Recommended Posts

Windows 7's Superbar actually combines the best parts of the OSX Dock, and the taskbar from previous versions of Windows. Going by my usage of OSX, I think it's far more useful than the dock in OSX, to assert it is a simple copy is pretty ignorant.

junkj.png

If you're unable to reply normally, just don't reply.

If you're unable to fathom that GNOME is not a sales tactic, that GNOME is not a profiting product, and that GNOME is creating by people who have a passion for free alternatives, then you probably shouldn't reply. It's not even that I don't agree that the Aero Snap is so similar, it's just the fact that for some reason this mortally offends you and you're in full GNOME-HATE mode over it.

Also, the irony of what you just said is that you seemed to be unable to reply without some snide image, so take your own advice, bud.

For anyone that's interested, Ars Technica did a decent review of Gnome 3 (link). In general, I have to agree with most of their points. The theme generally looks like crap. It looks like a GUI equivalent of those ?50 knock off games consoles that look like the Wii, but play Megadrive-era 2D games. And then to top it off, they went and got rid of the goddamn maximize button. I was (and still am) on board with removing the minimize button, but why remove the maximize button that people would actually use? Sure, we've got not-aero-snap functionality, but click-n-drag takes longer than just clicking alone.

Overall, I think it's a step in a... different direction, but I really think they should have done some useability testing with real people (i.e. more than developers and so called UX experts) before releasing. But then, therein lies the beauty of FOSS. If I continue to dislike it, I can choose a different DWM :)

At least Microsoft has the decency to give its own twist to things, so does Apple. I have no real objection to that. I just think it's pathetic that lately Linux developers don't bother coming up with their own stuff and just copy 90% of things left and right. But hey, that's the reason why these window managers on desktop Linux will always look like some poor hobby project rather than a serious product.

And you're right companies will always "borrow" ideas from each other, it's the near 1:1 copies I have issues with. Something you see a lot these days on Linux.

The Ubuntu team seems to be the only exception here. They do try to go their own route and when copying something at least they give their own spin to it. In most cases at least.

1. Ribbon UI by Microsoft

----- Knock off of some other companies

2. Task bar

----- Knock off of Apple's dock

3. Aero

----- Knock off of Compiz

4. Virtual Desktops

----- Knock off of Linux

Shall I continue before you make yourself look stupid. Every company, takes ideas off other people's work. It's the way it is in the software world. Either live with it or don't use computer. It makes companies have competition and to keep coming up with new ideas.

Windows 7's Superbar actually combines the best parts of the OSX Dock, and the taskbar from previous versions of Windows. Going by my usage of OSX, I think it's far more useful than the dock in OSX, to assert it is a simple copy is pretty ignorant.

Far more useful? What single feature is there that is more useful? Jump lists? If anything it's inferior simply because OS X has Expose on top of the dock. Best window management there is.

3. Aero

----- Knock off of Compiz

That's not correct. Compiz didn't do anything that Aero does. If you're talking about both being compositing window managers, then Apple once again beat Linux and Microsoft to it. Pretty sure Apple had desktop compositing in OS X in 2001.

I disagree, I found the design of Expose to be poor.

What does the alt-tab in Windows looks like? It's a tiny expose. Functionally it's the same thing as well, except it's a bit too small to be useful(that can actually be edited) , and it doesn't scale programs according to their size either. Is alt-tab of poor design too? Also you didn't answer my question.

EDIT: You must also be one of the very few people out there who think Expose is poor design. It's by far the quickest and most intuitive window management in existence.

Far more useful? What single feature is there that is more useful? Jump lists? If anything it's inferior simply because OS X has Expose on top of the dock. Best window management there is.

That's not correct. Compiz didn't do anything that Aero does. If you're talking about both being compositing window managers, then Apple once again beat Linux and Microsoft to it. Pretty sure Apple had desktop compositing in OS X in 2001.

I'm talking about desktop effects (not spinning cubes), I mean giving Windows any kind of effects other than just transparency.

