'Vixta' Linux distro mimics Vista's look and feel

David Webb:

Great! Now when I tell my friends about the advantages of Linux I can show them that even the UI is at least as good as Vista. After all, if it's exactly the same it can't be worse can it?

I agree entirely - although I wouldn't want Linux on the whole to imitate Vista, there's no big deal in using some good ideas which happen to also be part of Vista.

Luke Evans:

Are the specifications to run this as high as Vista?

Craig:

Apparently now. According to their user support page at http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?thread_id=1842607&forum_id=737502 Vixta can run on a P3 with 256Mb Ram.

I am going to give it a go this weekend :)

Pete:

All those Microsoft Vista programmers(If any) should quit immediately.

Anonymuos:

As it is, KDE and GNOME have copied the taskbar and Start menu and title bar buttons. Btw, that logon screen looks XPish to me, not Vistaish..maybe I'm seeing things.

Anonymous1:

Yes the logon screen is like XP, it's part of the old "Redmond" theme

roadrash:

Does it have all the neccesary codecs, libs & plugins such as real player, win32 codecs & the libs DVD's etc?

Karl B.:

Three guys did this in under a year, in their spare time? Someone should give their number to human resources at Microsoft.

Actually, if it were easy to just install the desktop manager, I probably would. My mom and stepdad are coming to visit next week, so I set up user accounts for them to check their email and download digital photos while they are here. I wanted it to feel a little familiar, so I configured gnome to look as windowsy as possible. I wanted to make it look like vista, but I have never seen a vista machine.

Even though I use XP all the time at work, I've never taken a default gnome configuration and dumbed it down before. It makes the missing parts a lot more obvious. I don't know how windows has survived so long without xeyes.

davidlinux:

I think this is a great way to attract new users into linux. some people is really scared (incluiding me) of the different looks and feels between Linux and Vista, if there is a Linux that look similat to Vista the transition will be easier. Obviously this is just the starting point once users get use to this "mix" the user will be more confident in trying other linux versions.

I love to have a software that looks and have similar interface as Windows (because is what i know)that is FREE!!!! wouldn't you want that too?

Rafael:

Well, simply a way to slam the door on Windows Vista's face. The only difference is that ViXta works as expected. Oh lord! Bless this guy and his family!

Nuna:

So whats the point of wasting all that time and resourcefulness to make yet another Linux distribution. I would love to see people creating packages that would just apply this look and feel to existing distributions rather than going with an all out distro. What a waste of programmer effort.

Haakondahl:

Not everybody thinks that the reason to power-on a computer is to compile today's kernel. If you (and the author of the reviewed article) want to get to a place where more people are comfortable with more OSs, then you'll have to admit--this is a pretty important step in that direction. This is the kind of thing which can help get peoples' heads up from their bowl of [something bad] to see that there's something better. But what they actually want is to be able to run their spreadsheets, send mail to Mom, surf and listen, etc...
I have been playing with Linux since 1997, and even I get absolutely flipped out at how I can't consistently catch podcasts and automatically manage what's on the ZenStone.

suicidal_weasel:

Haha this is great, it took windows how long? and linux just snaps it up.

How do you like it now gates? if you cant beat them.. join them and than beat them

carlos:

What with this "Vista" thing after all?

Joel:

I don't think this is a bad thing at all... in fact, I think it is a *GOOD* thing.

Sure, we've got to have diversity, but the UI is the wrong place to have it. If anything, the aim should be to have as similar an interface between the various platforms as possible - it reduces the barriers to these platforms becoming mainstream. The diversity should take the form of innovative features that other patforms don't have.

My main gripe with Linux has been that it is *NOT* easy to use (sure, maybe if everything works as it should, but, this is Linux we're talking about ;-), and theres often WAY too much farching around to install new software and get things the way you want them.

If vixta can go some way to addressing these two things, then good on them!

