digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

gOS Space: OSX like operating system without Apple

blogs.techrepublic.com.com — I've been a fan of gOS for a while now. I've been running their Rocket release for about a year. It's based on Ubuntu and has the benefit of pre-installed Enlightenment. It's solid, runs well on lower-end hardware, and...it's Enlightenment (what more do you want?) On January 7, 2008 gOS...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • feureau, on 07/14/2008, -9/+3OMG! It's a MySpace Maniac wet-dream!
  • TheWindBlows, on 07/14/2008, -4/+2Dugg for making ' “Me” generation ' sound good.
  • schestowitz, on 07/14/2008, -11/+5Guess someone might feel a little jealous... http://opengeu.intilinux.com/Home.html
  • necuz, on 07/14/2008, -8/+1What's in a dock, anyway?
  • geoken, on 07/14/2008, -1/+94Considering the fact that the articles main focus is the gOS's appearance, you'd think the author would include a couple of pics.
    • darthjure, on 07/15/2008, -1/+5Why include pictures when you can describe it really, really, really well?
      • etruscan, on 07/15/2008, -0/+8What if you're really, really, really, ridiculously good looking?
      • jamesdew, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Well even if you used 1500 words you could aparently give more information with just 2 pictures.
    • NikkiA, on 07/15/2008, -0/+9Oddly, if you go to gOS's website, they have a lot of text about appearance, and look and feel, but only a couple of very poor (non-clickable/non-expandable, rotated and shadow/mirrored in 3D) images too.

      It's like its some kind of vast conspiracy to pump up the reputation of it being a distribution that's focused on appearance, but without any means to find out how, other than downloading it.

      Oh.
    • rpgmaker, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3So there are no pics? Buried.
  • munikho, on 07/14/2008, -0/+32some screenshots

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/25318428@N06/sets/721 ...
    • over9k, on 07/15/2008, -5/+11They completely ripped off OSX.
    • flashback99, on 07/15/2008, -6/+3apple will get them for copying their website and style.
  • 1timeuser, on 07/15/2008, -4/+34dug down for retarded blog with an even more retarded poll on the bottom.
  • holyskeleton, on 07/15/2008, -3/+3kinda like the composition of Vista OSX theme from deviantArt and RocketDock.
  • ZutroyZuuts, on 07/15/2008, -0/+33Was going to try it, but the MySpace thing soured the deal for me.
    I need an OS that blocks MySpace. My ideal OS is JohnConnorOS. Not only does it have a nicer GUI, but it also rounds up soldiers that go back in time through a portal and kill Tom just as he's sat on the toilet about to come up with his lame idea.
  • Papajohn56, on 07/15/2008, -5/+19Oh... so you mean BSD.

    Does anyone else find it ironic that this is copying the stacks concept as well as most of the interface features. It's like OSX....without refinement and quality control
    • Spuy767, on 07/15/2008, -1/+10Thank you. People fail to see the benefits of a more structured design. Apple really struck a nice mid-range chord with an open-source core, but a closed-source top end. It's as cose to the best of both worlds as you can get. You don't have the schizophrenic design choices of some purely open source operating systems, and you avoid the twenty years of kernel bloat that beguiles purely closed source operating systems.
      • BlueTide, on 07/15/2008, -2/+0While I agree about the 'structured design', this is not necessarily an open source vs proprietary question. There is nothing inherently necessary for Apple to keep their GUI closed; even if open they could keep the power of keeping the official tree in a form that they like and maintain the design leadership.

        I guess it comes to the point of having authority over the GUI from party that knows what they are doing. In principle this could be accomplished in OSS as well.
    • etx313, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Yeah, if it's not BSD + NextStep (or Openstep) it's not even close. That's WHAT makes OS X cool.
  • tama00, on 07/15/2008, -15/+3So someone slapped on a skin for enlightment that kinda resembles mac os and took an exisiting mac os dock and added it.

    OH MY GOD! this is soo news everyone should read!

