aesthetics (I remember being wowed by Mandrake back in 2002) and it's certainly not the only distro to care about that at the moment. Ubuntu is just the distro that shouts the loudest because Shuttleworth has deep pockets. > Even today's Gnome Shell does not look as good as Unity. Subjective. Personally I think Unity is the ugliest of the heavyweight desktop environments. And Unity is certainly the least attractive part of Ubuntu (the colours, icons and font rendering is what makes Ubuntu look good, in my opinion)

Goladus 13y ago
I realize you're just responding to the previous commenter but what Ubuntu did before all the other distros was get all the common desktop devices (network/wireless/video/etc.), apps(browsers, multimedia, pdf-readers, office, mailreader, etc.), and tools installed and working with no need for tinkering. It wasn't missing fonts or video codecs. The UI defaults were familiar to windows and mac users. Boot times were fast. Installing new apps was easy and since it was based on debian there were tons of packages available. Ubuntu was the first one to really nail ALL of those problems. By 2008, others may have mostly caught up, but by then the word was already out that Ubuntu was the distribution of choice for users who just wanted good linux desktop OS but didn't want to spend any up-front time tinkering with it. This also made it the first choice for windows users switching to a linux desktop. It wasn't just a matter of shouting the loudest. It was word of mouth that did it. Linux users (developers, sysadmins; not necessarily linux desktop power users) were chosing Ubuntu and recommending it to their peers and family. Where the parent poster gets it wrong is that there wasn't one thing in particular that all the other distros were doing wrong (eg "design"), it's that each one had something thwarting users trying to use it as a desktop OS. Whether it was spotty driver support, strict "free software" mentality, minimal base installs missing key software, or bad default settings, there was something.

neverminder 13y ago

I don't like Canonical's privacy trips, but I do prefer Unity because of it's most refined interface and modern look in comparison to others. Looks clean and consistent on any display. I have dual 1920x1200s.