Slashdot Mirror
Apple Gets Testy About GUI
ShogZilla writes "Apple threatened Skinz.org (a windows "skins" site) & Stardock (makers of the win32 app "windowblinds") with legal action if a certain skin
The problem? The skin (winaqua) alters WinOS window frames to mimic the Mac OS Aqua appearance - kinda. It's very altered, the graphics are custom, & the layout is different - but that doesn't appear to matter.
After the threat, both sites initially complied, but have reconsidered & have reposted the skin; it does not use any graphics from aqua, it does not contain any mac logos etc; it's an original work - just inspired by the aqua GUI.
" I'm still waiting for an Aqua theme for E - Aqua just looks so darn /purty/.
So what does that mean for KDE and GNOME etc. Will themes.org be getting cease and desist letters?
-- Steve
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
go to : http://sawmill.themes.org/ themes.phtml?themeid=947266463 .. ... to make thing really pretty use :
I'm using it quite for a while
And
http://gtk.themes.org/themes.p html?themeid=947543904 the matching GTK theme ! YEAH !
First Post posts get moderated pretty quickly, doncha know... I know, I know...it sounds like I'm being unfairly kind to Apple, as many people get blamed of around here. But I think they're more justified than most of the companies sending lawyers all over. Apple's look and feel has been ripped off since the beginning (I just read an article in Fortune talking about many of the ways Apple's work has been copied after Apple breaks ground). And Apple *is* pushing the barrier and staking a lot on their look. So, yes, I can see how Microsoft or anyone else coming out with a new Windows theme that's heavily derivative of OS X could be a threat. If I was Apple, I'd be suing the PC makers who initially laughed at the iBook and iMac...and are now producing copies of it in droves.
No, I like things simple. Small, and simple.
Do the obvious to e-mail me.
Well, this certainly wins the award for most unreadable sentence. Come on guys, at least take a quick glance at what's being posted. It really does make the site look unprofessional.
"Sir, I'd stake my reputation on it."
"Kryten, you haven't got a reputation."
I can't think of a single successful technology that Microsoft's developed. Apple has droves of them. Can anyone name even a single successful one from MS?
Don't you think Apple deserves to be able to protect Aqua's GUI? Apple has spent thousands of man-hours creating this look for the future OS, and these themes authors have simply lifted it. Unfortunately, the courts don't seem to agree that Apple deserves any protection. It's funny how Apple can sue over the look of their computers, but not their OS? Perhaps Apple can look closely at the themes on these sites, and see if there are any instances where the authors lifted elements from the QuickTime movies on Apple's MacOS X site.
Luckily for Apple, Aqua is a lot more then just a theme. It adds transparency to the entire interface and other refinements that a theme simply cannot duplicate. No one can claim that adding a Window's theme to a Mac or Mac theme to a Windows machine, in anyway duplicates the GUI of the other platform. The GUI is a lot more than a simple theme.
Sig goes here
I'd rather have Microsoft over Apple, Apple has the potential to be much nastier than MS, esp with such tight control over their box, and lawyers just itchin to have a large or monopoly sized market share.
Life sucks, kill a friend today.
Be careful how you respond,
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
What completely freaked me out about the whole Look and Feel case was that Apple was so clearly in the wrong - it had licensed it's technology to Microsoft - and that it had *did not plan* for the possibility that it wouldn't win the case. I love and use Apple products, but there's no excuse for arrogance and NIH. It also looks like Stardock saw the Aqua interface before it was announced at Macworld - the press release announcing and debuting the new skin was released only a few hours after the keynote. Either someone was working *really* fast or they had prior knowedge. At this stage it's difficult to tell because the details are not clear. Another thing; Stardock originally called the skin Object desktop. Check the Stardock press release. Oh, and check out As The Apple Turns for a lighter view of the situations. If you don't get it the first time, trawl through their tape library. If you still don't get it, i give up. ;) Ben ***** 'If it ain't got an animal or a piece of fruit on it, it's worthless."
Golf; a good walk spoiled. -Mark Twain
Having some one copying the style of your gui for an other os
should be considerd a compliment, it means a job well done.
Second of all having your gui look and feel on an other os is a sort of free publicity.
And I am realy disipointed in Mac for playing the big bully game.
"THERE ARE BETTER THINGS IN THE WORLD THAN ALCOHOL, ALBERT"-Death
42
The theme E-X is available for both E and GTK. Head on over the e.themes.org and gtk.themes.org. They look great but still have some functionality problems.
I guess this is why Apples cost so much more than PCs....they have such a large stable of lawyers to feed.
A computer graphics professional should be able to protect his work, like any artist, against someone who creates a cheap rip-off. The Aqua interface (IMO) is beautiful, and the result of many hours of hard work, trial-and-error processes, refinements, etc.. That kind of investment doesn't deserve to be stolen by some mediocre photoshop kiddie who watched the MWSF keynote address and said "Hey, good idea, I think I'll swipe it."
Gross.
I like OS X a *lot* in just about every way except the dock. I've tried docks, but I honestly don't like them. This seems to be the weakest part of OS X. A long-standing complaint by new users is that they couldn't see which applications were open (the list of running apps is only available in a menu, rather than constantly on the monitor, as in Win95's task bar). So I guess this is a hack to fix that. I honestly don't like the idea much...it feels like Apple is caving in to people that are just over-used to Windows.
Anyone who actually watched the keynote speech that demonstrated the new Aqua GUI will know that the icons and dock items are completely continuously resizable. You can have your full colour icons at whatever size you want - and fully antialiased too.
The reason I dislike companies with tight control and monopolies is that with no competition, they have a habit of creating overpriced, poorly designed products. Well, Apple's certainly done the overpriced thing to death in the past, but they've maintained a steady price drop ever since Jobs got back. I guess that he wanted to alter price positions but couldn't do so all at once (imagine how OEMs would feel). Also, Apple generally makes pretty darn good products. Sure, they've made the occasional bad product, but their track record is awfully good for the tech industry. The reason we don't like MS is a) they make bad products and b) they maintain a monopoly, so we're forced to use their bad products. I feel much less upset over Apple having a monopoly than MS. I'd *still* prefer Apple not having control over the hardware market. They could really use some competition. However, right now things are really improving. The removal of the fan in the newer Macs was the *best* move (try doing that on an x86 system and watch everything melt). My PII's fan still bothers me. My old Mac Plus is dead silent. It's like sitting in front of a paper with a pencil, as far as getting work is done. The PII keeps churning those multiple fans away.
MS BOB, The Word paper clip guy, That hidden game in Excel and leet filenames like: filen~1.txt
I have to return some videotapes...
(Sorry if this is a duplicate...forgot the formatting. Why can't plain text be the standard?)
The reason I dislike companies with tight control and monopolies is that with no competition, they have a habit of creating overpriced, poorly designed products.
Well, Apple's certainly done the overpriced thing to death in the past, but they've maintained a steady price drop ever since Jobs got back. I guess that he wanted to alter price positions but couldn't do so all at once (imagine how OEMs would feel).
Also, Apple generally makes pretty darn good products. Sure, they've made the occasional bad product, but their track record is awfully good for the tech industry. The reason we don't like MS is a) they make bad products and b) they maintain a monopoly, so we're forced to use their bad products.
I feel much less upset over Apple having a monopoly than MS.
I'd *still* prefer Apple not having control over the hardware market. They could really use some competition. However, right now things are really improving. The removal of the fan in the newer Macs was the *best* move (try doing that on an x86 system and watch everything melt). My PII's fan still bothers me. My old Mac Plus is dead silent. It's like sitting in front of a paper with a pencil, as far as getting work is done. The PII keeps churning those multiple fans away.
I seem to recall that Apple sued Microsoft a while back, claiming that the "Look and Feel" of Windows was too close to their copyrighted MacOS. It's been obvious for a while that they still don't get it. Maybe one of (IBM, RedHat, VA Linux) could acquire Apple, depose CEO For Life Steven Jobs, open up the specs to some of their proprietary "standards," welcome the cloners back with open arms, and use the LinuxPPC as a base to sell hardware. Hmm.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
They might want to be careful, I don't know US law, but could their initial removal of the material (offending or not) be seen as implicit acknowledgement of wrongdoing? (A la the reason why most discussion boards are fully censored or not at all - you censor one and effectively take responsibility for the rest)
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Next thing you know they are going to be going after the sawmill MacOS X themes. Anyone got a mirror of these windows themes?
I have to return some videotapes...
The look and feel (I know, the "skin" just duplicates look) is part of the value of the OS. Granted, it probably wouldn't be the one thing that makes a user say "I'm going Mac over PC because the interface looks so much better", but it's a value added part of the OS, and if people using Windows can have it, it's one less reason for them to switch.
So, I'm certainly not saying I agree, but I can understand where they're coming from. They probably wouldn't threaten anyone for making a BeOS version, or even an X window manager version, unless they needed to be consistent.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Yes, Apple deserves to be able to protect their GUI. _If_ you define the GUI as the total of theme+window manager. In Apples case this means, theme+window manager+kernel.
Does Apple have the right to protect a 'theme'?
No, it does not. There are countless references to this, unless the copycat _duplicates_ an art _exactly_, this is when copyrights kick in, "design" an sich, is not protected.
