Slashdot Mirror

staunchly 'protecting' their trademark designs (iMac, and now Aqua theming)

This patent was filed well before Aqua existed.

Apple believes that people *have* to copy their design because it is the *best* out there

I don't see what this has to do with patenting, but it really doesn't make any sense anyway. Jobs has said on multiple occassions that designers have an infinite variety of choices when creating the look of somethings. Many choose to just copy Apple's.

so what is people copy off of them?

Well, if there's room for the consumer to be confused when they purchase something (like the iMac knockoffs), then they have every legal right to fight it -- especially since the iMac has such a distinctive look. You'll notice Apple isn't going after the wintel towers that have colored panels on them -- that design is more generic.

I, for one, think that the Aqua interface is far too colorful and overdone.

Heard of Aqua's Graphite mode?

I'd rather not make my political statements by carrying a transparent computer

The iBook has translucent plastics, but the Powerbook does not.

- Scott

--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

I am curious however where you found info about the patent being transferred

My mistake. The scanned in documents are hard to read. Turns out it was invented by Ed Voas, etc. but it belongs to Apple.

However, the bottom line is the same: the Slashdot version of the story is extremely misleading. It makes it sound like Jobs just marched down to Apple legal the other day and asked them to patent themes.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

As evidenced by the Flower Power iMac, Steve Jobs is certifiably insane.

Actually, the flowered iMacs could quite possibly be a huge hit in Japan (where they were introduced), and will probably appeal to women in the US. My mother wasn't the least bit interested in computers until she saw the iMac, and she thinks the Flower Power one is the coolest thing she's ever seen (personally, I would never buy one). My sister decorated her original iMac with a flower emblem.

Bottom line: computers aren't just for guys. People that aren't into floral patterns on computers can always buy an Indigo or Graphite (really cool). Or a Cube, or a G4 tower, etc. Though, I know there are still people out there that truly believe one doesn't deserve a computer unless one knows how to compile source.

- Scott

--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

My guess is that Kaleidoscope will be updated for OS X. Maybe not... but one can only hope.

It would have to be completely rewritten. Kaliedoscope under Classic Mac OS works by using traps -- which don't exist under OSX (too prone to instability). The interface in OSX can largely be altered by modifying various PDF-format images an other things in the filesystem.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

It's time for Apple to drop thier foolish patents. Enlightenment, even fvwm did desktop theming first

Read the article before you comment on it, or at least read some of the other comments.

1) Apple didn't file this patent, Ed Voas and his colleague did. Ed worked on the Kaleidoscope shareware theme-switching software prior to coming to Apple. Though I don't know if the filing or the employment came first.

2) The patent was actually filed nearly three years ago -- in May 1998! It was just recently transferred to Apple, though.

3) As somebody else pointed out, the patent affects more than simple theming, it's about changing UI behavior based on theme (not just where the widgets appear)

The truth is without us hackers Apple's attempt to regain the Education market will fail.

Apple's VP of Software Engineering was one of the key architects of Mach. I think he has some right to use his own code.

They sucked enough information out of us, and Apple has not given anything back.

Ummmm... ever heard of QuickTime Streaming Server? Darwin? NetInfo? I/O Kit? Go to publicsource.apple.com. They've given all sorts of stuff to the community.

- Scott

--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

Then again, Microsoft's bloc of non-voting shares in Apple (circa 1996?) may still be a strong deterrent against Apple's wielding this particular patent over them.

They were purchased in 1997. At the same time, Apple and Microsoft signed a broad patent cross-licensing agreement. This was possibly due to the whole fiasco with Microsoft allegedly stealing QuickTime code to make Video for Windows.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

This patent was filed in May 1998 by Ed Voas and Arnaud Gourdol, at least one of which I believe worked on the third party Kaleidoscope theme-switching apparatus for Clasiic Mac OS. However, it appears (from looking at the documents) that the patent ownership was recently transferred to Apple. I know at least Ed Voas went on to work for Apple, specifically contributing to the Appearance Manager software in Mac OS 8.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

Running on... Mac OS X, no less

The Mac version of Doom 3 will be for Mac OS X only. Mac OS 9 and earlier will not be able to run it.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

Great, another first person shoot em up that adds nothing innovative to the world of gaming. More blood, more splatter, more gore, nothing new.

