Slashdot Mirror
XPde Makes X11 Resemble Windows
Gentu writes "Here is another way of penetrating the Windows market, which might even prove more successful than the current efforts: XPde is a desktop environment that mimics the Windows 2000 look and feel and behavior. Currently on version 0.3, the team has re-created a number of applications from its Windows equivalents, including Explorer." T. cuts in: It looks like they've made a lot of progress since this project was last mentioned.
Think 'Migrating other users over from Windows into an extremely similar environment to minimize shock/learning-curve'
...and certainly there is much demand for this - me, for example, who likes to talk up Linux but after years and years of Microsoft brainwashing, I still use their operating system because, like a abused child, I am have got way to comforable with it. But then again, I have invested in a lot of Microsoft specific apps, but I know there are alternatives. Someday, I will switch.
BUT I fear a giant lawsuit from the monster in Redmond. I hope that this project will be hosted from some fair haven, like Sealand or whatever. I hope that some excellent lawyers will come forth, pro bono. Mmmm, maybe this could be the first open source project managed and distributed by a peer to peer network?
Re: people complaining about why make linux look like windows?
Because that is what people are used to right now.
So doing this, is embrace, and extend (since as we all know that linux is far more superior and more powerful than Windows). This strategy is in fact, how microsoft brilliantly overran so many other software markets in their quest to world domination. Fitting, now that we come back and use it on them as well.
Embracing and extending Windows, will beat them at their own game. Eventually, once people have moved over from Windows to 'Embraced Linux GUI' like the one in this article.. then they can migrate to (or just let them discover on their own) the good native linux GUI stuff a bit later on when they are more familiar..
That is the only way in fact, that linux will ever overtake the MS Windows desktop. Most non techies cannot easily make the (massive in their eyes) switch to a new desktop and OS. Embrace & extend works, is proven, and is a good strategy, and we should back it up in order to get people off the Monopoly when we can..
Personally, I think the MS GUI peaked at Windows 2000, and went decidedly downhill with XP. That's not to say that it was "ideal" with W2k, but certainly isn't the Fisher-Price-inspired-nightmare that the XP interface is.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
I fail to see why there is so much fuss over what's effectively just eye candy.
I don't believe that anyone will hold up these window managers up as the point of comparison between Linux and Windows which makes Linux the patform of choice. In particular these immitative ones. I just can't see "Use Linux - it's just like Windows" as being a particularly convincing argument.
What does this WM do that I couldn't do in the past?
or even:
What is the problem to which this is the solution?
Sure, it's a choice, and choice is good, but having a progress report on 10 different Linux disties and 10 different WMs every couple of months gets a bit boring after a while.
YAW.
Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
Why does Microsoft have it's death grip on the OS market? Because they average computer user is just too comfortable with Windows since 95, and possibly 3.x. It's not /.'ers that this is really targeted for.
What we should be really happy about is there is a clean XP desktop for X11 we can load on a *nix box to show to our bosses and managers to try to get them to make the *nix switch. Look how easy it is boss!!!My only concern is will the M$ demon come down and smash this for some copyright infringement or something stupid.
Anyone know what IP/copyright/trademark issues are invloved?
I thought people used Linux so they would not have to deal with the Windows horrid GUI?
Nope. People use Linux because they like the CLI, they like Free Software, they like Open Source, they Hate Microsoft, or they're just Cheap Ethical Bastards.
Very, very few people use Linux becaues they think that it's got a better GUI than Windows.
you're missing one crucial point: theres alternatives, you dont HAVE to use it, but its there for the peeple who might want to. live and let live, my friend.
i personaly think its a great idea for people who want linux for its stability, but not have a gui thats so diferent as to make a seasoned user feel like a newbie.
