Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses Operating Systems BSD

OroborOSX: XDarwin Aqua-Like Window Manager 114

Posted by timothy from the eyes-bulge-out-of-your-head dept.
UnanimousCoward writes: "I've just downloaded OroborOSX, "A modified Oroborus-based X11 window manager for use with XFree86 and XDarwin on Mac OS X." It's truly a wm worthy of standing side-by-side with Aqua in rootless mode. Here are some screenshots from Jonathan Tyzack (I'm too lazy to create my own, but my experience is the same). Using MacGimp under OroborOSX is awesome ..." The original Oroborus looks interesting as well; the original author has discontinued work on Oroborus, but it looks like the code has found a nice new application.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OroborOSX: XDarwin Aqua-Like Window Manager More

OroborOSX: XDarwin Aqua-Like Window Manager

Comments Filter:
  • Any bets on when Apple will discontinue this project? :-)

    • So people should now grab a copy of the code before Apple has a chance to squash it. The more the better since that increases the chances of derivatives.

      On the other hand, the Aqua UI may become passé and people will be flocking to the next UI flavor.

    • Apple's not going to try to kill this. (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Apple knows the Aqua UI is very important to the sale of OS X, and hence they try to squash Aqua clones for competing platforms, as people would just say "Why buy OS X? I already have an Aqua-like UI". However, since this is meant mainly for people running X on their OS X box, it will not take away from Apple's sales, and thus Apple's not going to go after it.

  • When can we expect a lawsuit from Apple? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ostiguy ( 63618 ) on Friday October 19, 2001 @07:23AM (#2450834)
    I am saying 2 weeks. Should be the next slashdot poll.

    ostiguy
    • According to the usual poll-duration time on slashdot, the lawsuit should be concluded by the time they have changed the poll, so your prediction would be a little too late, then. ;-)
      • Interesting. Do you think we should advance meta-events polls that attempt to predict the future?
        Example:

        What is the most disgusting thing about Apple suing some guys who make an OSX looking WM?

        1. That at the same time Apple execs are fellating Adobe and MS execs while looking for Aqua-ized versions of their apps.

        2. Apple fan boys applauding apple's legal action in this week's news column after last week's news column calling out Adobe and MS for aqua-ized versions of their apps.

        ostiguy
        • What is the most disgusting thing about Apple suing some guys who make an OSX looking WM?

          1. That at the same time Apple execs are fellating Adobe and MS execs while looking for Aqua-ized versions of their apps.

          This is perfectly logical. Apple don't want Aqua-like stuff to appear on non-Apple platforms, but at the same time they want everything on their platform to look like Aqua.

          This is a simple branding issue. Apples sell partly on their look and feel (compare G4 cases to your average grey PC tower) so keeping Aqua unique to themselves is a must if they're to avoid diluting one of their selling points.

          Similarly, if there are apps on OS X that don't look like Aqua, this also detracts from the Aqua look and feel, so it's in Apple's interests to promote Aqua development on OS X.
          • Don't forget that an equally important aspect is that Apple doesn't want people to interact with something that looks like Aqua and doesn't work right.

            Don't forget that Apple is in a very sensitive position. They're moving to a whole new OS, and a whole heck of a lot of people (many in the press) can't wait to see a stumble. If people don't even bother using the OS because they used a skin for Windows XP that kind sucked, Apple is in deep doo-doo. As far as they can see, this is the only good approach.
    • Well they allow the Aqua mozilla themes to be used for OSX as well as the Aqua QT "skins". Seems to me their main problem is with Aqua copyists on other platforms. Strikes me they might let it be if it were to be distributed for OS X use alone

    • Since it only runs on OS X, I doubt they care that much. It isn't emulating the Aqua look & feel, it is the Aqua look & feel: "OroborOSX is a Carbon-based application for Mac OS X.". It requires the Apple Developer Tools to build.

      I wish it said that more clearly on the site though, so I didn't have to download it and decipher the RTF (!) format readme to find out for sure.

  • You can't make this stuff up! (Score:5, Funny)

    by ColaMan ( 37550 ) on Friday October 19, 2001 @07:33AM (#2450842) Journal

    "It's truly a wm worthy of standing side-by-side with Aqua in rootless mode."

    Just try throwing that line into your next after-dinner party.
    Extra points if you can keep a straight face , and saying it at LAN parties doesn't count :-)

  • Does it work on an x86 processor as well with linux?

