24 ms·

> So, both needed non Windows like desktops, ASAP, without a Start menu, without a taskbar For me these two were the only improvements in the user interface of

> So, both needed non Windows like desktops, ASAP, without a Start menu, without a taskbar For me these two were the only improvements in the user interface of Windows 95, but they were indeed very important. There has been no other user interface element of Windows 95 that I have considered useful and which I had not already used earlier. The Start menu offered a much more convenient alternative for starting programs than starting them by clicking icons, like in the previous versions of Windows. Nevertheless, I cannot understand how it was possible to patent a "Start menu" when it had only trivial content modifications in comparison with the menu used in twm, some 8 years earlier. The second improvement was the auto-hidden taskbar, due to which the minimized windows no longer wasted screen space. This is the only user interface element that I had not seen before using Windows 95, so perhaps it was patentable, even if it is a pretty obvious solution that could be found by anyone in the instant when it was recognized that the screen space occupied by minimized windows is a problem. This is a general problem that affects many patents which are the obvious solutions for some problems and they do not require any kind of ingenuity for their discovery. The only reason why they are novel, is because those problems have not been encountered earlier, so nobody had thought to patent solutions for them. So I believe that with the possible exception of the auto-hidden taskbar, it should have been easy to fight any claims of patent infringement by other graphic desktops, because for all features the differences from prior art were trivial. If the story from the parent article is true, then perhaps RedHat and al. have been scared by the legal expenses so they have chosen a workaround even if most Microsoft claims should have been invalid.

kaba0 3y ago
> I cannot understand how it was possible to patent a "Start menu" It isn’t, this “article” is just bad-intentioned bullshit.
- lproven 3y ago
  So prove me wrong, and when you do it, stop calling my work insulting names and accusing me of things I do not have or do, such as calling me bad-intentioned. This is ad hom, and it is bad and wrong, it is hurtful, it is mean, and it is against the spirit of HN.
  - bkor 3y ago
    > So prove me wrong, and when you do it, stop calling my work insulting names and accusing me of things I do not have or do, such as calling me bad-intentioned. You keep repeating this, but it's not up to others to prove what you claim is wrong. It's up to you to prove it is correct.
  - kaba0 3y ago
    Prove yourself right first. Literally the creators behind several of these projects called out that what you are saying is outright false. I’m commenting in multiple places because fighting disinformation is very hard (compared to producing it), I’m just trying to make it right, before people believe the falsehoods you state. Your intentions might be good, but that doesn’t change the outcome.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    You could prove your unsubstantiated claim. What is the relevant patent number, and how did Gnome's design infringe on it, and how would removing it require a fundamental re-design of Gnome to avoid infringing? Here's what I've found: They do have a patent for a "taskbar with start menu", number US5920316A. The abstract focuses on the taskbar, and the main claims are all linked to having a taskbar and to the taskbar being tied to a specific location (though changeable) and being permanent or autoiding in that location. Ignoring whether or not Gnome actually infringed - there are a lot of additional details to the claims - replacing the taskbar with iconified windows or using a click or hotkey to pop up a UI element instead would both be enough to avoid infringing on all the main claims of that patent. But there are so many additional details that it's likely you could easily avoid that patent while retaining a full task bar in any case. What is clear is that it'd be ludicrous for Gnome to take as long as they did to remove the taskbar given this patent if they were being actually threatened by this and given how simple it'd be to work around. The claims regarding the start menu are excruciatingly detailed in the general description, but very little actually appears in the actual claims. This is a common tactic to try to give the appearance of a far more comprehensive patent than you actually have, but what is covered regarding anything resembling a start menu in the actual claims of the patent is near nothing. Given you're being directly contradicted by people more closely involved, unless you have something substantially better, these claims looks like total hogwash.
lproven 3y ago
[Article author here] > This is the only user interface element that I had not seen before using Windows 95 Then I suggest that you need to look deeper. I did, and I analysed it in some detail nearly a decade before that article: https://www.theregister.com/Print/2013/06/03/thank_microsoft_for_linux_desktop_fail/ https://www.theregister.com/Print/2013/06/03/thank_microsoft... > if it is a pretty obvious solution that could be found by anyone in the instan That is not even slightly true. Just look at a series of the Win95 beta screenshots and you will see Microsoft slowly and with considerable difficulty iterating their way to this difficult and non-obvious solution. https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3329 https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3329 > for all features the differences from prior art were trivial They really are not. I have spent days looking. I do not think you have.
- deaddodo 3y ago
  Did you purposefully choose a link that doesn't actually include any working gallery links? Here, here's the actual wiki for betaarchive: https://www.betaarchive.com/wiki/ https://www.betaarchive.com/wiki/ And here's a link to the first build with a fully functional start menu: https://www.betaarchive.com/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Chicago_Build_81 https://www.betaarchive.com/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Ch... That's b81...there were 400+ more to follow that (800+, if you include the follow up service packs). Pretty much every person who worked on Chicago that talks about the start button/taskbar says it's one of the first things that was finalized, which the builds obviously confirm. The "iteration" that you refer to is simply taking the combined Presentation Manager and Program Manager code and reconfiguring it into the taskbar. For someone so "aware" of software development, you seem to expect unreasonably long timelines (5+ years for GNOME3) and unreasonably short timelines (what? 4-8 builds? to completely reconfigure a major UI component and paradigm) when they're convenient to making your wholecloth narratives work.

