Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 20:43 UTC, submitted by kragil
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu Canonical has unveiled a complete branding overhaul, redesigning everything from the Ubuntu website to its logos and marketing material. However, what interests me more are the new Gtk+ themes, and even then, I'm not interested in the colour choices and the like. No - what stood out to me right away was not the theme itself - but the placement of the titlebar widgets.
Order by: Score:
Not bad at all!
by HunterA3 on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 20:52 UTC
HunterA3
Member since:
2005-10-19

While I really would like to see a complete departure from the overall Gnome look and feel, the new theme is gorgeous! I for one can not wait until this new version is released.

Edited 2010-03-03 20:52 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not bad at all!
by kragil on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 21:12 UTC in reply to "Not bad at all!"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

It certainly looks a lot better than the old one .. but I don't like the title bar. Other non-GTK themed apps will look very strange with this theme and the close button needs to be on the corner.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Not bad at all!
by DataPath on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Not bad at all!"
DataPath Member since:
2005-06-29

I don't think it's GTK that themes them - it's the X window manager in GNOME - Metacity - that's doing it. Which means that any normal X program should get decorated that way.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Not bad at all!
by Elv13 on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 23:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not bad at all!"
Elv13 Member since:
2006-06-12

The menu is not themed by metacity, but GTK, so, yes, it will look strange for non gnome apps

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Not bad at all!
by No it isnt on Thu 4th Mar 2010 01:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not bad at all!"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

It's not that hard to make a colour theme for Qt and others to match the titlebar. If they do their job half right, it will look OK.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Not bad at all!
by Laurence on Thu 4th Mar 2010 13:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not bad at all!"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

The menu is not themed by metacity, but GTK, so, yes, it will look strange for non gnome apps

Actually DataPath is correct. The WM draws the titlebar so any app (GTK, QT3 or 4, or even WINE...) built for any DM (GNOME, KDE3 or 4, etc) will have the same title bar.

You can change the WM in with fusion-icon if you don't like the titlebar - though obviously the easier way is to keep Metacity and change the titlebar in whatever settings app GNOME has for changing themes.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not bad at all!
by Stratoukos on Thu 4th Mar 2010 01:49 UTC in reply to "Not bad at all!"
Stratoukos Member since:
2009-02-11

The new dark theme is gorgeous indeed.

As Tanner Helland said some months ago, a view I completely agreed with back then:


Take a look at Apple’s “Get a Mac” frontpage. What’s the first line?

“It’s gorgeous. Inside and out.”

Could the same be said of Ubuntu? Not with a straight face.

Well, now it could!

Fun fact: googling for "ubuntu mac gorgeous straight face" to find the exact quote, the first link was osnews.

Something else. Anyone knows what is the rationale behind aligning the window title to the left of the titlebar? I think it looked cleaner on the center.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Not bad at all!
by jokkel on Thu 4th Mar 2010 07:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Not bad at all!"
jokkel Member since:
2008-07-07

It's bad UI design if the location of important items moves too much. The window close and minimize buttons would always be in a different position, depending on the window size.
Placing buttons in the corner makes them easy to find.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Not bad at all!
by Stratoukos on Thu 4th Mar 2010 09:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not bad at all!"
Stratoukos Member since:
2009-02-11

I am not talking about the button placement, but the title placement. For example in the first screenshot that would be 'ubuntu - File Browser'. I think it's better centered both usability-wise and because it look's better (mainly because there's a lot of clutter in the left side).

But what interests me is that previous versions had the title centered, so these guys made a conscious decision to move the title.

Reply Score: 1

KUbuntu?
by Elv13 on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 20:57 UTC
Elv13
Member since:
2006-06-12

They show some design for Xubuntu and Ubuntu, but Kubuntu look like that have been left being again...

Otherwise, it look good. I think it will make a smooth transition between Gnome 2 and 3, as this use color closer to Gnome 3 default theme. So, they may drop custom skin to use the new default, after all.

One of the screenshot also show global menubar on an Asus computer. Strange, Asus said they were dropping Linux, so it is strange that Ubuntu website show a big Asus logo with what seem to be a custom Ubuntu build.

Edited 2010-03-03 20:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: KUbuntu?
by KAMiKAZOW on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 23:45 UTC in reply to "KUbuntu?"
KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06

KDE has this initiative to share a common KDE identity among various distros and many distributors followed it by at most tweaking KDE's Oxygen/Air themes (openSUSE has a green Air wallpaper as opposed to blue, for example).

Yeah, Kubuntu doesn't even tweak themes, but in this case Canonical's laziness may even work to KDE's advantage. ;-)

Too bad that Canonical currently doesn't really "get it" (even though -- in all fairness -- Kubuntu 10.04 seems to be a massive improvement over previous releases). I mailed with Aurlien who works for Canonical on KDE software and his job there is to take ideas from the Desktop Experience team and implement them in KDE SC. So far those ideas only cover aspects that are foremost developed for GNOME. In advantage of KDE, Canonical's idea to overhaul GNOME's systray makes use of KDE's protocol that is implemented there since SC 4.3 and Aurlien's work is to port further KDE apps to it.
Sadly, at least for now Canonical seems to have no intentions to do KDE-specific usability work as they do for GNOME.

Maybe Canonical will strengthen the KDE/Qt side of things once MeeGo (Qt-based successor to Moblin) is released. As with Ubuntu's current "Moblin Edition" there surely will be a "MeeGo Edition" and naturally KDE apps will fit in there better than GTK apps.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: KUbuntu?
by KenP on Thu 4th Mar 2010 00:32 UTC in reply to "RE: KUbuntu?"
KenP Member since:
2009-07-28

This is sad, really. We have had over 10 iterations of Ubuntu and the dawn of Linux on the general desktop is nowhere in sight.

