Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => macOS => Topic started by: psyjax on 14 October 2002, 10:32
-
http://www.gnome.org/start/2.0/screenshots/ (http://www.gnome.org/start/2.0/screenshots/)
Ummmm....
Something fishy about some of the element's in Gnome 2. Anyone used it yet?
How OSX-ish is it?
-
It looks like it will kick KDE's crappy closed qt based ass.
-
looks that way, doesn't it? while i was under the impression that the qt/kde thing was now all open source, so that's all right then, i am happy that GNOME looks like it might be closing, or have already closed, the gap between itself and KDE.
i think i will be eager to try out the new GNOME...
hey! is this version of GNOME the same one i will be getting with the download edition of Mandrake 9.0, or did we just miss that one? I'll need to go and chack that one out.
re: does it look like OSX, not so sure, looks more like KDE to me!
(http://www.gnome.org/start/2.0/screenshots/thumb-tomas-solaris.png)
and what is it with linux desktops that try to look like solaris? granted this is just solaris wallpaper, but still... what's the reason?
oh i get it! they're showing you can theme it like other desktop environments! i like this one: Think Different, unless you want Apple to sue you (http://vhost.dulug.duke.edu/~louie/screenshots/kenneth-gnomemeeting.png).
[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Ex Eleven / b0b:
It looks like it will kick KDE's crappy closed qt based ass.
KDE's Qt toolkit was, is and will be superior! And it has stopped being closed source ages ago! You should really check it out before posting (http://smile.gif)
Trolltech FAQs (http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/free.html)
[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Panos ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by psyjax:
http://www.gnome.org/start/2.0/screenshots/ (http://www.gnome.org/start/2.0/screenshots/)
Ummmm....
Something fishy about some of the element's in Gnome 2. Anyone used it yet?
How OSX-ish is it?
Hmm, let's see. What do those screenshots remind me of cause there's something really familiar about them! Could it be the OS X desktop? Could it? :D :D
-
Maybe OSX copied Gnome?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
and what is it with linux desktops that try to look like solaris? granted this is just solaris wallpaper, but still... what's the reason?
What makes you think it's Linux and not Solaris? I believe Solaris is switching to Gnome as a default desktop environment. You've been able to run Gnome and I believe even KDE on Solaris for quite some time now. In fact if you look at the system details window that is open you will see the machine is a Sun Ultra 5 with an UltraSparc processor, running SunOS 5.9 (Solaris 9).
[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Panos:
Hmm, let's see. What do those screenshots remind me of cause there's something really familiar about them! Could it be the OS X desktop? Could it? :D :D
I haven't used OSX but I've used Gnome for a few years now and I don't believe there has been any drastic changes in the looks. Maybe OSX copied Gnome? What specifically do you see that looks similar?
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
Maybe OSX copied Gnome?
To get serious: having used both all I can say is that they are ages apart although I haven't used GNOME 2.0 yet. I think though that the dock appeared first in OS X and then in GNOME 1.4.* (correct me if I'm wrong). Apple's infamous menu bar and Finder though are a completely different story since they've been there from the beginning.
-
I am serious. I have always liked KDE better than Gnome although I have been using Gnome2 since installing RedHat 8.0. What exactly is the "dock"? Is it the top menu they show? If so, there is no top menu in RedHat's default installation of Gnome, I personally do not like that top menu. In fact I could get along just fine with one ICON and no menu at all. The ICON could be labeled any of the following "Eterm", "Konsole", "xterm". But I'm not normal. (http://smile.gif)
[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
I haven't used OSX but I've used Gnome for a few years now and I don't believe there has been any drastic changes in the looks. Maybe OSX copied Gnome? What specifically do you see that looks similar?
