“The basic idea behind Mac OS X’s Dock is that when you need an application, you click on its icon on an on-screen bar, and the application is launched (if it has not been yet) or switched to (if it has). Stefano Zingarini has borrowed this concept for KXDocker, a KDE variation of OS X’s Dock (which is also usable with GNOME and other desktop environments).”
Yeah people are borrowing quite a lot of stuff from Mac OS X these days.
I like the way it works, I’m both a Mac user and a Linux user so… I love it. But wasn’t this concept patented by Apple? I think I remember some similar app for Windows developed by an asian guy that removed it from the web after receiving one of the cease and desist letters from Cupertino.
Anyway, the app looks good and feels good.
This concept isn’t really new. NeXT had already a similiar task stocking.
So it could be patented by NeXT. What a *superb* idea.. If it’s really patented, it’s another reason to be against software patents!
And BTW, silly clones of the Dock-thing exist for years. So I don’t really understand what’s the great thing about this specific clone…
Edited 2007-01-05 00:21
It is patented by NeXT and Apple acquired all of our patents which seem to slowly morph and be added to OS X with each revision.
Now give me my freakin’ Workspace Manager, vertical windows and my retractable dock on the right, bottom, top or left with a simple dwrite and I’ll be way happier and more productive (Tear off windows and command-double click to autohide all other views but the app I want to work on!)
tear off menus are a MUST! I sorely miss that in OSX
it’s not a ‘superb’ idea. there are many probs with the dock on mac. perhaps the fact that it’s patented should spur people to come up with better ideas rather than simply copying and cloning everything but in an open source format
Well, open source equivalents will allow you, or programmers like you, to provide alternative problems that address the aforementioned ‘probs with the dock on mac’. I see no problem with copy or cloning, esp. popular interface models which provide familurarity, into open source. There are lots of contributers out there, I’m sure KXDocker is not adversly affecting the development of other interfaces to much of a noticable degree.
I’m not talking about bugs. i mean the whole concept is flawed as others have pointed out.
I see open source as a way of bringing new ideas to the table that are ignored by the big 2 OS’s. Of course, open source itself is the big new idea…but it’s like PC’s. Anyone can make their own PC which gives you a lot of freedom. But who just wants to see cheap generic beige PC knockoffs just because “they can”?
I followed that part of what you’re saying as well; and I do agree in-so-much as half the time I use a terminal to run programs, lol.
The flexibility of an open-source community allows, though, for people who do enjoy the slickity look of the Mac interface, as well as more (or less) traditional interfaces for the rest of us. One choice is going to be what’s popular, indeed I fully support the cloning of look/feel/etc. of any and all other OS’s – it helps with migration to a *nix/opensource platform and allows you a variety to mix/match.
Even if you don’t agree with that point, though, programs such as kxdocker aren’t sapping the open source community of either its base of contributers or starving it of its top programmers, it’s a splash in the sea if you will.
Few will want a cheap generic beige PC, but not everyone wants a lexan-covered Vegas strip either. (It is getting harder to find top-quality parts without LED’s, glowing this/that, or viciously bright blue power lights, that drives me up the tree, even if easily fixed).
I forgot the <irony> </irony> tags, sorry
“Yeah people are borrowing quite a lot of stuff from Mac OS X these days.
”
when i was about 70% done reading the article, my mind kind of forked and the “child process” started wondering about a comment(s) saying that its a mac os X copy. Then i remember when i tried the last ubuntu version, i noticed that i could change those tabs( or what ever they call them) to windows explorer/konqueror address bar,this was one thing that i missed the most in nautilus ..i havent seen anyome saying that it was a copy from somebody else .. i wonder why ..
the child process is sleeping waiting to see more “copying posts”
But wasn’t this concept patented by Apple?
Even if so, the world is bigger than (“Patent Land”) US.
Stefano Zingarini doesn’t seem to be an American either.
probably the best of breed of linux osx dock clones. Personally, I ditched my dock for launching purposes when quicksilver was born. I currenly use katapult on my linux boxen for the same purpose. As a window manager, the dock falls short, IMO – sure expose fills some of this void, but I think that virtual desktops (and now tabbed more or less everything) really trump either of these approaches.
We also have Expose like apps:
skippy [static]
skippy-xd [live]
kompose [kde]
beryl
there is also gnome-launch-box which similar to quicksilver only i remember it being really unstable. it would usually crash after i did 1 search. i used to use quicksilver a lot on osx but now i just use spotlight.
I have to agree. Tabs seem like a step backwards, why are they hyped by everyone now?