Consider for a moment if Ubuntu had started off with KDE as the default desktop! For the single reason that its default layout kind-of looks like Windows, along with Canonical's excellent customisation, we would have had many more converts over to Linux than now where we are blatantly copying Apple, right from the icons in the panel to, now, window buttons on the left!!

With each version, Kubuntu is more or less left to fend on its own. The funny part is that of all the derivatives and alternatives of Ubunutu, the word "kubuntu" happens to be an actual word! Others are all mashes of the word ubuntu.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: KUbuntu?
by KAMiKAZOW on Thu 4th Mar 2010 00:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: KUbuntu?"
KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06

Consider for a moment if Ubuntu had started off with KDE as the default desktop! For the single reason that its default layout kind-of looks like Windows

Oh common, that's (pardon my straight-forward language) the stupidest reason I've ever heard. KDE 1-3 were heavily inspired by Windows (along with many many inspirations from CDE which is often forgotten), but since 4 the biggest layout similarity with Windows is that by default the task bar is at the bottom of the screen.

If Canonical wanted, they could've easily created a "Windows-like" taskbar in GNOME. There isn't even coding required -- that's part of GNOME's default customization possibilities! SUSE for example does this (along with a new start menu, SLAB, that is coded by SUSE, but can also be installed on any other distro).

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: KUbuntu?
by SEJeff on Mon 8th Mar 2010 03:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: KUbuntu?"
SEJeff Member since:
2005-11-05

Looks don't convert users, apps do. Where is TurboTax for a serious AutoCAD equivalent for Linux? How about a professional video editor like After Effects? The most promising open source video editor is PiTiVi, and even that is quite a ways off.

Linux slowly moves into niches and then dominates them. It certainly has not slowed down so the future holds bright prospects.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: KUbuntu?
by Soulbender on Thu 4th Mar 2010 07:15 UTC in reply to "RE: KUbuntu?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Yeah, Kubuntu doesn't even tweak themes


Neither does opensuse very much(really only small changes to the plasma theme) and I'm sure happy they don't have anything as awful as Mandriva's Ia Ora. Oxygen kicks ass. Also, Kubuntu has Konqueror as the default browser. How come none of the "better" KDE distros do?
Kubuntu is probably one of the purest KDE distros really.

Too bad that Canonical currently doesn't really "get it" (even though -- in all fairness -- Kubuntu 10.04 seems to be a massive improvement over previous releases).


I still don't get what's supposedly so incredibly bad about the current Kubuntu compared to other distros.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: KUbuntu?
by jokkel on Thu 4th Mar 2010 07:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: KUbuntu?"
jokkel Member since:
2008-07-07

Konqueror is almost unusable as a web browser nowadays.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: KUbuntu?
by Lennie on Thu 4th Mar 2010 10:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: KUbuntu?"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

People are working on a QT-port of Firefox, so it will blend in with KDE4

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: KUbuntu?
by Zelv on Thu 4th Mar 2010 11:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: KUbuntu?"
Zelv Member since:
2005-12-17

People are working on a QT-port of Firefox, so it will blend in with KDE4


No, sorry, they are not. Yeah, of course people are "working" on it, they have been for so many years, but you'll probably sooner get a usable Hurd than a usable Qt-based Firefox. With QtWebKit it's unlikely there would be anybody bothered enough to finish a Qt-based Firefox and openSUSE's KDE-Firefox integration not actually a Qt-port of Firefox.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: KUbuntu?
by KAMiKAZOW on Thu 4th Mar 2010 14:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: KUbuntu?"
KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06

People are working on a QT-port of Firefox, so it will blend in with KDE4

There is no Qt port, but SUSE's Lubos Lunak programmed an extension that integrates Firefox with KDE SC (notifications, open/save windows, button order).
Along with a GTK port of the Oxygen theme Firefox integrates almost perfectly into KDE SC.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: KUbuntu?
by Lennie on Sat 6th Mar 2010 19:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: KUbuntu?"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

OK, my mistake, thank you for that,

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: KUbuntu?
by Lennie on Sun 7th Mar 2010 10:59 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: KUbuntu?"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

No it isn't.

What is this then ?:
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/log?rev=qt

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: KUbuntu?
by Leszek Lesner on Thu 4th Mar 2010 11:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: KUbuntu?"
Leszek Lesner Member since:
2007-04-08

I use it every day with no problem (KDE 4.4.1)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: KUbuntu?
by KAMiKAZOW on Thu 4th Mar 2010 14:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: KUbuntu?"
KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06

Neither does opensuse very much(really only small changes to the plasma theme)

That's what I said.

Kubuntu has Konqueror as the default browser. How come none of the "better" KDE distros do?

Because they ship something else, eg. Rekonq (Chakra) or SUSE's KDE port of Firefox.
There was even a discussion about replacing Konqueror with Rekonq on KDE's core development mailing list, but Rekonq's main developer prefers the Extragear module.

I still don't get what's supposedly so incredibly bad about the current Kubuntu compared to other distros.

Quotes from Kubuntu's "Project Timelord" announcement:

"There is a general lack of Quality Assurance on uploads to both development releases and on backports of KDE packages to stable releases. File overwrite errors are too common in both cases. As a potential issue, we also have a collection of patches for most of our core KDE patches. These patches may or may not be of good quality, depending on the patch.
Another issue that seems to pop up is that some KDE modules are not compiled with all the functionality they are capable of. (...) These tend to be forgotten about too easily.