For anyone that's interested, Ars Technica did a decent review of Gnome 3 (link). In general, I have to agree with most of their points. The theme generally looks like crap. It looks like a GUI equivalent of those ?50 knock off games consoles that look like the Wii, but play Megadrive-era 2D games. And then to top it off, they went and got rid of the goddamn maximize button. I was (and still am) on board with removing the minimize button, but why remove the maximize button that people would actually use? Sure, we've got not-aero-snap functionality, but click-n-drag takes longer than just clicking alone.

Overall, I think it's a step in a... different direction, but I really think they should have done some useability testing with real people (i.e. more than developers and so called UX experts) before releasing. But then, therein lies the beauty of FOSS. If I continue to dislike it, I can choose a different DWM :)

Thanks for the review link.

As for the removal of maximize I think it's the right decision. In the current window management in Windows and Linux there are at least 3 ways to instantly maximize an application. You have the aero snap, the maximize button, and doubleclicking the titlebar. Why? Why is there so many ways to do one thing? What's the point? It's redundant. GNOME did this to remove redundancy. There is absolutely no reason why there should be so many ways to do the exact same thing. All are relatively arbitrary too. The Aero Snap implementation is an intuitive way of performing the task, and that's why it was implemented while at the same time removing the maximize button. Having so many ways to do the exact same way is needless UI complexity and clutter, and removing these redundancies is what makes the UI better as a whole. Another major redundancy that GNOME had before was that launching applications from the menus would re-launch an application if it was already opened. The Dash/Dock fixes this, and simplifies access to the applications as well(course Apple had this fixed long ago, and Windows 7 a year ago).

I'm talking about desktop effects (not spinning cubes), I mean giving Windows any kind of effects other than just transparency.

Yeah, Apple had that in 2001 already, so the call on on the knock-off was incorrect.

What does the alt-tab in Windows looks like? It's a tiny expose. Functionally it's the same thing as well, except it's a bit too small to be useful(that can actually be edited) , and it doesn't scale programs according to their size either. Is alt-tab of poor design too? Also you didn't answer my question.

EDIT: You must also be one of the very few people out there who think Expose is poor design. It's by far the quickest and most intuitive window management in existence.

I rarely use alt+tab so I don't particularly care, I tend not to have large amounts of windows open at once.

3. Aero

----- Knock off of Compiz

Don't know why people alway say aero is a knockoff of compiz, compiz's initial release was the same year vista went RTM... And I assure you ms was working on aero long before that. I believe some of the early longhorn builds had dwm. If anything apple had it first with aqua. I don't think any of them are knockoff's of each other, some idea's are simply common sense.

Modal sheets & Nautlius
Same as a not-very-recent release of GNOME2.
Date and Time
Taken from OpenSUSE, Ubuntu.
I was (and still am) on board with removing the minimize button, but why remove the maximize button that people would actually use?
Because you can maximize by double-clicking in every clean section of the bar.
  • 2 weeks later...

There are still some issues and bugs in the current 3.0.0 release, especially lack of configurability but it is approaching a stage where it will be stable enough for most people. The new Fedora 15 beta has Gnome3 as default, and presents a pretty well polished version. I quite like the "new" way of managing windows.

If you're unable to fathom that GNOME is not a sales tactic, that GNOME is not a profiting product, and that GNOME is creating by people who have a passion for free alternatives, then you probably shouldn't reply. It's not even that I don't agree that the Aero Snap is so similar, it's just the fact that for some reason this mortally offends you and you're in full GNOME-HATE mode over it.

Free does't mean the GNOME team has a right to steal everything left and right, something companies paid good money for developing.

Gnome is hardly "stealing everything left and right" You are being ridiculous. If you've actually USED gnome 3 is works VERY differently from osx, windows, and even gnome2. There are a few similarities but its hardly some osx knockoff like you are making it out to be.

Gnome is hardly "stealing everything left and right" You are being ridiculous. If you've actually USED gnome 3 is works VERY differently from osx, windows, and even gnome2. There are a few similarities but its hardly some osx knockoff like you are making it out to be.

+1 - some people think certain features should only be limited to certain platforms. Get over it.