  • Note: for OSX and Darwin only (Score:5, Informative)

    by soboroff ( 91667 ) on Friday October 19, 2001 @07:40AM (#2450852)
    Note that you will need to be running OSX (or Darwin?) to build or run this; it is a Carbon app. This isn't immediately obvious from the web page... I just assumed they hadn't tried it on anything but OSX.

    Ah, well, back to E...

    • Re:Note: for OSX and Darwin only (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "...for use with XFree86 and XDarwin on Mac OS X."

      yeah, not obvious at all. thankfully somebody modded up your informative post.
    • Is it actually a Carbon app using the Aqua widget library, or self made transparency and widgets?

      If they use the widget libraries that Apple provides, then they would get transparency, soft shadows, the widgets, and a bunch of other things 'for free' without having to design and redesign the widget set. Otherwise it may run afoul of Apple Legal, like the old Mozilla Aqua skin.
    • I've been using this and its earlier versions for a while.

      The latest version is a real mac OS X app, i.e. not something of interest to non-mac users (but of great great interest to mac users! Get it!). However, if you go back to a previous version (I can't say which since the site is slashdotted) it will be a normal Xwindow wm. On the other hand, it's really meant to be run in rootless mode on OSX and I don't think anyone would like it much as a wm on its own.

      In response to another response to this post, he drew all the graphics himself; nothing is Apple's.
  • I love the Aqua interface and am running Xfree86 with Enlightment and different themes to produce the same interface. It's really nice, and looks like the original.

    Check out this [afb.lu.se] screenshot.
    Remove the picture in the URL and you'll see how it's done.

    Ciryon
    • Well it's missing a few things like the shadow effect on the windows etc but It's almost there.

      I`ve managed to get a similar effect with Gnome and sawfish
    • Why don't you just get a Mac so you can use an even better GUI?
      • It IS a mac.

        It is an Aqua like theme for Xfree86(not to be confused with x86 chip architecture) which enables Macs running OSX to run UNIX applications in the Xwindows environment. This theme just makes them look like Aqua Apps.

        IIRC, rootless mode makes these apps appear within the Desktop; i.e. no switching between the Xwindows desktop and the OSX desktop.
    • Try Mosfet [mosfet.org] in KDE for a beautiful Aquaesque appearance. Quite nice, actually, just a bit buggy in KDE 2.1*...
    • This may sound like at troll, but it's how I honestly feel.

      Do you actually like looking at that? There are globs of pixels everywhere, it's hard to look at, it's distracting.

      I'm a devoted user of Mac OS X, but every estimation of the interface that I've seen has left me with a bad taste in my mouth. The closer people get, the more obvious it is that things are just wrong.

      I installed KDE for fun on my Linux box last weekend, and turned on terminal transparency, which is one of my favorite feature in OS X. I couldn't stop laughing when it just copied the desktop for the background of the window (and ignored any other windows that were below it.) I have great respect for the KDE and GNOME projects, but some of the stuff that they release for "coolness" purposes is so half-assed that I'd be embarrassed to put my name on it.

      I'm staying with OS X. Heck, I installed XFree86 and realized that I don't really have an urgent need to run Gimp (which I think is awful) or XEmacs. It's just fine as it is.
    • sorry, that looks nothing like my OSX desktop. it looks like a badly hacked together cut-and-paste frankenstein collage of the GUI being imitated. i'm also betting that the desktop doesn't *feel* anything like an OSX desktop.

      i have to use a linux desktop at work, but at least i don't try to fake better GUI's. mwm, several xterms, xemacs, ddd and netscape 4 gets the job done for me. it is ugly as all hell but at least its honest :).

      there's still a lot of work to be done on UNIX's desktop UI's. while the functionality is there, there is a total lack of emphasis on look and feel. adding the ability to use shaped pixmaps instead of hardcoded widgets is not the answer. new button textures won't change the fact that things like konqueror's toolbar are brutally ugly. as a coding community, we tend to add bells and whistles before stopping, and just trying to concentrate on refining the user experience for a good while. i'm personally worried that the "UNIX philosophy" is incompatible for the increased refinement of the user experience (or some would argue that it is refined in other ways :)).

      bleh, i'm done rambling. opinions, anyone?
  • It looks pretty much like any other GUI to me. But then, I never get all excited the look of a GUI anyway.