    This has been done about a MILLION TIMES

    big whoop you got a theme that looks like mac os and a dock bar that kinda resembles it
    THIS IS NOT BIG NEWS its just some ***** kid who learned about themes on day after school when he was bored

    jeez you guys on digg are impressed by anything

    i could just get a picture of some hot chick and say OMG UBUNTU ALPHA RELEASE 4.13r532613264542763 includes iphone support and ron pall edition 5 and all you nerds will just go nuts and digg that *****

    I HATE YOU ALL

    there finally go that of my chest
    • Galaxylander, on 07/15/2008, -1/+5Take the tampon out of your ass and use it to swab the sand out of your vagina. Holy *****.
  • Protoss, on 07/15/2008, -2/+13I can't stand Enlightenment. Maybe it's just me but it looks so...outdated. Sure it has the effects, but it's missing the polish on those effects. It's basically the effects from OSX combined with the blandness of Windows 98.
    • koft, on 07/15/2008, -0/+6Yea, but it's small, fast and you can customize the ***** out of it. Look at what they're doing with it on gOS, it looks as pretty as any gnome or kde setup IMO. Yea, out of the box Enlightenment does look like *****.
    • diecastbeatdown, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3for some of us enlightenment is a nostalgic thing from our early linux GUI experiences. they brought a lot of eye candy to the table with incredible themes. there was a lot of build up to e17, but it is what it is.
  • Dylson, on 07/15/2008, -12/+5More dumb linux ***** hits the front page of digg. NEXT!
  • fugazied, on 07/15/2008, -1/+6Stacks aren't half as good as spaces. The things I enjoy most about OS X are time machine + spaces + quicksilver + leopard's spotlight + ease of installation. If a distro gets those features I'd install it on all of my PCs.
    • dn11, on 07/15/2008, -2/+3stacks = menus that are harder to read
    • rideagain, on 07/15/2008, -0/+4Good point. Every linux distro I tried has some equivalent of spaces. I believe that ubuntu now has something somewhat similar to quicksilver, called "launch bar" (or was it "launchbar"?). I don't know about time machine and spotlight, though, maybe someone else here will know?
      • salmonmoose, on 07/15/2008, -0/+4Gnome Do is closer to quicksilver.

        I don't know of anything like time-machine - although there are several dozen version control systems that whilst, not as pretty are far more versatile.

        as for spotlight, Ubuntu comes with one enabled out of the box, there are many more available, some letting you access other machine's indexes.
    • noogymmij, on 07/15/2008, -3/+2Time Machine = Time Vault
      Spaces = (built into every WM I know of, plus compiz for near identical capacity)
      SpotLight = deskbar (Sortof, it's getting better)
      Installation... Ubuntu doesn't get any easier to install aside from the fact that its hard to find it OEM.... You put it in, let it start, have a live environment. Input user,pass, wait, done.
    • FireXtol, on 07/15/2008, -2/+7'Spaces' aka virtual desktops have been around for a long time. I remember using them personally with Windows 95 and the Litestep shell (replacement for Explorer), and you can find [additional] 3rd party programs to do this on any OS. Features found in spotlight are available from 3rd parties for every OS. Same for the features in Time machine, and Quicksilver.

      But since OS X doesn't support ANSI standards for keyboard input/shortcuts, and trying to make it do so is an exercise in futility.... The ease of use isn't there. Examples: Home and End(in mac terms: cmd+left and cmd+right). Awkward Cmd-centric shortcuts (aforementioned, to start, then the terminal/prompt functions differently, and uses control as usual, mostly... I don't like the inconsistency).

      Still feels like OS X is designed for a single button mouse(but the cursors are handsome). Lacking context menus in areas where it'd be nice.

      The graphic system touted as 'most elegant' has the worst font rendering I've ever seen. And has aesthetic bugs, open up something and type a character that has a lot of 'depth', like g or j.... Then put your cursor at the start of the line, and delete(not backspace). You'll leave trails on the bottom(happens on Leopard, in Mac Mail, for instance). And the font kerning is horrible (lacks blank space much too often for small fonts making characters hard to decipher). The font anti-aliasing(blurring is more accurate) is poor, and aliased text(my preference, regardless of monitor type) is pretty much unusable(highly unsupported, there's little to no thought put into this).

      Then the 'phantom' tool tips... yea, you either get it or you don't. A tooltips doesn't completely form, the text doesn't render... probably ANOTHER bug in the text rendering system... but stays on-top. So you see a rectangle with a shadow(sometimes not). And it doesn't go away until you locate the program that created it and get another tooltip to appear, finally making the phantom vanish(or starting the process over)....

      And the GUI is overly simple, yet overly candied... like take off the shadows and let me resize a window from any corner or edge. Or have another option for the minimize button (like doing the equivalent of: cmd+h.. instead of just different ways to waste cpu/gpu cycles). Or making the + button actually do something useful. Or like making double-click to a window's title(the entire horizontal top part of the window... where the 'street light' buttons I'm talking about are) do an intelligent action... I would say a double-click should do what the + button does... but the + button is useless(and especially so if you COULD RESIZE A WINDOW FROM ANY CORNER OR EDGE!).