I think it's more a matter of Gnome admitting that they took these ideas, or in some cases blatantly copied the functions from somewhere else, rather than pretend they invented something that's works exactly as it does in another OS and has been there for years.

I think it's more a matter of Gnome admitting that they took these ideas, or in some cases blatantly copied the functions from somewhere else, rather than pretend they invented something that's works exactly as it does in another OS and has been there for years.

You could say the same about every single desktop environment on the face of the earth. KDE, especially v3, resembled Windows 2k a lot, at least on the surface. GNOME, even GNOME2, has always been pretty mac-like in some ways, again, on the surface. They're not knockoffs, the have their own identity, they're just slightly familiar with other already established environments.

There are still some issues and bugs in the current 3.0.0 release, especially lack of configurability but it is approaching a stage where it will be stable enough for most people.

No surprises there, A new "point zero" release is typically going to be a bit quirky, needing some refinement etc etc. The first KDE 4 release for example was a lot of fun, in a a geeky masochistic sort of way.. significantly better now than it was. Vista didn't get a healthy dose of "sucks less" until SP1, etc etc.

You could say the same about every single desktop environment on the face of the earth. KDE, especially v3, resembled Windows 2k a lot, at least on the surface. GNOME, even GNOME2, has always been pretty mac-like in some ways, again, on the surface. They're not knockoffs, the have their own identity, they're just slightly familiar with other already established environments.

Exactly, this has been going on since forever. Pick an OS, any OS, and I'm sure you'll find a "heyyyyy they stole that from _____" thread somewhere. Can probably trace "idea borrowing" in software to well before the Alto, CP/M, Unix, etc etc, and it's nothing unique to software. If Microsoft or Apple had a problem with it, I'm sure they'd have released their army of patent lawyers at the GNOME Foundation by now.

