If you make the best browser available, you'll serve the needs of both businesses and individuals.
There's no such thing as "best" except within a set of criteria. Business and individuals have overlapping, but different, sets of criteria.
What this means is "best browser available" is too generic an idea to be meaningful. What's best for the business is not best for the individual, and vice versa. If you try to make a browser that's best for both, you will only end up making one that's best for neither.
Come on, imaginary property is imaginary property.
What's the difference between "imaginary property" and real property that isn't physically in one's control (like your car on the street or you computer in your home if you forgot to lock the door)?
And what did you buy all that stuff with, if not the granddaddy of all imaginary property: money!
Now you're just being semantic. You're always going to be "ignoring" -some- things, unless you're going to compare every tangible object in existence.
Um... What you've just done is been semantic. I'm not talking about something stupid like "including every object in existence". I'm talking about including every Android device that is included in market share numbers. It sounds quite reasonable.
And don't forget, *you* brought up the question:
Who's ignoring what?
I answered it. You and the OP are trying to ignore crap Android phones. It's rather a bit "have your cake and eat it too", don't you think? If they're good enough to count for one comparison, it's only fair to count them in another. Otherwise you're just cherry picking data to best fit your desired outcome.
Microsoft single-handedly fucked over the Web, hardcore
Yes, they quite certainly did.
The Web was a living hell for a long period of time
Overstating things a bit here.
I don't know why this can't be somehow compared to the lives of people who were fucked over after several years of a relationship, only to be heartbroken, depressed, and take even more time and money (ie. on anti-depressants) to straighten themselves back up again, and keep moving on into the future.
Because if a company fucks you over, you generally just wasted some money. IE in the '90s had a more significant impact. But IE in the '10s no longer has that potential.
But by using IE, you're potentially setting yourself up to be fucked again in the future.
Not realistically.
Quite simply, IE isn't the threat it once was. The web learned its lesson, and the history of the '90s is not likely to repeat itself. At least, not in the same way.
comparing devices approved by one entity to devices approved by another entity.
Uh... in what way does that not involve ignoring a segment of Android phones?
That's not a "different interpretation", it's just saying the exact same thing, but using different words (specifically, *not* using the word "ignore").
You aren't "trusting" Steve Ballmer or anything like that. You are simply using software. The only "trust" involved is if they are making promises about the future. Whether IE 9 is good or not has *nothing* to do with whether we can trust Ballmer & Co.
For example, getting excited over Windows 8 requires some amount of trust. Getting excited over IE 9? Not so much.
What OS do you use without hardware? How can one talk about market share without involving hardware?
It's absurd to talk about an OS without talking about the hardware. We aren't discussing abstract differences, but actual differences. If one of the advantages of Android is supposed to be that anyone can make an Android device, you can't just ignore it when a portion of those devices are shit.
Opera just wants to make money selling Opera and related services. Of all the major browsers (although I wouldn't exactly call them major), their motivations are the most direct.
Now MS wants its customers back. IE 9 is pretty good, and will most likely win a few people back, but the horse is out of the barn,
Personally, I'm not a big fan of "going back". If MS screwed up so bad before, why should anyone want to go back to them, despite their claims that "we've learned our lesson!"?
Then they won't win *you* back, but they will (and have) won *some* people back. For most people, this isn't some sort of "relationship". They'll use whatever browser is best for them at the time. There's little hassle in switching between IE and Firefox for most people.
It's like going back to a bad relationship or marriage. If you were married to someone and it was a terrible relationship (cheating, lying, whatever), and you break up/get a divorce, then 5 years later that person calls you up and says "I've learned my lesson! I got some counseling, and I really want to get back together with you!", would you go for it? Of course not. When a relationship goes bad past a certain threshold, you need to move on and do something different in your life.
Oh, give me a break. Software is different from personal relationships! You don't get beat up buy software, it doesn't break your heart, it doesn't cheat on you.
Companies aren't people.
Of course, someone will probably say "companies aren't people", but maybe if we treated them more like people, and stopped putting up with their BS and going back to them, they'd behave less sociopathically.
