Of course you need some investment to switch the platform, but after you take the switch the costs will get accumulated because a Linux server is more secure, more reliable and easier to administer. Also you never have the fear that MS is try "to make them actually pay". After MS is dropping support for WinXP and WS2003 they have to switch platforms anyway, so why not to the better and the more free product?
Like many here you're not getting one thing - developers / geeks do not account for 90% of possible iPhone customers. There is something that is a problem for YOU and a problem for many OPEN-SOURCE type people - but not really something that is seen as a problem by the majority of people out there.
That's so true, and really strange. People usually like freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of choice. But if it's computer or digital media, people bend over and take it. For example the EULAs today. If I ever bought a coffee machine with that kind of EULA attached to it, I would be crazy. But people buy software with an EULA that says you don't own anything, you can't do anything, you can't share, you have no rights at all. People buy DVDs that are only playable in special devices, people buy music that they can't share or copy anymore. It's just crazy and if on coffee machines or on t-shirts were the same restrictions people would go to the streets.
But I think it's because people don't know better. They are just listening to the nonsense that copying is theft, they just know Windows, MS Office or Photoshop. The people don't know that they have now a choice.
Furthermore, it's the billions of $ spend in commercials, and for the IPhone in special. I really want to buy me an Android, but I looked around and there are no commercials for Google Android. Nobody says on the phone it's Google Android. Look at the phones Where is a big logo of Android and where is a text Google Android? Now the iPhone There is big logo of Apple and the text iPhone. How can I know that a phone is a Google Android phone? If nobody knows that your phone is a Google Android phone than there is no value that it's a Google Android phone. I think that is a really big mistake, because they drop the value of brand recognition and the brand Google is really famous and stands for quality.
If I go to the shop there are 100 phones. They all look the same, but some of them are Android phones. Now I only want the phones with Android but they all look the same, so I have to ask which of the Samsung, Motorola, Huawei, LG, HTC, Dell and 10 others are Android phones. But the iPhone is an eye catcher, there is only the iPhone. People don't want to choose between 50 Android phones, they want The Android Phone. That's why the iPhone is so successful, there is only one brand and everybody else knows that you have an iPhone, because of the big Apple logo and the text iPhone.
Do we change the laws that the 1% athletes can still make million of $? Why we change the laws so the 5% elite have it better, while the 95% will get it worse?
Yes, the 95% will be worse if you enforce the copyright even more, because they can't take new ideas out of the pool of older works and that is how books, music, movies, software, etc. works. You take ideas from old works and build your own. Only with a rich public domain and many works under copyleft licenses we will flourish and can the society as a whole advance.
The technology is changed, but we make laws so that the 5% elite don't need to adapt and change. That's like we outlaw the steam train so the horse carriage can still be a viable business. We outlaw the steam train for 95% of the population so the 5% horse carriage can make a living.
The best example of the lack of copyright is the fashion industry. There is no copyright. Everything you can see on the street or in the store you can copy free and sell it. But are we lacking of fashion? Hell no, the fashion industry is the most creative industry and there are no shortcomings of profits either. Don't believe me: http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html
Only 5% of all book authors and musicians are actually making money off of copyright. At least 95% of book authors are not selling over 5000 copies of their works, the music bands are just getting 1% of each CD sales. Just watch The Surprising History of Copyright and What It Means For... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI
Sorry, but only the 5% of the most red and most famous artists and book authors are making money from copyright. Anybody else makes no money from it. Copyright was never intended to help or protect the creator. It was historically a law to help publishers and still remains the law to help publisher. Why do you think it's called "copy right", because it protects the right of the publisher to make a copy of your work and to profit from it. The creator have the right to make a copy of his work already, you don't need a law for it.
Another argument, Creative Commons started in 2001. After only 2 years there were already approximately 1 million licenses under a CC license. After 7 years there are estimated 130 million CC licensed works. Here is my graph of their history Here is my prediction of CC works to the year 2015, by then we will have 7.6 billions works under CC.
