(decided to make this a forum post since it's not really news)

For this blog I'll have to put on my special flame-resistant outfit.  Our friends at Aqua-Soft have shut down their forums after a dramatic inter-developer spat broke out. I was in the middle of it and for my part in that discussion I feel bad.  So what happened?

First a little background. Aqua-Soft is a customization website that specializes in helping users make Windows look more Mac-like. Since WindowBlinds, ObjectDock, IconPackager, ObjectBar and DesktopX have long been used to that end by many users. Stardock has long been on there in various ways.  But I hadn't been on there much until recently because of my work on The Political Machine.  Now that that game is out at the stores, the next things on my list to work on were ObjectDock Plus and DesktopX 2.2 both of which had late summer release schedules. 

But when I went back to Aqua-Soft I was startled by how much its community had changed.

The site admins are great guys who really have worked hard to make the site a place that is friendly for developers and users. But the content of the site had slowly become very AveDesk oriented.  AveDesk is a program that essentially lets you take dock plugins (such as for ObjectDock) and put them on your desktop sort of like DesktopX widgets.  How did the site become so oriented that way? Why AveDesk instead of other widget-type programs like Kapsules, Samurize, or DesktopX? Because those programs all have their own website, own forums, and own libraries whereas AveDesk does not so they gravitated to Aqua-Soft.  So just as users WinCustomize.com tend to be users of DesktopX and WindowBlinds, users on Aqua-Soft had become vocal supporters of AveDesk. Which is fine until they start trying to antagonize other developers/programs.

When I went onto the DesktopX forum and wrote a post on DesktopX 2.2, one user actually wrote "Hmm, this sounds like a Payware version of AveDesk" (not even close).  When a news item on IconX was made, several AveDesk users went on and wrote things like "AveDesk can do this better" (no, it has nothing to do with IconX).  Other developers have noticed this trend as well.  In one discussion, an Aqua-Soft news moderator actually accused us of scheduling DesktopX 2.2's release around AveDesk's 1.1's release to interfere with it.  This would be akin to accusing Microsoft of scheduling Longhorn's release to conflict with SkyOS.

So with that back-drop, I submitted a news item to Aqua-Soft of the DesktopX video tutorial I did the other day. And like I said, the guys who run Aqua-Soft are very fair minded. They've been doing this for a long time and know what they're doing.

Then all hell broke lose. If you think people ripping on IconX or saying it's not as good as AveDesk was bad, the response to this news item was much worse.  The first response was from the AveDesk developer himself who publicly complained that a news item for a video tutorial wasn't appropriate.  Now bear in mind, on Aqua-Soft, the AveDesk developer gets to directly post news items. He has a developer's blog where he can put his development status reports (and does) as front page news items on the site.  I don't object to that. I don't object to that AT ALL.  I make blogs posts like this here on WinCustomize.com (of course, I work for the company that owns the site).  But for someone whose own personal development blogs get posted as front page news items on Aqua-Soft to publicly complain about a 3 line news item about a video tutorial seemed like quite a double standard.  Which I said so. 

And if I thought it was rough having AveDesk advocates zinging every DesktopX or IconX related news item or post, it was nothing compared to when the developer himself had taken a public stance. It was like a clarion call for its advocates to rush in. 

Eventually the news item comments were closed but a forum post was made at which point the entire process repeated with everyone getting angrier and angrier.  The AveDesk developer felt I was putting words in his mouth. I felt he was demanding a double standard and oblivious to how much benefit he received from Aqua-Soft. And I also felt under-siege as his fans came to his defense. His fans essentially argued that since his program is free he should get special treatment.  And besides, I was "forcing" DesktopX down their throat because I had become active in posting there in the run-up in DesktopX 2.2's release. So  post after post about AveDesk is fine, but if I write about DesktopX in the DesktopX forum I'm forcing people to use DesktopX. DesktopX has WinCustomize they argued (implying that AveDesk should have Aqua-Soft even though Aqua-Soft is supposed to be a neutral site).

The AveDesk fans basically took the view that while it okay to basically flame and impugn me or DestopX and its users, merely disagreeing (and I mean the polite cannon was on maximum power) was considered forbidden by its fans (I wish I could link to the thread so you wouldn't have to take my word for it but to see it for yourself). Literally the mere concept of other apps, particularly non-free ones, being given an equal shake was totally unacceptable to the AveDesk fans. Ave was "part of the community", the rest of us were not.

