It's desktop refresh season in the land of the Windowsalikes

New versions of two of the most popular "traditional" desktops are out, alongside a new release of one of the oldest and smallest. Plasma 6.1's layout-editing mode is much clearer than it was before, which is a significant win for a desktop whose customization is a big selling point. Plasma 6.1's layout-editing mode is much …

[unimaginative]

Liam keeps referring to things like KDE as "windowsalikes". A bit of trolling there?

KDE is noting like windows. It is flexible and the default upstream config looks a bit like windows (has a start button and a taskbar) but that is pretty superficial. It is a much richer GUI than Windows (or anything else I have seen) and is highly configurable.

its fair to say Cinnamon is "traditional" but more aiming to be like Gnome 2 than like Windows.

IceWM is very Windows like. Amazingly light.

[Liam Proven]

[Author here]

No, no trolling.

The basic design of a taskbar, with an app-launch button at one end, a clock and status icons at the other, buttons for windows in between, and meta-folders containing drives and things on the desktop, is a Microsoft design for Windows 95.

I have written about this at length before.

Xfce switched from aping CDE to aping Windows 95/NT4. KDE visibly copies Windows *98* instead. GNOME 1/2 were more loosely Win9x-like. GNOME 3 and later are more like iOS and Android, with some influence from Unity, which got it from Mac OS X.

Everyone takes it for granted now but I think it's important to recognise where this stuff comes from.

Volumes directly on the desktop, and menu bar at the top, is the Apple way. Apple invented it and did it first. Later, it was copied by DR GEM and AmigaOS. In some cases, Apple sued. That

is why NeXT had previously carefully been avoiding this. When Apple bought NeXT, it made them switch to the Apple way.

Microsoft carefully avoided it too. Windows never had drive icons on the desktop. Acorn, by contrast, put the drives in the icon bar, before NeXTstep was invented or Windows *had* drive icons or an icon-based filer.

This is my point. Everyone accepts it now and doesn't question where it's from. I think that matters.

KDE, Xfce, LXDE/LXQt, Cinnamon, Budgie: all mimic Win9x. So does ChromeOS.

Unity mimics Mac OS X, but with Windows keyboard shortcuts, a combination I personally love, because I'm a keyboard warrior. So do Hello System and RavynOS.

GNOME 3 mimicked phone OSes -- and to an extent Unity, which is very clear if you look at the betas.

ROX mimics RISC OS. Maxx mimics Irix. GNUstep, GSDE, & NEXTSPACE, mimic NeXTstep.

Sadly, perhaps, nobody today bothers to mimic DR GEM or AmigaOS, or their inspiration, classic MacOS. All were capable desktops.

Nobody mimics Psion EPOC16 or EPOC32, which were great UIs for handhelds.

[zimzam]

Nobody mimics Psion EPOC16 or EPOC32, which were great UIs for handhelds.

I was thinking about this a few weeks ago while trying out Hyprland. It's weird that no tiling managers have ever borrowed from EPOC.

[Dan 55]

MacOS hasn't defaulted to putting storage icons on the desktop in new user profiles for about a decade now. Maybe to make it more like an iPad, maybe to funnel everyone towards cloud storage, who knows. Whatever the reason is, they lost their GUI mojo a long time back.

I updated to Catalina and found you can't drag files to a write-only drop box folder belonging to another user on the Finder side bar any more. So if you have one user to work with and another administrator user to install software with, it's now more of a pain to copy the file you downloaded to the administrator account before switching to the administrator account to install it. Apple obviously don't dogfood their own stuff any more or have collectively forgotten how MacOS is supposed to work.

[Liam Proven]

[Author here]

> MacOS hasn't defaulted to putting storage icons on the desktop in new user profiles for about a decade now.

Sure, it's off by default, but the option is right there. Tick the box, drives on the desktop, as they were in 1984, before Windows 1.0.

FWIW, on all my Macs, it's on.

> Apple obviously ... have collectively forgotten how MacOS is supposed to work.

There I agree.

But so has MS. So have most Linux developers. Arguably up to a point the BSD teams too. If the BSD folks were really true to the principles of Unix, there'd be just two BSDs:

* LegacyBSD which is old and boring, gets no new features, but is maintained, does stuff the old way, and runs on loads of ancient kit.

* ModernBSD which was a fusion of Plan 9 and Inferno, had some amazing modern whizz bang minimalist UI, runs on anything on top of anything and on bare metal, was tiny and blazing fast and legacy free, and has a stock LegacyBSD VM for running 20th century baggage like web browsers.

