Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Gee4orce · Sep 15, 2006, 02:32 AM

Have you seen this ?

http://chris.pirillo.com/2006/09/06/...ter-than-this/

Unbelievable ! That is a complete and blatant rip off of the Mac OS. This sort of thing really gets me - first of all Linux GUIs seemed to want to rip off Windows as closely as possible, and now they are trying the same with the Mac. Why can't they try and create something original for once ?

At the very least, this should be illegal under copyright laws. For instance, if I'd created a work of art, and then found that someone else had stolen my ideas and reproduced said artwork, I would be able to prosecute them (eg if it were a book, or a painting). Why should it be any different because the 'artform' is a computer interface ?

Big Mac · Sep 15, 2006, 02:43 AM

The pic didn't load for me.

kick52 · Sep 15, 2006, 05:01 AM

me neither

matty-uk · Sep 15, 2006, 05:26 AM

Yeah I saw this this morning on digg and it's quite impressive what they've done but surely it's a huge compliment that they are trying to copy apple, it shows Apple are doing it right.

kamina · Sep 15, 2006, 05:48 AM

It has some features familiar from OsX, others that have been standard Linux features for ages (multiple desktops) ect. Sure they have taken some features from OsX, don't you think Apple has done the same?

The one thing Linux is missing, is simplicity. I would happily use Linux on all my computers if it did'nt require so much tweaking to get anything even slightly non-standard done (I work with Linux based servers daily).

lookmark · Sep 15, 2006, 06:15 AM

Er... what, Apple is going copyright transparency and animation effects? Gimme a break.

Good for the Linux distros that they're doing cool things like XGL.

TETENAL · Sep 15, 2006, 07:01 AM

The Terminal icon and the Dock are complete rip-offs. Other stuff is "inspired" by Mac OS X. But that's OK. Apple is inspired by what others do as well (at least with Cover Flow they now learned how to avoid the bad PR when doing so).

The problem with open source software is that, while they are great at cloning, they are not innovating.

mpancha · Sep 15, 2006, 08:38 AM

So they added a dock.... that's about it. So what?

I do however like how everything looks. Now if only Apple would copy Explorer and make something similar for Finder, I'd be happy with OS X

besson3c · Sep 15, 2006, 08:53 AM

Why would this make you upset? There is no Linux company making money off of selling Linux. We have additional choices, consumers win. What's not to like here? Really??

besson3c · Sep 15, 2006, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

The Terminal icon and the Dock are complete rip-offs. Other stuff is "inspired" by Mac OS X. But that's OK. Apple is inspired by what others do as well (at least with Cover Flow they now learned how to avoid the bad PR when doing so).

The problem with open source software is that, while they are great at cloning, they are not innovating.

Not true. There is quite possibly more innovation going on in open source than possibly Apple and Microsoft combined, it just isn't in the Desktop space so much.

besson3c · Sep 15, 2006, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by kamina

It has some features familiar from OsX, others that have been standard Linux features for ages (multiple desktops) ect. Sure they have taken some features from OsX, don't you think Apple has done the same?

The one thing Linux is missing, is simplicity. I would happily use Linux on all my computers if it did'nt require so much tweaking to get anything even slightly non-standard done (I work with Linux based servers daily).

That's a tradeoff of the original design of Unix, where its designers just worried about underlying mechanisms and left policy (interface, how these mechanisms are used, etc.) up to developers and users.

In other words, we have infinite flexibility (easily more than the Mac or Windows), but a staggering number of choices and possible configurations to contend with.

Infinite flexibility is infinitely useful in some environments, just maybe not so much so in the Desktop space. I think the best prospects to getting a good Desktop environment is the Ubuntu project, which is making great strides.

besson3c · Sep 15, 2006, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

At the very least, this should be illegal under copyright laws. For instance, if I'd created a work of art, and then found that someone else had stolen my ideas and reproduced said artwork, I would be able to prosecute them (eg if it were a book, or a painting). Why should it be any different because the 'artform' is a computer interface ?

Just out of curiosity, if there are any legal experts here, do these same laws apply to products that are not making a profit, where no intellectual property is actually stolen, just ideas borrowed?

Gee4orce · Sep 15, 2006, 10:11 AM

The Dock is a complete rip off. Also witness 'Exposé', the 'genie' effect and the cube effect. I don't remember seeing those on an OS before the Mac, so it's kind of strange how suddenly there's a Linux distro that features them - parallel evolution ? I don't think so. Plagarism - that's more like it.

This is an area where I think patents fail - whoever said you can't patent scaling a window or transparency is right. That's why I was questioning it under copyright law - the look and feel is clearly an absolute rip off - this goes way beyond 'inspired by'.

