I looked at the screenshot along with some of the others mentioned in the posts, which tend to show traditional windows floating in free space...My reaction was "what's the point?"
I believe there are really only two reasons to advance technology: to make it easier to do "old" things, and to enable completely new things that were not possible before.
Can a 3D interface improve on our 2D interfaces (i.e. WIMP-style interfaces like Finder and Explorer)? I don't think so...it looks like the best efforts at going down this path so far are just giving us different ways to organize windows (arranging them in cubes and panels, stacking them along z-axis, etc). It feels like applying 3D concepts to today's interfaces could make the WIMP metaphor slightly nicer, but not by much.
If we're going to play with such a different technology, why not try using the tech to do new things with interfaces, beyond "pointing" and "clicking"? Even if these things don't happen anytime soon, why limit our creativity now by following the same old paths?
We might not necessarily see a need for 3D interfaces on our desktops now, but if we broaden our minds, I'm sure that we can find lots of "new" uses or methods that weren't feasible before with flat interfaces.
Acceptance of 3D really depends on 2 things: 3D i/o devices to make proper use of a true 3D interface (holographic displays? mice with accelerometers on all axes?) and a really good example of an application where a 3D interface is clearly more useful than a 2D interface. 3d i/o devices will come eventually/soon (mostly because of games and CAD), but the examples of 3D interfaces I've seen so far haven't made a very convincing argument.
Keeping in mind that my comments were just wild speculation, I suppose if Microsoft went ahead with creating their own distribution, the distro couldn't take precedence over Windows NT. They would probably place it somewhere between Windows 98 for the desktop and NT for the bigger jobs (since they've been pushing NT for the enterprise for a while now). They might suggest Linux for simple domain controllers, file servers and whatnot...although it might conflict with NT Server.
Wherever they placed it, it would always be the "second-class" solution...like giving you kids to your cousin Barney for babysitting.
Then again, the more I think about it, the more I think's it's just some simple app that I've blown out of proportion. That product is probably just Internet Explorer 5.x for Linux. They already have IE for Mac and Solaris and other Unix flavours. Or maybe it's a Barney the Dinosaur toy for Linux...
Here's a question: is there any Microsoft stuff you would like to see on Linux? I'd like to hear answers for that one.:)
Thanks for the reply, maynard. I feel kind of honoured that you spent so much time on my comment.:)
Grenamier makes the point that Microsoft could create their own distribution of Linux with a proprietary Win32 kicker...How different is this from Corel using Linux as a vector to market their proprietary Corel Office software?
Good question. On fourth thought, there isn't much difference, especially since Corel has already composed its own distribution. OTOH, I do think there's a slight difference in that it's in Corel Office's best interests to have Linux stay free and open and carrying along as it has. Microsoft would be interested in having Linux development slow down or be influenced to allow Microsoft more control over its direction.
That said, I don't want people to get the idea that I'm really anti-Microsoft. At home I run Windows 98, Windows NT and Linux (on a separate computer). I'd prefer to have NT and Linux both succeed. Linux really is something special though, and I don't to see anything badly interfering with it.
Even though the premise is good, there are some fundamental mistakes of fact which ought to be resolved:
Thanks for clearing up these things for me. I should've known better on a lot of them.
Trying to steal Linux technology for NT? Perhaps, but they wouldn't need to sell a product of their own for that. [snip] But they can't "Steal" something out in the open like a GPL'd package, so I don't know what you mean by that.
Some of the previous replies speculated that Microsoft might be looking for features of Linux to steal for NT. I was deciding that it wouldn't be a good enough reason to build a distribution. As far as "stealing" goes, I hadn't thought much about it, I suppose stealing from free-software could be burying GPL'ed code in a closed-source product and ignoring the GPL's terms.
No. I've got a couple problems with this. First, USB support is already in active development, as is NTFS support in the kernel [...] that point is moot.
I should've remembered this, but I was only tossing out ideas on how Microsoft might have wanted to candy-coat the distribution for new users coming from Windows.
[...] What this means for Microsoft is that they will never control the momentum of kernel development unless they're willing to attempt a legal attack against the GPL; though that may well be in their interest.
It would be unlikely for Microsoft to attempt something like that for a while until people have gotten used to the notion of a Microsoft distribution and some of their lawyers get some vacation time.:)
OK. More problems of minor ignorance. First of all, if MS were to release a proprietary Win32 widget library, this would be no different from The OpenGroup with their Motif product line, or Troll Tech with their previous QT-1.x product line. In both cases each company has (and had) every legal right to sell a proprietary binary only software package which could not only cost to develop for, but could even cost just to use in runtime licensing fees!
If these guys get to play that game, then certainly Microsoft can. The GPL only covers software which can be thought to derive from a previously GPL'd source base. For example, if I create a source tree completely by scratch the GPL has nothing to say about what kind of license I distribute under. But if I derive an offshoot from a previously GPL'd program, say my own special version of GNU ls, and I distribute this code in binary form for either free or for charge, then I must also offer to distribute source, and I can't prevent the recipient from also distributing either the binary or the source.