The dock, the home icon, the menu bar, the folder looks etc. Anyway, it was widely known that you could make either KDE or GNOME resemble Mac or Windows desktops so the default GNOME desktop may be a bit different. But who cares, as long as it's not M$ products we're talking about? (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
I am serious. I have always liked KDE better than Gnome although I have been using Gnome2 since installing RedHat 8.0. What exactly is the "dock"? Is it the top menu they show? If so, there is no top menu in RedHat's default installation of Gnome, I personally do not like that top menu. If fact I could get along just fine with one ICON and no menu at all. The ICON could be labeled any of the following "Eterm", "Konsole", "xterm". But I'm not normal. (http://smile.gif)
This (http://panosg.netfirms.com/thedock.jpg) is a picture of the dock which is located at the bottom part of the desktop in OS X. However from what I recall you could switch it off in GNOME 1.4. As for the Konsole I know what you mean ;) . I'm trying to use it in OS X but Darwin is a bit more different in the command line so i'm still trying to learn it (http://smile.gif)
-
Hmmm, I can't seem to get to the picture you linked to. Can't resolve the server name you used. Is there a typo?
-
Maybe I'm too idealistic, but I think they should come up with their own desktop metaphors. Alot of the programms and other stuff seem to be direct rips of software from other companies. Take for instance that extreemly iTunes looking Music player. It's even layed out the same.
I dunno, maybe it's so people will be attracted to the similarities between Linux desktops and other more popular OS's, but just because it's a better OS, dosn't justify ripping off someone elses look and feel.
From the looks of it, it seems to be a bizzare hybrid of OSX and Windows.
It would be neet to see a grupe program a whole new Desktop Environment, using an all new metaphore. Now that's competition and inovation!
-
doesnt almost all GUIs have that "dock".
[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: The Master of Reality / Bob ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
Hmmm, I can't seem to get to the picture you linked to. Can't resolve the server name you used. Is there a typo?
It has been fixed (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Take for instance that extreemly iTunes looking Music player. It's even layed out the same.
Are you talking about XMMS?
-
No he isnt... it was posted here a while ago. There is a new music player that wanted to look like itunes and be for linux. Well, the people making it were threatened by apples lawyers and are redoing it.
-
quote:
Originally posted by psyjax:
I dunno, maybe it's so people will be attracted to the similarities between Linux desktops and other more popular OS's, but just because it's a better OS, dosn't justify ripping off someone elses look and feel.
I don't know how long Apple has had that but what is refered to as the "panel" in Gnome has been there from the beginning of Gnome. It doesn't look any different now than it did any other time. I certainly don't believe anyone put it there in the hopes of attracting Mac people. If anything it would have been there to attract Windows people since they do have 97% of the desktop market. But I tend to believe it wasn't put there to "attract" anyone. It was put there because it's functional.
And by the way, Gnome is not a "Linux" desktop. It is a desktop system that runs on many OSs, including Darwin, Solaris, etc.
[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
Also, you keep forgetting that copying Apple's interface and using extremely competitive pricing is what made Microsoft such a huge successful company. Maybe Linux will do this and dethrone both Windows and Mac. It is doubtful, though, as long as Xfree86 stays as slow as it is and GNOME and KDE stay incomplete and unpolished. And the only "desktop" distro's of Linux (lindows, xandros) are practically closed source.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Panos:
It has been fixed (http://smile.gif)
I got it. Yep, looks like Apple copied Gnome. (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by The Master of Reality / Bob:
No he isnt... it was posted here a while ago. There is a new music player that wanted to look like itunes and be for linux. Well, the people making it were threatened by apples lawyers and are redoing it.
Yes, another example of Apple bullying people around with their fucking lawyers, just like they did with Microsoft. Losers. Apple's new slogan should be "Think different, or we will sue your sorry plagairising copy-cat ass."
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
I got it. Yep, looks like Apple copied Gnome. (http://smile.gif)
Oh okay then. (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:
Yes, another example of Apple bullying people around with their fucking lawyers, just like they did with Microsoft. Losers. Apple's new slogan should be "Think different, or we will sue your sorry plagairising copy-cat ass."