Maybe they'll manage to build a decent file manager. As much as I hate to say it, for MY USE, Windows file manager destroys all the Linux equivalents (Konqueror, Nautilus, etc.). I'm not saying that either one of those is bad, but both have problems that just put me off. For most of my file managing needs I use Midnight Commander, which sucks in an Xterm. I actually can see the use of copying XP's interface. Unlike most here, I'm a REAL WORLD computer user (that was a joke. Laugh.). The people that I know freak out if one of their icons goes missing. There's no way they'd ever learn how to use Gnome. But if you take a distro like Knoppix and throw a familiar face on it, they might change their minds.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
A lot of people will complain that linux shouldn't be copying Windows, but should be innovating. As someone who spends a lot of time using both systems, I am more comfortable with the Windows GUI than any of the linux desktops I've used. Maybe it is just because I have been using it since Windows 95, and the linux interfaces are all so different. No matter why I prefer it, the look and feel of an OS actually plays a large part in how much I like it.
I love the backend of *nix, but could never stand any of the desktops enough to use it as my primary OS. With this project, I can have an OS with a nice backend AND an aesthetically-pleasing, usable front end.
Sure this isn't innovating, but consider what is required to come up with a good GUI. Microsoft spends a LOT of money doing research to see what people like in a GUI, whereas linux innovation is often the result of one developer deciding, "Hmm, this feature is cool - I'll make a window manager do that". It isn't really reasonable to expect a better (for "normal" computer people) GUI from a group of developers than a company doing actual research.
Unfortunately, the server stopped responding after I got the home page, but the few tiny shots there show things like the Display control panel (an interface I really like and have wanted in linux for a long time), and explorer. If they have a few more control panels (Add/Remove programs, Network connections, and a subset of System), this might really be enough to get me to switch my primary OS.
My server
Now, instead of duplicate sotries, SlashDot will call them "updates." I'd say we should check up on them in a few hours to see how their doing.
I may have a few quibbles with the Microsoft GUI but two things that I seriously lack in Linux is consistent behaviour for copy/paste commands and working (as in "no configuration needed") keymappings/character encoding for my national characters in _all_ applications. This has never been a problem in any windows version (counting all the way from 3.0).
Why doesn't anybody mimic that?
I thought that when Microsoft won the Apple v. Microsoft case it set the precedent that you can't copyright "look and feel"? It will be interesting to see what Microsoft does now that the shoe is on the other foot...
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Most people moving over to BSD or GNU/Linux systems do it because the are SICK with Windows. ;-)
Note to self: get smarter troll to guard door.
What does this WM do that I couldn't do in the past? If you've used Linux for a long time, not a damn thing. If you haven't used it and are interested in doing so, but don't want to learn a whole new way of doing things, it does a lot. Of course, the instant reply is "But it's Linux, not Windows. Everything IS different." To which I say "That's not the point. The point is, not everyone was born with a UNIX manual rammed up their bum. Some people didn't start using computers until AFTER MS dominated the market and haven't used a computer with anything but Windows. For them it's a matter of what they can do NOW, not what they CAN DO ONCE THEY LEARN HOW." Which gets the reply "Yeah.... but... Linux rules all." Then you smack me in the head with a stuffed Tux and run off. What is the problem to which this is the solution? User fear. Some people that want to try Linux are afraid to because jumping from Windows to even KDE is a huge step (and one I did just recently, so I know how it is). And from Windows to Window Maker? Forget it. It's an intermediate level and nothing more. IMO, at least.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
What people want is to install drivers the same ad download crap little cheesey programs and install them.
People want their brand new POS Lexmark to work by plugging it in and dropping the CD in. These are the same people that like the fact that their printer blurts "Printing Started" whenever they print something. The fact that Linux software installs usually only involve double clicking a file and entering a password will be a disadvantage, people want to click on a wizard over and overr again. The fact that most driver installs in Linux involve compiling a kernel module will be even worse. The fact that most inexpensive hardware is unsupported at all on Linux (by the manufaturer) is the serious problem though. Nobody wants to search forums for their NIC driver, and nobady wants to pick which printing system to use for their brand new $49 printer. Look and feel aside the personal desktop market for Linux is a long way off. This Win2k look alike has huge potential in the business office though. Where you don't want people to install their random crap hard/software. But you also don't want people to call for support because they can't change the resolution of their monitor to 800x600 (because they cannot see the fonts).
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
There's plenty of possible innovation in window managers. Radial menus show real promise, but we don't yet have a decent radial menu window manager, for example. And there are a lot of other examples.
