XPde: Cloning the XP Interface 503
An anonymous reader writes "Over at XPde.com, a clone of the Windows XP interface is progressing. They aim to copy the XP interface down to every last detail- with exceptions for text that specifically mentions Windows XP or Microsoft. Their project seems to be coming along well, and assuming they meet their goal, nobody can complain about Linux not being enough like XP. Here is the screenshots page." Depends what you like, I suppose ;)
Sue me, sue me, please. (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Sue me, sue me, please. (Score:2)
Re:Sue me, sue me, please. (Score:2)
Instead they appear to go after stuff they deem more important. On the other hand... Apple is notorious for their legal guys, who seem to have nothing better to do than hunt down any and all reincarnations of the Aqua interface, even if they're not exact rip-offs. They find something that's just in the STYLE of Aqua, they sue.
I don't know, i hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but at least in this matter they seem to have their priorities straight.
Re:Sue me, sue me, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if Linux interface developers are going to rip anyone off, it should be Apple. Not in the areas of colors and fonts, because a) although I like Aqua overall, it's a little cartoonish for my taste, and b) that's just begging for a look-and-feel lawsuit. Instead, they should be looking at the underlying reasons Mac interfaces (Classic and OS X) work so well. OS X / Aqua proves that it's possible to have a Unix desktop that Just Works. KDE and GNOME are both considerably better than they used to be, but they're Not There Yet in comparison to OS X -- and they never will be until the Linux world stops chasing a goal that's not worth reaching in the first place, the shitty Microsoft interface.
This doesn't just apply to window managers, BTW. I'm really deeply annoyed that just about all the open-source productivity software I've seen tries its damndest to look like Microsoft Office stuff -- all the word processors want to look like Word, all the spreadsheets want to look like Excel, etc. People, there are much better interfaces for this kind of software out there.
Re:Sue me, sue me, please. (Score:2, Insightful)
Just so this post isn't totally devoid of content, there seems to be a contingent of Linux advocates (mostly on usenet although I'm sure there are some here), that believe efficiency > usability
That seems like total bunk to me, just because something is easy to grasp doesn't mean that it's less efficient.. okay so there are certain things that are, but using it as a coverall dismissal at any remotely useable UI seems more like "I HAVEN'T GOT IT SO YOU SHOULDN'T EITHER!" paddying.
Re:Sue me, sue me, please. (Score:2)
Efficiency != usability, but they're closely correlated.
Re:Sue me, sue me, please. (Score:2)
The point is not merely the command line; the point is the KDE and GNOME and even the traditional X desktop (to a far lesser degree) provide command-line integration of various kinds, which much more "usable" GUIs tend not to do.
There is, BTW, a smaller but still substantial set of things you can do via GUI more efficiently than via command line; e.g., moving large numbers of files between deeply nested directories.
You're right on principal, but the example you've chosen is a rotten one. Moving large numbers of files between deeply nested directories is *much* more efficient at the command prompt, where patterns can be used to move all or any subset of those files and flow control and test logic can be used to move or categories to multiple deeply-nested destinations intelligently. A simple file manager window could never hope to compete.
A better example would be Photoshop-like or GIMP-like image manipulation (i.e. still acting within a single file).
Re:Sue me, sue me, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please! Come off it dude. No one has EVER said "Oh man, dang those Unix gurus! They've got all the knowledge and it's just not fair! We need to dumb down the UI for every one to level the playing field so those braniacs are just as ill equiped as we are - because we are too lazy to learn the shell."
But quite the opposite can be read in each and EVERY slashdot post regarding interfaces. Where *many* (granted, not all) of these so called Unix gurus go off on a high horse about how the world would be a better place if everyone learned the command line.
I know the command line quite well but I don't think my mom or grandma should be required to learn it so they can see a picture of my dog that I sent them via e-mail. Nor do I want to learn how to rebuild my car engine so I can drive my car down the road.
Re:Sue me, sue me, please. (Score:5, Informative)
There's someone working on it [sourceforge.net]...
Re:Sue me, sue me, please. (Score:2)
Re:Sue me, sue me, please. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sue me, sue me, please. (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with most of your underlying points. The Mac OSX interface is functional. It's ugly in color scheme, of course, and I'd say down-right reupulsive. But it's quite functional and it does "FEEL" right.
Where I disagree with you is that Microsoft's interface is shitty. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that even though Microsoft's classic 9x/2000 look is steril, it FEELS right. Hovers, Drags, Movements all feel like they work as they should. Even context menus and icon behavior feels like it works, even if (as someone else has said) it feels that it's working when it actually isn't.
In that, Microsoft's interface could be said to be "ugly" too, and the XP Blue theme is definately high in gayness points. XP Silver look nice, in my opinion but then that's what the LOOKS boil down to. Opinion. I haven't seen too many interfaces that I think LOOK nice, but as long as they feel right, I don't care what they look like.
Both Mac OS X and Windows FEEL right. They feel like they function, and dispite what other problems some people may have out of XP, I have a rock solid system that I've configured to look rather nice (and minimalistic) by disabling all of the stupid shit, an option I'm glad I have with Windows. I am, after all, a Shell person first, and a Minimalist GUI person next.
KDE and GNome aren't "Quite There Yet", but XPde looks like it might be worth following. So they've managed to make it look like Windows. If it doesn't FEEL like Windows it won't matter one bit in the end. I shall give this a try, but since it is based on the XWindow System I have very low expectations from it. X is the problem, in my opinion and a whole new ground-up desktop is what is needed. In that respect, yes, something more like OS X.
