One interesting remark I read in some comments is that Linux distributions are not successful because they don't look enough like Windows. Apparently if someone completely copied the interface of Windows and slapped that on top of Linux, Windows users would migrate in droves and Microsoft would be bankrupt. Well, not really. Let me explain.
We can nor plagiarize the Windows interface.
A lot of people agree on the fact that Microsoft copied the MacOS interface when creating Windows. Does Windows look exactly like MacOS? Absolutely not, if it did you can bet that Apple's lawyers would quickly have sent cease and desist letters to Redmond. The same is true for Linux: if a distribution copied the Windows interface to the point that users could be confused in believing that the Linux distribution actually was Windows, that distribution would quickly be taken to court. Remember the story of Lindows? In that case it was only a name!
We should not copy the Windows interface.
There are two major reasons why Linux distributions should not blindly copy the Windows interface. First because it not the best interface for everybody. Most people switched to Linux for a reason, usually because they didn't like something with Windows. That may very well be the interface! Even if the Windows interface is very familiar to a lot of people that does not make it the best interface there is!
The second reason is that Linux is different from Windows, so the interface should reflect that. For example in Windows the "Add / Remove program" applet is not very important as it is only used to remove programs. Many people may never bother with it and it is OK to bury it somewhere in the control panel. In Ubuntu the "add / remove program" applet is much more important as it is needed to install new applications and customize your computer to your purpose. As a result it should have a much more important place in the interface.
Delivering a familiar interface.
Some distributions like Linux Mint manage to deliver a very Windows-like interface while remaining true to Linux. The start menu, system tray and windows switchers stay where they are in Windows, but the theme and colors are very different from Windows. This way new Linux users will find their bearings easily, but will never be unaware that they don't use Windows. The start menu has been customized so that the "Add / remove program" applet is much easier to reach to reflect it's bigger role on a Linux system.
The future
There is no doubt that the user interface is one of the most important part of a desktop operating system, and it is one that has been somewhat neglected up to now. Desktop distributions like SUSE and Ubuntu are starting to change this by making usability studies and polishing the look of their desktops. Soon people will maybe not want Linux to copy the Windows interface but the other way around.
19 Responses to "Why Linux does not look like Windows":
"We can nor plagiarize..."
Yes We Car!
I'd say that the KDE-4 guys were trying to do exactly that. But now enough people are nagging them that they have to actually deliver functionality, not just eye-candy.
"I'd say that the KDE-4 guys were trying to do exactly that."
I believe that's up to debate: who plagiarized who? If some of the KDE-4 guys had inside information about Windows 7, yes then it would be a valid concern. As it now stands Windows 7 happened to look a lot like KDE-4 on the surface, but nevertheless menus, file management, preferences and so on are dealt with differently.
We live in a world, especially in software, where everyone copies ideas from everyone, even if they don't admit it.
If we cannot copy Windows interface then why is Ubuntu (the GNOME based one) so hell bent on copying the Mac OSX interface? I believe Karmic may also have the global menu a la OSX! Not everyone likes the OSX interface either and yes, those Apple lawyers will start knocking at Ubuntu's doors too.
KDE4, on the other hand, has developed quite a unique interface, IMO. It looks nothing like Windows, OSX or any other OS out there.
hmm... isn't the "oemplates/postingPrint.aspx?p=202120ther way around" already happening? i haven't used windows for over 3-4 years, so i have no idea what vista or win7 look like, but a friend of mine installed win7 the other day and he told me that they look a lot like linux!!!! i had shown him some time ago my pc and he was impressed by compiz.. he says win7 copies a bunch of things like the applications switching, taskbar previews etc..
Well, there was "Linux XP" and "XPde", but they apparently didn't get people migrating in droves with their efforts.
People forget that an interface is a piece of software that connects the user to whatever functionality is behind the interface. If you have more than a passing "I-just-installed-Ubuntu" familiarity with Linux, you are also aware that under the hood it's NOTHING like Windows, and significantly different (though less so) from OS-X. The file system is different, the way it deals with hardware is different, the way it executes software is different, etc. Why would the interface to these things need to be the same?
As for GNOME/KDE looking like some other OS -- fanboys of one or the other DE like to throw that "insult" against the 'other DE' and will until the end of time. So what? Everyone copies from everyone -- that's what FOSS is all about, right? The ability to copy and modify freely? What's the point of making it FOSS if we insist on having NIH syndrome?
I think all the interfaces are sufficiently similar that it doesn't take much effort to figure them out. Sure you may have to look through menus to find where stuff is at but it's not that complicated. I think where the problem lies is Linux traditionally hasn't had nearly as much polish on the interface as OSX or Windows. Such things as icons, fonts, window decorations and other attention to detail. It's improved greatly over the last few years though. While it was always possible for the user to add much of that polish for a non tech person who boots it up all they think is "wow this looks like it was made 10 years ago" not knowing a few simple changes would drastically improve the overall look.
The critical issue is not whether we should or should not, I reckon. Linux allows us the choice, which neither windows versions or macs do. Linux's configurability allows the user to choose Windows-like, or Mac-like or a any of a huge number of other possibilities. If this makes it easier for newbies, migrants or whatever, ultimately this flexibility of interface means that evolution will allow natural progression towards the "best" interface. Whatever that may be...
Those guys claiming that KDE 4 is a "Windows copycat" actually puts stuff into perspective.
Evaluation by Screenshots is fine, but i suspect they use braille.....
Anyway - they are obviously grumpy and unable to grasp the consept.