I made a bad assumption here. I thought Microsoft would need to modify the kernel and a lot of the system software in order to create a UI with the same infrastructure and integration with the system as the Explorer UI on Windows. Of course, WINE, GNOME and KDE show that such changes wouldn't really be necessary. Duh on me.
[...] But baring such a casastrophic -- and unlikely -- outcome, we should expect that even if Microsoft released the most popular distribution of Linux, with all sorts of proprietary and expensive add ons to run commercial MS software, plenty of people will still just tinker around and maintain their own special Linux flavors. Do you really think Debian would go away? Not even if Caldera, Suse, and RedHat were flattened by the MS steamroller could they stop the Debian project without a Legal or Congressional victory (heh, maybe a bullshit Free Software Tax Act, that might make for good assault legislation against free software and is right up this congresses alley). Just like MS can't prevent end developers from creating a quality stable kernel and giving that away for free, they can't prevent a bunch of developers and end users from collecting a bunch of free software, creating a usable Linux distribution, and giving that away for free.
Quite true. But I'm not really concerned that other distributions could become extinct, more that Microsoft could influence Linux development in ways that don't really benefit Linux. For instance, I wouldn't want to see Linux catch a case of creeping featuritis that somehow spreads into the kernel. In theory, Linus and the people who work on the code would be able to avoid such a thing simply by saying no, but what if in the future a large number of users demand feature after feature after feature to be added to parts of Linux that have a wide impact? A compromise here, a lapse there and suddenly the kernel is growing or becoming buggier, perhaps...certainly we can live without MS Office (actually, I really like Word and Outlook on NT), but I hope most of the future's changes to Linux can be of the take-it-or-leave-it variety.
I get paranoid about good things that become too popular. Like this great seafood restaurant I know that's kind of gotten crappy since it suddenly started becoming "cool". With all the masses of people expecting things now, now now, there just isn't as much care taken in the food as there used to be. Now it tastes the same as all the other restaurants and it's hard to find a reason to pick this one over the others. I don't have to eat the new dishes that they serve now, but I want my old fried lobster back the way it was before.
I've snipped a lot of what you wrote, most of which I haven't marked. Not to ignore it, but because I agreed and I didn't have anything to add. I probably didn't add much here anyway.:) Even so, thanks for setting me straight on a few things...I should be more careful.
To me, it looks like Microsoft is creating its own distribution of Linux. For one clue, the title of the job is "Product Manager". No company has Product Managers for products they don't sell. Some of the duties include "product development for the development team" and "technical assistance for the sales force."
The position also advertises "high visibility" outside of the company. People who just watch competitors and make reports about them don't normally get much exposure (VinodV didn't get his 15 minutes on purpose). But if Microsoft is selling a "new" product, its Product Manager would be expected to flog it to the press.
So what's Microsoft up to? Scrapping NT for Linux? Of course not, they'd be throwing away all of their leverage. Trying to steal Linux technology for NT? Perhaps, but they wouldn't need to sell a product of their own for that.
This is my wild speculation:
Free-sourced software is the Internet happening all over again for Microsoft...everyone in the industry is jumping on the bandwagon and stories about the success of Linux, Apache and Perl are everywhere. Microsoft missed the populization of yet another decades-old "phenomenon" and they've known it since Hallowe'en at the least.
What did Microsoft do about the Internet? Embraced and tried to extend it. Now everything they sell has some Internet features, but they didn't manage to spread Active Server Pages everywhere, and Apache still tromps MS Internet Information Server.
I believe Microsoft will start by bundling Apache like Apple did, all "cleaned-up" with a Windows interface. Perhaps in the next Service Pack and in Windows 2000. Ballmer was saying the other day that Apache was simply better, in fact. They'll make a big deal about Microsoft supporting Open Source, and how they support innovations like that.
Then Microsoft ActiveLinux 3.1 will come out (I thought that was the most probable name and no version number less than 2.2 - 3.1 is good luck for Microsoft.) They'll make it easily installable, perhaps add USB and NTFS support, and then use Active X and IE for UNIX to put a Windows interface on Linux that has some Win32 APIs, the way OS/2 had some Win32 API's with DAX.
I'd be willing to bet Microsoft keeps that interface closed. They'll argue using a creative interpretation of GPL or LGPL so that they won't have to reveal the source and perhaps any undocumented Win32 calls that they port over. What they do will probably be in violation of the (L)GPL, but what legal force will be able to challenge them? ESR doesn't have that kind of cash.
MS shops and ISV's won't care about that though. Those dyed-in-the-wool Microsoft groupies, PHBs and non-technical CEOs who've heard so much about Linux can try it without leaving the MS fold or the Windows interface.
And they'll be impressed. Instead of creating a bad distribution to discredit Linux, they'll create a really good one, with all the goodies and easy installation (that you can start from Windows like Caldera, probably). Microsoft users who need hand holding will use it, Windows users who want to get into Linux (but don't want to get their hands dirty) will use it, and ISVs will write to that closed interface, because Microsoft will give them tools to make an easy port that lets Windows program keep Win32 calls for the UI. Microsoft will make ActiveLinux become the path of least-resistance for users and vendors from the Windows world who want to expand into Linux but have no interest in free-source issues.