You're right, it's really easily to extract gameplay elements from the screenshots.

- Scott

--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

rather than those from a company which faces bankrupcy on 2 year intervals

The last two quarters have been slow (like everyone's), but Apple has about $4 billion in cash and short term investments, and grosses $6-8 billion a year.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

At first glance, I thought you were asking what the remote display capabilities of OS X were

Apple's developer documentation specifically mentions the remote display capabilities of Quartz.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

I mean, granted, XonX isn't done yet, so it wouldn't be fair, but all the same...


Neither is OSX.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

Aren't there any X servers for mac that already exist?

For earlier versions of Mac OS, yes. This is Mac OS X -- brand new architecture.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

This is a large step backwards for the mac GUI. Both Classic and X-Windows should not be running side by side in Aqua, but each contained within it's own single window

If X11 compatibility were built into OSX, I would agree with you. But since it's a separate package, I don't think you have to worry. Most developers aren't going to ask the general public to install X11 support first. However, as the other respondee mentioned, this tool should be helpful for scientists and *nix veterans.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

but you could get a share of the Mac market which is filled with people that are actually used to paying for software.

Though I'm not entirely convinced that the same group would pay for the typical X11 app. Mac apps that don't feel like Mac apps typically don't sell well. Quality of UI is paramount. However, this stuff may help some Unix people feel at home.

it is questionable whether there will need to be other code to glue together the Mac's print architecture with that of other Unices

I'm pretty sure you can just use lpr.

- Scott


--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

...I predict MacOS is going to suddenly conquer the "Evil Empire

Over time, Apple could make a serious dent with OSX. But Microsoft has enormous mindshare in big business. That's going to be hard to overcome.

Mac OS X certainly is dangerously cool, though.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

I don't care about your midi sound effects.
I don't care about your Java "enhancements".
I don't care about your Flash animation.
I don't care about your animated GIFs.

None of these have anything to do with what the WSP is talking about.

But please don't use dozens of nested tables just to make some graphic show up at exactly coordinate x, y.

CSS (one of the standards in question) addresses this exactly.

- Scott

--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

Some users (like vision impaired -- or people using small handhelds) need to be able to get text only content.

CSS helps accessibility significantly if done right -- separating the content from the display. CSS2 has whole sections about accessibility.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

There's nothing wrong with Lynx, as the user is not expecting to see graphics or formatting. CSS degrades graceful in this case. The problem is with graphical browsers that have broken implementations of rendering standards that they supposedly support.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

Why doesnt WSP create there own browser with features that they need?

Because it takes a long time to write a browser that can do things like CSS completely and correctly. But once it's done, the results are far superior.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

A "standard" that changes ever two minutes (as the HTML standard, for example, has)

CSS1 has been ratified since 1996. MacIE5 was the first shipping browser to implement it properly.

I'd like to see a movement that was not only minimalistic, but blatantly rebelled against all the over complicated nuances of the "standards" -- all the idiocy added to HTML

WSP and the W3C agress with you. HTML4 is minimalist. The strict version doesn't permit font tags or other inline formatting. All the display is shifted to stylesheets.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

WSP isn't adovcating Java or ActiveX. Read the material.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

Most sites provide a basic service. Some are calendars, some are schedules, some are guestbooks, some are news articles. Most of the web does not require DHTML, leave alone flash, plugins, or java. [...] Why start demanding that people upgrade to see the same crap they've been seeing for years now?

WSP's goal isn't to make the page flashier, it's about making it easier to manage. Nothing WSP is talking about involves Flash, Plug-Ins or Java. Those are not W3C standards.

There are two points to be made here:

[1] Standards like CSS and XML enable the web document to having meanful structure beyond display. This makes maintenance and reuse much more practical. This gives us a web document that can compare reasonably to a document generated from a word processor or page layout program, while using the flexibility that the internet provides.