Re: I'm gonna call B.S. on this one. Sorry..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft interface design surely is considered a priority in the company. Otherwise, they probably would have stuck with the horrible Windows 3.1 style GUI, instead of doing the total revamp they did for Windows '95 and beyond.
Just because MS isn't actively suing everyone who imitates their interface doesn't mean they don't consider their interface valuable or important. They simply know they're the de-facto standard everyone else is trying to copy - so they're satisfied.
Apple, on the other hand, is a company with much more to lose. Don't forget, they're in the computer hardware business, as well as software. Their interface design is a critical piece of the puzzle when it comes to moving product. (EG. If you can run a good OSX clone on regular PC hardware, why buy the Mac hardware? Their UI is "leverage" to drive Apple Mac system sales.)
Now, before people get their panties in a bunch over my statements, let me clarify. I do *not* think Microsoft is the "holy grail" of interface design. I certainly agree that Excel isn't the ultimate best design for a spreadsheet, for example. On the flip-side, though, it's really not half-bad. Millions of people are very productive with the product every day - and it looks and works well enough that open-source developers often attempt to emulate it.
For all of Microsoft's failures and flaws, I really see the look and feel of their UI as being one of the lesser issues (if an issue at all). Even in an MS vs. Apple comparison, don't forget - MS was doing background full-screen wallpaper long before Apple. They had superior file management (no 3rd. party tools needed to get a tree-structure display of your drive contents). They had multitasking working much better than Apple too. (Could you even format a floppy in the background on MacOS until version 8 or so?) Even Microsoft's "shortcuts" in Windows seem more functional than Apple's "aliases" were. (Even through MacOS 9.x, I don't believe you could make an alias point to anything on a networked drive. It only allowed an alias to a file on a physical, local device.)
Re:Sue me, sue me, please. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not a lawyer, but I think there is a precedent here, if anyone in this thread is old enough to remember when Apple sued Microsoft for the exact same thing...and lost. Granted that the two interfaces at the time looked nothing like each other, but they behaved similarly. In the world of themed window managers, "look" can be mirrored quite easily, and "feel" is something that, as far as I know, has already been tested as being able to be copied.
Re:Sue me, sue me, please. (Score:2)
Icons.. (Score:2)
I hope it's not too good of a copy! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I hope it's not too good of a copy! (Score:3, Interesting)
From my own anecdotal evidence, I find that computer users can usually be classified in one of three groups:
Experts: these are the people who eat, sleep, live the technology for whatever purpose (hobby, professional choice, curiosity, whatever). They are typically curious and will be delighted by anything that does The Right Thing, or works well, or is just plain cool regardless of the source. These people typically have no problem running two or three operating systems on as many boxes (or more, or even less [vmware.com]) under / on / in / near their desks / racks / etc. They are the software engineers, the curious hobbyists, the sys admins of large organizations (e.g., universities), the folks that learned how to program at age 12 "just for fun", etc. In the early industry, these made up most of the user base of computers (large and small).
Intermediates or Power Users: these users are typically very familiar with the end-user features of one (maybe two) OSes. They could tell you all kinds of tricks like how to re-order your Apple menu (anyone remember Mac OS 7-9?) by copying and pasting carriage returns into the first part of directory / file names and how to "unstick" Word when it won't load without having to reinstall Office. They know enough to be dangerous on a network, but not enough to properly care for other users. These are typically the most active in the OS religious (flame) wars. As personal computers became more accessible (enter Apple II, IBM PC, etc.), these users began to dominate the population.
Beginners: these are what BOFHs call lusers. They are the most ignorant of the bunch, and typically have an attitude of, "I just want the damned thing to work, I don't care how". These folks know just enough to do what they want to do on a daily basis, but aren't very good at troubleshooting problems when they occur without help. These make up most of the computer-using population today.
There is nothing inherently superior or inferior about any particular group. It's just how things are. To date, it has been extremely hard to convince members of the last two groups (beginners and intermediates) to go outside of their respective comfort zones (i.e., try new operating systems). I believe the middle group is nearly impossible to convert as there are as many emotional ties to their underlying choices as there are knowledge ones.
However, with this project, I think the conversion of the beginners group just got easier by several orders of magnitude. They don't care, as long as it works. If it looks and acts very similar to what they're already used to (and by very similar, I mean exact for day-to-day use and similar for more infrequent tasks like network configuration, etc.), then they are much less likely to notice that they are running Linux vs. Windows. This is a very good thing. Intermediates and experts can still use sawfish or twm or the console or whatever they choose, but beginners now have hope for a viable (and understandable) interface. This is truly wonderful, as an increased user base will help legitimize the efforts of Linux on the desktop. Kudos and respect to the xpde team for some truly outstanding work.
Re:I hope it's not too good of a copy! (Score:2)
Three words...
"Unmountable Boot Volume"
Re:I hope it's not too good of a copy! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I hope it's not too good of a copy! (Score:2)
Don't look down on people knowing more than yourself.
Re:I hope it's not too good of a copy! (Score:2)
Therefore, the flaw is not inherent in winXP. It's most probably a flaw in some winXP specific driver, or a hardware flaw. If he's a software engineer with 10 years experience, you'd think he might be able to catch the blue screens and at least isolate the problem.
Re:I hope it's not too good of a copy! (Score:2)
really, wtf were microsoft thinking putting the video driver in the kernel space... for smegs sake, it isn't much of a performance improvement when it blows the OS up >:(
Re:I hope it's not too good of a copy! (Score:2)
Re:I hope it's not too good of a copy! (Score:2)
This is not the fault of the operating systems.
Interesting idea (Score:3, Interesting)
any way, thanks for readinging
Re:Interesting idea (Score:2)
While this is a good idea, I still think that new users should get some sort of introduction to the open source and its ideals.