As much as I'm not a fan of Windows, it's the target, not the OS that's the problem. OS X and Linux can be circumvented too, if the prize is worth it. Anyone who doesn't realize that is a fool.
I don't care about what OS is more secure. But I do care that the news reporter are doing his/her job by telling what the affected system is. If it's Linux, fine, say Linux is affected. But nobody is ever mentioning that it's Microsoft Windows. In fact, please read the last 20 security reports. Microsoft Windows is never mentioned once.
So, what system the computer were running? Why is that information never in this news reports? Are they assuming that computers just runs, without any software on it? Don't they know that computers usually have an operation system on it to be useful?
I really had it now. I clicked through the pages and agent.btz is mentioned. Nobody had mentioned that's a Windows worm Worm:W32/Agent.BTZ http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/worm_w32_agent_btz.shtml Platform is Windows 32, of course. Why is nobody is mentioning the operation system? Why is nobody blaming Microsoft? Oh George W. Bush was briefed on it, was he briefed on it that the worm is only useful on Windows systems and that his military is vulnerable?
His article appeared intended partly to raise awareness of the threat to United States cybersecurity — “the frequency and sophistication of intrusions into U.S. military networks have increased exponentially,” he wrote — and partly to make the case for a larger Pentagon role in cyberdefense.
How about they mentioning that's it's increased on Windows and that Linux and other systems are save and sound? How about they ditched this system which proved times after times after times to be the only system that is vulnerable?
My point is pretty obvious. Don't use Microsoft Windows for anything where money depends on. Also, in the topic of the article, don't use Windows for SMB systems, so you don't fall in the 48% which are infected and don't fall in the other 52% that are spending a lot of money or just were lucky this time.
In extend, my point is, please mention in every security report that it's Microsoft Windows so even the last MSfanboy realize that Windows is just an insecure system to play some games and nothing more.
My last point is of course "6) Ubuntu is safer than Microsoft Windows: The vast majority of viruses and spyware written by hackers are not designed to target and attack Linux." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/14/dell_ubuntu_windows_security/ Even the statement contains some truth (in fact, none viruses and spyware are targeting Linux), it doesn't tell you why the viruses and spyware are not targeting Linux and it don't have anything to do that Linux have such a small market, because Linux's market share everywhere else but the desktop is huge and sometimes more then the of Windows.
I posted it already on another news about a Windows bot net. The trojan/usb infection is only on Microsoft Windows. Please mention that. I and people with Macs couldn't care less. So I just post again and again and again:
It's 25 percent of new Windows worms. Approximately 48 percent of Windows SMBs (with up to 1,000 computers) admit to having been infected by some type of malware over the last year. Linux and MacOS SMBs are still save and will be save.
Yes, that's really what get on my nerves. The word Microsoft or Windows is never reported on this kind of news. Either they just assume that everybody knows that it can be only Windows anyway, or they assume that there are no other system that works just as well (or better) on your computer or it's really a conspiracy never mention Microsoft or Windows in security reports.
I call BS. Thousands of Flash games, Facebook with Farmville, independent game developer like 2dboy (World of Goo) and Stardock (GalCiv and more) and so on. The thousands and more games for IPhone and soon for Android. The success of the Wee. All this says quite the opposite what the consumers really want.
I think gamers that are spending thousands of dollars for equipment are the minority here. I think the gaming industry is in a bubble for quite some time now. Overpriced games, DRM madness and so called "market consolidation", there are just a few big publisher that avoid any risk. But don't believe me, here are nice 10 reasons which I pretty much agree with: http://www.truegameheadz.com/blogheadz/top-10-reasons-the-video-game-industry-is-in-trouble/
It's 2.5 million Windows computers that are infected. No Macs, no Linux, no *BDS, no Solaris, no YouNameIt. It would be interesting, how many are Windows XP, Windows Vista or Windows 7.
Hm lets see, 2.5 million Windows computers in one botnet agains 0 Linux computers world wide. I would say Dell was right:
So you say MS is spending a few Million $ just to rewrite the wheel? Why they make such a waste of time and money? Don't you know that most the libraries you can use in a proprietary project because most of them are licensed MIT, Apache, BSD or LGPL? Or was it just the policy that we don't use any open source code because we are Microsoft?
