The second paragraph in your post says it all

Linux does not have something exactly like WindowBlinds, but there are plenty of different ways to customize the look. DeKorator for KDE is pretty similar in that you need only bitmaps to make the window decorations with no intense coding involved. Like everything else in Unix-like systems, theming is broken up into smaller, more modular bits rather than doing everything at once like with WindowBlinds or visual styles. I'm not saying one is better than the other, just saying that they're different.

To be fair, yes Linux is customizable, but there's no uniformity to the systems, everyone does it differently, puts the graphics in different places. Basically, Linux doesn't make it easy. For all the issues people have with SkinStudio, it allows artists to build a skin without necessarily knowing where everything is stored. WindowBlinds allows the user to automatically apply the skins in a no-fuss manner. Last time I tried changing anything with KDE or GNOME, I was digging around sub-dirs in the command line looking where to place all sorts of little files.

I just don't think it's right that everyone has adopted the "we must look like Microsoft to beat Microsoft" philosophy. Look at e-mail clients these days. They're all Outlook clones. Now we have to have Linux look like Windows to be effective? Whatever happened to the concept of function over form?

MS has the research dollars to make sure that their tools are functional with form.

If they make something look a certain way . .you can bet it's a winning design.

It's obvious that Mark Shuttleworth , among others, just doesn't get it. Eye candy is not what the world needs to make Linux a viable OS replacement on the corporate or home desktops. KDE and/or Gnome do a fine enough job for most users (of course power users like to tweak).

What Linux needs to be successful is better / more fool-proof installation shells for applications! I consider myself very technically inclined (24 years experience with computer hardware/software - work in the industry - my first computer ran DOS 3.2 - pre-windows, etc.) I've played around with many different Linux distro's (Ubunto, OpenSuse, RedHat, Knoppix, Debian, OpenBSD, Slackware, etc). The one problem I've run into on every one is getting the various applications I need installed.

Regardless of how well the company making the dristo does in implementing their "packaging" software, I always end up needing to research dependancies, permissions, and/or text-based configurations on my own. The dependancies are the worst! This application depends on that library which isn't included. That library depends on another. That library has some archane configuration file that about 68% fully documented, etc.

No non-technical corporate or home users are going to be able to go through all that. It's frustrating enough for us geeks!

Windows on the other hand has the rare odd case that requires a VB runtime or the .net framework installed. Other than that, 99.99% of the applications out there install/run right out of the box (download).

(I assume this is true for Macs as well - I don't get my Macbook until spring!)

So until the Linux application developers and homebrew coders out there can their stuff to install AND configure easily through a simple GUI, Linux will never succeed in the mainstream marketplace.

(Doing my best Earl Pitts impersonation)
[B]WAKE UP AMERICA!
WolfmanZ Out!

Near enough....