Whitney Callaway wrote: > A wallpaper is not going to make Ubuntu more beautiful. Give Ubuntu the > most beautiful wallpaper in the world and not only will passer-bys not > be duped that the wallpaper is not connected to the OS, but you will > take away Ubuntu's striking "brown."
It *is* the *first* thing people see. For a live CD in inexperienced hands, it remains exactly what they see! I did not say it would make it beautiful I think I said it was not as good as dapper ubuntu for example. I did not say to remove the brown. I am certainly not suggesting a complete makeover. Any way I personally do not favour the Mac looks. Dapper Kubuntu and Ubuntu were subtle, and compared well with suse 10.1 for example. I regularly show demos in public and the standard Edgy offering is not attractive to *look* at. Dapper was not bad at all. I look at a number of distros and occasionally demo them also. We need branding, and 'Brown ' is part of Ubuntu's. Personally I dont go for it, but that is life, it does not bother me. Something *can* be done about the attention and class that go into the initial face of the distro though It is not a technical matter and has a big visual effect. This is a marketing list after all. > So, to make Ubuntu more beautiful, let's look at the most beautiful and > try to trump it Was that not done for edgy? >.. I think we can all agree that the most beautiful is > the mac. Not for me. We are not competing with Apple though are we? > The mac is not beautiful by a wallpaper, it knows you'll change > it very quickly. I have come accross Mac/s on a few occasions only - a friends, and atthe Apple shop in Leeds I think (buying another (2nd) ipod). Interestingly, I was turned against the Mac because of the bland wallpaper which was probably the default. I have spending power. I am a registered apple customer (twice) and I used a Mac in the shop to do things. I came away not feeling good about the blank screens! I dont care about apple though. I care about Ubuntu family of products. Mac users even new ones already are committed - they are spending a lot of money and - are committed. We are 'selling' Ubuntu to masses of people who already use computers, have already paid for them and at any one time not many want to go out on a limb and change anything. Ordinary people. > It is beautiful because it does all those "wow" things > with its menus and toolbars. I do not call that beauty though, I would call that fun, yes let us have fun also. It should be easier to arrange a couple of attractive classy wallpapers than to add a whole swathe of new functions. > Ubuntu starts out with its menus very similar to Windows, which I think > is best to get the user started. And later you can have it mimic mac. > But to make it beautiful, Ubuntu is going to have to stop mimicing > others at some point and be beautiful in its own matter. > > So daydream, and suggest this in an upcoming version. I hear Feisty is > going to be big on end user stuffs, but you'd have to get your thoughts > in soon, and it may still not make it till a later version. That's okay. > Haste makes waste. :) What are you saying? I *am* getting my opinion in, now, here, against resistance it seems. Wallpaper looks It is a management issue, it is not a coding topic. Marketing priority. Marketing list, marketing opinion. Feisty has got to work, and work good, but it would be best if it looks better when you start it as a live CD and as a default. I see what people do when they choose a CD - the K/Ubuntu sipit packs look like polished retail items, and they are the focus of attention, an dit is not obviously because the distro is better. On a table in a pack it just looks the best. (My opinion also helps..... :-) ) An undiluted *selling* point to people is looks. Teh packs are good, I want to see the deafault wallpare top class, so that people do *not* want to change it. -- alan cocks Linux registered user #360648 -- ubuntu-marketing mailing list ubuntu-marketing@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing
