Take a little Motif, CDE, MS Windows and MacOS, (relative amounts may vary), stir, and what do you get? Probably one of the following:

• GNOME
• KDE
• Xfce

Even the alternative window managers (only complete desktop environments were mentioned above) tend to look a lot like either MS Windows or MacOS window decorations. Apart from the really minimalistic things like EvilWM, Ratpoison, or Ion, it’s always the same minus-box-ex or “horizontal traffic light”.

But mind you, this goes much further than just the window decorations. Think of GTK and QT: what do those look like? Well, just like Motif, MS Windows, or sometimes a Mac if that theme was chosen… or perhaps like those with a really odd skin applied. “What else should they look like?” I can hear you think. Can for example a scrollbar look different than “[<] [ ] [>]“? Well, how about “| ———==[<][ ][>]= |”? (OPEN LOOK fans should recognize that one.) And not just scrollbars. Many more basic GUI elements could look and behave different while still making perfect sense. Ask any old OpenLook user (such as me), or someone who has used some other different from usual GUI that I don’t know about. Some widgets in those actually are better than what you’re used to! For example in OpenLook (I’m sure you’re getting tired of that name by now) any scrollbar can be split, so you can view multiple far apart parts of the scrolled area at the same time, and menus and dialogs try to predict what you want to do and minimize mouse mileage for that.

And still even the most imitated “different” GUIs like that of MacOS or of BeOS are incredibly similar to the norm. It’s because user interface designers want to make sure those who previously used MS Windows won’t have a too hard time adjusting, and perhaps also because those designers are a little lazy .

But WHY?

Why are we trying to make an alternative OS attractive to people who don’t want to try something different? Why do we take an incredibly configurable and clever OS, and then bolt on a demented GUI design meant for the kind of user who supposedly whines about too much choice? Are we designing for the wrong audience or what?

Counterargument 1: we want as many people as possible to switch to Free *nix OSes, so we should make the switch as easy as possible.

Reply: Wrong strategy. Those who have difficulty learning something new tend to depend on their local geeks for help with their computing. Give the geeks a good reason to switch, and their dependents will follow. A more inspiring GUI that is also better suited for getting work done might just be that reason. Guess which app has gotten the most wows from my shoulder surfers? Not compiz, they know that from MacOS. Not The pretty looks of E17. It’s the simplistic image viewer called entice (which by the way usually doesn’t work on my system for some reason, but that’s something else). A simple GUI that doesn’t care about conventions, but cares about ergonomics and ease of use instead.

Counterargument 2 & 3: I just happen to like this “standard” GUI; why shouldn’t we make life easy for those who have better things to do than getting used to an “interesting” GUI?

Reply: Nothing wrong with that. I’m just saying Free *nix deserves to have a different kind of GUI as well.

So here’s what I propose: let’s completely rethink even the most basic small things in graphical user interfaces. How can we do things in more elegant and more clever ways? Or, to take a bit of a shortcut if enough others agree: let’s make an OpenLook compliant GUI, but modernize it with antialiased fonts and soft shadows and whatnot, and add in ideas from other GUIs where those are better.

Unnecessary word of warning: OpenLook was the first GUI I really liked, so I probably care a little more than I should about splittable scrollbars, smart menus, warping cursors, a resizable virtual desktop manager and rounded corners .

What do you think? What user interface do you miss (please do get nostalgic!)? Anyone else still suffering from OpenLook withdrawal?