  • More ripoffs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sg3000 ( 87992 ) <<sg_public> <at> <mac.com>> on Friday October 19, 2001 @08:19AM (#2450891)
    I know a lot of people think that anybody should have the right to make a window manager that looks like Aqua, since Apple doesn't own the idea of a "liquid-looking" interface. However, I think this attitude misses an important point.

    Would any of the Aqua rip-offs have been created if Apple hadn't created Aqua? Would Microsoft's Luna look like it does without Apple's Aqua? Of course not, they would have continued with the chiselled grayness look that they did for years.

    It's easy to take the excellent work someone else has done, tweak it, and then claim it's original work. It's a lot harder to start from scratch and build something truly original. Sure, everybody is influenced by something, but the important thing is to make sure that the influence isn't completely obvious. When it is obvious, that's the sign of simply derivative work. If the influence is not obvious, then you've got creative work. And Apple should have the right to sue the hell out of anyone who creates derivitive works that dilute their own stuff. That means, if it isn't running on Apple hardware running Mac OS X, it shouldn't look like Aqua.

    The general consensus at Slashdot seems to be: (1) Aqua sucks, (2) but looky, I can recreate it as a Window manager for my putty colored, 15-mouse-button-equipped, hand-assembled computer, (3) and Apple doesn't have the right to protect their look/feel anyway.

    Not intended to be a flame; it's just too early in the morning for me.
    • Apple also has copied pretty liberally. For example, features like smooth shadows, transparency, attached dialog boxes, 3D buttons and widgets, and icon scaling on mouse-over have existed in other systems.

      I think X11 window managers should provide smooth shadows, some transparency, and attached dialog boxes, because they can make UIs genuinely easier to use. But that isn't "ripping off Apple", it is using well-known UI techniques. The liberal use of gumdrops and color in Aqua, OTOH, are actually not such a good idea and it is best not to duplicate them.

    • Would Microsoft's Luna look like it does without Apple's Aqua?

      would windows be the bloated monster it is today without 'inspiration' ??? I don't think so!
    • And Apple should have the right to sue the hell out of anyone who creates derivitive works that dilute their own stuff. That means, if it isn't running on Apple hardware running Mac OS X, it shouldn't look like Aqua.

      Hm... the package is a binary that runs on Apple computers with X11 in rootless mode under Mac OS X. Sounds like this one fits your criteria for non-sueing.

      • As per my reading, I don't think the poster was commenting about the sue-ability of the current topic, but was speaking abstractly about how Slashdot reacts to such stories.

    • Re:More ripoffs (Score:4, Insightful)

      by squaretorus ( 459130 ) on Friday October 19, 2001 @10:33AM (#2451263) Homepage Journal
      I personally feel that to argue that derivative work is somehow ... Bad ... is a bit off the mark. Every major art movement in history has been based on a group of artists feeding off each other in a certain vein producing work that looks similar when compared to the establishment, but with significant differences.

      I love my 'iMac' kettle. Its a kettle, but it has an iMac 'feel' about it. It's great! Personally, I feel the kettle designer guy that saw an iMac and thought 'I can do that to a kettle!' was inspired!

      Lexus tries to make their cars look like Mercedes. Everyone knows this - everyone that owns a Lexus would like a Mercedes if they are honest - they just can't afford the 40% extra for one. But why shouldn't they be able to enjoy something like a Mercedes for less? This is democratic design in action - Apple has improved the world by making Aqua so pretty - lets all nick it and enjoy it in cheaper forms! Increase the peace! Spread the joy!

      And to argue that Apple will stop innovating if everyone gets to copy it is like argueing Mercedes will stop making cars because Lexus is getting close! Apple exists because it innovaties and enough people will pay the premium for Macs because they are prettier.
      • Apple is not suing people for creating shiny interfaces. Apple is suing people for creating interfaces with white and light-gray stripes on menus and titlebars, rounded blue scrollbars and buttons, close/minimize/zoom buttons that look like little red/yellow/green drops of liquid, etc. Most of the themes that Apple has gone after actually stole bitmaps directly from Mac OS X, and many even included the Apple logo! That's about as clear-cut as copyright violation can get; no argument over "trade dress" or similar topics is required. Since you bring up cars, it has, in fact, been ruled illegal to directly copy the design of another car.
    • In this particular case, I don't think Apple really should complain - If people can use Unix applications under Aqua in a nice way, that will bring more users to the OSX platform. This works only on Apple's stuff, if I read this correctly.

      As far as derivative looks is concerned, it's not really a case of not being original. We want users. Users know how to interact with only a few environments, and those environments are all commerical OS environments. They are not willing to try a free OS unless it is an almost zero effort proposition. Ergo, we have to accomitate that if we want to get users.

      Blackbox is simple, elegant, efficient, and my window manager of choice. It also doesn't look remotely like MacOS* or Windows. However, if I were to sit anyone else down in front of it who had not seen it before and say "write a report for English" they would freak out. So for them it's not effective, despite being (IMHO) a clean, simple and efficient working environment.

      People want familiar. And if this think can make Unix apps a little more familiar for Aqua users, I think the only thing anyone, including Apple, should have to say is thanks.
    • Would Microsoft's Luna look like it does without Apple's Aqua?

      Yes. I mean, just put them side by side for crying out loud! How can you think Luna was derived from Aqua?

      If you squint at Luna, it looks more like LCARS [lcarscom.net] than Aqua. Maybe Paramount [startrek.com] should sue MS instead of Apple.

      steveha

    • I disagree with you wholly and completely %100 with you notion and belief in 'everyone being influenced by something'. True, pure originality does exist in the universe. Everything that exists now exists because at some point in history a truly unique and original thought was created in the mind of a man/woman that was wholly and completely uninfluenced by even one single outside factor. Uniqueness in genius is a fact. As a Pure Mathematician I wholly understand and believe that pure, true, uninfluenced originalty exists. When a new mathematical idea, something never, ever before thought of or imagined appears upon the world, no one ever worries as to how it came about. True genius is never copied and never derived from something else. As an influence in the world, every single idea, thought, belief, art form, dream had to have one single, original, externally unaffected and uninfluenced beginning. At the Doctoral level (Ph. D) of Mathematics pure original thought becomes artform. Dreams become reality. Pure, unifluenced, original dreams. True originality does exist. A true genius is never unoriginal. There are always ideas and dreams and genius that are not just a ripoff of another idea. There are existences in nature which are truly original, truly unique, and truly never imagined or dreamed of or contrived of before in the history of all mankind...and the universe. These are true genius. True originality. And are true beginning. If originality was never unique or original in its essence, we would all still be in caves. Someone, somewhere will dream a dream or think a thought never, ever before imagined. And these are the true changers of the world. Influence doesn't have to be obvious when it is completely original and truly unique in the world. I am sorry for people who feel as you do.
  • maybe I'm just too dumb or no freesoftware-everywhere fanatic, but I don't see why you should'nt use the original MacOSX interface?
    • The obvious Slashdot answer would be "because MacOS X != Linux", but you have a good point there. Why won't these people realize that the most user-friendly Unix-like system isn't available for ordinary PC computers? I did, which resulted in me getting a nice Powerbook.

    • Re:why not use the original? (Score:5, Informative)

      by OwnedByTwoCats ( 124103 ) on Friday October 19, 2001 @09:02AM (#2450994)
      OroborOSX is an X Windows server implementation for MacOS X/Darwin, that presents applications for the X Windows System in a way that fans of Apple's Aqua user interface would find appealing.


      The original MacOS X interface doesn't work for X Windows applications "out of the box".

    • OS X can't run *nix apps that require the Xfree86 GUI libraries. Apple said if you want it on a mac, port it over. It's pretty simple, and it will then be able to cooperate with the rest of the OS X apps.

      Programs like XDarwin let you run Xfree86 GUI apps, but they don't work next to each other very well, and they aren't Aqua unless you add a now hard-to-find Aqua skin. So this is a step in the right direction for both.

      • I run MacOS X at home, and I have Xfree86 installed on it to. Even though I can run it rootless, I find that usually when I need to fire up X11 I'll end up running it rooted (on its own screen -- I use Windowmaker) because the cognitive dissonance is so high switching between OSX apps and X11 apps. Mac and X11 applications aren't the same -- the menus function differently, keystrokes do different things, they don't share a clipboard, etc. etc. etc. I find it's easier to keep things straight if I let each environment have a screen to itself. I can flip between them with a single user-definable keystroke (I use F13) and the switch is instantaneous.
      • Sort of. Apple does not explicitly support X11, but Mac OS X has all the necessary interfaces, and XFree86 runs fine on it. It seems to me that if porting X11 apps to Aqua were all that simple, more of them would have been ported by now.

        XDarwin is just a front-end to XFree86 for Mac OS X. X apps on Mac OS X interoperate with *each other* just fine, they just don't integrate with Aqua and Aqua apps at all.

        I agree with you that this seems to be a step in the right direction, though I haven't tried it yet.
    • I do use the original, but when I want to run X Window appliations the user interface looks very different because of the window manager in use on the Xfree86 side. This kind of project helps make the whole UI more consistent. Bear in mind that the Quartz rendering engine for the Mac OS X display can't display X11 applications.
      • Lots of misinformation attached to this article. Quartz will display anything sent to it by a client application. The usual clients are Aqua applications and the Aqua window manager, but XFree86 can act as a Quartz client as well. That's how rootless X11 on Mac OS X is done. See the XonX project page [mrcla.com] for more on this.
  • I don't care for the Aqua style theme personally but the tranparency in those screen shots are very cool. The only transparency I've seen in Linux/XFree86 is transparency to the desktop... (Which is achieved by automatically copying a pixmap of the desktop into the window of your terminal program.)
    • That is not real transparency of course. Real transparency isn't that hard to do, it just has to be implimented from the start. It looks like Berlin [sf.net] is doing this, though I don't think that it's going to be a replacement for X all that soon.
    • KDE has proper transparency if you install the "High Performance Liquid" theme/style set by Mosfet. You can set stuff like menu backgrounds to be "properly" transparent (not just through to the desktop, actually over the windows below the menu).

  • Gah (Score:3, Interesting)

    by phwiffo ( 139975 ) on Friday October 19, 2001 @08:56AM (#2450976) Homepage

    People, people. It's a window manager that makes X programs fit in better with OS X programs visually. Sure, technically, it could be used on an x86 port of darwin but that really doesn't exist at least in any useable variety.

    So why would apple give a flying fuck? It's making apps that run only on it's hardware platform a little prettier. Whoopie.

    Ya know, sometimes I think the /. editors enjoy watching us fill in the blanks of their half-assed reporting. Then again I guess that's part of the charm of this site..

    • but it's a good thing. Now apps like the Gimp will run next to Appleworks better. Staroffice is still in an alpha state for OS X.

  • Finally a way to get rootless Xfree86 and Themes running in a carbon app with better interoperability with OS X apps.

    Nowm I wonder how it handles with Fink (similiar to apt-get for OS X)..

  • Could someone tell me what this has to do with BSD?

    Oroborus was actually started as a replacement for sawfish, with linux as the primary target. BSD, Darwin, etc, can all run Oroborus easily though.

    The OroborOSX theme/style for Oroborus runs on Oroborus. It runs on BSD yes, but it also runs on everything oroborus runs on.

    BSD isn't dead, but it sure as hell doesn't need our charity. It does what it does - well. And that's all anyone could hope to have said about himself.

    • Re:BSD? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Webmonger ( 24302 )
      The reason this is in the BSD section is because OSX is based on BSD.

      • Re:BSD? (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by barneyfoo ( 80862 )
        OSX (as in the graphical styling) is based on MacOS/NeXT GUI. It sits on top of Darwin which could was itself based on BSD. Alot of good osx is doing for the bsd community anyway.. heh heh. Gee we get a binary only graphical shell for a heavily (even absurdly?) modified, proprietary BSD derivative! CHEER!.....

        Am I the only one who doesn't understand this kind of cheer leading?

        • Re:BSD? (Score:2, Insightful)

          by marmoset ( 3738 )
          Alot of good osx is doing for the bsd community anyway.. heh heh


          Um, how about the fact that engineers working for Apple on Apple's dime are contributing time, debugging, and new code to quite a few open projects? I'd call paying engineers salaries to work free codewhen a lot of other corporations are cutting programmers loose on the streets a pretty major contribution in itself.

  • No serious . . . (Score:5, Funny)

    by slurry47 ( 27097 ) on Friday October 19, 2001 @10:09AM (#2451176)
    . . . Mac user would ever allow that to be the background image of their box. The dust/crud and that white thingy on the front paw would have been Photoshopped out long ago.

  • Yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wazzzup ( 172351 ) <astromacNO@SPAMfastmail.fm> on Friday October 19, 2001 @10:13AM (#2451190)
    ...it looks hideous matched with the unixy-flat grey and squared off buttons inside the pretty Aqua window borders. It's like if someone putting leather seats inside of a Yugo and thinking it stands side by side with his neighbor's Lexus. It comes off as a half-assed knockoff.

    I hear people all the time saying that Linux (and it's most popular apps)are not at all original but merely doing its best to ape other OSes (Linux-Unix, KDE-Windows, GIMP-Photoshop, StarOffice-MS Office). Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of Linux but things like this seem lame and add weight to thier perceptions.
  • XDarwin is a very nice and very easy-to-install implementation of XFree86 which runs on top of OS X. You have now the choice of "rootless" operation where the various X windows lie around, mingling with the normal Aqua windows on your OS X desktop, or the "take-over-the-screen" mode, where it is just like running X with your favorite window manager (several available, as well as the usual X toys like xeyes, etc.) It is available for download at osxgnu.org [osxgnu.org] which also has various window manager systems, including Enlightenment, AfterStep, and more. These are good, easy-to-use installers, and there is also the fink [sourceforge.net] installer which works great.
  • Just like they did the Aqua for Mozilla on OS X; their point being he'd be free to use the Aqua look and feel if he called the Carbon or Cocoa libraries to create the widgets, transparencies, and so on. I don't think he does (please correct me if I'm wrong!).

    If he isn't, than anyone can recompile it for a Linux box and then use the Aqua look and feel, which is gonna get Apple's panties in a twist.

    Someone said two weeks; we'll see :)

    It should be a Slashdot poll.
  • looks nice, i like the fact that you can roll up windows. but resizing x application windows with this window manager is painful. i've tweaked windowmaker to the point where i like it just fine on os x. also, windowmaker comes up a lot faster than this thing.
  • I have Gnome running on MacOS X, and I like having a foreign-looking window manager running. In comparison, I use the banned Aqua X Kaliedoscope theme for my Classic windows, it makes classic windows look just like standard Aqua MacOS X windows. They function so similar to the standard Aqua windows but sometimes it is confusing when you are fooled by the appearance and go for an Aqua feature that isn't available in Classic. But doing this with X Windows is another thing altogether. X Windows functions so radically different that it would be perilous to use an Aqua theme.

  • This is silly, and a generally bad idea . . . (Score:3, Informative)

    by werdna ( 39029 ) on Friday October 19, 2001 @12:29PM (#2451909) Journal
    Look, guys, stepping over the limits of trade dress and product configuration is a really bad idea. Little is gained by doing it, and ultimately much credibility of the virtues of what we do is lost thereby. Vested commercial interests, the real bad guys, like RIAA, MPAA and others have effectively and completely marginalized the technical community, making laws like DMCA and the SCCCA possible.

    Formerly strong political lobbies in technical matters, like those of the ACM and IEEE are now losing credibility in key political circles, and for what? To cock a snoot or two at apple? Puh-leze.

    The screenshot web page, in particular, is very dangerous for a prospective defendant. Particularly by the use of the apple logo at the very bottom, it invites summary responses. And nobody should be surprised or offended when they happen.

    This is bad for Apple, but worse for open source. Apple has the law on its side for this one, and we gain little.

    A recent trademark case in the 11th Circuit made clear that use of a trademark together with open source software (Coolmail) is use in commerce, and this is a GOOD THING. In that case, the basis for the holding resulted in sustaining a trademark owned by the open source coder, and holding that the GPL didn't abandon the mark.

    To defend this use of trade dress/product configuration as non-commercial use basically seeks to gives away and undercut a very important ruling that benefits real developers of real open source product. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
    • The screenshot web page, in particular, is very dangerous for a prospective defendant. Particularly by the use of the apple logo at the very bottom, it invites summary responses.

      Oroborus isn't putting the Apple logo on the screen. That screenshot is of Oroborus running on Mac OS X; Apple's OS is putting Apple's logo on the screen. If I understand correctly what Oroborus does, all it's doing is making the X window apps try to look and act like OS X/Aqua apps.

    • Argh. Pay attention.

      If you're talking about the Apple logo at the bottom of the web-page, this is because it's actually HOSTED by Apple. When you install OSX, you get space to set up a webpage hosted BY THEM. There's no infringement there...in fact I'm sure that it's required.

      If you're talking about the Apple logo in the screenshots...well, what'd you expect?
      • Such hair-splitting (though entirely true and accurate) doesn't make a slight bit of difference, because the overall effect is to create in a casual observer a likelihood of confusion. The issue isn't a question of what "is, is," as one might begin a defamation analysis, but rather one of the overall commercial impact of the page.

        In short, given the broad-based customer base that Apple has, if more than 50% of surveyed non-geek customers would answer that the page suggests affiliation, connection, association, origin, sponsorship or approval, count yourself a loser in court. See 15 U.S.C. s. 1125(a).

        The logo at the bottom doesn't make the case, it just makes proving the case trivial -- however helpful it might seem to point out that the use of the logotype there was an honest one. The overall impact to the marketplace representative (who is hardly as savvy as you), is going to be one leading not only likely to lead to a finding of infringement, but additionally one of willfulness.
  • Does this mean we'll now see the X-Windows version of StarOffice for OSX soon?

    Don't see why Apple should mind.

    These days you see as many apps that have Win32 and X-Windows versions as you used to see that had Win32 and Mac versions. If X-windows apps can (mostly) seemlessly integrate with native Mac apps, that can only be good, right?

    Unless Apple wants to force developers to code to their API's only. But it's kind of too late in the game for that.

  • Just to clear up a few matters... (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    1) The website is currently down because the power to the building which contains the server has been switched off for building work to go ahead -it will be back at about 6-7pm (UK time);

    2) The window frame (and widgets) are not 'true' Aqua -they are pixmaps. I want to use "the real thing", but there are issues at the moment (like OroborOSX does not actually 'own' the windows -XDarwin does, so XDarwin would have to be the one to use 'true' Aqua). Having said that, I'm hoping to hack my way round that at some point and actually use the real thing rather than this pixmap ripoff stuff...

    3) The pixmaps were not originally done by me -they are taken from the 'agua' theme that comes with the 'standard' version of oroborus (v1.14.0). However, that only has two window widgets -red and yellow. I took the yellow one and 'flushed out' the blue part to make a green one. The widgets with the "x - +" symbols for mouseovers were based on these original agua ones, but I added the symbols over the top. The only widget I really did myself was the triangular one for resizing;

    4) There is no way to use the 'real' versions of OroborOSX on anything other than Mac OS X. It is a Carbon-based life-form(!) and taps into the Mac OS X framework (the dock, the menu etc.) to acheive its primary goals (with many more to come!);

    5) As mentioned here, the very first early pre-release was a 'standard' window manager -it could be compiled on just about anything (though why you would want to use it is beyond me -it does not really give anything but an attempt at the look of Aqua window widgets -a complete faade in comparison to true OS X behaviour!)

    Finally, the point of OroborOSX is not to have 'pretty-looking' (well, getting there...) window frames that 'match' the look of Aqua. It is more than a window manager -it is an attempt to turn X11 apps into something that a 'normal' Mac OS X user would expect (at least, as far as possible). It's far from perfect, and there are glaring differences... but, it's early days and I have lots more ideas to come.

    Step by step, I'm dragging my X11 desktop towards integration with the rest of the OS X experience. That's my goal... whatever I achieve of that I will make available for others to try -and if you don't like it, don't use it!!

    Hope that helps!

    Adrian Umpleby
    (who can't be bothered to create an account, and is quite happy to be known as Anonymous Coward ;-)
  • I know this is probably highly unlikely, but if enough people start using XFree86 on their Macs, rootless or not, perhaps Apple, or a bright individual or two at Apple could see fit to make their own x-window manager, complete with a working aqua theme, for use in rootless mode. The sight of a truly seamless xfree86/Aqua experience would more than likely impress Apple techs enough to allow the project to carry on, and be officially supported. Of course, it goes without saying.... the windowmanager and theme would be proprietary, and not opensource, and would of course somehow require OSX to run. I know that will anger people, but I'm just being realistic here folks. Apple isn't going to give away their look and feel to anyone but people that buy Apple hardware, we all know this. Despite that, I think this would be a great idea, as well as one more way to market the OS, especially to scientific/academic types. Thoughts? Suggestions? Flames?
  • Has anyone had problems with backspace when using Mac Gimp or NEdit on OS X with OroborOSX? On my PBG4 it seems that the Delete key (where the backspace key is on PCs... to the right of the += key and above |\ key) acts as a delete key and not backspace... i.e. it deletes the character to the right of the cursor, not the left like it should... its pretty annoying... I would like to use NEdit for the color syntax highlighting but this problem is too annoying so I'm still using emacs (which is fine, I like emacs but it seems the terminal version that ships with OS X does not support color! and I REALLY like color syntax highlighting). Anyway, anyone noticed this? Is there a solution? Thanks

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close