Slashdot Mirror
Apple Tries to Patent Fast User Switching
Ashcrow writes "An article from The Register points out Apple's attempt to patent fast user switching. It seems that Steve Jobs admits that Microsoft beat them to the punch but believes Panther's implementation is superior."
Incidentally, it does, however, cover uses such as the Mac OS' Location Manager, which switches network-related settings according to the user's location. The patent extends that idea to cover other, more personal settings and data, that might depend on the user's location/identity, ie. the computer's owner as public individual and as company employee.
I think that this is really the point here. Apple's got a great implementation of multi-environment profiles and they want to protect that. Jobs himself said that WinXP got there first...It'd just be odd to retract and deny that.
Anybody remember when Apple patented "lighted" computer devices? Everybody was guesstimating that it meant your new iMac would, at the press of a key, turn into the center of a disco party for you and your friends. Mostly we are inaccurate, since we never know what's behind the doors at 1 Infinite Loop.
Finally, when contacted, Jeff Bezos said, "Been there, done that!"
One word: prior art. And one link: su(1).
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
As much as we'd all love to see Apple successfully sue Microsoft, It won't happen. This reminds me of the 1998 lawsuit about Microsoft ripping off the "look and feel" of Mac OS.
The article even points out weaknesses in the strategy (I know, I know, I broke the slashdot rule by reading the article).
"At WWDC, Jobs admitted that Microsoft had beaten Apple to market by offering such a feature in Windows XP, but he claimed Apple's implementation was the better of the two." and "The downside - if Apple's intent is to outflank Microsoft; we're only guessing here - is that the patent refers to multiple personas of a single user, not multiple users".
Microsoft is an EXTREAMLY WEALTHY corporation. When it comes down to how the legal system works, the more money you can spend on lawyers the more you can get away with. Hell, even the GOVERNMENT didn't beat them. I know they were convicted of being a monopoly, but really, what has happened since then? They still hold a monopoly on the desktop market, they still own windows and office, and they still infest every windows computer with a copy of internet explorer. I'd say that they really won.
I'd love to see apple (or anyone else) be able to truely step up to them. Sadly, as long as they continue to have as much money as they do, there is no chance
----
Squirrel
Alt-F1, Alt-F2... I can switch between root and myself in about 1/8 of a secord or less. Its amazing really. I bit longer to switch between console and X.
The point is the simple and ease of use of the GUI to switch users. Not text only console, not remote access like vnc or xwindows.
My kids use fast user switching on XP, and its very stable and works quite well. They can switch users, and not disturb the desktop of the last person using the computer. Some households cant afford multiple computers, fast user switching is a good idea. I love apples eye-candy approach, its faster than microsoft's, 1 second switch. They even let you use a pulldown on the menu with each users picture (if you change your login photo).
Anyone know if KDE/Gnome or even Xfree is planning something like this? I heard talk about multiple X servers, but its not out of the box simple use, of even possible.
Now that would be cool.
1. start X
2. start dozens of terminals/browsers
2. detach the whole thing while leaving everything running
3. attach it again at a later time, maybe on another box
Just like screen(1) does now for text terminals. And come on, who can live without screen(1)?
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
Then how do they deal with the security issues of the MP3 being in a directory owned by another user? What if permissions for the data and/or applications don't allow the new user to access them? Does it do something similar with editors? If the first user was in the middle of editing something, will it still be opened for editing by the second user?
Has Microsoft actually solved these issues, or are they just using a very lax security model, as usual?
Because they can.
Because someone else will, and then sue them.
Because microsoft will sue them.
Because holding patents is unfortunately a very important thing for a technology company these days. All their competitors have huge profiles of patents, so must Apple.
The problem is not Apple patenting this, it's the fact that it can be patented in the first place.
It's not only possible, but some of us have been doing this for over ten years. If Apple pursues this patent, I'm definitely calling prior art on this.
Fast user switching isn't even close to running separare x sessions, not is it similar to switching between virtual desktops. Fast user switching unloads part of the OS and logs in another user, this is much more efficient than loading multiple xsessions and switching between them. If apple pursues this patent, the only one that could call prior art on this is microsoft and as stated in the article, apple's implementation is different than microsofts and that is what they are pursuing the patent on.
Actually, it's something more fundamental in the UNIX world that's missing:
EASE OF USE!!!!
ScottKin
I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
OS-X is UNIX in the meaningful sense of the word. If you want to be pedantic use the little registered trademark-circle-R. Lawyers play their games, the rest of the world names things by how they work and what they do.
