PDA

View Full Version : "Equivalents" vs "Ripoffs"



Sirin
April 7th, 2006, 07:55 PM
There is a question I wanted to ask. Why do Linux people call Linux implementations of Mac or Windows features "Equivalents", and call Windows implementations of Mac or Linux features "Ripoffs"? I see most people here calling Linux implementations of Expose "Expose Equivalents", and Windows versions of the Virtual Desktop Manager "Virtual Desktop Ripoffs"? It kinda boggles me. :confused:

bjweeks
April 7th, 2006, 07:57 PM
"Bad artists copy. Great artists steal."
Pablo Picasso

bjweeks
April 7th, 2006, 08:04 PM
I think it is because bashing mircosoft ups you "leetness".

aysiu
April 7th, 2006, 08:04 PM
Equivalents often help one to accomplish the same task but not necessarily in the same way.

Ripoffs try to accomplish the same task in the exact same way.

Ripoffs also tend to claim to be innovative in some fashion, when really they're not.

Equivalents tend to recognize they are substitutes on a different platform.

For example, AmaroK is an equivalent of iTunes. It doesn't copy iTunes interface or features, and it has a ton of features iTunes doesn't have. It's an equivalent because people who migrate over want to know, "How can I play my music? Is there an equivalent to iTunes in Linux?"

You could argue, however, that XMMS is a ripoff of WinAmp, as it not only tries to accomplish the same task but also mimicks the interface. XMMS, however, does not claim to be original.

You could make the case that Ubuntu is an equivalent to Windows and that Linspire is a ripoff of Windows... depending on how you view things.

Kindred
April 7th, 2006, 08:10 PM
Actually, I tend to see the word 'clone' thrown around quite a bit with OSS.

Also, I imagine that people will tend to be a lot more lenient if you note the inspiration of your work, as is often the case with free software developers.

aysiu
April 7th, 2006, 08:18 PM
Also, I imagine that people will tend to be a lot more lenient if you note the inspiration of your work, as is often the case with free software developers. For example, Rhythmbox's description (http://www.gnome.org/projects/rhythmbox/) starts out (emphasis added):
Rhythmbox is an integrated music management application, originally inspired by Apple's iTunes. If you set out in the beginning to say "I'm copying blah blah blah," nobody's going to call you a "ripoff."

freedomforme
April 7th, 2006, 10:42 PM
Linspire is a ripoff of Windows...
A BAD ripoff at that! :)

SHodges
April 7th, 2006, 11:33 PM
Equivalent = Anything on Linux.
Ripoff = Not on Linux.

In my experience at least. On the up side, looking for comments like those is a good way to tell who is and isn't worth listening to, about anything.

SeanTater
April 7th, 2006, 11:41 PM
A BAD ripoff at that! :)

Not in my opinion. It may be expensive and it may be just like windows, but to some, that is the only thing that will convince them to use linux.

awakatanka
April 7th, 2006, 11:54 PM
I see a lot of screenshots with a osx look, most people think that is cool. But if someone make's it look like windows people start screaming.

OSX lookalike bars get a good reaction, kbfx that makes a start button and menu look nicer but looks a little like windows start/menu gets bad reaction.

I don't understand it to, all that ms is bad and osx is cool thing.](*,)

NeghVar
April 8th, 2006, 03:02 AM
I don't understand it to, all that ms is bad and osx is cool thing.

I think it is mostly because of the community. Mac users are about as loyal as linux users, but except for a few you won't hear many arguing the advantages of Windows. people generally just tolerate MS since its what came installed, those poor unfortunate souls that haven't found the path to true happiness...

Mac users on the other hand love their machines (generally speaking you will find a higher percentage of mac lovers than MS lovers). Plus Mac and Linux both have the same basic design starting from Unix where as MS is off in its own little fantasy world were Balmer should be allowed to run across the stage screaming for 10 minutes until his shirt is to full of sweat to stand.

