The GNOME-Microsoft Connection

ejbst25 writes: "I haven't seen it mentioned ... but check out this IBM site about GNOME and MS similiarities if you haven't seen it." There's no secret that for good or for ill, "acts like Microsoft" is the standard by which many desktops are judged. The GNOME project, derided by some as "too idealistic," is notably pragmatic on this point: "I didn't know much about spreadsheets, I just copied every single thing from [Microsoft] Excel," says Miguel of the look of the spreadsheet he's added to GNOME. It's a well-written article, and includes a list of handy links at the bottom if you're interested in programming GNOME aps. It raises the question, though, how long till GNOME or another open-source desktop is the recognized leader?

Comments

Re:Articles like this...

[Alex Belits]

I have friends that have been hired by MSFT and they've described the component based architecture and the reasoning behind COM, COM+ and DCOM, and it was rather interesting. I was also surprised at how long it was taking *nix developers to create significant component based applications especially since most of COM (at least originally) was copied from or inspired by CORBA.

In Unix it wasn't necessary -- passing bunches of text (possibly compressed) or tar archives between programs accomplishes the same task better unless the goal is to make a user interface-based program, and even for user interface it can be easier to run a program in a window than to use some overcomplicated "object architecture" (ex: Ghostscript-based viewers). This is the same reason why people who use lex and yacc didn't need XML to perform things that are now touted as "innovations" (XML for them is just one of formats that can be parsed with no noticeable effort), and the same reason why people who can write portable C code don't see point in Java.

Most of mentioned things were born only to avoid opening pieces of source for interfaces to third-party developers, and enforce the dependency on the company that made them. In Unix software, and especially open source Unix software objects/components architecture is necessary only for tasks that can be accomplished easier with it -- maybe it is so with heavy-GUI programs.

Who's copying who...

[jmv]

OK, now we say that everybody's copying on Micro$oft... Don't forget that they've copied most their stuff from someone else. Not that there's anything wrong with that. You can't (and shouldn't) always reinvent the wheel.

This is how it goes. A invents something, B starts doing the same, as well as C... then Micro$oft copies it, then when GNOME does the same, they've been copying microsoft. That's simply because they're the ones you see the most.

Long ramble. Interesting, perhaps?

[swordgeek]

OK, lots of things come to mind here.

First of all, how long before Gnome or some other OSS interface get recognised as the 'leader in the field?' Likely never, and good riddance! Someone pointed out that OSS doesn't have the research backing to really evolve a good interface. Someone else asked why should we even consider (or hope for) a 'winner'?

More to the point, why is the open source movement, a group supposedly excited about individualism and so forth, be so hyped about winning and (implicitly) taking over the world?

Lots of other good comments have already been made, but no one has specificly addressed one that's been nagging me lately. Consider this if you will:

I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that a useful and intuitive GUI is ***impossible***.

Impossible. Not Possible. Undoable. Forget it. Wasted effort.

Why would I say such a heretical thing? A few weeks ago, I watched a cyber-illiterate couple struggle with their brand new computer, running Win98. After a few days, I realised a few things.

1) No matter how pretty the interface, the guts of the system are still files in a hereditary hierarchy. (i.e. directories, subdirectories, and eventually files)

2) The GUI can disguise, but not _change_ the fact in (1).

3) The GUI, by making the file system structure less apparent, makes understanding the computer itself HARDER, not easier!

Summary: Because of (3) (which comes from (1) and (2)), the GUI is doomed to fall vastly short of what it should be (and in many ways be a hinderance) until A WHOLE NEW DATA PARADIGM IS CREATED!

I used Windows as an example, but Unix (and company), with its similar file structure, inherently suffers the same faults with any attempt at imposing a GUI on it, as long as that GUI works to hide or minimise the inherent file structure.

In other words, Gnome, Enlighten, KDE, Windows, BeOS, CDE, and so forth all FAIL in major ways, at what they were created to do! Worse, no amount of redesign or patching will fix that failure.

So maybe it's time to quit trying to make Gnome (or whatever) the king of a crumbling castle, and rewrite computing from the ground on up. No preconceived notions, no borrowing from everyone else (which is normally the most efficient way to develop things), but something as revolutionary as the original idea at Xerox, of a graphical environment.

linux desktops need more originality

[zeno_lee]

Being original doesn't mean you have to start from scratch. Copying Microsoft, Apple, Zerox, etc, is one thing, but taking the best out of those and making something new is another. Hey, the true breakthrough, and this applies to anything, including arts, sciences, and literature, is rehashing previously used ideas into a groundbeaking idea. It doesn't have to be completely revolutionary, only enough to fill the void in comfortable user experience.
What are the principles by which a desktop can be good to regular users? I'm speaking from personal prejudice only.

• Simplicity Limit user options, eliminate fat. Don't give users 10 ways to close a window, for example. I've always been annoyed by the fact that you can close a window that many ways. Another example: On a GNOME/Enlightenment desktop; there are too many ways to launch a GUI program.

• Uniformity Part of the reason why MS has dominated on the desktop, is how ubiquitous it's look and feel has been since windows 95. Linux needs to engender unity, in one way or another between competing desktops. Despite minor differences, opensource groups should work behind a common philosophy. Some groups just have to sacrifice for the common good.

• Elegance This is alot less tangent. Why does a Mac desktop look that much more elegant than a Windows desktop? It has to do with aesthetics. I guess we need more artists involved on this one.