I work full time as a software developer. Fortunately, I get paid by the hour - but if I had to make a living off selling my software, I'd be seriously pissed off is someone else came along and made a blatant copy of my work, including all the innovative features that I'd spent time and money R&D-ing.

FWIW I also get pissed off with the OS office software that's nothing but a pale imitation of MS Office. I mean, please, go out and innovate - do something new and original - something exciting ! Give me a choice between MS office and something cool - not MS Office and something that looks like MS Office*

* (windows MS Office, at that)

besson3c · Sep 15, 2006, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

The Dock is a complete rip off. Also witness 'Exposé', the 'genie' effect and the cube effect. I don't remember seeing those on an OS before the Mac, so it's kind of strange how suddenly there's a Linux distro that features them - parallel evolution ? I don't think so. Plagarism - that's more like it.

This is an area where I think patents fail - whoever said you can't patent scaling a window or transparency is right. That's why I was questioning it under copyright law - the look and feel is clearly an absolute rip off - this goes way beyond 'inspired by'.

I work full time as a software developer. Fortunately, I get paid by the hour - but if I had to make a living off selling my software, I'd be seriously pissed off is someone else came along and made a blatant copy of my work, including all the innovative features that I'd spent time and money R&D-ing.

FWIW I also get pissed off with the OS office software that's nothing but a pale imitation of MS Office. I mean, please, go out and innovate - do something new and original - something exciting ! Give me a choice between MS office and something cool - not MS Office and something that looks like MS Office*

* (windows MS Office, at that)

I disagree with your cause for being pissed over this.

This gets into whether or not stealing ideas is appropriate in technology (it often is), at what point it becomes unlawful, at what point innovation and changing what people are already familiar with becomes appropriate, and what is actually a new idea...

Everybody shuns stuff that is not innovative, but it is extremely rare to find things in life that truly are. In my opinion, not everything has to be. You can justify this by looking at this from a model of usability study, or in terms of business. Speaking to the latter, there is very little innovative new music that is selling well these days. What do people buy though? The same old...

Building off of this idea, it seems to me that the best interests of the Linux community right now (as well as the Mac community) are to get some buy-in. I don't think these goals will be easily achieved if using a Linux desktop requires learning something radically new. For now, making Desktop knockoffs is essentially what seems to be coming out of the community right now, but I also think this is a good thing...

What would life be like if every appliance that we used, every car, etc. required learning an entirely new set of skills?

cakey · Sep 15, 2006, 11:01 AM

Dock functionality, window transparancy as well as Expose-style organization dates back to some of the earliest *nix/bsd WM's such as NeXTSTEP and Windowmaker. Just because Apple made it glossy doesnt mean they invented it.

JLL · Sep 15, 2006, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Why would this make you upset? There is no Linux company making money off of selling Linux.

Hmm, Red Hat?

JLL · Sep 15, 2006, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by cakey

Dock functionality ... dates back to some of the earliest *nix/bsd WM's .... Just because Apple made it glossy doesnt mean they invented it.

Did you look at the video at all?

cakey · Sep 15, 2006, 12:08 PM

Yes. Infact I've been using xgl since the earliest testing.

Landos Mustache · Sep 15, 2006, 12:11 PM

It is cool but most of it is just eye candy and doesn't make anything easier to use. In fact that virtual desktops cubes thing is rather confusing.

kamina · Sep 15, 2006, 12:14 PM

I think OsX has copied (or bought) alot of technologies used in OsX now, and alot of the great new features in Leopard have existed before too (in Linux for example). One of the most basic functions in creating something new is planning how easily it can be copied. Somebody allready mentioned that the concept behind alot of the OsX'ish features in this demonstration have allready existed elsewhere in more simple form, so who is ripping who?

besson3c · Sep 15, 2006, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by JLL

Hmm, Red Hat?

They aren't making money off of selling Linux, they are making money off of selling support of Linux and Linux contracts.

Big Mac · Sep 15, 2006, 12:39 PM

Pretty impressive. It's not OS X, but it's a good knock-off - and it's teh snappy. I'd rather see Linux look more like OS X than Windows anyway.

Chuckit · Sep 15, 2006, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

The Dock is a complete rip off. Also witness 'Exposé', the 'genie' effect and the cube effect.

Cubes have existed for a long time. The way they're used in that Linux GUI is actually more sophisticated than what OS X does, if I understand it correctly.

Tomchu · Sep 15, 2006, 01:28 PM

I like how *EVERY* XGL demo video I've watched to date whores the wobbly-window effect. What is the obsession that Linux people have with these wobbly windows? Not only do they make you nauseous after a while, but they're completely counter-intuitive when it comes to UI design.

Nothing new, nothing impressive. It's still Linux underneath.

