ubuntu styles and themes???

ukh u now wut forget it i was searchin for progrmas for this os and it doesnt has that much of softwares :@ and sincerley a pc without softwares for me is not a pc i am gonna stick to windows xp :)

i now the reply is 2 months late...but ubuntu has a huge collection of applications...What haven't you find?

ukh u now wut forget it i was searchin for progrmas for this os and it doesnt has that much of softwares

There are 10s of thousdands of free softwares you can get by download. You can view and download them by opening the program "Synaptic Package Manager" or by clicking add/remove programs

For themes for ubuntus user interface (caled GNOME) check out www.gnome-look.org

one time i spent a whole day trying to make fedora core 4 look like osx. what a waist of my time that was. So i installed dreamlinux and it looks similar to osx, so that's what i'd do instead fo going through the trouble of finding the right themes, and icons.

You can also use the default theme Nimbus of Solaris 10 on Ubuntu though you'll have to work a little hard to find it. Although I was trying to upload it here but alas, the size is too big. It is a very nice theme. I cannot say what you feel about it but I definitely like it.

hi ppl wassuuup i am used to the windows xp i just finished the downloadin of ubuntu but i saw sum screen shots and i got confused between the real ubuntu and the mac os so how can u please gime pictures of how this ubuntu looks like and aren't there themse to make it looks like the mac os if u know please gimme them please i beg u ppl i am a newbie for this ubuntu stuiff

Wait wait wait... you confused mac with ubuntu??? You some kinda retard or something?? You can always search online for screenshots.. how could you not figure that out on your own? You don't know how to use a search engine?

ukh u now wut forget it i was searchin for progrmas for this os and it doesnt has that much of softwares :@ and sincerley a pc without softwares for me is not a pc i am gonna stick to windows xp :)

Seriously? Aside from your atrocious spelling, and absolute terrible writing ability, are you completely ignorant of linux or what? There is soo much software for linux (including the ubuntu distro).. I am even willing to bet money that there is more software for linux than for microsoft (definitely more than crappy apple). Hmm.. I definitely recommend you use apple though, because you obviously know nothing about linux, and have trouble using the internet, search engines, and dictionaries. Hey! Those are exact characteristics of people who use macs! You would fit right in!

Maybe he just wanted a theme for ubuntu that mimicks mac os x but obviously has trouble speaking english. I found the below link to be the easiest to set up and use.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/mac4lin

My actual desktop looks something like the below:
http://www.daniweb.com/forums/thread91124.html

>I am even willing to bet money that there is more software for linux than for microsoft

That's incorrect, there is more software available for Windows than for any other operating system.

>You some kinda retard or something??

He's learning, and I'm guessing that you weren't born a genius either, so stop insulting him. Try and keep this professional.

>That's incorrect, there is more software available for Windows than for any other operating system.

I'm dubious.

there is definately more linux software than mac software

>I'm dubious.

well it's true. windows has been the dominant OS for a very long time, and if you look at a lot of the linux software, it's also available for windows and mac, most of the time.

>well it's true.

That doesn't strike me as a particularly convincing argument.

if you were a company that made software for consumers, wouldn't you write it for the most used operating system? Windows has been dominant for a very long time. There are plenty of applications that will literally let you do anything. There's everything from little apps to full blown software suites. Just because most software for linux is open source, it does not mean that there's more of it.

if you were a company that made software for consumers, wouldn't you write it for the most used operating system? Windows has been dominant for a very long time. There are plenty of applications that will literally let you do anything. There's everything from little apps to full blown software suites. Just because most software for linux is open source, it does not mean that there's more of it.

I think you're confusing commercial and open source software development. Your argument for reaching the most consumers is only valid for commercial development, as the goal is usually money. Open source developers use whatever operating system suits them best, which usually tends to be Linux. Also, open source development usually progresses at a much faster rate than commercial development, so I'm willing to bet that Linux has a larger application library. That doesn't necessarily mean that Linux software is better, just that there's more of it.

>there is definately more linux software than mac software

That's a vague statement at best. The latest version of Mac OS X is officially Unix-certified, and can run Linux software just like any other *nix system can (assuming it's open source, which it usually is).