(...)

[Kubuntu-specific] applications lack polish (...) and usually are not integrated well at all with the surrounding system (...), causing needless clutter."

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: KUbuntu?
by Soulbender on Thu 4th Mar 2010 15:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: KUbuntu?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Because they ship something else, eg. Rekonq (Chakra) or SUSE's KDE port of Firefox.


There's a Kubuntu PPA for rekonq and the Firefox integration isn't all that.

[Kubuntu-specific] applications lack polish (...) and usually are not integrated well at all with the surrounding system (...), causing needless clutter."


Funny, that's how I would categorize Yast.It's good that Kubuntu is aiming high though.
That said, I don't notice any lack in quality of the applications compared to SUSE. The KDE environment itself is pretty much the same really with about the same amounts of crashing apps (not many at all, really).

Reply Score: 1

Finally!
by l_km_n on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 21:09 UTC
l_km_n
Member since:
2008-07-28

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Ubuntu (and Debian, for that), but the orange/brown default-theme of Ubuntu was not my taste. The new themes look beautilful, have a good balance between dark and light widgets and don't get in your way while working. Thumbs up from me, good work!

Reply Score: 2

Notification Pop-ups
by YEPHENAS on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 21:12 UTC
YEPHENAS
Member since:
2008-07-14

Placed left, so they don’t interfere with the notification pop-ups.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Notification Pop-ups
by Blind on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 21:26 UTC in reply to "Notification Pop-ups"
Blind Member since:
2009-09-24

While true, placing the buttons on the left is a little retarded. As most of us are right handed it is more natural to have your mouse on the right side of the screen. Hence why faggle puts the icons on the right hand side of the screen. The notifications should be moved. I currently use linux mint 8 with a resolution of 1440x900 the only thing that is ever in the top right corner is pidgin the rest of the screen is used for other windows, they are windows not fullscreendows therefore never interfering with the notifications. They wouldn't be bad lower right tho.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Notification Pop-ups
by thelastdodo on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 21:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Notification Pop-ups"
thelastdodo Member since:
2008-10-07

I dont think so. While people are right handed, they tend to look on the left of the screen more. The reason is that we read text from the left to the right. The start menu is also on the left btw.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Notification Pop-ups
by Blind on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 22:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Notification Pop-ups"
Blind Member since:
2009-09-24

Look at the current http://mozilla.org page layout, it is a prime example of what usability studies have given us. It's definitely right side driven.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Notification Pop-ups
by Lennie on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 23:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Notification Pop-ups"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

If it's rightside driven, why are the 'read on' links all over the place and not right-aligned ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Notification Pop-ups
by Blind on Thu 4th Mar 2010 02:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Notification Pop-ups"
Blind Member since:
2009-09-24

You've missed the point, chances are, when you viewed the page reading left to right, your eyes saw the logo then jumped to the navebar on the right then back down to the content on the page, most users doing this would have moved there mouse cursor to the right side of the page out of the way of the content on the left and started to scroll after noticing that the nav options weren't what the were looking for.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Notification Pop-ups
by KAMiKAZOW on Thu 4th Mar 2010 00:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Notification Pop-ups"
KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06

I dont think so. While people are right handed, they tend to look on the left of the screen more. The reason is that we read text from the left to the right. The start menu is also on the left btw.

That's purely habit. Mac OS X sorts desktop icons from right to left.
Mac OS X and even GNOME have a right-to-left button order.
Arab and Hebrew are read from right to left.
Japanese can basically be written in almost any direction as long as it's consistent within one text.

As a right-handed man I think it's more practical to write from left to right, because I don't smear the ink on the paper with my writing hand, but reading in another direction just requires a few minutes of adjusting.

Edited 2010-03-04 00:54 UTC

Reply Score: 4

It's a beauty
by rebel787 on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 21:13 UTC
rebel787
Member since:
2007-01-13

Elegant. That's what comes to mind. I won't comment on the slight feeling of it looking a bit like OSX.
I'm happy for linux distros in general. Ubuntu's win is a win for all... I'll buy that t-shirt but in a different colour :-)

Reply Score: 2

Finally!!!
by cmost on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 21:21 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

Finally!!!!! Enough said!

Reply Score: 2

Very Nice.
by rbenchley on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 21:21 UTC
rbenchley
Member since:
2005-11-03

The new color scheme is great, but I'm in love with the new logo font, the boot splash and the website redesign. Very elegant and professional.

Reply Score: 1

Bottom panel?
by Giorg on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 21:23 UTC
Giorg
Member since:
2010-03-03

Notice that screenshots don't show a bottom panel. What are they coming up with? A DOCK? Nothing at all? That's weird.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Bottom panel?
by kragil on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 21:31 UTC in reply to "Bottom panel?"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04
RE[2]: Bottom panel?
by Giorg on Thu 4th Mar 2010 08:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Bottom panel?"
Giorg Member since:
2010-03-03

I couldn't find a single reference to that... Still can't.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Bottom panel?
by kragil on Thu 4th Mar 2010 11:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Bottom panel?"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Too lazy to read comments, eh?

jono said:

The screenshot was taken with auto-hide switched on.

Reply

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Bottom panel?
by Giorg on Thu 4th Mar 2010 12:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Bottom panel?"
Giorg Member since:
2010-03-03

I see, I didn't notice that there was more than one page of comments ;) thanks!