      And I don't think a lot of Mac users realize that an application doesn't close when you close out all the windows in it.. but you have to explicitly: cmd-q it or goto the menu's Quit option.
      • Kelmon, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3I'd go out on a limb and suggest that a Mac is not for you. However, you'd have to prize mine from my dead hands because I like the way that the Mac OS works compared to Windows. The + button, for example, works as expected for me, whereas the old maximise button in Windows annoyed me by having a window take over my entire screen when it doesn't need all that space (a legacy, I suspect, of low resolution standards).
      • Caulfield, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2You're nagging on behaviour that has been in Mac OS since the beginning. Mac OS has always had exactly one place to resize windows from, and has had the handle-like design in the bottom-right for new users to grab on to. Similarly, the + button reflects Mac OS' maximize behaviour in the OS since forever.

        As for quitting when all windows are closed, that can be designed by the application. However, again, Mac OS behaviour from way back has taught long-term Mac users that applications shouldn't quit unless specifically told to. That is a feature, not a bug. Maybe I want Mail to run in the background and keep checking my mail without having a window cluttering my desktop or dock.

        As for "ANSI standards for keyboard shortcuts"? I've never heard of that. And I imagine Mac's keyboard usages predate any standard (if it exists). Why do home/end not work as in Windows? Well, original Mac keyboards did not have home or end keys. Cmd left/right was the shortcut Apple decided on.

        A lot of these behaviours, while weird to switchers, are perfectly ingrained in long-term Mac users. At least on a Mac, keyboard shortcuts are standardized. I don't know how many times I've sworn at Windows (and Linux) apps when simple things like cut/copy/paste have completely different shortcuts between apps.

        You have a point about some of the font rendering in Mac OS, though. There are some inconsistencies, and they've made it hard to impossible to get rid of antialiasing for those who wish to. And as for home/end functionality, I'd like to see Windows-like behaviour in Mac OS too. To add my gripes, I'd love to get rid of the effing dock and have an application menu like days of yore.
      • Brutusfly, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3Your arguments have no faults, except the fault of omission.
        I would counter that Cmd-centric shortcuts are infinitely preferable simply by the manner in which they fall under the left hand without having to move it.
        The font rendering is a trade off that will hopefully show it's strength when monitors get high resolutions like 150 to 300 dpi. (Since OS X renders the typeface to screen with character parts positioned as if it were a high-res print.) The current problem is more about 72dpi monitors and Apple not wanting to fudge the characters around to line up to the grid. For now, it's in the eye of the beholder.
        And, as far as your last point, you are absolutely right, but I wouldn't want it any other way. I'll quit the app when I want to, not when the document is closed. BAM! "Cmd+Q" and I don't even have to move my hand : ) But good points overall FireXtol.
      • fugazied, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1But even with all of those flaws (yes I'd agree that most of what you said are flaws), I still find it better to use than any Linux distro or version of Windows I've ever used. You can work fast on a mac, its stable, you can switch between apps fast as hell, spaces + expose, Quicksilver and spotlight make finding ANYTHING on the mac simple and fast (try finding a file in wondows xp when you have 200gb+), plus numerous mac apps.
  • BurgerPunch, on 07/15/2008, -15/+8Nothing like OS X at all, lacks all the things that make OS X good, just because you stick a dock on something (lipstick on a pig) doesn't make it like OS X.

    As usual Linux morons can't tell the difference between how something looks and how something works/what it can do.
  • cgomez, on 07/15/2008, -9/+17So, because it's a crappy knock-off of OS X eye-candy, it's suddenly an Mac OS X competitor? If there's anything we know already is that the open-source community couldn't design a usable interface to save their lives.
    • FireXtol, on 07/15/2008, -2/+5Wrong! They just create *too many*(KDE and GNOME, you will probably hear the most bickering between/about) entirely usable interfaces with little regard to other interfaces that OTHER people are using... or might actually care to use. It's a very do-it-yourself environment, and as such... ego-centric. And sadly this usually means: Standards? ***** them(though not always purposefully)!
      • Papajohn56, on 07/15/2008, -1/+6not wrong, KDE and Gnome are both terrible examples. they have a LONG way to be considered usable.
  • Dermah, on 07/15/2008, -0/+11Oh dear, I was liking what they said on the gOS website until they started to really emphasis the MySpace aspects.
    'Linux meets MySpace'? Seriously, does anyone at all want that?
  • colincornaby, on 07/15/2008, -1/+28Why is it every Linux OS that implements a dock suddenly thinks they are "OS X like"? If you took away the dock, nothing about that OS would look at all like OS X, and I spend 95% of my time in OS X in other places than the dock.
  • jamesLankford, on 07/15/2008, -1/+9
    • FireXtol, on 07/15/2008, -4/+1Uhm.... As my friend once told me, I shall tell you... Google it, idiot.
  • Dracusis, on 07/15/2008, -0/+8Apart from the fun fact that saying "gOS" sounds like the old "GEOS" environment (fun days), this looks formidably lame.
  • GMMStraider, on 07/15/2008, -5/+29Oh, an OS X like system... so it has all the APIs which make integrating my Software with the OS a breeze. And it has other APIs which make me use the System-resources (Core-API) etc. And it has a (at least most of the time) very good quality control... and and and... oh wait... it uses a few GUI-Object of OS X... mhm... jep..

