XPde: Cloning the XP Interface

An anonymous reader writes "Over at XPde.com, a clone of the Windows XP interface is progressing. They aim to copy the XP interface down to every last detail- with exceptions for text that specifically mentions Windows XP or Microsoft. Their project seems to be coming along well, and assuming they meet their goal, nobody can complain about Linux not being enough like XP. Here is the screenshots page." Depends what you like, I suppose ;)

Comments

Sue me, sue me, please.

[codexus]

I'm bored and I'd like to get sued by Microsoft cause that way I'll be famous and all.

Re:Sue me, sue me, please.

[lseltzer]

Pretty obvious copyright infringement. What are these people thinking?

Re:Sue me, sue me, please.

[lseltzer]

No, it's not the same. The Look and feel cases (Lotus v. Borland, Apple v. Microsoft) did not involve one party making the product look exactly like the other. You're just not allowed to do this.

Re:Sue me, sue me, please.

[lvdrproject]

People have been ripping off the Windows (all versions) interface since day one. It shows just what Microsoft deems important. I've never heard of Microsoft saying the slightest thing about all the many people that have been so blatantly ripping off the Windows GUI (though maybe this has happened after all? correct me if i'm wrong).

Instead they appear to go after stuff they deem more important. On the other hand... Apple is notorious for their legal guys, who seem to have nothing better to do than hunt down any and all reincarnations of the Aqua interface, even if they're not exact rip-offs. They find something that's just in the STYLE of Aqua, they sue.

I don't know, i hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but at least in this matter they seem to have their priorities straight.

Re:Sue me, sue me, please.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Well, I think you're half-right. Yes, Microsoft doesn't consider their interface important enough for them to sue people who rip it off. That doesn't mean they "have their priorities straight" -- that just means that they don't consider interface design a priority. Which is one reason why their interfaces suck, and Linux developers are doing exactly the wrong thing in attempting to imitate them.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if Linux interface developers are going to rip anyone off, it should be Apple. Not in the areas of colors and fonts, because a) although I like Aqua overall, it's a little cartoonish for my taste, and b) that's just begging for a look-and-feel lawsuit. Instead, they should be looking at the underlying reasons Mac interfaces (Classic and OS X) work so well. OS X / Aqua proves that it's possible to have a Unix desktop that Just Works. KDE and GNOME are both considerably better than they used to be, but they're Not There Yet in comparison to OS X -- and they never will be until the Linux world stops chasing a goal that's not worth reaching in the first place, the shitty Microsoft interface.

This doesn't just apply to window managers, BTW. I'm really deeply annoyed that just about all the open-source productivity software I've seen tries its damndest to look like Microsoft Office stuff -- all the word processors want to look like Word, all the spreadsheets want to look like Excel, etc. People, there are much better interfaces for this kind of software out there.

Re:Sue me, sue me, please.

[Toraz Chryx]

If I had any mod points right now, I'd mod you up, as it is I'm forced to say "IAWTP" and then wave my arms around going "MOD THIS GUY UP!"

Just so this post isn't totally devoid of content, there seems to be a contingent of Linux advocates (mostly on usenet although I'm sure there are some here), that believe efficiency > usability

That seems like total bunk to me, just because something is easy to grasp doesn't mean that it's less efficient.. okay so there are certain things that are, but using it as a coverall dismissal at any remotely useable UI seems more like "I HAVEN'T GOT IT SO YOU SHOULDN'T EITHER!" paddying.

Re:Sue me, sue me, please.

[eyeball]

...if Linux interface developers are going to rip anyone off, it should be Apple.

There's someone working on it...

Re:Sue me, sue me, please.

[telstar]

Hey, those look pretty slick ... er, guess that's where they got the name.

Re:Sue me, sue me, please.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

No one's talking about taking away your ability to do things efficiently via the command line. I find myself dropping into Terminal pretty regularly on OS X, because you're right that there are lots of things you can do much more efficiently via the command line than via any GUI. (There is, BTW, a smaller but still substantial set of things you can do via GUI more efficiently than via command line; e.g., moving large numbers of files between deeply nested directories.) But when you are using a GUI, it should work as well as possible. If you choose to spend most of your time on the command line, that's your choice, and a perfectly valid one -- but the majority of users don't make that choice.

Efficiency != usability, but they're closely correlated.

Re:Sue me, sue me, please.

[aussersterne]

No one's talking about taking away your ability to do things efficiently via the command line. I find myself dropping into Terminal pretty regularly on OS X, because you're right that there are lots of things you can do much more efficiently via the command line than via any GUI.

The point is not merely the command line; the point is the KDE and GNOME and even the traditional X desktop (to a far lesser degree) provide command-line integration of various kinds, which much more "usable" GUIs tend not to do.

There is, BTW, a smaller but still substantial set of things you can do via GUI more efficiently than via command line; e.g., moving large numbers of files between deeply nested directories.

You're right on principal, but the example you've chosen is a rotten one. Moving large numbers of files between deeply nested directories is *much* more efficient at the command prompt, where patterns can be used to move all or any subset of those files and flow control and test logic can be used to move or categories to multiple deeply-nested destinations intelligently. A simple file manager window could never hope to compete.

A better example would be Photoshop-like or GIMP-like image manipulation (i.e. still acting within a single file).

Re:Sue me, sue me, please.

[blixel]

HOWEVER, don't begrudge those of us who do use the power of UNIX operating systems.

Oh please! Come off it dude. No one has EVER said "Oh man, dang those Unix gurus! They've got all the knowledge and it's just not fair! We need to dumb down the UI for every one to level the playing field so those braniacs are just as ill equiped as we are - because we are too lazy to learn the shell."

But quite the opposite can be read in each and EVERY slashdot post regarding interfaces. Where *many* (granted, not all) of these so called Unix gurus go off on a high horse about how the world would be a better place if everyone learned the command line.

I know the command line quite well but I don't think my mom or grandma should be required to learn it so they can see a picture of my dog that I sent them via e-mail. Nor do I want to learn how to rebuild my car engine so I can drive my car down the road.

Re:Sue me, sue me, please.

[MortisUmbra]

I think you are missing the point. The benefit of having interfaces that mimic XP is that, if you want people to move over, give them a path with less resistance. This is SO true in business as well. If a Linux rollout means re-training already less than adept users in a new environment, then wether or not that interface is "better" or not is moot because these users are used to a different interface, right or wrong, for better or for worse, the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. Oh and btw, I f'ing hate Aqua, not just it's color schemes, but everything, EVERYTHING about it.

Re:Sue me, sue me, please.

[mbogosian]

People have been ripping off the Windows (all versions) interface since day one. It shows just what Microsoft deems important.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think there is a precedent here, if anyone in this thread is old enough to remember when Apple sued Microsoft for the exact same thing...and lost. Granted that the two interfaces at the time looked nothing like each other, but they behaved similarly. In the world of themed window managers, "look" can be mirrored quite easily, and "feel" is something that, as far as I know, has already been tested as being able to be copied.

Re:Sue me, sue me, please.

[Jace of Fuse!]

Not There Yet in comparison to OS X -- and they never will be until the Linux world stops chasing a goal that's not worth reaching in the first place, the shitty Microsoft interface.

I agree with most of your underlying points. The Mac OSX interface is functional. It's ugly in color scheme, of course, and I'd say down-right reupulsive. But it's quite functional and it does "FEEL" right.

Where I disagree with you is that Microsoft's interface is shitty. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that even though Microsoft's classic 9x/2000 look is steril, it FEELS right. Hovers, Drags, Movements all feel like they work as they should. Even context menus and icon behavior feels like it works, even if (as someone else has said) it feels that it's working when it actually isn't.

In that, Microsoft's interface could be said to be "ugly" too, and the XP Blue theme is definately high in gayness points. XP Silver look nice, in my opinion but then that's what the LOOKS boil down to. Opinion. I haven't seen too many interfaces that I think LOOK nice, but as long as they feel right, I don't care what they look like.

Both Mac OS X and Windows FEEL right. They feel like they function, and dispite what other problems some people may have out of XP, I have a rock solid system that I've configured to look rather nice (and minimalistic) by disabling all of the stupid shit, an option I'm glad I have with Windows. I am, after all, a Shell person first, and a Minimalist GUI person next.

KDE and GNome aren't "Quite There Yet", but XPde looks like it might be worth following. So they've managed to make it look like Windows. If it doesn't FEEL like Windows it won't matter one bit in the end. I shall give this a try, but since it is based on the XWindow System I have very low expectations from it. X is the problem, in my opinion and a whole new ground-up desktop is what is needed. In that respect, yes, something more like OS X.

Re:Sue me, sue me, please.

[blixel]

but if you knew how to rebuild your car engine, you would certianly be better suited for when it broke down half way to your grandmas house.

And if you knew how to perform open heart surgery you could save a fortune on hospital bills.

Icons..

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Since most people that want their linux box to look like xp are dual booting anyway, couldnt you just point this to an XP install and let it steal all the icons/graphics from this so you can get a truely authentic xp look without all the cease and desist letters?

Re: Icons..

[Antity]

Definitely Interesting.

Just like this stuff with PalmOS, C64, SNES, Amiga and whatever emulators where it's no legal problem at all if you just copy the neccessary files (there: ROMs, here: Icons etc) from an original copy that you legally own (note: This is different from "bought").

It should also be possible to just extract icons just from the WinXP, Win9x or whatever CD. No need to install (and register), then. Most probably this won't include much of the drawing engine but just the icons, but it should be used if available.

I hope it's not too good of a copy!

[vudufixit]

ME: "Hey, check out this Linux distro I just got. It looks (and works) just like XP - right down to the..." A friend: "What? What's wrong?" "bluescreen"

Re:I hope it's not too good of a copy!

[Sh0t]

His comp most be really shitty hardware wise or he is a total newb who downloads every program feature in all those gator popup ads we all know and love. His computer probably has more viruses than a culture dish at the Center for Disease Research.

Re:I hope it's not too good of a copy!

[Chainsaw]

Nope. The hardware is all checked stuff, two identical computer to his with Win2K runs just fine with no stability problems at all. He's a software engineer with ten years in the industry, and has a clean WinXp installation with Emacs and Sun JDK 1.4.1. He's no newbie, and therefore no spyware junk.

Don't look down on people knowing more than yourself.

Re:I hope it's not too good of a copy!

[Chainsaw]

He installed the latest certified drivers for all the hardware, JDK 1.4.1 and Emacs. That's it. Now, mister know-it-all, what did he do wrong?

Re:I hope it's not too good of a copy!

[bigbadwlf]

XP doesn't blue-screen, huh?

Three words...

"Unmountable Boot Volume"

Re:I hope it's not too good of a copy!

[Toraz Chryx]

Or he just tried to use a new Nvidia detonator revision and got the dreaded nv4_disp.dll BSOD

really, wtf were microsoft thinking putting the video driver in the kernel space... for smegs sake, it isn't much of a performance improvement when it blows the OS up >:(

Re:I hope it's not too good of a copy!

[fault0]

He obviously has some errors in his hardware configuration then.

This is not the fault of the operating systems. /me oogles all the kernel panics I got with linux/ppc for years and all the freezes I got with my x86 box with a VIA mobo, IBM hd, Linux, and DMA :/

Re:I hope it's not too good of a copy!

[arkanes]

Point of fact: lots of people, including myself, run windows XP for days/weeks/months with no blue screens.

Therefore, the flaw is not inherent in winXP. It's most probably a flaw in some winXP specific driver, or a hardware flaw. If he's a software engineer with 10 years experience, you'd think he might be able to catch the blue screens and at least isolate the problem.

Re:I hope it's not too good of a copy!

[dknj]

Ever done driver development? You can "write strings god knows where"

-dk

Re:I hope it's not too good of a copy!

[Henry V .009]

A bad memory stick can be a problem as well. Memtest is always smart. I have a computer that crashed both Linux and Windows XP until I replaced the memory stick.

Re:I hope it's not too good of a copy!

[mbogosian]

I have to admit, I was getting ready to hate this project after reading the summary, but before following any links. But after I saw it and thought about it a while, I love it. I'll never use it myself, but I thought, "what better way to help in the process of using those poor lost windows-only souls than make an environment which is so much like what they're used to that they won't notice the difference?"

From my own anecdotal evidence, I find that computer users can usually be classified in one of three groups:

Experts: these are the people who eat, sleep, live the technology for whatever purpose (hobby, professional choice, curiosity, whatever). They are typically curious and will be delighted by anything that does The Right Thing, or works well, or is just plain cool regardless of the source. These people typically have no problem running two or three operating systems on as many boxes (or more, or even less) under / on / in / near their desks / racks / etc. They are the software engineers, the curious hobbyists, the sys admins of large organizations (e.g., universities), the folks that learned how to program at age 12 "just for fun", etc. In the early industry, these made up most of the user base of computers (large and small).

