No. You can't say "Linux look so bad graphically".
You should learn more about Unix/Linux/X11/etc. before you say
anything about X11 and Linux.
That's right, you can't say "Linux look so bad graphically..." You have to specifically say, "KDE look so bad graphically" or "Gnome look so bad graphically."
There's no accounting for taste, for one thing. For another, you don't have to know how to recompile the kernel in order to have an opinion on whether screenshot A looks better than screenshot B.
You don't have to own a car in order to have an opinion on whether it looks good.
My opinion is that the average person would rate the aesthetic quality of Mac OS at about a 9 (out of 10); Windows XP would get a 7; and the average "Linux" desktop would rate about a 2. (Maybe 3 with a nice wallpaper.)
Of course, Linux gets a 2 instead of a ZERO to the extent that they've ripped off the Windows UI (see the KDE file picker dialog at http://www.linuxworld.com/story/32640.htm)
Works here perfectly, and yes ... automatically.
Interesting opinion. Personally, I had no idea, none, what a supremely wonderful piece of coding Windows Update was, until I went to the Red Hat Network to respond to the flood of "errata" emails I got about vulnerabilities in my Linux system. Applying a "simple" patch turned out to be a nightmare of prerequisites and dependencies and bizarre refusals to install.
But I think it's just very sad to notice that people has no a glue
what is happening in Linux and Open Source world, but are still
talking about them.
Hmmmm. Funny how that never happens in the Linux world, where people who "has no a glue what is happening" in Windows are still talking about them.