Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

What Really Happened To Ubuntu's Edgy Artwork?

Posted by kdawson on Tue Nov 14, 2006 09:47 PM
from the more-dapper-than-edgy dept.
angrykeyboarder writes, "Many Ubuntu users expressed surprise, dismay, and disappointment when Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl) nixed the popular community-developed artwork during the beta phase of Ubuntu 6.10 ('The Edgy Eft'). Some Ubuntu community members were downright shocked, and many were ultimately dissatisfied with the final product. What exactly happened? Short answer: the Art Team was less disturbed than some other community members were. Linux.com has the scoop." Slashdot and Linux.com are both part of OSTG.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Linux: Make Linux "Gorgeous," Says Ubuntu Leader 688 comments
OSS_ilation writes "They say beauty is only skin deep, but when it comes to Linux and the free software movement, people like Mark Shuttleworth think looks have an important part to play. On his blog and an article on SearchOpenSource.com, Shuttleworth and a slew of open source end users say that the look and feel of open source is also a matter of wider acceptance among enterprise players who are used to Windows, yet crave Mac OS X and the functionality of Linux. 'If we want the world to embrace free software, we have to make it beautiful,' Shuttleworth said. "We have to make it gorgeous. We have to make it easy on the eye. We have to make it take your friend's breath away.' With the early success of Novell SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10, Shuttleworth and company may be onto something."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • ok, I'm pissed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2006, @09:55PM (#16847816)
    this really pisses me off. Would it be so fucking hard to just fucking link to an example of "edgy art" Jesus. They have links that go to text, and links on the text pages go to more text. Hello? Don't waste my time with this. Just show me the art which is the subject of the article.
    • I found some... (Score:5, Informative)

      by FooAtWFU (699187) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @10:03PM (#16847870) Homepage
      Found some... with some digging. Peace [ubuntu.com], Tropic [ubuntu.com] and Blubuntu [ubuntu.com].
      • Re:I found some... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by kernelpanicked (882802) <kernelpanicked.kernelpanicked@net> on Tuesday November 14 2006, @10:07PM (#16847914)
        Of course Shuttleworth would hate the Blubuntu theme. My god, I mean, if that got out Ubuntu might actually look...good.
          • Re:I found some... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by flyingsquid (813711) on Wednesday November 15 2006, @03:15AM (#16849452)
            Yes I'm breaking the rules to reply to my own comment. Why was I modded flamebait? I'm a friggin ubuntu user (Xubuntu actually). I think I would know as well as anyone that Ubuntu, by default, may work beautifully but it looks like absolute shit.

            Welcome to Slashdot. I've been a loyal Apple user since the days of the IIe, but if I say anything negative about Apple, odds are good I'll get modded into oblivion. Likewise, I despise Microsoft, but if I suggest that perhaps they are not always pure evil, I better watch my ass. Go against groupthink and fanboys at your peril.

      • by Anonymous Coward
        That stuff looks really amatuerish
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Artwork/Specs/EdgyArtwork P lan/ThemeTeams [ubuntu.com] seems to imply this, yes.

          Starting with the Edgy Eft release the artwork team introduced the concepts of Theme Teams. Theme Teams are small, independently operating groups of artists working on creating a desktop theme. These teams are coordinated by the Artists in Chief (AiCs) and receive support and feedback from the AiCs as well.

          I could be misinterpreting things, though.

    • Re:ok, I'm pissed (Score:5, Informative)

      by MustardMan (52102) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @10:05PM (#16847900)
      Digging around the wiki, this is what I could come up with...

      https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Artwork/Specs/EdgyArtworkP lan/Polish/Incoming [ubuntu.com]

      Now, assuming this is the art in question, which I wouldn't know for sure, not only is this a completely shitty non-article, it's also a terrible headline. The whole 'edgy' pun attempts to make it sound like they had naked women or something, when in fact it's plain old boring splash screens with round letters and glossy effects. Snore. I guess they had to do SOMETHING to attempt to make this look like it might be newsworthy, so why not throw a potentially sensational headline out there.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Artwork/Specs/EdgyArtwork P lan/Polish/Incoming

      Thats one link found buried in the wiki. I never really noticed much difference. In fact, as an Edgy tester, a ton of the proposed artwork never hit the repo at all. This is partly because, as a glimpse at that single step in the process ("Polish") will show you, there's a ton of ideas floating around. However, much of the art concepts were incorporated. I vaguely also recall a page somewhere that pretty much had the boot splash concept a
      • Re:ok, I'm pissed (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Aqua OS X (458522) on Wednesday November 15 2006, @04:37AM (#16849802) Homepage
        "Maybe some day an ambitious junior college graphics design course will have "make a gdk theme" for a project instead of the silly fake things they do now (obviously this would be more online oriented than print oriented)."