I think you mean the Free Software movement and not Open Source. Open Source is the non-political form of Free Software. The main part of the Open Source movement is that it is technically superior. There is no argument for freedom. If you want ideals, you want Free Software. The FSF had a button that summed it up well "What's the point of Open Source with the FREEDOM?"
Yanked from the FAQ ..... (Score:5, Informative)
What is XPde?
XPde is a desktop environment for XWindow to allow Windows users migrate to Linux easily. It's composed by a desktop (XPde) and window manager (XPwm).
Why are you doing this?
1 To learn more Kylix and low-level Linux programming
2 For fun
3 To create software can be useful to many people
4 To have a desktop on my system I can customize
There are many reasons, but the main goal I think is to allow normal computer users enjoy the stability and security of Linux, I think right now is not possible with KDE or Gnome, so this project can be interpreted as a bridge to Linux.
[ Back to Top ]
Why do you think this project will be a success? KDE and Gnome are out there and also can be customized to look as Windows XP.
I don't know if it will be a success, but let's imagine this scenario:
-You are a Windows developer
-You develop accounting/payment and desktop applications for Windows
-You would love to develop for Linux, but you can't because none of your customers run Linux
-You could tell them, "hey!, I'm going to change all your machines to Linux, it's cheaper, faster and safer! (and all the Linux propaganda you can eat)"
-You customers would say "Why? Our system works, we know how to print, send mail, create documents, copy files and all we need, we don't want to change, this will mean to teach all my employees the new stuff and I'm not going to loose that time"
This is common scenario in the real world development, there is not time and money to forget Windows and install Linux, so this project is just another piece of software that could help to reduce the learning curve of a normal user to use a Linux computer. The main goal is to create an "exact" copy of the Windows XP interface (without any registered logo/graphic), that way, I plain user can start to use new applications (StarOffice, Mozilla, etc) without be frightened by a new desktop.
XPde FAQ [xpde.com]
Copyright issues? (Score:2, Informative)
I wonder if this project will get the beatdown from MS like the various Aqua skins did from Apple.
I understand that Microsoft doesn't own the textual elements of its user interface (Apple v. Microsoft; Lotus v. Borland), but doesn't Microsoft Corporation own copyrights on the pictorial and graphic works embodied in the exact pixel configurations of the Windows XP operating system's icons, and possibly a trade dress on the look and feel of the "Luna" theme?
I too fear that Microsoft will follow in Apple's footsteps [slashdot.org].
Re:Copyright issues? (Score:3, Informative)
As the previous cases demonstrated, "look and feel" is not protected by copyright.
If it were, every publisher would have to come up with a new format (and maybe a new font) for printed books.
I guess I just don't see the point... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know nothing about Linux. The idea of an XP interface that would help me get to know it at first sounds appealing. But the more I think about it. I don't want an XP clone that works different. The point of Linux for me would be to learn something new, not use something else I'm used too. I think they should remain different from one another. Linux should revel in it's distinction, not attempt to clone XP.
Here's the point (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Here's the point (Score:2)
I want to learn Linux for the sake of learning Linux. I want to see something completely different. I don't want the learning curve to be eased, I want the full Linux experience.
But maybe this is just me, I sure can't speak for everyone. But I know this, you average person doesn't just decide to up and learn Linux. They need a reson...for me, that reason is that Linux is different and well respected by the people in the computer world that I respect the most.
Re:Here's the point (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think you understand the fact that there is no *one* true Linux experience.
It could be a number of things, such as:
1. Someone running Virtual Terminals and Screen only - no XWindows
2. Someone running XWindows with a "hardcore" window manager such as ion and ratpoison, or running an old window manager such as twm or mwm.
3. Someone running one of the mid-level window maangers such as wmaker, E, fluxbox, etc..
4. Someone running stock versions of KDE/GNOME.
5. Someone running one of the various "windowzied" KDE versions such as Lindows/Lycoris/Xandros, etc..
6. Someone running xpde.
None of them is the true "full Linux experience", because there is none.
On the other hand, if you really want to learn Linux from the inside out, I think you should take a look at LFS.
If you have nothing to hide (Score:3, Insightful)
You should be worried, maybe oneday 'they' will decide that something you are doing is wrong.
Re:I guess I just don't see the point... (Score:2)
The things I keep private are in my thoughts and in my memories. When the government or Microsoft or anyone else has access to those...then I'll worry. Until then, Bill Gates and the FBI can feel free to look on and be bored.
a dangerous argument... (Score:2, Insightful)
Your rights to privacy reside in you. They have nothing to do with whether or not you have anything "to hide." Those rights may be limited or constrained if it is found or there is reasonable suspicion to believe that you have violated the rights of others. However, by default--all other things being equal--you are presumed to have a certain right to privacy.
It is certainly not the case that by default, Microsoft, Apple, the U.S. Government, or whatever, has absolute right to information about you, that your privacy is presumed to be theirs. It is even more certain that you and I do not "attain" privacy by justifying that we do not have anything to hide.
The burden lies on appropriate authorities--i.e., the government--to prove that you have lost privacy rights, not the other way around.
Arguing that you have no rights by default, that you only earn them, is extremely dangerous. You have rights by default and lose them through harm.
A good way... (Score:2, Redundant)
Also, what is the true purpose for something like this. Hoping to sell it to the Lindows folks? Seems like a lot of talent being wasted on a less than effective interface in the first place.
To rule the Desktop, Linux needs to be more user friendly. Copying Windows UI is not necessairly the best way to do this.