Intermediates or Power Users: these users are typically very familiar with the end-user features of one (maybe two) OSes. They could tell you all kinds of tricks like how to re-order your Apple menu (anyone remember Mac OS 7-9?) by copying and pasting carriage returns into the first part of directory / file names and how to "unstick" Word when it won't load without having to reinstall Office. They know enough to be dangerous on a network, but not enough to properly care for other users. These are typically the most active in the OS religious (flame) wars. As personal computers became more accessible (enter Apple II, IBM PC, etc.), these users began to dominate the population.

Beginners: these are what BOFHs call lusers. They are the most ignorant of the bunch, and typically have an attitude of, "I just want the damned thing to work, I don't care how". These folks know just enough to do what they want to do on a daily basis, but aren't very good at troubleshooting problems when they occur without help. These make up most of the computer-using population today.

There is nothing inherently superior or inferior about any particular group. It's just how things are. To date, it has been extremely hard to convince members of the last two groups (beginners and intermediates) to go outside of their respective comfort zones (i.e., try new operating systems). I believe the middle group is nearly impossible to convert as there are as many emotional ties to their underlying choices as there are knowledge ones.

However, with this project, I think the conversion of the beginners group just got easier by several orders of magnitude. They don't care, as long as it works. If it looks and acts very similar to what they're already used to (and by very similar, I mean exact for day-to-day use and similar for more infrequent tasks like network configuration, etc.), then they are much less likely to notice that they are running Linux vs. Windows. This is a very good thing. Intermediates and experts can still use sawfish or twm or the console or whatever they choose, but beginners now have hope for a viable (and understandable) interface. This is truly wonderful, as an increased user base will help legitimize the efforts of Linux on the desktop. Kudos and respect to the xpde team for some truly outstanding work.

Re:I hope it's not too good of a copy!

[thechink]

No, XP just grinds to a slow, numbing halt. Stuff just quits working.

That maybe your experience but it's not mine. In over a year of running XP Pro I've yet to see a BSOD or the slow down you mention and I usually leave my computer on for long periods of time. I've had a few apps crash but they don't take down the OS. As for the UI, it's a matter of personal preference, I don't have any problem with it.

Re:I hope it's not too good of a copy!

[dimator]

AHH! Funny! "bluescreen"! I get it!

Fucking dumbass.

Re:I hope it's not too good of a copy!

[Zontar The Mindless]

To whomever modded down my post:

A "troll" is defined as a post that serves no useful purpose, makes an ad hominem or similar attack, or attempts to disrupt the flow of conversation.

All I did was report my experience and my opinion. Just because it doesn't match yours does NOT make my post a troll.

Perhaps when someone tries to mod down a post, they should get a message saying, "Does this post really fit the definition of 'troll'? Or am I just steamed because the poster doesn't agree with me?"

Hopefully when this is meta-moderated, others won't be so hasty to mislabel.

Re:I hope it's not too good of a copy!

[Suppafly]

You have to put the driver in kernel space if you expect any kind of decent video performance. Do you think that your favorite free os does it any differently?

Interesting idea

[peripatetic_bum]

This seems to directly address the complaint that new users won't have a conceptual base to start on linux. While this is a good idea, I still think that new users should get some sort of introduction to the open source and its ideals. I know I know that users simply want to use the computer for work, but as we head off into this new digital age where everything can be controlled, perhaps they should also learn that switching from windows to linux, means that they are the ones in control and not business.

any way, thanks for readinging

Re:Interesting idea

[Unknown Lamer]

While this is a good idea, I still think that new users should get some sort of introduction to the open source and its ideals.

I think you mean the Free Software movement and not Open Source. Open Source is the non-political form of Free Software. The main part of the Open Source movement is that it is technically superior. There is no argument for freedom. If you want ideals, you want Free Software. The FSF had a button that summed it up well "What's the point of Open Source with the FREEDOM?"

Yanked from the FAQ .....

[UnderScan]

I wonder if this project will get the beatdown from MS like the various Aqua skins did from Apple.

What is XPde?

XPde is a desktop environment for XWindow to allow Windows users migrate to Linux easily. It's composed by a desktop (XPde) and window manager (XPwm).

Why are you doing this?

1 To learn more Kylix and low-level Linux programming
2 For fun
3 To create software can be useful to many people
4 To have a desktop on my system I can customize

There are many reasons, but the main goal I think is to allow normal computer users enjoy the stability and security of Linux, I think right now is not possible with KDE or Gnome, so this project can be interpreted as a bridge to Linux.
[ Back to Top ]

Why do you think this project will be a success? KDE and Gnome are out there and also can be customized to look as Windows XP.

I don't know if it will be a success, but let's imagine this scenario:
-You are a Windows developer
-You develop accounting/payment and desktop applications for Windows
-You would love to develop for Linux, but you can't because none of your customers run Linux
-You could tell them, "hey!, I'm going to change all your machines to Linux, it's cheaper, faster and safer! (and all the Linux propaganda you can eat)"
-You customers would say "Why? Our system works, we know how to print, send mail, create documents, copy files and all we need, we don't want to change, this will mean to teach all my employees the new stuff and I'm not going to loose that time"
This is common scenario in the real world development, there is not time and money to forget Windows and install Linux, so this project is just another piece of software that could help to reduce the learning curve of a normal user to use a Linux computer. The main goal is to create an "exact" copy of the Windows XP interface (without any registered logo/graphic), that way, I plain user can start to use new applications (StarOffice, Mozilla, etc) without be frightened by a new desktop.

XPde FAQ

Re:Yanked from the FAQ .....

[Raiford]

Consider this: *NIX and *nix-like OS find there greatest success and appreciation in two arenas:

1.) Server applications

2.) Scientific and Engineering workstation networks.

There are business networks based on *NIX/*UNIX-like platforms however they are a small share of the market (ask Sun Microsystems). I love Linux and I have been using the OS since 1993 but my gut tells me that it will probably never by Joe Average's OS regardless of what you try to make it look like. So why would you want to anyway ?

I guess I just don't see the point...

[craenor]

I'll be honest I love Windows XP. I use it at work, I use it at home...I consider it a great operating system. But I'll admit that I also have zero concern for the other little "features" that some would call spywear that Microsoft has added to XP. I just don't care about those things, I have nothing to hide from microsoft, the government or anyone.

I know nothing about Linux. The idea of an XP interface that would help me get to know it at first sounds appealing. But the more I think about it. I don't want an XP clone that works different. The point of Linux for me would be to learn something new, not use something else I'm used too. I think they should remain different from one another. Linux should revel in it's distinction, not attempt to clone XP.

Re:I guess I just don't see the point...

[craenor]

I am certainly not trying to make the argument that other people have nothing to hide. Rather, I am making the statement that I have nothing to hide which could be found in my house, on my person or in my computer.

The things I keep private are in my thoughts and in my memories. When the government or Microsoft or anyone else has access to those...then I'll worry. Until then, Bill Gates and the FBI can feel free to look on and be bored.

Re:I guess I just don't see the point...

[Reziac]

Just make sure you don't keep your diary on your computer...

Re:I guess I just don't see the point...

[fymidos]

Honestly i don't understand this "if you have nothing to hide why do you care" stuff.

I have nothing to hide, yet i wouldn't want to live in a glass house in the middle of Times square !!

It's not about you doing something wrong, it's about you being a subject of study. Your music preferences, your shopping preferences, your social network, everything.

A good way...

[Kr3m3Puff]

It seems like this is a good way to get your ass sued for copyright or trademark infringment. Those screen shots do look like XP, and though Microsoft fended off the Apple "look-and-feel", I would be afraid of 10,000 Microsoft lawyers coming after me. Even if they lose, it would be in their best interests to sue these folks.

Also, what is the true purpose for something like this. Hoping to sell it to the Lindows folks? Seems like a lot of talent being wasted on a less than effective interface in the first place.

To rule the Desktop, Linux needs to be more user friendly. Copying Windows UI is not necessairly the best way to do this.

Sigh.

[metatruk]

Microsoft must feel proud... That the Linux people keep trying to emulate their OS and interface.

Re:Sigh.

[robbyjo]

Apple must feel proud... That Microsoft people keep trying to emulate their OS and interface.

Xerox must feel proud... That Apple people keep trying to emulate their OS and interface.

Re:Sigh.

[yobbo]

The apes must be proud. The greeks nearly have as much hair on their backs.

*ouch* thank you you've all been wonderful.

Re:Sigh.

[Reziac]

Digital Research must feel proud -- Xerox keeps imitating the GEM desktop.

Disturbing

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does this seem to me as another occurence of Embrace and extend? The only difference is it isnt Microsofts doing this time.

Copyright issues?

[yerricde]

I wonder if this project will get the beatdown from MS like the various Aqua skins did from Apple.

I understand that Microsoft doesn't own the textual elements of its user interface (Apple v. Microsoft; Lotus v. Borland), but doesn't Microsoft Corporation own copyrights on the pictorial and graphic works embodied in the exact pixel configurations of the Windows XP operating system's icons, and possibly a trade dress on the look and feel of the "Luna" theme?

I too fear that Microsoft will follow in Apple's footsteps.

Re:Copyright issues?

[Reziac]

Maybe they've added luna somewhere I didn't notice, but... I didn't check all the recent screenshots, but the only ones I saw were emulating the Windows classic interface.

As the previous cases demonstrated, "look and feel" is not protected by copyright.

If it were, every publisher would have to come up with a new format (and maybe a new font) for printed books.

Re:Copyright issues?

[Reziac]

See my later post, in which I cite the legal precedent (hopefully someone will mod it up to where it can be seen).

This is exactly what we don't need

[metal_llama]

Linux needs to set itself apart from windows, copying ms's interface detail by detail is not only a waste of effort but harmful to the larger open-source effort. Worse yet, the windows interface is horrible, so of all the interface's to copy exactly, why choose one of the worst out there?I want a great interface when I'm using my computer, not the same old interface that frustrated me enough to get me to install linux in the first place.

We need innovation, not duplication.

Re:This is exactly what we don't need

[NDPTAL85]

Modding my comment as flaimbait doesn't make it any less true. Innovation IS something the OSS community is in short supply of, no matter how much you want to convince yourselves otherwise.

Funky Colorscheme

[ForceOfWill]

My first thought when reading the /. article was "Why would anyone want to duplicate such an awful look?" They seem to use the rounded blue titlebars on the website, even. But when I got to the screenshots, they all had the win98 look. What gives? Do they have a setting (in XP or XPde) to change the look?

Re:Funky Colorscheme

[BoneFlower]

Yes, they have the Windows Classic theme, which looks like 2k, though the dialog boxes and start menu and all still function with the XP enhancements. I use that theme myself, much less of a CPU/RAM hog than the default pretty one.

Re:Funky Colorscheme

[Fnkmaster]

You mean people use XP with the 3733+ XP theme? I thought the first thing everyone did with an XP box was check the box that says "Use Windows Classic Theme". Hell, I forgot that XP even had that until you just mentioned it because 80% of the XP boxes I've seen are in Classic mode (including the three Windows XP machines I own).

Re:Funky Colorscheme

[rmohr02]

Yea, but I'd been getting tired of the Windows Classic theme (it'd been seven years), so I downloaded the ux theme patcher and installed Aikon XP. I like it enough that I eventually bought Style XP (from the same company that puts out the ux theme patcher).

Re:Funky Colorscheme

[spectral]

I'm pretty fond of chaninja's work in the xp skinning area, very slick stuff. Honestly if xpde could handle the xp style themes, I'd run it just for that skin.. ^_^ There's nothing on the website about being able to support XP's ability to switch visual styles though, so I don't have much hope for that. Especially since they're emulating classic for some reason.. it's ok, but classic in XP looks ugly, everything is just the wrong size. They seem to be doing slightly better, but still, don't claim to emulate XP to the smallest detail, then leave out the biggest visual difference of XP (the luna theme, and the ability to change it to something else)

Re:Funky Colorscheme

[rmohr02]

Well, I don't mind them leaving out the luna theme. I'll try ChaNinja's theme, but I'm doubtful--the only theme/visual style/skin I don't find annoying after awhile is Aikon, and I've tried at least 50.

Lawsuit

[Reality Master 101]

Before we get a million posts about how Microsoft is going to start launching lawsuits, it's worth pointing out that Microsoft has zero history of using lawsuits as a weapon. You'll note that Wine, Samba and a million Windows lookalikes already exist.

