Linux is Ugly. Thank Goodness for AIR

Posted on by

Linux is Ugly. Thank Goodness for AIRSometime this year when AIR becomes truly cross platform (Mac, Windows, and Linux) it’s going to open up a whole new world to designers: Linux. I’ve been using Linux as my secondary machine at home the past couple of weeks and it’s been working really well. I still have to Google a lot but I’m generally getting more comfortable with the terminal commands and switching back and forth between the terminal and the package manager. As I’ve mentioned before Ubuntu makes a lot of Linux easy. But there’s a problem, Linux applications are damn ugly. They have this kind of semi Windows 95 feel to them that gives some geek cred but isn’t at all pleasing to the eye. Take a look at the Rythmbox Music Player (the design of the site is a perfect representation) that is default player for MP3s. That’s developer art at its finest.

One of the most important aspects of rich Internet applications to me is the leap that it’s helping us take when it comes to user experience. We can just do more (which can be good and bad) and applications look more natural, more intuitive and richer. One of the reason I’m such a fan of Windows Vista is because it looks so much better than other operating systems. But Linux is lagging far behind because the only people that use applications for Ubuntu tend to be developers. That’s why I’m stoked about AIR for Linux down the road.

Linux users are already experiencing the UI revolution inside of their browsers but with AIR designers can start to leave their mark on Linux on the desktop. RIA developers and designers are going to keep creating really cool UI and pushing the boundaries of user experience but now those applications will look exactly the same on Linux as they do on Mac or Windows. As far as I can tell it’s going to be a 10-year advancement for interfaces on Linux. I think it’s going to make Linux look more friendly and more usable for people like me who want their stuff to look nice. I genuinely think AIR can lower some of the intimidation of using Linux by lowering the barrier to well-designed applications. That’s good for everyone.

[tags]Linux, rich Internet applications, user interface, ubuntu, Adobe AIR[/tags]

Related posts:

  1. What are Linux Users Going to Bitch About when there is a 64 bit Flash Player?
  2. Moonlight Demos (Silverlight on Linux)
  3. More Attention for Linux Flash
  4. If Adobe gets Linux, they win
  5. The Linux Response to Flash Player 9 (They Love It)
  • mattjpoole

    *shock* Linux is a local OS for local people, we dont want to make it look too good, the beautiful people might start building wizards that obscure our view of the terminal…

    … apologies for the sarcasm, but this article may seem a little rich to some linux purists… not that I’m one GO AIR w00t!!

  • http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com Ryan Stewart

    Haha, “this article may seem a little rich to some linux purists”

    I see what you did there :)

    And hey, if the Linux people hate beautiful things…well that sucks for them.

  • Luke

    Ryan, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Remember that saying? Its not up to you to decide what is ‘beautiful’ and what is not. I have my own taste to make that decision for me, I do not need yours.

    I think my Ubuntu desktop is quite ‘beautiful’. I guess you haven’t found out how to ‘tweak’ your desktop yet to fully appreciate to beauty of a Gnome desktop. Thats OK, its a common Linux beginners mistake…

  • http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com Ryan Stewart

    I totally agree, in fact this article is great – http://www.taimila.com/?q=node/11 – it shows you how to make your Ubuntu desktop look like OSX.

    I don’t think every Linux user is going to want to install a bunch of “beautiful” AIR applications but for beginners like me who want to add a little pizzaz and make it feel more inviting, using AIR is a great way to go.

  • mattjpoole

    lol, pun not intened, I wish I could say it was… but no.

    But my underlying point (not too underlying I hope) remains the same. There’s almost a tangible feeling of mistrust of attempts to un-geekify linux (amongst people I know) – its almost as if techinical elistism (read “innaccessibilty to the average user”) is their only excuse for not using Windows (or Mac)

  • Robbie

    Indeed, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think Ryan you’re focusing to much on how something looks. Most Linux user have a distinct focus on function. That’s one reason that some programs look rather oldish, it accomplishes what one wants and in the case of Rhythmbox that’s listening and managing music. (While not taking to much memory and processing cycles). And if you want a beautiful media player, just install songbird…

    Take for instance word processing, while it’s relatively simple and straight forward, due to the constant beautification of wordprocessors one seems to forget what it’s all about (writing stuff). Some may like it, but in some cases I even prefer Latex. Why, because it’s function is enough and it’s ‘beauty’ doesn’t hinder me in my thought process.

