GNOME2: And I thought M$ was the only people ripping off Apple

[voidmain]

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).  

[voidmain]

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

[psyjax]

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"     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 ]

[Pantso]

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.

[voidmain]

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).

[psyjax]

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  

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.

[voidmain]

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 ]

[cocoamix]

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

[Kintaro]

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        

Trolltech FAQs

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.

[Kintaro]

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.    

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

I use a top bar, and a bottom bar.

[Pantso]

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          

Trolltech FAQs

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.    

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  

[Kintaro]

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

[Master of Reality]

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.

[voidmain]

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/

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 ]

[Kintaro]

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.      

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      

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