I could not help but comment on the controversy surrounding your efforts. First, a general observation regarding your collections of themes:
I've enjoyed looking at what you and your "users" or "customers" have created. There are some real artists out there.
Having said that let's consider the problem from another perspective which might clear up some confusion and unnecessary intransigence. Most Americans and people in general have a fairly solid concept of corporate and individual owner.
Consider cars for example in the SouthWest it is more a less an old tradition to decorate your vehicle according to your tastes. All sorts of vehicles (various popular makes and models across several manufacturers) are reengineered or recolored to behave, respond or appear in all sorts of ways. One may move and shake and quake up, down or sideways; another may project sound to rival 10 city orchestras or rock bands at once. However, there are rules in this process. Two are:
1. Never mess with anything new.
2. Never mess with a classic.
No one has ever bothered to modify say a Lamborghini, or Vector Research. Even in Harlem, these cars are sacrosanct. No one even sits on them; these particular cars do draw a crowd though. Kind of like silent amazement which used to be experienced in or near Cathdedrals. One modification, I admit, I did see a Lamborghini bear
was the owners choice to have a frill of little balls hanging from the cieling of that car on the drivers side. He had it up for a few days; he did remove it afterwards though.
Amongst computers the Mac has this similar status.
More than that, it has earned it. Apple has been very careful with the Mac and I believe very trusting of its users. Other companies, Hewlett-Packard - for example would love to have their users get all wispy, and teary eyed about their products. Only users of Macs treat their machines with affection usually shown to pets. I would not wish to discover which recieves more attention either.
The reason for this is Apple's technical competence in creating a machine we actually like and enjoy.
The price of that competence though is users knowing when to refrain from mucking with greatness. None of Apple's efforts were ever "open source" or free to the public prior to Mac OS X. All modifications suffered the threat of crashing the Mac nearly at all times as so many things go on hidden from the user. Even a programmer only learns portions of whatever is relevant to the task at hand. Lest I forget, only a portion of MacOS X
is open source. And Apple is very clear about what portion that is.
Of course, pure artistic types, see blandness where walls are and everything must therefore be "art" or "color". This type of art is called not art, but graffiti. And no amount of pleaing different will change that perception. Art, of all sorts, is only so within the rules of society, and what is accepted as "change" is only so within context.
Otherwise it is defacement of another's property.
In short, had Apple intended to release a "Themes Editor" it would have done so with the same energy it released Macwrite, Resedit, etc. in the Mac's early days. It chose NOT to do that; that's called "company policy" or "corporate decision" or whatever, but it was a decision internal to Apple and it isn't anyone's business how it came to that conclusion. Complaining is one thing; moving ahead to contradict that decision is violating intellectual property law and within the US and probably the UK and maybe even Europe, get anyone in a heap of trouble. For good solid reasons which most understand.
Let's consider Linux. Linux is a solid powerful movement for many reasons, mostly because there is so much that is free. There is a lot to admire and study regarding the Linux products and users suddenly all over the place. The first realization is the anarchic nature of the various interfaces of the X-windows environment. There is not one Window Manager, there are several in various states of completion some more useful and useable than others, and each for a different purpose. The protected Mac user base is not ready for this group of software.
In the Linux environment, you have the source for EVERYTHING. You change anything without research and intensive documentation of what your modification was -- you will be really, completely lost. You cannot rely on the Linux community to help you because everyone pretty much does their own pet thing which may not be the thing of interest to you at the moment such as how to remove a panel applet which you added within the KDE environment. For the uninitiated, the panel emulates something like a Windows panel usually appearing on the bottom of the screen. However, the apparent similarity ends there; within KDE you can add as much stuff to it as you wish, but if you change your mind and want to remove that item there is NO REMOVE COMMAND. There are ways to remove it, but you must either use the Command Line interface, the Xterm or similar window, or re-engineer the KDE interface yourself to include that command, which the people who designed KDE, left out. EVERY
interface, tool, or useful item has something left out. The general concept in Linux is, you want it -- CODE IT! And remember that not everying available for Linux was coded for the PPC either.
