Aqua Mozilla OK with Apple

MikeMo writes: "Turns out Apple thinks an Aqua Mozilla is OK, after all. Eric Yang had a chat with them and they made up." This is an update to this story.

Comments

Is this an overreaction or not?

[aussersterne]

I'm not familiar enough with the "real" Aqua products to understand what just went down here.

It sounds to me like Apple did say it was okay to make an Aqua-like Mozilla -- but only using the "real" Apple tools, and therefore (purely my extrapolation) for Mac OS X users only. Aqua look-and-feel through "emulation" is still strictly forbidden.

Yes?

If this is the case, then the Slashdot was not overreacting at all -- it's still a "legitimate Aqua" sues "homebrew Aqua look" issue in which all non-MacOS users are forbidden from using nice shiny sea-blue widgets, etc.

Or am I misunderstanding?

So what exactly does Apple want?

[st. augustine]

From the article: "What Apple objected to was not Aquafying Mozilla, but rather the way I was doing it via emulation, thus not giving Mozilla users a pure Aqua experience. Apple is willing to provide information for creating real Aqua experience for Mozilla."

Does Apple mean they insist that Mozilla use native OS X widgets if it wants to look like an Aqua application? From my (admittedly limited) understanding of the Mozilla architecture, this is impossible. Mozilla's appearance is all defined at run-time, and everything including its own buttons, menus, scroll bars, is a Mozilla custom component, not part of the OS standard UI toolkit.

Am I wrong? Please correct me. But it seems like the only thing you could do would be to write your own browser using native widgets, and embed the Gecko rendering engine, ala Galeon. Mozilla's not going to give you a "pure Aqua experience" unless you rewrite it from scratch.

Re:So what exactly does Apple want?

[Skuggan]

"Mozilla's appearance is all defined at run-time, and everything including its own buttons, menus, scroll bars, is a Mozilla custom component, not part of the OS standard UI toolkit."

This was the worst design decision(?spelling?) with Mozilla. Big, bloated GUI, slowing down the good, fast rendering engine. Who wanted this? Had someone had an overdoze of Winamp skins?

Re:So what exactly does Apple want?

[slamb]

This was the worst design decision(?spelling?) with Mozilla. Big, bloated GUI, slowing down the good, fast rendering engine.

I also think this was a terrible decision, but not for the same reason. There is a reason that damn near every program on any given GUI (with the notable exception of X11) looks about the same, and it's not because programmers are unimaginative.

It's because users are happier when the interface adheres to consistent guidelines. Each platform has its own set of guidelines. A few examples:

• MacOS Human Interface Guidelines
• The Windows User Experience
• Java Look and Feel Design Guidelines

How many times have you been annoyed when you hit the wheel mouse and it didn't work right? That's almost always because of some moronic programmer who decided it would be better to write his/her own widgets. Wheel mice are one of the places this becomes most obvious, because they didn't exist when a lot of these programs were designed. The GUI vendor added support to the native widgets, but the stupid replacement ones in a lot of cases don't have support. Or when they do, it doesn't work quite the same. (I.e., seperate preferences for the number of lines to scroll.)

Mozilla is one of the worst offenders here, completely scrapping the idea of an interface consistent with anything else.

(Java is a bit of an exception. It doesn't have a system of its own, so arguably it also violates the other interface guidelines. However, it makes sense to have a single interface for Java, since applications are intended to be very cross-platform. Plus, Java has actually taken on the challenge of designing a good GUI of their own...observe the fact that there is a book out on the Java look and feel. I'm not aware of a similar one for Mozilla.)

Re:So what exactly does Apple want?

[BZ]

> Who wanted this?

Mozilla needed a custom widget set to comply with CSS as well. It seemed natural to use it for the interface too, eliminating porting headaches.

Re:So what exactly does Apple want?

[bwilson]

The decision to make the interface custom was a result of the incredible mess that became of the previous cross-platform version. It is also necessary to provide custom controls to comply with CSS, which allows web pages to define button and scrollbar colors, for example.

IE defines its own controls for this reason (no kidding!), they just look like the Windows ones by default. Microsoft Word (and possibly the rest of Office) have all custom controls that look like the Windows ones. Sometimes the look is slightly off and if you look at the window hierarchy in Spy++ you'll notice that the buttons are not actually Windows, which is what you'd get with native widgets. So people shouldn't single out Mozilla for their criticism of its custom controls.