And no, the Lindows thing has nothing to do with killing Lindows. That's a legitimate trademark infringement. You may not agree with it, but it's not a nuisance suit. Personally, I wish Lindows would just find another name. That name sucks (but I digress).

If you want true Lawsuit Evil, look at Apple, but Microsoft is clean on this issue.

Re:Lawsuit

[bomb_number_20]

That's an interesting point.

Maybe they don't care because, in a way, it sort of helps Microsoft maintain it's desktop market. People can buy computers more cheaply now than ever before, and if they buy a Lindows machine (or have something like this put on an already installed system), then the Linux community is (to stretch things just a bit) training people to do things the Windows Way(tm) for free.

It's a wierd sort of PR for Microsoft. The linux community continues to try and bring people over, but they only way they seem to know how to do that is by emulating Microsoft interfaces. This effectively puts Microsoft in the 'Innovator' category and labels the Linux community as the 'Try and keep up' crowd. Obviously, this doesn't help anyone but Microsoft; and it leaves a large amount of people saying to themselves 'Well, this LOOKS like Windows- but I can't run my favorite software. So why bother.'

To them, since it looks like Windows, it IS windows. This means that if something doesn't work as expected or as soon as they find out that they can't run their newest [insert software here], then Linux is crap because it doesn't just 'work' like Windows does.

To them, their box is a broken Windows machine. They don't care why it doesn't work- they just know that since it looks like Windows, it should run like Windows. This kills the reputation of Linux among average users and boosts the perception of Microsoft as makers of quality software.

Re:Lawsuit

[Kircle]

it's worth pointing out that Microsoft has zero history of using lawsuits as a weapon

that's probably because the ms lawyers are too busy trying to fend off a zillion other suits being filed at them!! :)

Re:Lawsuit

[fermion]

I would say M$ does not use lawsuits as a weapon for three reasons.

What MS does is to take existing technology and make it accessible and cheap to the common technology consumer. There is only profit in their approach because the have a monopoly(U.S. government rule of law, not my words) and so can set the price on individual sales and gain a large profit from volume sales. This keeps smaller vendors from making a profit, and also allows attacks competitators though unfair business practices, not lawsuits. We have few competing OSes because there is no money in it. Apple exists because it was the first consumer GUI(lisa) and Linux exisits becuase it was not written for profit.

Second, Microsoft uses unfair licensing restrictions and directly attack to maintain it's monopoly. Therefore many lawsuits have not been necessary. They have other avenues. They can intimidate system vendors to only include Windows on a machine, which is one the things that killed BeOS. They can create code that renders the competing product ineffective, which is one of the things that essentially has killed Netscape. They choose not to ship or support a product that is in generally use, which they did with Java and now has to ship. They make it difficult to set competing application as default, which they do with virtually every internet utility. Remember when it was all the craze to commodities the desktop and sell the real estate?

Third, MS can simple steal the technology and attempt to destroy the company, which is what claims happened to them.

Apple does not have option one or two, and can only occasionally exercise option three. Therefore to protect it's market share and protect it's trademarks and copyrights, it must sue. I do not agree with MS business practices, and I wish Apple could find another way to protect it's products. Also, I am glad Apple did not win the case against MS and the theft of the Apple desktop, although I wish that the court would have used the occasion to tame MS criminal practices.

One last point. To treat the Lindows as a purely trademark dispute is quite naive. Now it is true that Windows itself may, in time, become a nearly free product, MS will gain most of it's money through subscription applications, and Lindows users may prove a lucrative revenue in the same way that Apple users now are. However, that time is not now and may never come, Lindows may provide a means for users to migrate off a MS platform, and ultimately threaten the monopoly. This lawsuit is simply as the first foray into battle. An XP clone for Linux is the same principle.

Re:Lawsuit

[sheriff_p]

(mod parent up)

I dunno though. There's the old adage about Microsoft not caring if you steal copies of Office for home use, because they make the big bucks from business...

Re:Lawsuit

[Reality Master 101]

BeOS seemed to always target the wrong audience and kept switching goals and therefore ended up being nothing to no-one.

And exactly what market should they have targeted? They kept switching markets because every market kept slamming the door in their face.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again: people don't buy operating systems, they buy applications. Exactly what did BeOS provide for an application that another operating system couldn't? Where was the "killer app" that would drive the market to BeOS?

Re:Lawsuit

[Rew190]

Well- with a few exceptions, Linux's GUI is trying to keep up with MS's. Say what you will about MS, but I think their GUI has a nice feel and generally makes sense. I can't really say the same for Linux's. I feel the two big boys are coming along, but have a ways to go as far as catching up with MS. MS has invested years and god knows how much money into researching GUI's- why not take advantage of this?

This kind of project could pull in a lot of folks who want Linux stability/reliability with a MS feel. I imagine that's a pretty decent-sized market.

Local maximum

[yerricde]

Why the hell are these people cloning the Windows UI?!

Because it's a "local maximum". It takes effort to go from one local maximum to another. This XPde is designed to teleport the user directly from a local maximum on Windows to a corresponding local maximum on *n?x, so that you can separate adapting to the OS and adapting to the UI into separate tasks.

Re:Local maximum

[fault0]

It's pretty obvious that it's a local maximum in terms of users. This is of course, what the original poster was referring to.

Clones sell... but who's complaining?

[disc-chord]

Let me preface this by saying I do not use *nix as a desktop OS. I run FreeBSD on my router-box, I don't want my router looking pretty... I want it to be secure.

But for those who do run *nix as a desktop OS, there are so many alternative interfaces (how many themes for Enlightenment are there?) that completely blow XP out of the water, I cannot imagine where this deep desire for an XP clone comes from.

Considering most people who chosse *nix as their desktop OS are those that want an extremely customizable experience, I just don't see this getting a tremendous amount of love... but as other posters have pointed out, probably a fair amount of legal trouble.

Re:Clones sell... but who's complaining?

[fault0]

> But for those who do run *nix as a desktop OS, there are so many alternative interfaces (how many themes for Enlightenment are there?) that completely blow XP out of the water, I cannot imagine where this deep desire for an XP clone comes from.

Have you thought that some people actually like/are used to Windows/WindowsXP and the Windows/XP look? Hence all the Luna theme knockoffs and Explorer-like file managers, and startmenu/taskbar knockoffs (kde, gnome, icewm, qvwm, just from the top of my head)

Re:Clones sell... but who's complaining?

[squiggleslash]

If it's not a stupid question, why the hell don't these people use Windows XP then?

I mean: If Windows XP is what they want, why shouldn't they use it? Why is it necessary to pollute the Unix/Linux/BSD codebase (and it does pollute, because every new piece of code becomes a new focal point of inertia that will need to be moved should basic necessities be added to the base standards, where the HELL is file metadata for example? Why isn't in Unix yet? NeXT had no problems implementing it in 1985, so why are we still years away from an open, commonly implemented, standard? Because of this kind of moronic project, that's why) to promote the use of Linux to people who want to use an entirely different operating system?

I am not a Linux user because I want to be different for the sake of being different. I'm a Linux user because I like the Unix way of doing things better than the Windows way of doing things, because I work better in that environment than I do in Windows.

Let the Windows users keep to Windows. There's no reason why they should change.

Embrace and extend

[ites]

Boring and nasty work compared to boldly going where no hacker has gone before, but totally vital. MS showed that software competition is about feature lists, and Linux has to be able to match and then beat Windows on every feature list. There is a good chance this project will get sued but that also means publicity.
Personally, though, I think that playing catch-up with the Monster from Redmond can only work so far. What the FOSS world needs is a killer application, something so radical and useful that it transcends all discussion of look and feel.
The Web was almost this application, but MS caught up just in time. So, what's next? Opinions, please?

Here's the point

[slashuzer]

It is not intended to "emulate" XP; rather to provide a visually similar enviornment to ease the learning curve. Kindly see my comment here.

Re:Here's the point

[craenor]

I realize that, and acknowledged it in my post. But I don't see Linux going mainstream for awhile. And if something like this pushes it mainstream, I think it would be for the wrong reasons.

I want to learn Linux for the sake of learning Linux. I want to see something completely different. I don't want the learning curve to be eased, I want the full Linux experience.

But maybe this is just me, I sure can't speak for everyone. But I know this, you average person doesn't just decide to up and learn Linux. They need a reson...for me, that reason is that Linux is different and well respected by the people in the computer world that I respect the most.

Re:Here's the point

[fault0]

> I want the full Linux experience.

I don't think you understand the fact that there is no *one* true Linux experience.

It could be a number of things, such as:

1. Someone running Virtual Terminals and Screen only - no XWindows
2. Someone running XWindows with a "hardcore" window manager such as ion and ratpoison, or running an old window manager such as twm or mwm.
3. Someone running one of the mid-level window maangers such as wmaker, E, fluxbox, etc..
4. Someone running stock versions of KDE/GNOME.
5. Someone running one of the various "windowzied" KDE versions such as Lindows/Lycoris/Xandros, etc..
6. Someone running xpde.

None of them is the true "full Linux experience", because there is none.

On the other hand, if you really want to learn Linux from the inside out, I think you should take a look at LFS.

If you have nothing to hide

[oliverthered]

Then why should they bother looking?

You should be worried, maybe oneday 'they' will decide that something you are doing is wrong.

Phew...

[Dark Lord Seth]

At least they aren't using the standard XP toolbar (yet). The original XP toolbar has to be the most vile and horrific concept ever dreamed up by Microsoft. Sure, the insecurities are tolerable to a certain level, the incompatibility with most things I used was not a great concern, the fact the XP install made 4gb of (semi-legal)[1] MP3s vanish wasn't too bad either as is the fact it INSISTS to log on to my linux server as "$servername\Guest", but the toolbar... In Eris' name, the toolbar made me want to gauge my own eyes out with the install CD...

[1] Semi legal being illegal really, but it were FF8 soundtrack mp3s and I have the PC version with glorious midi sound. Listing to the midis made me feel like someone was shoving a chainsaw in my ears and twisting it, so I wanted something better for my money. Besides, the PSX version had digital music and both the PC and the PSX version were priced the same.

how long before it gets sued?

[I Want GNU!]

I mean, it has XP in the name, and the reason is that it's an XP-like desktop environment. And it looks just like WinXP. Seriously, how long before it gets sued?

On the other hand, it does look pretty nice, and if it could survive legal wranglings it might make linux at least look like Windows. They're doing better than the Lindows people at that.

I think program emulation (think WINE) might be more important, of course. People aren't gonna change because it "looks like windows." If they want Windows, they'll probably just buy Windows. If they want Linux, they'll download Linux. Linux has to make special reasons for downloading it. On my Windows partition, I use Mozilla because of its features (tabbed browsing, block popup ads, and type ahead find is a bonus that came after I switched). If Mozilla was just an IE clone that worked almost as well at rendering pages (which is tough since IE renders fake MS-HTML and broken Frontpage code and fake Javascript, etc) then I'd use IE.

Re:how long before it gets sued?

[pjrc]

If they want Windows, they'll probably just buy Windows. If they want Linux, they'll download Linux.

The real question is what they will do if they want the least expensive PC that meets their needs. Or hundreds of such machines....

Re:Screenshots

[reallocate]

None, unless it's as easy to install and use as Windows.

beware...

[middle]

of the dark side of the force!

Long-live all the differences that linux provides and let's try to i n n o v a t e rather than copy!!

Theres enough XP clones

[HanzoSan]

Why would I want a clone of XP? KDE does a good enouggh job doing it already.

I dont want anymore Linux XP clones, as if XP is such a great interface.

XP is crap, Clone OSX or something.

Windows also supports Viruses

[HanzoSan]

Trojans too, and hidden exploits which would allow me to delete all your files from a website just like this one.

Re:Windows also supports Viruses

[fault0]

That argument is not really valid. Every operating system supports virii and trojans. Granted, Windows has far many of them, but when patched/updated/auto-updated, something like WindowsXP should not be more prone to them than Linux. Windows just has way more virii and trojans as way more people use it.

If Linux ever conquers the desktop, you'll see many virii in it too.

Re:Windows also supports Viruses

[HanzoSan]

CodeRed?

Just because you patch AFTER a virus is discovered does not mean you are safe.

You only patched after the fact, when Microsoft decides to make you the patch, what if you discover a bug or hackers discover a bug in windows and there is no patch? then you have to wait for Microsoft to patc h it and hope no other hackers know about the bug too.
Remember Winnuke?

Re:Windows also supports Viruses

[HanzoSan]

" That argument is not really valid. Every operating system supports virii and trojans. Granted, Windows has far many of them, but when patched/updated/auto-updated, something like WindowsXP should not be more prone to them than Linux. Windows just has way more virii and trojans as way more people use it.

If Linux ever conquers the desktop, you'll see many virii in it too."