        Aiming high huh? Let's get some Junior College kids to skin an OS in a semester.

        IHMO this is one of the major hurdle's facing Linux adoption outside of the IT arena. Very few people in the software development industry fully understand visual communication, interactive design, and or the design process. Interactive design is viewed as some sort of BS skinning process that can be pumped out by some peons in a few months.

        Interactive design for an OS should be conducted by a team of professional interactive designers. They should understand visual communication, cognitive psychology, quantitative / qualitative usability research, and at least a CS101 understanding of what a conditional statement, class, etc is. These people should be given 6 months to a year (if not longer) to do their work. They should be paid a salary which doesn't force them to live in their parent's basements. Furthermore, they should work with software engineering to build an interactive design specification that is adhered to religiously and implemented as closely as humanly possible.

        Themes are retarded. They almost always result in something spec'd by software engineers and turd-polished by a lame underpaid or inexperienced graphic designer.
  • by DragonHawk (21256) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @10:24PM (#16848058) Homepage Journal
    "Edgy Eft" is the "nick-name" of the release of Ubuntu. Like "Woody" was a Debian release and "Zod" was a Fedora release.

    "Edgy art" does not refer to "provocative art", but "art for the 'Edge Eft' release".

    All Ubuntu releases are named with an adjective and an animal, and they have to alliterate. I have no idea why.

    Sheesh.
  • by daniel23 (605413) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @10:27PM (#16848082)

    sorry, this is a part of OSS culture I entirely fail to understand. Like, when there is a new version of distro X and some OS News sites have nothing better to report than a 15 pages of hires screenshots of the default desktop etc.

    You mean you install a new distro and then judge its worth by the look of the default theme? You don't change the theme first thing? You don't know how to install a custom theme if you don't like the preconfigured choices?

    But then again, my boxen run headless 98% of the time, so why should I care...
    • by Doctor Crumb (737936) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @10:33PM (#16848134) Homepage
      Ubuntu is billed as "linux for human beings". In practice, this means "usable and welcoming to non-geeks"; those same non-geeks who purchase a new windows OS because it has a new default desktop background and shinier buttons. So, while you may not judge a distro by its art, there are plenty of people who *do*, and those are the people ubuntu is trying to reach.

    • by Shados (741919) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @10:33PM (#16848138)
      When I have this monitor in front of my face as much as 80 hours a week, I really DO care what my desktop looks like. While I'll change stuff like themes, etc, fonts and icons tend to me part of the "I have better things to do with my time" department, so if it doesn't look nice out of the box, and its not packaged with my theme somehow, it has to look semi-decent.
      • by mollymoo (202721) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @11:24PM (#16848396) Journal
        When I have this monitor in front of my face as much as 80 hours a week, I really DO care what my desktop looks like.

        I use my computer 80+ hours a week too. But mostly, I'm looking at what's in the windows, not what's around the edges of them.

    • sorry, this is a part of OSS culture I entirely fail to understand.

      It's the AOL-ization of linux. Lots of people without much technical ability, but lots of time on their hands to talk about it. So you get a focus on the trivial because all they can understand.
  • Ooohhh, Shiny... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tymbow (725036) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @10:30PM (#16848100)

    I don't know what direction was required for the art, but the samples have that "ooohhh shiny" web 2.0 feel to them so they just must be better :p

    Meeehhh, it will all change again anyway when everyone jumps on the Web 3.0 graphic design bandwagon or whatever the next hot trend will be.

  • by bogaboga (793279) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @10:38PM (#16848160)
    Some Ubuntu community members were downright shocked, and many were ultimately dissatisfied with the final product.

    Why should this happen? Why should "some community members" be shocked if Ubuntu is being developed as "an Open Source OS?" And I guess they were following Ubuntu's development pretty closely.

    I need this question answered: Is Mark Shuttleworth a benevolent dictator in Ubuntu's Development?

  • by dantheman82 (765429) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @11:05PM (#16848318) Homepage
    Chief artist head honcho summed it up: "We set out to start from scratch and to top Dapper, while Dapper was arguably very close to what Mark had in mind."