OOOHHH! Poor Microsoft :D :D What a bad company Apple is, bullying poor old Microsoft around :D :D :D
-
quote:
Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:
Yes, another example of Apple bullying people around with their fucking lawyers, just like they did with Microsoft. Losers. Apple's new slogan should be "Think different, or we will sue your sorry plagairising copy-cat ass."
As they should. We now know the evil that was brought uppon the world when they let M$ walk all over them in the beginning.
I wasen't reffering speciffically to the Panel in Gnome, or the Dock. You can argue that both of those are decendents of the Apple Menu items. Another APPLE invintion.
I'm reffering to the same metaphor. Everything from folders, windows, icon's etc. It's all inbred between various GUI's, it's getting a bit annoying is all I'm getting at.
I would love to see the open-source community kick the shit out of both Apple and M$ by comeing up with a new aproach to working with a computer. A more "human" Human interface. This is what having an open software community should be about, not emulating other OS's functionality, creating your own NEW ways.
That's my rant.
[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: psyjax ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by psyjax:
I would love to see the open-source community kick the shit out of both Apple and M$ by comeing up with a new aproach to working with a computer. A more "human" Human interface. This is what having an open software community should be about, not emulating other OS's functionality, creating your own NEW ways.
But what you are complaining about is "looks" not OS functionality. In my opinion (and many would disagree) that UNIX/Linux has always kicked the shit out of both as far as OS level things. I know that "looks" matter to some people but it is something that I could give two shits less about. What I care about is if my OS can get the job done, and do it without raping me blind.
As far as GUIs go, I am just as comfortable with WindowMaker (something that looks absolutely nothing like Windows or MacOS), or Enlightenment, or ... Those GUIs are there. Gnome and KDE have been popular probably because they *do* look like something else and there is a familiarity for people who have used the others. I see nothing wrong with that. You certainly have the choice of switching to a different GUI in UNIX/Linux, unlike other OSs.
[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
But you see open source just clones stuff. You know that, I know that. Hell even Steve Ballmer knows that:
"The Linux client hardly runs any applications except a bunch of shareware stuff that
-
That's the funniest thing I have ever heard. Ballmer has his facts reversed.
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
But what you are complaining about is "looks" not OS functionality.
Why would he? OS X combines uniquely both "looks" as well as OS functionality and there is no question about that.
[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Panos ]
-
hmm let's reword it a bit:
"The Windows client hardly runs any applications except a bunch of shareware stuff that
-
quote:
Originally posted by Panos:
OS X combines uniquely both "looks" as well as OS functionality and there is no question about that.
Ok, now how did they get the "OS" functionality in OSX? With UNIX? If you want to get down to it, I could be complaining that Apple has ripped out their OS and installed UNIX underneath, where's the innovation? But I don't do that. I applaud them for doing it. I think Microsoft should do it. I just think that the pissing contests about who ripped who off are pointless (unless you are ripping on Microsoft). (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:
hmm let's reword it a bit:
"The Windows client hardly runs any applications except a bunch of shareware stuff that
-
You can run GNOME, KDE, Enlightenment, and WindowMaker on OSX. I understand teh concepts, it's pretty cool.
The thing that even got me on this crap was messing with this App, that turns the Finder 3d. So browsing your files becomes more like playing some wierd FPS.
Anyway, it occured to me that things can be done in a diffrent way, and if I were one of those programmers out to change the world like the open source folks, I would probably be trying things in a VERY diffrent way.
To say tht GUI's are irelivant when it comes to the OS is only partialy true. The fact that they are so prevalent is testament to their importance.
In the early days of the Mac OS, the whole concept was branded WIMP environment by UNIX heads. Who thought the whole thing was stupid and ludacriss, and yet Many UNIX programms now REQUIRE GUI software in order to be able to use.
So that's my take on that. As for inovation, I think open source is the way to go. We just need more open source "innovators" :D to build something truely Revolutionary.
NOTE: I am talking in reffrence to *NIX's as a desktop common user platform, not as a high-end workstation or server which I don't think anyone would deny it's TOTAL inovation and supperiority.