BUT THEY AREN'T PEOPLE. You can't just say, "don't say that" about a counter-argument!
What matters to most people is, "what's the best browser for me right now?" IE 9 is actually quite good, all things considered. If MS decides to start fucking everyone over with IE 10, then people will switch again. People aren't locked into IE like they once were, and we aren't in danger of that recurring any time soon.
WebKit based browsers and Firefox aren't going anywhere. A few people switching back to IE isn't going to break the web. MS is not the 900 lb gorilla they once were.
Well, like I said, if they want to choose a marketing-based versioning plan in order to manipulate people's perceptions, they'll have to accept the fact that it will manipulate people's perceptions.
They most certainly *are* equally valid. What logic is there to claim all units when making claims about Android, then later ignoring a portion of them?
Or in reverse, if we are only to compare the *quality* Android handsets to iPhones, then how does that compare with the *quality* iPhone handsets? Or if we are to just compare individual handsets or hardware companies, again, how does the iPhone compare?
Oh, but in those cases, the iPhone tends to stomp all over Android! Well, we can't have that!
When you want to talk about Android in the aggregate, you gotta take the good with the bad. If you want to claim that Android being more open is a good thing, you can't simply ignore the bad things that being more open brings with it.
Microsoft gives IE away for free. The only reason they want to "win back your business" is to take advantage of vendor lock-in.
Unlike, say, Chrome?
At least Firefox and Safari have less manipulative motivations.
I'm not seeing where this is good for the business, especially considering that the security fix for Firefox 4 is well-known and free (upgrade to Firefox 5).
Didn't you just put down MS for making IE free?
MS wants to steer you towards Bing and Windows Live. Google wants to steer you towards their ads.
Firefox wants you to use non-proprietary software (except for Flash, for some reason) and Apple wants WebKit in wide use so that OS X and iOS users don't get left out of the web.
IE was actually the default browser for OS X for a while, people didn't care for it.
Actually, when it was the default in Mac OS it was quite good. It was even better than IE on Windows (not that that was a terribly high bar).
The problem was Microsoft pretty much let it stagnate during the transition to OS X (like they did with IE 6 on Windows, except that there was no OS transition at the time to amplify the stagnation). This led to Firefox's rise (especially on Windows) and Apple's decision to fork khtml into WebKit. Had MS not let IE languish like they did, the rise of Firefox and WebKit may never have happened to such an extent.
Now MS wants its customers back. IE 9 is pretty good, and will most likely win a few people back, but the horse is out of the barn, and without even a Mac version, MS is going to have a hard time convincing quite a lot of people who use Firefox, Chrome, or Safari to switch back to IE.
Either there are big differences, or there aren't. Big differences means issues when upgrading, and suggest a new version number. Little differences mean easier upgrading, and suggest an incremental version number.
If it's just a small update, why did Mozilla version it like they did? If it was for marketing purposes, to make it look like a bigger jump that it really is, then they can't be surprised when people treat it like a bigger jump than it really is.
If, on the other hand, it *is* a major update, corporations will need to be more cautious. After all, look at how many are still using IE 6!
The enterprise market is overrated anyway. People aren't enterprises. If your goal is to change the world for the better, focus on the people. There would be little difference to the world in general whether the enterprise uses IE or Firefox or any other reasonably standards-compliant browser.
Why are you acting like the webmaster's intent, which I'd have to be psychic to know, has any relevance whatsoever?
Um... You don't have to be psychic to assume the webmaster didn't intend anyone to be able to pull up anyone else's email address.
If their server sends it, you're authorized to have it.
Bullshit. That's *EXACTLY* like saying "if a door is unlocked, you're authorized to enter it".
Otherwise, it wouldn't have sent the data to you.
You don't have a right to everything you can receive. If I leave my car unlocked, with the keys in the ignition, do you think you have the right to drive it? Absolutely not.
Get it?
Passwords. They are what you use for private data. Accept no less.