That was when I threw up my hands and gave up on the forums. It reminds me a bit of the whole Style XP thing where at first its developers were giving it away and had no forums so users gravitated over to Neowin and because Neowin is a neutral site, it gave the impression that Style XP (and later msstyles) must be really popular because everyone was talking about it there and few were talking about WindowBlinds. That effect hasn't gone away entirely but now that its developers have their own forums, things on skinning sites have evened out much more though msstyles discussion, not having an official home, tend to gravitate out on various sites.  So in other words, I'd been through that pain before and I wasn't going to go through it again. 

If the site's users want Aqua-Soft to be THE AveDesk marketing/channel where other developers could expect to have AveDesk fans pile on every time there's a discussion/post/news item about a "competing" program then forget it.  Soon after that the owners (who again I want to stress are very fair minded, this is not their fault and as an admin I know the feeling have losing control over the direction of the site, JoeUser.com often feels like it's gotten totally out of hand) closed the forums.

And bear in mind, all this came to a head over the same exact news item we have here on the DesktopX object video tutorial which received about a dozen responses total.

Hopefully things will return to normal as it is a good site and the people who run the site are great guys. But I also think that the AveDesk fans need to be a LOT more tolerant and realize that Aqua-Soft is supposed to appeal to all users who are trying to "Aquify" their PCs. If they want to have a partisan site to promote AveDesk then they need to create their own, not latch onto a site with a proud 3+ year old history.

So you want to try your hand at skinning eh?

For WindowBlinds try this: https://www.stardock.com/products/skinstudio/docs.asp

For DesktopX try this: https://www.stardock.com/products/desktopx/resources.asp

Feel free to add others here.

Longhorn may be over 2 years away but the battle for your desktop has begun. 5 programs offer various reasons for you to extend your Windows desktop with widgets. Most of them have hot keys for you to bring those widgets to the front (or hide them entirely). And all of them are very cool.

Check out this article that walks you through all 5 of them.

This Fall the widget wars will move into high gear. The battle for the desktop is about to begin. And with Longhorn's XAML technology lurking in the distance (and Apple's Dashboard), widgets are likely to deliver a whole new era of desktop customization.

Widgets are essentially mini-applications that live on your desktop.  What makes widgets different is that they tend to use less overhead by relying on an existing set of libraries that handle the drawing.  As a result, widget developers don't tend to have to worry  much about drawing their their content. This means that widgets are usually irregularly shaped and very cool looking.

The other thing that makes widgets special is that because there is usually an underlying set of libraries that handle a lot of the drawing which enables non-programmers can make them. 

In the "old days" a software developer would create a program that happened to be skinnable and then skinners could come in and create graphics to skin it.  Now, with widgets, the skinners become the developers. 

Widget makers can often use scripting languages such as VB Script or Java script as their language. Others use a programming language (such as C++) to make "plugins" that serve as the widget.  And a few can even do both.

For the purposes of this discussion I'm going to focus on 5 programs. And bear in mind, I work for Stardock which makes one of these (DesktopX) so while I'm trying to be fair to all, I'm more familiar with DesktopX.  It is my hope that users will gain interest in this new evolution of desktop customization (i.e. widgets, no matter whose widgets, are good). It also means I'm going not going to talk about any perceived downsides. I'm going to focus purely on what makes them good.

The 5 programs I'll focus on are DesktopX, AveDesk, Samurize, Konfabulator, and Kapsules.

What's nice about widgets is that they can be used interchangeably. It's not like GUI skinning where you can only be running one at a time. A Samurize widget can be used with an Avedesk widget for instance without any problems. It's not an all or nothing scenario scenario.

DesktopX

DesktopX is the oldest of the group (released around 5 years old) which is both an advantage and disadvantage.  It's an advantage because it has built up the largest user base over the years.  It's a disadvantage because for most of its existence, it targeted Windows 95, 98, and later ME which aren't really suited for having desktop enhancements.  The compromises made in DesktopX 1.x made it unappealing to some people.

