Why do a lot of Linux distros look like Mac OS?

Why do a lot of Linux distros look like Mac OS?

Because it looks good, so why not

Why can't it look more like Windows? Especially with all the *buntu distros.

Because you can only organise and interface with programs graphically using dialogues and windows in so many different ways.

Windows has a counter-intuitive GUI that is the result of bad design choices in the mid 90s and being forced to keep them due to normies being a bunch of baby ducks.

Because Windows looks terrible and is basically complete shit. Why would they copy some cheap piece of Pajeet shit when they can try (and fail) to copy the GOAT?

I don't think it looks good. The top bar paradigm is shit, and floating docs are a ricer meme that should have died out with 3D rotating desktops and transparent terminals.

Linux looks like just a command prompt. Ubuntu is what's in your pic.

Can you explain? (examples)

What would you rather they look like?

You're not funny.

>a lot
it's only unity and gnome

I'm not trying to be. There are multiple desktop environments and window managers to choose from.

He's right tho

Click start to shut down, for example.

When you open properties on a file or driver, what's hidden under the "Advanced..." dialogue is arbitrarily decided and makes no sense. Who decides that typing in DNS IP addresses manually is an Advanced feature, whereas setting the ethernet card's ringbuffer size is not?

First point is grasping at straws
Second point is valid

>Click start to shut down, for example.
You're starting the process of shutting down your computer.

>Click start to shut down, for example.

Here's what you sound like

>I don't want to run terminal, I want to run ipconfig, why do I have to open terminal to open ipconfig???

Start opens up a general use command panel with shortcuts to a bunch of different functions and features, only one of which is the option to shut down.

It's not grasping at straws, it's just that it has been around for so long that you don't fully realise how counter intuitive that design choice actually was back then.

See, that makes no semantic sense whatsoever. It's clear that this was designed by an autistic programmer.

Turning off your computer is completely different than running a network configuration utility program.

Also, opening a terminal is not opening a command panel. A terminal (emulator) is a different shell. The graphical shell is a different shell. They're different shells to the core which is your kernel.

>what is mate
>what is cinnamon
>what is kde
>what xfce
>what is lxde
Are you new or you baiting?

>See, that makes no semantic sense whatsoever.

And tell me, why is the unmount command umount?

umount maps 1:1 to the umount syscall.

>Click start to shut down, for example.
The early Chicago betas didn't have that but they moved it all into one button because having all these buttons on your taskbar that do different shit just isn't intuitive.

So it's retarded because of legacy reasons and not because it makes any kind of sense.

why is the syscall called umount instead of unmount

The coreutil program umount offers different semantics, they are low-level utility programs meant to map to syscalls. It's a different shell to your kernel. It's not comparable to a function invoked from your graphical shell, the file system navigator is able to mount and unmount with a single click on an icon.

Which explains why you have a start button, a quicklaunch panel (windows 98 and XP), a task bar, a system tray and a standalone clock and calendar application, right?

>Which explains why you have a start button, a quicklaunch panel (windows 98 and XP), a task bar, a system tray and a standalone clock and calendar application, right?
You got it.

The same reason why strcmp isn't called string_compare, early Unices had size limitations on names and we just inherited that shit due to legacy reasons.

This is why muh Unix way/philosophy is ridiculous.

What do you think?

You're new and really bad at baiting
And I also think you should lurk more