No they don't. This is a pro-corporate fantasy. What's worse is that you are pushing it based on brand association on par with a sports fan identifying with some team of professionals despite being a couch potato spectator.
ALL of that is generic. Some of it is basic 80s UI stuff. Together it's no more distinctive than any of it is in isolation. NONE of it is fodder for a good trademark.
You've just described an HDTV running a Linux WM from the 90s like WindowMaker.
The obvious part is not WHAT to do but HOW to to it.
Patents are supposed to be about HOW to do interesting things. They are meant to encouragement of the disclosure of trade secrets about HOW to do things that would never otherwise be shared.
Patents aren't a virtual land grab.
"Click-drag-release" is not the least bit inventive.
MIDI is as "skeuomorphic" as you want to be and always has been. Pointing to MIDI isn't really a great example here. It's fundementally a wire protocol that may or may not be attached to an interface that looks remotely recognizable.
I have never encountered a corporate sponsored "server developer" running MacOS. I find the whole idea really quite absurd. People are making all sorts of claims that don't seem to have any basis in reality with the exception of a few very noisy exceptions.
> If Linux teaches us anything, it's that users will pick integration, polish and design over "free" any day of the week.
Post factum hogwash.
If anything, users pick the biggest herd. They choose what will allow them to run Lotus123 even if it is nasty and primitive and inferior to everything else on the market.
The rest will just buy what they are presented with.
At the end of the day, MS-DOS still reigns supreme. All of this talk about how nice or how pretty MacOS is or even how decent Windows is supposed to be all ultimately ignore the fact that this was all decided a long time ago.
Misguided attempts to copy MacOS or Windows ignore the real history involved with these platforms.
Linux made the world safe for Unix again. What seemed like an inevitable take over of the server room by Microsoft was blunted. Commercial Unixen continue to thrive and Linux also thrives in the same capacity.
If you need serious work done, there is a serious alternative. We don't have the nightmare scenario of the amatuers from Microsoft being in control of everything.
All around, Microsoft is a lot less menacing than it used to be.
Nope. This is just more of the same nonsense where Apple fanboys try to pretend they and their platform are more significant than they really are. They are the same underappreciated road kill that we are. No amount of kidding themselves will change that.
Their platform lost and is now pretty much abandoned even by Apple. Even Apple has moved on to the next thing where they have a prayer of being successful.
> And there is the issue of how to install anything not in the repo. For casual users, Linux is garbage for that. On Windows you download an exe and follow a wizard. OSX, it is a dmg
For casual users, it's going to be in the repository.
Your Truecrypt example has no relevance to casual users.
I have had adventures like what you describe but under MacOS. You are blaming the platform that something that depends on each and every developer doing things to your liking.
The Personal Desktop/Laptop OS needs to do the following very well. 1. Support 3rd party hardware. Apple and Microsoft are willing to let companies make drivers for their hardware and put their own license on them,
I run Linux on Macs because of better hardware support in Linux. Once you get beyond the based hardware, Apple has no advantage. Even with the base hardware, there may be some NIH issue (VDPAU) that causes MacOS to be less robustly supported.
With Linux, the community does for itself.
With Macs, you expect 3rd parties to support you. They may likely find you not worth the trouble for the exact same reason they would ignore Linux.
This is all about market share. It has been since this was a discussion including GEM. The politics of the Linux kernel and driver licensing is a big red herring.
If your intent is to "buy things" for your computer, you're much better off with the dominant vendor.
The flip side of that is that you have ignorant people that are easily swayed by propaganda into wanting to "send a message". This can be compounded by someone on the jury having an obvious conflict of interest.
Creationism is not the problem. It is merely the outward manifestation of it. The problem is mindless evangelicals that expect blind devotion and for you to check your brain at the door. This creationism nonsense is just the most visible part of their worldview. These people are extremists even by the standards of other religious people.
They're like the Amish except with no balls. They make a lot of separatist noises and then just whine and pretend they are somehow victimized by society.
It's also useful to note that this lot were the only people to defend those recent "legitimate rape" remarks.
Creationism is just a symptom of a much more fundemental problem.
No. If I actually owned Apple, I would be worried about karma.
I would be worried about the whole "live by the sword, die by the sword" thing.
Pushing the envelope in exploiting a corrupt system can wortk both ways.
Although corporations tend to encourage sychophants and one might be prone to believe one's own propaganda after awhile and lose perspective. You end up with the kind of mindless echo chamber that guys like you seem so intent on generating.
> Right so you wont recommend a good machine that works,
I won't recommend an overpriced machine that is limited by a fascist approach to design. It doesn't matter if you're talking about PCs, tablets, or phones. Apple's approach is problematic if you are the least bit creative. Meanwhile, it's reputed advantages are grossly overstated.
