What is it about Gnome or KDE that makes the GUi interface look primitive?

[beer]

I've played with some Mandrake and lately some Fedora.

There's something about the user interface that just irks me. Maybe it's the fonts, maybe it's settings, whatever - but on gnome or KDE, the default desktops, and even with the more obvious tweaks, seem to look so 'primitive.' Is it that the fonts are larger because they get fuzzy when you scale them down enough? Maybe it's that the dialog boxes are too large or cumbersome?

How do I make the desktop sharper, cleaner and more modern and functional?

 

[Diz2K2]

I hear what your saying. Currently have Fedora Core 3 on a system. To me it is the fonts and the lack of sharpness. Other than that, I have to admit I like Linux alot. I'm hopeful someone more experience with Linux can assist.

 

[ColKurtz]

Maybe it's because you're too fussy? : )

Seriously, my guess it would be because Window managers are designed to be low resource hogs, and because the Linux community avoided the cartoony, crisp window managers as being too MS-ish? Have you tried different themes? Some are definately better looking than the defaults that come with Gnome/KDE. Try Enlightenment.

 

[Sunner]

For KDE, maybe MK Ultra would be your kind of theme.
Don't know if it's still maintained, but you could try searching for it at kde-look.org, or Google for that matter

 

[hopejr]

This is mainly what turned me off Linux and made me go back to Windows (even though I much rather the back end of Linux to the back end of Windows). Then I got a mac.

 

[KB]

Just because the interface doesn't use MS Sans Serif fonts doesn't mean it is primitive. If you like windows so much, you should try the XP Desktop Environment http://www.xpde.com/index.php.

I like the Cruzer theme in gnome and think it looks very professional.
I also shrink my taskbar because the huge taskbar makes the icons look big and cartoonish.

 

[Haden]

I didn't like defaults either, however I'm not sure you mean same things, does this look "normal"? {As I've switched to LCD I'm using antialiased fonts, on CRT however I didn't like look they give}

 

[Sunner]

I use the same fonts as SuSE does, except reduced somewhat in size.
I like them alot

 

[drag]

Geez.

Nobody expects you to actually use the default look and feel! It's a generic most-likely-to-be-corporate-friendly.

Bluecurve?? Blueblah.

For fonts you can use any truetype font. These are the most common....

To add fonts you can copy the ttf files to a directory in your home directory called ~/.fonts

if it doesn't exist make it, and copy your fonts to it. For system wide use of fonts put them into /usr/share/fonts

Then they should be used automaticly. Check out the http://www.dustismo.com/ fonts. Some of them are nice.

If your using Gnome check out gdesklets. for little eye candy do-dads.
For borders, icons, and widgits check out http://art.gnome.org/ for Gnome stuff.

For KDE they have their own setups.

however if you want to have realy nice stuff to look at your going to have to get away from Gnome and KDE a bit.

I installed and played around with the new Enlightenment DR17 enviroment. It's in alpha stage, and is not that usable and has to be compiled from CVS. But it's neat to look at. The little borders shimmer and it has a dock that is fancy looking and it's all OpenGL.

To get a good idea of what is possible check out these movies


The sky is the limit for what you can do. You can make it look like Windows, you can make it look like OSX
you same window mananger, afterstep. Just different setup.

Everybody is different and your desktop is designed specificly for your needs, wants.
this is the from Gentoo developers. Each one is like a fingerprint.

Even minimalist Window managers like here are a bunch of screenshots have almost unlimited variations.


You don't want to give up the convienence of a modern desktop, but you want something fast? fluxbox it's XFCE.

Then again there is minimal, and then there is [L=MINIMALIST]http://www.nongnu.org/ratpoison/shot2.png">here you go</a>.

that's ratpoison. No titlebar, no menubar, no nothing, no anything. HELL its is a Window Manager that doesn't even have WINDOWS! It's ratpoison.

A person could spend a month easy just screwing around with the GUI.

 

[hopejr]

When I used to use linux, I installed all the windows fonts and used them instead. But it still wasn't what I wanted (I initially thought it was the fonts). I think the issue was more the feel than the look. I'd been using Windows for years and still liked the feel of it. However, I now don't like the feel of Windows anymore and feel it clumsy after using OS X. Linux now feels even worse.

That xpde project looks quite good, and may get me using linux again, but, it's too much like windows now.

 

[drag]

Your nuts.

For me I can't stand working with anything other then my own bastardized version of Gnome. OS X comes in second, and Windows a distant third...

For instance the dock in OS X sucks. I dont' like docks, and there is some perverse fascination with them for many computer users.