Reply Score: 1

...you mean "flaw" ? =)~
by Fusion on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 21:24 UTC
Fusion
Member since:
2005-07-18

"the new theme places [titlebar widgets] on the left. ... The curious thing, namely, is that the close window titlebar widget is not the left-most one - it is the right-most one!"


The politically-correct/non-committal side of me is also "curious" regarding the justification of this otherwise obtusely apparent design flaw. =)~

The CLOSE button should always be closest to the window corner, since that particular coordinate is the quickest/easiest target for a user to hit... not to mention the most common function a user intends to use of those three. Moving [X] further into the titlebar will undoubtedly slow some of us down (not to mention cause brain farts along the way).

I personally hope this behavior changes by the release date. If it sticks, however, I suppose you can always fix it yourself manually via gconf-editor (apps > metacity > general >>> "button_layout" key; change value to "close,maximize,minimize:menu").

But that's a bit frustrating, as I've always considered UBUNTU to typically have the 'sanest' defaults among the major distros---default theme/wallpaper excepted, of course! (Hey, we can't all like *every* default, right?)

Reply Score: 3

RE: ...you mean "flaw" ? =)~
by alexandru_lz on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 21:28 UTC in reply to "...you mean "flaw" ? =)~"
alexandru_lz Member since:
2007-02-11

It's exactly the first thing that crossed my mind. The "Close" button is placed in a totally retarded way. I don't think I've touched the Maximize button more than a dozen times since I switched to a widescreen monitor with decent resolution.

Reply Score: 4

RE: ...you mean "flaw" ? =)~
by muda on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 21:37 UTC in reply to "...you mean "flaw" ? =)~"
muda Member since:
2008-12-23

The CLOSE button should always be closest to the window corner, since that particular coordinate is the quickest/easiest target for a user to hit...


Probably the exact same reason, only they wanted to keep users from closing windows mistakenly. For example, on my mac I rarely use zoom feature and I minimise by double-clicking the title bar. Window close operation good old cmd-w. If I ever use the buttons, I always happen to hover the leftmost one first and need to carefully steer the cursor.

In Ubuntu, I believe, the window zoom feature is perceived in a different way and people use the maximise button much more often that the close button. To illustrate, when I am in Windows environment, I tend to use the maximise button much more often than the close button.

Imagine the workflow: open window in normal state, maximise, do something, minimise, do something else, maximise, do more stuff, minimise, do more something else, restore, do even more, maximise, finish up, save, exit app. Close button used only once if at all!

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: ...you mean "flaw" ? =)~
by KAMiKAZOW on Thu 4th Mar 2010 00:58 UTC in reply to "RE: ...you mean "flaw" ? =)~"
KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06

Probably the exact same reason, only they wanted to keep users from closing windows mistakenly.

Because of that reason Classic Mac OS and BeOS placed the buttons on the opposite ends of the title bar: Close was far left, maximize/zoom on the far right side.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: ...you mean "flaw" ? =)~
by tchristney on Thu 4th Mar 2010 01:28 UTC in reply to "RE: ...you mean "flaw" ? =)~"
tchristney Member since:
2005-09-21

This exactly why I think that the close button should be in a separate corner from the min/max buttons. I have occasionally hit the wrong button. It's frustrating. There is probably some usability study that says I'm in some microculture of wrong-button-hitters. At least move the close button away from the other two. Even a little bit would really help the accidental close window problem.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: ...you mean "flaw" ? =)~
by jokkel on Thu 4th Mar 2010 07:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ...you mean "flaw" ? =)~"
jokkel Member since:
2008-07-07

True. There's a reason the classic Mac OS and Windows 3.1 had the close button on the left and the min/max buttons on the right.

Reply Score: 1

Smells like ripoff
by Hurtta on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 21:31 UTC
Hurtta
Member since:
2006-04-16

Am I the only one smelling quite heavy Apple ripoff, especially at the web themes examples section?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Smells like ripoff
by r_a_trip on Thu 4th Mar 2010 10:45 UTC in reply to "Smells like ripoff"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Steal from the best.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Smells like ripoff
by Soulbender on Thu 4th Mar 2010 16:30 UTC in reply to "Smells like ripoff"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"good artists copy, great artists steal"

Reply Score: 2

RE: Smells like ripoff
by segedunum on Sun 7th Mar 2010 20:34 UTC in reply to "Smells like ripoff"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

No you're not. There is a huge feeling at Canonical that seems to have swept them like a disease that if they copy Mac OS then..............something will happen.

Reply Score: 2

Opposite OS/2
by dylansmrjones on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 21:43 UTC
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

In OS/2 Warp 3 and newer (includes eComStation) the close button is the innermost titlebar widget. The buttons are in the right side, with close,minimize,maximize/restore. Ubuntus solution is simply a reversed OS/2-positioning. I wonder if this will be just as quirky in Ubuntu as in OS/2 & eCS.

EDIT: One should know that it is very easy to change the widget layout. It does require messing with the Gnome "registry".