How could they get a patent for technology that has existed much before either company was ever created? Unix has been using this technology for ages. Mainframe operating systems have this feature too, and its an extension of the dumb-terminal idea. So... How would this work?
Sheesh, everyone in Linux clamoring that their OS can do User Switching too. It's like they're jealous or something.
C'mon now. It's plain to see that fast user switching is a better solution than just virtual consoles, or even multiple X servers. For one, security. I can safely transfer control to someone else without worry of them messing me up. This safety isn't necessarily from deliberate attempts to cause harm. I have a user account for people who don't know my computer, thus they have a nice little box they can check their email in. An accidental keypress can dump you back in the other environment.
Second, it fractures the metaphor. When you "log in" a GUI then you are identifying that machine as "you" for the duration of that session. Everything that computer does, it should do as "you." Fast User Switching is a clean extension of the metaphor to allow for multiple users at a time. The console and multiple X terminals is not.
For the people who just advocate using su or sudo to switch shells, that's fine. For advanced users, that's very possible and doable. Remember OSX has a pretty schwag terminal app built right in should power-users want it. But the average user doesn't understand it, doesn't want it, doesn't need it. However, they do need a way to switch users.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
"Gormless Twat"? I like that one. I'll have to remember it (You actually made me need to look up "gormless", a credit not many people can claim).
Anyway...
so if I were 'clueful', rather than moving to the top of my screen, I'd much rather...[snip]
No. You missed my point - That, while such things may change, they ALMOST NEVER do so under normal operation of a machine in a manner requiring the ability to rapidly switch profiles. "2nd Post!" responded to me with a situation where it matters, but I would have to consider him a VERY unusual user, and not really indicative of a typical user (four different user profiles just for himself? Hell, I alias commands like "dir" and "del" on Unix machines, and vice-versa on Windows machines, because I so often temporarily forget which system I sit at, nevermind whether I have my "at home websurfing" or "at work looking productive" or "somewhere else playing games" profile active).
And therein lies the difference - I referred not to the idea that no one might have a use for such features, but that typical users who might benefit from it don't need it. A typical desktop sits in one place, with the same net connection for months at a time. A typical laptop moves between home and work, sometimes getting used on the train/bus/whatever, requiring really only two profiles (AC/wired and battery/netless) and no need to rapidly switch between them.
Oh, you meant silly GUI switching? Fine. But why switch users when I can just 'sudo -u luser mongo-app --display :0'?
Silly GUI switching? It doesn't seem all that silly to my Mom who owns an iMac. I really don't want my mom dealing with sudo commands and all that other terminal stuff. The terminal may work just fine for you, but don't call my mom silly for using a GUI!
Pooty tweet
>>Patents? Hmm, I seem to remember that particular
>>lawsuit being over several tens of thousands of lines of
>>actual source code that slipped directly out of the
>>Quicktime codebase and into the Microsoft Media Player
>>codebase, through the intermediary of a third party
>>contractor that both Apple and Microsoft hired at
>>different points.
Canyon Software allegedly took code they developed for QuickTime for Windows and dropped it into Video for Windows. This was one of several IP disputes that were going both directions between Apple and Microsoft at the time of the Jobs - Gates detente.
In exchange for releasing MS Office for Mac (which MS had already finished, but was holding back) and continuing its Mac development efforts, Apple dropped its IP complaints against MS. The companies agreed to share IP for a period of time, and Microsoft got to buy $150 in non-voting stock in Apple at a cheap price. (And they made a ton of money on it, by the way as Apple's stock price rose from around $18 to around $150 immediately following. Then the stock split and then the price went back down, but I believe MS sold their stock when it was pretty high.)
This was the second time (although probably not the last time - meaning I think Microsoft will try it again) that MS threatened to cancel MS Office and demanded big concessions from Apple. The first was in 1985. I personally believe that if Steve Jobs had been in charge of Apple in 1985 and MS had made the demand of him that they made to Sculley, he would have told them to stick Office up their @ss.
I think that Apple probably would be worth a hell of a lot more money now if the Apple board of directors had sided with Jobs instead of Sculley back then. I think the NeXT people, if they had been in charge at Apple instead of on their own, would have made something that built directly off the Mac and capitalized on its existing applications. Imagine if you had something similar to OS X coming out about the same time as the NeXT cube. That would have been sweet. Instead, Apple let the Mac be a sitting duck for 10 years and the world got Windows.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score