DesktopX 2 changed that.  DesktopX 2, which was redesigned for Windows XP, is relatively new and has a lot of cutting edge features.  DesktopX exports its widgets as actual EXEs which makes them the ultimate in ease of use for end users. And widgets can still be imported into a DesktopX environment for modification and tweaking.

DesktopX allows for widgets to be made using VB Script or Javascript. It also supports "plugins" that can be made with most programming languages. The default install includes a dozen or so existing plugins to handle most of the more common types of things people would want to do. And if they haven't thought of a plugin for it, the scripting language is integrated into the GUI allowing users to create their own functionality quite easily.

Some DesktopX widgets.

Some of DesktopX's advantages include:

• Integrated COM/ActiveX support. Your ActiveX controls (browsers, Office apps, Quicktime, Media Player) are treated like any other object.
• Unique animation engine. Just put a strip of images together, tell DesktopX how many frames there are and the speed and you have a fluid animation.
• It can be configured from a GUI.
• It includes a plugin model and a lot of plugins
• It can export its content as EXEs.
• It can be used to build desktops (so it competes both as a widget making program as well as a shell enhancer ala Hoverdesk or Talisman).
• Huge library of objects/widgets to draw on.
• Very easy to install/use widgets (just double click on them and they will run and add themselves to your widget/object library).

Konfabulator

Konfabulator owns the widget world on the Mac.  It has been out for about a year and a half.  Konfabulator is a Java-runtime engine that enables users to create and run their own Javascript based applets where Konfaublator takes care of all the visual drawing portions. It is the quintessential "widget" enabling program.

Konfabulator widgets are folders that contain a .kon file which is a file that uses XML to encapsulate Javascript and object definitions. The folder would also contain a series of .PNG files that are used for the graphics.

Konfabulator's future on the Mac has been made a bit murky because of Apple's decision to include Dashboard, a similar technology due for release as part of MacOS Tiger. Dashboard, while not quite the same, delivers much the same end result. Most of us who follow this market are convinced Apple saw the popularity of Konfabulator and decided to copy it as a concept.  Apple's defenders have tried to retroactively give credit for widgets to Apple in the form of desktop accessories from 1984. A claim I consider absurd. But no matter what, the net result is that things might get tight for Konfabulator on the Mac. But how it might do on Windows remains unclear with so much entrenched competition.

Konfabulator widget examples:

Konfabulator Advantages:

• Very straight forward in what it does: It makes widgets. No other focuses.

• Can sit down and work on a single file (the .kon file) to create the widget.

• Very high quality widgets included

• Quality over quantity

• On the Mac, it's really the only game in town until Tiger.

• Very good marketing - it gets more press attention than the others combined.

• Widgets (mac version) easy to use/run, just double click on them and they run.

Samurize

Samurize is a VBScript run-time engine that includes powerful development tools for creating widgets. It also includes a great deal of functionality that can be easily plugged in.  So if Samurize's developers have already thought of a widget feature (such as CPU meters) it becomes very very easy to make that kind of widget. And if they haven't added it, then it's just a matter of writing the VBScript or other code to get the functionality.

This means that Samurize is much easier than most of the other widget making programs to create some of the common widgets. It is really the leading app for creating system monitoring based widgets because it is so good as making such widgets easy for skinners.

Samurize Widget examples:

Advantages of Samurize:

• The best widget development environment. The result is that it makes it much easier for skinners to create a series of widgets that go together. Note to developers - promote your editor more. This is your ace in the hole.

• Fairly large library of widgets.

• Lots of easy, built in system/network monitoring features.

• No nonsense focus. It's not trying to deliver pretty but useless junk, it is for people who want to put useful monitoring things on their desktop with a minimum of fuss.

AveDesk

AveDesk is best described as docklets on the desktop. In fact, AveDesk doesn't call its widgets widgets but instead "Desklets" which I think is a better name than widgets.   So I should probably explain what the heck a docklet is.

A docklet is typically a plugin for a dock program such as ObjectDock or Y'z dock.  Imagine in a dock sitting at the bottom edge of your desktop with a CPU meter or weather monitor or clock.

AveDesk's author, Andreas, is one of the leading docklet developers out there.  So taking these docklets and making them free-floating on the desktop is a fairly natural move. And best of all, it's compatible with ObjectDock docklets so all those ObjectDock docklets on WinCustomize.com can be used as widgets on your desktop as well. And so ObjectDock's popularity actually feeds into AveDesk's popularity (which is ironic since ObjectDock is made by Stardock who makes DesktopX and DesktopX can't use ObjectDock docklets as widgets at this time).