    If Air can bring new functions to the linux desktop that’s great and if it looks pretty fine.

  • http://www.dustypixels.com Adam

    Hmmm, it mostly looks that way because you’re using the default human gnome theme, if you play with your theme settings (check out gnome-look.org) it can look completely different. There’s piles of OSX & Vista copies on there if that’s what you prefer. Alternatively switch to KDE and get a whole new UI (although I don’t find it as nice as Gnome), or try one of the free alternatives apps such as Amarok or Songbird. You’re not short of options for making it ‘less ugly’, and as ugly is so subjective isn’t this a good thing?

    On the flip side of your argument, if I do like the UI and the way I have it set up will Air apps pick any of this styling up and blend in (doubt it, but may be wrong?) or will they force the designers concept on me? Am I going to have to customise the look of each app individually (if the dev even gives me the option) to get it to look the way I want? Could this not end up uglier in the long run, as there’s no UI guidelines across OS’s so we end up with a whole bunch of Air apps that look nice but don’t really feel right in any OS (or more likely fit nicely with OSX as thats where most of the designers work, but look out of place in Win/Lin)?

    Don’t get me wrong, can’t wait for Air on Linux so I can use it to make stuff, but not sure claiming it to be the saviour of Linux because you don’t like the way it currently looks is a viable argument :)

  • http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com Ryan Stewart

    @Robbie, I’m installing Songbird as we speak, I’d forgotten about that, so thanks. And I do focus on how things look, it’s why I like RIAs so much.

    @Adam, that’s a *really* interesting discussion because your assumption is right, AIR doesn’t follow the standard chrome rules. I think it’s unfortunate that AIR breaks the paradigms of UI desktop development so badly when it comes to using the native look and feel. I think the good outweighs the bad in that case, but yup, AIR applications will look and feel totally different from each other depending on what the designer wants.

    In some ways this is just an extension of the web and so it fits with where AIR is coming from. But it does go against the grain of traditional desktop UI theory. What do you think?

  • Robert Hirst

    AIR on Linux is definitely something I’m looking forward to, together with fully functional Flex Builder 3 (including design mode) and a fix for the WMODE=transparent issue. Once we have all of these things I’m sure us Linux users will no longer feel like second class citizens in the Flex world. Great progress is happening and it’s really good to see.

    And although it’s possible to produce beautiful native Linux applications, AIR will definitely reduce the effort required considerably, which can only be a good thing.

  • http://www.figital.com Scott Fitchet

    The best initial use of any Flex app running on a Linux box would be in the service configuration realm. Just building apps to improve the usability of config tools for your desktop, service, and network interfaces would be a huge gain (which are usually just text files and simple shell scripts).

  • http://www.simplifiedchaos.com Todd

    I’ve been touting one of the potentials of AIR as being a cross-platform application dev environment for awhile. Wanting to build software that runs on Windows and OSX was pretty important to me when I started my last project. I looked at wxWindows, (with wxPython), but the applications look too outdated (probably a lot like those old Linux programs). QT is C++ overkill for most projects (they have a new Java version, but I don’t know anything about it, but they do support multi-threading and hardware accelerated graphics). AIR, though, looks pretty promising for a blend of ease of programming (like Visual Basic, WinForms, or Delphi back in the day), but with the ability to run it cross-platform. But in it’s current state, it’s pretty crippled for building full desktop application development. I’m hoping this will change in the future…