If it is hasn't been re-created/re-compiled for the PPC and put out by someone like Terra Soft's YDL, Suse Linux or LinuxPPC or other reliable group you are on your own AND you better be a MASTER CODER and UNIX maven.
Threatening Apple by saying you are going to support Linux, doesn't help you. It makes you look downright silly. A reality check for those with serious ego issues. There's a company known as Eazel, the founder's of this company comprises the who's who -- the pinnacle of Apple software. Given the Linux environment I've explained they've created their own interface for use by the Linux community. Although the major distributors of Linux, including Red Hat, will distribute their interface remember it is only one interface amongst several. There is no question that these people can CODE, yet if you were to review the literature in the major Linux websites and magazines there is the equivalent of a collective YAWN. And you fellows think you will influence the world of Linux?
I don't know, of course, what'll happen. But I sincerely hope you reconsider your position. There is no dishonor at this point saying, "Wow, what a bummer. I didn't get it before." Do themes for Enlightenment. There are hundreds, possibly more, of Enlightenment themes. Aqua is one theme which was designed for the Enlightenment interface anyway. Wouldn't it be better for your users to be the authors of the next theme which Apple chooses from the Enlightenment theme set?
Think about it, REALLY.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
The point is that, this is a MAC!!! It deserves FREEDOM of CHOICES....and so do the owners of this software interface! ...Mac OS is the ONLY operating system that does NOT allow GUI Interface/Theme changes or have a repository of theme offerings.
We, as Mac owners, DESERVE GUI freedom of choice!!!
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Let's get something straight, back in the old days, the human factors engineers at Apple were firmly in charge of designing the appearance of the UI.
After that, OS 8's theme came out, it didn't really change the way anything _worked_ so much as it changed the way things _looked_. The only things it really changed was that there was now a Window Shade-esque function & widget, Text was SmoothType-ized, the UI had sounds, pop-up menus had a set of triangles added on the right-hand side and the use of tabs was "In". Aside from that, there was just more gray, everything was rubberized and the font was different. All of it still obeyed Apple's decades of HFE research.
In other words, how did Apple's use of a different visual theme change things against their UI flow? They didn't, in choosing between System 7 and Platinum a user didn't have "GUI freedom of choice", we just had GUI _appearance_ freedom of choice. It's like slapping a face-plate on a cellphone(And maybe moving around a few buttons that were already there).
In YEARS of swapping around Kaleidoscope schemes of the most extreme kind only minor damage was done, most apps still worked about the same, the sacrosanct Apple Macintosh User Interface Guidelines were practically never violated by Kaleidoscope users, then came OS X.
At first, it was kind of like any other OS; it's got a visual theme that's been running through these guys heads for years, they've built it now and it runs with it, but the horrible precognitions brought to the minds of many from memories of QuickTime Player came true. Jobs presented the Dock, except it had no organization, sorting, proper menus, Fitts' Law usage or anything. They rebuilt it, they rebuilt it again, the same for the Finder, the same for all of their "iApps":
First Aqua, then your choice(!) of either Aqua or gray(Instead of every one of the fruit flavors, or just a tinting engine, I mean COME ON MAN wouldn it be _that_ hard to do compared to desaturation!?), then metal, then metal with Aqua, then metal with Aqua with inverted chiclet-buttons; "Apple"'s "UI" "Designers" clearly have no freaking idea what the heck their talking about, when they change they're theme from metal to all-white or whatever, I'll bet that the iApps/system will all change too, except they'll do something wrong again(Like the lack of Pineapple G4s;-).
If Apple is just firing random visual shots in every direction as a UI appearance design method, I'll bet John Q. Macintosh User could do better(AT LEAST all of the apps on a person's system would look alike again) than them.
If not, it's time for Apple to hire Layne Karkruff.