When I am designing my personal GUI I like to keep things minimal. I get rid of the task bar completely and go with a panel at the top only. I use Gnome enviroment because of it's mime detection and easy way to setup window handling key combos. The application menus go in the upper left. A OS 9 style drop down window selector in the upper right. Next to that battery indicators and network activity applets and the workspace selector. Then in the middle commonly used applications such as browser, emailer, and especially terminal.

Right now I have nautilus turned off. Ubuntu has a "places" menu and a trash applet. I have a launcher to launch nautilus in Window-mode so that it doesn't take over the desktop.

Thats for my Ibook.

For my desktop I mess around more. I have a much faster video card and CPU so that I can mess around with stuff a bit more.

Sometimes I enable a 3d desktop changer, similar (I think) to 10.3's 3d userchanger animation, but it came out long time before that thing appeared. Also other gimmiks like xdesktopwaves were it makes my backround look like a pool and the pointer and windows make waves as you move them around.

There are other niceties like the ability to run multiple X servers. I have a dual monitor setup that I use for desktop use, but then I have a entirely seperate desktop that is running on only one monitor for FPS games and such. It's nice because I can then run dual monitors and then a single monitor at the same time and switch back and forth. Nice for changing songs or checking e-mail and such during lulls gameplay.

I also like the ability to run applications off of a remote computer. I'll even run entire desktops from my laptop on my desktop for a lark.


That XDPE is ok, but it seems more like a gimmick then anything else. It would be usefull for specific circumstances, but it's to much like Windows for everyday use.

I suppose it's just what your use to. Each GUI enviroment is fairly different, even though most linux distros try to be somewhat familar for Windows users. If your use to Windows, then the things widnows does well stand out more when your in a enviroment that doesn't do that stuff so well. Same thing with OS X. I don't like the rigidness and inflexibility that enviroments other then X Windows offer.


Also Linux desktop is evolving at a rapid pace. Gnome's Mime detection is very good and safe. 2.6 kernel's scedeluars improved responsiveness quite a bit, now a CPU under load won't cause excessive lag in moving around windows. If your using a Nvidia card you get extra 2-d performance and they are working on backends for X.org that utilize 3d OpenGL acceleration without having to have any applications be re-written. Stuff like that. Font's are now easy to do and are generally rendered correctly. Stuff like that.

 

[Nothinman]

What is it about Gnome or KDE that makes the GUi interface look primitive?

It's you. I really don't like the look of KDE/QT but IMO Gnome/GTK looks a lot better than Windows.

 

[MournSanity]

I don't think mine looks primitive

It's just you.

 

[hopejr]

I'm just hell picky when it comes to GUIs, and no matter how much I configure KDE and Gnome, they still don't get to the stage I like.

 

[Nothinman]

But it's all about perspective, if you would take the time to just use them you would get used them and then it would be Windows that looks like crap. Especially since Windows dialogs are so slow and have such a high tendency to hang for a few seconds when you click on certain things even when no network connectivity should be necessary.

 

[spyordie007]

You are nuts. I dont run Linux for a lot of my day-to-day stuff, but I do play around with it as time permits. There are so many GUI engines, options, etc. and it's all in the eye of the beholder. If you're using Linux and you think the GUI is "primative" it probably means you need to play around with a differant one (as many people have already suggested).

Especially since Windows dialogs are so slow and have such a high tendency to hang for a few seconds when you click on certain things even when no network connectivity should be necessary.

It sounds kind of like you're describing the default slow menu fade behavior in Windows (though that wouldnt generate network activity). By default Windows takes 400 ms to fade in menu items; one of the first things I do is drop this down to a reasonable ~25 ms:
HKCU\Control Panel\Desktop
Set "MenuShowDelay" to the time (in ms) you want the fade items to take coming in. You can also disable this entirely in display properties>appearance>effects.

 

[Nothinman]

It sounds kind of like you're describing the default slow menu fade behavior in Windows (though that wouldnt generate network activity).

No, I mean things like when you click on the drive drop down menu and it hangs while it has to touch each mapped drive for no good reason.

 

[hopejr]

I used Linux for about a year on my home PC. That long period of time didn't get me to like it.

 

[Nothinman]

That's fine, to each his own. But instead of bitching, how about doing something to fix it?

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

It sounds kind of like you're describing the default slow menu fade behavior in Windows (though that wouldnt generate network activity).

No, I mean things like when you click on the drive drop down menu and it hangs while it has to touch each mapped drive for no good reason.