    I believe Adobe opted to cripple AIR because of security so that applications can be installed from a web browser. A big mistake because this is going to hinder it’s acceptance in the corporate environment and AIR could go by the way as another nice little thing. (Remember Active-X installing from the browser? Bad-Idea. And soon, after the first mean Adobe AIR apps are released into the wild security vendors (AVG, McAFee, Norton, SpyBot) will be disabling the installation of AIR applications, and then even home users won’t be able to install AIR applications from the web browser.) Installing an AIR application from a web browser doesn’t look anything like installing a Desktop application with a native app on neither OSX or windows. It looks like it’s own scary spyware infested thing. (My beef, not others) If AIR didn’t support this web-based install, Adobe could have then put things in it like the ability to run other native executables, making embedding things like local Python business level integration code much easier and scripts that need to spawn RSYNC processes or whatever…And if Adobe made it so that installing AIR applications looked just like installing native apps, then users would be more aware of what they’re installing could potentially damage their system. So, what we’re left with now is a crappy compromise: Users can still unwittingly install software that could delete all their images, grab their tax files and send them over the net to a third-world country, etc.; developers can’t access other native resources for building powerful software.

    Adobe, though, could take the bull by the horn, promote creating and installing AIR apps as native applications, add the ability to run other programs, etc., maybe come up with some multi-threaded support, hardware-based graphics…and then it’ll be looking really good. Granted, AIR is 1.0, so I’m giving Adobe the benefit of the doubt that they’re working on this and will eventually someday get there. It seems most of the mid-twenty somethings, that have only been around 4 or 5 years, really love the Install Now Web Badge. (I’m curious myself as to how this will shake out.)

    Right now, we’re left to hack the install process ourselves since Adobe isn’t really pushing people to build DMG and .MSI (or exe) installs (maybe this is coming in the final product?). They’re really promoting that bad idea of web-based installs. Savy developers, build our own AIR-like functionality by embedding Flash players in .NET applications hosting I.E. for windows and something equivalent on MAC (dont know what it is yet) to take advantage of building spectacular UIs with the Flex framework and the power of Native apps…(I’m seeing this in being done in the Financial industry).

    Flex is definitely one of the best user-facing technologies. AIR promises to bring this to application development. Once we’re passed the whole necessity of installing from the web-browser and Adobe adds the real power needed to create real desktop applications…then we’ll be there.

    It’s a good start, though. (I don’t want to be too critical and make it sound like I dislike the product — I don’t, of course.)

    Oh, and one point that people are saying about the apps needing to look native to the OS they’re running on…I used to think this, and for a long time this was developer convention — follow the OS Standards. But a rich Internet really changed all that. And then, after using Google’s Picassa, or even the new Microsoft Office 2007, I think having each application follow a specific OS look has quickly become an outdated addage. Each app is designed for what it is trying to do. For example, everyone I’ve ever shown Google Picassa to just went bonkers at how fast it scrolled thorugh images and how easy it was to make basic color corrections. No one ever said to me, “but it doesn’t look like a windows application, it doesn’t have windows buttons or scrollbars” Granted, this sometimes backfires a bit, like with MSFT Office 2007, which I’m still struggling to get “comfortable” in. Nonetheless, MSFT set the standards for applications not “needing” to look native anymore on their OS. And then take into the fact that so many applications, like WinAmP, Trillian, Firefox, etc. can be skinned and I’m really not seeing the validity of having an application look “native” anymore, why go through the pain of providing skinnable interfaces just so the user can change the look and feel?

    Of course, in three years, none of my arguments will matter. We’ll have a spectacular cross-platform application development environment.

  • http://mndoci.com Deepak

    I actually prefer the look at feel of Linux to that of Windows any day, so it is quite subjective. Linux desktops have always been quite cool. Plus the best part about Linux … the shell. In fact the #1 reason I like OSX is the fact that I can stay in a shell

    Regardless, having Air apps (e.g. Thwirl) on Linux only make it that much more useful.

  • http://www.bobjim.com Ryan Campbell

    haha.. man Linux is a touchy subject. Calling Linux ugly is like calling their baby ugly. I do understand your point though. Linux apps are built by developers and adding AIR to Linux with bring apps built by designers.

    I think the great thing about AIR on Linux is if you can find enough AIR apps to manage your daily life, why bother paying for OS X or Windows when you can get all the same great apps on Linux.

  • http://www.w3rep.cn/blog Francis

    Oh,After one years of using Ubuntu, I think it doesn’t fit for me.