I used Mozilla on a Mac a while ago and I swear (much to my surprise) that it was using native widgets. Of course, it uses native menus, but the buttons and scrollbars seemed to be native as well, I played with the system configuration and the changes (like for scroll bar button configuration) seemed to be reflected in Mozilla. If this is the case, it should be easy to use native Aqua controls. Can somebody with a Mac confirm this?

Re:So what exactly does Apple want?

[EvlG]

mod this up, he is dead on.

Crossplatform HTML sucked in Navigator because the widgets for Win32 acted just different enough from Mac and from X Window that it got ugly trying to make it look and act consistent.

Mozilla fixes that problem, and kudos to them for it.

(Not to mention being able to write apps for hte Mozilla platform. That's a nice benefit as well)

Re:So what exactly does Apple want?

[mj6798]

Some of the most highly visible and successful applications on MacOS (QuickTime client, Finder) and Windows (Office, VC++, various media applications) violate the UI guidelines of those platforms in numerous ways. If users minded "inconsistent" UIs, they wouldn't choose to put so many different applications with inconsistent UIs on their desktops, under Windows, MacOS, or X11.

And when it comes to Mozilla, you have lots of choices for UIs--the Mozilla engine embeds easily in other UIs, as Galeon, Skipstone, and QtZilla have shown.

Re:So what exactly does Apple want?

[ZigMonty]

I don't mind people using their own widgets. It makes cross platform development easier. What pisses me off is when they do a piss poor job of it. I know this is a volunteer effort and I'm not criticizing them really, but if you do go the custom widgets way, please try to make your widgets look and feel like the native ones. The MacOSX version of Mozilla's custom widgets look like MacOS Classic. The scroll bars are especially bad.

Also, platforms have interface guidelines - read them. Too often programs get the look right but the FEEL is very wrong. An example would be buttons. On a mac, buttons that are clicked but while the mouse is still down the mouse is moved away, should not act as if they were clicked. This is so a user can change their mind. Too many programs act on a mouse down when they should be acting on this mouse down, if still over button on mouse up then act combination.

Linux users, and to some extent Windows users, are fairly used to programs that don't comply to the guidelines. Because of this, they often don't understand mac users griping about a program not being consistent. If you've never had consistency, you don't miss it. Mac users, on the other hand, are used to well written, compliant programs.

Consistency is one of the things that the mac sold on in a time of custom MS-DOS applications. The mac introduced the idea of a universal interface toolbox that all applications should use. Developers embraced it because it made writing their apps easier by not re-inventing the wheel. Because of this, and a strict set of User Interface Guidelines, the mac is the most consistent computing environment. Consistency is important! Because of the macs consistency, a user can typically use a new program without so much as picking up its manual. Inconsistency is why Linux is having so much trouble being user friendly to new users.

/.ed, it seems

[wrong]

Slashcode really needs to automirror anything mentioned in a story that isn't set to expire...

Re:/.ed, it seems

[jeffehobbs]

from the site, good news up top:

01/09/28/12:41

This morning, I finally talked to Apple on the phone. I admit that I over reacted to the whole situation. There was a forwarded email from my employer from Apple, which I misinterpreted. What Apple objected to was not Aquafying Mozilla, but rather the way I was doing it via emulation, thus not giving Mozilla users a pure Aqua experience. Apple is willing to provide information for creating real Aqua experience for Mozilla. Right now, my efforts are focused on an Aqua interface for Tenon's iTools, so work on Mozilla for the moment is in abeyance. I apologize to anyone that I have offended.

regards,
Eric

01/09/27/22:11

This evening, I went to visit /., and found myself on the front page of /.. There were mix feelings about my Aqua projects. I only wanted a browser that works well under Mac OS X, and looks like Aqua. Too bad, I am unable to share that joy anymore. I did not expect to get paid for fixing cocoa, but I felt bad that I helped Apple to write a interface library. Then I was denied to use this interface unless I used their library. In essence, why should I bother to help them with the interface when I am denied to use the interface. I just begin to enjoy working with Apple software, but Apple isn't making it easy for their developers. Anyways, I only hope that Apple would write cocoa UI for Mozilla, then I will not need this project. (OmniWeb is not good enough, yet)

01/09/27/11:34

You might notice that Aqua Mozilla was not updated recently, and the main reason was that Apple contacted my employer in attempt to shut down this project. After a few talk, I am forced to take down this project. Now I think of it, I went to Apple to test cocoa for Mac OS X 10.1, and found a drag and drop problem with NSPopUpButtonCell. They didn't even pay me for my effort, yet they try to shut down my project. Isn't that ironic? For you Mac OS X fans out there, if you want to use a good Mac OS X browser. You can only use IE or OmniWeb now. It sucks for us, but life goes on.