That said, sure there's some similarities, but yea hardly a knockoff by any stretch, it's still it's own thing. Don't care for it myself, but when I was experimenting with it I was never for a moment confused as to which DE I was working with, and some of the new features are actually pretty slick. Especially liking how they're handling workspaces.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Pretty nice tool, thanks
    • Indeed. But note that this has Wifi7, HDMI 2.1, BlueTooth 5.4, and 5G Ethernet, so even in the additional features list this bundle blows the Steam Machine away. And, with the money saved, one could improve this dramatically.
    • One of the strangest galaxies in our Universe could help answer some long overdue questions by Sayan Sen Image by Pixabay via Pexels | Not representative An international team of astronomers led by the Department of Astronomy at Tsinghua University has discovered an unusually metal-poor galaxy that may contain signs of first-generation star formation. The galaxy, named Metal-Pristine Galaxy COSMOS Redshift 3 (MPG-CR3), or CR3, was identified using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and the Subaru Telescope. The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, describe CR3 as the most metal-poor galaxy known from the period known as "cosmic noon," around 11.5 billion years ago. Cosmic noon refers to a period when the universe was producing stars at its highest rate and galaxies were growing rapidly. In astronomy, "metals" refers to all elements heavier than helium, including oxygen, carbon, and iron. Because CR3 contains so few of these heavier elements, researchers say it closely resembles what scientists expect the earliest galaxies in the universe may have looked like. The discovery is significant because it could offer clues about Population III (Pop III) stars, the first generation of stars thought to have formed after the Big Bang. These stars are believed to have formed from gas made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, before heavier elements were created inside stars and spread across the universe through supernova explosions. Hence this is why CR3 has been referred to as a "living fossil." Scientists have long believed that Population III stars existed only in the very early universe. As more generations of stars formed and died, they enriched surrounding gas with heavier elements, making the conditions needed for metal-free star formation increasingly rare. Because of this, researchers expected the formation of such stars to have largely ended after the epoch of reionization, a period when radiation from the first stars and galaxies transformed the neutral hydrogen filling the universe and made it largely transparent to ultraviolet light. CR3 appears to challenge that idea. The galaxy was observed at a redshift of z = 3.193 ± 0.016. Redshift measures how much light from a distant object has been stretched as the universe expands and helps astronomers determine how far back in time they are looking. In this case, the redshift corresponds to roughly 11.5 billion years ago during cosmic noon. Although the universe was already several billion years old by that point, CR3 shows characteristics more commonly associated with much earlier galaxies. Observations revealed exceptionally strong emissions from hydrogen and helium, including Lyα, Hα, and He I λ10830. Lyα, or Lyman-alpha emission, is a specific wavelength of light produced by hydrogen and is widely used to study distant galaxies. Hα emission is another hydrogen signature commonly used to trace active star formation, while He I λ10830 is produced by helium and can indicate the presence of very hot, young stars. The measured equivalent widths of EW₀(Lyα) = 822 ± 101 Å and EW₀(Hα) = 2814 ± 327 Å are among the highest ever observed in star-forming galaxies. Equivalent width is a measure of the strength of an emission line relative to the surrounding light, and such large values are typically associated with intense and very recent star formation. At the same time, researchers found no statistically significant detections of metal emission lines, including [O III] λλ4959, 5007 and C IV λλ1548, 1550. Emission lines act as chemical fingerprints that reveal which elements are present in a galaxy. Oxygen and carbon lines are commonly seen in galaxies that have already undergone significant chemical enrichment. Their absence in CR3 suggests an unusually pristine environment. Using abundance calibration methods developed with JWST observations, the team placed a 2σ upper limit on the galaxy's gas-phase metallicity of 12+log(O/H)<6.52, corresponding to less than 0.7% of the Sun's metallicity (Z < 7 × 10⁻³ Z⊙). Gas-phase metallicity measures the abundance of heavy elements in a galaxy's gas. A 2σ upper limit indicates that the true value is very unlikely to be higher than the quoted threshold. Even when accounting for uncertainties in the calibration methods, the most conservative limit remains 12+log(O/H)<6.95, making CR3 the most metal-poor galaxy identified at cosmic noon. The galaxy also appears to contain very little dust. Researchers measured a Lyα/Hα flux ratio of 13.9 ± 2.5, a result that suggests negligible dust attenuation, meaning very little of the galaxy's light is being absorbed or scattered by cosmic dust. Because dust is usually produced by earlier generations of stars, this finding further supports the idea that CR3 has experienced very little chemical enrichment. Further analysis using spectral energy distribution modelling, a technique that compares observed light with theoretical models, suggests that CR3 contains an extremely young stellar population only around 2 million years old. The modelling, which used Population III stellar templates, also indicates the galaxy has a stellar mass of approximately 6.1 × 10⁵ M⊙. The symbol M⊙ represents one solar mass, or the mass of the Sun. One of the key questions raised by the discovery is how such a chemically primitive galaxy could exist in a universe that had already spent billions of years producing heavier elements. To investigate this, the researchers examined CR3's surroundings. Their analysis suggests the galaxy may lie in a slightly underdense environment, with a density contrast of roughly δ ≈ −0.12. An underdense region contains less matter and fewer galaxies than average. The team suggests that this relative isolation may have helped preserve pockets of pristine gas. Metal-rich material expelled from nearby galaxies may never have reached CR3, while the lower rate of galaxy mergers and interactions could have slowed the mixing of enriched gas into the system. If future observations confirm these findings, CR3 could provide some of the strongest evidence yet that first-generation star formation continued well after the epoch of reionization. Such a result would challenge the conventional view that pristine star formation ended by z ≳ 6 and suggest that small pockets of metal-free gas survived much longer than previously thought. Researchers stress that more observations will be needed to determine the galaxy's true nature. Future spectroscopic studies with higher resolution and better signal quality could help confirm whether CR3 is genuinely hosting Population III star formation. The discovery is also expected to encourage searches for other similar galaxies, which could help astronomers better understand how the first stars formed and how galaxies evolved in the early universe. Source: Tsinghua University, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "I think in the immediate absence of a partner to apply relief" In the words of Sterling Archer... "Phrasing!"
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      454
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      161
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      107
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      83
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!