    people really should try to understand that Mac OS X isn't just flashy graphics...
    • FireXtol, on 07/15/2008, -3/+1I have one thing to state: GNU.
      • Papajohn56, on 07/15/2008, -0/+4yeah you say that like OS X doesn't have access to GNU projects, despite the fact that Mac OS X is Certified UNIX, whereas linux is not.
    • Armitage2k, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3Yep... it is expensive too.
    • geoken, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1For someone asking people to 'understand' the underlying features of OS X, you sure haven't taken any time to understand the underlying features in other OSes.

      Integrate software with OS = D-Bus.
      Core API's = Cairo, Clutter, Gstreamer.
      .
      .
      .
  • TechCF, on 07/15/2008, -0/+12Does it use disk images and drag/drop to install/uninstall apps? Thats one of the features I love most in OSX.
    • dn11, on 07/15/2008, -0/+14sudo apt nope_its_still_linux
    • rideagain, on 07/15/2008, -3/+2it probably doesn't, but installing apps in Linux is oftentimes even easier than on OSX: just pick it from a list in the application manager, click "install", and you're done. Or if you prefer, type one line on the command line and the app is installed.
      • ecologisto, on 07/15/2008, -1/+5I am working on Linux, and I can say only one thing : you are wrong.
        sorry, but maintaining a system is a nightmare made of never ending dependencies cycles and uncompatible versions on top of multiple architectures and distributions.
      • Xsecrets, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3eco sounds like you are on a rpm based system you really should try a debian based system like ubuntu. Forget dependencies they are worked out for you.
      • alexforcefive, on 07/15/2008, -1/+4Synaptic (etc) makes everything a lot better than compiling things from source, but the os x method is just perfect. Drag the icon to your applications folder; done.

        In saying that, I prefer almost everything else about linux
      • jasmus, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Do you all really think that any package manager is easier than OSX?

        I use both, and most OSX dmg downloads open up a window with two icons. One the application, and one a link to your applications folder. There's even an arrow graphic there the let you know you can drag it. You drag it about 5cm accross the screen and drop it. installed.

        I know people prefer other things, but saying that it's "easier" to sudo apt-get install random_app is just wrong.
    • FireXtol, on 07/15/2008, -2/+1when a Mac comes around you must drag it, drag it good, it's not too late, for you to drop it, drop it real good
  • dn11, on 07/15/2008, -3/+20WOW stacks! the most useless feature from Leopard, now on your Linux desktop! awesome
  • 3leggedHorse, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2My space yuk. I admit to making my hardy look like OS X with a bit of time and effort you can do quite a good job.
    And with full blown compiz running, I'm sure there would be a few things mac heads would like. I just like the clean look of OS X.
  • omgdspmpg, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1no thank you. that was a terrible sell for what looks like another mediocre interface
  • waydee, on 07/15/2008, -4/+2Interesting but not my cup of tea. Had to laugh at all the apple fanboys having a cry over it though, never gets old.
    • FireXtol, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1Mac users lack freewill, fyi.
    • Kelmon, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Yes, but it's tears of laughter. I mean, it's a bit like slapping a Safari theme on Firefox and calling it Safari (yes, I know you wouldn't do this, but go with me on this). No, it's Firefox but now it looks like Safari. The same is true here. This is Linux, not OS X and no matter how much you dress up the interface it is not going to be competitor. No Mac owner is going to look at this and either confuse it with OS X or want it. This is not going to be running Mac software, and that's what is important.

      Give me a shout when this thing is running Aperture and then I'll be interested. In the meantime this article is no different to all the other Linux articles. I've nothing against the OS but I do find it daft that you'd spend time trying to make it look like another. Just do your own thing and do it well.
  • flipzmode, on 07/15/2008, -2/+1Good read but his writing nearly sucks. Nearly.
  • MacParrot, on 07/15/2008, -2/+6This could be huge!

    Linux meets MySpace! That's just like OS X meets train wreck!