kaba0 3y ago

> I cannot understand how it was possible to patent a "Start menu" It isn’t, this “article” is just bad-intentioned bullshit.

lproven 3y ago
So prove me wrong, and when you do it, stop calling my work insulting names and accusing me of things I do not have or do, such as calling me bad-intentioned. This is ad hom, and it is bad and wrong, it is hurtful, it is mean, and it is against the spirit of HN.
- bkor 3y ago
  > So prove me wrong, and when you do it, stop calling my work insulting names and accusing me of things I do not have or do, such as calling me bad-intentioned. You keep repeating this, but it's not up to others to prove what you claim is wrong. It's up to you to prove it is correct.
- kaba0 3y ago
  Prove yourself right first. Literally the creators behind several of these projects called out that what you are saying is outright false. I’m commenting in multiple places because fighting disinformation is very hard (compared to producing it), I’m just trying to make it right, before people believe the falsehoods you state. Your intentions might be good, but that doesn’t change the outcome.
- vidarh 3y ago
  You could prove your unsubstantiated claim. What is the relevant patent number, and how did Gnome's design infringe on it, and how would removing it require a fundamental re-design of Gnome to avoid infringing? Here's what I've found: They do have a patent for a "taskbar with start menu", number US5920316A. The abstract focuses on the taskbar, and the main claims are all linked to having a taskbar and to the taskbar being tied to a specific location (though changeable) and being permanent or autoiding in that location. Ignoring whether or not Gnome actually infringed - there are a lot of additional details to the claims - replacing the taskbar with iconified windows or using a click or hotkey to pop up a UI element instead would both be enough to avoid infringing on all the main claims of that patent. But there are so many additional details that it's likely you could easily avoid that patent while retaining a full task bar in any case. What is clear is that it'd be ludicrous for Gnome to take as long as they did to remove the taskbar given this patent if they were being actually threatened by this and given how simple it'd be to work around. The claims regarding the start menu are excruciatingly detailed in the general description, but very little actually appears in the actual claims. This is a common tactic to try to give the appearance of a far more comprehensive patent than you actually have, but what is covered regarding anything resembling a start menu in the actual claims of the patent is near nothing. Given you're being directly contradicted by people more closely involved, unless you have something substantially better, these claims looks like total hogwash.

lproven 3y ago

[Article author here] > This is the only user interface element that I had not seen before using Windows 95 Then I suggest that you need to look deeper. I did, and I analysed it in some detail nearly a decade before that article: https://www.theregister.com/Print/2013/06/03/thank_microsoft_for_linux_desktop_fail/ https://www.theregister.com/Print/2013/06/03/thank_microsoft... > if it is a pretty obvious solution that could be found by anyone in the instan That is not even slightly true. Just look at a series of the Win95 beta screenshots and you will see Microsoft slowly and with considerable difficulty iterating their way to this difficult and non-obvious solution. https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3329 https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3329 > for all features the differences from prior art were trivial They really are not. I have spent days looking. I do not think you have.

deaddodo 3y ago
Did you purposefully choose a link that doesn't actually include any working gallery links? Here, here's the actual wiki for betaarchive: https://www.betaarchive.com/wiki/ https://www.betaarchive.com/wiki/ And here's a link to the first build with a fully functional start menu: https://www.betaarchive.com/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Chicago_Build_81 https://www.betaarchive.com/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Ch... That's b81...there were 400+ more to follow that (800+, if you include the follow up service packs). Pretty much every person who worked on Chicago that talks about the start button/taskbar says it's one of the first things that was finalized, which the builds obviously confirm. The "iteration" that you refer to is simply taking the combined Presentation Manager and Program Manager code and reconfiguring it into the taskbar. For someone so "aware" of software development, you seem to expect unreasonably long timelines (5+ years for GNOME3) and unreasonably short timelines (what? 4-8 builds? to completely reconfigure a major UI component and paradigm) when they're convenient to making your wholecloth narratives work.