If Microsoft succeeds in keeping the interface closed, and porting Office and BackOffice to their distribution, then it'll mean trouble because other distros won't look very competitive to the new users and the industry press. Microsoft could end up gathering more users than the other distributions, and then I don't know what...Microsoft was never able to get most of the web servers to run on MS-ware, so they didn't succeed there, but what if they managed to amass the biggest share of Linux users? Would it give them enough power to influence Linux's direction?
I'm not trying to be alarmist, I'm just trying to figure out their strategy...I could have it all wrong, but I do believe Microsoft will create its own distribution, and that it will try to create some reason to use Microsoft's distro instead of anyone else's. And Rob shouldn't work for them...what would happen to Slashdot??
Sorry for the length, I got off on a tear there...
Computer science has always appealed to me because I like things that blend elements of different disciplines into useful things. CompSci itself is a great blend of science, engineering, and mathematics in varying proportions depending on the problem you're looking at. The main products of computer science are abstract though, things like algorithms, proofs and theory...not operating systems or wordprocessors.
Software engineering applies principles from computer science to the problem of building real software, which is implemented by programmers. Scientists, engineers and programmers all have a hand in the software business, the way an engineer might take ideas from chemistry and physics to design a good bridge which is built by construction workers.
Computer science isn't really interested in creating actual software products (as well it shouldn't be). Saying that "computer engineers" should step aside and let computer scientists do their thing is like telling a civil engineer to take a hike so physicists can show them how to build an overpass. Well, that's not what they do (I just imagined a white-haired physicist in a lab coat mixing cement and cracked up..:)
I don't think it's fair to blame all of the problems of software completely on software engineering. I think the engineering principles get throw out the window a lot when companies decide they don't want to bother with it anymore. Also, engineering can have versatility if it's decided that versatility is wanted in a project...it's all part of defining the "spec". Bad marketing-driven design can lead to bad specs that include talking paperclips and the like, but good design with clear goals can lead to good specs and good products.
Again, computer science, software engineering and programming are all interrelated, and good software is the result of mixing the best of each. Unfairly denying any one of the three leads to bad software.
Apparently the owner of the page has been contributing to the PS2, so I don't think he would have included the picture unless it was reasonably similar to the real thing (to the best of his knowledge).
...but the claim isn't outrageous enough. If the claim were that Linus were being hired to port linux to the new Turbotron2000 plasma-based quantum CPU, now that would be a good April Hack's Day joke!
No, this was better...if they went for the really outrageous one, you wouldn't have seen as many people falling for it...:)
I'm sorry to say this, but I think the time has come for some kind of fund or program to be set up so that lawyers can be hired to defend when needed against stupid lawsuits like this. I'm not sure if the comic strips would qualify for such help, but clearly the Internet is entering a new arena with different rules than what came before.
Corporations with lots of money and lawyers are able to threaten and pick off small opponents on the Web like these comic strips and even individual coders or small companies. Look at all the bogus patents that have been filed lately. The terrible laws being proposed. We know most of these things are completely bogus, but who can fight them? Individual coders and small sites just don't have the money to put up even a small defense against a large corporate legal department with something to gain.
I think a legal fund needs to be set up, or even a staff that can used to challenge patents or fight off dumb lawsuits. Perhaps OSI can set up a marketing division for Open Source apps and get a cut of revenues from products that use the marketing service...the proceeds could go towards the funding of legal services, which would be available on request under certain conditions.
Microsoft is at risk because the open-source/free-software movement is changing the rules of the software business and yanking the rug out from under Microsoft's feet. But, the other side of the coin is that the new spotlight and the "mainstreaming" of open-source makes things like lawsuits and patents much more relevant to the open-source community than they used to be. The rules are changing for open-source too, and the community has to be able to respond, or it's possible that high-profile projects like GNU, Linux, KDE, GNOME and Apache won't be able to continue developing without being plagued with legalities that are like maggots on a rotting carcass.
Thanks if you're still reading. This is a lot longer than I meant it to be, but I had to get this off my chest. The rules are changing for open-source, just as the rules age changing for Microsoft et al. We know Microsoft will make some kind of response...what response will open-source make?
I've always felt the PalmPilot succeeded and the Newton failed because the Pilot was originally very focused on just doing what was really needed and not too much else. Not that Newton was a mess or anything, but I thought it was a bit too ambitious and consequently, too expensive.
With all the changes and the growth of the Palm platform lately, I hope Palm and Apple remember that the Pilot was great because it was primarily focused on needs instead of technology.
This all reminds me of Steve Jobs
on
Wired on RMS
·
· Score: 1
All this talk of kids, and technology and someone actually mentioning Steve Jobs in a thread reminded me of a Wired interview Jobs gave in 1996. The interviewer was asking him about the Web and was hoping for some great vision of mankind's future (here's the excerpt):
--Start of Quote-- What's the biggest surprise this technology will deliver? The problem is I'm older now, I'm 40 years old and this stuff doesn't change the world. It really doesn't. That's going to break people's heart's. I'm sorry, it's true. Having children really changes your view on these things. We're born, we live for a brief instant, and we die. It's been happening for a long time. Technology is not changing it much - if at all. These technologies can make life easier, can let us touch people people we might not otherwise...These things can profoundly influence life. I'm not downplaying that. But it's a disservice to constantly put things in this radical new light - that it's going to change everything. Things don't have to change the world to be important. --End of Quote--
I agree with him, and with you too. Perhaps if RMS did have children could help him find a different perspective, the way that children made Steve Jobs mature.