Sigh. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sigh. (Score:3, Funny)
Apple must feel proud... That Microsoft people keep trying to emulate their OS and interface.
Xerox must feel proud... That Apple people keep trying to emulate their OS and interface.
Re:Sigh. (Score:2)
Re:Sigh. (Score:4, Funny)
*ouch* thank you you've all been wonderful.
Disturbing (Score:2, Interesting)
This is exactly what we don't need (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux needs to set itself apart from windows, copying ms's interface detail by detail is not only a waste of effort but harmful to the larger open-source effort. Worse yet, the windows interface is horrible, so of all the interface's to copy exactly, why choose one of the worst out there?I want a great interface when I'm using my computer, not the same old interface that frustrated me enough to get me to install linux in the first place.
We need innovation, not duplication [slashdot.org].
Funky Colorscheme (Score:2)
Re:Funky Colorscheme (Score:2)
Re:Funky Colorscheme (Score:2)
Re:Funky Colorscheme (Score:2)
Lawsuit (Score:5, Interesting)
Before we get a million posts about how Microsoft is going to start launching lawsuits, it's worth pointing out that Microsoft has zero history of using lawsuits as a weapon. You'll note that Wine, Samba and a million Windows lookalikes already exist.
And no, the Lindows thing has nothing to do with killing Lindows. That's a legitimate trademark infringement. You may not agree with it, but it's not a nuisance suit. Personally, I wish Lindows would just find another name. That name sucks (but I digress).
If you want true Lawsuit Evil, look at Apple, but Microsoft is clean on this issue.
Re:Lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they don't care because, in a way, it sort of helps Microsoft maintain it's desktop market. People can buy computers more cheaply now than ever before, and if they buy a Lindows machine (or have something like this put on an already installed system), then the Linux community is (to stretch things just a bit) training people to do things the Windows Way(tm) for free.
It's a wierd sort of PR for Microsoft. The linux community continues to try and bring people over, but they only way they seem to know how to do that is by emulating Microsoft interfaces. This effectively puts Microsoft in the 'Innovator' category and labels the Linux community as the 'Try and keep up' crowd. Obviously, this doesn't help anyone but Microsoft; and it leaves a large amount of people saying to themselves 'Well, this LOOKS like Windows- but I can't run my favorite software. So why bother.'
To them, since it looks like Windows, it IS windows. This means that if something doesn't work as expected or as soon as they find out that they can't run their newest [insert software here], then Linux is crap because it doesn't just 'work' like Windows does.
To them, their box is a broken Windows machine. They don't care why it doesn't work- they just know that since it looks like Windows, it should run like Windows. This kills the reputation of Linux among average users and boosts the perception of Microsoft as makers of quality software.
Re:Lawsuit (Score:2, Insightful)
that's probably because the ms lawyers are too busy trying to fend off a zillion other suits being filed at them!!
Lotus precedent (Score:2)
Re:Lawsuit (Score:2, Insightful)
What MS does is to take existing technology and make it accessible and cheap to the common technology consumer. There is only profit in their approach because the have a monopoly(U.S. government rule of law, not my words) and so can set the price on individual sales and gain a large profit from volume sales. This keeps smaller vendors from making a profit, and also allows attacks competitators though unfair business practices, not lawsuits. We have few competing OSes because there is no money in it. Apple exists because it was the first consumer GUI(lisa) and Linux exisits becuase it was not written for profit.
Second, Microsoft uses unfair licensing restrictions and directly attack to maintain it's monopoly. Therefore many lawsuits have not been necessary. They have other avenues. They can intimidate system vendors to only include Windows on a machine, which is one the things that killed BeOS. They can create code that renders the competing product ineffective, which is one of the things that essentially has killed Netscape. They choose not to ship or support a product that is in generally use, which they did with Java and now has to ship. They make it difficult to set competing application as default, which they do with virtually every internet utility. Remember when it was all the craze to commodities the desktop and sell the real estate?
Third, MS can simple steal the technology and attempt to destroy the company, which is what claims happened to them [theregister.co.uk].
Apple does not have option one or two, and can only occasionally exercise option three. Therefore to protect it's market share and protect it's trademarks and copyrights, it must sue. I do not agree with MS business practices, and I wish Apple could find another way to protect it's products. Also, I am glad Apple did not win the case against MS and the theft of the Apple desktop, although I wish that the court would have used the occasion to tame MS criminal practices.
One last point. To treat the Lindows as a purely trademark dispute is quite naive. Now it is true that Windows itself may, in time, become a nearly free product, MS will gain most of it's money through subscription applications, and Lindows users may prove a lucrative revenue in the same way that Apple users now are. However, that time is not now and may never come, Lindows may provide a means for users to migrate off a MS platform, and ultimately threaten the monopoly. This lawsuit is simply as the first foray into battle. An XP clone for Linux is the same principle.
Clones sell... but who's complaining? (Score:2)
But for those who do run *nix as a desktop OS, there are so many alternative interfaces (how many themes for Enlightenment are there?) that completely blow XP out of the water, I cannot imagine where this deep desire for an XP clone comes from.
Considering most people who chosse *nix as their desktop OS are those that want an extremely customizable experience, I just don't see this getting a tremendous amount of love... but as other posters have pointed out, probably a fair amount of legal trouble.
Re:Clones sell... but who's complaining? (Score:2)
Have you thought that some people actually like/are used to Windows/WindowsXP and the Windows/XP look? Hence all the Luna theme knockoffs and Explorer-like file managers, and startmenu/taskbar knockoffs (kde, gnome, icewm, qvwm, just from the top of my head)
Embrace and extend (Score:2)
Personally, though, I think that playing catch-up with the Monster from Redmond can only work so far. What the FOSS world needs is a killer application, something so radical and useful that it transcends all discussion of look and feel.