Re:They want to see Mozilla running on OS X

[asa]

They want to see Mozilla running on OS X. That's why they don't care about an Aqua theme for Mozilla.

Mozilla runs well on OS X. It's called Fizzilla and you can get nightly and Milestone testing binaries with the rest of the Mozilla builds at http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/

--Asa

Re:And Apple never "borrowed" from MS?

[Darchmare]

Ever consider that Microsoft had advance access to Aqua and decided to make IE5 'fit' that appearance ahead of time?

Re:And Apple never "borrowed" from MS?

[k_187]

yes well, I ripped this off from mackido.com (mmm, flamey goodness)

1981 - 1983 (Lisa and Mac Development teams)

* General User Interface
* Mouse
* Menus
* Controls
* Windows
* Desktop Metaphor
[1989 - Win31 first usable system but didn't get it working mediocre until Win95 - still not as consistent or good]

* Files -
* multi-forked filing system [WinNT 1993 - still not used]
* long file names (with spaces & special symbols) [Win95, not as versatile]
* automatic typed icons (type + creator) document centric filing mechanism [Win95, not nearly as complete or seamless]

* Design and Programming [Win3 - 1989, not as versatile]

1984

* Desk Accessories (copied in IBM-compatible world as "TSR")
* multitasking: Desk Accessories [Win3 - 1989, not as versatile]

* Sensible System folder organization [Win95 - not as clean, consistent or versatile]
* Dynamic, user-accessible system extension (fonts, INITs, control panels, DA's) [TBD]
* Drag-and-drop Application installation [TBD]
* fast and easy access to international characters [TBD]
* User-extensible font manager [TBD]
* Plug-and-play printing; page setup & print dialogs [TBD]
* Built-in clock with backup battery; reliable file dating. [about 1987]
* Sound
* Built-in speaker, 4 voice sound synthesizer, full digitized sound samples [SoundBlaster about 1987, but it wasn't common until about 1989]

* Speech
* Speech synthesis (Macintalk). [SoundBlaster about 1987, but not as widely used and not a system function]

* Floppy 3.5" floppy (400K) [about 1988]
* with automounting and auto-eject. [TBD]
* Also added a floppy disk cache [TBD]

* hot-swappable peripherals
* keyboard, mouse [1997 with USB, TBD popularized]

* MacPaint, MacWrite, MacDraw [Win3 - 1989, not as versatile]
* First person mainstream networked game (first person dungeon like game -- MazeWar, initially created at Xerox) [Wolfenstien or DOOM - 1992? far better graphics]
* Mac128K was an Ergonomic All in one Machine, semi-portable [1983 Osborn, sorta, some Compaq's in about 1993]
* Use of icons to label ports (all ports keyed to prevent mistakes) [1994?]

1985

* LaserWriter printer with Postscript (Apple also helped Adobe get off the ground as a company) [Win31 - 1991 was when Windows first supported Postscript, before then support was spotty]
* Networking (plug & play, integrated -- AppleTalk/LocalTalk) [1993 / TBD, WinForWorkgroups offered some networking as "option", not as easy or as integrated. Win95 improves it -- still not as easy, or ubiquitous as MacOS in 1985]
* Direct manipulation Resource Editor [TBD]
* Desktop Publishing (actually came from Mac Application called ReadySetGo, then Adobe Pagemaker, also Scoop, Xpress and a few others at about the same time, because of what the Macs WYSIWG capabilities) [Win31 - 1991 was when it first started working well on PC's]
* OOP / OOD (Object Oriented Design and Programming)
* Object Pascal (later borrowed by Borland) [1993]
* MacApp (first mainstream Object Oriented Framework, MS copied poorly with MFC) [1992 - MFC popularized]

* Movable Palettes
* Lifelike Interface [1994 - Bob]
* (forget the name, but there was a Finder Replacement that had an actual picture of a desktop, with a little assistant. Microsoft copied this about 8 years later as "Bob").

