How Microsoft shattered Gnome's unity with Windows 95 There never will be a year when Linux conquers the desktop, because desktop computers are going to merge into tablet-style touch-driven devices and disappear. But desktop Linux was getting close, until Microsoft derailed it a few years back. The GNOME project’s recent release, GNOME 3.8, served to remind me of the significance …
I will get excoriated for saying so, but I tried all these alternatives out at the time and I can tell you that although superficially similar in many ways to the windows 95 desktop, the other guys were missing the point by miles.
What was truly a game changer in Windows 95 was the context-sensitive right-click menus. They gave the pc-ophobe (me, in 1995) a way to educate myself in what I needed to do to get this blasted toy computer I'd been given out of the way so I could do my work (mainframe database administration) in a job I had had all of two hours.
That it took me 30 minutes to do so from "Oh christ, I've lost this job before I start" to "$$OPEN" - the start of my real work is a testament to the underlying design *whether or not the actual OS is/was crap from a comparative technology standpoint*.
That none of the alternative OS/desktops offered such richness was a real non-starter for me. I don't do operating systems for fun. They are there to allow me to do other stuff.
This is a bad article. So Microsoft never sued, there's no evidence that the threat to sue actually changed the behavior of anybody, we don't even know what the patents were, yet somehow it's all Microsoft's fault? Maybe the tin foil hat is on a little too tight.
Let's face it, desktop Linux was/is not successful because you can't just build a good product and hope people will come. You have to go to every PC manufacturer, hardware developer, and software developer and SELL it. Microsoft did a great job at that.
Plus, even if the infringing features were ripped out later, Microsoft could have sued for damages caused by the previous versions. And according to the article, GNOME didn't radically change their GUI until 2011! Clearly the threat of a lawsuit way back in 2007 wasn't the main reason for the change.
"GNOME Classic mode brings to six the total number of GNOME desktops and takes the Linux and open-source community down a path of fragmentation they seem only too willing to venture down".
This is BS, most Windows 95 users would never have heard of Gnome or Linux, considering (dues restrictive and onerous Microsoft contracts with the OEMs) it's virtually impossible to buy it ready-installed on the high street.
People "at home" don't want Linux - I deal with these people every day.
Businesses don't want to upset user bases and are 90% slow to update to even a new version of Windows.
Most will use Windows. I have worked in IT in multinationals.
Windows is the Magnolia of the OS World. You can preach revolution all you want, like an imam saying that the whole planet will become islamic - but it ain't happening.
To expect linux to take over desktops everywhere is like expecting people to stop using their cars and use unicycles instead......but what do I know? Has anyone tried asking non-techie computers users (apart from me)?
I suspect the author may not be old enough to remember clearly. At the time Win95 came out, the most notable thing about the interface was the slavish way it copied OS/2 (3.0 IIRC). I actually had an argument with a Winfant that ended when I showed him my system and explained just how long it had been installed. Win95 was not particularly attractive. The capabilities of the interface were comparatively limited. It didn't have REXX. If it had a BSOD hick up, reinstallation might be your only choice, while with OS/2 you could step back through configuration changes and software installations until things worked. Files didn't remember what created them. The text editor didn't suck, and you could easily shift to another if you liked. Yeah, you can do that in Windows now, sort of, after a fashion. The thing is, it was default behavior in OS/2 in 1994! Unless you had a hardware failure, you never lost your system. Files remembered what created them. The text editor didn't suck, and you could easily change the default to another if you liked.
but in 2007 there were only a few complete desktop environments – KDE and GNOME being the main contenders.
Let's see here LXDE 2006, XFCE (started in 1997, using gtk+ since 99),fluxbox was forked from blackbox in 2001, enlightenment started in 1997. So, what was the point of such misinformation?
So let's consider what they have in common: windows, obviously, with a menu bar inside each one.
So. let's consider windows or a window, did MS pioneer that? Who holds the patent and can subsequently sue MS?
Everything that unified GNOME 2, KDE, Xfce and pretty much every other desktop GUI in the world originally comes from Windows 95.
Are you suggesting that a Unix based kernel with a POSIX userland, multi-user paradigm, privileges, file permissions on fs, efficient multitasking etc came from Windows 95? This is a joke in response to yours ;-)
This post seems to reason a long way in advance of its evidence.