But they aren't.

Nobody knows their history.

"Those who don't understand UNIX are doomed to reinvent it, poorly."

Henry Spencer was 100% right.

[ibmalone]

It never really feels like it fits correctly though to call Plasma the windows-alike when talking about Linux desktops though, because the obvious alternative is Gnome. Initially, back in the Gnome 1/2 days Gnome was closer to Windows than KDE, and in terms of /appearance/ KDE was long the more Mac-like of the two. Gnome 3 obviously went weird, but I don't think it became more mac-like (except in relation to Spatial for the file explorer).

So far as Plasma goes, whether the taskbar sits at the bottom, top, left or right has been configurable for quite a while, although the default seems to be the bottom. On Plasma 6 I notice that unless there's a window overlapping the taskbar it floats slightly, similar to both Mac and newer Windows. The one thing that remains definitely windows-like is a start-menu type button on the taskbar, which Unity avoids (Mac, Windows, Gnome, Unity all have their own flavours of status area, the most marked difference there is probably where you find logout). Gnome 3 initially tried to have the activity chooser approach but it was far too clunky and they re-added a start menu (I still get to see this monstrosity as RHEL8 has it).

What both Gnome and Plasma have long done though is remove folders from the default desktop, something I initially hated but now re-enable if I find it gone. This is not really classic Mac or Windows though, as both strongly insisted on putting things on the desktop.

The major Mac-ism that always seems most distinctive to me coming from Linux and Windows familiar user is the top/global menu integration, which I don't think Gnome still has. They may have experimented with it at some point (both Gnome and KDE have supported some version of it, not sure if it's ever been default).

[Liam Proven]

[Author here]

> It never really feels like it fits correctly though to call Plasma the windows-alike when talking about Linux desktops though, because the obvious alternative is Gnome.

I don't see that at all TBH.

> Initially, back in the Gnome 1/2 days Gnome was closer to Windows than KDE

I did not use GNOME 2 myself, although I played with it. I did use KDE 1 and 2 heavily. I strongly disagree with your statement.

> and in terms of /appearance/ KDE was long the more Mac-like of the two.

Not even slightly, no.

Aspects of KDE that resemble MS Windows:

* window controls at top right (not some right, some left)

* menu bars inside windows (not at the top of the screen)

* ubiquitous keyboard navigation, with shortcuts highlighted

* hierarchical filer window with tree on left, contents on right (macOS was never primarily hierarchical and never had a 2-pane view)

* main desktop focused around a taskbar

It is these days possible to customise KDE into something which is a poor, rather ugly facsimile of the Mac, but no, it is not and never was Mac-like, or Amiga or GEM-like for that matter.

In terms of the ability to have multiple panels, the use of HTML to render filer window contents, the default choice of single-click to open, it's visibly specifically Windows *98* and not 98, NT 4 or anything older. But Win98 was the current release when KDE 1.0 came out in... 1998. This is not a coincidence.

Don't be distracted by chrome. Ignore cosmetics like theme, fonts, gradients, tints. Look at the functionality.

> Gnome 3 obviously went weird, but I don't think it became more mac-like

I'd say more iOS/iPadOS like, myself.

> (except in relation to Spatial for the file explorer).

GNOME has never had a spatial UI in the way classic MacOS did. No other OS has, including Mac OS X.

> So far as Plasma goes, whether the taskbar sits at the bottom, top, left or right has been configurable for quite a while

Irrelevant: the same is true of Windows 95 from the first release.

> although the default seems to be the bottom.

Same as Win95.

> On Plasma 6 I notice that unless there's a window overlapping the taskbar it floats slightly, similar to both Mac and newer Windows.

Yes. Win11 apes MacOS, KDE apes Win11.

> The one thing that remains definitely windows-like is a start-menu type button on the taskbar, which Unity avoids

Exactly.

> (Mac, Windows, Gnome, Unity all have their own flavours of status area,

Not really, no.

GNOME is trying hard to kill it. Mac and Unity let indicators join the menu bar, but there's no separate zone.

> Gnome 3 initially tried to have the activity chooser approach

It still does.

> they re-added a start menu

No, they did not. No such thing in stock GNOME or in Ubuntu customised GNOME.

> (I still get to see this monstrosity as RHEL8 has it).

Then that is a RHEL modification and I am not sure it's a stock one. It has not been in any version of CentOS, Alma or Rocky I have tested.

Take a look at the screenshots:

https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/16/alma_and_rocky_linux_release/

https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/18/rhel_86_and_rocky_and_alma/

No "applications" menu or anything of the kind here.