Actually, that did occur to me, so I changed the ending to "sites like Slashdot"...I know Slashdot is only one site that serves a specific population, but what about a bunch of Slashdots, each serving different populations?
Browsing the web is a personal experience, and people are going to looking for more personal content online...the TV model of broadcasting aren't really going to fly here as well as teams of niche sites like Slashdot.
I think eventually, when people are used to the Web, they'll be 'scratching their itches' at different Slashdot-clones (using Slashdot code?) for everything from parenting to barber-shop pole painting businesses (assuming barber shops still exist then). But it won't just be a matter of site content focused on them (like some magazine sites now), the people who use the sites will contribute the way Slashdotters do here, with stories, comments, hanging out on SlashNet. The news sites will be collective creations of their community, in an open source fashion.
I really like Slashdot and I visit here 3-4 times a day for updates. That bias aside, I think sites like this are going to take precedence over broad, one-way sites like MSNBC (nothing against them, I like that site too).
Has anyone thought of the Cathedral and the Bazaar as related to Slashdot? This isn't a great news site because of some massive international news organization with bureaus in Washington and Silicon Valley (like some news cathedral). It's great because of the community and the open environment that's managed by the maintainers here.
I'm sure if someone did a comparison, they could draw good parallels between Slashdot and Linux. One is shaking up the way we get news while the other is shaking up the software industry. And if we believe Linux is going to run over Windows, then what are sites like Slashdot going to the traditional media? Sites like MSNBC and CNET might have reason to be scared.
I get from the interview that his itch was to create some free software, to be involved in it, to learn something from it. I don't think an "itch" has to be connected to a particular tool that needs to be brought into existence... Deutsch's itch seems more along the personal growth variety. A more intangible thing than an OS, but just as valid.
Y'know, when I ponder the terrible might of the/. Effect, I'm really impressed by this site and its maintainers. Almost every day, another site or two goes down simply because Slashdot mentions it, but the avalanche that brings down those sites all come from here and this Slashdot bears it all every day without any great complaints. I think that's really amazing. Kudos to the guys running this site.
Now if only we could pass Team Evangelista...:)
IBM should separate WPS from PM and opensource it.
on
New OS/2 Warp client
·
· Score: 1
If Presentation Manager has licencing issues, perhaps WPS itself might be unladen with those. The thing is, WPS is an application that runs on Presentation Manager, but it's combined into PMSHELL.EXE. I think IBM should separate WPS out if possible (in terms of licensing), and then release it as open source for OS/2 and also help port it to Linux as part of a window manager using a free CORBA-compliant ORB that runs on Linux. Also, IBM could try making an OS/2 personality for Linux that is also open-source (separately from the WPS-window manager)
A lot of people have discussed how Linux and its community could benefit from opensourcing OS/2, but what would IBM be getting out of this?
1) Development of WPS goes under the Open Source model, and I don't have to go over those benefits here. 2) The IBM WPS environment comes to Linux, so IBM can start migrating clients to Linux with less training costs. Eventually, Linux could replace OS/2 as a desktop client and IBM could simply focus on supporting Linux. 3) WPS as a window manager would be very portable to other environments, like AIX or X on windows. IBM could use the WPS window manager to create a standardized interface that they can support over all of their platforms. This was one of the original goals of the Workplace Shell, and it could become a reality for them, via open source.
A lot of people are touting the benefits of WPS here, and there's a good reason why. At first, WPS can seem frustrating, especially if you're coming from an environment where you drag with the left mouse button. But give it time and get used to it, and you find WPS is very deep, and very powerful for users and programmers alike. After all, a lot of people have trouble using 'ls' instead of 'dir' at first too.
Actually, OS/2's Workplace Shell is based on IBM's System Object Model (SOM) technology, which is a CORBA-compliant ORB. From what I read, GNOME is using CORBA too. A better fit, I think... I was an OS/2 user (Warp 3 and 4), and I really miss the Workplace shell. If anyone wants ports of any part of OS/2 to linux, workplace shell is the first thing that should be done. It would be the most useful thing. Perhaps next would be DAX (Developer's API eXtensions)...basically, it was parts of the Win32 API that were ported to OS/2 to make it easier for Win32 programmers to port programs. I suspect there would be a lot of work in that that would be useful to WINE.
Last year, ATI became the #1 graphics chip maker before Rage 128 was even released. Why? For companies that have to design motherboards and systems with a graphics chip integrated, performance is only one part of the equation. For instance, ATI's customer service and engineering support for those kinds of companies is among the very best in the business. They also have a lot of other business pluses that made them number one even though S3, 3DFX and Nvidia (sp?) put out Savage3D, Banshee/Voodoo II and RIVA TNT before Rage 128 came out.
What I'm basically saying is, Apple has different needs compared to end users, so they have to choose for different reasons too. There's more to it than just raw perfomance.