Relevant court material can probably be found in the Apple vs Microsoft "look and feel" case.
Is it funny that Apple can protect their hardware looks, but not their software looks?
Not really, just on the surface perhaps, but the fact is, Hardware lookalikes will directly impact Apple sales, this can be prooven.
Software lookalikes will have NO IMPACT whatsoever on Apple sales, UNLESS the COMPLETE OS will be copied. I cannot imagine an Apple Artist buying a windowz workstation, JUST because theres an aqua theme. Its therefore utterly stupid to fight themes.
It also contradicts the recent Apple "willingness and flirtations" with Open Source. It therefore is not even from a marketing viewpoint sensible. What? Open Sourcing the (parts of) OS but sueing on a theme?? Get a grip.
(This should get through the ThickBoned Head of Marketing guru Jobs.)
Greetz SlashDread
Microsoft supports more lawyers than Apple ever will.
Well, and Win NT costs a lot more than the Mac OS, so I guess that makes sense...
I find this scary just because they were threatening to sue because their OS's look has been mimicked.
Those of you who are running themeable window managers such as enlightenment windowmaker etc. are probably aware of the existence of themes that mimic various OSes' appearance.
Please check out www.themes.org to get an idea of what I am talking about.
Do the theme authors risk a similar lawsuit threat? Is themes.org heading for trouble?
I hope some kind soul on slashdot can enlighten us about these questions.
This theme, apparently, is supposed to be inspired by the 'look & feel' of aqua.
Didn't Apple lose a case about the 'look & feel' of their GUI before? Isn't that why windows95 is allowed to.. uh.. borrow most of the GUI elements from System7 (MacOS7)?
Wonder why Apple thinks they can win this time around.. Sounds like website bullying to me.
check out9 34
http://e.themes.org/themes.phtml?themeid=947644
not totally finished though
They aren't just upset that their art's been stolen. According to the article, it looks more like industrial espionage...Stardock may have stolen Apple development info.
The little desktop that crayola built. LOL! Sorry, no offense to the creator or those who like desktops that look like this; I'm just a more subdued theme kind of guy. :)
But seriously, this and the Yahoo cease and desist story posted just before this one raise an interesting question: How do trademarks apply for displayed computer content and what is the limit on what can be trademarked? In the Yahoo case, it is quite obvious that it is based on Yahoo, as they use a direct copy of their logo, so it is very likely that Yahoo will have a legal leg to stand on, but in this case, it is the overall appearance that is being "copied", although the appearance isn't quite what the Aqua's is. If I hadn't seen it in conjunction with this story, I would have thought that the creator of the skin simply liked bright, happy colors and that it bore a semblance to the Aqua look. I mean, it is fairly generic and doesn't use any logos that make it obvious that it is an Aqua copy. With millions of webpages out there and more being made every day, I would imagine that there are a lot of unintentional look-alikes, so where do you draw the line between similar and "stolen"?
Deosyne
How many lawsuits has Apple filed since the iMac release? Quite a few. Why so many? Because now that Apple is back and competitive again, they want to prove it by swinging their legal stick at anything that may involve and iMac but not produced by Apple. Even something silly like an Aqua skin for windows. I agree, it's an assinine idea, but a team of Apple's lawyers shouldn't be stifling the creativity (or lack of) of skinners out there.
Another note:
What about this: here is a link to several iMac winamp skins:
http://www.customiz e.org/view.pl?iMac%20Collection%3A%3Awinamp2
shouldn't these also be scrutinized?
Thanks for reading
ope
Jesus is coming! Everyone look busy!
And this has *what* relation to the UI again?
Whether you like the MacOS or not (as you appear not to), the question is whether graphics and user iterface deserve the same protections that code gets?
Compared to the quantity of mp3's, funny movies, half-uninstalled software (got I hate RPMS - time to switch to debian), quake maps, KDE bloat, etc..etc.., I'm not *that* worried about 128x128 icons. In fact, if they're going to be scaled I'd rather they were bigger than that. They've also FINALLY got anti-aliased fonts right (RISC-OS users, shush :-)) which means it may be the first resolution-independant desktop :)
No. We don't like MS because they make bad products, and *because* they're a monopoly, we have to use them. Apple has tight control over their market. But Apple also makes some really cool stuff. So it isn't really fair to Apple to blame it for how Microsoft acted when Microsoft got the chance to make us us their poor products.
Last I checked Apple lost that "look and feel" thing they tryed to slap MS with. How is this diffrent? They are just picking on the little guy because they know he can't/will not fight back. Fuck Apple, Im glad I didn't get a iMac for my grandmother. I would be kicking my self now if I did. Apple is just as "evil" as MS.
Why so many? Because now that Apple is back and competitive again, they want to prove it by swinging their legal stick at anything that may involve and iMac but not produced by Apple.
Yes. And No. Apple probably can't win some of these (the eMachine's suite is iffy), but what it does is set PRECEDENCE. Similar to when Sony sued Connectix over Virtual Gaming Station, the PSX emulator. Sony pretty much knew they couldn't win, but they also knew that by flexing their legal muscle a little bit, any company that writes another emulator will triple check their legal bounds.
IMHO, that pretty much spells out what Apple is doing here. There ARE other motives to a lawsuite than money and domineering control of one's property....
woof!
So... James Gosling has a patent on "translucent" dialog boxes. It is on IBM's patent site.
Maybe someone should put the smack down on Apple!!!
Read the story. The theme is part of a bunch of garbage that Stardock is trying to set up as a "subscription based" thing, where the consumer has to keep paying and paying and paying. I really think Stardock qualifies as a bad guy.
who would ever want to use that stupid aqua interface? I have a mac and I am furious at apple for screwing up their nearly perfect apple platinum interface for sake of flash flash flash. Figures from a company that can't make a mouse that knows which direction is up. How disappointing. Steve Jobs is the enemy. Anybody know if you can choose apple platinum instead of aqua in OSX Client?
Why can't Apple protect the appearance of their UI elements like buttons, icons, title bar? They are works of art like paintings or poems. Fonts seem to be well protected, but interface elements are free-for-all? I think Apple has a case here.
Apple's just upset because it doesn't want people diluting the value of an OS where the main difference people can see between it and Windows is the look. Apple won't care or even remember this in five years. But until OS X becomes as much a public symbol as the iMac, Apple wants to not have their look ripped off.
Be doesn't have the legal power to do much. I do wish that it were illegal to rip Be's interface though. They *did* put a lot of work into it. MS...well, I don't think their UI is worth defending.
Apple's been down this road before. I remember an old lawsuit by which they said MS was intruding on their look and feel for desktop GUIs. Now, anyone who's ever used both PCs and Macs knows that they look and act nothing alike. However, the fight went on, back and forth, until Xerox (the real inventors) brought out a demo of an Altos box. Here's where it gets interesting. See, the Macintosh team (at least one of them) had seen one of Xerox's systems at PARC back in the late 70s/early 80s. And had _blatantly_ ripped off the UI. In fact, if you look at the 2-color System 1-6 GUI, it's the same (and I mean _identical_) as what Xerox had put together. I take that back. There was one difference, instead of the apple logo on the apple menu, there was the Xerox stylized "X". And that was the ONLY difference. Xerox started making rumblings that if MS and Apple didn't stop this silly shit (it was inciting lots of other lawsuits), they were going to start playing the part of the 9000-pound gorilla (with evidence to boot!) that invented the GUI, and bitch-slap both companies into receivership with legal fees and licensing fees and other back fines, etc.
Apple and MS backed off, and there (to my knowledge) hasn't been a similar lawsuit in ages. Until now. You'd think that Jobs'd learn from his mistakes. You just can't sue over look and feel.
I'm patiently waiting for the folks at Universal Church of Sidus Julium (a bunch of people worshiping Julius Caesar as a deity) to launch a lawsuit against Apple, claiming a look-and-feel violation from Apple's use of Roman numerals in the name of OS X. After all, years of research and development that went into inventing the Roman-numeral system, and Apple is clearly a latecomer hoping to cash in on the numeral X's sexiness and consumer appeal.
I normally tend to support Apple, but this one is rediculous.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
By all means look at the URL in the above post, but please bear in mind that everything at www.mackido.com is biased in a way that makes the worst Linux zealot flamer on slashdot look like blind justice herself.
-----
Oh, Irony! We don't get much call for that around here.
The Windows UI elements were uniqueley designed, not just a copy&paste job from the Mac UI. This case is obviously completely different. The Aqua themes are 100% stolen from Apple's screenshots.
Nuf Said? :)
Just curious, but in the story itself and the postings, I don't see any kind of reference to a source for this story. Maybe I'm missing it - I usually see comments right away when someone posts an unattributed story.
Aqua is the most godforsaken user interface ever conceived by Apple. From a usability point of view, Aqua is a nightmare. Go ahead, copy the pathetic interface, even as a Mac users I don't give a damn.
As far as looks go, yes it's a very unique look. Lots of artistic talent in designing the "look" with gratuitous usage of special effects that I'm sure rival Microsoft's animated paper clips (though you'll still want to turn them off after using it for 5 minutes). The feel hasn't changed much. It still uses the same windows and icons concept that has been around for 15 years-just cuter looking
---
FWIW, MS's DHCP is a steaming pile of krud which ignores basic stuff like the hostname.