[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: psyjax ]
-
It all depends on how you define functionality. for example in your case the term functionality would be debatable, since you use your OS for highly specialized tasks. However, in most cases the term functional would translate into being able to perform every day tasks easily, effortlesly and painlessly.
Now, in the first case I would choose Linux (hell I'm still using it and have been using it since '97) but in the second case I would choose OS X, no question about that. Depends really on how you intend to use your OS.
As for your UNIX copying argument, you are partly wrong. You can work with Darwin and BSD in full text mode if you like and explore OS X in depth.
In conclusion, I both Linux and OS X are functional OSs, each one in its own way. Anyway, this kind of discussion is really pointless and I tottaly agree with you there.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Panos:
As for your UNIX copying argument, you are partly wrong. You can work with Darwin and BSD in full text mode if you like and explore OS X in depth.
I guess you misunderstood me. psyjax's complaint was that he thought Gnome "copied" the looks of a particular feature in Apple's GUI. He complained that there was no innovation. My counter to that was, why did Apple put UNIX under the hood with OSX? Where's the innovation? Why copy?
The point I was trying to make was you can't complain about it on one end and accept it as OK on the other end (unless someone would like to make the claim that Apple invented UNIX).
-
quote:
The point I was trying to make was you can't complain about it on one end and accept it as OK on the other end (unless someone would like to make the claim that Apple invented UNIX).
You know, that would be a fun flame-bait question for a linux forum somewhere :D
But seriously, I was getting more too the point in my previous post. Speaking about Makeing a totaly new GUI. Something compleatly devoid of any common concepts.
But I suppose that's more of a pipe dream or somethin.
-
quote:
Originally posted by psyjax:
Anyway, it occured to me that things can be done in a diffrent way, and if I were one of those programmers out to change the world like the open source folks, I would probably be trying things in a VERY diffrent way.
But what you are forgetting is that there *are* window managers that you can run on Linux (as well as other unices) that are *VERY* different than what Apple or Microsoft has produced. Sure open source programmers copy other GUI environments, but they certainly don't just copy Apple. Look at lesstif, Openlook, twm, etc.
But there are plenty of innovative window managers out there. The popular ones seem to be the ones that have incorporated certain features of other popular GUIs that people are familiar with. I believe there are radically different GUIs that are superior, but they are not the most popular. If people are familiar with something they choose to use what they are familiar with so they don't have to (heaven forbid) learn something new.
But like I said, I believe UNIX is a tried and true OS to base your desktop operating system on. Apple seems to have realized this as well. Again I applaud them for choosing this path. It does get on my nerves when they turn around and complain about getting something back, even if developed separately.
[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by The Master of Reality / Bob:
No he isnt... it was posted here a while ago. There is a new music player that wanted to look like itunes and be for linux. Well, the people making it were threatened by apples lawyers and are redoing it.
I posted that link a couple of months ago. It was called xTunes.
http://www.tex9.com/software/xtunes.php (http://www.tex9.com/software/xtunes.php)
-
Originally posted by Panos:
[QB]
KDE's Qt toolkit was, is and will be superior! And it has stopped being closed source ages ago! You should really check it out before posting (http://smile.gif)
Trolltech FAQs (http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/free.html)
It looks dodgy, and gives Linux a bad name...
KDE Sucks, whats the idea behind single click icons? Its stupid. And its clunky, bluecurce will hack both there asses but bluecurve is gnome based.
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
I am serious. I have always liked KDE better than Gnome although I have been using Gnome2 since installing RedHat 8.0. What exactly is the "dock"? Is it the top menu they show? If so, there is no top menu in RedHat's default installation of Gnome, I personally do not like that top menu. In fact I could get along just fine with one ICON and no menu at all. The ICON could be labeled any of the following "Eterm", "Konsole", "xterm". But I'm not normal. (http://smile.gif)
[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
I use a top bar, and a bottom bar.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Ex Eleven / b0b:
Originally posted by Panos:
[QB]
KDE's Qt toolkit was, is and will be superior! And it has stopped being closed source ages ago! You should really check it out before posting (http://smile.gif)
Trolltech FAQs (http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/free.html)
It looks dodgy, and gives Linux a bad name...