Edited 2010-03-03 21:45 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Opposite OS/2
by arpan on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 23:09 UTC in reply to "Opposite OS/2"
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

If it requires messing with the Gnome "registry", then it's not easy. It's easy if it there is a GUI setting for it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Opposite OS/2
by dylansmrjones on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 23:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Opposite OS/2"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

There is a gui for it. It's just primitive. You have to enter text and/or numbers instead of moving sliders or clicking check boxes. No different than choosing custom colors in windows (which requires entering numbers)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Opposite OS/2
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 23:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Opposite OS/2"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Numbers? The settings require words, not numbers. They're strings.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Opposite OS/2
by dylansmrjones on Thu 4th Mar 2010 00:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Opposite OS/2"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The string is alphanumeric. But yes. This particular setting is letters only (and some special characters). However, the Gnome "registry" also have settings which requires entering numbers. I should have made it clearer that I was speaking of a generic Gnome "registry"-setting in my second post. But all strings are alphanumeric anyway.

But still easy to change the layout anyway. Textual input does not equal "being hard".

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Opposite OS/2
by FakeUser on Thu 4th Mar 2010 05:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Opposite OS/2"
FakeUser Member since:
2010-03-02

What about this string: "¹@#$%"? :-P

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Opposite OS/2
by KAMiKAZOW on Thu 4th Mar 2010 01:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Opposite OS/2"
KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06

There is a gui for it. It's just primitive. You have to enter text and/or numbers instead of moving sliders or clicking check boxes.

You are kidding, right?
KDE has this ( http://docs.kde.org/stable/en/kdebase-workspace/kcontrol/kwindecora... ) for ages... and then people say KDE SC is too complicated....

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Opposite OS/2
by dylansmrjones on Thu 4th Mar 2010 02:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Opposite OS/2"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Unfortunately I'm not kidding. I'm sure one can blame it on the Gnome HIG.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Opposite OS/2
by Invincible Cow on Thu 4th Mar 2010 11:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Opposite OS/2"
Invincible Cow Member since:
2006-06-24

Even XFCE has an intuitive drag-and-drop setting for these buttons.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Opposite OS/2
by wirespot on Thu 4th Mar 2010 11:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Opposite OS/2"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

It's simple to make a graphical tool for tweaking this, but nobody's bothered. That's because clicking on Configuration Editor, navigating to apps/metacity/general and writing some text in "button_layout" takes about 30 seconds max. Or you can copy and paste this command in a terminal window in 5 seconds:

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

Problem solved. It is not worth the time to make a GUI and the Gnome guidelines don't consider such settings worthy of a GUI of their own. People who want to tweak gconf have the above solutions.

Reply Score: 1

Mixed bag
by ple_mono on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 22:02 UTC
ple_mono
Member since:
2005-07-26

It's a mixed bag if you ask me. The "branding" and colour choices are great. So is the new bootsplash.
The new gtk is far from "great" IMHO (It's less defined, and more chaotic than the old humanity). I would have kept the old human gtk and applied the new colors to that instead.
The new metacity was quite ugly IMHO. Bleh. I hope they at least do a poll or something, so that people get to voice their opinion about the theme change.

Reply Score: 3

Love everything but "Dark"
by google_ninja on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 23:13 UTC
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

I don't understand how they could ship with something so bad. Would almost expect them to call it "Bruised Human"

Everything else is great though. New font is a nice move fron "Generic Sans", new bootsplash is elegant, and the light theme is just gorgeous.

Reply Score: 2

Anyone know when?
by cashrox on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 23:31 UTC
cashrox
Member since:
2010-03-03

This look will make it's way into the alpha releases for 10.04? I can't wait to use it.

Reply Score: 1

Like it
by shashank_hi on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 23:47 UTC
shashank_hi
Member since:
2009-08-27

I think it looks really good and professional. The older designs were nice, but didn't really set Ubuntu apart.

Did anyone else feel that the background was a little OS X like? Not complaining, I have always felt that the Mac UI is really good.

Reply Score: 2

Wow
by NewbieLinuxGuy on Wed 3rd Mar 2010 23:52 UTC
NewbieLinuxGuy
Member since:
2008-12-29

I've been using ubuntu since edgy eft (7.04) and I've always loved it. I thought the theme was pretty cool back then.

However, nothing compares to this new theme. If I weren't such a nerd I wouldn't be saying this... But I think this new theme is drop dead sexy.

I foresee this new theme being a conversation peice, in starbucks, on my sleek new laptop, with someone nice.....


Windows 7 eat your heart out!

Reply Score: 1

Very nice.
by ParadoxUncreated on Thu 4th Mar 2010 01:49 UTC
ParadoxUncreated
Member since:
2009-12-05

The NewWave theme in Ubuntu Karmic 9.10 already looks great.

http://www.paradoxuncreated.com/Pxu/Screen26feb2010.png

I hope this theme will not be changed/still be available. It suits me perfectly.

Nice to see more work done on themes though, interesting still. But I do think I will stick with the one I have now.

Peace Be With You!

Reply Score: 1

...
by Hiev on Thu 4th Mar 2010 02:20 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Honestly, I like my own theme better.

http://www.uploadimage.my/pictures/18540339994b8f18719dd53.png

It may look ugly to you, but I find those colors no distracting.

Reply Score: 1

I can't believe poeple like this.
by shawnjgoff on Thu 4th Mar 2010 03:05 UTC
shawnjgoff
Member since:
2008-05-02

This is obviously something that was thrown together in a few hours without any thought. Here are immediately obvious problems:
The wrong (yes, flat-out wrong) order of the titlebar widgets.
The hodge-podge of colors thrown together - the white window color, but slightly off-white titlebar and menu; the quite purple-tinted tooltip and wallpaper, but much bluer highlights and shadows on the buttons and highlighted items.
The tango icons that don't match with anything but the strange off-white titlebar.
The horrible simple non-nuanced gradient in the trough behind the titlebar widgets.
The "x" icon (the one on the active window) stolen from a completely different icon set than anything else on the screen.