My goodness,such short memories. Apple did sue Microsoft for copying their "look and feel" back in the late 80s. Apple lost.
In my tests - putting a Unix in front of a Windows user (usually FreeBSD or Ubuntu) - they take to KDE 3.5 like ducks to water. KDE 4 is still a little confusing for them. But KDE 3 acts just like XP, except it works properly.
@David Gerard: Frankly, I've felt this each time I show my Linux desktop to my family and friends. Unfortunately, Ubuntu with its GNOME interface is becoming the "face" of Linux desktop. IMO, this is preventing lot of Windows users (who genuinely want to rid themselves of it) from moving across to Linux.
KDE 3.5 (or the look of it) is very comfortable. KDE4 can be made to look like it as well now.
Hence, what we really need is a distribution that does not treat KDE as a step-child (PCLinuxOS, Pardus and Mandriva come to mind here) and then can their desktop to be pre-installed on laptops/PCs just like Ubuntu.
I did not include Kubuntu in the above list because its doomed to be the step-child forever ... which is highly unfortunate.
Below mediocre article.
You can not talk about desktop and interfaces and NOT talk about the fact that Linux does NOT have an interface but many.
You want to ape the Mac top bar with text? Fine. Youd rather have the GTK 'look and feel'? Cool but that is YOUR choice.
My desktop looks like I want it to, not how someone else wants it to look.
I have bad eyese so EVERYTHING is big and those 9pt fonts that give a nice lines that flow with the motif are useless to me.
I use KDE because it allows me to customize the desktop to MY tastes but I also play around wtih XCFE and E17 too.
So please stop talking about how Linux looks. You are referring to a default found on one desktop environment.
Stop confusing your tastes as some kind of barometer.
Nice to see people like Bob R. talk out of their ass. God, the interwebs are fun.
As for Gnome, Ive stopped offering people a choice of desktops when they wnt to switch to Linux because KDE is chosen 3/4 of the time. Maybe the top taskbar doesnt bother l33t dudes but to many user it is foreign (even though you could move the XP taskbar to the top as well).
Many people have even complained that they find that having to force their eyese to the top of the screen each time gets tiring on the eyes but the most damning thing is the way it looks.
My niece received a Dell Mini with Ubuntu this winter and she told that it looked like Win98 and could I make it look less old.
I stayed in the same family and installed her Kubuntu 9.04 and she adores it.
Beyond eyecandy, Gnome just looks old.
Just like my old XP does or even my KDE3.5 on the PCLinuxOS my retired mum uses.
Buddy, try this:
http://ubuntu.online02.com/node/14
Its really cool, to slap XP like look to your Gnome.
I seriously believe Linux should not openly copy or mimic Windows. After all, i am migrating to Linux because i dont want Windows, so why give me the same thing in a different package? The problem with a wider Linux adoption is not with the look per se but that some things have to be really tackled in order to make it usable by the masses. I strongly believe that if these five things are tackled seriously by the Linux community, then there will be no need for Linux to try to look like windows.
@Thomas Joseph: Why go to such lengths to make GNOME *look* like XP. KDE is good enough a replacement by default to XP and you don't need to customise it heavily.
Canonical should be persuaded to switch to Kubuntu as the default face of "Ubuntu". GNOME edition can be released as a separate one.
Its time to admit that using the GNOME interface, Linux is never going to be comfortable to joe-average users!
(Posted from Kubuntu Karmic)
"Anonymous says:
My goodness,such short memories. Apple did sue Microsoft for copying their "look and feel" back in the late 80s. Apple lost."
Not to mention that the original research on GUIs was actually done by Xerox at their Palo Alto Research Center (PARC). At least one researcher protested vehemently when the managers of that lab let Steve Jobs tour it before Xerox had decided what they wanted to do with the technology.
As I recall, the first mouse was invented in 1969. I can't remember where that was at. Same group in an earlier decade?
@KenP: Believe me I am a Linux only user for the past 3 years, I really love its interface whether it is Gnome or KDE. But I prefer to use Gnome more than KDE.
The link I posted before to make Gnome *look* like XP (GnomeXP) actually did succeed to make some of my Windows users (infact .NET developers) to make Linux as their default OS except for during their developments. And now they are searching ways to see if they can do full .NET developments on Linux. Earlier these friends used Linux only sometimes (especially to see if their flash drives have Viruses). Now after using the XP feel linux for some time, they feel comfortable to even use native Linux looks. All this means is that Linux is cool to Windows users, its just a initial hiccup, and they need a transition path that GnomeXP can provide.
Since GnomeXP has all windows look, it cannot be legally supplied by any distro, but feel that users can install it of their own.
Now another case, where my father wanted to learn use Computers. I introduced him to Linux as his very first experience to use Computers. Now few months down, he feels that Linux is more user friendly than XP. So, its a matter of what we are used to.
As an utter FOSS lover, I plan to blog about this experience sometime in the coming weekends.
The idea that Apple lawyers would have sent cease and desist orders to Redmond is bogus at best. When Gates and party first approached Jobs, Gates worded the contract so specific that literally forbid Jobs, or anyone else at Apple from taking any legal actions against Microsoft for the advent of Windows.
To confound this issue, Microsoft has no choice but to allow essential copying of their GUI, but only essentials, not specific API's (2003/4 U. S. Supreme Court order).
It's more of not wanting to be like Windows that KDE, even with a task bar, with left handed blue "start" button, is so much unlike the Windows GUI, but in passing familiarity. But new, and developing OS, that does use the Win32 architecture and GUI, yet isn't Linux is proof of the above mentioned court order.
Post a Comment