The big news out of the Ubuntu world this month is the radically refurbished look introduced to accompany Lucid when it’s released in April, replacing the orange-brown “Human” theme that Ubuntu users have known and loved–or not–since 2004. Here’s a look at the new face of Ubuntu, with an attempt at abstract thoughts related to it.
Ubuntu’s traditional theme never enjoyed universal acceptance. For some users, earth tones just didn’t look right on an LCD display. For others, there wasn’t enough contrast between colors.
Personally, I grew to like the Human theme, despite all the controversy. I can’t say I was in love with it at first sight, but it grew on me–and not only because the orange-on-brown color scheme brought pleasant thoughts of the chocolate orange that’s given to me every year at Christmas. Indeed, I suspect that the conventional look grew on a lot of Ubuntu users, if only because they used it long enough that it became familiar and comforting.
After all, as much as we’d like to think otherwise, taste is a construct; we’re conditioned to be attracted to certain styles, and what appeals one day might lose its attractive qualities the next. The beige IBM PS/2 in my basement looked stylish once, too. Now it looks as dull as the Windows 3.1 that it ran.
The New Ubuntu
Regardless of what we think of the Human theme, it’s now on its way to the dustbin of history, to use an overstated phrase. Beginning with Ubuntu 10.04, the operating system will have a radically new look, with the “Ambiance” theme installed by default.
Pictures are worth something like a thousand words, so here’s a more detailed presentation of Ambiance:
The default desktop.
Menu icons.
The alternative wallpapers installed by default--a few additions from Karmic.
Nautilus
Gnome Terminal is transparent by default. Personally, I am not a fan.
I can’t say I feel strongly either way about the new theme at this point. It seems a little too dark, and a little too much like OS X, for my tastes, but I imagine it will grow on me in time. That’s how life works.
In any case, an updated look for Ubuntu was long overdue, if only because the theme had yet to be meaningfully revamped in the six years of Ubuntu’s existence–and in the free-software world, six years, which spanned almost a dozen Ubuntu releases, is a long, long time. In that sense, Ubuntu without a human face can’t hurt.
Read More About This Topic
Share This Post
Tags: Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx
Interact: Add a Comment | Trackback Link | Permalink
Subscribe: RSS Feed
Don't miss Charlene O'Hanlon's weekly columns...
In response to your “It seems a little too dark”: 10.04 will ship with two versions of Ambiance: light and dark. There you only show screenshots of the dark version, which won’t be the default.
I think it takes a little getting used to. I was not sure what make of the purple at first but as the development comes along I am thinking “OS X silhouette anyone.” I am glad that someones experimenting with colors. Change is refreshing … which is why I think it would be great if there were more default themes that rock.
The nice thing about Ubuntu is that it is different.
The new theme isn’t perfect… but it is what Ubuntu needs now
Ubuntu has a new theme with every other release. Who cares?
Have they fixed PulseAudio yet?
Quite Vista looking. As you can see from MS a lighter in tone user interface really changes users opinions on the OS. Going darker is a turn off.
It doesn’t look anything like Vista. I can however see the OS X influence. It’s my experience however that darker themes are an acquired taste adopted by those who realise they’re actually better for the eyes. I personally prefer a darker theme.
However :/ is right. There are more pressing issues Canonical needs to get sorted in 10.04 than just the theme. Canonical for example ditched The Gimp from the default installation complaining they needed to save space. A decision that was deeply unpopular.
There are technical bugs a glitches to fix and I want my Ctrl+Alt+Del functionality restored. The least they could do is make it bring up the log-out dialogue. I would also like the NFS folder sharing GUI restored.
Samba was a nightmare for me. It would be working fine one day and the next I’d have nothing. Both the desktop and laptop would refuse to recognise one another. Which is actually my memory of Windows networking. Someone needs to tell the Samba developers they don’t need to copy everything MS did.
Since I set up my shared folders with NFS I haven’t had a single problem.
I would also just like to add that chocolate orange is just wrong on so many levels.
aikiwolfie:
Are you nuts? Chocolate orange is great..as long as its good dark chocolate. That said, chocolate with chili peppers is better.
-jef
[...] Ubuntu Without a Human Face The big news out of the Ubuntu world this month is the radically refurbished look introduced to accompany Lucid when it’s released in April, replacing the orange-brown “Human” theme that Ubuntu users have known and loved–or not–since 2004. Here’ s a look at the new face of Ubuntu, with an attempt at abstract thoughts related to it. [...]
moving the window controls to the left means yet another thing to fix on a clean install. sigh.
as for the new logo with the tiny ubuntu circle…well, that is gonna look like a blob now because it’ll be too small. And sad to see that xfce is still using the obese pig in its logo…small and fast, yeah right. xfce needs something new.
i’ll follow my new rule with ubuntu…don’t install until 6 weeks after release because it’ll take that long to fix the video, networking, and stability in general.
I’m always struck with how much Linux people get excited over how the desktop looks.
What do Linux people do all day – just look at the desktop?
It’s the applications, not the desktop.
Users use applications, not the desktop, Windows or Linux, it’s the applications.
Reminds me of a ghastly grape-flavored pop, which I must have tasted at some point because I still remember how sickly it was. Call this theme “Gross Me Grape.”