Speaking of business, most are still loading up on Windows Server 2008, Microsoft SQL Server, IIS, Active Directory, etc., and the pace of change is not heading to Linux at an appreciable rate.
That's no wonder, because most of the school in the western countries are only teaching IIS, AD and MSSQL. The business schools are spitting out the graduates in the 10,000 every year. MS spends a lot of money with subsidized licenses and licenses agreements. In my school they teach networking with DOS and free technologies like Java are just covered with the basics.
Of course they could just teach Linux, Apache and MySQL which is all for free. But then it's the oft used argument that they need to teach what the graduates later need in the workplace. But of course what we had learned was just point&click games and I'm certain that no graduates in my school will solve a complex tasks by him/herself.
I'm sorry, but for what purpose you need a Multimap in the core of Java? I'm using Java now for 4 years and I never needed a Multimap. And if you need a Multimap, why not include some third library? You properly need a whole bunch of third party libraries anyway, like you need with any language.
I think that's the big reason that Java is so much used in the enterprise, because the core is rock solid and there are a whole ecosystem of free and open source enterprise ready libraries. I had used C# as well and I just cannot understand why you need so much bloat in the core of the language, which changes anyway with the major versions of it. Properties are just bloat, operator overloading is just bloat, structs are bloat and so on. If you need such things just take Scala, Groovy, JPython, etc. That's why I really like Java. The core language is rock stable and very easy to use with tools like Eclipse and Maven. But if you need the extras, just take Groovy, JPython, JRuby, Scala, Clojure, JavaScript, etc.
Now I really wish that Oracle would make this things better: Desktop Java, and "Internet Java". Because to write a desktop application in Java is like a developers dream and it runs with the same speed as a native application. As a bonus you get platform independence. I take a Java application anytime over a native application, for one reason: you just download the JAR file and it runs. In the "Internet Java" there is so much potential and it's criminal from Sun to not became the market leader for internet applications written in Java. That was a catastrophic management failure. Java Web Start applications are a dream. You just click on a link and in few seconds you get a fully functional application. Now of course everything is Flash, but if Sun would have had a better management they could have been the market leader.
What I really hope is that the open source community around Java finally takes the lead and cut any ties off to Oracle. What the open source community can do you can see with Groovy, Scala and Clojure and the other languages around Java. But they need to have a leader, like Linus with the Linux kernel, to not fragmentize the Java platform. I really with that this lawsuit is a wake up call to the community. The Java platform is under the GPL, now take it and make it the number one in desktops and in the internet. The potential is there. There is an open source enterprise ready virtuel machine with a rich core library and a more richer open source ecosystem around it. The patents are only valid in the USA so screw Oracle and any other American patent troll company.
Please, someone in Europe, India or in China (anywhere where there are no patents threads), take the Java technology and make it the next Linux kernel. The potential is there. It's open source and it works.
Since I don't have vertical tabs in the Chrome browser it's completely worthless anyway. With all the monitors are now widescreen format and with my usual 5 to 20 to 40 tabs open there is no way I switch from Firefox to the Chrome browser.
The result would be that examiners would reject everything
You sound like it's a bad think. In fact, less "intellectual property" would do the US economy right now wonders. Look at the fashion industry, there you have none "intellectual property", no copyright, no patents, and they doing quite well. Johanna Blakley: Lessons from fashion's free culture
... and that in fact it is probably impossible for such a thing to ever happen again (short of a technological singularity) due to the importance of legacy systems and the complexity of a modern computing system.
Linux can to everything what a modern computer system should do. So can the *BSD and BeOS. That was already since at least 5 years. Legacy application can Linux run just fine thanks to Wine. Other systems can run legacy applications fine as well, thanks to virtualization. What you mean by "technological singularity" I have no idea. The point is, we don't see the "Year of the Linux Desktop" or any other system because of the high entry bar in this marketplace. You have to convince first all the OEMs to support any other system besides Windows, and because of the deals with Microsoft it's mostly impossible. Why there was so much press about the Dell site, that state that Linux is more secure then Windows? Why is Dell offering only lower spec laptops with Linux but not for the other laptops as well?