    Hmm...sort of reminds me of the Slashdot CSS Redesign Contest [slashdot.org]. Need the Slashdot "Shade of Green" and Coliseo font. Basically it has to be very similar to the old one, but better. Sometimes it fades into the background once the hubbub dies down...as people realize that visual continuity and product branding do count for something...
  • by Chief Typist (110285) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @11:29PM (#16848420) Homepage
    The icons were professionally designed:

    http://iconfactory.com/design/detail/ubuntu [iconfactory.com]

    By one guy. Working directly with Mark.

    My suggestion for the art team would be to establish someone as an art director. Someone that Mark trusts to implement his vision. And then have that art director give specific tasks to the designers that report to him.

    It sounds like they're heading in that direction by giving Frank Stroep the title of "Artist in Chief". His task now is to tell people what he wants. And if you think it's easy being a hard ass when it comes to design & the people who do it, let me assure you IT IS NOT.

    If this doesn't happen, they'll end up taking the "design by committee" approach. The result of this kind of process is something that no one loves -- a lowest common denominator. Sort of like when software is designed by a committee :-)

    For what it's worth, I'm a principal in the company that did the Ubuntu work -- so I speak from experience about this stuff :-)

    -ch

  • by msimm (580077) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @11:55PM (#16848598) Homepage
    They are talking about [wordpress.com]. I'm not a big fan of brown or generally dark colors on my desktop.

    As for the complaining, I'm a bit perplexed:
    "A prominent factor in much of the submitted artwork -- which is still publicly available -- is the use of visual effects, yet even as the feature freeze approached, there were still unsolved technical problems, such as inconsistency between color palettes. After Shuttleworth announced the rollback, Stroep, Jonathan Austin, and Jozsef Mak reworked the Dapper art packages for consistency, and limited the effects enhancements to a gloss finish."
    That sounds like a legitimate enough problem. Unfinished artwork and effects can make a distro look amateurish.

    Besides, I thought the point of OSS is the flexibility that comes with it? Are these Ubuntu users going to be forced to use it.
  • by wysiwia (932559) on Wednesday November 15 2006, @01:33AM (#16849074) Homepage
    What a achievement, new backgrounds and splash screens! I thought 'Edgy Eft' was meant to try out some new kinds of technology or some new kind of user interactions. I even hoped there might be some provocative design decisions which allows to bring the Linux desktop a footprint forward. Yet backgrounds and splash screens don't improve my working system by a single inch. So what's so edgy on 'Edgy Eft'?

    O. Wyss
    • Re:Screenshots (Score:5, Informative)

      by kernelpanicked (882802) <kernelpanicked.kernelpanicked@net> on Tuesday November 14 2006, @10:17PM (#16847986)
      Have any of you even seen Edgy installed? The artwork you keep linking to isn't what was turned down, it's the artwork for the damn release.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Furthermore, it looks extremely similar to the Dapper Drake artwork. I haven't seen Edgy Eft yet, but I immediately knew from looking at it that this must be the boring, incrementally modified theme since it looks incredibly similar to what was there before.
    • by kfg (145172) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @10:30PM (#16848104)
      . . .showing pictures of the human body is taboo.

      It wasn't even intended. It was just a GUI malfunction.

      KFG
    • by arthurpaliden (939626) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @10:40PM (#16848176)
      The reason is quite simple. It takes more money to raise a child than to bury a person.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        The reason is quite simple. It takes more money to raise a child than to bury a person.


        And it is even cheaper to educate people about sex in the first place.

      • by Eideewt (603267) on Tuesday November 14 2006, @11:58PM (#16848618)
        Why wouldn't someone want naked people on their desktop? When I consider all the stupid wallpapers I've seen (anime characters, eggs, tiny photos stretched out of proportion, and so on), naked people seems like a big step in the right direction.
      • Nobody wants a picture of a bunch of nudists on their desktop.

        Hmm, I watch Naked News every afternoon. On my desktop I have a picture of Jessica Alba laying on a bed naked. My wallpaper usually alternates between a random naked girl and any good Jessica Alba [sexydesktop.co.uk] wallpaper I can find.

        And in what society is killing people fine?

        Just about any if they're different from the mainstream. Ie, not white and "Christian" [kuro5hin.org]*.

        * Read the link to see why I put Christian in quotes. Here's a quote:

        How did the Amish react to t

        • by LordLucless (582312) on Wednesday November 15 2006, @01:23AM (#16849022)
          Oooh, so you're not talking about actual sex or violence, you're talking about simulated sex and violence. Because it's bloody obvious that most societies disapprove ov violence more than sex - even in the US, I think you're birth rate is still higher than your murder-rate. I'd say the reason people are more okay with violence on the screen than sex is that they consider it unlikely that little Johnnie is going to go out and blow up a city block with a bazooka from a commandeered humvee no matter how many action flicks he sees. If he watches a lot of skin flicks though, it's probably going to give him ideas next time he's alone with little Sally.