Passwords are like locks. They are meant to enforce an already existing policy. Passwords are there to keep both accidental and deliberate trespassers out. The lack of a lock does not imply permission.
If your phone has bluetooth turned on, does that mean anyone in range has the *right* and your *permission* to copy the contents of your phone for their own use? Do you think that if you set something down, and I can pick it up without resistance, that it's perfectly right for someone else to take it? Do you not realize how fundamentally *insane* this whole idea is?
They made a big fuss because they knew what they were doing was not supposed to be allowed. This is *exactly* like entering an unlocked door and walking out with things that aren't yours.
Then they went public with "see! look what we found!" thinking that would protect them and make the initial crime ok somehow. It didn't.
This wasn't simply some web page where you inadvertently found email addresses. You had to deliberately craft a request that otherwise wouldn't happen, and was obviously not meant to be randomly accessed by anyone other than the intended party.
Umm... so, market share only counts when it's in Android's favor, got it.
FYI: iOS has outsold Android approximately 2:1. And it would seem that Android has a greater proportion of crappy hardware. Android saw declining market share last quarter.
Android doesn't have to "win" to be a good system. It's a *very* good nerd OS, and is also a nice alternative to iOS for consumers. Why are nerds so insecure about their computing choices (while simultaneously being so arrogant about them)? iOS is much better suited for the average consumer. Android is much better suited for the tinker-nerd. That's why, for example, the iPad (and iPod touch) totally dominate Android in their respective areas.
Not many people actually want *Android* itself. But for those that do, it's good that it exists.
Just to be clear, because you tried to hide it in a lot of hand-waving:
Android phones are more prone to failure than other phones like iPhones and BlackBerries.
I especially like how you tried to make this out to be a good (or at least, deliberate) thing! And you blame this on the "free market". Yes, the exact same "free market" that brings you iPhones and BlackBerries, which fared better.
I mean, really! Apple and RIM are both free to make shitty hardware, but they choose not to. That's "by design" too, and it seems like a better thing to design for.
Be careful what GET requests you make, because apparently if they're "unauthorized," despite not being protected by any authentication or session and bring happily returned by the server, you may still be a criminal.
It's not like this was some accidental GET request. It was a deliberate attempt to get at information that the "hackers" were well aware was not meant to be accessed.
True, but that's not a very good parallel in this case. Putting something online in a web directory is generally considered to mean that you're making it available to the public.
I think it's quite obvious that AT&T didn't intent to make the data publicly available anymore than a homeowner means to make the contents of their home publicly accessible simply by leaving the door unlocked.
And these "hackers" were quite aware of this, otherwise they wouldn't have siphoned off the email addresses and made a big fuss about it. Acting like this is somehow assumed to be public info is a farce.
The gesture isn't new or inventive and the function isn't new or inventive.
Cite an example of prior art.
You need an example of 2 fingers on a multitouch display?
No, I need an example of prior art for this patent. This patent isn't "two fingers is different than one finger". That's the fundamental mistake you are making.
Scrolling in a sub area (like a text box or a frame in a web page, which is what this patent applies to) has traditionally been done exactly like the super-area. Either with a scroll wheel, a dragging key modifier, or scroll bars.
This patent is different. If you want to scroll the whole page, use one finger. If you want to scroll in the sub-area, use two. It's different from any other solution, and there are plenty of other solutions, including what everyone has always done for these sorts of things, which is to use the same mechanisms as before: scroll with one finger or use scroll bars.
This isn't simply patenting a mapping. It's not, "well, for each menu item or action a program can take, let's patent each possible keyboard combination!" You're reducing the issue to something less than it is, then refuting that. You are refuting an inequivalent stand-in.
The only thing is the mapping, there is absolutely no difference whatsoever - in terms of 'invention' - between this and patenting things like keyboard shortcuts, which is idiotic.
"absolutely no difference whatsoever - in terms of 'invention'" is utter nonsense. You are equating things that aren't equal.
I suppose you think the 'Update Button' patent is pretty inventive too?