> What both Gnome and Plasma have long done though is remove folders from the default desktop

They all do that now, Windows included.

> This is not really classic Mac or Windows though, as both strongly insisted on putting things on the desktop.

Not in the last decade, no.

> The major Mac-ism that always seems most distinctive to me coming from Linux and Windows familiar user is the top/global menu integration, which I don't think Gnome still has.

It does not.

> They may have experimented with it at some point

Unity does, Xfce can with addins (a bit shakily), KDE can do it but not by default.

> (both Gnome and KDE have supported some version of it, not sure if it's ever been default).

Not AFAIK, never.

[Doctor Syntax]

I agree W95/NT/W2K do look like a starting off point. However I'm not sure to what extent they were a direct inspiration or a parallel evolution from CDE and/or other ideas. Certainly the KDE name seems to have been inspired by CDE.

It wouldn't be surprising to find the designs of desktop environments evolving separately but on similar lines to respond to the same existing ideas and the same thoughts as to where they might go next. Unity and W8, both attempting to follow mobile UIs are a case in point with Unity just preceding Windows in that case. And the idea of a dock or menu bar occupying just the middle of the bottom of the screen as in what I've seen of macOS & W11 looks to me to ba a throwback to CDE which in turn was derived from ideas variously found in UIs of DEC, IBM and the one I was familiar with, HP's VUE.

TL;DR What goes around comes around.

[Liam Proven]

[Author here]

> However I'm not sure to what extent they were a direct inspiration

I am. And I've gone into it in depth.

https://www.theregister.com/Print/2013/06/03/thank_microsoft_for_linux_desktop_fail/

[LionelB]

> ROX mimics RISC OS. Maxx mimics Irix. GNUstep, GSDE, & NEXTSPACE, mimic NeXTstep.

I'd add Window Maker (still going strong!) to that list.

Then there is Blackbox (and its forks, Fluxbux and Openbox) - it's not obvious to me what (if any) existing window managers they mimic/were inspired by.

EDIT: I note the old Blackbox man pages actually say: "Blackbox is similar to the NeXT interface and Windowmaker" ... not sure I really see that, but it's from the dev's mouth.

[Liam Proven]

[Author here]

> I'd add Window Maker (still going strong!) to that list.

Not a desktop. It's just a window manager and all the ones I listed _include it_.

[LionelB]

Okay, guess so.

With a bunch of dockapps, mind, it feels a bit desktop-y to me. I think it's a bit of a grey area as to what constitutes a desktop. E.g., a mildly enhanced Fluxbox configuration (my usual setup) features a taskbar, system tray and right-click application menus by default, and I'll generally have a few launchers, monitors, a workspace pager, etc., in the dock area. If I run Xfce, as I do on occasion (with desktop icons turned off), I have comparable screen furniture and functionality.

Not that it's of any consequence.

[Liam Proven]

[Author here]

> I think it's a bit of a grey area as to what constitutes a desktop.

Apps and accessories.

A window manager manages windows and that is about it. Most provide tools to let you start apps, often via a menu. Many provide tools to switch between apps.

A desktop adds a lot of extra functionality to this:

* some kind of settings, preferences or control panel app;

* a file manager;

* maybe desktop icons which open that file manager;

* companion apps with matching UI: a text editor, image viewers or players, calculator, task manager, etc.

* often some basic internet client apps;

Etc. The WM part may be the most visible bit but not necessarily. E.g. LXDE and LXQt are desktops, but do not have their own WM and use Openbox. GNUstep, GSDE, and NEXTSPACE use Window Maker as their WM.

[LionelB]

Sure, I know what a WM is - but they do vary from bare-bones window management (e.g., Openbox, most of the tiling WMs), to the inclusion of integrated bells and whistles like taskbars, system trays and docks (e.g., Fluxbox), or even full-featured GUI settings management (Window Maker).

In my case I run a simple WM -- usually Fluxbox, occasionally Openbox or Window Maker-- and then just add the essential (for me) apps & accessories. As far as settings go, I prefer (text!) config files to GUI tools, as it makes it easier to replicate a setup across machines. Perhaps you'd say I'm just building my own desktop. I'm fine with that.