--
Then there's the Case of the Transplanted Programmers. Early on in the article, we are told that "Apple had hired some people from Xerox (like Jef Raskin, Bruce Horn) who believed in concepts of a Graphical User Interface." and "by no stretch of the imagination could this be called 'ripping-off'." But later, we find out that "Microsoft took [Apple's] best Mac Programmer, and had him making almost every design decision for early windows." This, of course, proves that "Microsoft on the other hand did rip-off Apple." Wow.
As the other poster mentioned, MacKido generally makes Linux zealots look wishy-washy. But this one goes beyond that into some creepy cultish nether realm. Mr. David K. Every seriously needs a quick course in critical thinking skills, perhaps some elementary logic, or, failing that, a job in marketing. Seriously, read the article, people. It's just bizarre.
"Moderation is good, in theory."
-Larry Wall
There is no K5 cabal.
I am not the real rusty.
(And here are 2 links about Chairman Jobs. Issue one and Issue two
And remember: Apple's action is typical of the corporation. Just because they say 'they are different' doesn't mean they ACT different.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
...but I have *BOTH* windows and linux machines at home and could I afford it, I'm sure I would own and enjoy a Mac too. Now I know this is in direct violation with paragraph L4M3 of subsection 8L0CKH34D which CLEARLY states that "iF j00 0wN pR0dDuCT X, j00 mUsT h4t3 4LL 0tH3r pR0ducTz aNd b3r4t3 th3iR 5uPp0rt3rz a5 mUcH a5 p055iBL3" C'mon just think of the possibilities! Consider all that energy you would save by not having to tell those sorry-ass Bill Gates/Microsoft/Steve Jobs/Apple jokes! On a more serious note, is this "what I don't got sux" attitude more of a western thing or are people the world over this close-minded?
How can one stake ownership to the aesthetic feel that a theme provides to it's underlying window manager. A theme by today's standards provides no more than this.
:).
In my opinion, the real situation would be different if the themes in question were able to provide functionality that could emulate the MacOS, but they cannot. They neither acheive this nor reproduce copyrighted material of Apple.
What would follow next if Apple succeeded in their petty argument, would web designers be able to sue other sites for coding, from scratch, a site that has the same look and feel as their own?
Perhaps Apple should be quiet and accept the fact that if people are going to the trouble of creating look-alike themes from scratch, then they are both advertising Apple's original OS existance and advertising how cool it is (Aqua, cool
I neither use nor endorse Apple products, I find a bitter aftertaste from using previous products of theirs. But like many others, I find the existance of themes representing (read: merely looking-alike) the MacOS system making me more and more curious as to how 'cool' the original platform is.
Perhaps because of these theme's creations, I may even purchase a new Mac since I have almost tried before I've buyed...
Cow of ThirdEye
Do you need a closed source environment like a traditional company where someone plans out the course of the software long before coding begins? Because the point is very good. There's so much development going on for Linux...yet where are the innovations?
Nothing is said about themes for our gnome, kde, sawmill, enlightenment, etc. . .
Just so you know, sawmill has a ton of aqua themes. Even sawmill's main author has a aqua theme going. I think that aqua themes showed up for sawmill first, anyone out there that can prove me wrong?
Real men dump cores! Read my journal, I am neat.
Yet another case of to many artsy-fartsies and too few engineers..
thats what we call it over here in driver development.
Damn people, you amaze me. This is about Apple being pricks about the whole Skins thing. If Microsoft did the same thing there would be enough noise to wake the dead. However mention Apple and all the Mac Nuts come out of the woodwork and make this into another Microsoft bashing session. Lets get real here boys and girls. Apple is INFRINDGING on our rights to SKIN something, not copy the features of an OS, not taking code from a program... Once again Apple proves they are the Whores of the Computer Industry. SOME AC asked what Microsoft invented lately. Well last time I checked Microsoft was a SOFTWARE company NOT a hardware company (well OK they do make joysticks, keyboards and mice, ALL of which are original, and most of which even the staunchest Linux fans seem to like). Just what has Apple invented lately? AGP? Nope that was Intel. USB? Nope that was Intel too. The G3/G4? Nope that was Motorola. IDE? Nope Western Digital and Intel. MacOS X? Nope that was NeXT. Hmmm... you know the ONLY thing I can think of is FireWire... which they invented in 1993! (go check the patent on it.) Gee they made a fruity case! Big deal...
Since Mac OS 8.5 the user has had the option of "tearing off" the application menu (upper right hand corner of the screen) and dropping it anywhere on the desktop. When this is done the user ends up with a little bar containing icons for each of the applications running, or a combination of icons and names (user defined).
The advantage to the tear off menus over something like the Windows TaskBar at the bottom of the screen is size (the icons are roughly 16x16) and I can drag-and-drop files onto the desired app to open them.
Note: there are a number of shareware control panels that allow the user to select a default location for the torn-off appswitcher bar, but I've found that I move it around depending on the applications I'm using and the menus I have activated within those applications.
I'm not real sure how I'm going to like the bar at the bottom of the screen in OS X, but I'm betting that the user will be able to tear off all the menus just as he/she can in Mac OS X Server.
If anyone uses an Aqua theme in an advertisement for a computer or software package that isn't actually running on Mac OS X, I think Apple should sue them for everything they've got. They're trying to make money off their products and freely using Apple's GUI to help them do it.
That's not the case here! Nobody's selling anything, and just because I can make my Linux or Windows box look sorta like Mac OS X, that's not going to make me any less interested in buying a G4 running Mac OS X later this year. No way in hell a mere theme is going to have the fluid animation, awesome-looking drop shadows, and other GUI elements that Mac OS X uses (it sounds like DisplayPDF rocks).
Also, we mustn't forget the "feel" half of "look and feel". I tried a Mac OS Platinum theme on KDE for awhile, then took it off. It looked like the Mac OS, but the feel was closer to Win95 than it was to a Mac. The inconsistency bugged the hell out of me so I got rid of it. The appearance of Aqua without the feel isn't anything special.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Other things Apple ripped-off:
the 3 peace computer (monitor,KB,CASE/CPU).
Directorys- or as apple calls them "folders"
COLOR screens
Use of a harddrive
Does it really matter WHO had WHAT idea first? No. Some ideas suck, others are good. You pick the good ones and use them.
I have to return some videotapes...
mac is the product! apple is the company!
I have been reading /. for awhile now, actually a little over 2 years. One thing I have noticed, especially in comments on the MacOS, Gnome, K, etc is a lack of understanding of what makes a good GUI. Winaqua DOES NOT replicate the MacOS GUI. It merely mimics the MacOS Desktop. Winaqua CAN NOT replicate the MacOS GUI, because the underlying Windows code is not there to support it. In other words, the GUI is more than a set of icons, dock, desktop, theme. Now, alot of Linux desktop managers (they are not quite even GUIs yet) LOOK ok. They have neat buttons, sliders, icons, docks, etc. All the bells and whistles. They do not, hovever provide as decent a GUI as even MacOS 7, much less 9 or X. Why? They may look kewler. Hell, they DO look cooler, but their interface considerations, consistency, depts of admin capability do not even touch nT, which itself can not touch the Mac OS. Apple should leave well enough alone. Do not flame me here. I am a Apple/Lisa/Mac head thru and thru since 1979. But Winaqua is a joke. MacOS X is more about Mach, BSD, OpenGL, Quartz, Consistency and the overall fit and finish that it is about a set of dials and buttons. Oh, and one more thing...Windows did not invent any of the above items. I do not know if anyone here refuted the arg that they invented taskbar, menus yet, but these were also invented at PARC, and HEAVILY improved by the first MacOS designers.
1. There's a difference between imitating GUI concepts (such as curved edges and other 'look and feel' factors) and blatantly copying a piece of copyright art, even if done using the 'look and copy' method rather than the 'cut and paste'. People going on about GUI similarities between WIN95 and MacOS should look at this GIF animation showing a screenshot off sawmill.themes.org, with elements of the original MacOS X screenshot differenced out. Black means identical pixels.
2. Being able to emulate MacOsX's precise look on Win32 and X machines will harm Apple's campaign to market Macs as a trendy alternative - which is why they spent so much time and money developing it. Of course, you are are perfectly entitled to develop a similar look using their ideas. You shouldn't be able to just copy it directly.
3. This isn't about the right to emulate. That was settled in Apple's case versus Microsoft. This is about the right to copy.
As an analogy, think of Leonardo Da Vinci's Mona Lisa. Originally a masterpiece. However, any half-decent artist can paint a very good copy of it. The true artist, though, takes the eyes, the smile and the use of color and paints his own masterpiece.
To say that the skin is an original work is like saying a forgery of the Mona Lisa is an original work. Looking at the skin indicates to everyone that the source of the images used for the buttons, window controls, etc is MacOS X. If a user interface can be considered a work of art then it deserves the same protection as any other art form.
I have often seen unauthorized copies of Enlightenment windows on the Skinz site. The least these guys could do is ask the original author for permission to 'port' these window designs and accept it when the author says 'NO'.
Copying with permission is fine, copying without is theft!
M.T.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
"Think Different. Or else."
