Why Linux Developers Are Wasting Their Time

HOW many Linux users do you know who, once they have installed a new distribution, are so happy with its default appearance that they leave it alone?
I'm guessing here, but I think those people are in the minority.
If you're anything like me you will follow the same procedure.
Once I have a distribution I am happy with, in terms of its performance and stability, I always spend an hour or two getting it to look exactly how I want.
This can mean anything from changing the default icons, to altering the default font and window borders, and almost always involves getting rid of the default desktop wallpaper.
It doesn't even matter if you are using a distribution known for its good looks - and I fully expect an argument here - like Mandriva, or PCLinuxOS, or Fedora, you'll still have the irresistible urge to change something.
This ability to customise is fundamental to the Linux experience and is part of what makes it so attractive to its supporters.
Further, this freedom extends way deeper than superficial, cosmetic changes, down to system-level tweaks that no other OS allows.
I know it's possible to change the look of Microsoft Windows OSes, but not to the same extent as you can in the Linux world, and often not without spending money.
To illustrate the difference, consider the number of desktop environments and window managers available to the Linux user: KDE, GNOME, Xfce, Fluxbox, Openbox, Enlightenment, IceWM, JWM, LXDE, Mezzo (there may be more - let me know).
Then add to that the number of icon sets, window decorations, login screens, splash screens, mouse themes, KDM/GDM/XDM themes available.
And that's before we even start looking at the rapidly expanding world of 3D desktop customisation with things like Compiz and Beryl etc.
Can Microsoft, or even those style gurus at Apple, compete? I think not.
It leads me to think that the chances of any two Linux desktops anywhere in the world being exactly the same are minuscule.
Let me give you a simple illustration, from my own little PC world.
Try to guess what Linux distribution is shown in the screenshot - there's a tiny clue, if you look closely enough.Yes, it's Linux Mint 4.0 (did you see the 'Minty' domain name in my Conky setup?), but instead of running Mint's own customised GNOME desktop, I installed and configured Fluxbox as my desktop manager and added a nice, dark wallpaper I found on the internet.
Plus, I've changed the Fluxbox theme to one called 'Blackened', which has a glossy, 3D feel, which I found on www.box-look.org/.
Thinking about this whole issue of customising Linux led me to wonder how much time developers spend on the default appearance of their distributions, and further, if that time was well-spent.
I'm basing this argument on nothing more than my own experience, but I began wondering if that time might be better spent on improving system-level things, like stability, functionality and hardware compatibility?
Where is the sense in striving for a unique look for your distribution if, within a few hours of installing it, the user has completely changed its appearance?
Seems a waste of time, doesn't it? I know it would break my heart, if I'd spent hours working on a theme for my new distribution.
You might argue that some time needs to be spent on appearance to at least make a distribution stand out from the rest.
It certainly helps if, when you first log in to your new desktop, everything looks polished and professional.
But really, what's the point of spending hours trying to decide which icon set to use, or even creating a new one, if some awkward Joe like me is immediately going to change it for one that better suits his current mood?
My suggestion is this - and it covers some ground I've frequently made in my Linux reviews, regarding the need for User Guides.
Every distribution ought to have a User Guide, a simple text file, sitting there dead-centre on the desktop, just waiting for that new user to read and learn about how to administer his or her new system.
And that User Guide should include a section on how to customise the appearance of your system, with links to the *****-look.org family of community-driven websites, where there are hundreds of themes, icons, window decorations etc, all freely available.
Why don't developers settle for the default look of their chosen desktop environment?
Distributions don't really need to look so different, which means developers don't really need to spend valuable time trying to make them look so different.
Which, in turn, means more developer time can be spent on big-brain stuff that mere mortals like me can't do and really need someone smarter to do for us - like making everything work the way it should.
Leave the wallpaper to me - I can handle that myself.

POSTSCRIPT
I'm surprised at the reaction this article generated - I seem to have stuck a pointy stick into a hornet's nest!
That's OK, I'm more than happy to be shot down in flames by reasoned argument.
The point made in the Comments below about the benefits of branding for commercial distros is one I overlooked.
As a home user I'm blissfully ignorant of the requirements of the commercial world, but I now see the sense of such an exercise, so thank you to those readers who took the trouble to explain their thinking (I did, in fairness, say that making a distro look polished and professional was all that was required, which kind of goes half way there).
However, not all Linux distributions are commercial ones and not all have teams dedicated to each section of the distro's development.
In fact, many distros are labours of love for one or two or three people, as in the Wolvix example I quoted in one of my responses, and for them, spending hours worrying about the look of their distro is a luxury.
It's these people I was thinking of, not the big boys, but I should have made this clearer. Apologies for that.
I received some barbed criticism on the Linux Today posting of my article about my 'false logic'.
I was quite clear in the article that I was basing my reasoning on my own experience - more than a decade of it - of using Linux.
I install a distribution, I change everything, therefore why waste time dressing up the default look of KDE or GNOME? How is that logic false?
One commenter suggested that if my argument was followed through to its logical conclusion the developers would stop doing their art thing, and there would be no wallpapers. themes. window decorations etc for me to use instead of the defaults.
This is clearly nonsense.
Who would use a wallpaper or icon set created for Ubuntu if they were running Fedora, or openSUSE?
And, apart from the fact that I'm more than capable of creating my own using GIMP, Inkscape etc, what about the thousands of contributors to the -look.org family of websites who create this stuff because they love doing it and sharing it?
I was also accused of taking an ungrateful, 'cheap shot' at those who freely give their time to create a distro for me to use.
I've two things to say to that.
Firstly, read the rest of the articles on my blog and you'll see what I think about Linux developers - I've applauded their work and praised their community spirit at every opportunity, and will continue to do so.
Secondly, it's BECAUSE I value them and their work so highly that I would hate to think they were wasting their time doing work that is more often than not changed by the user within the first hour.
And if you doubt that's the case, look at the 'user screenshot' section of any Linux distro's forum, and see how many of them still have the default desktop.
This is so obviously NOT a criticism of developers or their work, but I can't help it if some people interpret it as such.
Anyway, thanks again to all those who commented and please keep reading!
Red Devil