Slashdot Mirror
Take a look through this: RealPlaces.
It's very interesting.
I looked at the screenshot along with some of the others mentioned in the posts, which tend to show traditional windows floating in free space...My reaction was "what's the point?"
I believe there are really only two reasons to advance technology: to make it easier to do "old" things, and to enable completely new things that were not possible before.
Can a 3D interface improve on our 2D interfaces (i.e. WIMP-style interfaces like Finder and Explorer)? I don't think so...it looks like the best efforts at going down this path so far are just giving us different ways to organize windows (arranging them in cubes and panels, stacking them along z-axis, etc). It feels like applying 3D concepts to today's interfaces could make the WIMP metaphor slightly nicer, but not by much.
If we're going to play with such a different technology, why not try using the tech to do new things with interfaces, beyond "pointing" and "clicking"? Even if these things don't happen anytime soon, why limit our creativity now by following the same old paths?
We might not necessarily see a need for 3D interfaces on our desktops now, but if we broaden our minds, I'm sure that we can find lots of "new" uses or methods that weren't feasible before with flat interfaces.
Acceptance of 3D really depends on 2 things: 3D i/o devices to make proper use of a true 3D interface (holographic displays? mice with accelerometers on all axes?) and a really good example of an application where a 3D interface is clearly more useful than a 2D interface. 3d i/o devices will come eventually/soon (mostly because of games and CAD), but the examples of 3D interfaces I've seen so far haven't made a very convincing argument.
Keeping in mind that my comments were just wild speculation, I suppose if Microsoft went ahead with creating their own distribution, the distro couldn't take precedence over Windows NT. They would probably place it somewhere between Windows 98 for the desktop and NT for the bigger jobs (since they've been pushing NT for the enterprise for a while now). They might suggest Linux for simple domain controllers, file servers and whatnot...although it might conflict with NT Server.
:)
Wherever they placed it, it would always be the "second-class" solution...like giving you kids to your cousin Barney for babysitting.
Then again, the more I think about it, the more I think's it's just some simple app that I've blown out of proportion. That product is probably just Internet Explorer 5.x for Linux. They already have IE for Mac and Solaris and other Unix flavours. Or maybe it's a Barney the Dinosaur toy for Linux...
Here's a question: is there any Microsoft stuff you would like to see on Linux? I'd like to hear answers for that one.
Thanks for the reply, maynard. I feel kind of honoured that you spent so much time on my comment. :)
:)
:) Even so, thanks for setting me straight on a few things...I should be more careful.
Grenamier makes the point that Microsoft could create their own distribution of Linux with a proprietary Win32 kicker...How different is this from Corel using Linux as a vector to market their proprietary Corel Office software?
Good question. On fourth thought, there isn't much difference, especially since Corel has already composed its own distribution. OTOH, I do think there's a slight difference in that it's in Corel Office's best interests to have Linux stay free and open and carrying along as it has. Microsoft would be interested in having Linux development slow down or be influenced to allow Microsoft more control over its direction.
That said, I don't want people to get the idea that I'm really anti-Microsoft. At home I run Windows 98, Windows NT and Linux (on a separate computer). I'd prefer to have NT and Linux both succeed. Linux really is something special though, and I don't to see anything badly interfering with it.
Even though the premise is good, there are some fundamental mistakes of fact which ought to be resolved:
Thanks for clearing up these things for me. I should've known better on a lot of them.
Trying to steal Linux technology for NT? Perhaps, but they wouldn't need to sell a product of their own for that.
[snip] But they can't "Steal" something out in the open like a GPL'd package, so I don't know what you mean by that.
Some of the previous replies speculated that Microsoft might be looking for features of Linux to steal for NT. I was deciding that it wouldn't be a good enough reason to build a distribution. As far as "stealing" goes, I hadn't thought much about it, I suppose stealing from free-software could be burying GPL'ed code in a closed-source product and ignoring the GPL's terms.
No. I've got a couple problems with this. First, USB support is already in active development, as is NTFS support in the kernel [...] that point is moot.
I should've remembered this, but I was only tossing out ideas on how Microsoft might have wanted to candy-coat the distribution for new users coming from Windows.
[...] What this means for Microsoft is that they will never control the momentum of kernel development unless they're willing to attempt a legal attack against the GPL; though that may well be in their interest.
It would be unlikely for Microsoft to attempt something like that for a while until people have gotten used to the notion of a Microsoft distribution and some of their lawyers get some vacation time.
OK. More problems of minor ignorance. First of all, if MS were to release a proprietary Win32 widget library, this would be no different from The OpenGroup with their Motif product line, or Troll Tech with their previous QT-1.x product line. In both cases each company has (and had) every legal right to sell a proprietary binary only software package which could not only cost to develop for, but could even cost just to use in runtime licensing fees!
If these guys get to play that game, then certainly Microsoft can. The GPL only covers software which can be thought to derive from a previously GPL'd source base. For example, if I create a source tree completely by scratch the GPL has nothing to say about what kind of license I distribute under. But if I derive an offshoot from a previously GPL'd program, say my own special version of GNU ls, and I distribute this code in binary form for either free or for charge, then I must also offer to distribute source, and I can't prevent the recipient from also distributing either the binary or the source.