A lot of AveDesk's content is "borrowed" from Konfabulator graphic-wise (another reason why Konfabulator may have some trouble if there's a Windows version - it's going to be competing with its own content) (dwl: I am going by the screenshots I found on-line of how people are using it when compared to the screenshots of how people are using the others).

AveDesk widget (desklet) examples:

Advantages of AveDesk

• ObjectDock docklets can be used as desktop widgets

• Each desklet is essentially a skinnable application in itself (so third parties can actually make skins for existing widgets as opposed to creating a whole new widget).

• While few widgets, widgets tend to be quite nice looking

• Cool widget labeling features

Kapsules

Kapsules is the new kid on the block and it makes no bones about being similar to Konfabulator. It is, essentially, Konfabulator for Windows already in terms of functionality.

Kapsules widgets are stored in folders with a .kap file and a config file. Along with a sub-directory with the .PNG files. In my opinion, it is set up better than Konfabulator in this regard because unlike Konfabulator where XML encapsulates the whole thing, with Kapsules, the config file is the XML portion that defines the various objects andthe .KAP file is the Javascript, VB Script or whatever scripting language you choose to use.

Kapsules does require users to download and install the .NET framework which does limit some users from using it. But the .NET libraries allow Kapsules to have more functionality out of the box (since it's being coded by one person, this demonstrates the power of .NET).

Kapsules Widgets:

Advantages of Kapsules:

• Strong focus: It makes widgets, that's it.

• Very clean underlying design

• Relatively simple to add widgets (drag the folders with the .widget extension into the widgets folder)

• Unusually good documentation

So there you have it. These are the programs that have become popular for making widgets on the desktop. They can be used interchangeably. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses.  All of them have reasonably low hardware requirements. Widgets almost always use less memory than a stand alone program would. And each has their own loyal following who will tell you that their choice is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Have fun!

Next time someone argues there is no liberal media bias, point out the attention Zell Miller's speech has gotten and compare it to the speeches given by Gore and Sharpton at the DNC.

Pay close attention: It's all about Ohio. Whoever wins Ohio wins the election.  Kerry knows this. So does Bush.  If you live on Ohio, I imagine every ad is a political ad and if not, it soon will be.

All this post-convention "bounce" they talk about ultimately means nothing if Bush loses Ohio because it's not the popular vote that matters, as Gore discovered.  It's all about the electoral college and if Kerry can win Ohio, it's all over for Bush.

Oye it gets old debating with people who are..well newbies to the on-line scene.

Here's a few brief tips:

A good debater will put an argument in the following form: <Assertion><Evidence>.

<It's hot outside today>, <my thermometer says it's 89 degrees.>

No one expects others to be robots. The assertion is almost always expected to be subjective (hence the debate).  Most things can't be proven. But if you ever hope to convince others of the validity of your point of view, your assertion, even if it is subjective, needs to be backed by evidence.

Evidence comes in many forms. Sometimes your own expertise is the evidence.  If a rocket scientists posts that faster than light travel is very unlikely in our life time, he doesn't need to link to anything. He's the expert as long as he can prove (or convince others) of his credentials.

Sometimes the evidence can be alluded to at which point the opponent can demand what we call "substantiation".  For example, if someone says "Statistically, boys are more likely than girls to succeed at suicide" the person is saying that he does have a source for this but doesn't have that source handy. If you really disagree with him, you can say "I don't believe that's true, do you have a source for that?"  But it's generally considered rude to make someone trot out every source if they are arguing that they had a source. Only if you are quite certain they're wrong should you demand sources -- after all, this is an on-line debate, we're not being paid.

Sometimes evidences comes in the form of third party analysis.  For example, if someone argues "Poverty is the leading cause of crime." they may include a link to some analysis.  You can't "prove" porverty is the leading cause of crime but you can link to a third party analsys that makes a good case of that.