FWIW I get this too, happens now and then.
Annoying, but since I don't use my Windows boxes too much, aside from for my gaming needs, it's no biggie

 

[IGBT]

...I always thought KDE looked great..If I were to go w/mandrake I'd use KDE..has a mac kind of look doesn't it??

 

[cmv]

Originally posted by: beer
I've played with some Mandrake and lately some Fedora.

There's something about the user interface that just irks me. Maybe it's the fonts, maybe it's settings, whatever - but on gnome or KDE, the default desktops, and even with the more obvious tweaks, seem to look so 'primitive.' Is it that the fonts are larger because they get fuzzy when you scale them down enough? Maybe it's that the dialog boxes are too large or cumbersome?

How do I make the desktop sharper, cleaner and more modern and functional?

It's not Microsoft Windows XP. I know, I know. Seriously though, if you use Windows enough, Linux just looks wierd. It's the same thing with Mac users. I happen to use both Windows and Linux extensively and my opinion is that Linux looks different because:

- font smoothing isn't as good (subjective opinion -- I prefer XP's ClearType)

That is pretty much my #1 beef. At one point, I had just the right version of the Freetype library compiled on my system with the perfect tweaks (enabled the proprietary/patented render and what not) and it was beautiful on Slackware 10. Then I upgraded about 6 months later and it was never the same.

I don't think it is only the font smoothing though. Font rendering in Linux just isn't as nice. Small fonts don't look good. The default (not TTF fonts) are ugly. Even the Bitstream fonts aren't very nice compared to the default fonts on Windows.

Don't get me wrong, I love Linux but I really hate the font rendering situation.

 

[drag]

Well Linux's fonthandling is now actually pretty decent.

I don't know about KDE stuff, but if your using Gnome you can adjust how the different fonts are rendered with gnome-font-properties

They have "monochrome", "Best Contrast", "Best Shapes", and Subpixel smoothing. This will affect any GTK based application and probably many others.

To install new fonts you simply copy your truetype fonts to your ~/.fonts directory in your home directory. The . before the name makes it hidden so you have to use "ls -a" to see it, instead of the normal "ls". These files/directories are generally were your user preferences are kept since they have no rights to anything outside of /tmp and their home directory (usually).

If you don't have that directory you can simply make one with "mkdir ~/.fonts"


For system wide fonts you copy them to /usr/share/fonts and /usr/local/share/fonts. This behavior is dictated by the /etc/fonts/fonts.conf
The Fonts are automaticly made aviable to your applications.

The days of having to muck around with the font sections in /etc/X11/XF86Config and crap like "mkfontdir" are over, except for some legacy stuff. You'd still want to have a font server if you have a bunch of "thin" X Clients, possibly.

More information is avaible at here for Fontconfig (which is what part of the OS that deals with /etc/fonts/* stuff.)


Freetype is the actual subsystem that takes care of the actual rendering of truetype fonts.
you can find more about that here.

If your a computer art type of person (I've actually taken classes were it was nothing except discussion about fonts) you'll find it interesting about the history of fonts on the PC with things like Adobe reverse engineering propriatory standards, Type1 vs Truetype fonts, the rise and fall of amaturish trash fonts and stuff like that. *nix stuff doesn't deal well with conflicting propriatory/commercial closed standards (not to mention patent issues, too) and that combined with X Window's traditional history of legacy overload from bad design choices helps to explain a bit about why Linux's font handling got so out of wack for a long time.

There are a few places you can go to to find fonts. All you need is the *.ttf files, any ttf file weither they are "Mac" or "Windows" fonts will work. (that usually refers to weither they are in a Zip file or a Stufit file. I don't know much about uncompressing weird Mac packages though.)

some fonts
some information on fonts at least were to get fonts. (don't worry to much when they mention things like xfs font server and such.)
Bitstream Vera fonts
Dustismo fonts
more font links

Just download them, unzip them, and copy the ttf files to your .font directory and your set.

Of course you can use those fonts on Windows and Mac desktops, too. Good fonts are critical if your into digital artwork...

 

[Chaotic42]

My Debian Gnome fonts look pretty good.

 

[cmv]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
My Debian Gnome fonts look pretty good.

That is about the best I ever got. The left of the "l" (that's lower case L) in the title bar and the "fat" on the upper left and lower left of the "G" is annoying. Can you tell I'm really pick about it?

I appreciate the long post drag but I've tried ALL of that. Honestly. I've been using Linux for a long time (10 years? 9 years?). I've tried the recent Gnome and KDE improvements. I'll have to try them again once I get DVI working with my new LCD (port is broken on my refurbed card, time to shop).

Honestly, things have been getting better and better with fonts but it is slow going.