Slavish imitation of somebody else's system is just stupid. If you prefer that system, go out and get it.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Real world example of how a stupid windows theme is good:
I just opened up a new office with a friend of mine. Not one bit of MS anywhere in our office - it's all Linux and open source. Getting to the point - my partner can use a computer for all the necessary office tasks, but she is only a user. She is not even remotely computer savy - installing a windows program would be a nightmare for her!
Anyway, I set up her account to use the Windows XP look-a-like theme for KDE - Fischer Price colors and all. When I showed it to her, she barely raised an eyebrow. The only questions she has asked so far are about changing wallpaper and enabling email notification sounds (and she also wanted to know if Evolution would put little smiley icons in her email like AOL's software). Other than that, she just plugs away.
I wouldn't be caught dead with an XP look-a-like on my desktop, but they serve a purpose. Three years from now, my partner will have lost all recollection of how things work in windows - until then, the windows theme helps gloss over some of the differences.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
You picked a wrong time to explain that. Maybe a week ago you would have done good but right now everyone knows what it is. The news is always talking about it since they found elizibeth smart
as suggested repeatedly above, the point is to bring users who are familiar and comfortable with the windows interface into the *nix fold. whether or whether not it is possible to have a better interface than windows (certainly it is!) is not the issue at all with respect to this project. given the choice between a windows interface on a somewhat slow, expensive operating system and the same on a free, more dependable one, the choice becomes pretty simple. the next stage would be to switch to another interface. (and wow, it turns out to be easy and fast to do this in the new os :)
I'm sure a lot of people will love this. I'm not sure it's really the right way to concentrate, though. I know a lot of people don't like learning new things, but I believe that most people are going to care more about the applications rather than the interface. Most newbies I've come across have no problem getting used to WindowMaker or KDE etc.. In fact most of the people I've introduce to Linux have surprisingly preferred WindowMaker to KDE or Gnome. People who have never used anything other than windows.
It's when they realize that they don't have the applications that they love, and the so-called "viable replacements" well.. suck compared to what they use on windows.
I love Unix. I'm an ex programmer and sys-admin. For the past 5 years I worked as both and concentrated on Linux, Solaris and OpenBSD. I'm a guitar teacher now because I got sick of the IT world but I still love technology and Unix with a passion and feel right at home when I'm using bash, vi, gcc etc.
But I use Windows on my desktop.
I use Windows because of applications. I do a lot of sound recording and processing when I'm at home and I just can't find viable replacements for Cubase SX, Fruityloops, Cooledit Pro, Kazaa and not to mention I'm still hooked on The Sims and I like to know that if I walk into a software store I can take anything off of the shelf and bring it home and know that it'll work.
Worst of all I hate compiling software. Yeah I know funny since I'm a coder but seriously I don't have the time in a day to spend 3 hours trying to make a program that I download work on my system. I hate downloading an rpm and having it bitch about dependencies especially dependencies that I can't satisfy.
It's not worth the trouble anymore. When I was 15 and started using Redhat 4.something it was fun and I flew. I picked it up and fell in love and I tried to convert everyone and their grandmother to Unix. But 6 years later I have a house to maintain, kids to raise, a wife to spend time with, a job to work at etc. When I sit down at the computer I expect to click a little button and have things just work. Like magic. I wanna click "download" and in 5-10 minutes be running the program. No compiling. No dependancies etc.
So to wrap all this ranting up. I'm just not sure how important a desktop enviornment that mimicks Windows is going to benefit newbies. I think applications need more thought and work first. If you have to compile it to work then it's just not worth it. If it only works on Redhat 7.2 and not Slackware then it's just not worth it. I know people realize that I just don't want to see that realization forgotten and lost.
</rant>
I know that alot of Linux purists will think that this is horrible, but I really see no problem with it.
Actually this is just one more exammple of how extremely functional Linux can be compared to Windows.
It may not be for everyone, even I would much rather use KDE on X11 rather than XPde. But I would not fault someone for chosing to use it (or any other desktop or window manager).
In the end it all depends on what the user prefers to use. The more options, the better.
-Cnik
Apple threatened to sue over people using the Apple logo in their themes, not about ripping off the aqua look-and-feel. There are still a lot of aqua-ish themes available online, the only themes that are gone are the ones that used trademarked logos.