GNOME seems to be the lone anti-tabs holdout. And fortunately Firefox works fine in either mode, though with multiple windows it still seems to have some severe memory leaks…
Oh and for ExposÄ—, Skippy-XD is a decent clone, but I prefer the Looking Glass solution: “bookshelf” view — like in Vista.
Edit: OSNews sets the page charset wrong!
Edited 2007-01-05 18:20
It looks to me like carbon itself is pretty anti-tabs. I’m not a carbon developer, but from what I’ve seen in SWT and wxwidgets it looks like carbon’s tab widget is not scalable and in the use of applications on OS X it seems that everyone either:
1. Doesn’t use tabs but uses SDI
2. Makes their own tab interface which is scalable
I’m not sure what Safari is using, but it seems to be one of the exceptions.
Personally I like tabs for MDI. It’s much better than its predecessor (WiW) but you’re right that it’s not quite as MDI could be. And tabs seem to be getting abused ever since Windows users learned they exist (firefox, 2005).
Textpad and Visual Studio had tabs long before then.
And most windows users definitely use Visual Studio
. What’s your point?
And most windows users definitely use Visual Studio
. What’s your point?
I think he’s trying to say that tabs are not anything new on windows, which would be true.
They were quite rare until recently. Applications tended to use WiW instead.
I really dig this dock-like app but it is a bit difficult to use.
I would really like to have a better interface for customization, maybe like the ibar of E17.
slightly very OT:
I tried that live ISO of elive last night (with E17) – it looks pretty slick, but: Would you believe it, I couldn’t find the reboot/power down button – lol
Where is it..?
I’ve tried KXDocker in the past but it was very buggy. The download page on the project website makes it seem that the project has been abandoned:
http://www.xiaprojects.com/www/prodotti/kxdocker/main.php?action=do…
I’m just curios: If Microsoft does anything remotely like Apple we’re flamed unmercifully. If someone in the Linux community does it, then it’s cool. Why is this?
I imagine in this case it’s because a) even the biggest jackass troll would have a hard case to make for a flame-fest, and b) because it’s obviously a dock ripoff and doesn’t profess to be anything else. There’s no “OMFG, CHECKITOUT TEH NEW INNOVATIVE LINUX FTW!!!” spin going on here.
I’m just curios: If Microsoft does anything remotely like Apple we’re flamed unmercifully. If someone in the Linux community does it, then it’s cool. Why is this?
Linux developers rarely have an issue with attributing the origin of an idea or implementation. OSS frequently recycles and reinterprets as part of the development process. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with evaluating alternative products and emulating those things that you think work well and avoiding those that don’t, it’s just common sense. Software by it’s nature evolves and advances by building upon the work and ideas of others, patents be damned.
I do think there’s a problem when you try and spin it as innovative and a unique creation after shamelessly copying something, particularly when you have thousands of engineers at your disposal working with a budget equivalent to the GDP of a mid-sized country. That’s just, I dunno, sad. And FWIW, Apple is prone to borrowing working ideas wherever they can find them, as well, though their own userbase tends to hype them up as uniquely innovative far more often than the parent company does.
edit: typo
Edited 2007-01-05 03:55
Linux developers rarely have an issue with attributing the origin of an idea or implementation. OSS frequently recycles and reinterprets as part of the development process
No Linux developers are just constantly saying that the other OSes suck but copying them all the time.
“No Linux developers are just constantly saying that the other OSes suck but copying them all the time.”
That is a big generalisation. I am a Linux developer and have never said or thought that other Operating Systems suck. Don’t get me wrong, I do have my own personal preferences.
Also, I do not see what is wrong with copying good ideas and improving them. Isn’t that how Software evolves to be something great, by reusing good ideas and improving them?
To summarise, the only thing that sucks is you with your stupid remarks.
lol, personnal attacks: always here when you hit the point.
No Linux developers are just constantly saying that the other OSes suck but copying them all the time.
Er, no. It’s mostly a segment of linux users that that say the other OSes suck.
As I said, the devs will look at other OSes, see what works and emulate or improve it, and see what doesn’t then avoid it or work around it. And somewhere in between you innovate and try and do something new or different. Try basing your opinions at least partially from reading developer posts instead of public forum posts from uninformed users. You’ll often find rational discussions attributing features, as well as criticizing them, to the original products.
There are zealots in the community, and they are annoying, but don’t slag the developers for that.
I’m just curios: If Microsoft does anything remotely like Apple we’re flamed unmercifully. If someone in the Linux community does it, then it’s cool. Why is this?
I think it’s to do with the fact that Linux/open-source people are almost always willing to acknowledge when something has been done before, whereas Microsoft never do so.