The Web was almost this application, but MS caught up just in time. So, what's next? Opinions, please?
Phew... (Score:2)
At least they aren't using the standard XP toolbar (yet). The original XP toolbar has to be the most vile and horrific concept ever dreamed up by Microsoft. Sure, the insecurities are tolerable to a certain level, the incompatibility with most things I used was not a great concern, the fact the XP install made 4gb of (semi-legal)[1] MP3s vanish wasn't too bad either as is the fact it INSISTS to log on to my linux server as "$servername\Guest", but the toolbar... In Eris' name, the toolbar made me want to gauge my own eyes out with the install CD...
[1] Semi legal being illegal really, but it were FF8 soundtrack mp3s and I have the PC version with glorious midi sound. Listing to the midis made me feel like someone was shoving a chainsaw in my ears and twisting it, so I wanted something better for my money. Besides, the PSX version had digital music and both the PC and the PSX version were priced the same.
how long before it gets sued? (Score:4, Informative)
On the other hand, it does look pretty nice, and if it could survive legal wranglings it might make linux at least look like Windows. They're doing better than the Lindows people at that.
I think program emulation (think WINE) might be more important, of course. People aren't gonna change because it "looks like windows." If they want Windows, they'll probably just buy Windows. If they want Linux, they'll download Linux. Linux has to make special reasons for downloading it. On my Windows partition, I use Mozilla because of its features (tabbed browsing, block popup ads, and type ahead find is a bonus that came after I switched). If Mozilla was just an IE clone that worked almost as well at rendering pages (which is tough since IE renders fake MS-HTML and broken Frontpage code and fake Javascript, etc) then I'd use IE.
Re:how long before it gets sued? (Score:2)
The real question is what they will do if they want the least expensive PC that meets their needs. Or hundreds of such machines....
beware... (Score:2, Insightful)
of the dark side of the force!
Long-live all the differences that linux provides and let's try to i n n o v a t e rather than copy!!
Theres enough XP clones (Score:2)
Why would I want a clone of XP? KDE does a good enouggh job doing it already.
I dont want anymore Linux XP clones, as if XP is such a great interface.
XP is crap, Clone OSX or something.
good luck (Score:2)
Why would anyone want to do this? (Score:4, Funny)
Mod me down if you like, but XP is frickin' ugly!. Contrasting primary colors? Who's lamebrain idea was that? And that sickening shade of blue... ugh... and those fat borders. Excuse me while I puke just thinking about it.
There. Somebody had to say it.
Just because it's from Microsoft it doesn't make it automatically "pretty".
Re:Why would anyone want to do this? (Score:2)
No, it doesn't, but because it's from Microsoft -does- make it socially acceptable and "mainstream", if you will. Look at the latest fashion trends and pop hits on the radio...many people will bitch and moan about the lack of style there, but embrace the new fads simply because everyone else is doing it.
On that note, I find it a bit sad that linux programmers have stooped to the point of trying to win over users by copying the leader. And quite frankly, as interesting as this new wm looks, I think I'll stick with waimea [waimea.org], because it is different and not ugly.
Re:Why would anyone want to do this? (Score:2)
Fortunately, you can turn the damned thing off and use the "classic" Windows interface (Win2K look).
Fortunately, the XPde people are smart enough to recognise both -- per the screenies I've seen, they're cloning the *classic* interface. (And a right good job of it -- only thing I noticed missing is transparency behind desktop icons.)
Leave Out The Nagware Too... (Score:2)
And the spyware,
And the DRM,
And the instability,
And I'd buy that for a dollar!
Microsoft is a religion... for some Linux users (Score:3, Insightful)
"Hey great! It looks just like Windows XP and won't run half of my software! I can't wait to 'migrate'!"
Please! For the last six years neither Microsoft nor Apple have come up with anything really new. This time could have been used creating something better that would give Linux (and its users) an advantage. Instead, it was wasted making Linux look more and more like Windows. This is like AMD and Intel in the 386 era. It's almost as good and a lot cheaper!... Well, as long as you're just following the leader, you'll never put any real pressure on them.
RMN
~~~
er . . . why is it so hard to understand? (Score:5, Interesting)
I realize you probably still don't understand what I am talking about, so here in an analogy. There are some women in this world that think all men abuse and beat women. They complain and they talk down about men, but they always seem to get in a relationship were they get knocked around. Me, being a man and having never beaten a woman, know this is a falsity. In fact, I assume the majority of men do no beat women. However, these particular women have certain choice parterns which constantly expose them to the same kind of man. Believe me, saying "men" encompasses as diverse a group as saying "Linux users."
My personal analysis is that you (and the moderators that modded you up) have been constantly exposing themselves to the same type of Linux user/developer/slashdot info. There are many more projects that make Linux unique than that make it similar to XP. However, like the disillusioned woman I mentioned earlier, you only know how to get information that reinforces your prejudice. Articles posted at slashdot about projects that make Linux "unique" probably go unnoticed by you, as you immediately scroll to the "XP look alike" article.
Believe me, you are not describing Linux users, just your stereotypes towards Linux.
Re:er . . . why is it so hard to understand? (Score:2)
The same ones who (like your battered woman example) had one bad experience, refuse to do normal maintenance on WinBoxen because they claim it won't help anyway, then claim that Windows is totally unstable. Whereas a whole lot of us haven't had a Win32 crash in months, and wonder why if they're smart enough to deal with an obtuse OS like linux, they can't get Windows to run right (and it ain't rocket science. See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=45941&cid=474
But there's no arguing with religious fanatics. They'll only see what they want to see, which usually includes shooting down anything they disagree with.