1986

* Plug-and play peripherals (SCSI) - ability to handle volumes/partitions to 2GB [1995+]
* Hypercard (simple object programming -- precursor to Visual Basic) [1990]
* Hypercard (simple hypertext linking -- precursor to the Web) [1993]
* First personal computer with 4MB linear memory space (Mac Plus) [1993 WinNT]
* Kanjitalk
* More versatile "Wavetable" sound manager [1989 SoundBlaster popularized]
* Memory Modules (SIMMS) instead of installing RAM chips [1988 - 1990]
* Dial in modem service. Apple create AppleLink communication service -- GE used the software to create AOL.
* Scroll speed throttle for uniform user experience regardless of processor speed. [TBD]
* ADB (Apple Desktop Bus): extensible, auto-config low-speed peripheral bus (precursor to USB) - [1997 with USB, TBD popularized]

1987

* Plug-and-play bus expansion (NuBus) [1995 PCI + PnP, 1997-98 popularized]
* Multifinder application multitasking [1991 Win31, 1993 WinNT]
* Ability to assign labels to files [TBD]
* Multiple monitor support: single large desktop [1998, TBD Popularized]
* Color QuickDraw, 256 color 640x480 graphics (same year as VGA with 16-color 640x480 or 256-color 320x200) [1991]
* Accelerated video cards [1991?]
* Full Page Display [1993]
* Dual Page Displays [1991]
* GWorlds (off screen graphics images used) [1992 - 1997, WinG didn't get working until Win95, and really working until DirectDraw]
* Built in masking, antialiasing and Dithering of images (actually masking and dithering was earlier). [TBD -- Done by programmers]
* Industrial Design: Snap Open Case (no screws) [TBD]

1988

* SCSI plug-and-play CD-ROM [1995 for PnP, not as easy or good]
* Ethertalk
* Superdrive, can read and write Mac, DOS, OS/2 files [TBD]

1989

* photo-realistic images (32-bit QuickDraw)
* 32 Bit Clean OS and 32-bit clean computers (software patches fixed older machines, no BIOS replacements) [1993 WinNT -- 2000 with Win2000]
* A/ROSE real-time operating system for smart cards [TBD]
* Multiprocessing (using cards like YARC and Radius Rocket) [1993 WinNT -- 2000 with Win2000 to popularize]
* Mac Portable, first mainstream portable with an integrated trackball and active matrix screen

1990

* Sound input [TBD]
* Built-in Ethernet (Quadra) [TBD, usually a low-cost extra]
* Publish and Subscribe and early work on Object Embedding (later to be borrowed and become OLE) [1992 - 1995]
* Aural feedback for controls (Sonic Finder) [Win95]
* Ability to assign custom icons to Finder objects [1989 through hacking, TBD]

1991

* Powerbook 100: first laptop with keyboard in back, trackball in front. [1993 - 1994]
* TrueType outline font technology (licensed to Microsoft)
* Balloon help (with contextual feedback) [1991 - Still not as versatile]
* Built in File sharing [1992 WfW, Win95 popularized]
* Robust aliases (unlike Windows' fallible "shortcuts" that came years later) [TBD]
* QuickTime [1992, Authoring not Available until 1995]
* Multimedia -- Apple created the term. They had been the first to integrate Sound, Speech, Text and Graphics (multiple medias), then expanded to include video (and later 3D) and pushed with CD-ROMs [1993 - 1995 until things worked right]
* Virtual Memory [1991 Win31 - 1993 WinNT, 1995 to popularize]
* Appletalk Remote Access [Extra]
* AppleScript: application and system scripting [1981 poorly, 1995 VBfApps, TBD]
* Integrated eMail [Win98]
* Integrated Keychain (Security) [TBD]
* Encryption and Security [1993 WinNT -- 2000 with Win2000 to popularize]
* Network Browser [Win95]
* Trash you have to empty (item in trash survive power down) [Win95]