[2] Web sites are no longer just flat technical manuals. Many of them are distributed applications. It's insane for each time you click a window widget to have to refresh the whole page just to update the display. This wastes bandwidth, CPU on the client and server, and makes software much harder to write. If we get DOM, ECMAScript and XML in gear, we can solve this problem.

Somebody is always going to find a way to use technology in an obnoxious way. That doesn't mean you don't try to improve things. If we believe that, then we might as well give up on the web.

- Scott

--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

Obvious ideas would be basing it on applets or Flash.

Except both these largerly make the concept of document secondary to presentation. This makes it rather hard for search engines to index the content or to reuse the content for different devices.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

Too many times I've opened a site that uses all the fancy features of IE5/NS6 and actually contains no really useful information.

WSP isn't advocating glitz. They're adovacting standards so that documents can be more efficient and reusable.

Content and usability are king. If you can find a compelling reason to use DHTML, then use it. Otherwise, forget it, stick to basic code.

They're not pushing for animation. They're pushing for normalized documents.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

Here's what nobody seems to get about this topic: believe it or not, we're all on the same side. The problem is that human language is preventing comprehension, and some people are posting or moderating before understanding the material. The WSP is not encouraging people to upgrade their browsers so that web designers can go add a bunch of fancy graphics and glitz to their pages. They're trying to normalize the page creation process.

The most important standard to make sure everyone has is correct and complete CSS1/CSSP support. This solves a number of significant problems with web pages:

[1] CSS permits creation of lightweight, structure-centric documents. With regular HTML, you achieve formatting by using font tags, nested tables, single-pixel spacers, and other various hacks. This forces the content to be mixed with formatting, which makes the page very hard to parse, maintain and repurpose. CSS works to abstract the document from the display by enabling formatting through simple property lists that can be kept in a separate file. This is how it should be.

[2] CSS provides more predictable layout control With regular HTML, even if you use all sorts of hacks to get items arranged on a page, they always seem to end up in different places in various browsers. This is because HTML was not designed for such things. CSSP solves this by allowing the author to specify a point of original for page elements.

[3] CSS is scalable, and degrades graceful Anybody who is concerned with supporting multiple types of devices with the same content should be very interested in CSS. You can take the same document and apply a different stylesheet based on the environment. For example, one set of display rules for the browser, and one for a printed pages. Or, one for WebTV, one for a cell phone. Or one for regular browsers, one for audio browsers (for those without the benefit of sight). And since CSS abstracts style from content, you should be able to read static text just as well if you decide to not render the rules in the style sheet (or supply your own rules).

[4] CSS typographic control reduces the need for text graphics Text is often rendered as an image to preserve typography settings. CSS provides more typographic control, meaning lynx users will get all the text, and that download times will be shorter.

[5] CSS provides formatting automation Instead of wrapping a font tag around every page element, you can simply create a class for a certain type of content, which then formats all text that fits that description. CSS also uses inheritance to allow formatting of parent objects cascade onto child objects if you desire.

After taking all this account, it should be clear why CSS is so important, and why WSP is pushing for new browsers to be adopted for CSS use to become more widespread. Netscape 4.x supports CSS to some extent, but its implementation is so broken and incomplete, that designers end up using the older hacks anyway, which is the worst of both worlds.

And while CSS is the most important immediate standard, it's just part of the story. Once we have XML pages with correct DOM using ECMAScript, then we can stop this ridiculous business of refreshing the entire page everytime one element has to change. This wastes bandwidth, CPU power on both the client and server, and is disorienting for the user. But this requires standards support.

Believing that WSP is your enemy is pointless. You're giving the battle to Windows IE's proprietary web standards. People are going to want to make nice-looking, functional pages. The audience and the purpose of the web is much different than it was in 1992. It's not just about static technical manuals anymore. You can either try in vain to convince people to adopt to your aesthetic tastes, or you can provide them with an open, well-documented way to express theirs. Push for W3C standards, and you'll have your choice of browsers and platforms. Ignore the problem, and you'll wake up one day to find you can't view many sites on anything except Windows.

