Joined: Jan. 2008
||Posted: Mar. 01 2008,21:14
I agree with both views that looks are important to inspire, and to make some people feel comfortable in their own home workspace, and that looks, however, can heavily bloat a system.
I'm all for substance, but for beauty from time to time. I find that substance is lacking and that too many distros and OSes are focusing on the looks. Beauty is great when doing web browsing and that sort of stuff. Most of the time or even all the time, however, I turn all that junk off because I don't like lag. Why wait for a cube to turn to change workspace when I can simply change workspace with a click? Why wait for a theme to load when I don't have to?
No offense to Mac people, but I think OS X triggered the beauty contest. Macs have a balance between beauty and function, which makes them popular; nonetheless, I find OS X to be very bloated compared to OS 9. Why?
Windows 9x, aside from the crashes and viruses, works very smoothly and does a lot of things well on a 486. Why does WindowsXP and up feel very bloated?
For those OSes like Ubuntu that are for the general masses, it's normal that they will try to make their OSes look beautiful like a brand new car. They are trying to show that a Linux OS can be as great, as easy or better than ___. In some ways that's great because mentioning Linux instead of Windows or Mac will scare less people.
DSL has a specific niche; it isn't Ubuntu for that reason. I find DSL is okay the way it is in terms of look; it is bare, fast and bloat free. If someone wants to make it beautiful afterwards, it will be their choice. Perhaps there can be a beauty package or site for those who want to turn DSL into their own beautiful workspace.