The patents in question were only valid in a sort of "we can sell your sister because slavery is legal" kind of approach to the law.
Listen to the cry of the wounded idiot screeching against all of the "mean smart people".
As a geek, I am the one most likely to bring an iPad into the house first or an iPhone or an Android phone or an Android tablet. I am likely to be way out in front of most of the "conspicous consumers".
I might even but a Mac just for the hell of it (or even for some other geeky reason).
This cuts both ways.
It can benefit Apple for a time or work to their detriment as people see that there is nothing special about Apple.
The truth of the matter is that most people simply aren't platform partisans and have no great attachment to Apple and they will move on as soon as the next fad comes around.
It's like you're watching the cold war as a spectator in a 3rd country and suddenly one of them decides to start World War III. It makes a differences who that perpetrator is.
Your attempt to ignore the relevant moral difference there is not convincing.
It does matter who lobbed the first nuke. That party is responsible for the everything that happens after that.
Patents used to be a game of mutual assured destruction except Apple was actually stupid enough to flip the switch.
Conflating an Apple with a BMW is not "slightly positive", it's overblown mindless propaganda meant to make the rest of us feel inferior.
What you are trying to call nitpicking is what actually distinguishes a Ford from a BMW.
You understand neither cards nor computers. You draw clueless comparisons because you fancy yourself richer and more important than you really are.
You think that a BMW would actually "make you somebody" but don't actually have the means to buy one. So you pretend that an overpriced generic collection of PC parts will suffice.
Slashdot Mirror
> Apple owns the identity of the iPhone.
No they don't. This is a pro-corporate fantasy. What's worse is that you are pushing it based on brand association on par with a sports fan identifying with some team of professionals despite being a couch potato spectator.
ALL of that is generic. Some of it is basic 80s UI stuff. Together it's no more distinctive than any of it is in isolation. NONE of it is fodder for a good trademark.
You've just described an HDTV running a Linux WM from the 90s like WindowMaker.
Don't kid yourself. You're the one that doesn't have a clue what's going on here.
The obvious part is not WHAT to do but HOW to to it.
Patents are supposed to be about HOW to do interesting things. They are meant to encouragement of the disclosure of trade secrets about HOW to do things that would never otherwise be shared.
Patents aren't a virtual land grab.
"Click-drag-release" is not the least bit inventive.
MIDI is as "skeuomorphic" as you want to be and always has been. Pointing to MIDI isn't really a great example here. It's fundementally a wire protocol that may or may not be attached to an interface that looks remotely recognizable.
I have never encountered a corporate sponsored "server developer" running MacOS. I find the whole idea really quite absurd. People are making all sorts of claims that don't seem to have any basis in reality with the exception of a few very noisy exceptions.
> If Linux teaches us anything, it's that users will pick integration, polish and design over "free" any day of the week.
Post factum hogwash.
If anything, users pick the biggest herd. They choose what will allow them to run Lotus123 even if it is nasty and primitive and inferior to everything else on the market.
The rest will just buy what they are presented with.
At the end of the day, MS-DOS still reigns supreme. All of this talk about how nice or how pretty MacOS is or even how decent Windows is supposed to be all ultimately ignore the fact that this was all decided a long time ago.
Misguided attempts to copy MacOS or Windows ignore the real history involved with these platforms.
Linux made the world safe for Unix again. What seemed like an inevitable take over of the server room by Microsoft was blunted. Commercial Unixen continue to thrive and Linux also thrives in the same capacity.
If you need serious work done, there is a serious alternative. We don't have the nightmare scenario of the amatuers from Microsoft being in control of everything.
All around, Microsoft is a lot less menacing than it used to be.
Nope. This is just more of the same nonsense where Apple fanboys try to pretend they and their platform are more significant than they really are. They are the same underappreciated road kill that we are. No amount of kidding themselves will change that.
Their platform lost and is now pretty much abandoned even by Apple. Even Apple has moved on to the next thing where they have a prayer of being successful.
> And there is the issue of how to install anything not in the repo. For casual users, Linux is garbage for that. On Windows you download an exe and follow a wizard. OSX, it is a dmg
For casual users, it's going to be in the repository.
Your Truecrypt example has no relevance to casual users.
I have had adventures like what you describe but under MacOS. You are blaming the platform that something that depends on each and every developer doing things to your liking.
Even the one true interface doesn't ensure that.
The Personal Desktop/Laptop OS needs to do the following very well.
1. Support 3rd party hardware. Apple and Microsoft are willing to let companies make drivers for their hardware and put their own license on them,
I run Linux on Macs because of better hardware support in Linux. Once you get beyond the based hardware, Apple has no advantage. Even with the base hardware, there may be some NIH issue (VDPAU) that causes MacOS to be less robustly supported.