          Violence is obviously wrong, and you can usually rely on that as enough of a disincentive to discourage it. Even if you can't, the availability of bazookas also limits it. Sex, on the other hand isn't obviously wrong like violence, but it can lead to unwanted and unconsidered consequences - pregnancy, disease, etc, as well as increasing the complexity and intensity of a relationship. It has to be discouraged because it's so available - whereas violence of the action-movie sort remains remote; the viewer is rarely going to be in a situation where they could emulate it.
            • by LordLucless (582312) on Wednesday November 15 2006, @02:43AM (#16849342)
              Let me know next time your sandwich knocks you up.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              You know, Hannibal Lecter had a very "agile and developed" mind, and I'm pretty sure he defended his dietary habits in much the same fashion.

              Those who differ from the norm always consider themselves superior rather than inferior.
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              consider sex same as eating lunch or taking a dump

              When did taking a dump last profoundly change a relationship?

              How big is the market for pictures of people eating lunch?

              Do you get spam offering mouth enlargements?

              How often to people seek psychiatric help over luncheon problems?

              Do you think "agile and developed" is a synonym for "adolescent"

              • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15 2006, @03:59AM (#16849626)
                EXACTLY! If society tells you sex is dirty and wrong and should be hidden, is it really any surprise it becomes such? Thanks for providing a PERFECT argument against your own.

                More talk of sex, I say! Fewer young people learning about it through rumor, innuendo, porno mags passed around, and spam email that lead them to believe every woman is a "slut in heat" and that "every man has a horse cock." Treat and address sex in a healthy manner, shown in a contextually appropriate setting where potential consequences are considered and you may not have children having babies because they are driven by their hormones with no information.

                Put it this way, if the only people you ever see having sex are in a plastic, promiscuous, consequence free world with crappy disco music, what examples do you have of healthy sex life between monogamous, loving adults that RESPECT each other. If all our other behavior patterns are learned by observation and emulation of parents and other role-models, why is sex the single exception? People have no idea of what role sex should play in their lives in the real world and are left with only basic hormonal urges and porno movies for guidance. That makes no sense to me. I mean, that kind of plan worked so well with prohibition and all....
              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                Most people have never had sex profoundly change a relationship.
                You know why?
                Because they don't have relationships without sex!

                Only scared teenagers do, and when the hormons gets the better of them, and they always do, they will have sex, wether their parents want it or not, and if they are not prepared for it they will not be prepared, and then it leads to undesired consequences (teen pregnancy).
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              I like how you miss the point, and then consider your mind more agile and developed.. must be easy to have a more agile viewpoint on life when in actual fact you don't notice what's going on. He's got a very good point as to why sex is more frowed upon than violence in entertainment, aside from the fact that some people, surprise surprise, don't need porn, as they have the real thing to keep them happy.
    • Nothing sounds better to me than -current and -stable.

      What about -useful? It boggles the mind that OpenBSD doesn't support IrDA [wikipedia.org] or IPX [wikipedia.org]!

      How can you live with an OS that lacks these fundamental and necessary technologies in today's world? I mean, what about reading IR codes from VCR remotes? What if you want to play StarCraft with a person that is at an early patch level? These are important questions that need to be addressed!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I am happy that they got rid of all the boot up messages on start-up, which was just distracting crud.

      I always found it annoying that Windows by default shows nothing but a little green/blue thingy scrolling around -- that doesn't even show boot progress.

      Before Edgy, Ubuntu has always showed nonverbose messages about which services it's starting, etc. I couldn't understand these messages when I first started using Linux (I started with Ubuntu Breezy) but after 6 months they were informative and useful to

    • by Grey Ninja (739021) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `yerg.rettam'> on Wednesday November 15 2006, @12:09AM (#16848688) Homepage Journal
      How the hell did this crap get modded insightful?

      1) Shuttleworth is the CREATOR of Ubuntu. Head honcho. What he did was to roll back the artwork to a Dapper variant, CHANGING the DEFAULT theme that was to be in Edgy.

      2) Blubuntu is in the repositories. If you want to use it, then install it and use it. Like you said, Linux is about choice. But at least know what you are bitching about.