Slashdot Mirror
OroborOSX: XDarwin Aqua-Like Window Manager
UnanimousCoward writes: "I've just downloaded OroborOSX, "A modified Oroborus-based X11 window manager for use with XFree86 and XDarwin on Mac OS X." It's truly a wm worthy of standing side-by-side with Aqua in rootless mode. Here are some screenshots from Jonathan Tyzack (I'm too lazy to create my own, but my experience is the same). Using MacGimp under OroborOSX is awesome ..." The original Oroborus looks interesting as well; the original author has discontinued work on Oroborus, but it looks like the code has found a nice new application.
Just try throwing that line into your next after-dinner party.
Extra points if you can keep a straight face , and saying it at LAN parties doesn't count
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
Note that you will need to be running OSX (or Darwin?) to build or run this; it is a Carbon app. This isn't immediately obvious from the web page... I just assumed they hadn't tried it on anything but OSX.
Ah, well, back to E...
I know a lot of people think that anybody should have the right to make a window manager that looks like Aqua, since Apple doesn't own the idea of a "liquid-looking" interface. However, I think this attitude misses an important point.
Would any of the Aqua rip-offs have been created if Apple hadn't created Aqua? Would Microsoft's Luna look like it does without Apple's Aqua? Of course not, they would have continued with the chiselled grayness look that they did for years.
It's easy to take the excellent work someone else has done, tweak it, and then claim it's original work. It's a lot harder to start from scratch and build something truly original. Sure, everybody is influenced by something, but the important thing is to make sure that the influence isn't completely obvious. When it is obvious, that's the sign of simply derivative work. If the influence is not obvious, then you've got creative work. And Apple should have the right to sue the hell out of anyone who creates derivitive works that dilute their own stuff. That means, if it isn't running on Apple hardware running Mac OS X, it shouldn't look like Aqua.
The general consensus at Slashdot seems to be: (1) Aqua sucks, (2) but looky, I can recreate it as a Window manager for my putty colored, 15-mouse-button-equipped, hand-assembled computer, (3) and Apple doesn't have the right to protect their look/feel anyway.
Not intended to be a flame; it's just too early in the morning for me.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
The original MacOS X interface doesn't work for X Windows applications "out of the box".
. . . Mac user would ever allow that to be the background image of their box. The dust/crud and that white thingy on the front paw would have been Photoshopped out long ago.
Dirt doesn't need luck.
...it looks hideous matched with the unixy-flat grey and squared off buttons inside the pretty Aqua window borders. It's like if someone putting leather seats inside of a Yugo and thinking it stands side by side with his neighbor's Lexus. It comes off as a half-assed knockoff.
I hear people all the time saying that Linux (and it's most popular apps)are not at all original but merely doing its best to ape other OSes (Linux-Unix, KDE-Windows, GIMP-Photoshop, StarOffice-MS Office). Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of Linux but things like this seem lame and add weight to thier perceptions.