With Linux, the community does for itself.
With Macs, you expect 3rd parties to support you. They may likely find you not worth the trouble for the exact same reason they would ignore Linux.
This is all about market share. It has been since this was a discussion including GEM. The politics of the Linux kernel and driver licensing is a big red herring.
If your intent is to "buy things" for your computer, you're much better off with the dominant vendor.
> I don't know why the Linux fanbois are getting all riled up.
It's a story designed to get people riled up.
They even have a special word for that. Tended to get thrown about quite a bit on Usenet and the old Bulletin Boards.
At the time, it seemed the way to deal with a monopoly that tended to destroy everything in it's path.
Microsoft destroyed everything but Apple. Apple was on deathwatch. DeGasse couldn't even give BeOS away for free.
The ease with which Ubuntu supported a random laptop in 2006 is why I switched to Ubuntu at the time.
It's easy to do well when you restrict yourself to a very limited subset of the available hardware and then get the OS preloaded.
apt-get is more like the official app store.
It comes with the system. It handles pretty much anything. It can even accommodate 3rd parties.
So in that respect there's really nothing comparable on a Mac. Just stuff that kind of sort of partially covers what apt-get does.
Being not-quite-comprehensive kind of defeats the entire point.
The flip side of that is that you have ignorant people that are easily swayed by propaganda into wanting to "send a message". This can be compounded by someone on the jury having an obvious conflict of interest.
Vor dire clearly failed in this instance.
Every field of engineering and science uses an approach to knowledge that is consistent with Darwin and incompatible with creationism.
Creationism is not the problem. It is merely the outward manifestation of it. The problem is mindless evangelicals that expect blind devotion and for you to check your brain at the door. This creationism nonsense is just the most visible part of their worldview. These people are extremists even by the standards of other religious people.
They're like the Amish except with no balls. They make a lot of separatist noises and then just whine and pretend they are somehow victimized by society.
It's also useful to note that this lot were the only people to defend those recent "legitimate rape" remarks.
Creationism is just a symptom of a much more fundemental problem.
To me, the home screen of an iPhone looks like the bastard child of Program Manager and OpenStep.
It's hardly anything worth granting a 20 year monopoly over.
It uses 20 year old GUI ideas as it is.
No. If I actually owned Apple, I would be worried about karma.
I would be worried about the whole "live by the sword, die by the sword" thing.
Pushing the envelope in exploiting a corrupt system can wortk both ways.
Although corporations tend to encourage sychophants and one might be prone to believe one's own propaganda after awhile and lose perspective. You end up with the kind of mindless echo chamber that guys like you seem so intent on generating.
> Right so you wont recommend a good machine that works,
I won't recommend an overpriced machine that is limited by a fascist approach to design. It doesn't matter if you're talking about PCs, tablets, or phones. Apple's approach is problematic if you are the least bit creative. Meanwhile, it's reputed advantages are grossly overstated.
The patents in question were only valid in a sort of "we can sell your sister because slavery is legal" kind of approach to the law.
Listen to the cry of the wounded idiot screeching against all of the "mean smart people".
As a geek, I am the one most likely to bring an iPad into the house first or an iPhone or an Android phone or an Android tablet. I am likely to be way out in front of most of the "conspicous consumers".
I might even but a Mac just for the hell of it (or even for some other geeky reason).
This cuts both ways.
It can benefit Apple for a time or work to their detriment as people see that there is nothing special about Apple.
The truth of the matter is that most people simply aren't platform partisans and have no great attachment to Apple and they will move on as soon as the next fad comes around.
Apple is a bit more evil than Samsung.
It's like you're watching the cold war as a spectator in a 3rd country and suddenly one of them decides to start World War III. It makes a differences who that perpetrator is.
Your attempt to ignore the relevant moral difference there is not convincing.
It does matter who lobbed the first nuke. That party is responsible for the everything that happens after that.
Patents used to be a game of mutual assured destruction except Apple was actually stupid enough to flip the switch.
Conflating an Apple with a BMW is not "slightly positive", it's overblown mindless propaganda meant to make the rest of us feel inferior.
What you are trying to call nitpicking is what actually distinguishes a Ford from a BMW.
You understand neither cards nor computers. You draw clueless comparisons because you fancy yourself richer and more important than you really are.
You think that a BMW would actually "make you somebody" but don't actually have the means to buy one. So you pretend that an overpriced generic collection of PC parts will suffice.
Nope.
"Assimilating" someone else's work is still going to yield derivative work.
This is something that is quite independent of the FSF. The FSF did not invent these concepts. They merely exploit them.
You can't just pretend that this is some sort of hippie inspired conspiracy.
You can't take someone else's work and pass it off as your own. The politics of your victim really don't matter.