Pumucky:

And some people still dream about Linux becoming the mainstream OS.
¿Can you picture a job posting along these lines?...

Position: Assistant for Accounting department.
Education: ….
Trainig: ….
….
Computer skills: experience with Linux This-Particular-Distro, running This-Particular-WindowsManager, and customised with This-Particular-Theme.


… I don’t think so. Too much diversity will kill Linux.

So, if a lot of experience with Linux (user level) is not going to help your kid when it comes to getting her first job, ¿what OS is going to be running on her first computer? You’re right: Windows.

That doesn’t mean that diversity is bad; quite the opposite. But many different things (that’s what diversity means) can’t be mainstream at the same time.

This statement can sound quite bold, but I think that the only way Linux can ever become close to mainstream is to have a dominant distro that becomes the de-facto standard. Ideally, this situation wouldn’t kill the “minority” distros, but rather have them as the test bed for new ideas, concepts, technologies, etc. (And to fulfil the needs of particular groups.) Lots of diversity across the minority distros would produce a healthy melting pot from which “selected” ideas would progress to the mainstream distro.

If this theoretical “mainstream Linux” is created by a company or a reduced group of people then it might end up being the new Windows (controlled by few, imposed on many). If, on the other hand, it’s supported and controlled by as wide a community as possible, then we might end up with an OS that is Open, Standard and controlled by the Community.

But, maybe “becoming mainstream” and Linux are two concepts that, at the core, don’t really mix very well…

Dan:

"¿what OS is going to be running on her first computer?"

Windows? You’re NOT neccessarily right.

1) The U.S. D.O.T. banned Vista, IE7 and MS Office 2007. the world Olympic Committee banned Vista. Etc, etc..

2) Linux users tend to better Windows users anyway due to the requirements of one to BE a Linux user.

Pumucky:

Dan, maybe you’re right and things are starting to change.
However, wouldn’t you agree that the variety of flavours is significantly reducing Linux’s chances to become widespread? That was the point I was trying to make: for certain purposes having a lot of diversity doesn’t help.

Maybe for computer-literate people it’s just a question of adjusting (fairly quickly) to whatever interface/behaviour/etc you happen to be in front of. Your technical background allows you to grab a new UI (and even take advantage of its differences) with ease.
For normal people even a Windows upgrade (the GUI changes it brings) can become a steep learning curve.

I hear/read a lot of complains about Vista and how many organisations are staying away from it. However, we shouldn’t underestimate MS’s ability to turn the situation around and take the opportunity to “fix” Vista and make a big marketing splash out of it.
They are not defeated yet. This is but a slap on their wrist… and they’ll fight back!

Vista has provided the Open Source community with a golden chance to grab a lot of attention from the masses and even some market share. Fortunately, this has happened when current Linux distributions are becoming very close to normal-user-friendly systems. It’s a big opportunity and I think it’s not being wasted by the Linux distros. I just think it might (just might) get a bit diluted by the (for many people confusing) variety of Linuxes.

(BTW, I don’t quite grasp the meaning of your second point (sorry). Could you rephrase it for me? Thanks!)

RobertC:

So let me get this straight, Linux is supposed to be some new OS panacea, yet for all the alleged innovation, programmers have simply used Windows Vista as a reference.

Pointless. I'll stick with real Vista.

praxis22:

"So let me get this straight"

No, you didn't get it straight, let me clue you...

Linux/UNIX is a command line operating system.

http://www.spack.org/wiki/InTheBeginningWasTheCommandLine

It runs equally well on servers as on desktops. Servers are "headless" (no monitor) desktops are not. So on desktops they have X windows, which is a "desktop framework." What that means is that it just a way of describing the screen, and allowing primitives to be displayed to it. To actually make use of such "primitives" (programs, command shells, etc.) you need a windows manager, something that will allow you to drag and drop, raise and lower, resize, etc.

