Hmmm I think it is that he should be respected for his actions regarding the Mac OS.
For the work id was doing, the Mac was substandard. The OpenGL and a host of other subsystems were poor, and lets face it most of the FPS developers were either not developing for the Mac or worse were just giving the Mac user base second had castoff ports. John called it like it was. Then he was given a look at OS X and he had a change of heart.
OS X was what made a difference in his opinion. Why you ask? Simple it addressed his numerous previously stated problems with the Apple platform. Everything from hardware, OS fundamentals and the portability issues. The platform changed and his views changed. In the interim Apple made some changes as well.
If we all took stances like yours, no other non mainstream OS's would get support. As for "good reason for his change of heart" one needs only to look.
http://www.maccentral.com/news/0005/23.osxgame.s html
I have a better theory for you. This is imunization from consumer class action AND getting the Feds off their backs. If the FTC found them guilty it would expose them to the ligation of the millions of consumers who got fleeced. Imagine if they had to pay even some of that money back to consumers in some kind of mass settlement.
Hmmm kinda sounds like what a company in Redmond might experience.
That was just one example of the press. I believe BYTE railed against this embrace and extend bit as far back as late 1997 when it was still to be called NT 5. They continued to dish out this critism on everything from it being a potential security hole to the lack of interoprability.
Other more recent bits came from ZDNet this week and hints of it in 1998 I'm sure if anyone spends more then five minutes they could find better examples.
Back to LiuxWorld being an example of the press. It is part of Internet journalism. What I think you were refering to was its potential bias and a possible lack of neutrality. Sometimes your rivals give you the best critism. NetWare marketing made this an issue as well, but in the end the information source dosen't matter as long as it is factually correct and independently verified. Maybe if enough pressure is brought to bear on MS they will drop the things that are making them incompatible with proven network security standards.
With all the rumblings of MS looking and taking serious the Linux threat, and Corel's annoucement of Linux being a big part of their future, the real question becomes...
I believe that was about applications and scalability. They recognized that the Windows family is just that a family. Different products based on different code, requiring different apps. Linux and BSD scale better over a diverse range of hardware. Write once for Linux and run on any Linux based platform versus the Windows world of having different OS's and different apps. Eg a Windows CE version of Word and an 9X/NT Win32 Version. It also helps to negate the lack of apps cited in the article and demonstrates the versatility of having the source code.
First there was communicator...4.x Then there was the opening of that source which would be the next version, but they scrapped it. 5.x OpenSourcing a project is a major change. Now we have Mozilla code. 6.x
Seems to warrant a major change in version number.
Although MozillaZine.Org is reporting: "However, from talking to some folks at Netscape, I have found out that they have not yet settled on a name, so this news is premature (as, apparently, was our mention of the name Netscape 2001). We will let you know when we have a concrete answer. "
I believe what you are speaking about PPPoE. I myself do not like it but my Telco has forced it on all of us Canadians in Ontario and Quebec. Check out these links.
Linux/BSD and links to OpenSource Clients here.. http://www.sympaticousers.org/faq/unix.htm NTS's EnterNet FAQ's are here.. http://www.nts.com/support/FaqEnterNetLinux.html (In particular the Linux Roaring Penguin client comes highly recomended as a usermode implementation)
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I work for any company or group involved with AOL.
Instead of a knee jerk reaction look at some of the other reasons AOL/TimeWarner should cut themselves loose from the proceedings.
1) Legal If AOL were to push for open access legislation I am sure at least one of those competitors would try to claim if not counter sue on the fact that AOL could be (preceived as) using the law to harm competitors. See the MS case for how it was used against Netscape. Remeber that AOL is the company with market share, impeding competitors progress is bad. Being a leader and doing it is placing yourself into the realm of Anti Trust law.
2) Stock Holders You can say what you will about capitalism, but AOL is responsible to its stockholders. How edgy would you as a stock holder be if you looked at the first option? Remeber you are concerned about your companies future. Along these lines comes the uncertainty of legislation. Until someone can sell shareholders on the concept of OpenAccess, it would be futile to try. Open Access will be an issue for shareholders in the future because eventually they will want to expand.
So what can AOL do?
a) Put some money into software projects that improve the Internet experience. Stuff like web browsers, instant messaging ect.
b) Support standards that keep things open for all. See browser, and IM RCF work
c) Support groups that are for open access, but do so at arms length otherwise you become liable to be attack as in 1)Legal. AOL looks like they are doing that. From the article, "AOL remains a member of OpenNET"
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm I think it is that he should be respected for his actions regarding the Mac OS.
s html
For the work id was doing, the Mac was substandard. The OpenGL and a host of other subsystems were poor, and lets face it most of the FPS developers were either not developing for the Mac or worse were just giving the Mac user base second had castoff ports. John called it like it was. Then he was given a look at OS X and he had a change of heart.