[Zolko]

KDE, Xfce, LXDE/LXQt, Cinnamon, Budgie: all mimic Win9x

I can assure you that *my* KDE doesn't look like anything Win9x and never has. It looks – and behaves – like a mixture of CDE and MacOS. For example, I don't have a taskbar, at all : I have a desktop switcher, and I look at open windows with a Compiz-like presentation of open windows. Window bars are also rollable, so I can roll-up windows and leave only the top frame (to save screen space for windows I don't want to close but that I don't want to see: I have no "minimize" option, instead I roll it up). Have you ever seen multiple desktopns on Mac or Windows ? No, it's a CDE invention and once you have tasted it you cannot go back.

I also have widgets on the desktop – CPU usage – did Win9x ever have them ? I don't have mounted drives on the desktop, I have them in the status bar.

Also X-windows has copy'n-paste with the mouse middle button, which works in every program (ctrl-X in an x-term doesn work, mouse-middle-button does).

Also in KDE I can arrange where and which button to show for windows : you won't find my personal arrangement anywhere in any DE.

Yes, I do have a general Application Launcher ... with a Tux icon on it: can you change the icon of the "Start" button in Win9x ?

Also in KDE, the Dolphin file-manager can have tabs and split windows, transforming it into a MidnightExplorer-like file manager : very neat when you need it, and impossible to reproduce in Win9x (it has that horrible hierarchical side-bar where you never know where you have been). And speaking of Dolphin: thanks to kdeio, you can seamlessly log into remote folders (by FTP or SFTP or Samba ...) without any additional client and the remote window behaves exactly as local windows : you can even edit remote files locally and seamlessly : I have never seen that in MacOS or Win9x.

[Liam Proven]

[Author here]

> I can assure you that *my* KDE doesn't look like anything Win9x and never has.

Want to bet? I think you'll lose.

Step 1: create a new empty user account

Step 2: log in to it.http://www.tech2u.com.au/training/tech2u/win98_2/internet.html

I bet the result looks exactly like Win9x.

In fact the *only* KDE-based layout I have seen which does not is Nitrux:

https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/03/nitrux_25/

> Have you ever seen multiple desktopns on Mac or Windows ?

Yep. Standard feature in Win10 onwards.

Standard in macOS since 10.5 Leopard in 2006:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaces_(software)

> widgets on the desktop [...] did Win9x ever have them ?

Floating channels bar in Win98.

http://www.tech2u.com.au/training/tech2u/win98_2/internet.html

Gadgets bar in Vista.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Desktop_Gadgets

> impossible to reproduce in Win9x

Press Win+E twice. Right-click the taskbar, pick Tile. Done. Takes 1-2 seconds.

> (it has that horrible hierarchical side-bar where you never know where you have been)

A defining feature and one I love. Copied by about 20 different FOSS GUIs. It's in Nautilus, Konqueror, Dolphin, Nemo, Thunar, PCManFM, and dozens more.

> you can seamlessly log into remote folders (by FTP or SFTP or Samba ...) without any additional client

Something I absolutely hate. Ugly bloat. The Unix way is meant to be small programs that do one thing well. I detest the crappy KDE file managers which are also crappy web browsers, very crappy FTP clients, super crappy SSH clients, ultra mega crappy mail clients, etc. The point of a modular desktop was meant to be that I can turn that crap _off_ and use a dedicated program that's _good_ at it.

[Pascal Monett]

"harmonize the desktop theme with RGB keyboard lighting"

Right. That is a typical 1st-world detail right there.

As far as keyboard lighting concerns me, my eyesight has gone to shit so all I need is a nice amber color, which is what I program for my existing keyboard lighting.

Aside from that, I do not need to have my computer box lit in rainbow colors, my fans lit in blue, red or green, or whatever else. The box is under the desk. I don't see it anyway, so why should it be lit up like a Christmas tree ?

I will leave that to the people who think it is important, no judgement here. For me, it's not important, so don't judge me.

[Andy Non]

Re: "harmonize the desktop theme with RGB keyboard lighting"

Keyboard lighting eh? So that's what it's for. Presumably I could leave the room light off when typing in the dark with such a keyboard?

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: "harmonize the desktop theme with RGB keyboard lighting"

Or you can delay turning the room light on.

[Pascal Monett]

Presumably you could.

I'm guessing you're under 30.

Come back in 25 years and we'll discuss how useful keyboard lighting is . . .

[Andy Non]

"I'm guessing you're under 30."

You need to more than double your guess. There were no new fangled lit up keyboards when ar wor a lad. We ad to type by candle light while ar dads beat us wi a ZX81 power supply.

[David 132]

I saved and saved all my pocket money for months so I could get the 16KB RAM pack for my ZX81.

Not to extend the memory, mind, but to give my dad an alternative & get my power supply back…