Why is that anywhere else Linux is the market dominant system? Like in the Super Computers, the servers, movies special effects, the embedded devices like NAS, routers, now in TVs and now soon in the smart phone market. The "technological singularity" is happening in that places quite for some time now with Linux, but not in the desktop market. Coincidence?
Can please anyone explain to me why there are no more alternatives to Flash? The market for this technology is huge, like all PCs, all Laptops, all Smartphones combined. That should be at least 90% of all devices connected to the internet. It's like everybody thinking, hm Flash have 99% no we leave this market to Adobe let them sell their Adobe Flash Professional CS5 for US$699 to every web developer on the planet. Sun had already the Java technology and they manage it to make it available to at least 50% of the computers in the first 5 years. MS had of course the big advantage because they own 90% of all computers.
My question is simple: Why really nobody get to this big market and left everything to Adobe?
If the alternative would have at least 5% or something, it would be still a big market share to sell tools and services. How can the biggest technology companies, like IBM, Oracle, Microsoft, Sun, etc. left this huge profit margin all to Adobe?
What about tablelayout https://tablelayout.dev.java.net/ It's available since 2002 but of course Sun didn't include it in the JDK. But you right anyway, GridBagLayout is the worst nightmare in Swing.
Right, but XMLHTTP was an ActiveX addon, later it was Mozilla and others that implemented it in JavaScript as the XMLHttpRequest and made it a standard that way.
So MS invented the technology of the 21. century but there are no applications other than Outlook Web Access?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course you need some investment to switch the platform, but after you take the switch the costs will get accumulated because a Linux server is more secure, more reliable and easier to administer. Also you never have the fear that MS is try "to make them actually pay". After MS is dropping support for WinXP and WS2003 they have to switch platforms anyway, so why not to the better and the more free product?
Like many here you're not getting one thing - developers / geeks do not account for 90% of possible iPhone customers. There is something that is a problem for YOU and a problem for many OPEN-SOURCE type people - but not really something that is seen as a problem by the majority of people out there.
That's so true, and really strange. People usually like freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of choice. But if it's computer or digital media, people bend over and take it. For example the EULAs today. If I ever bought a coffee machine with that kind of EULA attached to it, I would be crazy. But people buy software with an EULA that says you don't own anything, you can't do anything, you can't share, you have no rights at all. People buy DVDs that are only playable in special devices, people buy music that they can't share or copy anymore. It's just crazy and if on coffee machines or on t-shirts were the same restrictions people would go to the streets.
But I think it's because people don't know better. They are just listening to the nonsense that copying is theft, they just know Windows, MS Office or Photoshop. The people don't know that they have now a choice.
Furthermore, it's the billions of $ spend in commercials, and for the IPhone in special. I really want to buy me an Android, but I looked around and there are no commercials for Google Android. Nobody says on the phone it's Google Android. Look at the phones Where is a big logo of Android and where is a text Google Android? Now the iPhone There is big logo of Apple and the text iPhone. How can I know that a phone is a Google Android phone? If nobody knows that your phone is a Google Android phone than there is no value that it's a Google Android phone. I think that is a really big mistake, because they drop the value of brand recognition and the brand Google is really famous and stands for quality.
If I go to the shop there are 100 phones. They all look the same, but some of them are Android phones. Now I only want the phones with Android but they all look the same, so I have to ask which of the Samsung, Motorola, Huawei, LG, HTC, Dell and 10 others are Android phones. But the iPhone is an eye catcher, there is only the iPhone. People don't want to choose between 50 Android phones, they want The Android Phone. That's why the iPhone is so successful, there is only one brand and everybody else knows that you have an iPhone, because of the big Apple logo and the text iPhone.
Unless someone converts it to PDF I'm not downloading that....
Maybe you are suppose to modify and extend it.