Sometimes analysis isn't the way to go. You shouldn't use third party analsys on something that can be proven.  For intance, if you make an article asserting that Bush "lied" about WMD and your link is to a third party analsys that essentially just argues the same thing, that's worthless. Instead, you would link to quotes of Bush (well first you would have to argue that you're not saying that Bush wasn't just incorrect about his belief about WMD in Iraq but that he actually intentionally stated something he knew to be false which is the definition of lying) that would prove your contention.  Because someone else is likely to link back with a quote from the 9/11 Commission report that concludes Bush wasn't lying.

Often times you need to link to the actual goods. If you are arguing that the wealthiest 1% pay over a third of the federal taxes, you can assume you're going to be challenged on that. You should have a source handy. Or at the very least, have given this source in prior conversations (personal note: If I've linked to a source countless times I'm not going to keep linking to it every time I speak on the topic. If you're new to my blog don't start insisting on sources until you've read my other articles a bit, I'm not your personal researcher <g>).

Avoid name calling.  And avoid being thin skinned at the same time.  There is a big difference between someone attacking you and someone attacking your message. 

Keep an open mind.  My own opinions have dramatically changed over the years thank to on-line debating. People who put forth compelling arguments do make a difference. Make your arguments compelling, interesting, and reasonable. And have fun!

Left-Wing and Right-Wing zealots on the Internet have a problem. Actually, two problems - a different one for each side.

Bear with a generalization for a moment:  people who are left of center politically tend not to be quite as analytical as the general population. You don't find too many engineers, for example, arguing for liberal causes.  And you don't find too many artists arguing for conservative causes. There are exceptions of course but as a generalization, I think you'd agree this is true.

This creates an interesting set of diverse behaviors.  Liberals tend to rely very heavily on third party data analysis.  In other words, they don't tend to look at the actual data and then form their own conclusion. Instead, they just repeat the analysis of someone else. I think this is one of the reasons why left of center people are more prone to being sucked in by propaganda.

Disagree? Consider this: Communism and Nazism were both equally monstrous. But which one sounds more evil or menacing?  Communism got a lot of support from the left worldwide and in the United States. It was supposed to be based on secular, scientific reasoning. Look closer at communism, at the actual concept and anyone thinking analytically would realize that it was a hopeless political philosophy.  But still, a lot of people on the left got sucked into being sympathetic to it. And that's still with us today. Being called a "Commie" doesn't have nearly the sting of being called a "Nazi".

In on-line discussions, liberals are much more likely to cite analysis of data as a "source".  There is no Michael Moore of the right because conservatives wouldn't put up with the manipulation of facts like liberals do.  But liberals don't tend to look for the underlying facts. The analysis, for them, is good enough.

One good example of this is when I see people argue that FoxNews is "GOP TV" or some other such nonsense. I'll ask for specifics and get none. Eventually I'll simply ask "Do YOU watch Fox News?" to which I inevitably get an answer "No way, I'm not going to watch that right wing crap!". So how do they know Fox News is "GOP TV"? Because they read it from someone else (who probably read that from somewhere else).  (DWL: I am not arguing that Fox News doesn't have an editiorial opinion that slants a certain way to a degree, but if you think it is GOP TV then you need to quit reading MoveOn.org and watch it for a day or two).

Time and time again I'll read the same talking points from some left winger on the net that has been thoroughly debunked. Effort will be made to link to the actual data that proves them wrong -- i.e. the actual original data in question and not some analysis -- only to be brushed off.  Sometimes it'll get brushed off with a statement such as "Statistics can be manipulated!" (without a trace of irony in their words).

Often times it'll come down to dueling analysis. Some things are simply too complex for the lay person to really deduce on their own.:

Global Warming is a good example.  We have three facts: The temperature has gone up 1 degree in the past 100 years and that CO2, in parts per million, has gone up by a factor of 3 in the past 250 years.  CO2 is a green house gas.

And from there the dueling analysis of "respected scientists" begins.  I look at this and say: "CO2 is a green house gas. Its increase could increase global temperatures."  But no one knows how much CO2 affects temperature.  No one knows if CO2 has gone up because of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels or deforestation or some other unknown cause. 