It seems to attempt to tie Microsoft's 2007 patent sabre rattling to the desktop specifically, but there doesn't appear to be any evidence for that. The apparent quotation - "the Linux desktop including OpenOffice" - is not sourced, and so far as I can tell, neither the Reg article it links to nor the source *that* article links to actually contains that text. The source and my memory both indicate that Microsoft was talking about Linux or even F/OSS in general, with no specific focus on 'the desktop'.
Note that the GNOME "Big Board" effort and the independent 'Gimmie' project, which together basically kickstarted the discussion and prototyping work which ultimately lead to the development of Shell, both date to early 2007 (April or earlier): *before* Microsoft's sabre-rattling in May 2007. See http://blog.ometer.com/2007/04/03/gnome-online-desktop/ , which pretty much marks the start of the "Online Desktop" / "Big Board" efforts, and http://www.ubuntugeek.com/gimmie-a-new-panel-for-gnome-installation-in-ubuntu.html , an article about an early version of Gimmie which is dated January 2007.
I don't see any compelling evidence to suggest that the long process of discussion, design and prototyping which started in early 2007 and ultimately led to the development of GNOME Shell and GNOME 3.0 has anything to do with Microsoft's May 2007 patent sabre rattling.
I've been a full-time Linux desktop user since 2006. I'm not an IT guy, didn't go to college (electronics trade school in fact but had no use for computers at the time) and didn't get online until early 1999, at which time I had a 256 MHz, P2 which consumed virtually all of my expendable income in purchasing maintenance, internet service, extra RAM, faster dial-up modems, spiffier sound cards, etc., ad nauseum. In 1990, my first (used) Windows machine (which never went online at all) cost me over 800 U.S. dollars and, even then, wasn't a particularly impressive machine.
At the moment, I'm typing in Firefox on an HP, Compaq 6710b laptop running Kubuntu 12.04. I bought it used for a little over 200 U.S. dollars and it's faster, with Kubuntu, than the much newer Windows Vista and 7 machines which I'm often called on to repair for my neighbors and friends. It's very annoying to read an article every few days which authoritatively informs me exactly how and why Linux is "never" going to make it on the desktop. I'm beginning to wonder if these sorts of articles haven't been written "to order", as it were, and paid for under-the-table by Microsoft as a component of their ongoing Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) campaign against the Open Source world at large.
I realize that leading edge computing is in a state of rapid transition but anyone who believes that Linux isn't going to be "all up in the middle" of it is kidding themselves. I'll remind you that Android, which is but another form of Linux, virtually owns the smart phone market. Meanwhile, there are a lot of folks like me who aren't affluent enough to invest in leading edge computing systems while there are plenty of used P4 systems out there which are priced within virtually anyone's budget and will run Linux very nicely. In many large cities there are organizations which will provide underpriveleged families with a Linux system and pre-paid, high-speed internet service for free. I myself have given away about four dozen Linux systems (though folks had to buy their own internet service) since 2006. I've also spent less on computer hardware & software since 2006 than I spent per annum in the preceding decade and that includes the cost of the systems I gave away.
While you, and the apparent army of literate, like-thinkers continue to write authoritative articles telling me how Linux isn't ever going to make it on the desktop, every few days, I'm just going to keep on using, and very much enjoying, Linux.
Ask me how much I've spent on security (firewall, anti-virus & anti-malware) software since 2006. Zip, nada, nothing amigo (that's no dollars and no cents) and I've yet to have a virus or malware infect my computer system. It's the same amount I've spent on my desktop Operating System during the same time period and numerous folks who liked the idea of having their old computer become a boon to a student or a senior citizen have given me entire systems.
I think my $.02 is worth considerably more than your opinion. Nuff said.
My main use of my home computer is gaming and game development, an area that today I still feel linux isn't quite as strong as windows in (although admittedly is very close since steams push).
Whilst I agree with virtually every statement you make, I don't think linux is quite the "1 shoe fits all" type solution that windows has been all these years.
It's well known that Linux until android has basically been the domain of tech savvy user and for good reason, it's a different mind set and works in a tech savvy way.