There are plenty of good browsers out there that meet WSP's recommendations. Mozilla, Opera and the newest version of IE should all do a satisfactory job. If you don't like Mozilla/Netscape 6's UI, find another browser that uses the same Gecko engine, but has a nicer app wrapped around it. There are several efforts underway in this vein. The biggest goal here is to get Netscape 4.x (and earlier versions of Explorer) off the market, because it makes web developers' lives a living hell. It's akin to having to support Windows 3.1.

- Scott

--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

If those folks making browsers put one out that has compelling enough features, those same folks WILL download and use it.

Yep, I know. The only problem is that people complain if browser makers add too many extraneous features. The MacIE team sort of split the difference by revamping the UI and making it more customizable. That got people downloading, whereas a rewritten rendering engine alone would not.

The UI is important stuff, and at this time I don't know of another browser that replaces NS 4.x to a reasonable extent.

I suppose this is a matter of opinion as I really don't like it much at all. There might be a little less choice on the Unix side of the world, but from what I can tell, IE, Opera, and the Gecko-based browsers look pretty reasonable for Windows users. Personally, I'm on OSX, and IE5 fits my needs nicely, and had some of the best standards support around.

Clean efficient browsers are needed BEFORE designers can take advantage of these new tools, not the other way around.

So, do you feel it is more important to have a "clean efficient" browser (which I assume means strong on standards, low on frills), or compelling features to get people to download, as you mention above? Either way, we can't really afford to wait around any longer. Either we push W3C standards now, or sit by and watch Microsoft take over with Active*.

Yes, CSS has been around a while. XML is just now getting itself solidified. Thing is though, nobody, and I mean nobody, has been able to produce a web browser that is 100% compliant with all that encompasses CSS1 and CSS2.

CSS2 really isn't that big of an issue right now. I'd settle for CSS1. MacIE5 was probably the first shipping browser to do 100% of CSS1, and Mozilla is probably right there as well. I don't know much about Opera, but hear it's good.

Is full compliance with CSS even possible? There's been a lot of folks throwing in a ton of time trying to get there, yet nobody is.

Yes, MacIE5 did 100% of CSS1, HTML4 and PNG. This was all over the web.

[HTML 3.x is heavy on inline commands to achieve formatting. This is totally backwards.] Yes it is, but it totally worked.

You and I must have been working with different browsers. :)

I found myself constantly battling to get things to work the way they were supposed to, especially anything in terms of alignment. And in the end, you had a very clunky, difficult to maintain page. CSSP elminates many of these issues.

It really should be the browsers leading the way, with designers following. The other way around is simply a chaotic mess.

I could not possibly disagree with this more. It was the browser makers that forked DHTML and created their own proprietary standards that caused all the nightmares we've had to endure over the past several years. The fact that some sites require IE is a direct result of this.

- Scott

--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

The WWW was defined by the first web-browsers. There has, in fact, been no truly useful addition to HTML since the first few years of development. It has only had gobs of useless and annoying eye-candy piled on top of (obscuring and interfering with) the content and navigation.

I'm sorry, but you clearly don't have sufficient information on the topic to make such a statement. If you'd bother to read anything at w3c.org, you'd realize that virtually all the work origanzation is doing revolves around focusing on structure of the document, and abstracting formatting from the structure.

Heavy use of Java, ActiveX, etc. are not what WSP is advocating. They're advocating using browsers that actually allow you to create modern documents with real structure, not a bunch of hacks. Pages created for more standards-compliant browsers can acutally be much smaller and more efficient than those using pre-1996 standards (yes, CSS was ratified in 1996).

Furthermore, the W3C standard approvals process is a public and open one. This isn't like Microsoft were they just invent something, slam it in a browser and don't tell anyone how to reproduce it elsewhere.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

If I have be able to run NS6 or IE 5.5, that reduces the number of computers I have capable of web access from 3 to 1. (My parents' 486-100 and my brother's P120 laptop are suddenly useless, webwise. Sorry Mom!)

So out of IE 5.5, NS6 and Opera -- none will load on a 486? Are you sure about that?