How do you get infected by a virus on Linux when everything is open source? Compile the code if you are paraniod, but if not, use MD5 or whatever the hell its called to verify every file you run.

Theres no way to hide a trojan in a file in Linux, its impossible to hide them because you can compile code yourself, even if you are infected by a virus due to your own stupidity of not checking the code, your entire computer is not infected, but just one user account, a virus cannot gain root access easily, and neither can a trojan.

Fact is, Linux is already the main target of hackers, no one writes viruses to kill home users computers, Code Red and most of the major viruses were written to take control of servers, Servers run Linux, but it seems only NT gets infected by viruses these days.

Patches dont work because they only protect you after you've been infected.

Re:Windows also supports Viruses

[fault0]

> How do you get infected by a virus on Linux when everything is open source? Compile the code if you are paraniod, but if not, use MD5 or whatever the hell its called to verify every file you run.

Not everything in the Linux world is open sourced. There are many sectors of the software market that will continue to be primarily closed and propreitary. For example, any credible virus maker could easily distribute either a Linux or Windows versions of Quake3 with a virus embedded in it. Linux is not inheriently more virus-proof than Windows, but is so currently because of usage.

> Theres no way to hide a trojan in a file in Linux, its impossible to hide them because you can compile code yourself, even if you are infected by a virus due to your own stupidity of not checking the code, your entire computer is not infected, but just one user account, a virus cannot gain root access easily, and neither can a trojan.

Uh, when was the last time you personally checked (as in auditted), every line of a large(r) project, such as KDE, GNOME, apache, Mozilla, OO, etc.., before you compiled it and installed it. Do you really trust the source after you compile it? There have been many instances where crackers hack into open source websites/mirrors, and put in trojans directly in the source.

> Fact is, Linux is already the main target of hackers, no one writes viruses to kill home users computers.

Of course, but people will if Linux ever gets a big chunk of the desktop/home market.

> Patches dont work because they only protect you after you've been infected.

No, patches work so that the virii/trojan/hack doesn't work in the first place. Usually, other software must clear any infection.

Re:Windows also supports Viruses

[HanzoSan]

any credible virus maker could easily distribute either a Linux or Windows versions of Quake3 with a virus embedded in it.

MD5 checksum or whatever the hell its called, the same way you figure out if an ISO or file is corrupt, you can find out if a Quake binary is corrupt, how would a virus embeded into a program get past a binary check? Unless the virus comes directly from ID software its not going to work.


Linux is not inheriently more virus-proof than Windows, but is so currently because of usage.


Ok lets assume you did somehow infect my system with a virus, consider the fact that I'm not in root by default like Windows, how would you infect my entire machine? At most you'd only infect one account on my machine because a virus would have no way of getting my root password, or at least no easy way.




No, patches work so that the virii/trojan/hack doesn't work in the first place. Usually, other software must clear any infection.

In order for patches to be written someone had to be infected in the first place, what if you happened to be one of the ones infected before the patch gets written? Usually its only a few thousand but sometimes it can be millions.



Uh, when was the last time you personally checked (as in auditted), every line of a large(r) project, such as KDE, GNOME, apache, Mozilla, OO, etc.., before you compiled it and installed it. Do you really trust the source after you compile it? There have been many instances where crackers hack into open source websites/mirrors, and put in trojans directly in the source.
I get my software from high quality sources, directly from mozilla, or directly from Redhat, Redhat checks every peice of software so by the time I get it there are no viruses unless someone hacks Redhat.



Of course, but people will if Linux ever gets a big chunk of the desktop/home market.


You dont understand my po-int, all of the best hackers are already trying to hack Linux, what do you think all of the hackers target? WindowsXP? Or Linux? Only newbie wannabe winnuke using subseven loving crackers deal with Windows, crackers usually are less skilled than hackers and go after the easiest target (Windows users), They break into peoples machines to destroy them, they have fun watching people suffer, these people arent always skilled.

Hackers however break into machines for specific purposes, usually because theres some information they want or need, such as an ex employee hacking into the companies servers to get information to screw the company over, or a group of guys who hack into paypal to steal credit information. Hackers go after high profile targets, not corny WindowsXP.
The reason WindowsXP has so many viruses infecting it is simply because its easy to write them, its easier to write a virus than it is to write real software in WindowsXP, consider how complicated the WindowsAPI is, its easier to write a file to do some low level function in C such as fill the drive up with junk, or log keystrokes, than to actually write a REAL application.

Hackers while they dont write Viruses do write worms and Linux will have to deal with Worms, unlike a Virus a worm breaks into your machine via some exploit or a bug in the code, copies enough information to spread itself to all your friends, and so on, such as a worm which you are infected with, which has code which activates when you run Gnutella and then runs the same exploit on all the Gnutella users as it ran on you, just so it can spread itself around, so that the hacker later on, then at a set date or at the time when its hooked into a certain amount of machines, it launches a denial of service attack against DNS servers.

This is an example of how Worms can work. Honestly though most virus writers arent skilled enough to do this, thats why theres only a handful of worms like Code Red.

Now, consider the fact that if everyone were using Linux, writing a worm would be the only way to actually infect Linux, you'd have to write a worm which infects a user through an exploit in the Linux source code such as a buffer overflow, then you'd have to somehow through a trick get their root password, such as making their screen go black and putting them in front of a loginscreen which looks exactly like theirs and catching their keystrokes, then putting them back on KDE or Gnome, you'd have to go through alot of trouble to hack into a Linux computer.

How many hackers would be able to do this? Maybe a few thousand? How quickly would Virii be patched? The same day the first person is infected, so a virus would not have enough time to spread like Windows Viruses do. Linux is very secure, if you think its easy to write a Virus to infect Linux and Windows, Do it, write a virus which infects both.

Re:Interfaces suck these days..

[NDPTAL85]

An OS is supposed to be like whatever you want it to be like. There is no established standard of what it should be.

good luck

[mrm677]

Good luck with recreating the beautiful text rendering and responsiveness of Windows XP.

Why would anyone want to do this?

[Xpilot]

The Windows XP interface is hideous!!!

Mod me down if you like, but XP is frickin' ugly!. Contrasting primary colors? Who's lamebrain idea was that? And that sickening shade of blue... ugh... and those fat borders. Excuse me while I puke just thinking about it.

There. Somebody had to say it.

Just because it's from Microsoft it doesn't make it automatically "pretty".

Re:Why would anyone want to do this?

[carpe_noctem]

Just because it's from Microsoft it doesn't make it automatically "pretty".

No, it doesn't, but because it's from Microsoft -does- make it socially acceptable and "mainstream", if you will. Look at the latest fashion trends and pop hits on the radio...many people will bitch and moan about the lack of style there, but embrace the new fads simply because everyone else is doing it.

On that note, I find it a bit sad that linux programmers have stooped to the point of trying to win over users by copying the leader. And quite frankly, as interesting as this new wm looks, I think I'll stick with waimea, because it is different and not ugly. ;)

Re:Why would anyone want to do this?

[Reziac]

Even as a Windows user, I agree -- the *default* WinXP interface is one of the most damned ugly annoying things I'd seen in years; even old low-res DOS GUIs looked better!! Reminds me of nothing so much as an etch-a-sketch that's been assaulted with fingerpaint.

Fortunately, you can turn the damned thing off and use the "classic" Windows interface (Win2K look).

Fortunately, the XPde people are smart enough to recognise both -- per the screenies I've seen, they're cloning the *classic* interface. (And a right good job of it -- only thing I noticed missing is transparency behind desktop icons.)

Re:Why would anyone want to do this?

[Rinikusu]

No fucking shit.

I mean, if they can fork over millions to get the rights to play "Start Me Up" from the Stones, you'd think they could throw Christopher Lowell a few bones to come up with a decent color scheme.

Re:Why would anyone want to do this?

[teslatug]

Have a look at that puke after you're done. You'll see where the inspiration came from. The first thing I do after an XP install is disable all the themes and revert back to Classic, which they thankfully left available.

Re:Why would anyone want to do this?

[Reziac]

Yes, missing, because it's only transparent behind the *icon*. The icon *label* lacks transparency.
This is actually the reason why out of all my Windesktops, only WinXP has a graphic -- because the blanked-out area behind the icon *label* looks so ugly otherwise. (There's a freeware util to add label transparency for Win9*, but I haven't got around to trying it on the other machines.)

Re:Why would anyone want to do this?

[ceejayoz]

Maybe if you'd looked at the screenshots, you'd have noticed that they're actually copying the Classic theme - that is, it'll look like Windows 2000.

Leave Out The Nagware Too...

[Shuh]

And the spyware,
And the DRM,
And the instability,


And I'd buy that for a dollar!

Microsoft is a religion... for some Linux users

[Rui del-Negro]

Honestly, I think some people in the Linux community are just too obssessed with Microsoft to produce anything useful. They say Microsoft sucks but then they waste their time copying it. Why would someone want to "migrate" to something that looks the same and can't run most software? It makes no sense.

"Hey great! It looks just like Windows XP and won't run half of my software! I can't wait to 'migrate'!"

Please! For the last six years neither Microsoft nor Apple have come up with anything really new. This time could have been used creating something better that would give Linux (and its users) an advantage. Instead, it was wasted making Linux look more and more like Windows. This is like AMD and Intel in the 386 era. It's almost as good and a lot cheaper!... Well, as long as you're just following the leader, you'll never put any real pressure on them.

RMN
~~~

Re:Microsoft is a religion... for some Linux users

[pjrc]

It's hard to imagine how something this clue-challenged gets moded to +5.

They say Microsoft sucks but then they waste their time copying it.

"They" used to refer to the monolithic linux community, which has one uniform set of opinions and makes sure that all public commentary "they" present in a consistent and unified manner. And saying "they" to refer to linux users ("us" for win32 users) ignores the well established fact that a great number of installations are dual-boot with windows.

Why would someone want to "migrate" to something that looks the same and can't run most software?

Lower cost would probably be the most likely reason (obviously someone hasn't see the $200 wal-mart PC and hoards of governments and companies switching or considering switching to lower costs). And, most software that is commonly used is available for linux in some alternate form that's good enough for most (IE-Mozilla, Office-StarOffice, Outlook-Evolution, etc).

This time could have been used creating something better that would give Linux (and its users) an advantage. Instead, it was wasted making Linux look more and more like Windows.

Once more, the paradigm of a team consisting of a fixed number of salaried programmers is applied to free software. HELLO, wake up call. Obviously someone's slept through the revelation that free software is developed by a large number of only loosly associated programmers, and the number is very large and highly variable.

He's not getting paid to work on "something" and they squandering that paid time developing something that doesn't advance linux as a whole as much as something else. He's doing something he finds interesting. It's not wasted time. It's time well spent, from his perspective. That is what matters.

It's also possible that others will want to use it. I can see how it could be used to overcome much of the "learning curve" objections to switching for some people.

Re:Microsoft is a religion... for some Linux users

[Kizzle]

I could make a insightful response to your troll post but....


Blow me

Re:Microsoft is a religion... for some Linux users

[FakePlasticDubya]

Please! For the last six years neither Microsoft nor Apple have come up with anything really new

Uh, what about OS X?

Re:Microsoft is a religion... for some Linux users

[Sentry21]

For the last six years neither Microsoft nor Apple have come up with anything really new.

I would think that a stable, fast UNIX microkernel architecture coupled with a usable, simple, and (arguably) beautiful user interface that people can actually use is something 'really new'. While Linux is still struggling with usability for the unix geeks who use it, Apple has made something that real people can actually get work done with. They've created a UNIX OS that is means to an end, not the end itself as Linux appears to be.

That's new. The problem is that people don't seem to realize that - hey - Open Source can do anything, but it'll take forever for anything worthwhile to get accomplished, since someone has to want it, understand it, and be able to write it themselves before that can happen. In the meantime, Apple is years ahead of Linux in the server and the desktop market, unless you count support for antiquated hardware, and it's only getting better. Linux, meanwhile, is still working on getting filesystem code that doesn't corrupt my data.

--Dan

Re:Microsoft is a religion... for some Linux users

[Shelled]

Honestly, I think some people in the Linux community are just too obssessed with Microsoft to produce anything useful.

Reading this sentence using links with the -g switch (extremely fast cruft-free graphic browser based on the svga lib), in a terminal-inspired desktop session (Ion), on a computer for which every piece of running software was compiled to my specifications (Gentoo distro). Thanks for the morning chuckle.
For those interested, Gentoo has xpde masked in the Portage tree. Use "emerge /usr/portage/x11-wm/xpde/xpde-0.1.1.ebuild" to automatically download, build and install. (Just like XP ... cough...cough.) You'll need KDE as well. Though I have a polar opposite taste in desktops, this looks amazing. It apppears to be in very early development and locked crtl-shift-backspace hard when closing a Rox window started from the 'Run' prompt, possibly due to not having KDE installed.
From what I can see, once stable this could be a corporate desktop killer in an environment where IT controls the OS/hardware side. It would nearly eliminate the user retraining barrier.

Re:Microsoft is a religion... for some Linux users

[Rui del-Negro]

It's also quite easy to understand that, even if you think the winxp interface sucks beyond belief, it's what everybody else is used to, and so, making it at least an option for Linux users will aid migration.

No, it won't. Running all (or nearly all) Windows software with a better interface will get people to switch. Running a fraction of the software while looking the same just makes it completely uninteresting. People who like XP's interface will stick with XP (if they already have it, why would they bother switching to a different OS that won't run most of their software?) and people who don't like XP's interface have even less reasons to switch.

The only people who will use this are Linux users who, deep down, want to run XP.

Look at Apple. I dislike their way of doing business as much as I dislike Microsoft's, but at least they're making something that looks different (even if it behaves more or less the same). At least people have a choice. You have less software, you pay a bit more, but maybe it's worth it if you prefer the interface. But if Apple made OS X look and behave exactly like XP, do you think anyone would buy it?

RMN
~~~

Re:Microsoft is a religion... for some Linux users

[Rui del-Negro]

OSX is a GUI running on top of BSD. Neither BSD nor GUIs are a new thing (and neither was invented by Apple, BTW). You might as well say that XP is "new" because it has a new window manager running on top of the NT kernel.