Re:Microsoft is a religion... for some Linux users (Score:3, Interesting)
They say Microsoft sucks but then they waste their time copying it.
"They" used to refer to the monolithic linux community, which has one uniform set of opinions and makes sure that all public commentary "they" present in a consistent and unified manner. And saying "they" to refer to linux users ("us" for win32 users) ignores the well established fact that a great number of installations are dual-boot with windows.
Why would someone want to "migrate" to something that looks the same and can't run most software?
Lower cost would probably be the most likely reason (obviously someone hasn't see the $200 wal-mart PC and hoards of governments and companies switching or considering switching to lower costs). And, most software that is commonly used is available for linux in some alternate form that's good enough for most (IE-Mozilla, Office-StarOffice, Outlook-Evolution, etc).
This time could have been used creating something better that would give Linux (and its users) an advantage. Instead, it was wasted making Linux look more and more like Windows.
Once more, the paradigm of a team consisting of a fixed number of salaried programmers is applied to free software. HELLO, wake up call. Obviously someone's slept through the revelation that free software is developed by a large number of only loosly associated programmers, and the number is very large and highly variable.
He's not getting paid to work on "something" and they squandering that paid time developing something that doesn't advance linux as a whole as much as something else. He's doing something he finds interesting. It's not wasted time. It's time well spent, from his perspective. That is what matters.
It's also possible that others will want to use it. I can see how it could be used to overcome much of the "learning curve" objections to switching for some people.
Re:Microsoft is a religion... for some Linux users (Score:3, Insightful)
Blow me
Maybe this shows.... (Score:2)
I know this will be modded redundant, but that's cool 'cuz I got Karma to spare!
it's not the look (Score:5, Insightful)
What matters is whether applications are logically designed, easy to understand, and kept simple. Windows XP is not the system to emulate: its user interface is way too messy and too complex, it has too many unnecessary and confusing options, and its interaction is illogical.
While it is far from perfect, the Macintosh OS X desktop is a better model to copy. Apple has done a much better job streamlining system configuration and built-in applications. But, again, it's the logic behind the UI, not the graphical elements themselves that need to be copied. In fact, some misfeatures of the OS X UI that are present for backwards compatibility with previous versions of Mac OS should probably not be copied.
Menu sizing/spacing (Score:2)
Most of the screenshots look very close to XP (such as the network status applet [xpde.com], for instance), but the menu spacing & sizing doesn't look right (most easily seen in the task manager pic [xpde.com]).
Ever since Eugenia Loli-Queru mentioned it in her review of KDE 3 [osnews.com], I can't help but noticing that so many Linux apps suffer from odd menu sizing and spacing. (In due credit, Gnome isn't nearly so affected, as a whole.)
(That quote is from the second page [osnews.com] of her review.)
why ? (Score:2)
Why don't these guys spend their time on making Linux better, instead of worse? Their FAQ has the question of "why are you doing this", but it doesn't explain why they didn't choose are more worthwhile goal.
More importantly, the guy who wrote the FAQ missed the point, by roughly a mile, in the next question. Yes, people want to switch from Windos to Linux, and yes the entire M$ world is designed to make this as painful as possible (so they don't do it).
But, the answer isn't to make Linux a copy of windos. Once Linux is exactly like windos, you haven't given people incentive to switch, you've removed it. Why should I switch to something that's exactly like the thing I already have?
People are not as dumb as some techies believe them to be, that's an old BOFH syndrome. I installed Linux desktop systems for both my mom and my sister. Neither of them had any computer experience to speak of. It was painless. In fact, I'm convinced that it would have been more trouble with windos. Just think of all the "it crashed, what do I do?" calls that I saved myself.
And the interface (window maker) was perfectly acceptable to both of them. In fact, explaining the dock is an order of magnitude simpler than explaining the start/kde/foot menu. ("no, _this_ program is in there, because... and those games are sorted by company name... no, _that_ program is in some other sub-submenu...")
Enough of a rant. It's so sad to see so much manpower wasted into copying something that simply isn't worth copying.
Thanks (Score:2)
Xpde, KDevelop, KWord, Kivio, Aqua themes, Evolution, Gnumeric ("95% of builtin Excel functions")... good grief.
<troll>Somebody wake me when an open source group develops something original.</troll>
Important design decisions... (Score:5, Funny)
But wait! How will you duplicate the sluggish performance of the Start menu? You know, how it takes 10 seconds just to expand a level? I guess you could just insert an endless FOR loop, but that wouldn't be creative. How about installing a distributed computing client that would start crunching numbers while your Start menu struggles to open? That way while a Windows user waits in agony to drill down to All Programs --> Accessories --> Games, Linux users can actually spend that wasted time finding a cure for cancer!
Isn't this backwards? (Score:2)
Haven't we been getting bashed for not being able to step out ahead of Microsoft but always doggedly trailing whatever they choose to do with User Interface? I think this cinches the arguement that Linux is behind MicroSoft when it comes to the desktop.
Until the Linux community stops promoting KDE because it looks just like windows and stops trying to make XP wannabes we will never ever sustain the argument that we are a group of wannabes ourselves. The point is to make something which is better and to turn the tables and make MicroSoft follow Linux for a change.
When we succeed in doing that, we will have made a credable dent in their territorial claims.
Copying just gets you sued. (Score:2)
Try copying Aqua and get sued by Apple. Copy the lousy/lesser looking XP interface and get sued by M$.