You keep making up these stupid claims. The "Start Menu" on Windows, for example, was reasonably unique and open for being patentable (assuming there's no prior art). The NeXT dock is unique enough to be open to patenting. Simply having a button somewhere that does something isn't unique. Find a new way of using a button, and you might have a patentable idea. But "new way" doesn't simply mean "new mapping", it means, a way notably different than the way they've been used before.
It's like someone invents a new type of mouse trap, using existing components, and you claim, "what? it's just 'catch a mouse in a box', isn't it? why can't I patent 'drop a box over a mouse' and 'drop a basket over a mouse' and 'drop a basket over a rat' and 'drop a bucket over a squirrel'?"
You're overthinking it. Most people don't run Linux because, quite simply, there's no reason to. They don't give a shit about fsf-style "freedom" or the Unix way of doing things, which are quite simply the two biggest reasons, generally speaking, to run Linux. Actually, that really should be "the two biggest rationalizations" to run Linux, because I suspect the biggest *reason* has more to do with simply wanting to geek out (which, again, is a reason that is important to almost no one).
Very few people ever get to a point in their decision-making process where you list comes into the picture.
For most people, buying a computer means buying a Windows PC (although they don't even realize that's a way to refer to it). For a lot of people, it means choosing between a PC and a Mac. For a reasonably large minority, it means buying a Mac.
But for almost no one does it even include the option of running Linux, let alone some sort of pro/con assessment. Those that do can find it on the internet easily enough, and have plenty of options and communities which to join, if they so wish. It's a fairly nice arrangement, except the part where the nerds get in a fuss about market share. You (the general 'you', not you specifically) can't expect people to want to use something that doesn't serve their needs, regardless of how well it serves yours.
Slashdot Mirror
If you make the best browser available, you'll serve the needs of both businesses and individuals.
There's no such thing as "best" except within a set of criteria. Business and individuals have overlapping, but different, sets of criteria.
What this means is "best browser available" is too generic an idea to be meaningful. What's best for the business is not best for the individual, and vice versa. If you try to make a browser that's best for both, you will only end up making one that's best for neither.
Come on, imaginary property is imaginary property.
What's the difference between "imaginary property" and real property that isn't physically in one's control (like your car on the street or you computer in your home if you forgot to lock the door)?
And what did you buy all that stuff with, if not the granddaddy of all imaginary property: money!
Now you're just being semantic. You're always going to be "ignoring" -some- things, unless you're going to compare every tangible object in existence.
Um... What you've just done is been semantic. I'm not talking about something stupid like "including every object in existence". I'm talking about including every Android device that is included in market share numbers. It sounds quite reasonable.
And don't forget, *you* brought up the question:
Who's ignoring what?
I answered it. You and the OP are trying to ignore crap Android phones. It's rather a bit "have your cake and eat it too", don't you think? If they're good enough to count for one comparison, it's only fair to count them in another. Otherwise you're just cherry picking data to best fit your desired outcome.
Microsoft single-handedly fucked over the Web, hardcore
Yes, they quite certainly did.
The Web was a living hell for a long period of time
Overstating things a bit here.
I don't know why this can't be somehow compared to the lives of people who were fucked over after several years of a relationship, only to be heartbroken, depressed, and take even more time and money (ie. on anti-depressants) to straighten themselves back up again, and keep moving on into the future.
Because if a company fucks you over, you generally just wasted some money. IE in the '90s had a more significant impact. But IE in the '10s no longer has that potential.
But by using IE, you're potentially setting yourself up to be fucked again in the future.
Not realistically.
Quite simply, IE isn't the threat it once was. The web learned its lesson, and the history of the '90s is not likely to repeat itself. At least, not in the same way.
comparing devices approved by one entity to devices approved by another entity.
Uh... in what way does that not involve ignoring a segment of Android phones?
That's not a "different interpretation", it's just saying the exact same thing, but using different words (specifically, *not* using the word "ignore").
Who's ignoring what?
From the original post I was replying to:
It would make more sense to compare Google-approved devices to Windows Phone 7 handsets, or HTC phones to the iPhone, for example.
