| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
XPde: Cloning the XP Interface | |
|
||
| Time: 11:48 EST/16:48 GMT | News Source: Slashdot | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
As first mentioned at Slashdot (as far as I can tell), XPde.com is attempting to recreate the Windows XP interface for Linux. It doesn't plan on having some of the capabilities of Windows, or even emulate a Windows environment, but it hopes to "recreate the Windows XP interface to-the-pixel point." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 168 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:24:52 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 12/26/2002 12:52:06 PM |
| I read the snipet and thought, "God, why don't they try and create something new rather than copying what has been around for over a year now." Or instead of copying it, perhaps actually make IMPROVEMENTS to it, not copy it pixel for pixel. |
| #2 By 6859 (204.71.100.217) at 12/26/2002 1:28:18 PM |
|
#6, bas said:
"Too bad Windowz isn't as customisable as GNU/Linux: http://www.deviantart.com/thumbnails.php?do=sort&sort=favorites&order=desc&resolution=0&limit=42&newsection=nix" That proves what, exactly? That people can have a lot of lame-o anime backgrounds for their desktop? All those screenshots look the same, except for the anime girl pictures. I can do that with any modern OS. Where's the customization you were lauding? Oh, that must mean the perty dsktop pic. LOL. You need to stop sniffing glue, pal, it's fried your melon. PS: I've used Gnome. It sucks. KDE is better. KDE is inneficient and slow on the SAME hardware that Windows runs on just fine. Deal with it. PPS: Linux is a cheap UNIX hack--Torvalds says so. There's your so called "innovation." PPPS: I see more FUD coming from the Linux/Slashdotter community than ever from MS. MS makes a statement like "we have a new mouse for sale," and every Slashdotter starts moaning about it being a rip-off of other mouses. (Yes, that's right, mouses. Wired Magazine says the plural of one mouse (computer pointing device) is mouses....although I don't know why.) |
| #3 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/26/2002 2:00:35 PM |
|
bas - Did you know Microsoft stole the look and feel of the UI in Windows 3.1 from Motif?
http://www.opengroup.org/motif/motif.data.sheet.htm It's true! A Linux zealot told me so! |
| #4 By 6859 (204.71.100.216) at 12/26/2002 2:22:59 PM |
| BeOS was pretty good, too bad they died. I miss them. |
| #5 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/26/2002 3:15:02 PM |
|
Sigh...
The fact is, Microsoft spent millions developing the Windows interface... no matter if they borrowed some of its UI from other OS's or not. The task-based interface is an example of UI innovation on the part of Microsoft. They've made a concerted effort to build this task based approach into all their products, and while at first I was quite skeptical, I've slowly come to realize that it is an excellent way to interact with a computer... at least for inexperienced computer users. (Which is the majority of computer users, and is therefore Microsoft's target market.) Instead of thinking up something new, open source developers (at least the ones working on the various GUI implementations for Linux) are bent not on innovation, but on duplication. It is, after all, much easier to copy an existing design than it is to actually create a new one. I suspect that without the millions (or billions) of dollars poured into software development and reasearch by large companies that sell their software, open source developers would not be nearly as successful with their products... after all, who would they copy? If they can't copy, and they actually have to innovate, it would probably be far less likely they could churn out the software they do. In a sense, open source is striving to kill that which they most need: commercial software. This post was edited by RMD on Thursday, December 26, 2002 at 15:15. |
| #6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/26/2002 3:45:24 PM |
|
bas - Come on! Answer me! I set you up for the bomb. :)
RMD - Yeah, like I said open source polutes the ecology. :) |
| #7 By 11888 (64.230.18.246) at 12/26/2002 5:28:55 PM |
| law suite? non-question? |
| #8 By 8589 (66.169.175.34) at 12/26/2002 10:00:51 PM |
| Imitations is the sincerest form of flattery. And in this case, I don't think Microsoft will be upset. <g> |
| #9 By 7760 (12.155.143.52) at 12/26/2002 10:47:52 PM |
| This XPde looks like it'd be really nice when I, MS zealot, am forced to use Linux. I wouldn't fool myself into thinking that it was anywhere equal to XP, though. |
| #10 By 7760 (12.155.143.52) at 12/26/2002 10:48:59 PM |
|
>>Imitations is the sincerest form of flattery. And in this case, I don't think Microsoft will be upset. <g><<
I don't think that you know Microsoft, then :) |
| #11 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 12/26/2002 11:09:36 PM |
|
gg - X-Windows has long been the bane of Unix. It's actually more stable today than it was back when X11R5 had just come out.
bas - Oh give it up already. |
| #12 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/26/2002 11:31:06 PM |
|
#33 - "GNU/Linux is waaay more superior than Windows XP."
Way more superior? Is that like something be your "favoritest" or the "bestest"? I suggest you: A.) Learn to speak English. B.) Learn a bit about the operating systems you choose to call "waaay more superior" to all others. |
| #13 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/27/2002 2:17:53 AM |
|
Guys... while I'm just as guilty... let's stop feeding the trolls.
Please, from now on, ignore bas. |
| #14 By 6859 (204.71.100.217) at 12/27/2002 9:55:42 AM |
|
Come on guys, bas can't help it that he's retarded. It was a result of genetics. I bet his whole family suffers equally from cognitive dissonance.
In previous arguments to prove Linux is "kewl" he quotes netcraft, but when provided with facts supported by netcraft he immediatly bails out with the lame line "all lies." Good one. You lose. |
| #15 By 11888 (64.230.74.237) at 12/27/2002 10:01:18 AM |
| http://www.lessig.org/freeculture |
| #16 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/27/2002 11:31:55 AM |
|
Bizazz - "The only problem I have with Microsoft zealots is why they defend Microsoft with a passion when it's so obvious that Open sourcing software in todays internet age is a far more efficient way of developing than protecting your code with your life. "
Actually it's not obvious. Netscape took over 4 years to develop a browser using the open source model. gg - You're right. Most of the software I've been looking at out on the market written in .NET is what I call open source, but since it's not free(as in beer) it does not follow the definition the OSS groups made up. But the fact that I can buy it to use for $20, or get the source for $150 and modify it myself, I think is substantial. littleevil - The reality is, I don't mind having the source for some stuff, if I need it. If I need it, then I ought to be willing to pay more for it. If I need it, I also have no reason to redistribute the source to others. It's not the source that's the problem, it's the mandated "free as in beer" that is the problem. This post was edited by sodablue on Friday, December 27, 2002 at 11:34. |
| #17 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/27/2002 11:39:41 AM |
|
MrRoper - Ok, I really dislike lessig because he doesn't make balanced logical arguments. He relies upon emotion, and he relies upon a general lack of understanding of the way things work.
In his speech he equates seeing the words of a book with seeing the source to a program. He thinks that by seeing the words of The Snows of Kilimanjaro, you'll understand how Hemmingway wrote his work. But that's not at all true, when you read the book what you get is the final product, the end result. Much like the difference between seeing the internal workings of software versus the user interface. Software *IS* different, which is what makes it so hard to define against our existing laws. I'll gladly say our copyright laws are too long... Especially for software, hell I think a copyright should only hold for say 10-15 years on software because of it's dynamic nature. But Lessig is one of these kooks who feels we should have no copyright. But like Stallman, this "no copyright" should only apply to others works, not their own. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 168 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:24:52 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