This theme makes it look like the designer was supposed to be working on it a while, but was actually sleeping on the job, and when it suddenly came time to turn something in, he stayed up the night before throwning something together.

Reply Score: 3

Glynser Member since:
2007-11-29

Same for me, I don't think it looks professional.

Also, I don't like the new logo too much. It's okay, but the old one stood out more from the crowd. And apart from that, redesigning a logo is a very touchy decision in general.

Reply Score: 3

that's a wiki!!
by nbensa on Thu 4th Mar 2010 03:22 UTC
nbensa
Member since:
2005-08-29

Did anyone of you noticed it is a wiki?

Maybe those screenshots are from a casual user/dev and it doesn't represent the actual out-of-box look of lucid.

I myself have buttons in that order since ages just because I like MacOSX (or better, I don't Like Windows). The only difference: I run Kubuntu.

Reply Score: 1

RE: that's a wiki!!
by Glynser on Thu 4th Mar 2010 07:40 UTC in reply to "that's a wiki!!"
Glynser Member since:
2007-11-29

It's an "immutable page" and they explain in the first section that this is the result of a design team.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by AnythingButVista
by AnythingButVista on Thu 4th Mar 2010 04:17 UTC
AnythingButVista
Member since:
2008-08-27

The only thing I don't like is that there's some Apple-ish look in. I hate Apple and I would not like my PC to copy the OSX look. Then again, I already worked hard to take some of that OSX feel out of Windows 7, so I hope there's still some customization room in Ubuntu to get rid of the OSX touches.

Reply Score: 3

I agree with slashdot.
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 4th Mar 2010 04:58 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

Not a significant improvement, waste of time & effort. Your only guaranteed to tick people off with a color change.

Reply Score: 3

OSNevvs
Member since:
2009-08-20

I'd like the close/minimize/restore buttons to the right.

Reply Score: 4

Gray tray icons
by soulrebel123 on Thu 4th Mar 2010 08:00 UTC
soulrebel123
Member since:
2009-05-13

Those monochrome icons in the upper panel are just idiotic. They look great until you actually launch something that uses a colored notification icon(skype, transmission, amule, ekiga, pidgin, etc) or you place some launchers in the panel just like everyone has been doing for the last years. Then consistency is gone. Can they provide a monochrome alternative for every icons? Bah

There are a lot of "manly" cool themes, why copying macs?

Reply Score: 7

Not an overhaul
by OSGuy on Thu 4th Mar 2010 08:31 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

This is not an overhaul at all. It is just a different color scheme with different icons and different border. GNOME still looks like GNOME/GTK. An overhaul means something completely different. An example for this could be that little script that makes GNOME look like XP nearly pixel by pixel similarity.

There is also a way to decrease the size of the gigantic widgets and make them smaller to take less space. If you apply the Redmond theme for instance, all of the buttons take less space and it looks much neater. Sure it's ugly but you get the point.

Ok, it is time to mod me down.

Edited 2010-03-04 08:41 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Not an overhaul
by shawnjgoff on Thu 4th Mar 2010 12:56 UTC in reply to "Not an overhaul"
shawnjgoff Member since:
2008-05-02

Agreed! A good example is Elegant Brit ( http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php/Elegant+Brit?content=74553 ). It makes GTK+ look completely different, and in my opinion, beautiful!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Not an overhaul
by qroon on Thu 4th Mar 2010 13:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Not an overhaul"
qroon Member since:
2005-10-21

That theme (Elegant Brit) looks like a website for gamers, dark background and all.

After all these years, Blue Curve is still one of the best themes in GNOME/Gtk. It may look bland or dull but it is not tiring to the eyes. And one (if not the only one) of the most complete theme.

Edited 2010-03-04 13:41 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Not an overhaul
by Glynser on Thu 4th Mar 2010 14:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Not an overhaul"
Glynser Member since:
2007-11-29

Maybe it's beautiful, but it's not very usable*. Many widgets can't be clearly differentiated from each other. Some people might be willing to get used to it (because they like the looks), but it's nothing for the masses. It reminds me of the many WinAmp skins, they place nice pictures behind the GUI, but the GUI itself becomes hardly existent.

* from a pure usability point of view

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Not an overhaul
by shawnjgoff on Fri 5th Mar 2010 04:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not an overhaul"
shawnjgoff Member since:
2008-05-02

"Hardly existant" is the whole point. For me, there is too much visual clutter with most themes. The flatter, less gradient-y themes remove that clutter and make the content that I'm actually working on stand out and the operating system dissappear.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Not an overhaul
by Glynser on Fri 5th Mar 2010 07:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not an overhaul"
Glynser Member since:
2007-11-29

I agree, a GUI should really be "hardly existant" so that you don't notice it really; I also hate gradients and glowy/glossy stuff. But in the above example, many widgets didn't even have a border, which is the wrong kind of "hardly existant" for me ;)

The second example is really better. Personally, I think the Windows 95 GUI was the cleanest GUI that I ever used. Under Gnome, I use a customized version of "Raleigh" (only the colors are customized a bit) for the widgets and a CDE-lookalike for the window borders.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Not an overhaul
by shawnjgoff on Fri 5th Mar 2010 04:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Not an overhaul"
shawnjgoff Member since:
2008-05-02

Another, more mainsream theme that is great.

http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php/Glow?content=85996

Reply Score: 2

Too effeminate
by nt_jerkface on Thu 4th Mar 2010 09:42 UTC
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

They might as well use a my little pony background. That purple needs to go.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Too effeminate
by Soulbender on Thu 4th Mar 2010 16:05 UTC in reply to "Too effeminate "
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Not man enough to have a purple wallpaper?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Too effeminate
by Quake on Thu 4th Mar 2010 18:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Too effeminate "
Quake Member since:
2005-10-14

Not man enough to have a purple wallpaper?