Re:Microsoft is a religion... for some Linux users

[Rui del-Negro]

When I say something new I don't mean "something released recently"; I mean something innovative. Something that let the users do things they couldn't do before, or that radically changes the way people use computers. Things like mice, or windows, or multitasking. New concepts. Not just new (prettier, faster, whatever) versions of what we already have. If Microsoft does go ahead with a "property-based" file system in the next version of Windows, that will be something new. And it's coming from Microsoft. How depressing is that?

RMN
~~~

Re:Microsoft is a religion... for some Linux users

[Rui del-Negro]

A lot of people find interacting with their computer hard. If something is a few pixels to the left, a few pixels to the right, or a different colour

Following your reasoning, no-one would have used Windows XP, because it looked quite different from Windows 2000 / 98 / etc. And yet, about 50% of Windows users today are using XP (I am not one of them, BTW). The visual differences between 98 and XP are not much smaller than the differences between XP and OS X or between XP and KDE. The problem is not the way things look, it's the way things work. If someone is used to Photoshop, they'll prefer Photoshop (with a different look) over Photo-Paint (with the traditional look). Because they know the menus, they know what each option does, they know what can be dragged and dropped, etc..

What Linux needs is very good Windows emulation, and useful features not found in Windows. BeOS and OS/2 looked great (and not too different from Windows). Lot of good that did.

The main threat to Microsoft comes from Lindows (and other "emulation-oriented" distros). Sometihng that can run the same tools, not something that just looks similar.

Yes, because as we all know, since Linux can only ever have one interface, this one will automatically prevent anybody from using KDE. Get a clue.

So first you say that this GUI is a great thing for people who are so clueless that they panic if a button is one pixel off, and then you suggest that those same people would be able to replace it with a new desktop? Looks like, if I'm to get a clue, it won't be from you.

Also, by the time this is ready, Microsoft will probably be close to releasing Longhorn (XP 2 or whatever they call it). Now on one side you'll have an OS (Linux + XPDE) that looks exactly like XP but doesn't run most of Windows' software. On the other side you'll have something that looks quite different but does run all existing Windows software. Which one do you think 90% of people will pick...?

It sounds like you think the only reason people use Linux is because they hate microsoft. You lend ms too much importance.

I don't think it's possible to "lend too much importance" to a company that makes software used in over 98% of computers worldwide. But it's one thing to acknowledge Microsoft's importance, and a very different thing to be obssessed by it. I'm not the one losing sleep to make Linux look more and more like Windows. In fact, partly due to that trend, I'm using Linux less and less these days.

RMN
~~~

Re:Microsoft is a religion... for some Linux users

[Rui del-Negro]

OS/2 and BeOS have died a long time ago (thoug they only realised it recently). Neither was able to run Windows software. Linux and OS X are (to a point). If they had used this time (between 94 and now) to make an OS that could run Windows software and offered new features not found in Windows (such as a database / property-based file-system, a 3D interface, screen zooming, etc.), their position would be quite different today.

A lower price by itself will not win the battle. In some countries Windows comes pre-installed on almost all computers, and in the remaining countries it's trivial to get a pirate copy, so Windows is "free" for most people too. Using a CPU analogy, Linux needs its Hammer or, at least, its Athlon XP. It needs to come up with something that can do what Windows does better than Windows does it.