I made a bad assumption here. I thought Microsoft would need to modify the kernel and a lot of the system software in order to create a UI with the same infrastructure and integration with the system as the Explorer UI on Windows. Of course, WINE, GNOME and KDE show that such changes wouldn't really be necessary. Duh on me.
[...] But baring such a casastrophic -- and unlikely -- outcome, we should expect that even if Microsoft released the most popular distribution of Linux, with all sorts of proprietary and expensive add ons to run commercial MS software, plenty of people will still just tinker around and maintain their own special Linux flavors. Do you really think Debian would go away? Not even if Caldera, Suse, and RedHat were flattened by the MS steamroller could they stop the Debian project without a Legal or Congressional victory (heh, maybe a bullshit Free Software Tax Act, that might make for good assault legislation against free software and is right up this congresses alley). Just like MS can't prevent end developers from creating a quality stable kernel and giving that away for free, they can't prevent a bunch of developers and end users from collecting a bunch of free software, creating a usable Linux distribution, and giving that away for free.
Quite true. But I'm not really concerned that other distributions could become extinct, more that Microsoft could influence Linux development in ways that don't really benefit Linux. For instance, I wouldn't want to see Linux catch a case of creeping featuritis that somehow spreads into the kernel. In theory, Linus and the people who work on the code would be able to avoid such a thing simply by saying no, but what if in the future a large number of users demand feature after feature after feature to be added to parts of Linux that have a wide impact? A compromise here, a lapse there and suddenly the kernel is growing or becoming buggier, perhaps...certainly we can live without MS Office (actually, I really like Word and Outlook on NT), but I hope most of the future's changes to Linux can be of the take-it-or-leave-it variety.
I get paranoid about good things that become too popular. Like this great seafood restaurant I know that's kind of gotten crappy since it suddenly started becoming "cool". With all the masses of people expecting things now, now now, there just isn't as much care taken in the food as there used to be. Now it tastes the same as all the other restaurants and it's hard to find a reason to pick this one over the others. I don't have to eat the new dishes that they serve now, but I want my old fried lobster back the way it was before.
I've snipped a lot of what you wrote, most of which I haven't marked. Not to ignore it, but because I agreed and I didn't have anything to add. I probably didn't add much here anyway.
To me, it looks like Microsoft is creating its own distribution of Linux. For one clue, the title of the job is "Product Manager". No company has Product Managers for products they don't sell. Some of the duties include "product development for the development team" and "technical assistance for the sales force."
The position also advertises "high visibility" outside of the company. People who just watch competitors and make reports about them don't normally get much exposure (VinodV didn't get his 15 minutes on purpose). But if Microsoft is selling a "new" product, its Product Manager would be expected to flog it to the press.
So what's Microsoft up to? Scrapping NT for Linux? Of course not, they'd be throwing away all of their leverage. Trying to steal Linux technology for NT? Perhaps, but they wouldn't need to sell a product of their own for that.
This is my wild speculation:
Free-sourced software is the Internet happening all over again for Microsoft...everyone in the industry is jumping on the bandwagon and stories about the success of Linux, Apache and Perl are everywhere. Microsoft missed the populization of yet another decades-old "phenomenon" and they've known it since Hallowe'en at the least.
What did Microsoft do about the Internet? Embraced and tried to extend it. Now everything they sell has some Internet features, but they didn't manage to spread Active Server Pages everywhere, and Apache still tromps MS Internet Information Server.
I believe Microsoft will start by bundling Apache like Apple did, all "cleaned-up" with a Windows interface. Perhaps in the next Service Pack and in Windows 2000. Ballmer was saying the other day that Apache was simply better, in fact. They'll make a big deal about Microsoft supporting Open Source, and how they support innovations like that.
Then Microsoft ActiveLinux 3.1 will come out (I thought that was the most probable name and no version number less than 2.2 - 3.1 is good luck for Microsoft.) They'll make it easily installable, perhaps add USB and NTFS support, and then use Active X and IE for UNIX to put a Windows interface on Linux that has some Win32 APIs, the way OS/2 had some Win32 API's with DAX.
I'd be willing to bet Microsoft keeps that interface closed. They'll argue using a creative interpretation of GPL or LGPL so that they won't have to reveal the source and perhaps any undocumented Win32 calls that they port over. What they do will probably be in violation of the (L)GPL, but what legal force will be able to challenge them? ESR doesn't have that kind of cash.
MS shops and ISV's won't care about that though. Those dyed-in-the-wool Microsoft groupies, PHBs and non-technical CEOs who've heard so much about Linux can try it without leaving the MS fold or the Windows interface.
And they'll be impressed. Instead of creating a bad distribution to discredit Linux, they'll create a really good one, with all the goodies and easy installation (that you can start from Windows like Caldera, probably). Microsoft users who need hand holding will use it, Windows users who want to get into Linux (but don't want to get their hands dirty) will use it, and ISVs will write to that closed interface, because Microsoft will give them tools to make an easy port that lets Windows program keep Win32 calls for the UI. Microsoft will make ActiveLinux become the path of least-resistance for users and vendors from the Windows world who want to expand into Linux but have no interest in free-source issues.