I'm waiting for an Aqua Kaleidoscope scheme for the Mac OS.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Like I said on the post on Geeknews.net - Apple already lost this fight in the past. Apple vs. MS over look and feel of the GUI.
Apple keeps running around in one big circle, repeating mistakes that they have made in the past. They haven't learn a damned thing IMO. I feel that they are nothing more than a bunch of whiney bastards that are so arogant that they are really destroying any change of becomming a good company.
Apple IMO is as evil as M$ in business practices, or even worse.
-Ellis of Geeknews.com
First, Apple engenders bad vibes by their constant legal rumblings. I'm sure those skinz creators and others as annoyed as myself will forevermore associate Apple with warm and fluffy thoughts...um, right.
Second, Apple needs to just plow on and concentrate on bringing good product to market. I'd hardly call a theme a major asset that deserves to be protected by legal bullying.
To tell you the truth, the skin doesn't impress me that much. :) I don't know what all the fuss is about...
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
"Actually they can"...umm no they can't. MS vs Apple proved that.
"Funny, no one tries to rip off those advanced GUIs Gnome or KDE. I wonder why..." Oh get a clue you silly slashdoter. How old is KDE/Gnome now? And how good was MacOS in 1985? Thought so...
oh wait..Doesnt MAC OS X have tinted windows? Where have i seen that before
I have to return some videotapes...
They need to forget all the propriatry hw garbage and make OS X for x86 and other processors. While they're at it, they need to make some of their cool periphials (the Apple Cinema 22" flat panel - ahah definately not the 1 button mouse) available and compatible for x86 machines as well. Apple has so much style they just dont spread the wealth around. I'd love to toy with their OS, I just don't want to have to buy a G4 to do it. While we're at it, who came up with this one architecture per OS business? BeOS targets multiple chips, Linux targets multiple chips, heck Solaris targets multiple chips. If we're going to have x86 OS choice, why not give us the full gamut. I think that Apple could make $$ from x86 users wanting to run a really grandma-user-friendly OS.
-Xen
Apple was right to sue the look-alike manufacturers. but this is different, specially if you consider that whoever did this seems to be getting no money off it. Apple won against the iMac look-alikes 'cause they were benefiting (finacially) from Apple's marketing work for the iMac.
...
Yes, I know I ramble and my spelling isn't quite up to scratch. If you wish to complain,
Am I the only one that gets "New OS Syndrome" when I see a new OS? No matter how terrible it looks or how much I have to learn to use it, it is intensely interesting simply because its different from what I've gotten used to using. Maybe Apple is trying to stop Windows users from getting that for free or something.
Honestly, though, you figure they would have learned this lesson the last time they sued someone for it (Microsoft).
E.
When I finally found the official objection, it turned out to be a rant (more or less) against Apple. What I want to see is: The official letter from some official Apple representative stating the official objections Apple had. Until I see it, I reserve judgement.
Why? Here are some possibilities that "clear Apple's name":
Post the official objection. The wording will be more telling of Apple's position than the hearsay we've seen so far.
Uh, Mac OS 7 came out *after* Win95...
When Win95 came out, Apple had just introduced, if I remember correctly, OS 6.5.
They were criticised severely for it because it was the first upgrade for a long time (at the time) and din't resolve almost any of the problems of OS 6.
...
Yes, I know I ramble and my spelling isn't quite up to scratch. If you wish to complain,
Would IBM still be around if there where no IBM compadables? Apple couldnt make it work. And some said cheap clones made Apple look bad..well do the packardbells and el'cheapo K-mart brand PC's make the DELLs and GW2Ks look bad? No they make them look better. I think Apple would be alot bigger if they opened the hardware, they would still have to sell a copy of macos to everyone. If they did this early on just think of how big apple would have been. MS HAD JACK SHIT for a GUI os in the 1980's.
I have to return some videotapes...
It's very altered, the graphics are custom... it does not use any graphics from aqua, it does not contain any mac logos etc; it's an original work - just inspired by the aqua GUI.
Were we looking at the same skin? If you compare apple's screenshot of the MacOS X desktop with the screenshot of the skin, the graphics are identical! Look at the "traffic light," the check box, etc. I think they pure and simple used the graphics from that screenshot. Just look at them side-by-side.
While I don't think Apple should waste their breath on these idiots, I think they have a right to. This is obviously a blatant copy of their work, especially considering that the real OS X is not even yet available! If this sort of thing is allowed to go on, manufacturers will be forced to keep their designs secret until the release, and we will be robbed of any sort of previews of upcoming stuff.
Perhaps this will help to clear things up:
Sec. 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 120, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Ginko
For those who are interested : here is the theme for AfterStep that makes it look like OS X. No need to wait for E theme.
Property of AfterStep Window Manager.
Well, MS did invent a type of door hinge that when the door is closed, metal tabs cover the hinge-pin such that you cannot remove the pin to take the door off its hinges. You can only remove the pins when the door (and hinge) is wide open. You gotta admit that is a clever security innovation, but it has nothing to do with software.
Only on /. would a story about Apple turn into
:)
an MS bash about what they have/have not invented.
Don't believe me? Set your threshold to -1 and
count the number of posts that are completely off this topic. Of course, you're already at -1,
'cuz you're looking at this one
Do anal-retentive people hyphenate 'anal retentive'?
Once again ! Mac OS X icons are not 128*128, they are up to 128*128. that means you can choose any size on the fly between 32*32 and 128*128. If you have already use Irix on SGI, you know what I mean.
Everyone here seems to forget that Aqua uses PDF not .bmp icons !!! It's not bitmap .bmp icons, so it won't use 1MB of hard drive space ! It's PDF which means lighter and scalable icons on the fly. It's like flash, light and fast... Please don't compare that with bitmap files .bmp !!!
Plug and Play? What are you joking? Not only did they not develop it, they still can't get it to work.
--The day MS makes something that doesn't suck will be the day they start making vacuum cleaners.
"OS 9" was trademarked by another company and Apple used it anyway...
"iTools" was already a software package for Mac OS X, and Apple just introduced something with the same name. (See http://www.tenon.com/)
Go figure,
W
Apple never stole anything ! They bought the interface from Xerox with millions of Apple stock options !!!!
OK IM A REGSITERED /.ER BUT IM @ SCHOOL and I always forget to logout, anyone having the original stardock WB skin will be PRAISED and REVERED if they email wh0rde(AT)Home.com
First, I think that this is a valid point for discussion (and as an IP owner (I'm a photographer) I believe that Apple is within their rights here) but it needs to be discussed in the framework of its effect on open-source technologies and various *nix windowing environments.
My question,is: why are we letting this discussion on Slashdot be framed by a couple of intarticulate 12-year-old Windows zealots? What would it have taken to find out that the guy who submitted the story was the admin of the site in question, before the story was posted and he drummed up a ton of banner ad revenue for his Windows-only site?
I think a bit more fact-checking needs to be done before stories are posted.
You've got to admit that is one fine looking skin. :-) I really wish I could get my Linux X11 setup to look like any of these... all the Gnome/GTK and Enlightenment themes make it a little more tolerable but it is still the same blocky ugly interface.. :-(
Nah, nah, nah, you've got it all wrong, mate.
That none of the allegedly ironic examples given in the song are actually ironic is deliberate. It's ironic that the song, called Ironic, is not ironic, thus making the song ironic. Thus the non-ironic song is thus very ironic, which is itself doubly ironic, or meta-ironic... er... or something.
Therefore Alanis is not a silly moo at all, but in fact very clever. Unless she really is dumb and is just being ironic about it all.
--
This comment was brought to you by And Clover.
I'm a Mac Maniac since I left my Pc for a Mac 2 yaers ago. But I think Apple shouldn't sue skins or themes. I mean there is Windows and Be Os for Kaleidoscope for Mac and M$/Be never sued Kaleidoscope for it... Aqua is a great GUI and Apple should be proud to be copied. It's just a theme, nothing more. Apple must protect their artistic rights on hardware of software but here it's really stupid to sue skinz...
Java creation team's leader
> Apple is no better then MS. If they had MS's > > market share thay would be worse. God help you > > if you make anything for the Mac with out > > checking with Apple 1st. Remember the clones?
A lot of people simply don't understand Apple's market strategy. They aim to produce quality products for professional niche markets (education, design) and the home-user who wants to _produce_ something with his or her computer without learning the technical aspects of computer operation. Steve Jobs has said in the past that "the world doesn't need another Compaq."
Apple does a lot of business with small customers who damn well expect to be getting quality products with, for example, a consistent human interface. That's why you have these strict human interface guidelines for Apple developers. And, you know what? They work.
So, the point of all this is:
1) Apple doesn't want Wintel's market share.
2) The leadership at Apple is very sensitive about quality control, as well as the protection of their trademarks. Consider how sensitive the average GNU user is about the use of the term "open source" by everyone else in the world, ranging from Apple to Al Gore.
This doesn't justify belligerence toward skin makers, but it does explain why Apple would be a little testy.
Often, in litigation strategy, you have to go after the little guy who's not making money by copying you in order to establish precedent against the eventual AquaWebPC that's going to be one year down the road.
Though Apple may be a bunch of two-face jerks-- wearing an "Underdog" T-shirt and "Moneygod" hat-- I think a lot of people on Slashdot could learn a thing or two from them. Why does everyone here post, at least once a day, about how cool it would be if Linux were EVERYWHERE? I'm not sure if its really enthusiasm for Linux that drives this thinking, or a MS-based viewpoint of the world.