Do we change the laws that the 1% athletes can still make million of $? Why we change the laws so the 5% elite have it better, while the 95% will get it worse?
Yes, the 95% will be worse if you enforce the copyright even more, because they can't take new ideas out of the pool of older works and that is how books, music, movies, software, etc. works. You take ideas from old works and build your own. Only with a rich public domain and many works under copyleft licenses we will flourish and can the society as a whole advance.
The technology is changed, but we make laws so that the 5% elite don't need to adapt and change. That's like we outlaw the steam train so the horse carriage can still be a viable business. We outlaw the steam train for 95% of the population so the 5% horse carriage can make a living.
The best example of the lack of copyright is the fashion industry. There is no copyright. Everything you can see on the street or in the store you can copy free and sell it. But are we lacking of fashion? Hell no, the fashion industry is the most creative industry and there are no shortcomings of profits either. Don't believe me: http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html
Only 5% of all book authors and musicians are actually making money off of copyright. At least 95% of book authors are not selling over 5000 copies of their works, the music bands are just getting 1% of each CD sales. Just watch The Surprising History of Copyright and What It Means For... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI
Another example is Metallica. They made $22.8 million from shows and only $1.6 million from album sales. The price for the album is $22.99 (or something I made a quick search) that should be $6.8 million. Even a big band like Metallica makes only 24% profit of a CD sale. Image how much a no name band is making (from http://timothyblee.com/2010/03/02/album-sales-a-trivial-fraction-of-metallicas-revenue/). And of course I like this image http://wussuphater.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/picture-1.png
Sorry, but only the 5% of the most red and most famous artists and book authors are making money from copyright. Anybody else makes no money from it. Copyright was never intended to help or protect the creator. It was historically a law to help publishers and still remains the law to help publisher. Why do you think it's called "copy right", because it protects the right of the publisher to make a copy of your work and to profit from it. The creator have the right to make a copy of his work already, you don't need a law for it.
Another argument, Creative Commons started in 2001. After only 2 years there were already approximately 1 million licenses under a CC license. After 7 years there are estimated 130 million CC licensed works. Here is my graph of their history Here is my prediction of CC works to the year 2015, by then we will have 7.6 billions works under CC.
4) There are real needs in terms of apps and so on, not all of which Linux can meet well (if at all). [...]
If nobody is using Windows for anything important, like they should, what do you think how fast will everybody port their applications?
As much as I'm not a fan of Windows, it's the target, not the OS that's the problem. OS X and Linux can be circumvented too, if the prize is worth it. Anyone who doesn't realize that is a fool.
I don't care about what OS is more secure. But I do care that the news reporter are doing his/her job by telling what the affected system is. If it's Linux, fine, say Linux is affected. But nobody is ever mentioning that it's Microsoft Windows. In fact, please read the last 20 security reports. Microsoft Windows is never mentioned once.
So, what system the computer were running? Why is that information never in this news reports? Are they assuming that computers just runs, without any software on it? Don't they know that computers usually have an operation system on it to be useful?
I really had it now. I clicked through the pages and agent.btz is mentioned. Nobody had mentioned that's a Windows worm Worm:W32/Agent.BTZ http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/worm_w32_agent_btz.shtml Platform is Windows 32, of course. Why is nobody is mentioning the operation system? Why is nobody blaming Microsoft? Oh George W. Bush was briefed on it, was he briefed on it that the worm is only useful on Windows systems and that his military is vulnerable?
His article appeared intended partly to raise awareness of the threat to United States cybersecurity — “the frequency and sophistication of intrusions into U.S. military networks have increased exponentially,” he wrote — and partly to make the case for a larger Pentagon role in cyberdefense.
How about they mentioning that's it's increased on Windows and that Linux and other systems are save and sound? How about they ditched this system which proved times after times after times to be the only system that is vulnerable?
In extend, my point is, please mention in every security report that it's Microsoft Windows so even the last MSfanboy realize that Windows is just an insecure system to play some games and nothing more.