1992

* Powerbook Duo: first dockable (e.g. "port replicator") but much more elegant [TBD]
* Global text input support (WorldScript) [TBD]
* ColorSync color matching [1999]
* Built-in CD-ROM's [?? 1994]
* Video Input - AV models
* Integrated DSP [1989 NeXT, 1996 with MMX]
* Industrial Design: Slide out Drawer [Some servers, rare]

1993

* Next generation speech synthesis
* Speech recognition (Speakable Items) [1996 - Win95 add-on, 1997 as powerful add-on, TBD to be popularized]
* Integrated telephony (Geoport) [Win98]
* First PC with built-in TV
* PDA [WinCE -- 1997 - 1998, but not as nice]
* Handwriting Recognition (Newton) [TBD]
* Gesture Recognition [TBD]

1994

* Powerbook 520: first widely-available laptop with trackpad.
* Power Macintosh: PowerPC RISC chip [1993 WinNT, most RISCs killed, TBD to popularize maybe 2001 - 2004 with Merced/McKinley]
* 68K emulation for seamless backward compatiblity. [TBD -- Alpha tries but not mainstream or as reliable]
* Graphing Calculator: real-time equation visualization, 2D and 3D.[TBD]
* MacOS on Unix (MAE)
* "Most Recent" folders
* Hierarchical menus
* Windowshade (collapsable windows)
* AppleGuide (help system with coachmarks) [TBD]
* PC Exchange (cross platform file compatibility) [TBD]
* Macintosh Easy Open (can open PC files)
* DOS/Windows compatibility cards and emulation software
* Threads [1993 NT, TBD to popularize]
* TCP/IP support
* Powerbook file synchronization [TBD]
* Continuous speech recognition and input (Cantonese dictation)
* Bento - Object Oriented Document model [TBD]
* IEEE-1394 (FireWire) [1998 as option (Sony), TBD popularized]

1995

* QuickTime VR, Conferencing
* Open Transport Networking (streams)
* QuickDraw 3D [1994 OpenGL, 1998 to popularize with Direct3D]
* Plug & Play PCI bus (PCI Only -- no ISA or older bus) [1995 Win95 was PnP support, general PCI earlier, PnP didn't work fully until 1997]

1996

* OpenDoc (Fully document centric interface model) [TBD]
* Integrated Browser (CyberDog) [Win98]
* Web as a data-type (CyberDog) [Win98]

1997

* Popup folders [TBD]
* Spring loaded folders [TBD]
* reorganized system folder [Still not as clean]

1998

* Sherlock full-text indexing and internet searching [TBD]
* Titlebar icons to represent the folder itself for dragging etc. [TBD]
* Appearance manager (Themes) [Limited in Win95, TBD]
* Audio Themes (Sonic Finder finally ships in 8.5) [Limited in Win95, TBD]
* Tear off Menu (Application Menu. Also Apple and NeXT merged, NeXT created them) [TBD]
* Resizable Menus [TBD]
* Customizable scroll bar behavior [TBD]
* Integrated System Wide antialiasing [1996 Win95 OSR2?, Win98]
* iMac - clear case, return of all-in-one, simplified design, ALL plug & play I/O, floppyless design [TBD]
* USB (Universal Serial Bus): this is a copy of the Apple Desktop Bus (ADB). Apple was also the first to make it ubiquitous and standard.[Added in 1996, support in Win98, TBD popularized]

1999

* Industrial Design: Handles + Door [TBD]
* AirPort -- Wireless networking made easy [TBD]

Re:Might make Aqua better...

[Arandir]

The designers at BMW do not really want you painting their cars in hippie rainbow colors, adding neon underneath and gluing crap to the hood.

But the designers at BMW aren't going to sue me if I paint the Virgin Mary on the hood!

Priorities

[daceaser]

What worries me most is Apple's sense of priorities. They seem quite happy for someone to re-implement QuickTime for Linux as a third-party, yet they sue someone who creates a skin that looks like Aqua.

Does Apple think that colourful buttons are more valuable intellectual property than their video layer which they've spent the last 10 years developing?

Not that I mind QT for Linux, but the point stands. They'd rather have people buy a Mac for the shiny interface than the powerful graphics tools, or other _real_ technological assets.

I'm an Apple fiend, but sometimes the bods at Apple really leave me wondering...