    Skinning Linux to look like other OS's is hardly new. But what Linux need isn't making it look like something else. Innovate. Experiment with new ideas, new ways to interact with information, not putting something familiar on it to try and get people to use it.

    This was my problem with all the iPhone killer stories as well. Instead of making phones LIKE the iPhone try something different, but still easy to use. This is the problem with tech today. Someone comes out with a hot product and instead of competing, they copy.
  • kokoshka, on 07/15/2008, -0/+4I remember when gOS was integrated with google apps. What a great concept. I also remember checking their site to find that gOS had become integrated with myspace. My laughter turned sour when I figured out they were serious. What a horrible idea.
  • jmantra, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2I've tried gOS before and I was not that impressed, and besides there are better ways to make your linux desktop look OS Xish:
    http://sourceforge.net/projects/mac4lin
  • Papajohn56, on 07/15/2008, -5/+3OS X has one thing Linux never will - official unix certification.
  • Kelmon, on 07/15/2008, -1/+5Translated: this looks a bit like OS X but it's not really.

    I don't understand the point of this. If you wanted OS X then you'd just buy it so that you get the complete package rather than wasting your time with something like this. A Mac is the combination of the hardware, OS and software that runs on top of it. This is clearly not going to be providing that. Given this I don't understand what the obsession is with skinning Linux to look like another OS. Let it do it's own thing, do it well, and let's have some real competition rather than attempting a "me too", which is degrading to all concerned.
  • FireXtol, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2It works! Installed with VMWare(host Win2k). Runs fine. Seems much too flashy for my tastes (throbbing(opacity), zooming, dock/bar icons on mouse hover, easily disabled). Heavily themed GUI.... Tried the Enlightenment iso and while the author seemed in love, I'm not(at all). I'll stick with Windows 2000.
  • Zippo, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Looks promising, but it still has a way to go.
  • kolanos, on 07/15/2008, -3/+2I could turn my GNOME desktop into a dead ringer for OSX, and many have, but I don't because I think OSX's interface is glossy garbage.
  • lordshank, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Wow, MySpace and bland software! Sign me up!

    I really wish the Linux world would get over its identity crisis. Why not make something original, instead of building godawful GUI's aped off of other OS's. I think that Xfce/Xubuntu (and I have run through a ton of distros) is about the only attempt to do anything different, but still, the software is not there. This stuff is fine for guys that like to tinker, but for end users, things like camera compatibility or getting a media/mp3 player that works with your software. I know there are solutions, I have an iPod with Linux on it, and a hacked Canon, but most end users are not going to have the same dedication to software. ***** like building social networking is just a band-aid to draw traffic, I feel the same way about gOS as I do for spam blogs, it sucks.
  • brendangenius, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1gOS is pretty good, I have tried it, but there seems to be a lack of originality in it all, at least in terms of aesthetics, it is a pretty good idea overall and their line of compact computers look pretty nice.
  • pyron81, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1All the great features of OS X without any of the adobe software to back it up. *sigh*
    • nmnnotmyname, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1At least they're still porting Adobe Reader and Flash over :\ One can only hope that a future creative suite will end up on Linux someday.
      • KillsTheWeak, on 07/15/2008, -0/+0Their port of Flash sucks. Buggy, and horrible performance.
  • ufee, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1After trying distro's like "Elive Gem", I can't get excited over eyecandy anymore. I just want something fast and functional.
  • tsupersonic, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1gOS is way too simple...Some people may like this (mostly new people to linux) and then some people like me hate it.
  • ieee, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Isn't the point in getting a Mac not the particular OS, but the "everything just works" benefit of having the hardware and OS well set up for each other?
  • fishie, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1no thanks
  • ZephyrNinety, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3Yeah, because having a dock just automatically makes it so similar to OS X.
  • ookees, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1To me it looks like gOS is just all SSB (solid state browsing) like fluid for Mac OS X. I do the same thing for a bunch of different google applications. Now what would be better in OS X like it was originally supposed to be in Leopard is the stacks feature in the whole dock, not just the end where it is now, hopefully Apple will restore that functionality.
  • salindrija, on 07/15/2008, -1/+0Actually, it's not even close to OSX.
  • leggat, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1I used this for a couple of days on my iMac 2.4GHZ just to see what it was like but it was really quite slow and unstable. It froze quite a few times during normal usage.
  • makenshi, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2It is my view that the closest thing to Apple's Cocoa is Étoilé (http://www.etoile-project.org/), as it is based on GNUStep, an open-source implementation of the OpenStep specification - the same thing that Cocoa is based on. If gOS really wants to imitate OSX they should swap Enlightenment for Étoilé.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.