Huh.
1) mass-market software. Interpreted BASIC was nothing new, but marketing software to individuals was innovative.
:)
2) The usable footnote in Word 1.0. I know the lion's share of readers here don't go back that far, but footnotes on a micro before that were a bear--really no better than a typewriter. A method of automatically landing them on (usually) the right page was a God-send. OTOH, you sometimes ended up with bizarre gaps as it erroneously moved to the next page to get enough room. I was shocked about three months ago to find that the current versions can still do this, and there's still no fix other than to write an extra paragraph to fill space . . .
3) Bob?
Good Lord, they're about due for another one, aren't they? Oh, wait, they already did it--they invented a new way to abuse monopoly power [using it to advance a product they didn't care about just to destroy a competitor, forgoing the revenue in the process]. OK, we're safe for another ten years.
Err, publish/subscribe. Publish/Perish is academia
But on a fast machine for the time (SE/30 8mb), it was painfully slow to use and I gave up on it.
I use it. nuff said.
Apple engages such fierce loyalty because it has (according to many) a superior user experience. As the primary differentiator for thier product (Mac OS/Macintosh computers) it makes sense for them to protect it. Whether they are legally or morally entitled to such protection are two seperate issues.
If an enterprising group of people with a lot of time on their hands reimplmented the MacOS X apis (Carbon & Cocoa) on top of Linux (see GNUStep for the Carbon APIs), and coded a user environment that mirrored the look and feel of aqua (including the dock, finder etc) would Apple be ethically entitled to sue? What about morally?
Considering how much they ripped off Xerox Parc,
and the result of the last time they sued MS look-and-feel, you'd think they'd learn to keep their big legal mouths shut.
But nooo, they had to go complain about something they clearly have no legal right to fight, and make the company look like they have
more lawyers than software engineers.
Considering the amount of silly lawsuits Apple
does have when they score a hit, and their current market share, I can't help but wonder if we are not better off with Microsoft's monopoly than we'd with an Apple one (shudder!).
>Very few people started out on linux.
At about 6, she'd ask for "daddy's game", the one with colored faling sticks (xjewel?), in preference to the games we had for the mac and the like. She also would ask me to play "the kitty" game--nethack, where the kitten follows you--while telnetted into my linux box.
I came home and panicced when I found my freebsd box off--i thought my wife had hit the power. Nope, my daughter had rebotted to play a dark-side game, and then turned it off (internet is only through freebsd).
I'll give you your (1) (maybe), but automatic footnoting is hardly a Microsoft innovation. I had it in my FORMAL portable text formatter back in 1979-1980ish, which I believe pre-dates Word 1.0. And I probably cribbed it from Waterloo Script or one of the other text processors around.
:)
As for "Bob", the less said the better
-- Alastair
But... assuming it is. When MacOS 7 was out, a program was released called kaleidoscope that allowed people to retheme the MacOS. There were some themes done that Aqua looks suspiciously like... So Apple should be sued... I can't find links to them right... But they had that whole crystal/jeweled look.
(Disclaimer: I didn't go to MacWorld, myself, this info is second hand) My boss was describing some of the new functionality of Aqua... and it sounded a lot like stuff in the Unix world... (although I suppose they could have gotten a lot from NeXt)
At any rate, Apple shouldn't be so uptight. Good design is good design and should be copied. No one can copyright an idea... that's what patents are for :-) But, then again, no one can patent a visual design.
Maybe another slashdotter can remember the series of schemes that were jeweled? I can't remember the names.
they filched from Xerox? That one?
It was Entrega (who no longer exists BTW). Entrega simply let Intel handle most of the advocacy since they had more resources. Just a little nitpick.
You might say, well...Microsoft hasn't really innovated on the GUI front...And that is mostly true, but Aqua is not really original either. Yes, its very pretty and looks nice, but please point out a single feature it has that hasn't already appeared in some previous GUI. This isn't meant as a rant on Aqua's unoriginality, as Aqua is quite nice, and certainly riskier and better than what Microsoft is offering for Win2K and Millenium...However Apple's stupidity in trying to harrass the skin-sites really sucks.
I'll admit I've only seen a few screen shots of Aqua, but, I don't understand why the think semi-transparent windowing and widgets are special? They did do a very nice job of putting them together, but it's by no means a new invention - just not applied to OSs yet. Games use them all the time, and I recall reading about some new semi-transparent theme stuff in KDE a while back. Theere someone goes claiming ownership of an idea just because they applied something pre-existing to logical use of it.
Heh, I'm posting this from a 3 1/2 year old PowerTower 180e!
I bought this particular machine because it was cheaper/faster than what Apple had at the time. My Micropolis HD died after 3 months, and I got it replaced. You'll notice Micropolis is no longer in business. The replacement Seagate is a trooper and a half!
How many of you have 3 1/2 year old "PC's" that work well for what you want to do these days?
The PPC 603-based clones were the most problematic, and unfortunately, those were the ones aimed at the Consumer market. Jeez, I'd take an iMac over a Starmax anyday.
I am a loyal MacOS user, because I hate Windows, and the Mac lets me get my work done the way I want to with the least amount of hassle! I was happier than hell to get rid of my 386 (and Windows) and get a 68040 Mac, and I've never looked back. Now I'm saving for a G4.
I'm not a hard-core gamer who thinks that 48fps is much better than 44fps and is worth spending hours to configure my hardware and software to make it happen, and I'm not a programmer.
I mean, jeez, can your OS/WM do this??
Yep, I create and organize my work flow my COLOUR. Sorting by Name, Date or Kind won't work, because I work with other people and need to keep their work separate from mine, but together in the hierarchy of the web server. For other work, I label by colour to indicate new or old versions. Until there's another OS that can do this, I'll stick with my Mac, thank you very much!
PS. Futurama fans might like this 800x600 desktop I made.
Pope
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
The one and only innovative thing Microsoft has ever come up with is that little red squiggly line under misspelled words. I mean, they are a 500 billion dollar company and all, but still, I think that was a pretty good invention.
And to think, if the DOJ breaks them up we will never see another invention so daring, so groundbreaking, so absolutely incredible as that red squiggly line.
We must think long and hard about that before we do something so rash as spliting Microsoft.
You think Oasis ripping off the Beatles is better work? Or that Lichenstein is better than ANY single DC comic?!? Me thinks you to be a poor judge of artistic merit. To strive to better someone is one thing -- to immitate a la Tarantino is pathetic.
Let's face it, the folks that buy iMacs, who're not likely haunting /., are easily confused. These are the people that NEED the simplicity of the MacOS. When you mimic Aqua, and plop it onto some foul looking Win-based iMac wanna-be, you're going to end up simply fooling some poor sap into buying something they shouldn't be buying. Something that, in the end, will dissatisfy them. I, for one, believe that Apple should be allowed to create a unique user experience and protect the public from confusion -- and from an inferior product. 'Nuff said.
Apple persecuted this vigorously, too, and there was much discussion and ranting and noise about the matter, but the end result was the removal of HiTech themes 'from the wild'. If you wanted a high tech theme, you had to *gasp* make one up. Seeing as on the kaleidoscope scheme archive there are 127 different schemes from authors with names beginning with 'A' alone, there are a lot of alternatives to using a clone of HiTech- or Aqua.
Plain and simple- don't blatantly rip Apple's expensive and fancy interface designs until _after_ they are released. They are less pissy when their product is actually shipping. When it's a nebulous project (HiTech, which got 'steved') or the next big thing that's being built as a replacement to Apple Platinum (Aqua), they get real pissy about someone heisting a facade of what they're building and offering it around.
Think Go Computing and Pen Windows. In what way is making a thin facade of Aqua with only the look of certain elements, little of the behavior or animation, and little debugging, NOT like the classic vaporware tactic? I'm sure it's less prone to dry up investor support in Apple ;) but it's the same thing, releasing a facade of the new Apple interface to confuse, lessen the impact, and raise questions as to whether it's just the look of a window or a whole system involved.
Oh no, the dreaded Apple is stealing its, uh, its own graphical user interface. It's ruthlessly denying people free immediate hacking to largely arbitrary and artistic interface details that... geee, that _it_ paid handsomely for. Funny how that works, isn't it? Hire yer own damn graphic designers ;) or just keep on keeping on. I've been playing with Afterstep a bit. I may like to make it look like classic NeXT (ahhhh) but I feel no need to make it look like Aqua.
Hi Im just logging in from school, dont really care to log in formally. If anyone has a link (or two or ten) to skins/themes (the ORIGINAL) plz email me at wh0rde(at)home(dot)com. thanks. I found the sawmill and gtk ones, any for enlightenment, windowmaker, the windowblinds one, etc, would be *APPRECIATED*
Wang invented OLE - and MS settled out of court after ripping them off. Not everything good for the PC came for Mac - the GUI came from Xerox - OLE from Wang --- So just what did Apple originate that did any good for the x86 ? The mouse? Not hardly... Unix Workstations had a Mouse with X before Apple with their Lisa. So name *ONE* thing that Apple innovated? FireWire? Ok... that one MAYBE...
but CORBA!!!