Sounds a lot like, "we should ignore non-Google-approved devices here". Do you have a different interpretation?
You aren't "trusting" Steve Ballmer or anything like that. You are simply using software. The only "trust" involved is if they are making promises about the future. Whether IE 9 is good or not has *nothing* to do with whether we can trust Ballmer & Co.
For example, getting excited over Windows 8 requires some amount of trust. Getting excited over IE 9? Not so much.
What OS do you use without hardware? How can one talk about market share without involving hardware?
It's absurd to talk about an OS without talking about the hardware. We aren't discussing abstract differences, but actual differences. If one of the advantages of Android is supposed to be that anyone can make an Android device, you can't just ignore it when a portion of those devices are shit.
Opera just wants to make money selling Opera and related services. Of all the major browsers (although I wouldn't exactly call them major), their motivations are the most direct.
Now MS wants its customers back. IE 9 is pretty good, and will most likely win a few people back, but the horse is out of the barn,
Personally, I'm not a big fan of "going back". If MS screwed up so bad before, why should anyone want to go back to them, despite their claims that "we've learned our lesson!"?
Then they won't win *you* back, but they will (and have) won *some* people back. For most people, this isn't some sort of "relationship". They'll use whatever browser is best for them at the time. There's little hassle in switching between IE and Firefox for most people.
It's like going back to a bad relationship or marriage. If you were married to someone and it was a terrible relationship (cheating, lying, whatever), and you break up/get a divorce, then 5 years later that person calls you up and says "I've learned my lesson! I got some counseling, and I really want to get back together with you!", would you go for it? Of course not. When a relationship goes bad past a certain threshold, you need to move on and do something different in your life.
Oh, give me a break. Software is different from personal relationships! You don't get beat up buy software, it doesn't break your heart, it doesn't cheat on you.
Companies aren't people.
Of course, someone will probably say "companies aren't people", but maybe if we treated them more like people, and stopped putting up with their BS and going back to them, they'd behave less sociopathically.
BUT THEY AREN'T PEOPLE. You can't just say, "don't say that" about a counter-argument!
What matters to most people is, "what's the best browser for me right now?" IE 9 is actually quite good, all things considered. If MS decides to start fucking everyone over with IE 10, then people will switch again. People aren't locked into IE like they once were, and we aren't in danger of that recurring any time soon.
WebKit based browsers and Firefox aren't going anywhere. A few people switching back to IE isn't going to break the web. MS is not the 900 lb gorilla they once were.
Well, like I said, if they want to choose a marketing-based versioning plan in order to manipulate people's perceptions, they'll have to accept the fact that it will manipulate people's perceptions.
They most certainly *are* equally valid. What logic is there to claim all units when making claims about Android, then later ignoring a portion of them?
Or in reverse, if we are only to compare the *quality* Android handsets to iPhones, then how does that compare with the *quality* iPhone handsets? Or if we are to just compare individual handsets or hardware companies, again, how does the iPhone compare?
Oh, but in those cases, the iPhone tends to stomp all over Android! Well, we can't have that!
When you want to talk about Android in the aggregate, you gotta take the good with the bad. If you want to claim that Android being more open is a good thing, you can't simply ignore the bad things that being more open brings with it.
Microsoft gives IE away for free. The only reason they want to "win back your business" is to take advantage of vendor lock-in.
Unlike, say, Chrome?
At least Firefox and Safari have less manipulative motivations.
I'm not seeing where this is good for the business, especially considering that the security fix for Firefox 4 is well-known and free (upgrade to Firefox 5).
Didn't you just put down MS for making IE free?
MS wants to steer you towards Bing and Windows Live. Google wants to steer you towards their ads.
Firefox wants you to use non-proprietary software (except for Flash, for some reason) and Apple wants WebKit in wide use so that OS X and iOS users don't get left out of the web.
IE was actually the default browser for OS X for a while, people didn't care for it.
Actually, when it was the default in Mac OS it was quite good. It was even better than IE on Windows (not that that was a terribly high bar).
