Chad Smith wrote:
I don't care *why* there is more choice in Windows. I was simply stating a fact. There are a ton more choices in Windows than there are in Linux. So if changing the look and functionality of a Windowing Manager (which is what Daniel said the programs I suggested do) is not the same thing as using a different windowing manager (which I would imagine would look and behave differently than the other one.... hmmm, just like changing the look and functionality.....) how is there a difference to the end user?
You really need to master the concept of "scale". The extent to which changing the theme affects the look and feel of Windows is far lower than the extent to which changing the window manager affects the look and feel of Linux.
In all the examples you gave, windows are still controlled by the same window manager, and it looks like you still get the same stupid "start" menu. What kind of choice is that? And it's silly to compare that with the difference between Gnome, KDE, Blackbox, Afterstep and WindowMaker. Each of these 5 has a totally different design. Much more different than the variety you showed for Windows. Look, you can make Linux behave just like Windows by adding an appropriate window manager (there's one in the works, I forget its name). If Apple so desired, it could make Linux just like Mac by simply porting Aqua from FreeBSD to Linux. And designs like WindowMaker are completely unlike either Windows or Aqua.
I mean I could potentially skin AbiWord to look and feel just like OOo Writer.
This analogy is like saying that you can make Windwos just like Mac OS X simply by putting the menu bar at the top. The difference between window managers is more than cosmetics to the same extent that Windows and Mac OS X are different. After all, the difference that most people see in the look and feel of OS X vs Windows is entirely provided by the window manager.
Cheers, Daniel.