Similarly, we also know that the Earth's mean temperature has gone up and down a great deal in the past 10,000 years. It's been a lot warmer than it is today and it's been colder as well.  So I tend not to be one to jump to conclusions on this. I've looked at the data to the limits of my own intellectual capacity as an engineer. I don't pretend to be an expert. But I do know enough that anyone making definitive statements on "global warming" at this point probably has some agenda. I'm not saying there isn't global warming btw. I'm just saying that the issue is far more complex than simply "CO2 bad, temperatures going up." CO2 in the atmosphere is far higher today than it was 100 years ago. FAR higher. Yet the mean global temperature has barely changed. Point being, people need to reserve judgment until we know a little more. Going around saying "It's irrefutable" is nonsense. If it was irrefutable, they'd have a climate model that has predicted temperatures over the past 100 years.

But in the global warming debate, like others, the left is much more likely to rely on analysis than the right is (though again, both sides tend to use analysis on that particular issue because it is quite complex).

And it goes on and on and on.  I had one person the other day claim that PBS was a "conservative" news station. How? Because they could link to a liberal media "watch dog" group report.  I asked if he listened to PBS on a daily basis (I do).  Answer: No.  Did it occur to him that maybe, just maybe, a liberal media group might have some agenda? Apparently not.

So what I see a lot of from the left are people who don't really do a lot of thinking on the actual facts. When they do link, they link to analysis. They rarely bother to try to look at the information and come to their own conclusion. They apparently would rather have other people make that decision for them and then go out and repeat it loudly and shrilly.  Which, I suppose, makes sense since they tend to be the ones who would prefer the government do more and more of our thinking and doing for us.

But let's not let the right wingers get off the hook either. If we're going to offend people, let's be equal opportunity offenders. There's a reason that the term "Right wing kook" exists.

Conservatives, particularly very conservative people, are much more inclined to not trust the "liberal media establishment". So often they'll dig into data that is really out of their league to understand.  So they'll look at the data and come up with bizarre conclusions.

That's how the "Clinton murdered Vince Foster" nonsense got started. And mind you, conservatives will regurgitate things too. But at the core of the belief will be some facts that some conservative has looked at and deducted a crazy sounding explanation.

And if there is no readily available explanation, then it's a conspiracy. Yes yes, I know, left wingers get into conspiracies too but right wingers are the ones more apt to form militias and what not based on their conviction that the government or some other entity (the UN?) is going to come after them RSN (real soon now).

And if you get into a religious discusison, look out. Since some conservatives consider the bible to be fully factual (dwl, I don't want to debate that issue) you can get into some surreal discussions with the bible itself as the factual source.

But I don't find the far right conservatives nearly as annoying because they're much more easy to ignore. Their claims will be so obviously nutty that one doesn't tend to have to respond to them.  The far right posters on JoeUser.com, for instance, I have no problem just ignoring. I just don't participate. What's the point? Few people are going to be convinced by their lone arguments.

By contrast, the far left liberals will smugly insist that they are correct because they can point to a left wing website that has an article that says they're right. "Don't you know that the rich pay hardly any taxes? Look at this chart on MoveOn.org!"  "Don't you know that nuclear power creates waste that is deadly for millions of years? StopNuclearPower.org says so!" "Don't you know Bush lied? Don't you know that the US sold Saddam his WMDs? Don't you know that the US trained Bin Laden? Don't you know the CIA put Saddam in place in the first place? I know all these things because I heard a celebrity on TV make that claim and if you disagree, it's only because you've bought into Cheney and his Halliburton's propaganda! (even though I have no idea what Halliburton does nor any real idea why they're evil other than Cheney used to run it)"

So to you far left wingers: Sometimes you should actually look at the original facts yourself and think for yourself before you start writing acid-tongued arguments on-line.

And to you far right wingers: Sometimes you should look at the analysis by others to make sure that the conclusion you drew from looking at the facts isn't nutty.

Sometimes it's better to think than to link.

Last night (very late) I did a couple of demos that explains how easy it is to just add some cool objects to your desktop. Objects that are animated or react on mouse over along with some simple scripting.

You'll need Media Player 9 (or later) to play these:

[Super Icons 1]

[Super Icons 2]

They're pretty high resolution. Whether you're a hard core "skinner" or just someone who's just getting into customizing their Windows desktop, DesktopX is a great way to enhance your existing desktop very easily.

Pro or con, anyone interested in making an informed DesktopX review is invited to here:

http://www.download.com/DesktopX/3000-2340-10312006.html?tag=sptlt