Although we may not like it, look and feel is a standard business concern. Companies are pretty much obligated to defend their products and trademarks. It would be the same situation if some upstart cola bottler imitated a certain blue white & red circular logo, or if eMachines made an all-in-one PC out of translucent blue plastic (oh wait, that actually happened)...
Apple would actually be negligent to its shareholders if it didn't bring suit against people who copy Apple designs. Aqua cost Apple some amount of money to come up with, and imitators cause that work to be diluted in value.
It's evil lawyer stuff, and the only way to prevent it is to change the entire trademark/brand name system.
Apple, you already lost this "look and feel" lawsuit years ago. Shutup and go away. -- Twivel
I hardly know where to begin. Back in the days of the very first commercial home computer game ('Mystery House' by On-Line systems, later known as Sierra On-Line- 'Mystery House' was sold as a disk and a photocopied sheet in a baggie :) ), the game was shopped to Apple for possible distribution. It took Apple a _year_ to get back to the Williamses, because by that time Apple was _already_ a multimillion-dollar business, wealthy and kind of sluggish and dim. By the time it got back to the Williamses, they were already doing a roaring business as On-Line Systems...
Honestly, those who make accusations of revisionist history should either learn genuine history of some sort (even a small effort would do!) or should be old enough to have seen some of this happen. Just because you don't like the truth doesn't mean it's impossible. Apple was a huge business at the time, seller of Apple IIs to the exploding home market in its first big boom and to schools in their original marketing campaigns that got them so established in education back then. They were the Microsoft of that era. Microsoft was still coding Typing Tutor in Bellevue, Washington at the time. They not only had that much stock, it was worth a lot, and they did indeed pay Xerox for the right to go in, gawk like mad at everything and take notes and then go home and use whatever they saw or thought they saw.
Artists and engineers have no intrinsic right to their creations. The reason for copyright is not to protect producers but users.
.tar.gz) everyone uses, but it isn't popular because of a lame patent that was put on the algorithm.
:)
As RMS puts it, an idea or design is not spaghetti that only one person can eat; it can be enjoyed by everyone, therefore it should be owned by everyone. Artists don't have the right to punish _the whole world_ because they came up with an idea first.
A good example is the case of the bzip compression format; from what I've heard, it's much better than the LZW compression format (.zip,
This is exactly the same; if Apple has an intrinsic right to their GUI, that means that none of their innovations can be used by anyone else, thus disadvantage everyone. Imagine if the author of the first text editor with scrolling believed he had an intrinsic right to the technique, and sued everyone else who used it; millions would still be suffering with 'ed'-like editors
Broccolist
GoAT. Oh wait, millions, I see your joking. Funny guy :)
Let's see... First there's Kaleidescope, which I probably spelled wrong. For a couple of bucks or a minor startup annoyance, you can alter your GUI to look like anything that's availalbe for download, or create your own. Some of these are VERY nice... Also, with OS 8.5 and up, there's a "theme" option of a sort, the Appearance tag under the Appearance menu in the Appearance control panel. MacOS comes with "platinum" as the default, and the others are VERY hard to come by, but include "Hi-Tech", "Gizmo", "DSG-Theme", and "Drawing Board". These are a hell of a lot better than the Kaleidescope options because they're FREE and don't bug you to register on startup. You can, if you have the patience, modify them using ResEdit. So Mac has had themes, for awhile. MacOS itself since 8.5, and Kaleidescope, which has been around since at least 7.6.1. M-kay?
This isn't a flame, but like anyone in the Linux community should talk. What amazing innovations have come out of us? It's mostly reimplementation of closed-source tools.
... use the flag of your choice) is the development model. It's not what the software does (end results), but how it is produced (how you get there) that's significant.
The biggest "innovation" of the community for which Linux is currently the poster child (Open Source, Free Software,
I put "innovation" in quotes because in the digital world it's a pretty nebulous term and hard to define. Ideas and code and software are extremely promiscuous and incestuous. Pick any "innovation" of the last 5 years and you will find antecedants from the 80s and 70s and 60s.
Linux is a hotbed of "innovation" because it lives in an environment stripped of the rules and taboos forbidding sex. Anybody can screw anybody else, mixing genes and chromosones with glee and abandon, creating offspring similar but not quite the same as anything else. Gene swapping is common in the proprietary world too, but's hampered and restricted.
It's mostly reimplementation of closed-source tools.
True, many portions are reimplementations of closed-source tools. But many closed source tools are implementations of open source academic research products.
Yeh, it was on the web or in the paper or something. Next to each item, is the origin of the of the 'innovation'. With every single one, MS had either licensed the technology from somewhere else, or bought out the preceeding developer, or developed the idea of someone else, or stole the idea, etc etc etc.
so, I downloaded WindowBlinds and the Aqua theme from Skins.org.
Don't tell me what to do... just let me choose!
-- War Freedom
* "Uncle this droid is malfunctioning" -- Luke Skywalker
How times have changed!
Recent Apple efforts including the derisory Quicktime 4.0 seem more interested in kewl than usable, often at the expense of slashing "expert" features, overriding user preferences and general dumbing down. Perhaps they think advanced features might confuse those addle-brained - and let's face it, stupid - newbies.
So is Aqua any different? Not at all judging by the screenshots. Apple seem more interested in silliness such as transparent menus, aquatic buttons, huge taskbar icons etc. than making efficient use of screen space, adding functionality and making MacOS a true multitasking OS both in spirit and design. You'd think MacOS was a single tasking system by the efforts Apple seem intent on expending to hide windows from the user. Perhaps it will be kewl and usable but I'm not holding my breath.
Let's see, here's a story where Apple - a closed source champ - bullies former OS/2-only current Windows95/98/Y2K/NT-only developer Stardock - known Open Source badmouthers - over Apple's eye candy.
The result: Apple gets bad publicity, Stardock gets the sympathy vote and publicity that they wanted, and the Slashdot crowd goes wild about... Microsoft?
Well, maybe this fell into the category of "news for nerds" because this surely isn't "stuff that matters".
Back to regular programming...
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
I'm not sure what the legal status of "look & feel" is. The Apple vs. MS case was determined on the basis of Apple's licensing fuckup, not on the validity of "look & feel" as intellectual property.
Apple may be trying to protect it's reputation in some way -- if someone downloads a "Mac OS X" skin and finds that it sucks in some way, it may turn them off the actual Mac OS X completely without actually using it. After all, there's no way that a skin can accurately mimic the real way that an OS works.
Does Apple really think that this will do any good? It'll build up resentment, antipathy towards apple among the geek community (as if there wasn't already enough!), slashdotters will mirror the skins by the bazillions and more people may download the skin now than would have otherwise.
Maybe they're thinking that there's no such thing as bad publicity? If so, someone's been hanging out at Pixar too much. It may be true in Hollywood; it's definitely not true in Silicon Valley.
As mentioned, MacOS has had themes capability for a few years, and before that you could use Kaleidascope (ugly!). The reason MacOS only comes with one theme, Platinum, is because Jobs supposedly didn't like visual inconsistancies with apps that weren't theme-ready, so the other themes (which, by the way, have awesome 3d sound effects) were cut. By inconsistancies, I mean things like funky menus that assume silver-gray is the background color and hard-code it in or whatever, so the edges are all messed up. You can find the other themes like Gizmo on the internet or from people who have the dev versions of MacOS.
a prophet on the burning shore
The innovation is Linux is that the Linux developers have proven that you don't have to hire any system architects or human-factors people. You can just use circia. 1989 Unix as a reference platform.
You end up with a few acres of noisy, smelly people peddling their wares out of musty canvas tents (the bazzar paradigm) but it's still pretty impressive. (anything that poorly design that captures the amount of mindshare Linux has is pretty impressive.)
Next ran on Motorola 68k. Your stupid little patronizing comments have little substance, so do us all a favor and shut up.
What I'm saying is that if it would be possible to acquire them, you could leverage their technology to shore up several key Linux weaknesses (Most notably, streaming video) while continuing to let the company do its own thing with only a few changes to make its business model conform to one that has been PROVEN to be successful, namely the one used by the X86 world. Since Jobs would never accept any of that, he'd obviously have to go.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Seems as though a few facts are being ignored or distorted. Maybe this will help:
:)
1. Apple granted Xerox stock options for the PARC tours, and Xerox made a lot of $$$ on them. The original Mac interface was quite different in function than the Alto anyway.
2. Microsoft threatened to kill Mac Office (around '86-87 IIRC) so Apple under John Scully licensed a number of interface elements to MS. This is why Apple lost the "look and feel" lawsuit.
3. One of Kaleidoscope's developers, Ed Voas, is part of Apple's System software team (check "About Appearance".) Ed and Greg Landweber licensed the use of some Apple UI elements which are included with KAL. Apple-supplied Themes (a feature of Copland) were "Steved" but the underlying Appearance Manager API still exists- in fact, KAL uses that API today.
4. The jeweled KAL schemes are from Layne Karkruff. Check out Blue Sky Heart Graphics for some awesome art
5. Original art is protected by copyright- this includes written work, sound, paintings, and so on. Fair use generally permits educational or editorial rendering of that art (the public has a right to be informed) and parody (the public has the right to laugh.) However, using copyrighted material in another work is almost always illegal.