RMN
~~~

Maybe this shows....

[fudgefactor7]

That MS got something right after all since their interfaces keep getting copied.

I know this will be modded redundant, but that's cool 'cuz I got Karma to spare! ;)

it's not the look

[g4dget]

Whether applications look exactly the same as they do on Windows XP or not doesn't matter: even on Windows XP, there are many different looks and themes that people can choose.

What matters is whether applications are logically designed, easy to understand, and kept simple. Windows XP is not the system to emulate: its user interface is way too messy and too complex, it has too many unnecessary and confusing options, and its interaction is illogical.

While it is far from perfect, the Macintosh OS X desktop is a better model to copy. Apple has done a much better job streamlining system configuration and built-in applications. But, again, it's the logic behind the UI, not the graphical elements themselves that need to be copied. In fact, some misfeatures of the OS X UI that are present for backwards compatibility with previous versions of Mac OS should probably not be copied.

Re:it's not the look

[g4dget]

This is also a pretty good description of the current set of Linux interfaces.

It's true of some Linux interfaces--those that try to imitate the Windows paradigm closely--not of others.

If someone tries to move to Linux they not only get a confusing interface, but it's one they don't understand.

Depends. Some Linux installations are much easier to use than Windows--those are the ones that are the most different from Windows. Also, it's much easier to support Linux remotely and Linux requires less system management, so shortcomings in its administrative tools matter less.

But, as I was saying: to the degree that some Linux desktop efforts try to emulate a PC/Mac paradigm, they would be better off emulating the Mac than the PC.

Menu sizing/spacing

[abischof]

Most of the screenshots look very close to XP (such as the network status applet, for instance), but the menu spacing & sizing doesn't look right (most easily seen in the task manager pic).

Ever since Eugenia Loli-Queru mentioned it in her review of KDE 3, I can't help but noticing that so many Linux apps suffer from odd menu sizing and spacing. (In due credit, Gnome isn't nearly so affected, as a whole.)

Important! The menu entries on every KDE's applications are extremely close to each other. Give it 4-5 more pixels please! The new Gnome 2.0 does it lovely and correctly in this respect.

(That quote is from the second page of her review.)

Re:Menu sizing/spacing

[stevey]

I agree .. and with most of the people saying this isn't for them.

But I really like the task manager applet and the network status applet too - I'd download them seperately if I could, and run them on my IceWm Debian desktops..

why ?

[Tom]

Even the windos zealots I know have turned off the XP look and prefer the old one.

Why don't these guys spend their time on making Linux better, instead of worse? Their FAQ has the question of "why are you doing this", but it doesn't explain why they didn't choose are more worthwhile goal.

More importantly, the guy who wrote the FAQ missed the point, by roughly a mile, in the next question. Yes, people want to switch from Windos to Linux, and yes the entire M$ world is designed to make this as painful as possible (so they don't do it).
But, the answer isn't to make Linux a copy of windos. Once Linux is exactly like windos, you haven't given people incentive to switch, you've removed it. Why should I switch to something that's exactly like the thing I already have?

People are not as dumb as some techies believe them to be, that's an old BOFH syndrome. I installed Linux desktop systems for both my mom and my sister. Neither of them had any computer experience to speak of. It was painless. In fact, I'm convinced that it would have been more trouble with windos. Just think of all the "it crashed, what do I do?" calls that I saved myself.
And the interface (window maker) was perfectly acceptable to both of them. In fact, explaining the dock is an order of magnitude simpler than explaining the start/kde/foot menu. ("no, _this_ program is in there, because... and those games are sorted by company name... no, _that_ program is in some other sub-submenu...")

Enough of a rant. It's so sad to see so much manpower wasted into copying something that simply isn't worth copying.

Thanks

[szcx]

I'll bookmark this article for the next time someone's whining about Microsoft not being innovative.

Xpde, KDevelop, KWord, Kivio, Aqua themes, Evolution, Gnumeric ("95% of builtin Excel functions")... good grief.

<troll>Somebody wake me when an open source group develops something original.</troll>

Re:Oh my god no!

[fault0]

Obviously you have never used something like KDE, GNOME, or one of the "windowsized" versions of KDE, such as Lycoris, Lindows, and Xandros.

Important design decisions...

[coupland]

But wait! How will you duplicate the sluggish performance of the Start menu? You know, how it takes 10 seconds just to expand a level? I guess you could just insert an endless FOR loop, but that wouldn't be creative. How about installing a distributed computing client that would start crunching numbers while your Start menu struggles to open? That way while a Windows user waits in agony to drill down to All Programs --> Accessories --> Games, Linux users can actually spend that wasted time finding a cure for cancer!

Re:Important design decisions...

[coupland]

No, Microsoft are not innovators in any way or sense. Wal-mart doesn't consider themselves innovators for selling a product they bought from SmallGuy #605, they are only a retailer. Microsoft has bought or copied every idea they ever had, NOTHING AT ALL HAS EVER BEEN INVENTED BY MICROSOFT. I assert this with no hesitation whatsoever. Word processors, spreadsheets, GUI, icons, mouse, networking, internet, browser, integration, presentation graphics, WYSIWYG, windows, hypertext, wireless, consoles, and a million other technologies... NOT ONE was invented by Microsoft but each and every one has been made famous in their name. In fact Microsoft has NEVER IN ITS HISTORY invented something! They are great at copying the code of others and making it look better, but Microsoft the great innovator has never made an innovation in the history of computing...

Isn't this backwards?

[tacocat]

Haven't we been getting bashed for not being able to step out ahead of Microsoft but always doggedly trailing whatever they choose to do with User Interface? I think this cinches the arguement that Linux is behind MicroSoft when it comes to the desktop.

Until the Linux community stops promoting KDE because it looks just like windows and stops trying to make XP wannabes we will never ever sustain the argument that we are a group of wannabes ourselves. The point is to make something which is better and to turn the tables and make MicroSoft follow Linux for a change.

When we succeed in doing that, we will have made a credable dent in their territorial claims.

Surface is liberal

[yerricde]

unless the potential surface you are traversing is non-conservative.

And in this case, the surface of graphical user interfaces is highly non-conservative of learning time.

Copying just gets you sued.

[crovira]

The problem with GUIs is that they are copyrightable and become extremely proprietary.

Try copying Aqua and get sued by Apple. Copy the lousy/lesser looking XP interface and get sued by M$.

Since its what's visible, the system topography, its what sells the system to those incapable (because they can't, don't or won't know or care,) of seeing below the surface, the topology.

Sadly the only way to win is to make the GUI so transparent that its invisible or to change the way computers interface with users.

Create it and patent it NOW so you lock out Microsoft.

e.g. no more logon & security dialog, a fingerprint scanner and/or other biometric devices announce who's using the system.

e.g. voice recognition & gestural controls (no keyboard, just point in space at a letter or a word or an object.)

e.g. voice/speech/tone generation. Use music to generate reports on the relative scale of things.

e.g. 3D display.

Do it now or the one with the most bucks will lock you out of the game with laws (even if it only has to be able to afford to break them.)

dumb idea, but for a different reason

[Twirlip of the Mists]

First off, the guy's page says he's doing this to learn and for fun. Good for him.

However, I'm a little afraid that somebody might latch onto this idea and say, "Gee, we should use this to help people migrate to Linux from Microsoft!" That would be a terrible idea.

It would be a terrible idea because it would give new users a false sense of familiarity. When somebody sits down at a new program or OS, they notice immediately that it's different, and they start learning. The contrast between old and new creates a kind of mental traction, something for the brain to hold on to: "Okay, in Windows I did this and then this, but this is Linux so I have to do that and that instead."

In a situation of false familiarity, though, everything is a little slippery. Because everything looks like something the user is already familiar with, the user naturally expects everything to work like the thing it resembles. When it doesn't, frustration sets in. "Okay, now I want to do this. Hey, it didn't work. But that's how I do it in Windows, and this is just like Windows. Why didn't it work? This is broken!"

Some folks seem to be under the mistaken impression that if the windows have the same chrome on them and the desktop has the same background and the fonts resemble each other, then the system will be easy to learn. In fact, just the opposite is true. The more you make X look like Y, the harder it will be for users who know Y to learn X.

Re:dumb idea, but for a different reason

[MonTemplar]

What he said! I can understand having an initial desktop set-up option that allows people moving over from Windows to get started faster (similar taskbar, similar window controls, etc.), but trying to make a Linux desktop that is exactly like Windows seems to be majorly counterproductive to me, for the simple reason that it's Linux, not Windows, on the inside!

I take my hat off to the guy who wrote XPde, and wish him all the best with his future projects. But this is one itch that run the risk of being scratched so much that it ends up a large scabby wound...

Re:dumb idea, but for a different reason

[Reziac]

A little bit of "but this is broken" is okay -- you even get that between different apps in Windows, because not everyone adheres to design standards, and some developers hare off in weird directions.

The problem for average users is when *everything* is "broken" because they can't figure out how the hell to even get started. Familiarity, even just "close enough for gov't work" helps enormously.

My own example: when I first delved into linux, there was no Win-alike file manager. The nearest thing I found (after some digging) that I could figure out how to use (and like most people, I *don't* have the time or energy to dig thru and read HowTo's) was Midnight Commander, but that interface was "familiar" (therefore usable) only because I already knew XTree for DOS. Most Win32 users would never figure it out.

I recently installed a newer disty that defaulted to Konquerer -- hey, this looks and acts just like WinExplorer! yeah, some stuff is different, but because MOST of the program behaved in a familiar way, that made it real easy to figure out the parts that didn't.

This by itself made linux feel a whole lot more useful, and vastly less hostile.

Re:dumb idea, but for a different reason

[Mitchell Mebane]

Um, what about the change from Windows 98/2000 to Windows XP? It looked somewhat similar, and acted mostly similar, but there were a LOT of changes.

100% mouse-driven? I'd rather not.

[yerricde]

If you want to have a consistent, elegant and completely mouse driven GUI they are not worth shit.

You don't want a completely mouse-driven UI on a PC unless you have something like a tablet PC, where no keyboard is available even to enter text unless you flip the screen around into its "laptop" configuration.

However, I'm not talking about requiring the user to know command lines. I'm talking about allowing the user to type the first few letters of an object's name as a shortcut to select it, providing a way to access all commands from the keyboard (good for users who have physical problems with using a mouse?), providing consistent keyboard commands for common actions across all applications, and making a command line available to those users who want to automate things.

a dangerous argument...

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument you make is an extremely dangerous one, and is generally used to justify totalitarian governments and the like.

Your rights to privacy reside in you. They have nothing to do with whether or not you have anything "to hide." Those rights may be limited or constrained if it is found or there is reasonable suspicion to believe that you have violated the rights of others. However, by default--all other things being equal--you are presumed to have a certain right to privacy.

It is certainly not the case that by default, Microsoft, Apple, the U.S. Government, or whatever, has absolute right to information about you, that your privacy is presumed to be theirs. It is even more certain that you and I do not "attain" privacy by justifying that we do not have anything to hide.

The burden lies on appropriate authorities--i.e., the government--to prove that you have lost privacy rights, not the other way around.

Arguing that you have no rights by default, that you only earn them, is extremely dangerous. You have rights by default and lose them through harm.

Is there a Mac OS X attempt?

[wackybrit]

This looks like a good project, since it gives a familiar and uniform feel to many areas of the desktop, even if we don't particularly like XP. So.. is there a Mac OS X attempt? I'd much prefer that :-)

er . . . why is it so hard to understand?

[Idou]

This is ONE "project" out of thousands and thousands of others on the net (which anyone can start) which happens to use the Linux kernel as their basic platform. No, this is not the official "Linux position." The only reason this project exists is because a group of people have a "particular itch" in this particular area, and rather than bitch about it on slashdot (and get modded up to 5, no less) like some wannabe news editorial writer, they construtively did something about it. This, in no way, prevents you from creating a similar project to make Linux look different, and many projects exist to do just that, but you will never know that because, just like many other /.'ers, you are too lazy to do a little research before posting. Why should you when the moderators are too lazy to think for themselves, anyway?

I realize you probably still don't understand what I am talking about, so here in an analogy. There are some women in this world that think all men abuse and beat women. They complain and they talk down about men, but they always seem to get in a relationship were they get knocked around. Me, being a man and having never beaten a woman, know this is a falsity. In fact, I assume the majority of men do no beat women. However, these particular women have certain choice parterns which constantly expose them to the same kind of man. Believe me, saying "men" encompasses as diverse a group as saying "Linux users."

My personal analysis is that you (and the moderators that modded you up) have been constantly exposing themselves to the same type of Linux user/developer/slashdot info. There are many more projects that make Linux unique than that make it similar to XP. However, like the disillusioned woman I mentioned earlier, you only know how to get information that reinforces your prejudice. Articles posted at slashdot about projects that make Linux "unique" probably go unnoticed by you, as you immediately scroll to the "XP look alike" article.

Believe me, you are not describing Linux users, just your stereotypes towards Linux.

Re:er . . . why is it so hard to understand?

[Reziac]

Plus if linux and Windows remain visually distinct, and NO linux desktop imitates Windows, that gives fuel to the "Windows sucks" subcult. "See? It's so awful, we wouldn't touch it!"

The same ones who (like your battered woman example) had one bad experience, refuse to do normal maintenance on WinBoxen because they claim it won't help anyway, then claim that Windows is totally unstable. Whereas a whole lot of us haven't had a Win32 crash in months, and wonder why if they're smart enough to deal with an obtuse OS like linux, they can't get Windows to run right (and it ain't rocket science. See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=45941&cid=4745 739, beware the /. space)

But there's no arguing with religious fanatics. They'll only see what they want to see, which usually includes shooting down anything they disagree with.

Looks real close

[da_Den_man]

However, my only question is and has always been:

Does this mean the clipboard works across all programs?!?

Because that is the one thing I really wish worked properly in Linux. If nothing else, MS has the clipboard available throughout ALL programs I run. If I select something and hit CTRL-C, in Windows I KNOW it will be available to me when I open (Insert favorite application here) for a CTRL-V.

Is the clipboard built into the kernel of Windows? If so, maybe thats an option Linux needs to copy?

And don't even get me started on printing...

Lotus precedent

[Reziac]

In any event, the Lotus vs. everyone-else-in-the-world case of the DOS era established that you cannot lay claim to "look and feel" and prevent others from using it -- if they can recreate your look but with their own code, tough for you. Maybe someone here can find and post details?

Why BlueCurve and the cloning of Windows is stupid

[Ilan Volow]

It is often worse for an interface to look the same and act different than it is for the interface to look different *and* act different.
If the environment looks the same, the user will be coming with a whole set of expectations about how the environment will act in a given situation, and will get utterly frustrated when those expectations aren't met.In some cases, the user might actually lose valuable work because the thing that looks the same on the emulating environment does something destructive that is benign on emulated environment. At least when something looks totally alien you know it will act totally alien.