My last point is of course "6) Ubuntu is safer than Microsoft Windows: The vast majority of viruses and spyware written by hackers are not designed to target and attack Linux." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/14/dell_ubuntu_windows_security/ Even the statement contains some truth (in fact, none viruses and spyware are targeting Linux), it doesn't tell you why the viruses and spyware are not targeting Linux and it don't have anything to do that Linux have such a small market, because Linux's market share everywhere else but the desktop is huge and sometimes more then the of Windows.
It's 25 percent of new Windows worms. Approximately 48 percent of Windows SMBs (with up to 1,000 computers) admit to having been infected by some type of malware over the last year. Linux and MacOS SMBs are still save and will be save.
I would say Dell was right:
"6) Ubuntu is safer than Microsoft Windows: The vast majority of viruses and spyware written by hackers are not designed to target and attack Linux." from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/14/dell_ubuntu_windows_security/
Yes, that's really what get on my nerves. The word Microsoft or Windows is never reported on this kind of news. Either they just assume that everybody knows that it can be only Windows anyway, or they assume that there are no other system that works just as well (or better) on your computer or it's really a conspiracy never mention Microsoft or Windows in security reports.
I didn't know, because I turned JavaScript off by default. NoScript plugin for Firefox.
Now even Slashdot gives me right. Not about the bubble, but about my first part.
More Devs Going Indie, To Gamers' Benefit http://games.slashdot.org/story/10/08/25/0525212/More-Devs-Going-Indie-To-Gamers-Benefit
I think gamers that are spending thousands of dollars for equipment are the minority here. I think the gaming industry is in a bubble for quite some time now. Overpriced games, DRM madness and so called "market consolidation", there are just a few big publisher that avoid any risk. But don't believe me, here are nice 10 reasons which I pretty much agree with: http://www.truegameheadz.com/blogheadz/top-10-reasons-the-video-game-industry-is-in-trouble/
Hm lets see, 2.5 million Windows computers in one botnet agains 0 Linux computers world wide. I would say Dell was right:
"6) Ubuntu is safer than Microsoft Windows: The vast majority of viruses and spyware written by hackers are not designed to target and attack Linux." from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/14/dell_ubuntu_windows_security/
So you say MS is spending a few Million $ just to rewrite the wheel? Why they make such a waste of time and money? Don't you know that most the libraries you can use in a proprietary project because most of them are licensed MIT, Apache, BSD or LGPL? Or was it just the policy that we don't use any open source code because we are Microsoft?
That's no wonder, because most of the school in the western countries are only teaching IIS, AD and MSSQL. The business schools are spitting out the graduates in the 10,000 every year. MS spends a lot of money with subsidized licenses and licenses agreements. In my school they teach networking with DOS and free technologies like Java are just covered with the basics.
Of course they could just teach Linux, Apache and MySQL which is all for free. But then it's the oft used argument that they need to teach what the graduates later need in the workplace. But of course what we had learned was just point&click games and I'm certain that no graduates in my school will solve a complex tasks by him/herself.
I'm sorry, but for what purpose you need a Multimap in the core of Java? I'm using Java now for 4 years and I never needed a Multimap. And if you need a Multimap, why not include some third library? You properly need a whole bunch of third party libraries anyway, like you need with any language.
I think that's the big reason that Java is so much used in the enterprise, because the core is rock solid and there are a whole ecosystem of free and open source enterprise ready libraries. I had used C# as well and I just cannot understand why you need so much bloat in the core of the language, which changes anyway with the major versions of it. Properties are just bloat, operator overloading is just bloat, structs are bloat and so on. If you need such things just take Scala, Groovy, JPython, etc. That's why I really like Java. The core language is rock stable and very easy to use with tools like Eclipse and Maven. But if you need the extras, just take Groovy, JPython, JRuby, Scala, Clojure, JavaScript, etc.