NS 3 is lightweight

Ironically CSS (which Netscape 3 doesn't do at all) permits the use of much more lightweight pages with formatting shifted to simple CSS rules.

- Scott


--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

Other than ActiveX security updates, I honestly don't have a reason to move my browsing to IE, or any other browser for that matter.

And herein lies the discussion. The WSP is trying to point out that although you may not realize it, Netscape's 4.x rendering capabilities (particularly CSS) are horribly broken, which is causing people to continue to create very kludges pages with various workarounds and hacks. If we can get everyone onto a browser with solid W3C standards support (Mozilla, Opera, IE, etc.), than we can do away with things like 5-level deep tables and single-pixel spacers. If you don't like the Mozilla UI, download something that uses Gecko (the rendering engine) but uses native widgets.

Like it or not layout is important to lots of people. You're not going to change that. So we can either do it in a clean, efficient manner (CSS), or we can do it in a ugly, bulky manner (HTML + Font tags + Tables + etc).

Dreaming up standards faster than developers can implement them is just plain annoying.

This doesn't have any basis in fact. CSS1 was solidified at the end of 1996. Netscape 4 doesn't even come close to matching those standards from five years ago. Some people are already moving on to XML/CSS.

How about let's all get HTML 3.0 done correctly across browsers and platforms, THEN worry about the wonders of CSS and XML?

You're totally missing the point. HTML 3.x is not an interim step on your way to CSS/XML -- it's a totally different direction. HTML 3.x is heavy on inline commands to achieve formatting. This is totally backwards. HTML4 strict throws out a lot of the extraneous stuff from HTML 3.x. A web document should be just that -- a document. Leave the formatting to CSS, which is far more flexible.

- Scott

--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

People have lots of legitimate reasons for not upgrading. Their hardware may not support it. They may not be able to pay for it. They may be on a slow connection or wireless device. And they may need special accessibility features.

That sounds great, but the reality is you can't remain backwards compatible forever. There is plenty of linux software that requires newer version of the kernel or core libraries to run. Does anyone complain about that? WSP's approach may be a bit draconian, but I think the idea of an upgrade campaign is a good one.

Sites should be able to render fine with no JavaScript, no DOM

You may think you are pushing the "right" thing here, but there are implications that I don't think you don't realize. The JavaScript and DOM stuff is not just for fancy effects and little extras. It's about gradually getting away from this insane practice of refreshing the entire page anytime any element on it needs to change. It wastes gobs of bandwidth and is really disorienting.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

Why are all BSD people blind to the fact that Apple and anybody else can steal all they want from software under the BSD license and contribute back little or nothing of any changes/ehancements they make?

Why are you blind to the fact that every Apple does with BSD is released under ASPL?

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

You have to be pretty sick to call "worldwide" a conference to be held at the San Jose Convention Center.

Developers from all over the world end up there. A notable number of attendees are typically Japanese. There are typically translation services offered, if memory serves.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

Next question? When will Apple be truely and totally free?

When it doesn't have shareholders.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

1. You're a Mac developer looking to take advantage of some BSD functionality
2. You want to see how Apple has used BSD in a consumer oriented operating system.

There is one reason Apple is using BSD for OSX. ITS FREE TO STEAL.

The reason Apple is using BSD is that it was part of NextStep. And how are they stealing it? All of the BSD stuff is redistributed under ASPL. I though everyone was relatively happy with this license now.

If Apple was interested in an "Open Source" or "Free" (libre or gratis) they would likely have chosen GNU/Linux because of its momentum and (justified) hype.

How is Darwin not open source?

Apple can no longer keep MacOS current and powerful - they saw themselves as quickly becoming the odd man out in the coming Linux jihad against M$ and decided they needed to align themselves with what will likely be the 'winner' 15 years from now.

That's interesting speculation, but unfortunately it has nothing to do with reality or history. At the end of 1996, Apple was looking to purchase a company to supply the foundation for their next-generation operating system. A lot of people though they were going to buy BeOS. They bought NextStep instead. I doubt this had anything to do with Linux.