Chuckit · Sep 15, 2006, 02:05 PM

The transparency when you move the window and sticky edges are good ideas. The wobbly effect is just vulgar.

kamina · Sep 15, 2006, 02:29 PM

I have to admit that I was kind of wondering what the use of a wobbly window is... Could'nt think of one till now

ghporter · Sep 15, 2006, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

It is cool but most of it is just eye candy and doesn't make anything easier to use.

My thoughts exactly. The biggest impact of the transparency, "floppy windows" and so on is simply to vastly increase Vista's hardware horsepower requirements. Windows has had a "Taskbar" rooted to the bottom of the screen for a long time-the Dock is a concept similar to this. The Vista demo showed something that's more like OS X's Dock than XP's Taskbar, but it's not really a copy, merely yet another implementation of the same functionality.

And why the outrage, when "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?" Particularly when a fully capable Vista machine will cost way more than a current model Mac that already does these things-and better?

imitchellg5 · Sep 15, 2006, 08:40 PM

Apple didn't say "Introducing Vista 2.0" for fun

. It's true. Vista is Mac OS X reskinned.

CharlesS · Sep 15, 2006, 09:23 PM

The only thing in there that's a blatant rip-off is the Exposé thing. Well, and the Terminal icon and the Dock magnification, but those are mostly eye candy. The rest of it - well, I'm pretty sure Apple can't get a patent on a simple cube transition...

Simon · Sep 16, 2006, 01:50 AM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

The only thing in there that's a blatant rip-off is the Exposé thing. Well, and the Terminal icon and the Dock magnification, but those are mostly eye candy.

100% agreed.

This is on Linux, people. If anything it's flattery. Apple isn't going to lose a single customer due to XGL or this skin.

If this were a serious Apple competitor like MS, I'd expect Apple to sue and I'd agree with that, but this is free software for a niche market. I really think there's nothing to be worried about. If anything, it's nice to see others acknowledge Apple's superior GUI design. There's nothing worse than working on a Linux box skinned to look like XP.

Simon · Sep 16, 2006, 01:52 AM

On another note, does anybody have an idea what the floppy windows should do for the user? I mean, is there any benefit or is it just stuff to show off with?

Gee4orce · Sep 16, 2006, 03:32 AM

But my whole point is that it's the Eye Candy that's getting copied. I'm not arguing that the general functionality of virtual desktops of docks or whatever else are Apple inventions, or even then every OS should re-invent the wheel. Clearly, Apple themselves have taken ideas from the community, and this kind of idea sharing drives innovation, and Is A Good Thing.

What's getting me is the specifics - the eye candy so to speak - it a complete and utter rip off. Why not go and invent something else - something better, something different - instead of just copying Apple's innovation here ? I'd love to see an OS with an ultra high tech interface inspired by the Matrix or Minority Report or something else - but instead they can't seem to see beyond copying what Windows and Mac OS have already done.

To use an analogy - I could start an Web search engine company tomorrow - that's fair game, and nobody can stop me doing that. I might even have some cool new technology to incorporate into it. But what would be beyond the pale would be for me to call the company Google and have a multi-coloured text logo....

Gee4orce · Sep 16, 2006, 03:36 AM

As for transparent windows - why ? I don't want to feel like I'm moving a proxy of a window, I want to feel like I'm moving the window itself. There was a hack for Mac OS 8 that gave you transparent windows when you dragged, but I always made them solid because it just felt better.

As for wobbly windows - well, that's another Linux flaw - there nobody to say what features absolutely shouldn't get included. The whole thing is designed by committee, so every possible feature gets put in, with a gagillion different preferences and settings. Great design is more about what you leave OUT then what you put IN.

Chuckit · Sep 16, 2006, 04:04 AM

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

As for transparent windows - why ? I don't want to feel like I'm moving a proxy of a window, I want to feel like I'm moving the window itself. There was a hack for Mac OS 8 that gave you transparent windows when you dragged, but I always made them solid because it just felt better.

When you're moving something, I think it's somewhat useful to see what's behind it. Icons turn transparent, text turns transparent, images turn transparent — it's not exactly essential, but I can certainly see some use to the transparency.

CharlesS · Sep 16, 2006, 04:48 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

On another note, does anybody have an idea what the floppy windows should do for the user? I mean, is there any benefit or is it just stuff to show off with?

Looks like show-off to me. There's probably a way to turn it off.

Originally Posted by Gee4orce

What's getting me is the specifics - the eye candy so to speak - it a complete and utter rip off. Why not go and invent something else - something better, something different - instead of just copying Apple's innovation here ? I'd love to see an OS with an ultra high tech interface inspired by the Matrix or Minority Report or something else - but instead they can't seem to see beyond copying what Windows and Mac OS have already done.

What eye-candy did they rip off besides the Dock magnification and the Terminal icon? I don't see any.