>That's a vague statement at best. The latest version of Mac OS X is officially Unix-certified, and can run Linux software just like any other *nix system can (assuming it's open source, which it usually is).

he means software written for OS X, retard, can't you read?

>he means software written for OS X, retard, can't you read?
Okay. Assuming I really am a retard, please point out where jbennet said that there is more software written for Linux than OS X.

>there is definately more linux software than mac software

i don't know, how about right there?

Since you don't seem to be understanding the point I'm trying to get at, let me try another way. Mac OS X is officially certified as Unix. Since it's Unix, it can run Unix software. Now do you get it? It doesn't have to be written on a Macintosh to be able to be considered "Mac software".

>Since you don't seem to be understanding the point I'm trying to get at, let me try another way. Mac OS X is officially certified as Unix. Since it's Unix, it can run Unix software. Now do you get it? It doesn't have to be written on a Macintosh to be able to be considered "Mac software".

This really isn't a valid point. Even though Mac is UNIX, most Linux and BSD software does require a seperate Mac port.

>Since you don't seem to be understanding the point I'm trying to get at, let me try another way. Mac OS X is officially certified as Unix. Since it's Unix, it can run Unix software. Now do you get it? It doesn't have to be written on a Macintosh to be able to be considered "Mac software".

i understand that, but that unix and linux software was not made specifically for mac, so it shouldn't count as such.

>Even though Mac is UNIX, most Linux and BSD software does require a seperate Mac port.
Why? It's a Unix system, POSIX-compliant, has the X window system, and it can compile the same software that any *nix system can. People tend to be lazy on Mac OS X and request pre-made binaries, but that doesn't mean it's not as capable of compiling something.

>i understand that, but that unix and linux software was not made specifically for mac, so it
>shouldn't count as such.
So if *nix software was not specifically made for Linux, then it shouldn't count as Linux software?

This really isn't a valid point. Even though Mac is UNIX, most Linux and BSD software does require a seperate Mac port.

How come FreeBSD can run linux apps natively

>How come FreeBSD can run linux apps natively
The FreeBSD kernel has a Linux-compatibiliy layer which allows it to run Linux applications at native speeds (similar to Wine, except with almost perfect support, and built right into the kernel). Sadly, when Apple borrowed bits of the FreeBSD kernel for Xnu (the kernel for Darwin), they left out that compatibility layer.

they should get it, linux apps run about the same for me on freebsd as they do in debian, in fact.

Aside from your atrocious spelling, and absolute terrible writing ability

I doubt English is his native language. You try writing in a language you don't know very well and you too will have that exact same problem. DaniWeb does not require people to be English majors or native English speakers. I've seen people born and raised here in St Louis MO that can't spell either.

I doubt English is his native language. You try writing in a language you don't know very well and you too will have that exact same problem. DaniWeb does not require people to be English majors or native English speakers. I've seen people born and raised here in St Louis MO that can't spell either.

But there is a difference between writing in an unfamiliar language and being just plain lazy. When words like 'u' and 'ppl' are used, no attempt at grammar (simply being one long run-on sentence) it tells me that the person who wrote it didn't care one bit.

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#writewell

he's probably some twelve year old. I found this translator. english to 12-year-old, but no the other way around. http://www.sitinthecorner.com/binary/aolertranslator.html

I doubt English is his native language. You try writing in a language you don't know very well and you too will have that exact same problem. DaniWeb does not require people to be English majors or native English speakers. I've seen people born and raised here in St Louis MO that can't spell either.

Correction:
I DOUBT 3NGLISH IS HIS NATIEV LANGUAEG!!1!1! OMG U TRY WRITNG IN A LANGUAEG U DONT KNOW VARY WEL AND U 2 WIL HAEV TAHT 3XACT SME PROBLEM!11! OMG DANIEWB DOAS NOT REQUIER P3OPLE 2 B ENGLISH MAJORS OR NATIEV ENGLISH SP3AEKRS1!1! IVA SEN PEOPLE BORN AND RASE3D HERE IN ST LOUIS MO TAHT CANT SP3L EITHER11!!1! LOL

[Taken from that translator, of course]

>[Taken from that translator, of course]

That's the funniest thing I've seen (not really, but it's close)