0 1 - just my two bits
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
This is one of my pet peeves about linux as a desktop OS. None of the developers and zealot users seem to understand that on a Mac or a Windows machine, you can cut and paste images, video clips, sounds, etc. This is what we are complaining about when we say that X11's cut and paste functions suck. I don't mind having two different systems (actually, it's kinda useful) I mind having two systems that both only work on plain text!
Try this:
Go to a windows system
Copy some formatted text in an IE window, and paste it into a Word document.
Copy an image from an IE window, and past it into a Word doc.
Now try doing the same thing on a Linux box. Doesn't work, does it? Put *that* in your X11 is superior pipe and smoke it. X11's cut and paste system is *brain* *dead*! It's not about keybindings, it's not about needing three button mice, it's about moving beyond flat effing ASCII text!
Sorry for the rant, but nobody ever seems to understand that to Mac and Windows converts, cut and paste is more than psting the right plain text into the right place most of the time.
0 1 - just my two bits
I don't think you know what a virtual machine is, and no, cmd.exe is not a virtual machine.
Also, what do you mean by a "true CLI"? Any shell on Unix/Linux and an optional terminal emulator that they may be running under are all programs like any other. They have no special privileges or powers that any other program wouldn't have. Believe me, I once wrote my own shell on Linux.
When 1person suffers from a delusion,it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion,it is called religion
If it's going to look and feel just like Windows, why would anyone bother to switch over?
The aim here should be to produce a superior interface over that which windows provides (like WindowMaker, which is superior to both MacOS UI and Windows UI).
However, there are many different WM and DE projects, and it doesn't hurt to try out several different concurrent strategies to try to convert Windows users. Some windows users will want something new, novel, and better, even if it means a little bit of a learning curve; others will want to jump right into doing things the way they normally do, and are probably the users switching over for the stability, security, good "price" provided by GNU/Linux.
So it's fine that we have all of these different options, and it's fine that many of them look like Windows. It's also fine that some of them can provide similarities to MacOS, BeOS, Amiga, and any other interface users may be attached to. However, a big problem is when people start developing apps to "only work" in one environment; e.g., apps which will only work with GNOME or KDE libraries installed. People should write apps to work in any X11 environment, and to fit in with whatever WM/DE they're placed into.
The same application which displays only windows-style horizontal menus in KDE should display only NeXT-style vertical menus in WindowMaker, and maybe only pie-style menus in SCWM. This implies some kind of universal interface for different tool-kits/WMs/DEs, where the programmer codes something equivalent to the following in pseudocode (where MI = menu item):
MI1. MI2. MI3. MI4. MI5. MI6.
MI1a MI2a MI3a MI4a MI5a MI6a
MI1b MI2b MI3b MI4b MI5b MI6b
MI1c MI2c MI3c MI4c MI5c MI6c
MI1d MI2d MI3d MI4d MI5d MI6d
MI1e MI2e MI3e MI4e MI5e MI6e
Where MI1. - MI6. are program menu's 1-6, and MIna - MInb are the submenu's of each main program menu. Now, what we need is something which will take that and automatically display it appropriately, depending on the environment. In KDE and GNOME and most other X11 environments, that would display as a windwos-style horizontal menu. In WindowMaker, it would display as a NeXT-style vertical menu, which is normally hidden but can be brought up by the user. In SCWM, it should display as a pie-menu, where selecting one item would open up a subsequent pie menu, etc. Such a meta-format would also be extended to other aspects of the program, such as toolbars, widgets, etc.
This way, the same program would look completely different, depending on what WM/DE it's run in. This way, the end-user has complete consistency in the look and feel of apps within his/her WM/DE.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
People want something that they can customize.
You can customize Windows XP's GUI just as much as linux GUIs. There are entire websites dedicated to XP "Visual Styles" that can change the look of everything from the start menu/bar to window title bars.
P.S. Please don't kill me for defending windows on something.
I run a Debian/Kernel/Knoppix Mirror: (http|ftp|rsync)://debian.ams.sunysb.edu/
apt-get @ > 5MBps == teh win!