What I would like to stress is that BSD is enabling Apple to exploit the 'grunt' coding done by thousands of BSD hackers - offering them a significant subsidy. OSX is the GUI, API and Object Model. BSD/Mach is the foundation.

I don't really see where you're going with this. I think most people reading this topic is aware of where BSD comes from. But to suggest that Apple is reselling free BSD software is just insane. OSX/Darwin uses BSD for the process/permissions model, threading, networking and the tools. This is not the majority of the code in the OS.

Avie Tevanian was one of the key architects of Mach, and he's Apple VP of Software Engineering. I think he has some right to use it if he chooses.

But I am not ready to accept that Apple isnt completely operating in their own best interests.

Apple is primarily operating in their own interests. They are not Debian (you know what I mean). They are a for-profit company that is releasing some open source software under a good license.

I think IBM is a better example of someone who 'gets it'.

Because they're contributing to Linux? Big deal. What's the point of Apple doing that? Linux makes sense on IBM's hardware, it really doesn't all that much on Apple's machines. IBM hasn't open sourced AIX, have they?

Apple is hoping to rape BSD to sell hardware.

Right, BSD is going to sell the hardware. That's it.

If anything, OSX is going to give an emormous boost to BSD concepts.

If all of OSX was "COMPLETELY" Free Software (and free to be completely ported to other architectures) I would be more enthusiastic

In which case OSX wouldn't even exist. The reason Apple could justify to the shareholders the idea of pouring three years of development time into creating OSX is because there is payoff at the end. If there was no potential for a substantial return on investment, then OSX wouldn't even exist, and Unix evolution would feel the effects.

- Scott

--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

Think about it. In many respects Apple is far more evil than Microsoft.

What a tactful thesis statement.

Apple wants control of the software and the hardware.

It's called user experience. This is the only way to do it right. Dell and Compaq are at the mercy of Microsoft's implemenation. There's only so much they can do to improve the computer since they can't really touch the OS. The hardware/software intergration is also why USB, FireWire and AirPort could be available instantly in new machines.

Steve Jobs has an open hostility to open source code

That's a fairly odd statement.

and he has never given anything back to the community that wasn't already there

Umm, what? QuickTime Streaming Server, NetInfo, and OpenPlay/NetSprocket spring to mind. I'm sure there are others.

He hijacked Mach, and he's trying to do the same with *BSD.

This doesn't make any sense. Avie Tevanian was one of the key people behind Mach at Carnegie Mellon. It was later donated to the FSF. Jobs hired Avie for next, where they used Mach. I don't know if the Next modifications to Mach were made available to the public at the time, but they are available now in Darwin.

The BSD comment doesn't make any sense. How could Apple be hijacking it? All of their BSD stuff is part of Darwin, and the most recent revision to the license appears to have appeased just about everyone.

- Scott

--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

Have you seen the system requirements for it?

The recommended physical RAM is 128MB. The reason for this is that the classic environment (to run non-native OS9 apps) is a major resource hog. If you're only going to be running Carbon, Cocoa, Java and BSD apps, then you can probably get away with 64MB.

all for eye-candy.

All the graphics engine is vectorized. The eye candy aspect of the visuals doesn't have much do at all with the recommended memory.

- Scott

--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

It basically gives you a 20 second break whenever you open one of your MacOS 9 apps. I love it!

The compatibility environment only launches once per session, thank you.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

It's kind of like saying 'i'm going to sue this coke company because they stole the look and feel of my aluminum can that i stored my beverage in'.

Excellent example. I believe Coke actually won that one for trade dress. There was room for the consumer to be confused as to the maker of the product.

- Scott

--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

There are plenty of skinz who look like Windows but MS aren't a bunch of morons to sue.

That would take some serious balls. So much of the Windows 95-2000 UI (for example, the window control widgets) is taken directly from Apple/NeXT, that if Microsoft went after anybody, the rewards would actually belong to Apple. PARC looks practically nothing like Mac OS 9, but Windows 9x looks a hell of a lot like a NeXT/Mac hyrbrid.

Apple on the other hand just seem to look for an excuse to sue anyone.