Lol, I guess he's too macho :p

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Too effeminate
by nt_jerkface on Thu 4th Mar 2010 19:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Too effeminate "
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Purple is fine if it is done right.

However the background is too effeminate given that the Ubuntu userbase is disproportionately male.

Kubuntu has a better looking desktop which is funny since they pretty much ignore it.

Reply Score: 2

looks like Zune
by steverez1 on Thu 4th Mar 2010 10:43 UTC
steverez1
Member since:
2006-12-06

Wow looks like they installed the Zune theme for windows xp on linux

I like it

Reply Score: 1

window widget positions
by l3v1 on Thu 4th Mar 2010 11:13 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

Windows puts them in the top right corner of the window, and this setting has been adopted by KDE and GNOME.


Actually, for longer time than I can recall, in KDE you always had the option of re-positioning them.

Reply Score: 3

Stupid position of titlebar buttons
by Invincible Cow on Thu 4th Mar 2010 11:19 UTC
Invincible Cow
Member since:
2006-06-24

This is a disaster. People going for the edit menu will suddenly find that their window is gone.

Reply Score: 5

button placement?
by jokinin on Thu 4th Mar 2010 12:55 UTC
jokinin
Member since:
2005-11-07

The theme itself is ok i guess, but window button controls are placed so awkwardly, that it will be difficult to get used tu, unless there is a way to put them in the usual place and in the usual order.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by motang
by motang on Thu 4th Mar 2010 13:52 UTC
motang
Member since:
2008-03-27

Love everything, boot up screen is slick looking, theme is awesome (good thing there is light and dark versions), wallpaper is nice, and we already know the icons theme is superb from 9.10. But I don't like the placement of the window buttons, hope I can have them back on the right hand side of th window.

Reply Score: 2

Well, I don't like it, but...
by bryanv on Thu 4th Mar 2010 14:16 UTC
bryanv
Member since:
2005-08-26

It's not nearly as bad as "MANDRIBBLE".

Besides, Haiku is almost usable for me again now.

*can't wait*

Reply Score: 1

The red is no less overbearing than before
by MadRat on Thu 4th Mar 2010 14:49 UTC
MadRat
Member since:
2006-02-17

Why cannot the theme managers pick a theme that balances out the three primary colors? This slant towards red is disturbing to use. Its a pita to fix all the colors to something more pleasant.

This is why I prefer the work Novell has done with SuSE. They've got the colors right coming out of the gates.

Reply Score: 2

Brand? For free software?
by KMDF on Thu 4th Mar 2010 16:01 UTC
KMDF
Member since:
2010-02-17

Other than their paid support ... what does ubuntu need a brand identity for? They give away their software! Can someone explain this to me?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Brand? For free software?
by Soulbender on Thu 4th Mar 2010 16:44 UTC in reply to "Brand? For free software?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Can someone explain this to me?

No. If you dont understand why brand identity is important (even if your product is free) there's nothing we can do for you.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Brand? For free software?
by KMDF on Thu 4th Mar 2010 21:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Brand? For free software?"
KMDF Member since:
2010-02-17

Well, i guess if you think a color scheme makes Ubuntu stand out with its "brand identity" then that makes you a marketing genius.

Also, seeing your blog, you're apparently a poster-child for freetardia. So, I guess "brand identity" for FOSS makes sense in your warped world.

Edited 2010-03-04 21:38 UTC

Reply Score: 0

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Thanks for your valuable and unique contribution to the discussion. It's not every day you see such biting wit as "freetardia".

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Brand? For free software?
by KMDF on Fri 5th Mar 2010 18:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Brand? For free software?"
KMDF Member since:
2010-02-17

Thanks for your valuable and unique contribution to the discussion.


A contribution along the same lines as "if you don't know, can do nothing for you?"

Pot, meet kettle.

Edited 2010-03-05 18:43 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Die Late 90's Cartoony Icons, Die!
by chrisfriberg on Thu 4th Mar 2010 16:06 UTC
chrisfriberg
Member since:
2009-04-08

It's getting a lot better, though.

Reply Score: 1

Tell me what you think..
by Bounty on Thu 4th Mar 2010 16:42 UTC
Bounty
Member since:
2006-09-18

I tried a little experiment. Put your mouse in the center of the screen and open a new maximised window. Now quickly flick your mouse and close the window.

With the X on the top right, it's easy. I overshoot by miles and the cursor hangs out right where it's supposed to be. When I try the same thing in the opposite corner, I end up about an inch short and have to move my whole hand. I am a righty. Also, I can move easily to every corner except top left w/o moving my hand. Which is probably why windows put the start menu on the bottom left (it's something you want to click quickly w/o thinking about it.) Anytime you access the "File" menu you're should be working slow/carefully anyways..... hopefully away from the "close" button.

Reply Score: 2

BeOS!
by cutterjohn on Thu 4th Mar 2010 17:03 UTC
cutterjohn
Member since:
2006-01-28

BeOS sort of did it that way.

