Most people don't care about the whole Dashboard vs. Konfabulator controversy.  I care.  I mean, I don't care care. It doesn't really affect me.  What happens on the Mac doesn't really affect most of us.  But the Dashboard vs. Konfabulator issue does interest me a lot because some of the arguments Apple's defenders use against Konfabulator could just as easily be applied to DesktopX. And once one recognizes that, the absurdity of the pro-Apple people's position becomes more clear.

Here are the three big issues I see with regards to the Konfabulator vs. Dashboard situation.
1) The issue isn't whether Konfabulator is wholly original in all ways. The question is whether the market for user-created mini-applets on the desktop was already being supplied. I submit that Konfabulator was serving this market well.

Konfabulator had come up with a way to allow non-developers to be able to create little applets on the desktop. When I see someone try to argue that Konfabulator is like "Desktop accessories" they might as well wear a big sign that says "mindless Apple zealot" because that's an incredibly absurd comparison. A comparion that misses the whole point of Konfabulator.  And if they're going to make that claim, why stop there? Was the concept of DesktopX ripped off from some 20 year old set of applets? Come on.  The idea of making it possible for users to create their own personalized applets isn't new.  But it took a lot of thought and work to come up with a way to actually do this.

DesktopX and Konfabulator approach the concept in very different ways.  DesktopX is mostly GUI based in its widget creation (which is ironic since it's the PC program).  Konfabulator does from text editors and directories and such.  But both introduce key innovations:

• The programs handle all the tedious visual portions. You supply an alpha blended PNG image and the program will take care of drawing it. This is huge because as most developers know, writing code for handling the drawing is very time consuming. Especially if you want something that is irregularly shaped.
• The programs use common (as opposed to proprietary) scripting languages such as Javascript. DesktopX also supports VBScript or any other language supported by Windows.

You combine these two things together and you have a pretty potent way to creating interesting, useful things on the desktop.

DesktopX goes a bit further:

• It allows developers to create plugins in C++ that can extend functionality even further so that if there is functionality the DesktopX developers haven't thought of, they can add it themselves.
• DesktopX supports animations natively.
• DesktopX objects can be web pages. This is something it has in common with Dashboard.  Here's a good example of one that's useful.
• DesktopX is GUI driven  You could do it all via a text editor but it's much quicker to do it by using the GUI. Example.
• DesktopX can also build desktops.

The point being, Konfabulator on the Mac delivered a realistic way for people to create and share mini-applications that didn't require serious software development knowledge.

Users who wanted to have mini-applets on their desktop were already being served by a MacOS ISV. Dashboard IS going to hurt Konfabulator. No matter how you spin it, it's going to be very difficult for Konfabulator to adjust.

Bottom line: Apple's Dashboard hurts its own ISVs seemingly unnecessarily and discourage potential ISVs from coming into the market. Not a good situation for long term viability.  Combine that with the insulting claim that Konfabulator (and therefore DesktopX) somehow owes Apple's desktop accessories (from 1984) and you have a perfect storm of ISV alienation possibilities.

2) Hypocrisy. Apple makes an incredible amount of noise about how everyone is stealing from them. For them to have banners saying "Redmond, start your photocopiers" even as they're ripping off Konfabulator is the height of hypocrisy.

PC users can watch with some amusement as Apple zealots lamely try to argue that Apple somehow, magically, came up with Dashboard without any influence from Konfabulator. For those of us in the other camp, it just confirms the irrationality of some of the Apple supporters.

Apple is the company that SUED eMachines for having a computer CASE that looked remotely similar to the iMac. They are incredibly proprietary about THEIR stuff. But they have a history of pilfering other people. Which is what many big companies do. But Apple and its zealots try to claim that Apple is somehow fundamentally different in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

3) Denials. Steve Jobs has publicly commented on this issue and make it sound like it was Konfabulator who had ripped off Apple's work. Very offensive. What an utter lack of respect. No show of appreciation at all for a developer who gave MacOS X a considerable amount of media attention. You don't hear very much about what third party ISVs are doing on the Mac. But Konfabulator was an exception. And rather than being appreciative for all the attention Konfabulator got the Mac, Jobs pisses on him.

Desktop accessories: Very difficult to write, visuals all handled by the programmer, in other words, NOTHING like Konfabulator.

But for me, I don't care that much about this issue. I find it interesting but it doesn't affect me. The only thing that does get on my nerves is the pathetic "It's like desktop accessories" comparison. I realize that many Mac users are non-technical but holy cow, it takes a real fundamental misunderstanding not to recognize the difference between desktop accessories and Konfabulator from a concept point of view.