Umm, Apple hasn't sued practically anyone in recent history. It sued eMachines and Daewoo because they were clearly trying to play off of the iMac's success by copying the industrial design. Microsoft doesn't really have any equivalent to the iMac fiasco. And furthermore, Microsoft doesn't need to sue anyone, it already owns everything, and it knows people will have to buy their products regardless.

Bottom line: if there's room for a consumer to be confused (remember, some think the CD drive is a coffee cup holder), then Apple has a case. This probably goes for Aqua as well.

- Scott

--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

Did anybody actually read the full story, and specifically, the comments of the President of Stardock (the guys who received the letter?):


Wardell emphasized that Apple has rights in this matter and that it has not been unprofessional in its approach or dealings with Stardock.

"Every time a company tries to enforce their rights, they are always made out to be bad guys," he said. "The fact is Apple is trying to innovate, and if you take away their incentive to innovate, it hurts everybody. I think it's good to see Apple, within limits, protect their rights."

"We very strongly believe Apple has rights to protect its intellectual property up until they infringe on the rights of others," Wardell said. "We need to make sure we protect the rights of the 'skinny' community, too."

--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

Take a minute and look at how consumers have soundly thrashed other lame single-provider "solutions" such as DivX.

Unfortunately, DivX is fundamentally different than Media Player in two ways:

1) DivX didn't sneak into the TV
2) You can get rid of DivX without getting rid of the TV

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

Raskin is talking about a system that would be preconfigured to do exactly what the user wants to do, but he fails to mention, and possibly fails to consider, that such a system is nearly impossible to produce, simply because there are too many different kinds of user with too many different preferred modes of work

I could be wrong, but I don't think Raskin is suggesting the the OS disappear entirely, but it's just not the appropriate method for 75% of the populous to be dealing with their computers. The more technically-minded will always want to have more control of their machine.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

In the *real world* companies and even Open Source projects are going to create applications that use their own metaphors for movement, action, and so on. Currently, the OS is the only thing keeping interfaces even remotely consistent.

Yes, but that's just by default. The OS currently provides consistency, but that doesn't mean consistency has to disappear with the OS crutch gone. Developers just have to get organized. Besides, you can still have a platform owners settings. Their ability to do that is not determined by whether they create a file system manager app or not.

- Scott

--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

I think Jef's actually correct -- the OS does tend to get in the way too much for the average user. But I don't think we're near the point yet where we can just ditch the OS metaphor on PCs. This stuff is still evolving too rapidly. Attempting to box it in before its had a chance to mature will stunt its growth.

Criticizing OSX because it is an OS is rather pointless, in my opinion. OSX is what Mac users (and arguably, the industry as a whole) needs today. In ten years, the world may look more like Jef's view of it, but there's still al lot more work to do. Appliances will probably become more like PCs, and PCs more like appliances until we find some sort of happy medium that works for most people.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

This is all great except for the part about Maya and Adobe apps -- they are written in Carbon, not Cocoa. They are not processor independent. So sure, you could have OSX on Intel, you just wouldn't have any apps for it except the NextStep ones. In fact, from an OS architecture perspective, OSX on Intel would bear a striking resemblence to NextStep for Intel.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

Netinfo is used for remote administration, not ssh nor telnet. Having access to the command line to do any form of remote admin is totally unneccissry in MacOS X.

This isn't entirely true. NetInfo has no control over things like Apache.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

You're missing the point.

Sure you can have a bunch of consumer devices to access and consolidate information, view movies, read books, make phone calls. But you're always the passive observer in these situations. Jobs is saying Apple will sell the products that will allow you to create DVDs, create web sites, compose and mix music etc. One-trick pony devices aren't appropriate for this sort of stuff.

- Scott

--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu

And while you may think that Mac OS X will do it all and be the cat's meow today, what about four or give years from now? It will be outdated and stale, lacking new, useful features. Linux and *BSD can and do keep up with the latest OS developments, but Apple will always lag behind.

Read up on your OSX docs, son. You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about:

Mac OS X System Overview PDF.

- Scott
--
Scott Stevenson
WildTofu