Since its what's visible, the system topography, its what sells the system to those incapable (because they can't, don't or won't know or care,) of seeing below the surface, the topology.
Sadly the only way to win is to make the GUI so transparent that its invisible or to change the way computers interface with users.
Create it and patent it NOW so you lock out Microsoft.
e.g. no more logon & security dialog, a fingerprint scanner and/or other biometric devices announce who's using the system.
e.g. voice recognition & gestural controls (no keyboard, just point in space at a letter or a word or an object.)
e.g. voice/speech/tone generation. Use music to generate reports on the relative scale of things.
e.g. 3D display.
Do it now or the one with the most bucks will lock you out of the game with laws (even if it only has to be able to afford to break them.)
dumb idea, but for a different reason (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I'm a little afraid that somebody might latch onto this idea and say, "Gee, we should use this to help people migrate to Linux from Microsoft!" That would be a terrible idea.
It would be a terrible idea because it would give new users a false sense of familiarity. When somebody sits down at a new program or OS, they notice immediately that it's different, and they start learning. The contrast between old and new creates a kind of mental traction, something for the brain to hold on to: "Okay, in Windows I did this and then this, but this is Linux so I have to do that and that instead."
In a situation of false familiarity, though, everything is a little slippery. Because everything looks like something the user is already familiar with, the user naturally expects everything to work like the thing it resembles. When it doesn't, frustration sets in. "Okay, now I want to do this. Hey, it didn't work. But that's how I do it in Windows, and this is just like Windows. Why didn't it work? This is broken!"
Some folks seem to be under the mistaken impression that if the windows have the same chrome on them and the desktop has the same background and the fonts resemble each other, then the system will be easy to learn. In fact, just the opposite is true. The more you make X look like Y, the harder it will be for users who know Y to learn X.
Re:dumb idea, but for a different reason (Score:2)
I take my hat off to the guy who wrote XPde, and wish him all the best with his future projects. But this is one itch that run the risk of being scratched so much that it ends up a large scabby wound...
Re:dumb idea, but for a different reason (Score:3, Interesting)
Is there a Mac OS X attempt? (Score:2)
Looks real close (Score:3, Interesting)
Does this mean the clipboard works across all programs?!?
Because that is the one thing I really wish worked properly in Linux. If nothing else, MS has the clipboard available throughout ALL programs I run. If I select something and hit CTRL-C, in Windows I KNOW it will be available to me when I open (Insert favorite application here) for a CTRL-V.
Is the clipboard built into the kernel of Windows? If so, maybe thats an option Linux needs to copy?
And don't even get me started on printing...
Why BlueCurve and the cloning of Windows is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
If the environment looks the same, the user will be coming with a whole set of expectations about how the environment will act in a given situation, and will get utterly frustrated when those expectations aren't met.In some cases, the user might actually lose valuable work because the thing that looks the same on the emulating environment does something destructive that is benign on emulated environment. At least when something looks totally alien you know it will act totally alien.
While some people praise RedHat for making GNOME and KDE consistent, they didn't do this at all. GNOME and KDE might now look the same under BlueCurve, but they still act completely differently. Some poor user will do some work in a GNOME app, and then when the go to do work in a KDE app, stuff will act completely differently. The same looking button in the two environments will act differently.
A specific example: In a KDE Save File dialog, Ok is on the left and cancel is on the right. In GNOME, it's reversed. Imagine the shock the end user has when they go to save a file in a KDE app and they find that the button on the right that they clicked in the previous app (which looked exactly the same) to save their file actually prevents them from saving their file in the app they're currently using. Or even worse, they don't notice the difference and they lose the changes their made to their data.
I actually talked to the guy who created BlueCurve when RedHat did a road tour at my school. And while he acknowledged the differences, I was disappointed that he didn't understand how much trouble this could cause.
The same thing goes for the "Let's just copy Windows UI so it will be familiar for those transitioning to linux" people. No matter how hard the linux developers try, things will be different from Windows. It won't be like windows no matter what they do. I could think of no better way to turn people off of using linux than to tell them it's just like windows and for them to believe that and for them to then lose a month's worth of financial records due to some small inconsistency between windows and the windows-clone linux distro they're using.
A better solution is to not worry about familiarity and just make sure that things are well designed in general, and that nothing is ambiguous or confusing and that the users data is protected at all costs.
Changing windows. (Score:3, Interesting)
During the middle of the 90's I saw lots of people that considered the Windows desktop as "horrible". But you would be admired to see that they used some highly primitive and simple apps made on DOS. Sysadmins linked all these apps with small batch files and highly primitive menus. And people were happy with it. When things started moving into Windows95, these people got lost. They couldn't get used to this new system for quite some long time. And most of them, till now, don't know what is the "Start" menu. They launch their programs from the icons laying in the desktop. And they don't give a Hell if the program is Internet Explorer or Mozilla if it carries the same interface (yeap I saw this funny thing some time ago). And not because it is better or worser but because it allows the same mechanical, routine movements without thinking about what's behind the GUI.
On *NIX, most of the choice around an interface is made on what you are offered at first. Most Mandrake people prefer KDE, Others give preference for Gnome. And, they rarely have seen they could have a choice. Due to the fact that they got used to these things, they rarely change sides. I, during my work on several interfaces in the very early ages of Linux, got used to the AfterStep interface. And I have noted that, today, I naturally prefer something like WindowMaker or BlackBox. This brings up an interesting effect. In two works, due to certain constraints, I use KDE or Gnome. And, for me it is pretty clear that 90% of these systems offer, are completely superfluous for me. But a mix of necessity and lazyness to change interfaces, keep me having them there.