    The terminal commands doesn’t convenient as GUI…

    Maybe when I pass the finnal examine and attend to university,I will buy a Macbook , :D

  • Richard Chapman

    @Ryan Campbell
    Actually calling Linux ugly is somewhat of a complement. The command line was never meant to be beautiful.

    @Ryan Stewart
    I once spent some time with a guy from Colorado. He was ugly. Everyone from Colorado is ugly. I once bought a “painting” from a art supply store. It was really ugly. All paintings are ugly. I once installed Gnome. I used the Gnome GDM. I used the Gnome workspaces. I used the Gnome menu. I used the Gnome wallpaper. I used the Gnome fonts. It was all ugly. Linux is ugly. I hope this helps you see the glaring mistake in your unfortunate choice of words in the title of this article. If not, I’ll make it clear.

    Linux is a kernel. I know, I know, its become the generic term for GNU/Linux. That’s not a problem, I use it that way my self. But that doesn’t mean Linux is not the kernel. From the title of your article I expected at least some mention of the top 5 or so major desktop environments. You cannot possibly say KDE is ugly by testing Gnome. But that is exactly what you did. In fact you said ALL Linux desktop environments are ugly based solely on your experience with Gnome. If some hapless newbie reads your article, she might just put off trying “Linux” thinking it’s ugly.

    Now, one more piece of information you should know about. With many Linux desktop environments like KDE, Gnome, XFce and ELive, you are given a plain default setup. Sort of like that “painting” I bought at the art supply store. It’s up to you to make it beautiful to your eyes. Yes, it takes a little time and work, but it doesn’t have to be all at once. You were given a set of tools to configure Gnome to your liking. If you failed to do that then some of the blame falls on your shoulders.

  • http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com Ryan Stewart

    @Todd, we’re going to let you create native installers with AIR 1.0 so that you can do all the stuff you mentioned. You can bundle the runtime with your app and wrap it all inside of a DMG or MSI.

    @Richard I only mentioned Ubuntu because it’s what I’ve been running. I’ve seen other versions of the desktop environment and I still think they’re ugly. But other people don’t, and that’s perfectly fine. I realize that a lot of the Linux community doesn’t want to see their stuff fluffed up. But I do. And I don’t think I can be totally alone on this one. And there are a lot of benefits for AIR, I’m just really exited about this one.

  • Richard Chapman

    “Gnome is Ugly. Thank Goodness for Air”

    That’s as simple as I can say it. You cannot say Linux is ugly unless you make an effort to include other desktops. You don’t understand because you are coming from a monoculture mindset. You’ve never been part of a multicultural environment like Linux. I takes a while to learn the “language”. Say what you want comparing Gnome to Air, but you are saying nothing about Linux. Now before you label me as a Gnome firebrand, I can’t stand it. I use KDE. But your title says KDE is ugly too and I saw no mention of you trying KDE. Change one word in your title and I wouldn’t have even bothered commenting.

  • Yann

    Hi Ryan,

    I’m a french ubuntu user for 2 years now. I switched from Windows because I was tired to defragment my hdd, install anti virus, getting spyware, malware, adware,ware :D . I’m a flash flex coder, as my job, and truly love it. I do like butiful look and feel and I think that Gnome is getting older :D , but check what’s coming : http://www.cimitan.com/blog/2007/12/12/gtk-rgba-transparent-widgets-with-the-murrine-engine/

    And trust Canonical to make the next Ubuntu LTS release a lot more than the past ones. Keep us up-to-date in April …

  • Yann

    Btw,

    Can’t want to see AIR on my desktop, one of my reason to boot from time to time on Windows, just to check demos :D

  • http://ivangrob.com/ Inav Grobov

    I like Linux (Suse or Ubuntu), it more flexible. Windows look more ugly, but it is more convenient in work.

  • juup

    Linux is HORRIBLE in every way. And worst of all, you can spend months rying to fix it and you still on’t find decent icons or themes or windows frames or anything.

    It is by definition a toy for the nerds and freaks, and everyone knows that they have a horrible taste and no notion of aesthetics.

    Horrible like a nightmare it is. I am phobic to Linux arghhh.