To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"Ubuntu is beautiful. This is an important aspect to bring people to Linux. When a desktop is ugly, there is no way to sell it to your (non-geek) friends."
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and with Ubuntu, it's a double edged sward. To me, Ubuntu looks like someone vomited all over the desktop. Not everyone likes pumpkin orange mixed with brown as a default color scheme. It's truly hideous (in MY opinion.) When I used Ubuntu, I would immediately change everything over to shades of blue following installation. Fortunately, the 'Blubuntu' meta package makes this easier.
I don't understand why every alpha release of the next Ubuntu makes headlines like the second coming of Christ. It's unfinished software. While having loads of bug hunters makes for a better final product, I highly doubt most people are dutifully filing bug reports (at least if one goes by the numbers.)






Member since:
2006-01-04
I know lots of open source people look down on Ubuntu for various reasons, but I just simply like it over all the other versions I've tried (openSuse/SLED, Fedora, Mandriva).
Same thing here. Also, *Ubuntu is beautiful. This is an important aspect to bring people to Linux. When a desktop is ugly, there is no way to sell it to your (non-geek) friends.
One of the bad side of Ubuntu (debian) is the difficulty to create packages. Also, new features only appears in new version (Edgy -> Festy, etc.) so if something doesn't work in one version (in Edgy f.e.), you need to wait for the next one. This is the advantage of rolling releases.
I really like how ubuntu is evolving. Great work!