Once again, we must pitty these unfortunates and help them find the path to true happiness and enlightenment.

freedomforme
April 8th, 2006, 03:29 AM
Not in my opinion. It may be expensive and it may be just like windows, but to some, that is the only thing that will convince them to use linux.
and just like windows it has plenty of security holes, just not as many exploits for them...YET!

professor_chaos
April 8th, 2006, 06:02 AM
There is a question I wanted to ask. Why do Linux people call Linux implementations of Mac or Windows features "Equivalents", and call Windows implementations of Mac or Linux features "Ripoffs"? I see most people here calling Linux implementations of Expose "Expose Equivalents", and Windows versions of the Virtual Desktop Manager "Virtual Desktop Ripoffs"? It kinda boggles me. :confused:


I would say that if someone implements something from a MAC or MS platform to linux and then they are just giving it freely to others, then I can see how people would sweeten the expression from "Ripoff" to "Clone" or "Equivalents". However, if a company that plans on just reverse engineering software to make a quick buck and take advantage of the consumers and given Microsofts history (I'll leave it at that) some might want to jump on the term "Ripoff".

BoyOfDestiny
April 8th, 2006, 06:42 AM
Hmm... I prefer to use the term clone. When something is basically the same, I call it a clone. When it does the same task, but is different, I call it an equivalent/alternative. Ripoffs IMHO, are when people steal source code, brand it, bundle spyware (like what happend once to cdex, just google for it)

helpme
April 8th, 2006, 08:28 AM
Why do Linux people call Linux implementations of Mac or Windows features "Equivalents", and call Windows implementations of Mac or Linux features "Ripoffs"?
I that so?
Any prove, or just your overall impressions and a convenient way to start yet an other threat whining about people saying negative things about MS?

paul cooke
April 8th, 2006, 11:28 AM
There is a question I wanted to ask. Why do Linux people call Linux implementations of Mac or Windows features "Equivalents", and call Windows implementations of Mac or Linux features "Ripoffs"? I see most people here calling Linux implementations of Expose "Expose Equivalents", and Windows versions of the Virtual Desktop Manager "Virtual Desktop Ripoffs"? It kinda boggles me. :confused:

it's simple, we acknowledge where we get the inspiration from... Microsoft doesn't and to add gall to the mix, claims anything they've done as an innovation.

Witness the virtual desktop manager and pager that's in Vista... Microsoft have http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20030189597&OS=20030189597&RS=20030189597
patented the damn thing... and mentioned the Gnome and KDE pagers and virtual desktops in the patent as prior art, but they're claiming the pager is innovative in Vista as it shows all four virtual desktops at once as scaled images of each desktop when the user clicks on the pager icon on the taskbar.

The problem is, it would cost an arm and a leg to even start to get that patent application if granted overturned for blatant obviousness and prior art... not to mention the fact that Microsoft has endless sums of money to splash out on favourable "reviews" and "articles" in the computer press... Joe public, who's never seen this before, will think Microsoft are being amazingly innovative for giving them extra desktops...

prizrak
April 8th, 2006, 12:36 PM
People who view MS negatively and Apple favorably do so because Apple is the underdog. I personally think they are as bad if not worse than MS but because their #2 with a very large gap they are viewed favorably.
As mentioned before things on Linux are often called equivalents rather than rip offs for a few reasons.
1) It is often a program that was inspired by another program but not the same
2) It is normally explicitly stated what program was the inspiration
3) It is FOSS so w/e is created is released to the community to modify as they see fit
4) It is by and large something that is not otherwise available for the OS

Reasons for people calling MS stuff rip offs are
1) They hate MS (that is the BS reason)
2) MS claims that it is "innovation" when there is clearly prior art
3) The thing that is being cloned is normally available from 3rd party vendors, who MS puts out of business with their software.

I'm sure there are other reasons but the basics of it is the fact that FOSS software doesn't put anyone out of business using monopolistic and unfair practices.