6. Many of the effects in Aqua are possible because of the other OS layers. For example, native use of PDF and QuickTime means that Apple can integrate anything THOSE technologies can do into its UI. Using a skin with few of the actual features is way lame-o IMHO.
7. The OS X screenshots clearly show a modified QuickTime Player, with the volume wheel replaced by a slider control. Presumably this means that Apple IS listening to its customers and critics.
8. Darwin is Open Source BSD UNIX and can be compiled and run today. Certainly having a professionally-developed GUI, excellent graphics/multimedia support plus both backward-compatible and advanced API's running on BSD is quite an accomplishment. After all, the pieces have never quite been put together this way before.
I'm sure I have left things out- the Apple II being the first mass-market consumer computer, AppleWorks as an integrated suite way before MS Office, Apple patent record (only IBM is more innovative, and is MUCH larger) and more. Sorry.
Hope this helps...
What scares me more than the legal battle is that with windowblinds, windows users now have the abilty to use skins (I'm assuming that windowblinds is the first application that allows this in the windows world). While KDE and Gnome have had this for a while, it seems now that windows users have caught up, and, from looking at the screenshots at www.windowblinds.net, surpassed both KDE and Gnome in many aspects. For example, with windowblinds it is possible to apply different skins to different applications! (I know that's not currently possible with KDE - not sure about Gnome). Also, it seems possible to make any Windows window transparent (http://www.stardock.com/products/windowblinds/odn t-april99.jpg).
I don't know if these features are planned for either *nix desktop environment. It really sucks to see them done first in windows...
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Kinda clever, actually. Now go school yourself for a few minutes, dipshit. All of that is moot now, and if you don't know why you're in the dark.
MY ULTIMATE OPINION Typographic hucksters like ClickArt (1,000 fonts for $25) really rub me the wrong way when they scan and assemble a set of fonts that ripoff the work of Ed Benguiat, Hermann Zapf, Walter Tracy and other font designers rather than designing their own fonts for sale. Depending on how they go about ripping off these designers they might be legally able to do so, but I still think it's unethical of them. I feel very similar to the situation with Apple's Aqua. Legally, you may be able to snag some screenshots and make a profitable and popular skin but ethically you rank just below "timeshare vacation salesman" to me. APPLE'S LEGAL PRECEDENT During the hype surrounding the unreleased Copland project, Apple introduced the concept of a customizable themes. Besides the platinum theme (which survived to Amelio's Mac OS 8) two others were demonstrated and highly promoted as customizable user experiences: Gizmo - a garishly bright child's theme HiTech - a black and dark grey executive theme Apple received software patents on both of these themes and still continues to send out legal threats to people who attempt to copy these interfaces, even with tools such as Kaliedescope on the Macintosh platform (The two interfaces are horrible; I don't know why anyone would try to copy them). I'd strongly suspect that Apple has a similar patent pending on Aqua and will do what needs to be done to defend it's patent similar to their past successful actions protecting Gizmo and HiTech. One other interesting legal foundation is that of font descriptions. The court has long ruled that no matter how artisitic a font design is that it can not be copyrighted ... until the advent of digital typography where the court has ruled that the computer data needed to draw the font can be copyrighted. This means that no one can copy Apple's code to draw the interface. The strong similarity of PDF to Postscript will undoubtedly carry weight in a courtroom to confirm the legal precedent. If Apple has a few other "alternative" methods of implementing the Aqua interface (direct blitting to the screen, the use of OpenGL, etc) then it's likely that they'll be able to prove a strong similarity to the details of implementation of almost any other implementation. THE LOOK AND FEEL WILDCARD Though Apple lost their look and feel lawsuit against Microsoft one of the chief advisors to Microsoft during this case was Steve Jobs (before Apple's acquisition of NeXT). Though little is publicly known, it's been hypothesized that Steve told Bill & Co. where to poke holes in Apple's unprecedented legal claims. The point of whether a user interface was protectable was NOT settled by the lawsuit. Other factors, such as an agreement that Microsoft had to license the window technology from Apple, derailed Apple's case well before the interface issue was decided. A DEMON SELLING HIS SOUL TO A DEVIL It's also rumored that something about this advice or some technology that Microsoft borrowed from NeXT (the beveled 3D GUI, the dock at the screen bottom, etc) is how Steve Jobs was able to get Microsoft over a barrel 2.5 years ago and force Microsoft to provide a large monetary investment, agree to complete patent cross-licensing, continued MS application development, and publicly stating support of the Macintosh platform when Apple was just about to go down the tubes. MY SUGGESTIONS: 1) Don't copy Aqua; your karma may suffer. 2) If you like Aqua, make a cool clone inspired by it but avoid similar colors, effects, etc. 3) Don't be surprised when Apple sends out swarms of legal threats. They've been down this road successfully in the past and the current management was on Microsoft's side during the Apple Look & Feel lawsuit. My predictions: 1) The legal threats will stir up animosity toward Apple and generate popularity for the Skins makers. 2) People who like Aqua will still be able to get Aqua skins from warez sites on the net 3) People who can't get Aqua skins will complain that Aqua really isn't all that cool and that they'd rather have skin.
Dang, slashdot needs a cancel-post feature for registered users.
Lest I confuse anyone with my poor quoting,
this is most certainly NOT in the US Constitution:
The purpose of IP laws is to protect the owner of the IP.
Which is a self-referencing definition.
In other words, how does one own a legal abstraction without the law that defines that legal abstraction?
You left out the part where Xerox sued Apple for copying their interface, asking for $100 million in damages, plus $50 that Apple had extorted from various other companies too small to fight them in court the way MS and IBM did. I never did hear how that case turned out, though.
Exactly none of that is true.
Apple hired engineers from Xerox PARC.
Apple's design team visited PARC and PARC's team showed them what they were doing. PARC was a research lab, and Steve Jobs pitched them the idea that Apple was the perfect company to implement their ideas and take them to the public. There was no misunderstanding on either side about this.
Apple signed an agreement with Xerox, giving them stock worth millions of dollars, to be able to use some ideas from PARC.
And Apple extended the desktop metaphor way beyond what Xerox had done. The PARC had some innovative ideas but the Macintosh was much more usable and brought the whole concept together.
If you'd like to learn more about this myth you're propagating, read MacKiDo or SteveWozniak on the subject. Or just read some thoughts of Jef Raskin:
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
Yes, the Dock can be turned off. Or it can be set to autohide, and show up only when you mouse down to the bottom of the screen.
I'm startled (although I shouldn't be) at how many news sites are saying the Dock is like the Windows taskbar. Have they never heard of Next? Yeesh.
"I have a cunning plan..."
So yeah, maybe the Open Source community has brought forth a "rediscovery" of quality software design. But where are the innovations? And by "innovation" I mean something new. Something that changes the way you use your computer. Linux hasn't changed the way I use my computer, it's just made it a little easier in some places. Don't let the wild world of the Open Source Extravaganza blind you to what it's really worth.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
The words "irony" and "sarcasm" are closely related.
Irony in this context is when the intended meaning is different from (or the opposite of) the literal meaning of words used.
Sarcasm is an application of irony; a form of caustic wit which uses an ironic statement to wound or ridicule. So, you're both right, assuming that the original post ridicules Micro$oft.
Now, the sword swallower... That's irony in a different sense: incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs. We are surprised by the sword swallower's difficulty with the toothpick. Your criticism is therefore unnecessary.
As is this thread. Be that as it may, I have found it so amusing that I think I may have soiled myself.
Excuse me.
Apple may or may not be legally right, but in terms of marketing, this seems like a dumb move. The more computers don't look like Windows, the more acceptable it will be for people to use non-Windows machines.
OK then. Name one "innovation" in computer science in the last 20 years, closed source or otherwise, that hadn't been done to death in the 60's (or possibly 70's). Most of the "innovations" I think you're getting at are things like voice/handwriting recognition. Those were done to death in theory long before 80's. What you're seeing are just "reimplementations" (is that the word you used?). The GUI, horrendous as it is, has unfortunately changed the way people use their computers, though that too was done well before the 80's rolled along. I'm curious as to what you think these great "innovations" are. Drag and drop? No. And it was done in the 70's. Instant messaging? 60's technology my friend. Telephony? 70's at the latest. AI? Try turn of the century. Capabilities? Possible 80's (ooh now we're getting somewhere).
My point is that we have seen no innovations since the dawn of computer science, and won't see any for decades to come. The reason is because it takes a hell of a lot longer to implement something properly than it is to come up with the theory (or to make a proof-of-concept). We're still struggling to get 30 year-old technology working properly because that's how long it takes to implement it.
First its windows, then the IMAC, now this, Apple computers is like the guy that claims Paramont Stole is cool idea for a Star Trek Episode.