For example, this project basically says, “the dock in MacOS is cool, so here’s a version of it for KDE”. If Microsoft released a docking programme, it would be “brand new” and “a revolutionary UI advance” and so forth — with no mention of Apple whatsoever.
The best example of this is tabbed browsing. For a long time, Microsoft swore blind that people didn’t want tabbed browsing. Now it’s trumpeted as one of the major advances in IE7. But do you think they’d ever say “we know people really liked this feature in Firefox, so we implemented it too”? Of course not!
Or, similarly, the search box next to the address bar. A wonderful, innovative new feature in IE7 that will save you lots of messing about. Aren’t Microsoft smart! Well yes, if you ignore the fact it’s existed in Firefox for a good few years now (and in Opera before that, probably).
All innovation, ever, is done by Microsoft. Features in other people’s software don’t exist until MS copies them, when suddenly they’re “revolutionary”.
(N.B. I’m not trying to say that Microsoft never genuinely innovate — of course they do, and there’s some good stuff in Vista that’s not available anywhere else. But there’s also a lot of stuff that *is* available somewhere else, and has been for a while, a fact which Microsoft will never acknowledge.)
I’m just curios: If Microsoft does anything remotely like Apple we’re flamed unmercifully. If someone in the Linux community does it, then it’s cool. Why is this?
Let’s see, maybe because when MS brings up a “new” idea way later they don’t give credit and PR it as being innovative and revolutionary, and maybe not everybody likes this attitude. Maybe because when a FOSS implementation of an existing approach takes place it doesn’t much count where it comes from if the credit is given (and it is) and we all will get “richer” by having an open source alternative. Most FOSS apps, like kxdocker, don’t start with the goal of stealing an idea and making profit.
i prefer my programs to go away fully when i close the last window
i prefer my programs to go away fully when i close the last window
Actually that’s something I do like about Apple’s GUI: [Applekey]+W = close window/tab (even complete window), but program still there; [Applekey]+Q = close program. That’s consistent enough to me.
I don’t know about this dock thing. Tried it on OS X, has some improvments over other approaches.
But I must say that I’m more intrigued about Gimmie
http://beatnik.infogami.com/Gimmie
yeah, me too. gimmie was promising (but it’s mostly silent now).
Mac os X has a solid base (quartz) to create the bar and expose. A little stange to try to copy it to linux with a window system without hardware acceleration.
kxdocker version 1.1.4 is written specifically to take advantage of aiglx and/or xgl.
And before that wasn’t it able to take advantage of gl?
The program’s name is KXDocker, but what’s it actually called? You can’t say to an average user; “just click on the icon on the KXDocker….”. Really, this is just not innovative, or even interesting.
You can’t say to an average user; “just click on the icon on the KXDocker….”. Really, this is just not innovative, or even interesting
For an average user you say whatever you know they will understand what you’re referring to. For the others, a name is just what it is: a name. Don’t call it names, use it if you like, if not, then search for one with a name that suits you better, or download it, change all its strings to your liking, call it Kabbage, and grab a beer
KXDocker, More Than a Task Manager?
No, it is just yet another Task manager, nothing more. It may be good, it may be bad, but it is nothing more then a Task Manager.
The same bullsh!t Hype can be found at other KDE related sites, for example Oxygen Icon theme that KDE4 will be using: http://www.oxygen-icons.org/
“Not just another icon theme. Oxygen is being developed to create a new user-experience.”
There are so many great icon themes, what makes this one so SpecialOne[TM]. Oxygen indeed is just another icon theme, nothing more.
that’s not true, as oxygen icons will be able to have animations. that’s pretty new for an iconset. also, they might be changable by the user with css, again – quite unique. of course no-one can guarantee all that will be in KDE 4.0 already, but the KDE4 series will most likely see these things.
First of all, they are designed from the beginning to be in SVG, which is a huge difference from most other iconsets.And the SVG-iconsets I’ve seen are not by any means complete.
Since they are SVG, according the oxygen developers, it will be eachier of apply effects on them on-the-fly.
You could listen to a interview with the developers http://radio.kde.org/
“Ken Wimer and David Vignoni: KDE4’s New Look”
Is there anywhere you can get a set of the O2 icons for KDE3.X?
I switched from Ubuntu to MacOS X for the apps (media production mostly) and even though I’ve disliked parts of Aqua when using it before I though it would be just a matter of getting used to it.
Well, I’ve never gotten used to it really. The window and file management in OSX feels like it’s from the stonage. It seems to me that they wanted it to look simple to use, but forgot to actually make it simple to use. The dock, while being a trademark of OSX, is a very good example of that. It looks really simple and cool, but in actual use it’s much more complex and frustrating than the competitors.