JLL · Sep 16, 2006, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by cakey

Yes. Infact I've been using xgl since the earliest testing.

And the dock is not a ui rip off from Mac OS X?

JLL · Sep 16, 2006, 05:49 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

They aren't making money off of selling Linux, they are making money off of selling support of Linux and Linux contracts.

Can I get a Red Hat AS for my Oracle installation without buying? Windows includes support and you can say the same about that then.

cakey · Sep 16, 2006, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by JLL

And the dock is not a ui rip off from Mac OS X?

Not really. Its much more customizable... including making it look and act exactly like OSX's dock which is what most people do.

JLL · Sep 16, 2006, 08:42 AM

Sigh - and the dock in the linked video isn't a ui rip off!?!?!?!?

besson3c · Sep 16, 2006, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by JLL

Can I get a Red Hat AS for my Oracle installation without buying? Windows includes support and you can say the same about that then.

You can get essentially the same product with another distro though. RPM is open source, the kernel is open source, all of the essential components of RedHat are open. What you are paying for is usage of the RedHat network primarily, and the service and support that comes included.

There is really nothing magical about the Redhat product that isn't open, they are a service based company.

besson3c · Sep 16, 2006, 10:36 AM

I still want to know why things are shunned if they aren't innovative. Why does everything *have* to be innovative for it to be given some street cred?

There are drawbacks to having to master a new interface, and in the Desktop market Linux does not have the leverage to expect that Joe Average will be willing to learn a new interface, particularly when the OS has a reputation as being difficult to use as a Desktop OS.

Somebody called Linux a niche platform though. I wouldn't call it that. It dominates in the server arena, rightfully so. This is a legitimate sector of the computing market, I always interpret the word "niche" to mean "a subset of the mainstream market".

The Mac is more what I would call a niche/boutique product.

fipodk · Sep 16, 2006, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

The Terminal icon and the Dock are complete rip-offs.
The terminal is something that have been in Unix for quite a long time... by the way i think it appeared in OS X not long ago... : /

Other stuff is "inspired" by Mac OS X.
COuld be... but what about SPACES... it has been quite long in Linux ; )

But that's OK. Apple is inspired by what others do as well (at least with Cover Flow they now learned how to avoid the bad PR when doing so).

The problem with open source software is that, while they are great at cloning, they are not innovating.

Dude... I'm sorry to tell you that what i saw in the video 30 % can be found in OS X, perhaps less, try to do the same in OS X and then say they are not inovating, try to do that in old harware...

CHeers

Velocity211 · Sep 16, 2006, 12:51 PM

As long as it isn't microsoft that is ripping off apple, I don't care. I see it as another competitor against microsoft. Which is good. When microsoft is dead, then I'll care about other companies ripping off apple.

besson3c · Sep 16, 2006, 12:55 PM

The core of this problem that we have yet to tackle, IMHO, is something that one of the free software founders said (Richard Stallman, I believe), and that is that the patent system doesn't work for software. It wasn't designed for such purposes. My words: trying to make it apply is like bashing a round peg into a square hole.

kick52 · Sep 16, 2006, 01:01 PM

this was on the forum ages ago. (i think with the same video)
i would find it but the search desnt work. you can search for "mac" and it says there are no matches.

SirCastor · Sep 16, 2006, 02:18 PM

Looks to me like Apple got some things right, so someone else said 'this is a good idea'. Kudos to Apple. There are some things in there that Apple hasn't and they look cool too.

The computer world is one in which features and concepts are applied to the "survival of the fittest" model. The things that make sense stick around, are copied, imitated and perfected.

I think (as someone else said) Apple ought to be flattered that somone felt the idea was good enough to utilize.

cakey · Sep 16, 2006, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by JLL

Sigh - and the dock in the linked video isn't a ui rip off!?!?!?!?

I guess so.. like me using the same theme/wallpaper as you would be ripping you off.

JLL · Sep 18, 2006, 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

You can get essentially the same product with another distro though. RPM is open source, the kernel is open source, all of the essential components of RedHat are open. What you are paying for is usage of the RedHat network primarily, and the service and support that comes included.

I pay for a tested product that Oracle will let me install their database on. I can't do that on other distros without hacking the Oracle installer and lose Oracle support.

Basically I have to pay for Linux.

Catfish_Man · Sep 18, 2006, 05:11 AM

XGL is basically a tech demo right now, in my opinion. Having proven it can do all this, people now have to figure out what should be done with it

besson3c · Sep 18, 2006, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by JLL

I pay for a tested product that Oracle will let me install their database on. I can't do that on other distros without hacking the Oracle installer and lose Oracle support.

Basically I have to pay for Linux.

Just out of curiosity, what do you use Oracle for? How large is your database, and how many people access it on your average day?

Just curious....