A window title was the little yellow bar just above the main window area, and the control "widgets" (to use Thom's terminology, never ever called them widgets that I can recall... but I digress...) were immediately to the right of the title. So, in most cases the title bar wasn't nearly as long/large as the main window the "widgets" got scrunched up to the left more although displaced from being comletely on the left by the title text.

I think that there were a few other GUIs that placed them specifically on the left as well, but I can't recall what those GUIs were as I, evidently, never used them for very long or only saw screenshots or mockups of them long ago.

In any event, I'd imagine that the "widget" placement will be easily modifiable by themes and I'd imagine that it would annoy enough people that if the end product ends up as on the wiki some user will create a theme package to "fix" it for those who are tied to their "widget"'s positioning. (Personally I prefer to use keyboard shortcuts to avoid mouse tracking... so I doubt that I'll really care excepting for the case of unresponsive apps in linux that also seem to occasionally clog up the entire system which makes clicking the close "widget" a quick possibility of killing the offending blocking app especially if the system is so slow that desktop changes/etc. are very slow. i.e. getting to a terminal, then finding and killing the process... AAMOF I've often resorted to simply powercycling on occasion.

Reply Score: 2

Nice...but...
by BeOSJim on Thu 4th Mar 2010 19:58 UTC
BeOSJim
Member since:
2010-01-20

I think the changes are nice, although not a color palette I would have picked. The orangy/brownish theme as least made sense. It was to cover the colors of humans, hence the name Human.

I cannot think of anywhere that uses grey, beige and violet together? I admit it kind of works, but may have to grow on me.

Oh, and the placement of the window controls, especially the close button, has GOT to change. It sucks.

Reply Score: 2

Decent
by gan17 on Thu 4th Mar 2010 23:08 UTC
gan17
Member since:
2008-06-03

Looks decent enough, but I'm not a fan of the eggplant/aubergine usplash screen.

Back when I used to run Ubuntu (last one was 8.04), I almost always used the Ubuntu Studio usplash and distro logo, since my wallpapers and themes were usually a combination of blue, black and white.

On a side note, I'm loving the designs for the new concept CD, web branding and the stickers/mugs/souvenirs.

Reply Score: 1

"Light" theme?
by da_Chicken on Thu 4th Mar 2010 23:17 UTC
da_Chicken
Member since:
2006-01-01

Judging by the screenshots, the new Ubuntu theme looks quite dark and heavy. I wonder why they wanted to name it "Light"?

Well, that doesn't really bother me. I'm probably not going to use Ubuntu much on my computers. I usually test-install every new Ubuntu release on a spare partition, but so far none of these installations have stayed for more than a couple of days. I think I like this new theme a bit better than the old theme, but I generally prefer a somewhat lighter gtk+2 theme (the default xfce4 theme with slight modifications of my own, especially to make the scrollbar dark grey, so you can actually see it).

And what's this talk about "titlebars" and "widgets"? I've configured fvwm not to show any titlebars, so the programs can use more of the available screen space. Hey, you only need to learn three keyboard shortcuts and then you can maximize, minimize, and close windows without touching the mouse. And the other two window managers that I occasionally use -- ratpoison and stumpwm -- don't even support titlebars.

Also, I prefer to use "xsetroot -solid gray10" as my desktop background image. I reckon the less the themes and desktop wallpapers attract your attention, the more time you're going to spend doing what you actually want to do with your computer.

Reply Score: 2

Mr Bean
by Gone fishing on Fri 5th Mar 2010 05:30 UTC
Gone fishing
Member since:
2006-02-22

I'm just pleased to see Karmic's Mr Bean splash screen has gone.

Lets hope pulse audio is fully working in 10.04.

Reply Score: 2

Howie S
Member since:
2005-07-14

I like the new font for 'Ubuntu', but what I don't like is that they've all but hidden their recognized 'three-dotted circle' logo inside this little afterthought of an apostrophe after their name.

I say, take the 'three-dotted circle' out of that white dot, let it stand out on it's own. It's the most recognized part of their visual identity (not to mention the topic icon for Ubuntu stories on OSnews).

Reply Score: 2

Unfinished
by irbis on Sat 6th Mar 2010 21:31 UTC
irbis
Member since:
2005-07-08

First of all, people tend to pay all too much attention to such surficial things like colouring of theming. Those things can be easily changed by anyone reading a forum like this.

As to the new looks, I get the feeling that it looks rather mediocre still, unfinished and even confusing in many ways. The colouring might still need some improvement too in order to look more coherent. Now it still looks like a mix of old and new. Also the contrasts between the darker and lighter elements in the darker version of the default theme may look too strong, IMHO. But, anyway, like I said above, colouring is a minor thing and easily changed.

Much more problematic is the new window manager button ordering in the screenshots - like already pointed by many other commentators above. Actually I find it hard to believe that the final Ubuntu 10.04 could really use something so non-standard and odd as the default Metacity button ordering?

Placing the window manager buttons in the upper left corner of the window, like Mac OS X does, works from the point of view of minimizing the amount of mouse movements (menus, buttons, screen top panel). But if you want to go the Mac way, do it fully then and at least place the close button in the corner. In every window manager that I know, the closing button is placed in the window corner. Probably most people will find the setting shown in the screenshots quite odd indeed.

Also, it would probably save many Ubuntu users from frustration to keep the old Human themes around as legacy options too. Despite all the complaints, many people, me included, have found the Human themes quite nice too. Compared to the Ubuntu 09.10 default Human looks the new proposed 10.04 theming shown in the screenshots looks quite unfinished still.

Edited 2010-03-06 21:33 UTC

Reply Score: 2