Re:They want to see Mozilla running on OS X

[owenc]

I think what he means is a cocoa native web browser using Gecko. Right now Mozilla for OS X is basically the OS 9 app with Aqua Support tacked on

these are long-known problems

[Anonymous Coward]

All of this stuff was discussed a year or two ago on MozillaZine. The intellectual property issues were flagged and pooh-poohed, the impossibility of matching the Aqua widgets and behavior with XUL was discussed, and the problems with ignoring the native widgets in favor of a custom widget set were argued endlessly.

None of the custom-widget defenders could find any particular examples of required CSS behaviors that couldn't be done with native widgets. In fact the people who were claiming there were problems of this type seemed very ignorant of the graphics layer capabilities in MacOS (9 and X) and in Windows as well.

The fact is Mozilla went down the wrong path, a bunch of us tried to get them to reconsider, and they just wouldn't budge.

So surprise, everything we predicted has now come to pass.

Sigh

What is OS X?

[2nd Post!]

If you want your shiny blue widgets... you can have XP.

I'm a little more scared of Microsoft, .NET, Hailstorm, Windows Media Player, DirectX, and the XBox, all under the same roof...

What evils lurk in the Microsoft Future?

Aqua is *the* OS X experience. It's more than just widgets; more than just a semitranslucent title bar, or glassy buttons, and drop shadows.

It's about an uncluttered 'Start bar' (called the Dock). Each App gets a single entry in the Dock, with access to the multiple open windows available through a single 'Window' menu; or if you right click on the app in the Dock, you get a list of the available windows.

It's about a the Apple Menu and a single menu, instead of a menu per Window. This has carried over from the previous OS 9; the foreground App, with User focus, controls the single available menu bar. There doesn't exist a menu for each window (which not only takes up screen real estate, it provides for too many available targets when all you use is a single target) but only a single global menu bar.

It's about minimizing screen clutter and noise. Instead of borders around each window you get a drop shadow; you delineate forground from background apps because the foreground App casts a shadow behind it. The background apps also have transparent title bars. You don't get every open Window listed in the Dock-the OS X Start bar. You don't get a menu bar attached to every window. You don't get a empty grey parent window containing all the child windows of Word or Photoshop.

It's not perfect, certainly, and it is, after all, the vision of a single person, a single company, quite unlike Linux and the Open Source/Free Software community.

There are little things, but mostly it's coherent. Most of the OS widgets are grayed out and monochromatic except when they are in focus or require attention; good visual cues. If you mistype your password when logging in, the login window shakes itself to both clear itself and to let you know you've failed to log in.

It's really, really, nice. Too bad most people are too cheap, or cannot otherwise afford, to play with Macs.

Re:What is OS X?

[2nd Post!]

Hmmm, you already have a pretty insightful response, so here's my addendum.

You could have 15 Netscape windows open. They take no space on the dock except for 1 Netscape App icon.

Minimize all 15 Windows (there is that option in the 'Netscape' menu) and you have 1 Netscape App icon and 15 Netscape window icons, each a tiny 'live' representation. Supposedly running Quicktime windows keep running even when 'minimized' too

The dock has a separator to divide applications and documents. So it has everything the Windows start bar has, and more. The foreground window cannot be lost in the Dock because it doesn't show up in the Dock unless it's minimized. The application can never be lost because it's always in the same place in the Dock.

Aqua, and Mac Widgets

[mindstrm]

You know.. some things just don't work that well in an anarchy. Witness the failure of the unix desktop. Now.. I'm not slamming it, or trolling, I use it every day, and have for years... but unix still lacks a coherent desktop, even one as poor as Windows has. Why? Because nobody dictates what anyone else has to use. Now.. I'm not a fan of dictatorship.. however...

Apple has a point. They have *always* insisted on using proper API's for the Mac. Why? Because it ensure things WORK, and ensures they can bring out future versions of their OS without breaking stuff. IT's a GOOD thing.
Unlike MS, they don't use their proprietary widgets to corner the application market; the information on how to use them is free to all, no royalties.... no licenses (afiak).. nothing.
All they insist upon is that you use them. AND YOU SHOULD.

Re:Aqua, and Mac Widgets

[Lumpy]

Ok I'll bite...

