[jdb8167]

In reply to:

---

Are you misinterpreting what I said this badly on purpose?

---

No.

In reply to:

---

Active Desktop can't interact with the system.

---

I was focusing on your statement that using "web-technologies" made it unique. Active Desktop used "web-technologies" to provide the Windows desktop with useful mini-applications that ran on the desktop. Certainly Konfabulator and later Apple did a more extensive mini-application environment but nearly all technologies are evolved from earlier efforts. I would say that Konfabulator evolved from Apple's original mini-application system as Desk Accessories and from Active Desktop for development. And to a lesser extent from the design of Java applets.
Of course this is all my opinion as to where the conceptual origins of Konfabulator came from. It takes nothing away from the developers for putting it all together but I do take exception to the idea that Apple did something underhanded by introducing similar functionality in OS X.
And BTW, Active Desktop suffered from the same problems as Konfabulator and Dashboard do in that it used an inordinate amount of system resources making it less useful than it would have been otherwise.

[d00d]

I'm going to have to flat out disagree. Using web technologies in the way that Konfabulator did was unique until Dashboard came along. Active Desktop was nothing more than presenting a regular old web page in a slightly different way. As for Desk Accessories, that's a tired, under-powered argument, particularly as the ease of app creation and use of web technology is conveniently ignored. As for Java applets, considering their lack of similar presentation tools, the need for a compiler, and the lack of an interpreter that is tolerant of errors as is the case with web pages, I don't think it's a very valid comparison.
When one examines the intended usage, languages used, presentation techniques, as well as the nomenclature (Widget may be a a generic term, but a complete coincidence? Let's be slightly skeptical, or if not, I've got this great bridge to sell.) it reeks of Apple fanboyism.

[IVIIVIi4ck3y27]

DesktopX for PC predates Konfabulator and does much of the same things (also referring to their mini-apps as "Widgets") as Konfabulator/Dashboard. If Arlo wants to get uppity about Apple ripping off Konfabulator, I'm sure the people at Stardock could get on the horn and give Arlo a piece of their minds too. Esp. now that Konfabulator invaded DesktopX's platform (Windows), which was a large part of Arlo's beef with Apple with regard to Dashboard invading Konfabulator's usable space.
http://www.stardock....desktopx/video/
Look familiar? ::gasp::
It's an old and tired horse to beat... give it all a rest.

[d00d]

In reply to:

---

DesktopX for PC predates Konfabulator and does much of the same things (also referring to their mini-apps as "Widgets") as Konfabulator/Dashboard.

---

Except it doesn't use web-technology and languages to ease the development process. Considering the requirement of a proprietary development environment and a compiler, this comparison isn't valid and we might as well fall back to the Desk Accessories argument, which also suffers from the non use of web languages as well as requiring a compiler.

In reply to:

---

It's an old and tired horse to beat... give it all a rest.

---

Wait, so I should give it a rest once you make your argument? That's a convenient time to want it to end.

[jdb8167]

In reply to:

---

Using web technologies in the way that Konfabulator did was unique until Dashboard came along.

---

You missed the part about evolving technologies. I agree that Konfabulator added a significant component to the mix by using Javascript for development. But if you look at the origin of Javascript that was its intended function all along. It was specifically what made Microsoft nervous about Netscape--the idea of the browser becoming the OS.
I don't want to take anything away from Konfabulator and the developers but you are placing too much emphasis on the language being an interpreter. That is less important than you think. As someone who has developed Java using JSP knows, the requirement for a build step to compile Java code is optional. JSP will automatically compile the page in the background on first access and completely transparently to the JSP author. I've worked with Web designers who literally didn't know that the Java compiler was being invoked because it was so transparent and acted nearly identically to Javascript.
The progression of Desk Accessories, Active Desktop, Java, and as someone else pointed out DesktopX is not necessarily a straight line but each of these concepts added to the origin of Konfabulator just as Konfabulator was influential on Apple's design of Dashboard. Konfabulator is the culmination of many other developers' ideas with a new and significant twist of using Javascript. Apple extended that even further by using CSS as a significant part of development of the Widget UI.

[d00d]

In reply to:

---

Konfabulator is the culmination of many other developers' ideas with a new and significant twist of using Javascript. Apple extended that even further by using CSS as a significant part of development of the Widget UI.

---

So you're saying Apple did rip off Konfabulator in that regard.

[jdb8167]

In reply to:

---

So you're saying Apple did rip off Konfabulator in that regard.

---

I wouldn't put it in those terms but yes Apple copied some of the details of konfabulator that they found compelling. Just as the Konfabulator developers borrowed heavily from concepts that came before their work. That is how we get progress.