One word. DirectX. Yea, it may be a little buggy, but it is much better these days. Sure D3D is kinda flaky, but the other APIs are more or less solid. Most of all, it ONE high-performance interface to the system under ONE API. When you learn one DirectX interface, it take very little extra to learn the others. I don't know about some of the earlier OSes (maybe Amiga or NEXT had them) but no modern OS as of yet has this kind of feature. The API essentially pushes aside the OS and make a high performance layer between the app and the hardware. (How else do you think most games work with Windows? Just the latency in the normal sound API would make games sound like some bad Japanese movie.) Even the technology itself is not a big achievment. (DirectX is mainly 80% windows pusing aside code) but the concept.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The original post really characterizes the "skin" in question wrong. Check out the screenshot at Stardock's site http://www.stardock.com/temp/mac_os_x__aqua.jpg (it's a pretty large graphic). I would have to say that this look's a lot more like OSX than "kinda". Not to mention the fact that if "it does not use any graphics from aqua, it does not contain any mac logos etc" - what the hell is that familiar little apple logo (not in the browser window), and that little blue smiley graphic (aka MacOS logo), and the icon of the G4 system? Let's be fair in what's reported. It really changes the whole issue.
But I'll play by your rules -- How about the WWW? I would definitely call it an "innovation". Sure, the Internet was around much earlier, but web-browsers? Nothing close.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I also made some screenshots of LiteStep:
LiteStep 1
LiteStep 2
--
life would be much easier if you could have a look at the sourcecode
www.blueskyheart.com
I know what this thread is turning into so I might as well diverge it into it's own thread.
A graphical user interface can do everything a command line interface can. WYSIWYG is an important thing if done properly.
Note: This Command Line vs GUI, not GNU/Linux vs Windows NT or GNU/Linux vs MacOS.
Configuration scripts make little sense from an interface point of view. The formats are not consistent. If they were consistent so you only need learn it once, then I would have no gripe with them. But you must learn it again and again for each application.
Someone needs to make a PowerUser's GUI to put all the naysayers to shame. There is nothing inherent in a GUI that makes it more cumbersome for experienced users. We just need someone with some imagination.
Open-source projects like bind and sendmail are both pretty incredible, and didn't really have any peers when they began. Now, they bind the web together.
When you start looking at the user interface, KDE and Gnome have a lot of advantages over Windows or the Mac. I love the concept of virtual consoles which give you plenty of desktop space for applications. I also love being able to customize the environment completely with Enlightenment. Linux still has some ease-of-use stuff to work out, but it's way ahead of the rest in customization.
According to the article at http://macweek.zdnet.com/2000/01/09/ skinz.html, the reason Apple sent off any letters to begin with is because the theme in question used the Apple logo (and, looking at screen shots posted at MacWeek, it *does*). That would be clear trademark infringement and Apple would have EVERY right to have done what they did. According to the article, Apple HASN'T said anything since the skins were reposted sans logo. So *please*, again, make sure you find out the facts as to WHY before assuming it's without any or shaky reason.
"Brown University? We have one of those in Providence!" -- Outside Providence
Actually DirectX isn't original either, it was spawned from DIVE (Direct Interface to Video Extensions) and DART (Direct Audio Real Time?) from OS/2 v3.0. Same concept, provide direct access to the hardware with minimal overhead for games. But IBM just didn't push it enough.
this could be argued directly. I prefer to give an analog to think about:
a work of art can be thought of as a statement in a graphical medium - an expression of an idea. if we like some statement we might quote it - maybe mentioning the source (if he/she is well known). I'm sure anyone would object to the idea of patenting conversation or speech (just think of the implications), and could agree that being quoted is somewhat of a compliment. refining this frame of thought allows to understand the essence of this idea - that patents and copyrights are ARTIFICIAL - to allow publication of designs or to make research beneficial. this means that this protection should not be considered a natural right, but a necessary restriction. it should only apply where it has to.
apple (and their artists/designers) get the credit for having unique style - being "quoted" only gives them merit.
my $.02,
remember that this capitalist mindset might seem natural in the US, but it is a mindset for this age and a person with a free mind should be able to shake it...
>Plug and Play?
The MacOS practically invented it. Hell, the phrase "Plug and Play" itself predates Windows.
>The taskbar?
The MacOS did invent it.
>DirectX?
Oh, you mean going straight through the memory protection to the hardware like we used to in the DOS day? Or do you mean 3D acceleration like Glide and OpenGL? Ooo, ooo! Let's not forget that they didn't actually develop the original code for this themselves.
>Um, Office?
Um, you don't think application suites hadn't been done before, do you? Unless you mean the idea of cross-platform, cross-OS virii. Now THAT'S something no one else had done before.
Office has many compelling features, but it's dominance comes down mainly to bundling and other marketing tricks over merit. Microsoft is only posting requests for standards in markets they don't control. You don't see them posting up SMB as an open standard yet do you?
By the way, the MacOS DOES have support for themes in the Appearance Manager. The decision to not publicly distribute the themes that were made (and do actually work if you can find them) is unfortunately one of marketing. They didn't want to 'confuse' customers about the look and feel of the MacOS, according to a quote I remember from Steve Jobs.
As for being a threat to open standards, Apple has been very forthcoming with their APIs and the file formats used for their products, such as Quicktime. Oh, and let's not forget IEEE 1394 while we're at it. As for the Indeo codec, you are forgetting that like DirectDraw, it was orignally done by Intel. It is their decision to keep the codecs closed. Similarly, most of the new spiffy codecs for Quicktime (Sorenson, ClearVoice, and the like) are all made by third-party developers who make their money from the licensing fees from Apple and for selling software to compress movies using their codecs.
I don't suppose it's worth mentioning their contribution to open source to you either. Beyond the basics of Darwin, there is the networking game code that they've released. Apple is hardly as much of a threat to open standards as MS. They been a frequent player in open standards and as someone in the minority position have everything to gain from open standards, unlike Microsoft who can and often does create closed 'standards.'
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
HELLO! This was never a M$ thing, wtf!? StarDock developed this "hack" and Apple gave an underground site that had something that imitates their GUI a had time. Where in the world did this thread start!?
We're not god. Not only are we human but we are sometimes forced to become the devil himself. We're not god
Imitation is the highest form of flattery, is it not?
Smile Apple, we just gave you the official stamp of approval. You did something so cool, we all want a little bit of it for ourselves.
The further you go, the less you know.
I'm an avid (some would say "rabid") Mac user and i follow with great interest what Apple has to offer. However, I must disagree with 'em on this one.
I think they should cut ALL computer users some slack. Heck! they even pulled the Gizmo, Hi-Tech & Drawing Board themes from the Mac OS.
I'm so tired I haven't slept a wink. I'm so tired my mind is on the brink. I wonder if I should get up and fix myself
A friend of mine once suggested that the line "It's like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife" suggests a quantitative measure for irony. A sword swallower choking on a toothpick would rate about 500 kilospoons.
Full City
Xerox did NOT invent the GUI. Apple did NOT steal Xerox technology. This has been hashed out I don't know how many times in the last 15 years, but GET OVER IT!!!!!!
All of the basic components of the GUI were invented before 1970 (PARC founded, IIRC, 1971) by a variety of individuals, including Bush, Englebart, Sutherland, Kay, and Raskin. Of the preceding, I believe only Kay worked at PARC.
Apple's first GUI may have copied a little to closely the icons from Xerox, but the way it *WORKED* was way more advanced.
Furthermore, for those of you who genuinely didn't know, Apple ***PAID XEROX*** (I believe it was something like $1M in stock options) for what they saw. They didn't steal *anything*.
For the last time: Check your facts before posting or SHUT UP!
1) I may be a vicious Mac defender, but I'm not an Apple apologist. When Apple does something dumb, I'm right there in line to smack them along with everyone else.
2) Frankly, I'm torn. I do think that it's in extremely poor taste to copy a GUI on a system that hasn't even been released yet, even more so than copying one that's already been released. This said, however, Apple shouldn't be threatening legal action. One, they have no legal grounds for it. Perhaps they could try and nail you on copyright violations (since, at least for now, the only way to get the images used in these themes is to swipe them from Apple's own screenshots). But that's taking things just a bit too far.
3) I don't think OS-based themes should be on the public sites anyway. The major sites like Themes.org are supposed to be for original works. At least, that was my undrstanding. The Aqua-based themes (and the Win9X-based things, and the Amiga-based themes, and the NeXT-based themes, and so on) are not original work by a long shot. Even the AquaOS line for Sawmill (which makes a few trivial changes to the button layout) couldn't be considered truly original. I suppose the Win9X GUI can't either (perhaps it's not really a MacOS ripoff, but the buttons are copied pixel-for-pixel from NeXTStep, not to mention most of the test of the GUI).
4) The Linux community doesn't need an Aqua theme. We've always striven to be original, and succeeded. Witness the BlueSteel theme for E; there's proof right there that the Linux community can turn out a GUI that's even cooler than Aqua. Even those of you who don't like BlueSteel probably have your own favorites, and in most cases I'll bet it bears little resemblance to any existing GUI. Aqua's original. So were NeXTStep and BeOS. The Linux community can make and has made original GUI's in the past. Part of the appeal of Linux is that it isn't Windows or MacOS or BeOS or anything else. Why make it something it's not?
I'm a fan of the Scrollites themes myself. I have them all; even the "classic" three that were never released in 1.5 versions (and so cannot be used with the current version).
And none of them looked anything like Aqua. I suppose you could make a very big stretch and show a small bit of similarity in the scroll bars. The two both use "glassies" but that's not what's being talked about here. The themes in question are pixel-for-pixel copies of Aqua. I don't know if that's "right" or "wrong" but it is in poor taste.