The problem was Microsoft pretty much let it stagnate during the transition to OS X (like they did with IE 6 on Windows, except that there was no OS transition at the time to amplify the stagnation). This led to Firefox's rise (especially on Windows) and Apple's decision to fork khtml into WebKit. Had MS not let IE languish like they did, the rise of Firefox and WebKit may never have happened to such an extent.
Now MS wants its customers back. IE 9 is pretty good, and will most likely win a few people back, but the horse is out of the barn, and without even a Mac version, MS is going to have a hard time convincing quite a lot of people who use Firefox, Chrome, or Safari to switch back to IE.
Then why version it like that in the first place?
Either there are big differences, or there aren't. Big differences means issues when upgrading, and suggest a new version number. Little differences mean easier upgrading, and suggest an incremental version number.
If it's just a small update, why did Mozilla version it like they did? If it was for marketing purposes, to make it look like a bigger jump that it really is, then they can't be surprised when people treat it like a bigger jump than it really is.
If, on the other hand, it *is* a major update, corporations will need to be more cautious. After all, look at how many are still using IE 6!
The enterprise market is overrated anyway. People aren't enterprises. If your goal is to change the world for the better, focus on the people. There would be little difference to the world in general whether the enterprise uses IE or Firefox or any other reasonably standards-compliant browser.
Why are you acting like the webmaster's intent, which I'd have to be psychic to know, has any relevance whatsoever?
Um... You don't have to be psychic to assume the webmaster didn't intend anyone to be able to pull up anyone else's email address.
If their server sends it, you're authorized to have it.
Bullshit. That's *EXACTLY* like saying "if a door is unlocked, you're authorized to enter it".
Otherwise, it wouldn't have sent the data to you.
You don't have a right to everything you can receive. If I leave my car unlocked, with the keys in the ignition, do you think you have the right to drive it? Absolutely not.
Get it?
Passwords. They are what you use for private data. Accept no less.
Passwords are like locks. They are meant to enforce an already existing policy. Passwords are there to keep both accidental and deliberate trespassers out. The lack of a lock does not imply permission.
If your phone has bluetooth turned on, does that mean anyone in range has the *right* and your *permission* to copy the contents of your phone for their own use? Do you think that if you set something down, and I can pick it up without resistance, that it's perfectly right for someone else to take it? Do you not realize how fundamentally *insane* this whole idea is?
They made a big fuss because they knew what they were doing was not supposed to be allowed. This is *exactly* like entering an unlocked door and walking out with things that aren't yours.
Then they went public with "see! look what we found!" thinking that would protect them and make the initial crime ok somehow. It didn't.
This wasn't simply some web page where you inadvertently found email addresses. You had to deliberately craft a request that otherwise wouldn't happen, and was obviously not meant to be randomly accessed by anyone other than the intended party.
Umm... why?
Umm... so, market share only counts when it's in Android's favor, got it.
FYI: iOS has outsold Android approximately 2:1. And it would seem that Android has a greater proportion of crappy hardware. Android saw declining market share last quarter.
Android doesn't have to "win" to be a good system. It's a *very* good nerd OS, and is also a nice alternative to iOS for consumers. Why are nerds so insecure about their computing choices (while simultaneously being so arrogant about them)? iOS is much better suited for the average consumer. Android is much better suited for the tinker-nerd. That's why, for example, the iPad (and iPod touch) totally dominate Android in their respective areas.
Not many people actually want *Android* itself. But for those that do, it's good that it exists.
Just to be clear, because you tried to hide it in a lot of hand-waving:
Android phones are more prone to failure than other phones like iPhones and BlackBerries.
I especially like how you tried to make this out to be a good (or at least, deliberate) thing! And you blame this on the "free market". Yes, the exact same "free market" that brings you iPhones and BlackBerries, which fared better.
I mean, really! Apple and RIM are both free to make shitty hardware, but they choose not to. That's "by design" too, and it seems like a better thing to design for.
"Android is outselling the iPhone! We count every one, because openness is what makes Android great!" ...