Will people change to Linux because of the XP interface? No. They will change when you offer the same mechanics of using their machines everyday. And that means copying not only the interface per se, but also making all the horrors that people do with it and making every application look similar. When someone brings up that mess, people will change the OS. But not because it is Linux. Frankly, they will not note a difference.
Note. In certain cicumstances, it is possible today to offer systems carrying a range of services very similar to what Windows offer at start. I did that in 1999 with stations that were used only and exclusively for Internet browsing. When KDE is configured as much as possible as a Windows interface, a good mass of people do not give a hint about what OS they are working on. And this things was damn popular. While in Windows NT, these University classes had only 2500 users. When on Linux, there were no less than 7000. And just because the Linux was solid stable and fast... as the interfaces were nearly the same... And only after a talk or some weirdness on some program, people realised that they were not working on Windows.
However, I would not recomend to any sysadmin to see the horrors these people did with their desktops... Most of them looked as happy hippy vans...
"Look and feel" court case (legal reference) (Score:4, Informative)
LOTUS DEV. CORP. v. BORLAND INTL., INC. No. 93-2214
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 4618
March 9, 1995, Decided
III. Conclusion
Because we hold that the Lotus menu command hierarchy is uncopyrightable subject matter, we further hold that Borland did not infringe Lotus's copyright by copying it. Accordingly, we need not consider any of Borland's affirmative defenses.
The judgment of the district court is
Reversed.
Linked from User Interface Copyright [mit.edu]
Everybody quit the crying.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Local maximum (Score:3, Interesting)
Why the hell are these people cloning the Windows UI?!
Because it's a "local maximum". It takes effort to go from one local maximum to another. This XPde is designed to teleport the user directly from a local maximum on Windows to a corresponding local maximum on *n?x, so that you can separate adapting to the OS and adapting to the UI into separate tasks.
Re:Local maximum (Score:2)
Surface is liberal (Score:2, Funny)
unless the potential surface you are traversing is non-conservative.
And in this case, the surface of graphical user interfaces is highly non-conservative of learning time.
Re:Oh my god no! (Score:2)
100% mouse-driven? I'd rather not. (Score:2)
If you want to have a consistent, elegant and completely mouse driven GUI they are not worth shit.
You don't want a completely mouse-driven UI on a PC unless you have something like a tablet PC, where no keyboard is available even to enter text unless you flip the screen around into its "laptop" configuration.
However, I'm not talking about requiring the user to know command lines. I'm talking about allowing the user to type the first few letters of an object's name as a shortcut to select it, providing a way to access all commands from the keyboard (good for users who have physical problems with using a mouse?), providing consistent keyboard commands for common actions across all applications, and making a command line available to those users who want to automate things.
Re:Screenshots (Score:2)
It knocks ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THEM out. (Score:3, Insightful)
- A.P.
Windows also supports Viruses (Score:2)
Trojans too, and hidden exploits which would allow me to delete all your files from a website just like this one.
Re:Windows also supports Viruses (Score:2)
If Linux ever conquers the desktop, you'll see many virii in it too.
Re:Interfaces suck these days.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Copying Windows GUI? At least it's better than KDE (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, this is just what we need to differentiate linux from Windows.
Agreed. But look at it this way.
At least Microsoft has a budget to sit people down in focus groups and see what they like. If we had that in KDE/Gnome/$any_other_full-service_desktop_metaphor , then it's probable we wouldn't have new stuff being released with color schemes that make corporate users vomit, or xine logos designed by eurotrash 14-year-old Run Lola Run fans from East Berlin.
Microsoft spent millions developing that GUI look and feel. If user Joe Average didn't like it, they wouldn't have released it. We could do far worse than to take Microsoft's lead on UI design - KDE is the best of the free desktop metaphors for Linux, and well, frankly, it sucks.
By copying the good features of Windows software while avoiding their pitfalls of poor security and castrating inflexibility, we have no place to go but up.
The same, of course, applies to analyzing and "sharing" what makes the Macintosh GUI great. But you have to crawl before you can walk...
Linux isn't ready for the desktop [glowingplate.com].
Re:This is no good! (Score:3, Interesting)
The Ms Window interface is not 'crappy'. It is composed almost completely of "borrowed" elements from competing interfaces. If those elements are now crappy then they must have been crappy also in their original forms on Unix / Linux / OS2 / Macintosh desktops. I don't think they were then or now. Though if you are saying that too many spices can ruin the stew then I would agreee with that, though KDE is more guilty in that respect I think.
Having an interface available which will require zero retraining for end users will save businesses so much money as they transition from MS lock-in to the more diverse, less expensive, more robust, equivalent Free Software. Regardless of whether an XP inspired interface becomes popular on Linux there will always be new, different, innovative, experimental interfaces being developed and available for Linux, so having one more which is perceived as familiar and intuitive to trained office drones is nothing to worry about.
You say we should not emulate what you consider a bad environment becuase people should be shown that it is not an industry standard? With all due respect, that is nonsense. Linux will never get that chance unless it can continue to grab desktop marketshare and that cannot happen unless the transition is seamless from one environment to the other. Linux must achieve parity before it could ever hope to lead people in a new direction. And due to the diverse nature of Open and Free software Linux can never force people to go anywhere; like a liquid, they will find their own path.
Lastly, the recent 'M$ FUD about the OSS community being'... essentially copycats is meant to make people like you fear being called a copycat and spending your time developing lots of new, unproven, and impractical, but innovative, and possibly occasionally successful, user interface enhancements which would make Linux an ungainly albatross but from which they could cherry pick the gems for their next platform. If you fall for this cheap psychological trick then you become MS's unpaid alpha version developers.