KDE Sucks, whats the idea behind single click icons? Its stupid. And its clunky, bluecurce will hack both there asses but bluecurve is gnome based.[/b]
It is a matter of taste really so it is pointless to argue about that. You either like it or you don't. The future and history will tell. (http://smile.gif)
Don't forget what the Latins said:
"Per gustibus et coloribus non discutantum (est)" meaning that you really can't argue about colours and tastes or likes and dislikes. It is really a subjective issue (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:
But you see open source just clones stuff. You know that, I know that. Hell even Steve Ballmer knows that:
"The Linux client hardly runs any applications except a bunch of shareware stuff that
-
where the fuck do you people download Gnome 2.1 RPMS or Source!!!!
I am dling the RPMs for 2.0 beta because there is no where thati could find the RPMS for the newest one. And whenever i try to dl the newest source wget creates a whole bunch of symlinks instead of dling the files.
-
quote:
Originally posted by The Master of Reality / Bob:
where the fuck do you people download Gnome 2.1 RPMS or Source!!!!
I just browsed around their FTP archive and it appears to be all there:
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/desktop/2.1/2.1.0/sources/ (http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/desktop/2.1/2.1.0/sources/)
And they probably have a CVS repository. And I see the 2.1 ximian RPMS on rpmfind.net. And you can probably download the entire ball of wax from ximian.com.
[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Panos:
It is a matter of taste really so it is pointless to argue about that. You either like it or you don't. The future and history will tell. (http://smile.gif)
Don't forget what the Latins said:
"Per gustibus et coloribus non discutantum (est)" meaning that you really can't argue about colours and tastes or likes and dislikes. It is really a subjective issue (http://smile.gif)
Yea thats why I like Linux, because it gives me Choice. But it doesnt change the fact the KDE is useless. Id rather do a
dd if=/dev/zero of=wasteofspaceisbetterthenkde bs=1M count=1000
-
quote:
Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:
hmm let's reword it a bit:
"The Windows client hardly runs any applications except a bunch of shareware stuff that
-
quote:
Originally posted by Ex Eleven / b0b:
It looks dodgy, and gives Linux a bad name...
KDE Sucks, whats the idea behind single click icons? Its stupid. And its clunky, bluecurce will hack both there asses but bluecurve is gnome based.
Uh, turn on the "double-click" checkbox if you don't like single click. As far as functionality and configurability KDE is still light years better than Gnome2/BlueCurve in my opinion. But Gnome2/BlueCurve is functional enough for me to continue using it on RH8, only because RH screwed up the fonts so Konqueror looks like crap and I don't feel like farting with it.
I almost feel like removing all the default RedHat8 desktop environments and reinstalling a default KDE system. But I don't have anything against either desktop environment and I wish them both success. They both have been doing a great job and I like choice.
[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
I just browsed around their FTP archive and it appears to be all there:
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/desktop/2.1/2.1.0/sources/ (http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/desktop/2.1/2.1.0/sources/)
And they probably have a CVS repository. And I see the 2.1 ximian RPMS on rpmfind.net. And you can probably download the entire ball of wax from ximian.com.
[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
is there some way to make wget dl the actual file? When i dl the source it just creates lots of symlinks to ../../../../../../*.tar.gz (* = package name)
-
ncftpget ftp://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/desktop/2.1/2.1.0/sources/*.bz2 (http://ftp://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/desktop/2.1/2.1.0/sources/*.bz2)
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by void main:
I got it. Yep, looks like Apple copied Gnome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh okay then.
--------------------
i had the opportunity to visit andy hertzfeld a few years ago and he was working on the gnome project. so i would say that it might be his influence you're recognizing.??