"Android has more support issues? Well, we really shouldn't be including the crap ones..."
Be careful what GET requests you make, because apparently if they're "unauthorized," despite not being protected by any authentication or session and bring happily returned by the server, you may still be a criminal.
It's not like this was some accidental GET request. It was a deliberate attempt to get at information that the "hackers" were well aware was not meant to be accessed.
Specially written queries. Oh well then, that's that.
There's no way that would mean a URL with a sequential numeric ID in it.
That's exactly what it means. Why are you acting as though that's pertinent to the issue of whether the data is meant to be publicly accessed?
True, but that's not a very good parallel in this case. Putting something online in a web directory is generally considered to mean that you're making it available to the public.
I think it's quite obvious that AT&T didn't intent to make the data publicly available anymore than a homeowner means to make the contents of their home publicly accessible simply by leaving the door unlocked.
And these "hackers" were quite aware of this, otherwise they wouldn't have siphoned off the email addresses and made a big fuss about it. Acting like this is somehow assumed to be public info is a farce.
The gesture isn't new or inventive and the function isn't new or inventive.
Cite an example of prior art.
You need an example of 2 fingers on a multitouch display?
No, I need an example of prior art for this patent. This patent isn't "two fingers is different than one finger". That's the fundamental mistake you are making.
Scrolling in a sub area (like a text box or a frame in a web page, which is what this patent applies to) has traditionally been done exactly like the super-area. Either with a scroll wheel, a dragging key modifier, or scroll bars.
This patent is different. If you want to scroll the whole page, use one finger. If you want to scroll in the sub-area, use two. It's different from any other solution, and there are plenty of other solutions, including what everyone has always done for these sorts of things, which is to use the same mechanisms as before: scroll with one finger or use scroll bars.
This isn't simply patenting a mapping. It's not, "well, for each menu item or action a program can take, let's patent each possible keyboard combination!" You're reducing the issue to something less than it is, then refuting that. You are refuting an inequivalent stand-in.
The only thing is the mapping, there is absolutely no difference whatsoever - in terms of 'invention' - between this and patenting things like keyboard shortcuts, which is idiotic.
"absolutely no difference whatsoever - in terms of 'invention'" is utter nonsense. You are equating things that aren't equal.
I suppose you think the 'Update Button' patent is pretty inventive too?
You keep making up these stupid claims. The "Start Menu" on Windows, for example, was reasonably unique and open for being patentable (assuming there's no prior art). The NeXT dock is unique enough to be open to patenting. Simply having a button somewhere that does something isn't unique. Find a new way of using a button, and you might have a patentable idea. But "new way" doesn't simply mean "new mapping", it means, a way notably different than the way they've been used before.
It's like someone invents a new type of mouse trap, using existing components, and you claim, "what? it's just 'catch a mouse in a box', isn't it? why can't I patent 'drop a box over a mouse' and 'drop a basket over a mouse' and 'drop a basket over a rat' and 'drop a bucket over a squirrel'?"
That's not how things work.
Most people don't use Linux because:
You're overthinking it. Most people don't run Linux because, quite simply, there's no reason to. They don't give a shit about fsf-style "freedom" or the Unix way of doing things, which are quite simply the two biggest reasons, generally speaking, to run Linux. Actually, that really should be "the two biggest rationalizations" to run Linux, because I suspect the biggest *reason* has more to do with simply wanting to geek out (which, again, is a reason that is important to almost no one).
Very few people ever get to a point in their decision-making process where you list comes into the picture.
For most people, buying a computer means buying a Windows PC (although they don't even realize that's a way to refer to it). For a lot of people, it means choosing between a PC and a Mac. For a reasonably large minority, it means buying a Mac.
But for almost no one does it even include the option of running Linux, let alone some sort of pro/con assessment. Those that do can find it on the internet easily enough, and have plenty of options and communities which to join, if they so wish. It's a fairly nice arrangement, except the part where the nerds get in a fuss about market share. You (the general 'you', not you specifically) can't expect people to want to use something that doesn't serve their needs, regardless of how well it serves yours.