An interesting question might be, how long before Linux gets a good clean standard for touch at a low level?
Considering Linux in general still has ongoing debate over desktops and desktop functionality I can see it being some time, this I believe to be Linux biggest failing.
Note:
When I refer to "Linux" in this comment I mean "Linux Distributions" in the general sense, because after all "Linux" is not an operating system, it is merely a kernel on which OS code sits.
I suppose the end result is the same either way. Desktop Linux remains the domain of those willing to take the time to learn how to use it and always will, so it will never have a chance to conquer the desktop. Everyone else remains at the mercy of Microsoft and Apple.
Did Gnome, KDE, Xfce and everyone else originally copy Windows 95? Yes, of course they did. This is blindingly obvious and hardly worth writing an article about. Do we need to invent a silly conspiracy theory to explain the current 'fragmentation' of the Linux desktop? Not so much. Like most conspiracy theories, this one falls apart on close (or even cursory) examination:
- What did Microsoft claim when they made their dubious statment about 235 patents? From a random CNN article:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/
"But he does break down the total number allegedly violated - 235 - into categories. He says that the Linux kernel - the deepest layer of the free operating system, which interacts most directly with the computer hardware - violates 42 Microsoft patents. The Linux graphical user interfaces - essentially, the way design elements like menus and toolbars are set up - run afoul of another 65, he claims. The Open Office suite of programs, which is analogous to Microsoft Office, infringes 45 more. E-mail programs infringe 15, while other assorted FOSS programs allegedly transgress 68. "
So even if you throw away all Windows-style GUI elements completely, if MS is to be believed (hah!) that still leaves 170 patents they can supposedly sue your favourite Linux distribution over (and MS would presumably claim that even Unity infringes some of their 65 GUI patents, so you're probably still dealing with a couple of hundred). Redesigning the GUI doesn't make you substantially less 'liable' (if you actually buy into the MS FUD).
- If a Linux distribution switches to a new primary desktop, does that actually mean it's no longer 'infringing' the supposed GUI patents? Not really. 'Classic' modes that look suspiciously like Windows 95 are still available as lawyer bait, as are alternative 'traditional' desktops like Xfce in the distro's repository. The legal threat, if there is one, is no less than before. Incidentally, Redhat, which never signed a patent deal with MS, chose Gnome 2 as the default RHEL 6 desktop in 2010, 3 years after MS's posturing about the patents, and is still using it today, which ought to tell you something about exactly how seriously RH took the threats.
- Is there a more plausible explanation for the recent proliferation of DEs? Yes. Gnome developers got bored with the Win95 style GUI, thought they could do better, and were arrogant enough to ignore the wishes of a large proportion of their users by (partially) ditching the old interface. Canonical got upset by this, and re-purposed a netbook GUI as their primary desktop in a bid to differentiate Ubuntu from everyone else and make an interface that was equally irritating on a wide range of devices. All the other projects mentioned (MATE, Cinnamon, etc.) are simply attempts to restore sanity by returning to the Win95/Gnome 2 'metaphor' by one means or another. If Gnome had not deprecated the traditional GUI, nobody would have bothered forking or emulating Gnome 2. There's nothing about Unity and Gnome 3 that can't be explained by hubris, obsessing over tablets, and more or less misguided attempts to re-invent the wheel. MS itself has recently caught the same disease, but there seems little risk of anyone copying Windows 8. When someone (like Gnome!) pulls a stunt like this in the FLOSS world, the natural instinct is to fork or write something new, which is exactly what we've seen with MATE and the various attempts to tame Gnome 3 with alternate shells or addons. Projects then proliferate until natural selection kills the less viable alternatives off.
Software patents and threats of legal action have a lot to answer for, but fragmentation of Linux desktops? Yeah, maybe it was a 'controlled demolition', as the 911 conspiracy nuts say.
I'm quite certain that Linux (and every other OS on the planet for that matter) does indeed violate some of Microsoft's patents. I'm also quite certain that those patents wouldn't stand up in court. Just as an example, Microsoft holds a patent on deleting files. What judge isn't going to laugh that out of court if they tried to enforce it? I also strongly suspect that's the reason they never revealed which 235 patents were being violated.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