If Microsoft succeeds in keeping the interface closed, and porting Office and BackOffice to their distribution, then it'll mean trouble because other distros won't look very competitive to the new users and the industry press. Microsoft could end up gathering more users than the other distributions, and then I don't know what...Microsoft was never able to get most of the web servers to run on MS-ware, so they didn't succeed there, but what if they managed to amass the biggest share of Linux users? Would it give them enough power to influence Linux's direction?
I'm not trying to be alarmist, I'm just trying to figure out their strategy...I could have it all wrong, but I do believe Microsoft will create its own distribution, and that it will try to create some reason to use Microsoft's distro instead of anyone else's. And Rob shouldn't work for them...what would happen to Slashdot??
Sorry for the length, I got off on a tear there...
Nintendo has Dolphin Running at E3
Ten Things You Must Know About Dolphin
Next Generation Nintendo System Announced
Scroll down to the bottom to see what they use. :)
Computer science has always appealed to me because I like things that blend elements of different disciplines into useful things. CompSci itself is a great blend of science, engineering, and mathematics in varying proportions depending on the problem you're looking at. The main products of computer science are abstract though, things like algorithms, proofs and theory...not operating systems or wordprocessors.
:)
Software engineering applies principles from computer science to the problem of building real software, which is implemented by programmers. Scientists, engineers and programmers all have a hand in the software business, the way an engineer might take ideas from chemistry and physics to design a good bridge which is built by construction workers.
Computer science isn't really interested in creating actual software products (as well it shouldn't be). Saying that "computer engineers" should step aside and let computer scientists do their thing is like telling a civil engineer to take a hike so physicists can show them how to build an overpass. Well, that's not what they do (I just imagined a white-haired physicist in a lab coat mixing cement and cracked up..
I don't think it's fair to blame all of the problems of software completely on software engineering. I think the engineering principles get throw out the window a lot when companies decide they don't want to bother with it anymore. Also, engineering can have versatility if it's decided that versatility is wanted in a project...it's all part of defining the "spec". Bad marketing-driven design can lead to bad specs that include talking paperclips and the like, but good design with clear goals can lead to good specs and good products.
Again, computer science, software engineering and programming are all interrelated, and good software is the result of mixing the best of each. Unfairly denying any one of the three leads to bad software.
Apparently the owner of the page has been contributing to the PS2, so I don't think he would have included the picture unless it was reasonably similar to the real thing (to the best of his knowledge).
No, this was better...if they went for the really outrageous one, you wouldn't have seen as many people falling for it... :)
I'm sorry to say this, but I think the time has come for some kind of fund or program to be set up so that lawyers can be hired to defend when needed against stupid lawsuits like this. I'm not sure if the comic strips would qualify for such help, but clearly the Internet is entering a new arena with different rules than what came before.
:)
Corporations with lots of money and lawyers are able to threaten and pick off small opponents on the Web like these comic strips and even individual coders or small companies. Look at all the bogus patents that have been filed lately. The terrible laws being proposed. We know most of these things are completely bogus, but who can fight them? Individual coders and small sites just don't have the money to put up even a small defense against a large corporate legal department with something to gain.
I think a legal fund needs to be set up, or even a staff that can used to challenge patents or fight off dumb lawsuits. Perhaps OSI can set up a marketing division for Open Source apps and get a cut of revenues from products that use the marketing service...the proceeds could go towards the funding of legal services, which would be available on request under certain conditions.
Microsoft is at risk because the open-source/free-software movement is changing the rules of the software business and yanking the rug out from under Microsoft's feet. But, the other side of the coin is that the new spotlight and the "mainstreaming" of open-source makes things like lawsuits and patents much more relevant to the open-source community than they used to be. The rules are changing for open-source too, and the community has to be able to respond, or it's possible that high-profile projects like GNU, Linux, KDE, GNOME and Apache won't be able to continue developing without being plagued with legalities that are like maggots on a rotting carcass.
Thanks if you're still reading. This is a lot longer than I meant it to be, but I had to get this off my chest. The rules are changing for open-source, just as the rules age changing for Microsoft et al. We know Microsoft will make some kind of response...what response will open-source make?
(Is this long enough to count as a feature?
I've always felt the PalmPilot succeeded and the Newton failed because the Pilot was originally very focused on just doing what was really needed and not too much else. Not that Newton was a mess or anything, but I thought it was a bit too ambitious and consequently, too expensive.
With all the changes and the growth of the Palm platform lately, I hope Palm and Apple remember that the Pilot was great because it was primarily focused on needs instead of technology.
All this talk of kids, and technology and someone actually mentioning Steve Jobs in a thread reminded me of a Wired interview Jobs gave in 1996. The interviewer was asking him about the Web and was hoping for some great vision of mankind's future (here's the excerpt):
--Start of Quote--
What's the biggest surprise this technology will deliver?
The problem is I'm older now, I'm 40 years old and this stuff doesn't change the world. It really doesn't.
That's going to break people's heart's.
I'm sorry, it's true. Having children really changes your view on these things. We're born, we live for a brief instant, and we die. It's been happening for a long time. Technology is not changing it much - if at all.