I know, Apple wants to be different, and they would never switch to a regular task bar. But you would think that they could come up with a better concept than the dock.
Also, the “one menu bar” concept doesn’t really translate well to a 24″ monitor. Might have worked in the past, but not anymore.
Gnome and BeOS remains to be my favourite desktops. They are both clean, easy to use and well thought through. They don’t do stuff just for the sake of doing it differently or to look cool. And as a result, it doesn’t get in the way.
That said. I love the applications available for OSX, and having a usuable media framework is a blessing. So I have to put up with the desktop I guess. At least there seems to be some proper virtual desktops on the way.
I know, Apple wants to be different, and they would never switch to a regular task bar. But you would think that they could come up with a better concept than the dock.
Also, the “one menu bar” concept doesn’t really translate well to a 24″ monitor. Might have worked in the past, but not anymore.
actually i think user preferences here are quite different
the menu bar on is imo the perfect solution (on my 24” i use a huge amount of nifty information icons – so no space wasted) as it always stays at the same position – there is nothing i hate more than searching for the positinon of the menu bar for every window i have on my desk and furthermore – most of the time you use shortcuts anyway
the last argument is imo also valid for the dock – i rarely use it for window management / application launching because command+tab and spotlight are enough for that imo – but one thing i like about the dock is the consisten way of drag and drop – want an image in photoshop – simply drag it on the dock icon – no digging up of windows or dragging to the taskbar and waiting …
Edited 2007-01-05 14:43
the menu bar on is imo the perfect solution (on my 24” i use a huge amount of nifty information icons – so no space wasted) as it always stays at the same position – there is nothing i hate more than searching for the positinon of the menu bar for every window i have on my desk and furthermore – most of the time you use shortcuts anyway
I totally agree. I actually like the single menubar more today than I ever did back when using a small monitor.
These days most commonly used functions can be accessed quickly using contextual menus, toolbar button, and shortcuts. Even in a complex app like MS Access or Photoshop, I don’t use the main menubar that often, and with a lot of apps I only use it to access preferences, or a few rarely used features.
A menubar that keeps out of the way at the top of the screen is much better than having a menubar on each window. They just add to visual clutter, and waste valuable vertical screen space when you have multiple windows arranged on screen.
They also cause problems when you have small windows open. Even a window displaying a tiny image (an icon for example) has to accommodate the app’s full menubar. With it wrapping to multiple lines, or providing a drop down menu to display the hidden menus, if there isn’t enough space. This is inconsistent even between apps created by Microsoft, and either way it’s a nasty kludge that a single menubar avoids.
The use of status displays and useful tools on the right side of the Mac menubar is another clear advantage. The system tray icons in my Windows taskbar take up a significant amount of valuable space, even though they display less information.
Even on a very large monitor I find that the Mac menubar can usually be accessed more quickly. As the Windows style menubars are at the top of the window they’re generally near the top of the screen anyway. The greater distance that the mouse sometimes has to travel in Mac OS X is offset by the advantage of Fitts’ law and the consistent location of the menubar.
Also, in my experience a lot of Windows/Linux users regularly maximise their windows, MDI applications certainly encourage that. With a single window maximised to fill the screen, its menubar has all the perceived disadvantages of the Mac menubar, with few of the advantages.
the last argument is imo also valid for the dock – i rarely use it for window management / application launching because command+tab and spotlight are enough for that imo – but one thing i like about the dock is the consisten way of drag and drop – want an image in photoshop – simply drag it on the dock icon – no digging up of windows or dragging to the taskbar and waiting …
I didn’t like the Dock at first, but I think it has improved greatly, both due to the improvements to the Dock itself, and other utilities that replace/augment some of its functionality.
I keep it clean of everything except for my most commonly used apps and the apps that are running. Minimising to the Dock can be useful sometimes, but as you can hide applications completely, it isn’t necessary to fill the Dock with minimised windows when you want a less cluttered desktop. For quickly accessing files and launching less commonly used apps there are numerous alternative options, both 3rd party and built in. In my opinion there’s no need to make the Dock a cluttered mess filled with tiny icons.
I find that the taskbar on my Windows desktop ends up with a lot more clutter, and does its job lot less elegantly than the Dock on my Mac. Along with the Start menu to access most applications, I like to have a ‘quick launch’ section for drag and drop to commonly used apps. With the system tray taking up space at the other end, it doesn’t take long for it to start running out of space for displaying open apps. I end up having to make my taskbar larger, or split it into multiple bars so that there’s enough space for everything. I don’t find that to be necessary on Mac OS X, and I haven’t found 3rd party utilities to improve the situation on Windows.