Eric,
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I could not help but comment on the controversy surrounding your efforts. First, a general observation regarding your collections of themes:
I've enjoyed looking at what you and your "users" or "customers" have created. There are some real artists out there.
Having said that let's consider the problem from another perspective which might clear up some confusion and unnecessary intransigence. Most Americans and people in general have a fairly solid concept of corporate and individual owner.
Consider cars for example in the SouthWest it is more a less an old tradition to decorate your vehicle according to your tastes. All sorts of vehicles (various popular makes and models across several manufacturers) are reengineered or recolored to behave, respond or appear in all sorts of ways. One may move and shake and quake up, down or sideways; another may project sound to rival 10 city orchestras or rock bands at once. However, there are rules in this process. Two are:
1. Never mess with anything new.
2. Never mess with a classic.
No one has ever bothered to modify say a Lamborghini, or Vector Research. Even in Harlem, these cars are sacrosanct. No one even sits on them; these particular cars do draw a crowd though. Kind of like silent amazement which used to be experienced in or near Cathdedrals. One modification, I admit, I did see a Lamborghini bear
was the owners choice to have a frill of little balls hanging from the cieling of that car on the drivers side. He had it up for a few days; he did remove it afterwards though.
Amongst computers the Mac has this similar status.
More than that, it has earned it. Apple has been very careful with the Mac and I believe very trusting of its users. Other companies, Hewlett-Packard - for example would love to have their users get all wispy, and teary eyed about their products. Only users of Macs treat their machines with affection usually shown to pets. I would not wish to discover which recieves more attention either.
The reason for this is Apple's technical competence in creating a machine we actually like and enjoy.
The price of that competence though is users knowing when to refrain from mucking with greatness. None of Apple's efforts were ever "open source" or free to the public prior to Mac OS X. All modifications suffered the threat of crashing the Mac nearly at all times as so many things go on hidden from the user. Even a programmer only learns portions of whatever is relevant to the task at hand. Lest I forget, only a portion of MacOS X
is open source. And Apple is very clear about what portion that is.
Of course, pure artistic types, see blandness where walls are and everything must therefore be "art" or "color". This type of art is called not art, but graffiti. And no amount of pleaing different will change that perception. Art, of all sorts, is only so within the rules of society, and what is accepted as "change" is only so within context.
Otherwise it is defacement of another's property.
In short, had Apple intended to release a "Themes Editor" it would have done so with the same energy it released Macwrite, Resedit, etc. in the Mac's early days. It chose NOT to do that; that's called "company policy" or "corporate decision" or whatever, but it was a decision internal to Apple and it isn't anyone's business how it came to that conclusion. Complaining is one thing; moving ahead to contradict that decision is violating intellectual property law and within the US and probably the UK and maybe even Europe, get anyone in a heap of trouble. For good solid reasons which most understand.
Let's consider Linux. Linux is a solid powerful movement for many reasons, mostly because there is so much that is free. There is a lot to admire and study regarding the Linux products and users suddenly all over the place. The first realization is the anarchic nature of the various interfaces of the X-windows environment. There is not one Window Manager, there are several in various states of completion some more useful and useable than others, and each for a different purpose. The protected Mac user base is not ready for this group of software.
In the Linux environment, you have the source for EVERYTHING. You change anything without research and intensive documentation of what your modification was -- you will be really, completely lost. You cannot rely on the Linux community to help you because everyone pretty much does their own pet thing which may not be the thing of interest to you at the moment such as how to remove a panel applet which you added within the KDE environment. For the uninitiated, the panel emulates something like a Windows panel usually appearing on the bottom of the screen. However, the apparent similarity ends there; within KDE you can add as much stuff to it as you wish, but if you change your mind and want to remove that item there is NO REMOVE COMMAND. There are ways to remove it, but you must either use the Command Line interface, the Xterm or similar window, or re-engineer the KDE interface yourself to include that command, which the people who designed KDE, left out. EVERY
interface, tool, or useful item has something left out. The general concept in Linux is, you want it -- CODE IT! And remember that not everying available for Linux was coded for the PPC either.