These technologies can make life easier, can let us touch people people we might not otherwise...These things can profoundly influence life. I'm not downplaying that. But it's a disservice to constantly put things in this radical new light - that it's going to change everything. Things don't have to change the world to be important.
--End of Quote--
I agree with him, and with you too. Perhaps if RMS did have children could help him find a different perspective, the way that children made Steve Jobs mature.
Actually, that did occur to me, so I changed the ending to "sites like Slashdot"...I know Slashdot is only one site that serves a specific population, but what about a bunch of Slashdots, each serving different populations?
Browsing the web is a personal experience, and people are going to looking for more personal content online...the TV model of broadcasting aren't really going to fly here as well as teams of niche sites like Slashdot.
I think eventually, when people are used to the Web, they'll be 'scratching their itches' at different Slashdot-clones (using Slashdot code?) for everything from parenting to barber-shop pole painting businesses (assuming barber shops still exist then). But it won't just be a matter of site content focused on them (like some magazine sites now), the people who use the sites will contribute the way Slashdotters do here, with stories, comments, hanging out on SlashNet. The news sites will be collective creations of their community, in an open source fashion.
I really like Slashdot and I visit here 3-4 times a day for updates. That bias aside, I think sites like this are going to take precedence over broad, one-way sites like MSNBC (nothing against them, I like that site too).
Has anyone thought of the Cathedral and the Bazaar as related to Slashdot? This isn't a great news site because of some massive international news organization with bureaus in Washington and Silicon Valley (like some news cathedral). It's great because of the community and the open environment that's managed by the maintainers here.
I'm sure if someone did a comparison, they could draw good parallels between Slashdot and Linux. One is shaking up the way we get news while the other is shaking up the software industry. And if we believe Linux is going to run over Windows, then what are sites like Slashdot going to the traditional media? Sites like MSNBC and CNET might have reason to be scared.
Congratulations to Rob and the others!
I get from the interview that his itch was to create some free software, to be involved in it, to learn something from it. I don't think an "itch" has to be connected to a particular tool that needs to be brought into existence... Deutsch's itch seems more along the personal growth variety. A more intangible thing than an OS, but just as valid.
Y'know, when I ponder the terrible might of the /. Effect, I'm really impressed by this site and its maintainers. Almost every day, another site or two goes down simply because Slashdot mentions it, but the avalanche that brings down those sites all come from here and this Slashdot bears it all every day without any great complaints. I think that's really amazing. Kudos to the guys running this site.
:)
Now if only we could pass Team Evangelista...
If Presentation Manager has licencing issues, perhaps WPS itself might be unladen with those. The thing is, WPS is an application that runs on Presentation Manager, but it's combined into PMSHELL.EXE. I think IBM should separate WPS out if possible (in terms of licensing), and then release it as open source for OS/2 and also help port it to Linux as part of a window manager using a free CORBA-compliant ORB that runs on Linux. Also, IBM could try making an OS/2 personality for Linux that is also open-source (separately from the WPS-window manager)
A lot of people have discussed how Linux and its community could benefit from opensourcing OS/2, but what would IBM be getting out of this?
1) Development of WPS goes under the Open Source model, and I don't have to go over those benefits here.
2) The IBM WPS environment comes to Linux, so IBM can start migrating clients to Linux with less training costs. Eventually, Linux could replace OS/2 as a desktop client and IBM could simply focus on supporting Linux.
3) WPS as a window manager would be very portable to other environments, like AIX or X on windows. IBM could use the WPS window manager to create a standardized interface that they can support over all of their platforms. This was one of the original goals of the Workplace Shell, and it could become a reality for them, via open source.
A lot of people are touting the benefits of WPS here, and there's a good reason why. At first, WPS can seem frustrating, especially if you're coming from an environment where you drag with the left mouse button. But give it time and get used to it, and you find WPS is very deep, and very powerful for users and programmers alike. After all, a lot of people have trouble using 'ls' instead of 'dir' at first too.
Actually, OS/2's Workplace Shell is based on IBM's System Object Model (SOM) technology, which is a CORBA-compliant ORB. From what I read, GNOME is using CORBA too. A better fit, I think... I was an OS/2 user (Warp 3 and 4), and I really miss the Workplace shell. If anyone wants ports of any part of OS/2 to linux, workplace shell is the first thing that should be done. It would be the most useful thing. Perhaps next would be DAX (Developer's API eXtensions)...basically, it was parts of the Win32 API that were ported to OS/2 to make it easier for Win32 programmers to port programs. I suspect there would be a lot of work in that that would be useful to WINE.
Last year, ATI became the #1 graphics chip maker before Rage 128 was even released. Why? For companies that have to design motherboards and systems with a graphics chip integrated, performance is only one part of the equation. For instance, ATI's customer service and engineering support for those kinds of companies is among the very best in the business. They also have a lot of other business pluses that made them number one even though S3, 3DFX and Nvidia (sp?) put out Savage3D, Banshee/Voodoo II and RIVA TNT before Rage 128 came out.
What I'm basically saying is, Apple has different needs compared to end users, so they have to choose for different reasons too. There's more to it than just raw perfomance.