OS X was what made a difference in his opinion. Why you ask? Simple it addressed his numerous previously stated problems with the Apple platform. Everything from hardware, OS fundamentals and the portability issues. The platform changed and his views changed. In the interim Apple made some changes as well.
If we all took stances like yours, no other non mainstream OS's would get support. As for "good reason for his change of heart" one needs only to look.
http://www.maccentral.com/news/0005/23.osxgame.
docGui
I have a better theory for you. This is imunization from consumer class action AND getting the Feds off their backs. If the FTC found them guilty it would expose them to the ligation of the millions of consumers who got fleeced. Imagine if they had to pay even some of that money back to consumers in some kind of mass settlement.
Hmmm kinda sounds like what a company in Redmond might experience.
That was just one example of the press. I believe BYTE railed against this embrace and extend bit as far back as late 1997 when it was still to be called NT 5. They continued to dish out this critism on everything from it being a potential security hole to the lack of interoprability.
Other more recent bits came from ZDNet this week and hints of it in 1998 I'm sure if anyone spends more then five minutes they could find better examples.
Back to LiuxWorld being an example of the press. It is part of Internet journalism. What I think you were refering to was its potential bias and a possible lack of neutrality. Sometimes your rivals give you the best critism. NetWare marketing made this an issue as well, but in the end the information source dosen't matter as long as it is factually correct and independently verified. Maybe if enough pressure is brought to bear on MS they will drop the things that are making them incompatible with proven network security standards.
docGui
With all the rumblings of MS looking and taking serious the Linux threat, and Corel's annoucement of Linux being a big part of their future, the real question becomes...
Will they keep that 4% share?
I believe that was about applications and scalability. They recognized that the Windows family is just that a family. Different products based on different code, requiring different apps. Linux and BSD scale better over a diverse range of hardware. Write once for Linux and run on any Linux based platform versus the Windows world of having different OS's and different apps. Eg a Windows CE version of Word and an 9X/NT Win32 Version. It also helps to negate the lack of apps cited in the article and demonstrates the versatility of having the source code.
First there was communicator...4.x
Then there was the opening of that source which would be the next version, but they scrapped it. 5.x OpenSourcing a project is a major change.
Now we have Mozilla code. 6.x
Seems to warrant a major change in version number.
Although MozillaZine.Org is reporting:
"However, from talking to some folks at Netscape, I have found out that they have not yet settled on a name, so this news is premature (as, apparently, was our mention of the name Netscape 2001). We will let you know when we have a concrete answer. "
I believe what you are speaking about PPPoE. I myself do not like it but my Telco has forced it on all of us Canadians in Ontario and Quebec. Check out these links.
l
Linux/BSD and links to OpenSource Clients here..
http://www.sympaticousers.org/faq/unix.htm
NTS's EnterNet FAQ's are here..
http://www.nts.com/support/FaqEnterNetLinux.htm
(In particular the Linux Roaring Penguin client comes highly recomended as a usermode implementation)
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I work for any company or group involved with AOL.
Instead of a knee jerk reaction look at some of the other reasons AOL/TimeWarner should cut themselves loose from the proceedings.
1) Legal
If AOL were to push for open access legislation I am sure at least one of those competitors would try to claim if not counter sue on the fact that AOL could be (preceived as) using the law to harm competitors. See the MS case for how it was used against Netscape. Remeber that AOL is the company with market share, impeding competitors progress is bad. Being a leader and doing it is placing yourself into the realm of Anti Trust law.
2) Stock Holders
You can say what you will about capitalism, but AOL is responsible to its stockholders. How edgy would you as a stock holder be if you looked at the first option? Remeber you are concerned about your companies future. Along these lines comes the uncertainty of legislation. Until someone can sell shareholders on the concept of OpenAccess, it would be futile to try. Open Access will be an issue for shareholders in the future because eventually they will want to expand.
So what can AOL do?
a) Put some money into software projects that improve the Internet experience. Stuff like web browsers, instant messaging ect.
b) Support standards that keep things open for all. See browser, and IM RCF work
c) Support groups that are for open access, but do so at arms length otherwise you become liable to be attack as in 1)Legal. AOL looks like they are doing that. From the article, "AOL remains a member of OpenNET"
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now.
docGui