While some people praise RedHat for making GNOME and KDE consistent, they didn't do this at all. GNOME and KDE might now look the same under BlueCurve, but they still act completely differently. Some poor user will do some work in a GNOME app, and then when the go to do work in a KDE app, stuff will act completely differently. The same looking button in the two environments will act differently.

A specific example: In a KDE Save File dialog, Ok is on the left and cancel is on the right. In GNOME, it's reversed. Imagine the shock the end user has when they go to save a file in a KDE app and they find that the button on the right that they clicked in the previous app (which looked exactly the same) to save their file actually prevents them from saving their file in the app they're currently using. Or even worse, they don't notice the difference and they lose the changes their made to their data.

I actually talked to the guy who created BlueCurve when RedHat did a road tour at my school. And while he acknowledged the differences, I was disappointed that he didn't understand how much trouble this could cause.

The same thing goes for the "Let's just copy Windows UI so it will be familiar for those transitioning to linux" people. No matter how hard the linux developers try, things will be different from Windows. It won't be like windows no matter what they do. I could think of no better way to turn people off of using linux than to tell them it's just like windows and for them to believe that and for them to then lose a month's worth of financial records due to some small inconsistency between windows and the windows-clone linux distro they're using.

A better solution is to not worry about familiarity and just make sure that things are well designed in general, and that nothing is ambiguous or confusing and that the users data is protected at all costs.

Respecfully disagree...

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

I still think that new users should get some sort of introduction to the open source and its ideals.

New users don't have the same inquisitive nature that most Slashdoters have. I think if we get these new users onto a box that almost never crashes, works well, and doesn't need to be shut down every night in order to have a "fresh" pc in the morning, they will be hooked. Then later on they can play with colors and desktops and package updates and - perchance - drop to a shell. Telling them about Open Source, MS EULA's, Windoze security holes, that Duken Nukem will be out "when it's done" :) ...that comes much much later.

Just get them on a *nix box, and they will be hooked. This GUI looks to be a vital first step.

Re:Respecfully disagree...

[Oliver Defacszio]

"I think if we get these new users onto a box that almost never crashes, works well, and doesn't need to be shut down every night in order to have a "fresh" pc in the morning, they will be hooked."

And they are; it's called Windows 2000. While I am sure that the malcontented herd here at Slashdot has a million indestructable tales of how Win2000 crashes every six seconds, in the actual, physical world, it's the most stable desktop OS and, you're right, the world is hooked.

Linux zealots simply cannot use the stability argument anymore.

Re:Respecfully disagree...

[Afrosheen]

Try this little experiment.

1. Install a fresh version of win2k on some machine you own.
2. Plug it into your cable/dsl/t1 connection.
3. Watch the magic.

By the time it hits Microsoft and starts downloading updates, you'll be owned. There are so many infected win2k server farms with dead/missing admins that are spewing nimda and other virii over the net constantly. A typical win2k fresh install, connected to the internet, will get owned in 20 minutes flat. I kid you not.

So if you're savvy enough you can cache all the updates locally and apply them *before* you connect to the internet. Doing otherwise is taking your boxes' life into your own hands.

Windows UI not original either

[g4dget]

The linux community continues to try and bring people over, but they only way they seem to know how to do that is by emulating Microsoft interfaces.

Much of the Windows UI was actually not originally created by Microsoft--it was copied from various other sources, including previous UNIX toolkits. And the Linux toolkits have copied significantly from older UNIX toolkits as well.

So, much of the similarity between Linux and Windows may simply be because they have common ancestors, not because Linux is copying from Windows.

Still, I agree with the general sentiment: Linux developers should probably consider Windows as a negative example and as a warning to them and should come up with new ways of doing things.

Re:Windows UI not original either

[axxackall]

Much of the Windows UI was actually not originally created by Microsoft--it was copied from various other sources, including previous UNIX toolkits.

Small percent of engineers worked on Unices 15 years. Virtually noone used any computer at home. Even few % of office workspaces had PCs. Although some has TTY :)

Microsoft did innovation by bringing PC to most of home users and to many office users. It was copied and it was ugly. But home users were happy as they've got computers with some GUI. TTY users were happy as they've got GUI. And that was for a fraction of a typical Unix box price.

Now, clone MS Windows GUI and see what an average Joe would say: "I've saw it before. But it worked much better for me."

Linux Desktop must be innovative to get more desktop share. And it is not a problem. Look at Enlightenment or Sawfish window managers - they improve and bring new ussability experience. Look at Gnome panels and applets and its new transparency things. That's the way I expect Linux GUI innovation will be winning.

That's probably not enough to prove the innovation of Linux desktops for some people. That's why there are projects like Fresco/Berlin. Unfortunately, non-X11 way won't work on Linux anytime soon - many Linux users believe in X11 + there are many drivers and applications for it.

I don't want to count Mac OS X either - it's a proprietary deadend and I don't believe in proprietary UI innovation anymore. It's like industrial and post-industrial consuming eras. First you feed people up. Then they demand better quality and old fashion don't work any more.

Finally, I thing there are some formerly/currently proprietary technologies which are much more (than XP GUI) worthy for being cloned in open source GUI. Here is a short list:

• Speech recognition
• Text-to-Speech
• handwriting recognition (especially on touch screens
• taxonomy based (aka object oriented) document storage (or file systems)

Make them out of the Linux box and many people will buy Linux boxes for that.

Re:Windows UI not original either

[g4dget]

Much of the Windows UI was actually not originally created by Microsoft--it was copied from various other sources, including previous UNIX toolkits.

Small percent of engineers worked on Unices 15 years. Virtually noone used any computer at home.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the relevance of your point. Microsoft did hire developers from other companies liberally, developers who were familiar with GUI work at IBM, PARC, OSF, and other places. That's one of the reasons why Windows and Linux look alike: they copied from the same sources, in addition to Linux copying from Windows.

Speech recognition

CMU Sphinx and a couple of others.

Text-to-Speech

Edinburgh Festival and a couple of others.

handwriting recognition (especially on touch screens

Handhelds.org has several pen input methods. It's unclear that on-line connected handwriting recognition is a good idea, but it can be built on top of one of the speech recognition systems without too much work (most of the code is very similar).

taxonomy based (aka object oriented) document storage (or file systems)

There are numerous choices for that, from object-relational databases like PostgreSQL to knowledge representation systems like FramerD.

Linux Desktop must be innovative to get more desktop share

There are lots of innovative and different Linux desktops out there already. It's just that there is also a lot of people who want a Windows-like desktop on top of Linux. The beauty is that Linux supports all of them.

Re:Windows UI not original either

[axxackall]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the relevance of your point. Microsoft did hire developers from other companies liberally, developers who were familiar with GUI work at IBM, PARC, OSF, and other places. That's one of the reasons why Windows and Linux look alike: they copied from the same sources, in addition to Linux copying from Windows.

You really didn't get a point. It's not importan who copied whom. It's important who first delivered it to many users. Microsoft delivered GUI to home users and to many corporate users. Are we on the same point here? If yes - Microsoft looks innovative for those (millions) users. And don't pull out from ashes that cheezy Mac GUI: who care? They delivered it only to 5% of desktops. Virtually nothing.

Speech recognition

CMU Sphinx and a couple of others.

Text-to-Speech

Edinburgh Festival and a couple of others.

handwriting recognition

Handhelds.org has several pen input methods...

taxonomy based (aka object oriented) document storage (or file systems)

There are numerous choices for that, from object-relational databases like PostgreSQL to knowledge representation systems like FramerD.

Are any of them are usable by end-users out of the box? They are all good technologies, but they are far away from being used by end-users for tasks I mentioned. That's what Microsoft did with GUI and OS ideas of Unix and Mac and others - they delivered it to end-users OUT OF THE BOX. That's good for both Microsft and its customers. I have no illusion about what Microsoft did wrong about monopoly and so on. But they did a good job of bringing innovation (even someone else's) to desktops of many people and it's not clear when (if ever) such innovations whould be delivered to those users without Microsoft copiing.

There are lots of innovative and different Linux desktops out there already. It's just that there is also a lot of people who want a Windows-like desktop on top of Linux. The beauty is that Linux supports all of them.

If you mean Fresco/Berlin and similar non-X11, their problem is that they are not X11. Therefore, those users, who need Windows-like GUI, cannot smoothly migrate from Windows style to something innovative. That's why I suggest to pay attention on Enlightenment/Sawfish (wm) and Gnome (dm) - you can configure a system very alike Windows or you can use some very new ideas about borders, movings, workspaces, or you can combine them. So, users with Windows background can be softly introduced to new ideas. Also, once speech or handwriting or taxonomies will be ready - it's easy to integrate them into Gnome.

The point is: innovation by itself is less important than the way how the innovation will be delivered to most of users.

Changing windows.

[Ektanoor]

Well, I have some very large experience on using several desktops. And I think I know enough about them to say that people will not change systems just for the desktop. While this thing is very important, the problem on using one or the other desktop is the range of services such system may offer and the way someone gets used to it.

During the middle of the 90's I saw lots of people that considered the Windows desktop as "horrible". But you would be admired to see that they used some highly primitive and simple apps made on DOS. Sysadmins linked all these apps with small batch files and highly primitive menus. And people were happy with it. When things started moving into Windows95, these people got lost. They couldn't get used to this new system for quite some long time. And most of them, till now, don't know what is the "Start" menu. They launch their programs from the icons laying in the desktop. And they don't give a Hell if the program is Internet Explorer or Mozilla if it carries the same interface (yeap I saw this funny thing some time ago). And not because it is better or worser but because it allows the same mechanical, routine movements without thinking about what's behind the GUI.

On *NIX, most of the choice around an interface is made on what you are offered at first. Most Mandrake people prefer KDE, Others give preference for Gnome. And, they rarely have seen they could have a choice. Due to the fact that they got used to these things, they rarely change sides. I, during my work on several interfaces in the very early ages of Linux, got used to the AfterStep interface. And I have noted that, today, I naturally prefer something like WindowMaker or BlackBox. This brings up an interesting effect. In two works, due to certain constraints, I use KDE or Gnome. And, for me it is pretty clear that 90% of these systems offer, are completely superfluous for me. But a mix of necessity and lazyness to change interfaces, keep me having them there.

Will people change to Linux because of the XP interface? No. They will change when you offer the same mechanics of using their machines everyday. And that means copying not only the interface per se, but also making all the horrors that people do with it and making every application look similar. When someone brings up that mess, people will change the OS. But not because it is Linux. Frankly, they will not note a difference.

Note. In certain cicumstances, it is possible today to offer systems carrying a range of services very similar to what Windows offer at start. I did that in 1999 with stations that were used only and exclusively for Internet browsing. When KDE is configured as much as possible as a Windows interface, a good mass of people do not give a hint about what OS they are working on. And this things was damn popular. While in Windows NT, these University classes had only 2500 users. When on Linux, there were no less than 7000. And just because the Linux was solid stable and fast... as the interfaces were nearly the same... And only after a talk or some weirdness on some program, people realised that they were not working on Windows.

However, I would not recomend to any sysadmin to see the horrors these people did with their desktops... Most of them looked as happy hippy vans...

Efficiency really does == Usability

[Ilan Volow]

The reason why a linux terminal often seems more efficient (and usable) than a linux gui is that the people designing linux GUI's do not know how to make efficient and usable GUI's. If you don't develop a gui that tries to minimize number of mouse clicks, adhere to Fitts' Law, be non-modal, things like that, then you'll tend to have very inefficient and unusable GUI's that make you wish to be rescued by some archaic, cryptic, monochromatic piece of keyboard driven junk from 1970.

Many open source people tend to think that the kind of stuff that I linked to above is pretty much BS, and this is where the problem with linux usability really lies.

Re:Efficiency really does == Usability

[Shelled]

I glanced at that link. Ironically, Fitts' Law states "The time to acquire a target is a function of the distance to and size of the target", which seems directly counter to putting all the applications starts in a tiny box on the most unused corner of the screen as Windows does. The right-click desktop crew appear to be more in compliance.

I start Mozilla in Ion - a keyboard-centric windowmanager - by typing: 'F3' moz 'Enter'. Five keystrokes. All my usual applications are symlinked to three-letter starts. That's about as fast as humanly possible for someone with hands already on the keyboard. The link doesn't address the physical usability issues of removing hands from the keyboard to grab a mouse. Granted, I spend most of the time at the keyboard and not the mouse as a graphics artist might, so this is user and use dependent, as is most everything else in the world.

The GUI's advantage is that it is its own help file, the options available to a user are laid out in an easy to access form that requires no memorization. The disadvantages, and the root of the CLI's power, is that for the sake of managability the GUI must limit the options available, otherwise the interface becomes confusing and unmanageable, and that the GUI is locked from user changes. The CLI has no such limits, especially for those comfortable with creating simple BASH scripts. (For those who consider the latter a no-show, it was a normal occurence in the days of DOS.) So yes, experienced users can be much more efficient by combining CLI and GUI controls. It's not an illusion.

Re:Efficiency really does == Usability

[Toraz Chryx]

"Ironically, Fitts' Law states "The time to acquire a target is a function of the distance to and size of the target", which seems directly counter to putting all the applications starts in a tiny box on the most unused corner of the screen as Windows does. The right-click desktop crew appear to be more in compliance"

Actually, the corners of the screen are the fastest place to get to with the cursor. (although the huge flowing menu thing is a different issue.)

It knocks ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THEM out.

[Wakko Warner]

Just because it looks like XP doesn't mean it runs the same programs as XP. This has no connection whatsoever to Lindows.

- A.P.

Re:It knocks ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THEM out.

[helmutjd]

Erm, yeah, but Lindows doesn't run Win32 apps either.

I think the poster was referring to the fact that Lindows aims to be very similar to XP in look/feel. XPde seems to do the same thing, while allowing the user to use whichever Linux distro he/she chooses (rather than having to use an oddball distro like Lindows).

"Look and feel" court case (legal reference)

[Reziac]

Excerpt from Lotus v. Borland Decision

LOTUS DEV. CORP. v. BORLAND INTL., INC. No. 93-2214
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 4618
March 9, 1995, Decided

III. Conclusion

Because we hold that the Lotus menu command hierarchy is uncopyrightable subject matter, we further hold that Borland did not infringe Lotus's copyright by copying it. Accordingly, we need not consider any of Borland's affirmative defenses.

The judgment of the district court is

Reversed.

Linked from User Interface Copyright

Mod up point please...

[El Camino SS]

This post is on topic... and IMHO right on the money.

ummm....WTF?

[Myuu]

"nobody can complain about Linux not being enough like XP"

Who is complaining about this? The farther I am from XP, the happier I am. KDE3 can be a little too close for comfort.

On a similiar note, I notice that I couple of new programs I d/l'ed look XPish in WINE, is there some kind of seperate APIs or what for XP?

Linux is free? So is Windows.

[Wakko Warner]

It came with my computer, so it's free.

Also, I can download it off the Internet from several places.

Nobody cares that Linux doesn't cost money.

- A.P.

Everybody quit the crying....

[codepunk]