What exactly do you call Gnome and GTK? I have it in use by morons, idiots, and people that seem to have an I.Q. of less than 40 (sales people, Marketing people, Human Resources people) It is very useable, very effective, and hamper's no one here. The transition period was 2 days for all employees. Everyone understood that the foot was start menu and weren't crying in their hands because the foot scared them.

The transition to staroffice was as smooth also. (openoffice would have been smoother but we cant use beta office apps) Email is as easy except for people bitching that they cant just click on the attachment to run it. "I respond with GOOD! I finally stopped you people from doing that!" then they shut up, copy to desktop and then open it.

If the linux desktop is a failure, can you please show me why so I can tell all the employees here to stop using it.

Coherent desktop.. Gnome is a 96.95% copy of the windows desktop. Windows from version to version change their desktop to add confusion (why does network neighborhood change it's behaivoir from NT4.0 to 2000? is that coherency? how about the 40 other basic items that no longer work the same or in the same place?)

Over the past 3 months, the Unix/linux desktop has surpassed windows. and every test I try with non-linux users (windows-heads) is sucessful and they like it. (espically ximian which acts more mac like than windows like)

I can see your point on Widgets... but forcing mozilla and openoffice to use GTK will piss off the KDE people.. which will piss off the blackbox people... etc...

my biggest gripe is dummies that make the copy function something other than CTRL-C and paste something other than CTRL-V. if you cant make hotkeys standard then leave them out, if you cant use standard widgets then dont program....

If you cant use the standard OS then ...
The important thing is that Linux/Unix is like NT4.0 regular users are too dumb to manage it , but they can use it well if the managing personell configure everything and choose software that isnt confusing. (Using davewidget 4.3 with new spinning icons)

Re:They want to see Mozilla running on OS X

[mr100percent]

Yes, it RUNS on OS X, but has noting else in common. The menu bar is pretty bare, the widgets are ugly looking X-windows bareness. A menu is jammed in every open menu, giving it the worst aspect of XWindows and Windows, as global options aren't in the global taskbar.

My only concern is that the OS X version might be slower to be updated, as platform-specific features to use Aqua are added.

yet another chance for discussion

[rebug]

ruined. it's a damned shame how some people just can't handle even the smallest of freedoms. Apple has always been protective of their designs. Can you blame them? Ever since the justice department decided that it's ok to rip them off, anything they design is fair game for poachers.

Code exists to do this in the mozilla tree

[lordpixel]

Mac OS will create a button for you, if you ask it, but, like most modern OSes it will also just "draw" a button without any of the logic behind it, there is an API for that sort of thing.

So you get the look of a button without any of the native widget.

I once spent some time with a guy at netscape implementing a new protocol which basically took advantage of that.

You wrote something like:

theme://button?title=OK

and it returned a GIF containing a perfect looking OK button in the present Mac OS theme, be that Platinum on OS 9 or Aqua on OS X.

The code to do this is here:
http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/netwerk/prot ocol/theme/

Finshing this work would allow very high quality Aqua themes, as it wouldn't be "as" emulated. The OS would be drawing all of the controls.

This would also satisfy Apple - they don't really care about Aqua themes so much as making sure those themes *only* work on Mac OS. As the theme: protocol needs native code to work, it will only run on Mac OS (9 or X)

The theme protocol might also be needed on Linux (window manager theme support) and to do Windows XP properly.

Project on Sourceforge

[Tachys]

The Q.Bati seemed to be trying to put a Mac OS X interface in front of gecko. Unfortunately it seems to be vaporware :(

Re:And Apple never "borrowed" from MS?

[ckd]

But who says Apple never ripped off MS? The custom toolbar in IE 5 for Mac was taken and tweaked to be used in the custom finder for OS X!

And that was borrowed from NeXTStep's File Viewer's Shelf, which dates back a lot farther than IE5/Mac. Who's zooming who?

Re:Might make Aqua better...

[sarhjinian]

So please explain to me why Microsoft is vilified on the site because they refuse to let OEMs change the look and feel of the Windows desktop? What your saying is that it's OK for Apple but not MS?

Because Apple doesn't have OEMs making Macintosh clones. Apple makes the hardware and the software. If Apple still allowed clones (which, depending on your opinion is either a good thing or bad thing) then maybe this arguement would be valid.