I think the Dock works fine as an app switcher, especially in conjunction with other OS X features. I like being able to bring all the windows of an application to the front with a single click, or select a single window from the Dock icon’s menu. This is a much better solution than the inconsistent and less versatile Windows taskbar.
I agree that the Dock’s support for drag and drop is one of its most useful features. I can’t believe how poorly this is implemented in most alternatives. I think only NeXTSTEP, Mac OS X and RISC OS have managed to get this highly valuable feature right.
The Windows/Linux Dock clones that I’ve tried don’t support drag and drop to the Dock icons, drag and drop can only be used to add shortcuts to the dock. The Windows taskbar allows you to drag and drop into existing open windows (although that’s handled in a really ugly way), but it doesn’t allow you to use drag and drop to open the file in a new window of that application, which I find to be much more useful. In my opinion drag and drop to a Dock icon is faster and more intuitive than using the ‘Open with…’ option in Windows.
Of course it’s a matter of personal preference, I can see why some people prefer the Windows way of doing things. That doesn’t mean that the Mac OS X features are badly designed in comparison.
… to highten acceptance of linux desktops (or rather: kde) with typical eye-candy-dependent home users (@vermaden: and this is true for vista-lookalike or -lookasgoodas icon themes). i don’t see how such things (or a fancy icon theme) can do anything functionality-wise. i have tasks running, some of them open windows and appear in my simple gnome task switcher, some are (for good reasons) running on a workspace which is not usually the active one… plus i always keep track of what’s running, and i have my peaceful inert(!) gray taskbar to help me keep track.
the way i see it (personally) is this: i (as the user) have to organize the way the machine works, not vice versa. _i_ organize data in a reasonable structure (that’s what normal file systems are very much suitable for), _i_ keep track of the tasks that are fired up and shut down and the windows that are opened/closed/moved around. and one thing that’s not very helpful with that is eye-candy, which takes time to be displayed, which leads to visual clutter, and adds sources of additional bugs (unnecessary program code).
actually, that’s why i’m a happy linux user: i will _always_ be able to turn everything off, nice though it is that i _could_ use such apps 🙂
two points about this specific project. on their website, it sez (under ‘Features’):
* rolling Icons, our most innovative feature!
this is it??? wow, that’s what i call innovation. get a life! and then:
* Speed! No computation at runtime
i really wonder what that means… no computation at all? sounds pretty dead.
For GNOME I recommend to wait for GNOME Dock at http://www.gnome-dock.org since KXDocker is loading way too much KDE libraries in GNOME…
the KDE libs are mostly just some 15 mb, Gnome itself WASTES more memory than kde USES… http://ktown.kde.org/~seli/memory/desktop_benchmark.html
Actually the problem with loading KDE apps is kdeinit which fails, occasionally, if things aren’t started up with a timing that it can handle (can you say race conditions?).
Gnome doesn’t have kdeinit or anything really like it to my knowledge and it makes Gnome apps much nicer to run outside of Gnome than KDE apps outside of KDE. Believe me, I know all about using KDE apps outside of KDE as I can hardly stand KDE but used kmail for years (because it’s the single best rich mail client on *nix).
Unfortunately, people may be waiting an eternity for gnome-dock. This project seems to be stagnating. Why aren’t there any good gnome docks? The best one i’ve seen to date is Kiba-dock and even that one is stagnating.
Yawn… MacSlow did that ages ago as a means of finding performance bugs in Cairo. I swear you punch that man and he bleeds code (though he’s also a martial arts expert so I wouldn’t recommend trying).
See the evolution of that little project here:
http://www.gnome-dock.org/trac
(sadly this is dormant currently but the code is there for someone to pick up and play with)
I tried this just before Christmas and found it to have a lot of bugs and slow to startup, and difficult to shutdown.
It does look good for those eye candy lovers, but I seriously don’t see what value it has to offer me over icons placed on a traditional KDE panel.
It wasn’t long before I found it annoying and decided to uninstall it and go back to my old way of working.
i can only agree, it doesn’t work very often, if at all…
oh, wow. so now ‘icons’ are going to be taking up cpu time and even more memory. lovely. I guess we just HAVE to use *all* our idle cpu time on eye candy… don’t want to waste any of it!
Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 95; PalmSource; Blazer 3.0) 16;160×160
You can put application shortcuts on it, you can view tasks, you can zoom your icons, you can have little applets (clock, cpu temp, things like that), kicker does all this. I must be missing something, but I just don’t see what this adds except maybe parabolic icon zooming, which is really cool for about 3 minutes.
the GNUStep based desktop environment Etoile` has something similar, as well. http://www.etoile-project.org/etoile/mediawiki/index.php?title=Main…