If the guys want to build a XP interface for teir linux systems then by all means have at it. Most of you idiots don't even write code and have no place to be crying about it anyhow. If the itch exists then by all means scratch it. Open Source programmers do what we want so just get over it.

Check out the poll

[Simon Brooke]

It's interesting to check out the poll on their front page:

Windows XP 19.97% (1877)
KDE 25.60% (2406)
Gnome 15.73% (1479)
BeOS 8.10% (761)
MacOS X 21.68% (2038)
Other, please, post a comment 8.93% (839)

Yup, that's right, most people prefer KDE to XP.

Good, that saves a lot of work then.

Re:Check out the poll

[damiangerous]

So those almost 20% of people who prefer XP can go jump in a lake? Because 25% of people prefer KDE, everyone must use KDE with no alternatives allowed? Some of those XP 20% can't be allowed to create an interface for the rest of that 20%? Sheesh, what about those people who like Gnome, BeOS of OS X? Do they have to switch to KDE too? Or maybe they have to switch to XP because it's more popular than their choice?

You're a jackass.

They might be cloning the XP UI...

[mtec]

...but that's Apple's desktop pattern.

(it's in my stock OS X desktop picture choices)

Re:Xplease!!!

[perlyking]

You must have missed the five squillion (yep I counted them) aqua clones for linux allready. Most of them suck sadly.

Personally I don't care too much what my widgets look like, I just want them to be fast and want nice fonts.

Great. Until you try to use an App.

[simetra]

Too bad there aren't any real apps you could use with it.

They don't get it, do they ?

[master_p]

Microsoft is not gonna fill a lawsuit because the copying of their UI fits exactly with their 'embrace and extend' mentality.

Linux should not try to be equal to Windows, it should try to be better.

Slashdotters need to chill out

[FreshFunk510]

Come on people! For once when the word "Windows" is mentioned let's not all freak out and start flaming left and right. For once, can we look on the positive side of things?

True companies may not want to switch if they already have a working environment but what about companies that are starting up? Sure this may not be Windows button for button and panel for panel but the general familiarity would help one crossover imho.

I also think that the familiarity in the design won't necessarily confuse people but it will allow them to start at step 25 of 50 of learning a gui as opposed to step 1.

What linux/*nix freaks don't understand is that not everyone wants to spend all their free time learning a new environment. GUIs are like relationships; they take a long time to get really familiar with.

You stupid people

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is a kernel. Can't you see that?
We're not trying to copy Microsoft or change Linux.

Can you see the differences between Linux and XPde? Get real, without GNU tools, Linux itself can't be even used. XPde is a desktop. Linux is a kernel.

Sorry we don't want to use frigging TWM or VI or emacs. We want to provide a migration for people. Understand the purpose of this project.

And for you to know, KDE has done MORE COPYING of Windows since when it started, copying Windows 95.

Get a life.

Re:Concerning NT/2K/XP and changing hardware...

[thechink]

Here's how I've done it:

Before removing the old board, change the IDE controller drivers to something generic like "Standard Dual Channel PCI IDE Controller"

Install new board, boot and let Plug and Play detect the new controller.

This has worked for me on many occasions. Can't help though if the old board is not bootable.

Noo!

[miffo.swe]

Why copy something that bad and awful? It sure aint easy to use for a newbie. For someone used to windows yes but that isnt because the GUI is easy but because they know it from before.

I dont want to dog them for the effort, i just dont agree with them. Some people will probably love this .

Re:Screenshots

[happylight]

Windows XP has workspace switching too. It's called Virtual Desktop Manager.

Copying Windows GUI? At least it's better than KDE

[BigBlockMopar]

Yeah, this is just what we need to differentiate linux from Windows. :-p

Agreed. But look at it this way.

At least Microsoft has a budget to sit people down in focus groups and see what they like. If we had that in KDE/Gnome/$any_other_full-service_desktop_metaphor , then it's probable we wouldn't have new stuff being released with color schemes that make corporate users vomit, or xine logos designed by eurotrash 14-year-old Run Lola Run fans from East Berlin.

Microsoft spent millions developing that GUI look and feel. If user Joe Average didn't like it, they wouldn't have released it. We could do far worse than to take Microsoft's lead on UI design - KDE is the best of the free desktop metaphors for Linux, and well, frankly, it sucks.

By copying the good features of Windows software while avoiding their pitfalls of poor security and castrating inflexibility, we have no place to go but up.

The same, of course, applies to analyzing and "sharing" what makes the Macintosh GUI great. But you have to crawl before you can walk...

Linux isn't ready for the desktop.

How Stupid!!!

[ToasterTester]

Why are so many people trying to turn Linux into a free version of Windows. What happened to innovation, what happened to being an advanced Unix-like operating system. Everytime you turn around more people are trying to dumb down Linux so you can actract Windows users. Look at the whole push for GUI admin tools. GUI Admin tools have been a target of Windows critism, now Red Hat and others are cranking them out. Everything the Linux community has pointed to as a fault in Windows they are now trying to add to Linux. If you want Windows buy a copy, why reinvent the wheel.

Linux started as a clone of Unix, now it's becoming a Windows clone, is it Linux only knows how to clone things?

Re:How Stupid!!!

[Bandman]

why can't it do both?

I believe that Linux is already what we geeks want it to be. Sure it might not have gee-wiz-gizmo-2.25 yet, but it will, and we know it. What Linux lacks is the ability for idiots to use it. The "linux is user-friendly, but it's selective about who it's friends are" joke is in full effect here. There's no reason that if this non-geek user hurdle can be overcome, that it still can't be the coolest thing since sliced bread. Just change your preferred window manager and you're back to what you normally have. The beauty of linux is versitility. I can have my stuff, you can have your stuff, and we can use the machine for completely different tasks, and it's equally well suited* to each of them.

* multimedia not withstanding....in general i believe that multimedia on linux sucks. There are a few bright lights in the dim recesses of the cave that is multimedia (mplayer, soundtracker, etc) but generally it's too few and far between.

This is no good!

[Qbertino]

This is a bad idea, for various reasons:

1.) Drag and Drop and consistent fonts and clipboard aside, OSS Desktops are better, no need to copy a crappy one.

2.) In case you haven't noticed: noticable parts of the XP GUI elements are inspired by KDE! The Controlcenter for instance.
And: XP is ugly and visually impractical (since I'm a designer myself I'd say my judgement counts)

3.)One the pure visual side Linux desktops rule! E is the reason so many designers and visually orientated people see great potential in Linux. Cloning XP will get the majority to think it's finally reached parity with Windows, why it actually has surpased it long ago.
This will cast a bad light onto the OSS community, making the OSS artists look like a bunch of spineless goofs that have no own ideas. Which simply isn't true (fluxbox.sourceforge.net, enlightenment.org)

4.) Emulating a bad workspace management is a bad idea in general, especially when people think it's industry standard and desperatly need to be shown otherwise.

5.) This will strengthen M$ FUD about the OSS community being nothing but a bunch of sad and sorry rippers.

Re:This is no good!

[Radical Rad]

I respectfully disagree.

The Ms Window interface is not 'crappy'. It is composed almost completely of "borrowed" elements from competing interfaces. If those elements are now crappy then they must have been crappy also in their original forms on Unix / Linux / OS2 / Macintosh desktops. I don't think they were then or now. Though if you are saying that too many spices can ruin the stew then I would agreee with that, though KDE is more guilty in that respect I think.

Having an interface available which will require zero retraining for end users will save businesses so much money as they transition from MS lock-in to the more diverse, less expensive, more robust, equivalent Free Software. Regardless of whether an XP inspired interface becomes popular on Linux there will always be new, different, innovative, experimental interfaces being developed and available for Linux, so having one more which is perceived as familiar and intuitive to trained office drones is nothing to worry about.

You say we should not emulate what you consider a bad environment becuase people should be shown that it is not an industry standard? With all due respect, that is nonsense. Linux will never get that chance unless it can continue to grab desktop marketshare and that cannot happen unless the transition is seamless from one environment to the other. Linux must achieve parity before it could ever hope to lead people in a new direction. And due to the diverse nature of Open and Free software Linux can never force people to go anywhere; like a liquid, they will find their own path.

Lastly, the recent 'M$ FUD about the OSS community being'... essentially copycats is meant to make people like you fear being called a copycat and spending your time developing lots of new, unproven, and impractical, but innovative, and possibly occasionally successful, user interface enhancements which would make Linux an ungainly albatross but from which they could cherry pick the gems for their next platform. If you fall for this cheap psychological trick then you become MS's unpaid alpha version developers.

Re:Concerning NT/2K/XP and changing hardware...

[Cruciform]

Under Win2K I've done a swap between a Gigabyte 7IX and a Asus K7 mainboard, and the only issue was that I had to cycle through the boot-and-reboot process five times for it to get all the drivers in place. It was stable for about three weeks, then I ended the little experiment by doing a fresh install.

At work I was building a utility machine out of spare parts and tried swapping a drive with XP between systems and it puked before it even displayed the logo. :) This is the only time I've had a bluescreen under XP.

And this machine had the mainboard swapped out last night under XP, but it was only a very minor upgrade. An MSI KT333 Ultra to a KT4V. Since the boards have only minor hardware changes and revisions it was expected to go smoothly and did :)

After turning off all the "pretty" and "friendly" stuff that wastes screenspace in XP I find it a reliable and competent OS. But then I've never had to try and program for it. ;)

pointless in and of itself, but there is an upside

[Tumbleweed]

It keeps clearly stupid people off the streets while they work on this project. Good enough, I guess.

Completing the theme.

[Erpo]

Downloaded it. Tried it. I found it to be fairly crashy, but I like the idea.

Anyway, for those who like an XP desktop environment and window manager but want their apps to look like they do in XP, check out the TrueBlue gtk+ theme; it's not an exact replica, but it captures the feel. Also, if you like the puffy "Luna" window decorations, you might want to check out the Lunatic theme for sawfish.

Happy theming!

Font Trouble

[ReadParse]

It's moderately ammusing that EVERY single time somebody purports to have an interface that strives to look "just like windows", it's easy to identify it as a clone at first glance, thanks to lame fonts. I don't mean that the fonts aren't good, but they're not THE SAME. "MS Sans Serif" -- view it, study it, and copy it. Without that very font, the eye will refuse to believe it's looking at Windows. Yes, you can use other fonts instead of MS Sans Serif under Windows, but most people use the default, and you should at least default to the same font that Windows uses.

RP

How about getting XP to look more like Linux!

[Billly Gates]

One of the reasons I am sticking with w2k is the god awfull interface of XP. The only good thing I like about it is that the most recently used programs are in the start menu. That can be very nice. I noticed I can change the style to look more like the clasical Windows but the icons are still ugly as hell. Not to mention clasical windows also has a boring interface.

I tried Blinds but the nagwhare was annoying and it only changed the menu bars. Litestep was extremly bugging and for some reason interfered with the GDI so my printer would not print properly. This bug is well docuemented and I think its strange.

I want a free theme changer that changes everything so I can have a WindowMaker like desktop. That is my personal preference for my own look but kde is also nice looking.

One of the apealing aspects of the Imacs which saved Apple was that they were stylish. People pay alot of money for computers and they want interfaces that are highly customizable. You would not believe the amount of people who finally left Windows95 to Windows2k just for the shadows of the mouse icon.

SlicKer?

[Mitchell Mebane]

Speaking of alternative desktop environments, take a look at SlicKer. Right now it's mostly conceptual, but it looks like a GREAT idea.

Interesting

[captaineo]

Wow, this is very scary - Linux with a professionally-designed interface on top :)... (although XFree is still betrayed by the horrendous-looking fonts in the menu bar of their Task Manager...)

I hope they also take care to double-buffer most of the UI graphics like Windows - it's not good enough if the screenshots match, the interactiveness has to match also...

Re: I'm gonna call B.S. on this one. Sorry.....

[King_TJ]

Why is it I hear so much about Microsoft's UI "sucking" here on Slashdot, yet few others seem to hold a similar view?

Microsoft interface design surely is considered a priority in the company. Otherwise, they probably would have stuck with the horrible Windows 3.1 style GUI, instead of doing the total revamp they did for Windows '95 and beyond.

Just because MS isn't actively suing everyone who imitates their interface doesn't mean they don't consider their interface valuable or important. They simply know they're the de-facto standard everyone else is trying to copy - so they're satisfied.

Apple, on the other hand, is a company with much more to lose. Don't forget, they're in the computer hardware business, as well as software. Their interface design is a critical piece of the puzzle when it comes to moving product. (EG. If you can run a good OSX clone on regular PC hardware, why buy the Mac hardware? Their UI is "leverage" to drive Apple Mac system sales.)

Now, before people get their panties in a bunch over my statements, let me clarify. I do *not* think Microsoft is the "holy grail" of interface design. I certainly agree that Excel isn't the ultimate best design for a spreadsheet, for example. On the flip-side, though, it's really not half-bad. Millions of people are very productive with the product every day - and it looks and works well enough that open-source developers often attempt to emulate it.

For all of Microsoft's failures and flaws, I really see the look and feel of their UI as being one of the lesser issues (if an issue at all). Even in an MS vs. Apple comparison, don't forget - MS was doing background full-screen wallpaper long before Apple. They had superior file management (no 3rd. party tools needed to get a tree-structure display of your drive contents). They had multitasking working much better than Apple too. (Could you even format a floppy in the background on MacOS until version 8 or so?) Even Microsoft's "shortcuts" in Windows seem more functional than Apple's "aliases" were. (Even through MacOS 9.x, I don't believe you could make an alias point to anything on a networked drive. It only allowed an alias to a file on a physical, local device.)

Re:Why BlueCurve and the cloning of Windows is stu

[bogie]

Bluecurve isn't a problem for the same reason that www.msn.com is the home page for most people. The newbie who your worried about won't ever switch from Gnome to KDE, so it won't make a dam bit of difference since they will only keep the default and never run into the problem. Those smart enough to know that a desktop environment besides Gnome is available will adapt.

The user who is new to linux just won't run into the problems your describing with Bluecurve. The problems they will run into are ones that are common to the linux desktop. I don't think I need to list the multitude of problems the linux desktop has, but suffice to say the minor differences between gnome and kde when using Redhat pales in comparison to the serious shortcomings that they will experience well before then.

Re:Screenshots

[madfgurtbn]

Windows XP has workspace switching too. It's called Virtual Desktop Manager [microsoft.com].

I tried it a couple months ago. It's pretty lame, without features like drag between desktops and has annoying behaviors with windows/alarms popping up in wrong desktops and so on. I uninstalled it after a week or two.

Remember this next time they say that OSS is not "innovative".

Re:Copying Windows GUI? At least it's better than

[BigBlockMopar]

Right, what KDE needs is a Blue Screen of Death. Or maybe teal.

[pondering...] Nothing beats the Amiga Guru Meditation Error!

I don't see the point

[suman28]

The reason I install and use Linux (what ever the flavor) is to get away from Windows (look feel and all). As was this old slashdot article mentioned, Linux developers are not being creative enough.

Re:Concerning NT/2K/XP and changing hardware...

[Afrosheen]

Same thing here. I upgraded my dual boot system with a new motherboard/chip, and XP refused to boot. It didn't even bother to tell me why, just flashes a bluescreen for about 4ns and then reboots the machine.

Mandrake, OTOH, didn't really care. It runs a probe at boot which solves any potential problems before they occur. Kudzu is a good service (thank you Redhat). I just had to say 'ok' to the new stuff it found, it loaded the kernel modules, and everything works.

XP is definitely not designed for upgrades.

Re:Concerning NT/2K/XP and changing hardware...

[Afrosheen]

...and to add to your misery, that driver was only available months after XP was originally released and isn't easy to find. My brother had the same problem with his XP install on an Abit BE6-2. For some mysterious reason the HPT-37x is supported but not the 370 itself.