This is the essence of the Linux/UNIX desktop. Of late however, there have innovations. Namely, themeable windows decorators, and compositing desktop interfaces.

What these allow you to do is to do can be seen here:

http://youtube.com/results?search_query=beryl&search=Search

In essence, you can use OpenGL and if you're lucky hardware acceleration, to do silly things like making your windows behave like jelly as you drag them, or explode in flames when close them. As well as displaying OpenGL demos as desktops. I'm particularly fond of "skyrocket" which is a real-time OpenGL firework demo. So instead of a static wallpaper, I have a live firework display.

What the windows decorator, ("emerald" in my case) does is just alters the look and feel of the windows manager. Essentially you can make your desktop look like OSX, XP, BeOS, QNX, or even Vista Aero. It duplicates the windows "furniture" so the same buttons do the same thing. Or you can just customise the hell out of it.

Windows by contrast, Vista included, doesn't have a command line, even when you boot into safe mode you still get a GUI. This is because Windows is the OS, there isn't anything else.

What the Linux variant above has done is make the desktop look like Vista, because some people like the way it looks. It's about choice, and making people feel comfortable. Under the skin, it's still Linux. You can swap out the whole motherboard, switching from AMD to Intel Dual Core in the process, and Linux (Ubuntu in my case) will boot up without a hitch, just as if you'd simply restarted it.

I realise this may be hard to understand for somebody who's only ever used windows, but there are many more ways to make an OS, than the one created in Redmond.

anonymousness:

Personally, I'm not very happy with this project, the guys are great in trying, but i think its a bit like trying to hack vista then sell the code free. I'm not trying to put the guys off, but maybe they should make vista skins for their linux distros instead.

Legend:

Now if only someone would develop a DirectX 10 equivalent for Linux we wouldn't need Vista for games.

reallynow:

Another attempt to make Linux legit.
It's an OS woo hoo.
Linux needs to get in or get out .

Everyone bashed win 3.1,3.11,95,95b,95c,ME(ok it did suck)xp,and now vista.
But ya know what they all have all been really successful while Linux sits around with 300 versions claiming with each new release it is better than Windows.
I have an Idea don't be like appleholes,prove it with your OS and not your hype.
Thats all

scooby7474:

After finding Vixta by pure chance i decided to try it out. Yes it does look and feel like Vist but far faster.
My son has just got a new laptop with Vista Home installed and to see the difference we raced each other, to see who would be the first to boot up and get on the net. Guess who won, well lets put it this way Vista came last.
Vista is good but ways heavy on resources which slows the computer down quite a lot.
Vixta is far faster and light on resources.
The only problem i can foresee is Microsoft complaining over the name like they did with Lindows.
Keep up the good work lads.

bob:

The programmers have done a superb job and should be congratulated. The whole point of linux is CHOICE. If you don't want to use Vixta, use one of the 100+ other linux distributions (see http://distrowatch.com/).
I can't understand how people get so upset about a window manager theme. After all, you can install Ubuntu and then use any window manager/desktop environment you want (see http://xwinman.org/). Despite the fact most users will not change (most likely through ignorance), you don't just have to stick with KDE or Gnome...

kevin clotfelter (New user):

Okay, I have used Vixta for about a week, but have had a live dvd for some time. Installation took minutes. RPM's are extremely easy to install with Vixta's Software Installer. The whole OS is great.

Compwnent (New user):

Hi
Vixta is a perfectly good distro. Face the facts: Microsoft rules the information world. Most of the good software (Office, Visual Studio, ect) and Vista is a beautiful OS (even though it sucks). Linux, on the other hand, is a great OS, but not so beautiful. Vixta is beautiful, functional, and it is compatable with windows based applications. If I had to recommend a distro of Linux, it would be Vixta, hands down.

amichund (New user):

Please tell me what these developers were thinking.I hope they developed service packs for this, so when people start pulling their hair out,theyll know why.Wonderful its free so good to see , just hope it works.