ubuntu and kubuntu

[Scott]

Eamonn Sullivan wrote:
> On 9/2/06, marc <gmane at auxbuss.com> wrote:
>> ... their interface "dirty"! What does "clean" mean in the sense of an
>> interface? Is this a word losing it's meaning, like "solution" and
>> "experience"? Or losing ("loosing(sic)") even?
> 
> No disrespect meant. Perhaps (relatively) sparse or bare would be
> closer to what I meant. I actually like the default, brown theme in
> Ubuntu, but I can see how others would see that as "dirty."

I like the Dapper Ubuntu theme (more orange).  I didn't care much for 
the previous incarnations.

But I'm not so concerned with default themes since they can be easily 
changed.

I've probably got 20 GNOME and 10 KDE themes installed right now.

> 
> Agreed, although I'm still primarily a Gnome user. I'm an unusual
> case, however. I spent most of the 1990s as a computer
> software/operating system reviewer (for PC Week, which is now called
> eWeek). I've used Linux since 0.9something, on TAMU and then
> Slackware, where the graphical user interface was some Motif thing. I
> used to be very interested in user interfaces and happily got paid to
> review CDE (once on Sun workstations and others), Windows 3.X/98/XP,
> Mac, OS/2, and then Gnome and KDE.

I'm so glad we've graduated from Motif and CDE (and to a much lesser 
extent - Windows before XP).

I like functional, but I also like attractive.

 > I got burnt out. Now, user
> interfaces rank up there with toe-nail clipping on the interest scale.
> I regularly switch between Windows (at work), Mac, Gnome and KDE and
> barely notice the difference. I use mostly Web apps and emacs (another
> religious war-starter), anyway. What's under the app window is
> irrelevant.

I like the concept of Web apps. I've played with the Google office 
stuff, but there's still something about having the app on your hard 
drive that appeals to me.

As far as Emacs goes (I assume you were talking about the Emacs - Vi(m) 
wars),  I have no opinion.  Each is far too complex for me. I prefer 
Kate  or Gedit in Linux and Notepad++ in Windows.


> 
> If I designed an ideal user interface, it would probably resemble Mac
> OS X (God intended application menus to be on the top of the screen,
> in my opinion), but with no icons on the desk at all.

I didn't think OS X had any desktop icons.

 > Completely
> blank. And then I'd use something very similar to Quicksilver to
> launch applications. Type one keystroke and then start typing the name
> of the application and hit enter once recognized. But it would run on
> Linux, not locked down with Apple's proprietary formats and DRM. I
> haven't found it yet.

I'm not sure you ever will.  :-)  Windows Vista (I'm running the beta) 
does have a nice "type the name of the app and launch it" feature now, 
which I really like.

I tend to not limit myself to one OS or interface.  If I could afford a 
Mac Pro, I'd be running OS X, Windows XP, Windows Vista, (K)Ubuntu, 
Fedora Core and FreeBSD it.

As it stands right now I'm running (K)Ubuntu, Fedora Core, Windows 
Vista, Windows XP, and FreeBSD.  I'm contemplating Nexenta as well.
> 
> It just occurred to me today that I actually should let my wife and
> kids decide for themselves too, so I put kubuntu-desktop on both of
> our Ubuntu computer and told them how to change the session in gdm.
> It'll be interesting to see which wins.

What if they decide to use both? ;-)

-- 
	Scott
www.angrykeyboarder.com
©2006 angrykeyboarder™ & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved