You did not do your research on the Amiga. Your link only mentioned that it was "Macintosh like", and that is what you parroted. Load save on the Amigas Workbench were standardised in 1985, and included the ability to type a file or location.

The Amiga may have had a similar direction (The Macintosh, Atari ST and Amiga all were released within a short period of time, about 12 months of each other. It is hard for one to copy the other without industrial espionage. 

Have a look. You will find the Amigas interface pioneered multiple desktops (in a stack interface), resizing drag bars (depending on how many icons are in the window. They also patented this feature and Microsoft stole it before Commodore disappeared, though Microsoft never felt the need to buy the Commodore patents), CLI from the desktop, animated icons, and many other desktop UI innovations.

The Amigas software pioneered much of what was to come in programs like Photoshop. Layers, painting modes, etc.

Not to mention the things Adobe copied from Quantel, andthen had to prove that others had prior art for these tools that predated Quantels use.

You seem to believe that the world started with Microsoft and Apple. It did not. They have added to the modern toolset, but no one company today can claim that they have not blatantly copied features from a prior system (normally without payment to the patent holder), which now makes any claims by Microsoft hilariously hypocritical. [This thread is over. Ed.]

"[Gnome] even uses most of Windows' keystrokes, like Alt-F4 to close a window, which, oddly, the slightly more Windows-like KDE doesn't."

KDE does by default, unless your distribution has overridden this. kcontrol > Regional & Accessibility > Keyboard Shortcuts > Shortcut Schemes > Close Window : Alt+F4.

I don't know where to start. 1st off, I agree that MS has done a great job. Their suckses is attributable to solid software, continous support, and drop-dead competitivenes. But... MSDOS 1.x was a purchase of a CP/M adaptation to the emerging 16bit hardware. (Even the COPY command was an external program based on PIP.) Then lets look at MSDOS 2.0. Shades of Look And Feel! All of a sudden we have a Unix clone! The MORE command, the pipe "|" operator, heirarchical subdirectories (MS used "\" instead of Unix's "/".) , STDIN, STDOUT, STDERR, and of course MS's rediculous STDPRT. Not only that, but if you were into programming at the time, you would have seen that the entire methode of defining and addressing files changed to the Unix "File Handle" paradigm, from the previous CP/M structure. MS did not purchase this stuff, just took advantage of the fact that Bell Labs was already making the Unix source available to universities. Ok. On to the Windows GUI... Right, Xerox PARC was the origin. Apple was who brought it to market. MS's first Windows, released overseas, was a really bad knockoff of Apple's OS. Anybody Anybody who was into McIntosh laughed at early Windows! And another point regarding Unix vs Windows... If memory serves, all the versions of Windows until version 98 could not even multitask 2 programs! MS relied on something called "cooperative mutitasking" in which a program had to specially compiled to allow the OS to multitask. Note the pre-emptive scheduling has been around a long time. Hey. (Anyone still use a parallel-port printer? Watch what happens TODAY as XP Pro spools your print job.) ....Yes, it is true that the Linux, etc., crowd must follow the GUI desktop wave. And its also true that *nix will prob never run games like MS. But. If you read read some reviews about *nix clones(Anandtech comes to mind), you'll find that keeping many programs running at the same time is no problem. And you'll also see that when the output from A is piped ("|") into B, and then piped into C, All three programs fire up immediately, rather than A buffering to a file, then B reading it and buffering to a file, then C firing up and reading that one. Ok, 1 last comment... Before MSDOS was even marketed, Unix coders, in order to compile a program that uses the "curses" library, you had to include the "windows" library.
.

The main point in this article is very valid.

Linux has turned into an alternative OS solution for what in the old days was called the "IBM PC", nowadays referred to as commodity hardware. It did not come from a need of an unsupported task completion or improving how a user can interact with a computer. It came from people wanting to do their "own" system, more or less for the pride of it. That means "Computer Geeks" for most of us. 

What made Commodore, Apple, DR (for Atari) or even Microsoft very different is that they tried (or still try) to give people an easier time to accomplish tasks. I have not seen any groundbreaking solution from the Linux crowd and frankly believes this is the greatest downside of the open source community. It takes vision and a certain amount of dictatorship over all people involved to pull that feat off.

Yes Linux is free and would (if it became the defacto standard OS) stop any single company from taking monopoly over the OS market. But that is the only really good thing about it. Talk of optimised code is completely irrelevant to 99,9% of the population. 

I mean since Linux "copies" Windows in sake of getting people to move over to Linux, what are we really accomplishing? We might save a buck or two, but we are not improving the lives of the users. And don't tell me that we can move them over to something else later. The "I go for what I'm used to" principle would prevent that.

In my eyes that is the really interesting point in this article. Where is the vision? What is the real drive? The truth, in my eyes, is that Linux will be the geeky system forever, used by a minority of people who "know better". Or like to think so. The only thing that can change that, is if someone starts looking at the creation of a GUI from the groundlevel up, in relation to the 2007 (or even 2012...) needs from a user perspective. What do people want to accomplish today? How can we empower them in the best way? There is a massive potential since both Mac and Windows have a certain amount of need to maintain a status quo for sakes of future sales to existing users.

So, Who is looking out for the stuff that we want to do in the future?

@PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.:
Stop it Pitr, that is too funny, go back into you Cartoon at Userfriendly.org. I love that Language though...

Actually GNU/Linux was never meant for Innovation. It was just some good peoples thought to make a free OS that isn't bound to have the same fate as Unix had - to be Patented and Licensed by Companies while actually coded for free distrubution purposes not even by these Companies.
It was just thought of a Unix alternative to run Unix Application. Early Desktops resembled the Acorn a lot and also the Solaris and Irix or AIX Desktops of that time.
Gnome and KDE were never a Solution for the People who actually worked on the Linuxkernel. They were just adopted by a large Mass of Flies which tasted the Shit Microsoft produced and like Flies usually do, couldn't get enough of that.

Actually XFCE or Enlightment are no Desktops just plain windowmakers, you could use that with any Desktop Enviroment. And Roxfiler is just the Desktop, you can use it with any Desktopless Windowmanager like fluxbox or blackbox.
Enviroment is a really important addition to the Desktop term, because actually a Linuxdistribution is even more than a Desktop. A Desktop only has the Applications who everybody uses, that would be something to Write, a Calculator, Clock, A Filemanager and nowadays also some Game and something like Powerpointless. But Linux is a lot more than that. It also brings specialised Applications and more Important - you have the Choice. You have the Choice everytime, you have it when you choose your Distribution, when you choose Your Desktop, Windowmaker, Emerge or Synaptic, OO Draw or Scribus, vi or emacs. Thats the whole Point of Linux, thats what is actually totally different from any OS. If you want to use those Programms that resemble windows - go on, thats your Choice like everything in GNU is Your Choice.

Actually there is Innovation on the Linuxdesktop. Linux has evilved so much and there are so many free programmers that contribute to a Software Pool that even Microsoft isn't able to hire a similar working Force. So of course there is a lot of Innovation and its only time when Linux is taking over Windows. It takes a lot of time though, but isn't it quite a often Paradoxon that People get most conservative which Brand they choose when it comes to things like Cars, Mobiles or Computers that change faster than their brain can think?
Beryl, now Compiz Fusion was a real Innovation in user Interface. and Compiz was also the first implementation of a 3D desktop and Microsoft is the Follower as will Apple. If you configure it right it can be a really useful addition to a desktop System. The problem is that it is still too complicated for people. If its about User Interfaces the people don't want to have the choice, they just want something preconfigured which they don't have to setup. But of course the preconfigured thing must work for them like they want it. 
- It doesn't do that often. But even if there is the choice to set it up like they expect it to look and function, they just don't take that Choice.

- Thats Users... can't complain about that, am only Sysadmin no Techsupport, they have a lot more to complain than me... its only the Users Choice to get a better and more economic Desktop, but they don't take it, they always miss choices, must be some kind of fate that only IT Tech can even see the Choices...

Well, I am an application developer of Linux. As we know, recently a newly popular UI called multi-finger touch is raised by Apple iPhone. Now guess what? tons of products would use this. But wait! Lots of lots of patents block ahead, they must pay for them. Well...?
I am researching for a new possible substitute, I do not know if patent would block me. I found MPX at http://wearables.unisa.edu.au/mpx/
So, imagine that if your gadget device equipped with ordinary single point touch screen with an extra tracker-based mouse; and you have two hands. Now it is a poor but maybe new idea of X Window system is born. The only thing would be a killer application (or maybe a powerful window manager) to deal with two mouse cursors. So, how about this? Now just open VI and write down some GPL codes for remain of us to reuse. That's collaborated innvoation.

A comment was made about cars (gear shift, four wheels, etc.). What folks may not realize is that there were as many (and in inflation adjusted dollars) even more expensive lawsuits about just these things (with a couple of recent lawsuits over windshield wipers). There were lawsuits over how to start the car (button on dash, button on floor), the shift lever on the dashboard was patented, but (if I recall) the floor shift was ruled unpatentable while the column shift WAS patented, etc.

A LOT of money was spent.

There is a document - I believe written by IBM - that specifies a lot of what you describe. Of course I can't find it using now too common keywords like "desktop", "windows", "specification".

The specification or standard describes dialog box "OK" and "Cancel" buttons as well as many other look and feel items you mentioned.

Lotus sued Paperback over their version of a spreadsheet and lost on the look and feel portion of the lawsuit - if I recall correctly. I think they had more luck with how their macros were replicated.

The article's author count on the fact that most people have no experience or close-to-ignorance on historical facts and exposure to other OSes.

What the author did not actually know is that those are simply configurations of KDE and GNOME desktop. Thus, the real innovation in GNU/Linux desktops are of its configurability. I usually change the default desktop organization in Ubuntu. And, for those users who are used to Mac OSX, I placed items to closely mimic that of MAC OSX.

This kind of article reminds of the story "The boy who cried wolf!!!" MS is counting on the fact that the more you repeat a lie it somewhat becomes credible in the long time.

Although I'm no expert in legal matters, I'm inclined to think that Mr. Kooiker has made a very good point. We should hope that this principle will prevail. As for the appearance of the desktop, I daresay that most Linux users would not want their desktop to closely resemble that of a Windows machine.

The article is courageous and it reaches the core of the Linux vs. Windows matter.
Linux distros do not benefit from looking like Windows. People who want a Windows-like free alternative will always notice the minor differences and ultimately see Linuxes as cheap and restrictive clones. Macs (along with their NOT Vista OS X) sell because they are not PC's (with Bill OS).

That the interface is only a small part of the issue. The interface is the faceplate, the candy shell, the exterior paint job. The innovative thing about Linux is that you can customize it any way you want to. You can make it look and feel like Windows, you can make it look and feel like MacOS, you can make it look and feel like AmigaOS, or RISC OS, or NexTStep, or whatever you want. 

Two very innovative new projects that don't have anything like them, really include Enlightenment (so it's been around a while, have you seen DR17, lately) and Compiz (sure Vista and Leopard have fancy effects, but not nearly the selection and range of effects as you can get with Compiz). 

The major issues with Linux adoption include things like Unfinished work, visible bugs and IT DOESN'T COME BUNDLED ON A PC AT THE STORE! You see Linux PC's and Notebooks on the shelves at Best Buy and at Walmart, and at XYZ CompuShop and you will see more widespread Linux addoption. Dell selling Linux computers is a start. The new Google-Linux PC that Walmart is now selling is another step. Step-by-step, linux adoption is growing. 

How long before Linux passes MacOS on the desktop? I don't know, but I see it happening. How long before Linux passes Windows on the desktop? I don't know. That is a lot farther off, but again I see it as a probability. (call me optimistic, because I may be).

On the other hand, how much innovation has there been in the Windows interface? or the Mac interface? When compared to the window managers of Linux, you might go so far as to ask how they got away with calling it "Windows" when there is so much more you can do with a [/i]proper[/i] window manager.

Next someone will pop up claiming copyright on the steering wheel and brake/clutch/accelerator arrangement in all cars. When I worked for Lesney Products in the 1960's we spent some energy reminding journalists that the Matchbox name should be spelled with a a capital, fearing that Matchbox would become a generic like Dinky or Hoover. Sadly, the Matchbox name has almost gone the same way as Dinky Toys or the pre-eminence of Hoover in vacuum cleaners. The Windows desktop is unarguably a generic currently but will probably be surpassed by something better before anyone gets to court.

The GUI wars over the years have been interesting. Everyone wants to make the claim that they originated the idea and thus have the right to demand royalties and loyalities. The problem is that the GUI itself has become something of the public domain through use.To design something too different would risk the public not accepting it. Besides, trading, barrowing and even stealing ideas is just business in the history of computers. Cars are made to be driven yet there are many designs, styles. Ink pens the same. We all have a face, same function, different look. To argue who is supreme on the desktop is kind of silly. Why should Linux distinguish itself from Microsoft or Apple with a GUI that is so different from what users are using? I don't believe Linux should do anything different than Microsoft or Apple. If you really think about it Linux has had many ideas already that both Microsoft and Apple have perfected for years. It becomes a matter of trend and fashion and what the OS makers preceive that the user community will like. I will agree that you can find some elements that all GUI's share, but I must say that the GUI is not the operating system which bears the real difference. So all that being said, the notion of ripping-off, copying and even imitating is not a fare assumption.

What about geos. I had Geoworks running on dos with a GUI far better than anything by MS before windows 3.1 came on the scene. it ran on 650k as well. it was a great system but only lacked a com. interface which was in its infancy at the time as well. A few German and South Africans tried to keep it going but it fell by the wayside due to the overpowering might of MS.

It does seem rediculous that the FOSS community ignores the most open gui desktops in favour of ones that mimic the proprietary desktops of Windows and the MAC, when FOSS is supposed in some senses to be the enemy of proprietary software. In particular GNUSTEP was the gui system selected by the FSF and I believe Mr Stallman himself to be the official FSF desktop.
I have tried both systems myself but with little success however. GNUSTEP requires a rocket scientist to get it up and running. The packages pointed to on the website are for real old systems (at least they were when I used them), and the packages supplied with Debian for example did not work properly. Unfortunately the GNUSTEP developers seem to have little interest in promoting their system, or at least thats the way it looks to me. Similar siutation with ROX. You need to know the system well at a technical level to get it all up and running. No way an ordinary user is going to have any success doing it. Unless the authors of these systems push harder to get them adopted, or at least make it easy to install them on an existing distro, they are never likely to catch on.
Funny that despite the ever increasing number of distros (there must be hundreds), as far as I know not a single one of them supports either desktop. But they do have different wallpapers - that must be what freedom of choice is all about.

There are several aspects to software patents:
1)software is not patentable. Software patents are not recognized in most of the world, except Japan and the USA. By the terms of the US laws, you cannot patent an idea or concept. All of the things described in this article are mere ideas. You can get a computer to do anything it is physically capable of doing if you know what you want done. There is no innovation or patentable idea in reshaping a window. Prior art could go back to the iris on a camera...
2)It was the early years when Apple and M$ stole/borrowed ideas from Xerox Parc. Neither has a right to patent those ideas. The recent suit against RedHat by a patent troll could well clear up software patents for good. M$ has far more to lose by taking this matter to court. FUD has value. Getting trashed in public court proceedings has none.
3)Any of the relevant patents have long since expired. Terms are 15 to 17 years. How long have windows been resized on this planet? I was working with rectangular regions of screen in the 1980s. Standard practice was to specify the size somehow. A mouse is just a couple of shaft encoders which were around long before that...
4)M$, as big as it is cannot sue the whole world. GNU/Linux can code aroundanything they can throw out. GNU/Linux can go underground. Suing Linux would make it a popular passtime.

M$ will not sue anybody for running GNU/Linux.

You are correct: most readers will be too young to know that there were at least three generations of "desktop" prior to the history you provide. Much of the DOS software just prior to Windoze 3 remains superior IN PRODUCTIVITY to today's software. This is for two reasons:

1. Each software designer was free to develop an interface suitable to the task. Great examples of alternative interfaces are Novell's C-worthy (used in NetWare utilities), FrameWorks, Clarion for DOS, InfoSelect for DOS, Word 3.x for DOS, and Ventura for DOS. An earlier generation included the Wang interface which presaged the LAN-based office systems. All different interfaces, all highly productive.

2. Software used to take much more account of keyboard ergonomics. When Mac and Windoze arrived, they keyboard was dismissed as history, and things started to take much longer. IBM at the time did a study which showed that a mouse-oriented GUI provided something like a 30% drop in productivity. Of course, once the market "spoke" they shut up about this. It was about this time that we started hearing about carpal tunnel. Today, the keyboard is a monstrosity lacking a full-size backtab key, saddled with misplaced caps and control keys, and suffering from function keys placed outside the useful range of finger reach, thus killing of the most useful control-function# keyboard "sneaks" which made WordPerfect so popular.

How stupid is it that someone can actually patent an idea as simple and bleeding obvious as the start button on the Windos desktop, or the X close box on the right hand side of a window. Ive worked most of my life in software development, and the problem i had was not coming up with new ideas of that kind, but of choosing between the hundreds of similar ideas that kept popping into my head. Thinking up things this basic is dead easy. Being allowed to patent them is absurd. Hey just got an idea - i might try and patent the previous sentence (Being allowed to patent them is absurd). Wonder if thats been used before. Mmmmm.

Your article is informative, but gives the reader a misleading sensation that the *little Linux people* must change their ways and comply with the wishes of the Big Bad Microsoft in order to avoid being squashed (like the rest of the world that MS seems to need to try and control and dominate at all times). I feel that most if not all the *ideas* you attribute to Microsoft were prior art stolen from others, and that this would also be brought to light in any potential court drama.

But the real question here is: who has the most to lose? Particularly when you consider that the *little Linux people* consist of IBM, Google, Novell, and many others, the combined patent portfolio of which dwarfs Microsoft's by a huge margin. Can Microsoft stop the distribution of Linux, an open-source OS which develops so rapidly that last month's code is ancient history, and any supposed issues can be skirted in hours? Compare this to MS's 5 year multi-billion dollar development cycle, with lots of CD's, DVD's in distribution and strorage. You will quickly see why the *Bully Ballmer* is confined to uttering idle threats while shoring up puppet attacks AKA SCO and IP Innovation/Acacia. If Microsoft, a company with such a great ability to pay and in such a vulnerable condition if an order was given to cease the distribution and use of their OS's and other products, was foolish enough to try an push a legal button themselves, this would indeed be Self (and not Mutually Assured) Destruction. So, as the FOSS says, go ahead, Steve, make OUR day...

...to mention the innovative "Sugar" interface developed by the OLPC folks.

Why do I feel the last couple of decades have been wasted on 'gilding the lilly'.
Whats the point of a fancy font when no-one other than systems analysts/programmers should ever look at the data that should merely be passed between computers.
We've used the computer to design different saddles for a horse when the computer itself is a space rocket.

Being terminally impatient I didn't get past the summary. We have lived, for some time now, with Microsoft's business model of adopting all the nice trinkets that 3rd party developers make for their current system into their next OS update and by doing so demolished any opposition. Linux's biggest contribution in innovation is to do exactly the same except provide it for free – that is just the way it should be!

How original was Microsoft when it copied system calls from CP/M to DOS?




Those things you say are configurations done on Gnome and KDE. You can even make GNOME / KDE look like MAC OSX Dekstop. Therefore, there's more innovation in GNU/Linux Desktop when it comes to configurability than windows. And, oooh what about the Virtual Desktops? And, beryl? 

By the way, 3D comes to open source first. Windows Vista proves how they can beat GNU/Linux in producing the most awful and the most resource hungry and most insecure desktop OS. So far, other OS can't take this patented product result of MS.

Desktop GNU/Linux are simpler to operate then Windows. I used to grow up with Windows and took GNU/Linux a try. When I got used to the working of GNU/Linux i wonder why i'd put up with the cumbersome UI of Windows in all those years. tsk-tsk.

also, in what area is it that Mac OSX is not more advance or equally advance as that of Windows? I was able to use Mac OSX it took me some time to find things I need to do simply because I'm not used to it yet. But given Windows Vista and Mac OSX Desktop... i chose Mac OSx Organization and features than Windows Vista.

I used to administer winXP from time to time and I find the menus too cumbersome to work with.

The author's article is counting only on the majority of readers that have no idea or little experience on other OS Desktops. Well, bad news for the author, I was exposed to GNU/Linux, Mac OSX, and Windows.


article. I too wish for more inspiring interfaces. Windows *is* clunky. It is actually one of the reasons I don't bother with linux. If it it looks the same, feels the same, is the same. Why should I care?
The killer app for Linux is a new better desktop. One that outclasses all that has been done before. One that makes me drool and shiver with anticipation of what will happen when I click something. Linux can go there, but does any of the Linux programmers *want* to go there? Or are they happy to sit there in complacency and copy windows?

Standardized user interfaces is rubbish, true communist crap. Learning an interface is five minutes, if it's cool, you'll *want* to do it. Though I never knew you could get nextstep on linux, used to love that. Maybe I give it a spin.

cheers

Don't you think all the cars around us look a bit the same. Oh, God, we even find wheels and doors in almost the same places. Oh, NO. How could it be?
And you know what, last time I visited my friends house his fridge looked very similar to mine, just different label and curvature. Oh, no and all TVs are square. Xboxs joystick is very similar to PS, just different color and buttons shape. Do you want me to carry on?

Whats wrong with you, people? Are you feeling OK?

most of the answers to this funtionality you have yourself answered by listing all the previous OS's that had similar features. Its all about the prior art.

You write CDE off very quickly as primitive, but a lot of those ideas you list as copied from microsoft were already in there, window buttons etc. a clock in the bottom left of a bar along the bottom of the screen. A button you can click for a menu to come up with further programs to launch. Maybe more primitive, but there was a lot in it. (And i still like and use it, you heartless *&^**^)

Still, your right in many ways. I doubt microsoft is making these noises if they didnt have *some* "evidence". Mind you i said that when SCO started making noise too, so im probably wrong.

But when you say OSS is hopelessly unprepared, well im not too certain but i believe there are patent pools etc and a lot of money out aside for OSS?

i hope a lot can be defeated with prior art, and because of the nature of linux im sure the rest can be worked around.

The writer wasn´t defending Windows neither attacking Linux. He just pointed that there´s open source GUI´s out there that can be used without braking any MS patents.
You can´t say that Linux´s GUI need to resemble Windows just to make it easy to people use it, or move from windows to Linux. As the writer said, there´s options that can be used legally.

Reading this article, particularly the bit about RISC OS, nearly brought a tear to my eye. I was a massive, massive RISC OS enthusiast up until the late 90's and reading this reminded me of what an utterly fantastic OS it is. Even now, nearly a decade since I last used it, it still contains numerous useability features that continue to elude the most modern and advanced desktops.

Gauge

I would agree that a lot of Window Managers have a Windows or Mac look and feel. Though I have been using KDE as my full time interface since the Alpha 1.0 days and often times I find there are many innovations there that later show up in Windows or Office. When I saw Vista, I thought, "Finally, MS is catching up to everyone else." I am sure the people using Mac OS X day in and day out felt the same way. Sure MS changed it a little here and a little there, but translucency on the desktop, who put it on there first? The desktop applets?

I guess it is easy to argue that MS patented a lot of things first, but in my 20 years using computers, I never saw them innovate anything useful. That view may be myopic, but that is what I think. As for the distros, well they can always change the look a little when it is shipped out. For me, every time I start KDE up for the first time, I am given a huge list of styles to make it emulate. There may be some core methodologies that might be harder to change, but it seems both KDE and GNOME are moving forward at a faster rate then the big guys.


Its a shame apple did not have the financial resources back then, because microsoft would not have th Gui . Now Microsoft goes after everyone trying to stop innovation.and anything that resembles Windose . Imagine buying a new car,any brand .and they all have the same engine,sure you can replace the engine after you buy th,e car,but that company that made the engine still gets paid even if you dont want or use it , or replace it. NOW apply this to microsoft.same engine any pc. they still get paid whether you use it or not. I thing every pc maker should be mandated to offer at least two operatiing systems on every pc . . once the consumer registers the OS,then and only then should the operating system company be paid

Anyone used to use Ataris back in the day before Windows? They use the same method of opening, moving, closing and resizing windows. The idea that Microsoft invented this is laughable. Microsoft are just a bunch of people who see other ideas, make a second rate copy them and make obscene amounts of money for it. 

Microsoft know they don't have a leg to stand on which is why they make all these threats, but never carry them out. They are just hoping that FUD will carry them through in the aftermath of the Vista disaster and people waking up to the alternatives Linux provide. 

KDE4 is coming along soon as well which apparently changes a lot of these ways of working.

While it IS true that both KDE and GNOME in their base forms appear to be like Windows, the similarities end there. From codebase to licensing to design, they are quite literally and completely different. For example, can you resize the bottom bar in Vista or XP?.. NO! You can in KDE, and you can even make KDE look like Mac OSX, or something completely different. Can you change the main Menu structure or layout in Leopard?.. NO! But you CAN in GNOME, and again, you can make GNOME look like KDE, or XP, or whatever. So, you can say all you like that GNOME and KDE infringe, but if taken to court and argued, the true merits of both WM's will come to play and trounce anything M$ can put out there. You may have a point about the buttons and customized menu bars, but M$ does not have much of a case their either, as they infringed on "prior art" with that too. The silly thing about all this is that M$ has not "innovated" anything... Ever.. That I can think of. Rather, they copy existing ideas, or try to expand on those already discarded by others. Take for example the sidebar in Vista with the clock and other "Desklets"... Mac OSX anyone?!.. HELLOOOO!.. Lets take a good look at IE7 and tabbed browsing. Gee... Where did THAT come from?.. Im sure if we all looked a bit harder at Vista and dissected its parts, well find it to be 10% M$, and 90% other outside innovations that were stuffed in under an M$ "copywright" and "patent", which will not stand the test of court.

Just because this giant has alot of money, does not mean it can "buy" the law. In some cases yes, but I do not believe it can buy the appeals process sure to follow. Sure, M$ has a ton of cash to pursue a very long court battle, but is that really in its best interests?.. I think not. Ballmer is no fool, and even HE knows that interoperability is the best way to make friends and gain/retain customers in the Business world. I think M$ is doing the smartest thing possible right now, which is to try to innovate in uncharted area's, while maintaining its current market base by pissing as few people off as possible, while spreading FUD about Open Source to discourage its use by the ignorant masses. Its working, and as long as it does, why should M$ pursue any other strategy which would cost alot of cash for questionable results????

Seriously, dude, call the hospital cause it sounds like you're having a stroke by the way you type.

Lay off the caffeine and file down your caps lock, buddy!

Toolbar with icons was developed in AmiPro, developed by Samna for Windows. AmiPro predated MS Word and its development was, at first, encouraged by MS (just before Windows 3.0). Lotus bought Samna to start a suite early in 1990s and used the icons in all SmartSuite apps -- and some are used in Notes.

AmiPro sold better that MS Word for some years and was truly WYSIWYG at the time when Word still had only Normal view. Of course, IBM is in no position to sue MS.

What about MS and it's copious use of other desktop's features? Let's look at Vista and it's "innovations." The cube? Beryl project. Widgets? Mac (if memory serves). PowerShell? Linux/Unix clone and it's interesting that they would seemingly shift direction going AWAY from a GUI.

The real shame here is that Windows can borrow the features of FOSS, use them in their OS, and that's okay. The opposite does not work, though, and the FOSS industry gets (so far) the posturing of a lawsuit.

The claim of KDE keyboard shortcuts mimicing that of Windows, while technically true by default, is customizable. In fact, so customizable, that you configure it to mimic a Macs. Or one of KDE's own concoctions.

That familiar taskbar? Yep .. it's customizable too. In fact, you can make it look like a Mac. You can add more if you like. You can get rid of the clock. Pretty much any way you want to line it up. The default is admittedly Windows-like. So does adapting these things to a familiar interface constitute infringement (assuming these things are patented)? Would you the author and/or MS be satisfied if the defaults were changed, but the ability to make it look/behave like other interfaces were available?

I was using the Amiga 1000 back in 1986 which is around the time that X windows, and Mac started with their GUI's MS did not show up for a number of years with theirs! Also it is interesting to note that a fledgling software company by the name of Microsoft had been contracted to develop some of the Amiga stuff. I am not sure at this time what parts it took part in but it would be interesting to see if the MS OS might contain some of the Amiga code, it certainly used the best elements of the Mac, X windows, and the Amiga GUI's in its desktop.

If they would sue opensource applications like openoffice firefox and other applications for using things like menubars, they actually make their system less familiar in the long run.

M$ better have more up their sleeve than superficial resemblance.... also they did not invent the Desktop, they just mass marketed it.....they are behind the latest lawsuits, have no doubt on that score, they are using other companies as proxies because they are afraid to stick out their own necks....

People cry foul about IE because it cannot be removed and is REQUIRED for Windows update.....also for the Doctor....your post makes little sense but i will assume you are the victim of bad translation

I think you made some very good points in your article.

In several discussions on the web, I have also been mentioning the lack of innovation in the Linux development because everybody just seems to be following the "me too" method. What is the point in creating things that look and feel like Microsoft's or Apple's products? Are they really so good that nobody can do better than this?

Apple just demonstrated with Numbers that you can actually create a spreadsheet program that is much easier to use than Microsoft's Excel. They showed with the iPhone that you can re-invent the entire smartphone idea. They continuously look at things and try to improve them. Yes, they've copied ideas, too. But so did all the great artists throughout human history. As Picasso said: "Good artists copy. Great artists steal."

It's about time the Linux folks become great artists.

As for the patent situation: Initiatives like "show us the code" only demonstrate that most people don't know how the patent system works. The truth is that you do NOT need an implementation of a product or an idea to get a patent for it. If you needed that, so-called "submarine patents" would not work. So it's pointless to ask for "the code". 

Maybe you cannot patent a certain look (how can Disney then claim intellectual property for Donald Duck?), but you absolutely can patent the behavior of a user interface. 

You should also be aware that in every industry the big players have patents agreements with each other - that's how it is even possible that all cars basically work the same way.

My wish for the Linux developers: Don't re-invent the wheel. Stop creating clones. Stop looking at where things are, look at where things should be. Be innovative and get ahead of the crowd.

Great software is not about technology. It is about its users.

If you mistake this for whining, then you are just not getting the point or you are trapped in the microcosm of bits and bytes or, even worse, the dogma of ideology, and don't see the big picture anymore.



The Linux desktop mimics the Windows desktop for one single reason. Ease of use. Do you think anyone would ever switch to Linux if everything was different?

Also, if you want it to be different, lots of distros do this too. But they aren't all that popular. You know why? They doesn't look like Windows!

So stop complaining and use another distro already!

"The resolution was not that Linux didn't contain the code: it was that the disputed code wasn't SCO's in the first place. "

Read Groklaw. Not only did SCO have *no* evidence, they wouldn't have been able to sue even *if* there was any infringement as they did not own the copyrights.

I agree that the emulation of windows isn't really the best bet in interface design but the reason behind it is sound. It's easier to move from A to B if B works a lot like A.

Radial or "Circle menus" based on a right click have been shown to be far faster and lead to a more evolutionary gesture system. A good example of this is the new game HellGate London which uses radial menus for right clicks.

A lot of what you reference in other desktop environments were present on the Amiga OS, but I'm not sure who was first in these cases. 

Much of whats going to happen will be fights over "prior art." The legal field is vastly better educated now than it was during the look and feel wars. (I remember them well!) Prior art will likely over turn a number of patents, but in the end, not all of them.

The Linux community will adapt. With luck the adaptation will happen sooner rather than later as the evolution of the desktop has been stunted for the last two decades and it's time to get it moving forward again.


I was wondering.. How come Linux can ship "tons" of sotware for free and nothing happens, hell, they even boast it as an advantage (it is, really). And at the same time, when MS ships Windows media player or IE inside Windows everyone cries foul! I mean HELOOOOO!!! Any sense here? :)

Unlike "then", people are very cautious about changing how they interact with their computer. Whenever someone asks me whether Linux is exactly like Windows in every way, even one difference (like "It doesn't have a system tray", or "iTunes doesn't work", or even "you don't need antivirus software") makes them completely disinterested. Even to maintain the 1% marketshare it has now, it has to be 99% like Windows. 

The difference, though, is that Linux can behave exactly like Mac OS X with a theme installation, dock applet and some keybind remapping. It can look and behave in any way anyone's ever thought of how to interact 3ith a computer, often with a few one-click installations.

The patent claims are nothing like you said; they are a generic threat where "Linux desktop" doesn't mean UI, it means anything non-proprietary that runs on a computer.

The Linux desktop does not lack innovation, it is users that aren't willing to imagine alternatives.





You Can Lose Whole Thing InOne Snap with Linux. Linux is #4 orworse.

#1 is server 2008 with LEOPARD (now its intel) & Ultimate Both Hot & Ready. #2 is XP, takayour picka, just trys d' em all.

#3 is anything except LINUX, however UBANTU & Cluster of NOT THAT BAD Software are above LINUXS Intentional Bad Side less by wide MarGIN,
However: How about that JAVA or IBM software, its numero3 just because its for invisible world behind walls.Stuff that cann't be wrong, yet isn't your desktop & WAYbeats DOCTOW QUALITY that is novel when you mention Xandros.

Theres even worse LINUX then that, its free wheeling game of writing & staying few years behind any truely HELD code, YOU Keep Track & YOU Writta Software, so much is really K_D Kamakazie Stuff in Linux it surprising.

I WISH BILL, AS IN "DON'T MESS WITH..." WOULD TAKE OPEN SOURCE UBANTU / SIMILAR SMOOTHER LINUXes & ADD MEDIA PLAYER WORKSTATION FUNCTIONS FROM WILLIAM GATES XP ERA & REALLY MAKE IT SING. maybe special gamers build or very large hd/mem w/ latest tech drivers 2.0/3.0 stuff for 3/4 core/slot 2+ channel present TOP era.

THEN PUT ON IT: LINUX BY BILL GATES WITH KERNEL FROM LINUS TORVALD, & KIDS COULD LOAD & RELOAD ALLTHIER EXPERIMENTAL LIFE.

Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.




Sounds like the vole doesn't have a pot to pee in if it wants to destroy Linux or open source! It may force open source to change the GUI and a few other things, most likely for the better.

From what I hear, a lot of gooey effects in Mistah Vistah and Office don't exactly garner a lot of love (since there are third party add ons that return Orifice back to the look of earlier days). At least that is one area the Volesters shouldn't have to worry about being copied!

I know people who use Macs who would curse fluently if required to use the Redmond GUI, so the current Windows way certainly isn't the only - or the best for many. I would hope that the similarities have been to provide a familiar looking visual interface, and any forced changes would likely be for the better.

You so easily call MS bigger than linux, but it isn't, linux has millions of supporters, MS only has a few thousand people, people that they pay to be their friend.
Now who's bigger? or do you think people don't count? That's what the french royalty thought too I might remind you.

Incidentally, perhaps the open source community should sue MS for trying to steal the concept of open source, which is clearly NOT invented by MS, and which they clearly try to imitate (although their nature makes it next to impossible for them to do so).

I really loved all the different angles you presented regarding the GUIs. I think you mention a very important point, that the open-source community is more reverse-engineered than innovation... Although I believe GNUStep and ROX aren't the most intuitive GUIs... We need some better designs than that!!

I was one of those taking too much care of other things than software in the 80's. Though all your statements might be true that linux is a copy of Windows if you merely look at the "looks", it can never be a point of victory in a lawsuit. In that case all cars should be remade. Because in the end they look a lot like each-other: they have 4 wheels, two mirrors at the ouside, a steeringwheel and a stick to change gears etc. etc. The "looks" of an Operating system can (IMHO) not be patented,and I would be surprised if the patents Microsoft is talking about, are based on that...
<a href="http://mckooiker.byethost5.com/blog/">mckooiker</a>

Modern UNIXes should be microkernel based, not ancient monolitic kernels which Linux is. 
A modern UNIX should feature some proper standards including some standard API for application installations thru distributions and some standard drivers API as well. 

Linux is just about chaos and speculation. Industry support is at the bare minimum, real developers inject money to make only what they need work correctly, the rest of the OS is pretty unusable and/or a real waste of time.

A modern UNIX is OS X, although its MACH kernel is not the microkernel version, unfortunately. But OS X has some serious multimedia APIs as well as a usable GUI and drivers support (although limited due to Steve Jobs will not to irritate his good friend Bill Gates)...

If Microsoft could attack FOSS with its patents, it would already happily do it. However, there are tons and tons of money behind FOSS, and some big players would not like to lose it. Moreover those big players (IBM, Red Hat, Google etc.) have patents too that can be unleashed upon Microsoft. Therefore it does not matter how many Vole's patents FOSS infringe. What matters is the strong business support of FOSS, and it is not going to end any time soon.

Did anyone actually make it to the end of this?

I'm growing weary of OS evangelists but I'm sure the author is going to hear from a few on this one. sigh

I agree that desktop Linux requires more innovation but in the same way Windows has cemented itself in the desktop market so have Gnome and KDE on the Linux Desktop. Might mean trouble if any one distro ever makes a hole in Windows share, time will tell...

I would love to see Mozilla backed by Google bring something out that looks less Windowish and has decent support and training for converts. Most Distro users do try hard to support the newbs but much gets lost in translation. 

Mozilla/Google can afford the patent attorneys to work with developers and mull through the muck and tell us what's left 'unpatented' . A bit of branding clout and sh*t loads of paid developers/researchers goes a long way as MS has proven. Cmon Zilla

As a gentoo and xp dual booter I can tell you that alot of what you say is true, but for me alot of what the linux "desktop" experience is about is customizing it to work for you, something which IMO is much harder to do in windows and osx. Linux desktops give the maximum felxability, from light weight clients like fluxbox to the behemoth KDE. Full disclosure says that I use gnome with compiz fusion. Compiz is possibly the best window manager I have ever used, sure, it still leaves things like nautilus to do interfacing with your files, but it completely changes how I interact with my computer and really boosts my productivity because the windows I need are always on top just a few desktops away and I dont have to touch the mouse to go digging for them or remember where they are in alt-tab. I may not be the best example of a linux desktop user since I perfer to use a terminal window for most of what I do. You cant type your path names in those little upload and download boxes in xp (and osx too IIRC but its been awhile) and you can also copy any file and then paste it into a field as a location something which xp also doesnt do and is a HUGE time saver. I hate having to click through 10 folders when I know right where the damned file I want is and when its already open in another window.

One problem that I have observed with OSX is that it seems to promote among its users extremely disordered and organized desktops. The way it handles windows also seems to promote this cluttered feeling. They may be smug but god help them if their spotlight stops working. To this end I would suggest that most mac users are people who dont want to have to use much mental energy interacting with their computer, a reasonable desire and osx to a certain extent does this for them. Many MS users are also in the same boat but there is also room for some tweaking and I have encountered more well organized desktops on windows than I have on osx, suggesting that xp and vista do less to promote disorganization and require a little more thought to use well (I've seen plenty of disorganized desktops on xp). Linux users seem to me to actively desire a more involved experience and hence spend quite a bit more energy working with their OS. Vastly fewer desktops in the first place (thanks market share) but of those few they seem to hide their clutter away in their home folder or /mnt/*/.

One other key area of difference that I've observed is how programs are started. Macs use the doc or their applications folder. The doc is fine but the applications folder is a nightmare. Windows users can switch between start menu programs or the pinned list and their desktop icons (I hate having to go through the whole start menu list) or as a final option quick launch (my least favorite for its horrid ugliness). For linux I find that people can do whatever they want. Applications menu (more logical than start IMO) or they can put them on their desktop or they can install a dock or they can use a terminal or they can stick them on their panels (I set most of the ones I use to switch on at start up).

I think my point is that talking about default linux setups is silly, however maybe this is the problem. Linux isnt about being default, there is no default. Most individuals looking for default will find that "default" linux is just a console with a "login:" flashing at them. Things like ubuntu have defaults, but even there its a stretch. They choose to use a subset of what linux has to offer and as a result of course they look like MS since they cut out 90% of what linux is about (read: choice). Most people dont do well with choice, they dont have time. Making a new and different system beyond gnome and kde and lightweight clients is a project for some new innovative developer. If it ends up being name "Lind" then lubuntu will be your innovative new desktop linux distro, but the innovation of linux (if you choose to call it that) is choice. Take the choice away and yes, you look very much like your competitors because you are only revealing a tiny percent of yourself. Maybe trying to stuff linux into a box needs to be reexamined.

You forgot to mention that most Linux distros come with at least one serious compiler: gcc. This alone would cost a little fortune.
There are, also, many other really powerful interpreters like Perl, PHP, Python and all those diferent shell flavours, while Windows got CMD.EXE and Windows Scripting Host. Not even close.
While I think that Windows is way too dumb-user centered, I find that Linux is way too geek-with-lots-of-spare-time centered.
In Windows you need an app to do every single slightly different thing, while in Linux you got to read 5 man pages and then pipe 8 commands to do what you want.
There should be a healthy balance. And by the way, Linux is not Unix.

As an avid linux user... I actually agree with this article for the most part.

The main problem is, the average user that has been using Windows for many years doesn't want a huge learning curve, if intending to switch. So that is why the major Linux Distros attempt to curb the learning curve as much as possible, as more people get sick of Microsofts Draconian spyware, phone-home-ware, and bloatware. They are really looking for a Windows alternative.

Since Leopard has come out, it's the first time since Mac was introduced that I've actually been impressed enough to consider picking up an iMAC or something. Granted it has it's issues too... but after playing with it at a local Apple store, and watching the guided tour from the Apple site... it was the first time I saw more usability than eye-candy.

Can someone come up with something that innovative (truly useful eye candy) for a linux desktop?

I hope so. However, unless ROX, GNUStep, or something completely new evolves exponentially to and OSX usability / eye-candy ratio, within a short period of time... I don't see anyone rushing to a non-windows-like desktop for Linux.

I seem to remember clicking on file menus, close boxes, dragging window sizes, and yes even 

toolbar icons (in apps), way back in the heady days of the Atari st. Back when the MSdos folks 

were still using the cli. Most of the componants you talk about were there in the Gem desktop, 

albeit in crude form. So where's that MS innovation again? I'd be real curious to see how many 

of these "gui" lawsuits they could actually win. My guess is 90 percent of these are prior art 

in another os or application predating microsofts reign. Its probably time for most of these 

to be tested in courts anyway just to clear things up.

While I don't necessarily disagree with your point about making yourself a target for 

Microsoft. I don't have a problem with standardizing some interface features. This has been 

one of the things that have kept linux off more computers. People don't want to learn fifteen 

different ways to do the same thing, they just want it to work as expected. And seeing as MS 

has the lions share of the market, guess what they expect.

Iam making a new open source car. I don't want it to be like ford's or chevy's so Iam going to 

put the steering wheel on the drivers door. And these toyota-like foot pedals have to change, 

lets put the gas pedal under the left foot, clutch under the right, and move the throttle to a 

knob on the dashboard. My user interface is now different from everybody else. No patent 

problems. Trouble is, nobody wants to drive my car because of the learning curve.

Like the steering wheel and gas pedal, sometimes standard interfaces are good.


Cheers to the INQ from across the pond.
RC..



The article is quite right. 
Even though I would like to know... what has MS invented for the desktop since windows 98? It hasn't improved much in the usability to be honest. 

GNU/Linux is nowadays above Windows, in several usability aspects. Multiple desktops, better effects, easier to install/unistall programs, better networking capabilities, more and better integrated features (burn DVDs, play music, films, codecs, plugins, office, graphics, internet tools...), better updating system, better plug'n'play system (when hardware is supported of course), better maintained and much cleaner menus and desktop icons, to name a few ...

I use Ubuntu because overall I find it easier to use than Windows. But of course the rest of great features such as security, low resources and performance do not bother me.

Thank you for a very nice article. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. It even taught me a thing or two about OS history.
I came to the IT world just when windown 3.11 (for workstations) came out. So it really filled in some gaps.

Keep up the good work!

Nice. I read the lot and appreciated it greatly. Some good insights in there and a history lesson for all us youngsters who's first computing experience was a ZX81.

Two points:
1.) Resemblance does not constitute patent infringement. 
2.) Confusing your users with a foreign computing environment is a bad idea.

It's certainly interesting to see an article like this; the linux community has pushed too hard to make distros drop-in replacements for windows. I just wanted to point out that neither xfce nor enlightenment need to be windows-like. They both are customizable to a far greater degree than gnome or kde, and I've used implementations of both that had very little in common with the windows desktop.

This is the best article I've ever read here in The Inquirer. 
I'm a big Linux fan and user, and i can't be more in agree with your words. 

I've never used RiscOS nor Nextstep, neither tried GNUStep nor ROX, but because i didn't know about them. Linux mainstream distros like Ubuntu keep their interfaces to "look like windows" so they can ensure the public to adapt, but the reality is that Linux is adaptable, and any distribution can suplly two or more interfaces, like Ubuntu with Gnome/KDE/XFce. Distributions should add space for innovation, instead of enforcing this similarities that are obsoletes in so many aspects. 

In Desktop system, there is room and need for innovation, and in Linux has no limits.

Linux now more than never needs identity and needs to get off the image of the "wanna be windows" and be the "next generation OS"

It's in all of us, users and developers. I'm starting by testing this interfaces you pointed.

First off, i had a very difficult time following through this article through its end. It's a crashing bore. Most print and online magazines have several editors on staff, who can sometimes, but not always, help with soporific and rambling writing styles. Could very well be that this article was beyond help.

Second, you're pushing RISC OS' Desktop. Check out the screenies. BUTT UGLY is a compliment.

Lastly, stop being such an obvious Microsoft Troll. Take a class in Corporate Communications.




So following your line Ford should be suing Toyota and Nissan for putting fenders on cars.

This reeks of Stevie "I'll throw a chair at you" Ballbuster.

K