If it is hasn't been re-created/re-compiled for the PPC and put out by someone like Terra Soft's YDL, Suse Linux or LinuxPPC or other reliable group you are on your own AND you better be a MASTER CODER and UNIX maven.
Threatening Apple by saying you are going to support Linux, doesn't help you. It makes you look downright silly. A reality check for those with serious ego issues. There's a company known as Eazel, the founder's of this company comprises the who's who -- the pinnacle of Apple software. Given the Linux environment I've explained they've created their own interface for use by the Linux community. Although the major distributors of Linux, including Red Hat, will distribute their interface remember it is only one interface amongst several. There is no question that these people can CODE, yet if you were to review the literature in the major Linux websites and magazines there is the equivalent of a collective YAWN. And you fellows think you will influence the world of Linux?
I don't know, of course, what'll happen. But I sincerely hope you reconsider your position. There is no dishonor at this point saying, "Wow, what a bummer. I didn't get it before." Do themes for Enlightenment. There are hundreds, possibly more, of Enlightenment themes. Aqua is one theme which was designed for the Enlightenment interface anyway. Wouldn't it be better for your users to be the authors of the next theme which Apple chooses from the Enlightenment theme set?
Think about it, REALLY.
what?
The point is that, this is a MAC!!! It deserves FREEDOM of CHOICES....and so do the owners of this software interface! ...Mac OS is the ONLY operating system that does NOT allow GUI Interface/Theme changes or have a repository of theme offerings.
We, as Mac owners, DESERVE GUI freedom of choice!!!
Let's get something straight, back in the old days, the human factors engineers at Apple were firmly in charge of designing the appearance of the UI.
After that, OS 8's theme came out, it didn't really change the way anything _worked_ so much as it changed the way things _looked_. The only things it really changed was that there was now a Window Shade-esque function & widget, Text was SmoothType-ized, the UI had sounds, pop-up menus had a set of triangles added on the right-hand side and the use of tabs was "In". Aside from that, there was just more gray, everything was rubberized and the font was different. All of it still obeyed Apple's decades of HFE research.
In other words, how did Apple's use of a different visual theme change things against their UI flow? They didn't, in choosing between System 7 and Platinum a user didn't have "GUI freedom of choice", we just had GUI _appearance_ freedom of choice. It's like slapping a face-plate on a cellphone(And maybe moving around a few buttons that were already there).
In YEARS of swapping around Kaleidoscope schemes of the most extreme kind only minor damage was done, most apps still worked about the same, the sacrosanct Apple Macintosh User Interface Guidelines were practically never violated by Kaleidoscope users, then came OS X.
At first, it was kind of like any other OS; it's got a visual theme that's been running through these guys heads for years, they've built it now and it runs with it, but the horrible precognitions brought to the minds of many from memories of QuickTime Player came true. Jobs presented the Dock, except it had no organization, sorting, proper menus, Fitts' Law usage or anything. They rebuilt it, they rebuilt it again, the same for the Finder, the same for all of their "iApps":
First Aqua, then your choice(!) of either Aqua or gray(Instead of every one of the fruit flavors, or just a tinting engine, I mean COME ON MAN wouldn it be _that_ hard to do compared to desaturation!?), then metal, then metal with Aqua, then metal with Aqua with inverted chiclet-buttons; "Apple"'s "UI" "Designers" clearly have no freaking idea what the heck their talking about, when they change they're theme from metal to all-white or whatever, I'll bet that the iApps/system will all change too, except they'll do something wrong again(Like the lack of Pineapple G4s;-).
If Apple is just firing random visual shots in every direction as a UI appearance design method, I'll bet John Q. Macintosh User could do better(AT LEAST all of the apps on a person's system would look alike again) than them.
If not, it's time for Apple to hire Layne Karkruff.
Eric,