It’s too difficult to change themes!
Posted by: bigbolshevik in Worst reasons why Linux isn't "desktop-ready"Another week, another blog post by somebody who, although probably a nice person, really hasn’t taken much time to look at Ubuntu before pronouncing it "Not ready for the desktop".
This week, we have Christaroz.
I was forced to go find and install them myself, which wouldn’t be an
issue if Ubuntu made sense when it installed things, but it’ doesn’t,
because programs don’t install into a main folder like they do with
Windows.
Why does it matter where the programs get installed to, when they:
a. Appear in your Applications menu
b. Are launchable by typing their name into the Alt-F2 "Run" dialog
c. Disclose their location inside Synaptic, for the people who really really want to look for some unusual reason
I don’t know. On Linux, you do not need to know where any programs get installed to. So why complain when, with good reason, they install to locations where other Linux programs can easily find them?
Then there’s customization issue. Windows ships with at least a handful
of different themes and backgrounds. Not so with Ubuntu. Want to change
a theme? Good luck. Background? No so hard, but you’ll have to find the
picture yourself.
Ubuntu ships with a handful of different themes. Here’s a list:
1. Clearlooks
2. Human
3. Crux
4. Glider
5. Glossy
6. High Contrast
7. High Contrast (Big Icons)
8. Mist
Windows comes with three - Luna, Olive, and the metal one. Oh, and the Windows 95 theme that is still available in Vista for some reason.
Go to System > Preferences > Appearance and you get a list and sample of them all. Click each one to see it apply in real-time to your desktop. It’s not so much "If you want to change a theme, good luck" as "If you want to complain about Linux, good luck trying to claim that theme-changing is hard".
Installing new themes is ridiculously easy, too. Download a theme package to your hard disk. Drag it onto the Appearance window. You’re done. You simply cannot get more intuitive than that. For those Windows users who haven’t realised you can drag and drop, there’s also an "Install Theme…" button in Appearance.
There are only two desktop backgrounds, but you can add more exactly the same as with the themes.
Screen saver? There are several to choose from, but they’re horrible.
I think Windows’ preinstalled screensavers are crap too; the guy who wrote "Pipes" must’ve been smoking a few of them. But if I was to carefully make a case that Windows is a terrible operating system, I wouldn’t even mention the preinstalled screensavers. Screensavers are useless these days, and the idea behind the screen-saver is that *it only runs when you’re away from your computer*. Who cares what it looks like? Especially since most people just turn off their monitors when they’re not in use.
I don’t have a lot of objection to the rest of the article, but unfortunately there’s not a lot else in the article. I guess it goes to prove my theory: If inconsequential complaints that "xyz is different to Windows" are the worst that these people can come up with, then it truly means that GNU/Linux can be used by all.
Side note: I met a guy on Sunday who tried Ubuntu and then found he didn’t like it because - the only reason he gave - "It doesn’t open the application menu when you press Windows-Escape". Which apparantly happens on Windows. Sabayon is his favourite Linux distribution for this reason, but he just uses Windows. With the Windows 95 theme. Oh, and he has both a 160 gig Tivo and a 500 gigabyte twin-HD Blu-ray recorder; when I pointed out that the Tivo was redundant, he said that he wanted the Tivo because it gives him suggestions of what to watch. I didn’t bother to point out that he doesn’t need Blu-ray because his TV is a 51cm CRT…
Entries (RSS)