Apple is very much concerned with selling a "tight" system. Apple sells a branded product; as a result, look and feel is more important to them then, say, Dell (who sells a commodity product where a consistent interface takes a back seat to power and/or price).

Now I'm not sure if its such a good idea for Apple to lean on developers who produce products with a non-standard (or just plain ugly) interface. Its really up to the developer to make his/her/their product look like a Mac app, especially since Mac users are more intolerant of un-Mac like products.

On the other hand, maybe Apple should've slapped Microsoft down for Word 6 for Macintosh. :)

BTW, I thought MS fought the look and feel battle with Apple ages ago when Apple took them to court over Windows looking like Apple's OS. Didn't the judge rule in favor of MS, and wouldn't that still apply to everyone copying Aqua's look and feel?

That suit was more generic: it was more like "the concept of a GUI". Protecting Aqua is about protecting a brand or an image. Its the same thing that prevents one car manufacturer (Daewoo, for example) from rampantly poaching another's body design (say, Porsche's Boxster). What Apple wants to avoid is

• Someone outright cloning the whole interface (and maing money off Apple's design and interface work)
• Making an application that weakens Aqua as an asset (either by using it outside the Mac OS or by creating an Aqua app that grossly violates the UI guidlines and makes the system harder to use).

That's what Apple wants. Whether this is wrong or right depends on your own views.

I haven't seen this yet...

[SkullMac]

Its not that fact that he was trying to "Aquafy" it through "emulation" that pissed off Apple, its the fact that this Aqua theme would be available to users on other platforms (Linux/Windows).

Apple's aim with Aqua is brand identiy. They want Aqua instantly associated with Apple. They don't want there to be any question about it.

This follows the same logic they used when they sued three companies over iMac knockoffs. They wanted the "look and feel" of an iMac to be instantly recognizeable and associated ONLY with Apple. Even if you thought the iMac was butt-ugly, it stood out from run-of-the-mill beige PCs. It cried out that the Mac was alive and well, and assured that people would remember the design.

Granted, there have been a number of iMac inspired computers, but Apple has choosen its battles well.

The same goes for Aqua. I've seen a number of "Aqua inspired" designs, but the ones where an author obviously went in and copied and pasted Apple's UI elements into a theme file have all been brought to a quick end.

Re:i didn't think you could

[dhamsaic]

neither of 'em got it *quite* right :)

i'm typing this from internet explorer beta on mac os x 10.0.4 on my new dual 800mhz g4 system (pretty zippy)...

mac os is pretty usable with 1 mouse button, but i appreciate it infinitely more with 2. (note that i'm talking about os x - i'm not really interested in os9 - another unix geek here, but one that's not so cheap that they didn't just get a new ibook and g4 tower)... the way it works is like this:

with a 1 button mouse, ctrl+click is the equivalent of the windows right-click. it brings up contextual menus.

in some applications (i.e., internet explorer), if you hold the mouse button for about a second, the contextual menu pops up. they did this as a convenience - it is not standard across the gui (although it should be).

if you have a 2 button mouse, right clicking will do the equivalent of the ctrl-click, which is bring up the contextual menu. this *is* standard across the gui, which is really really cool.

now, in os x, some other things you *can* click-hold for the menu (like app icons in the dock), but right clicking makes this faster. so it's all really a matter of preference. if you prefer the apple pro mouse (and it is quite nice - i plan to keep it in my laptop bag for use on my ibook), you can certainly very easily get around the operating system. but if you'd like a little more power, pick up a two button mouse (i'm using an intellimouse explorer for the time being, until i get another boomslang) - that will do the trick for you.

i might as well also note this: scroll wheels now work in mac os x *kinda*. in mac os 9, if the drivers for the mouse have been released (and most companies have), the scroll wheel and right mouse button will work anywhere. in mac os x, while the right mouse button is default, because of different widgets in the different types of apps, and the lack of drivers for os x (though some day, i imagine), the scroll wheel doesn't always work. here's how it goes:

in carbon apps, which are written to run both under os 9 and natively under os x, the scroll wheel will *not* work. in cocoa apps, which are written for mac os x natively and will only run under mac os x apps, the scroll wheel *will* work. so, for instance, my scroll wheel works in Mail, Internet Explorer... but doesn't work in Finder (?), iTunes, etc.

that's the scoop on mousing under os x (i hope :) )