Maybe Canonical can buy Yahoo. That would at least justify the Putrid Purple.
Sorry, but I really like the orange-and-chocolate look. Who doesn’t like chocolate and oranges?
Its replacement, on the other hand, looks like something you’d serve at a Jim Jones going-out-of-business party.
But I suppose I’ll get used to it. Anything is better than blue, and it’s still a great operating system, after all.
People are saying that it’s the applications not the desktop? Last I looked Windows had the same applications on XP, Vista and Windows 7. Yet people love XP and 7 and hate Vista. Why?
Windows 7 is Vista with a new interface. There is not much difference. The interface is the big deal there. Windows 7 looks brighter, cleaner and more inviting.
Its the reason why the iPad will sell like hot cakes while taking Windows and sticking it on a tablet wont. Its the interface.
Where as I love the things that have been done in Ubuntu, I tend to run Fedora because the look and feel is more inviting.
The look and feel above is not Mac like. The Wall paper is sort of Mac like but the rest is not. The thing users like albet played out is silver and black. Mac OS top bar is silver with black txt by default, Windows XP classic mode is silver and black and Windows 7 has a lot of silver, light blues and black. The iPhone OS, lots of greys and blues and some black.
I saw that Ubuntu was going to come out with another theme that was more bright that you could switch to?
From all I’ve read, it’s not the desktop that is the appeal for WinXP and Win7 — rather, it is that those two OSs simply run “better” than Vista, with all that encompasses.
When one is running a spreadsheet, word processor, or browser, the desktop is usually not visible. it is the application that one looks at. That look and feel is a function of the application, not the OS. Look at the differences in application layout between, say, MS Office 2007 and 2003: one has the Ribbon – the other doesn’t. Each has its fans. But what one sees when running an app is generally not a function of the desktop.
As info – I have three computers, and run a different OS on each machine: Linux Mint 6, WinXP, and WinVista. They all have their pluses and minuses. But on all three, I run applications, and see the desktop only at startup.
Applications make an operating system useful. The user interface is what makes the OS enjoyable to use. There’s a reason why so many OSs have soft blue/grey backdrops. Making the computer more pleasant to work with reduces stress. Which makes people more productive.
Blue is a nice, cool, calming pleasant colour. Some might think it to be a bit cold. But the effect it has on the mind is to calm people down and help them focus. Other colours have they same or similar effects. Which is exactly why the earthy browns and oranges of the Human theme grow on people.
They’re not unpleasant to look at. In fact they’re generally really easy on the eyes. But at the same time distinctive enough to set Ubuntu apart from the rest of the ergonomic eye friendly desktops.
The important part is that the colour scheme pushes the right buttons.
aikiwolfie:
Don’t you mean the left buttons?
-jef
“Yet people love XP and 7 and hate Vista. Why?”
Because XP and 7 work well.
“Windows 7 is Vista with a new interface. There is not much difference. The interface is the big deal there. Windows 7 looks brighter, cleaner and more inviting.”
Noooo. Windows 7 has practically the same theme as Vista. People like it because it works better, not because of what it looks like. Have you even used either of them? It has saner defaults, better compatibility, less stupidity.
“taking Windows and sticking it on a tablet wont. Its the interface. ”
You’re confusing user interface with theme. User interface is a matter of function, and is very important, but Canonical does nothing to improve the interface.
Users care about functionality, not prettiness, and that’s why I don’t see why the Linux world gets so excited about Canonical swapping out a few images and colors every year.
You can put lipstick on a pig…
No, I am going to disagree with that conception. If anything, most linux users prefer a good working desktop without the malwares and maintenances. While Windows fans are trying to make the Windows desktop looks like Mac OSX.
The prettiness appeals is revolving around Ubuntu at this specific point in time because in order to make itself popular and draw in new users from other platforms, it needs to look good as well. Ubuntu is not the only linux distro. But looks are a big deal these day for any end users products, both software and hardwares, so Microsoft is not going to revert back to Windows 98 theme for Windows 8 just because it works well for me.
If you need further proof, take a look at the Windows Phones 7, instead of improving from features their WindowsMobile OS currently have, they rather want to copy Apple and introduce a locked down phone that looks pretty. The current consensus is they are taking away features; less customization, no copy and paste function, no multitasking, forcing to sync using the Zune software, no external memory. Even the Windows fans are pissed off.
Because of the open nature of linux, users have many choices and can use dozens of different window managers and desktop environments. Some of these allow users to run a full featured linux in a very old computers. Windows 7 after installed already uses 350mb+ of ram, and that’s after manually removing extra components and services to reduce the install size from 5gb to 2.4gb.
“But what one sees when running an app is generally not a function of the desktop.” All designers should just quit their job right now.
“Noooo. Windows 7 has practically the same theme as Vista. People like it because it works better, not because of what it looks like. Have you even used either of them? It has saner defaults, better compatibility, less stupidity”
No, it practically does not. Vista theme is dark and appeals to video gaming guys inside their bedroom with the curtain closed. Windows 7 theme is brighter and makes you feel less crappy, but not that much less crappy.
Ubuntu looks great once you theme it out exactly like win7.