Now I really wish that Oracle would make this things better: Desktop Java, and "Internet Java". Because to write a desktop application in Java is like a developers dream and it runs with the same speed as a native application. As a bonus you get platform independence. I take a Java application anytime over a native application, for one reason: you just download the JAR file and it runs. In the "Internet Java" there is so much potential and it's criminal from Sun to not became the market leader for internet applications written in Java. That was a catastrophic management failure. Java Web Start applications are a dream. You just click on a link and in few seconds you get a fully functional application. Now of course everything is Flash, but if Sun would have had a better management they could have been the market leader.
What I really hope is that the open source community around Java finally takes the lead and cut any ties off to Oracle. What the open source community can do you can see with Groovy, Scala and Clojure and the other languages around Java. But they need to have a leader, like Linus with the Linux kernel, to not fragmentize the Java platform. I really with that this lawsuit is a wake up call to the community. The Java platform is under the GPL, now take it and make it the number one in desktops and in the internet. The potential is there. There is an open source enterprise ready virtuel machine with a rich core library and a more richer open source ecosystem around it. The patents are only valid in the USA so screw Oracle and any other American patent troll company.
Please, someone in Europe, India or in China (anywhere where there are no patents threads), take the Java technology and make it the next Linux kernel. The potential is there. It's open source and it works.
Since I don't have vertical tabs in the Chrome browser it's completely worthless anyway. With all the monitors are now widescreen format and with my usual 5 to 20 to 40 tabs open there is no way I switch from Firefox to the Chrome browser.
The result would be that examiners would reject everything
You sound like it's a bad think. In fact, less "intellectual property" would do the US economy right now wonders. Look at the fashion industry, there you have none "intellectual property", no copyright, no patents, and they doing quite well. Johanna Blakley: Lessons from fashion's free culture
But of course Cooperate America is now on it's best way to ruin that industry as well. The Costs of Ownership: Why Copyright Protection Will Hurt the Fashion Industry
Let see if others can write more benefits.
... and that in fact it is probably impossible for such a thing to ever happen again (short of a technological singularity) due to the importance of legacy systems and the complexity of a modern computing system.
Linux can to everything what a modern computer system should do. So can the *BSD and BeOS. That was already since at least 5 years. Legacy application can Linux run just fine thanks to Wine. Other systems can run legacy applications fine as well, thanks to virtualization. What you mean by "technological singularity" I have no idea. The point is, we don't see the "Year of the Linux Desktop" or any other system because of the high entry bar in this marketplace. You have to convince first all the OEMs to support any other system besides Windows, and because of the deals with Microsoft it's mostly impossible. Why there was so much press about the Dell site, that state that Linux is more secure then Windows? Why is Dell offering only lower spec laptops with Linux but not for the other laptops as well?
Why is that anywhere else Linux is the market dominant system? Like in the Super Computers, the servers, movies special effects, the embedded devices like NAS, routers, now in TVs and now soon in the smart phone market. The "technological singularity" is happening in that places quite for some time now with Linux, but not in the desktop market. Coincidence?
Can please anyone explain to me why there are no more alternatives to Flash? The market for this technology is huge, like all PCs, all Laptops, all Smartphones combined. That should be at least 90% of all devices connected to the internet. It's like everybody thinking, hm Flash have 99% no we leave this market to Adobe let them sell their Adobe Flash Professional CS5 for US$699 to every web developer on the planet. Sun had already the Java technology and they manage it to make it available to at least 50% of the computers in the first 5 years. MS had of course the big advantage because they own 90% of all computers.
My question is simple: Why really nobody get to this big market and left everything to Adobe?
If the alternative would have at least 5% or something, it would be still a big market share to sell tools and services. How can the biggest technology companies, like IBM, Oracle, Microsoft, Sun, etc. left this huge profit margin all to Adobe?
What about tablelayout https://tablelayout.dev.java.net/ It's available since 2002 but of course Sun didn't include it in the JDK. But you right anyway, GridBagLayout is the worst nightmare in Swing.
Right, but XMLHTTP was an ActiveX addon, later it was Mozilla and others that implemented it in JavaScript as the XMLHttpRequest and made it a standard that way.
So MS invented the technology of the 21. century but there are no applications other than Outlook Web Access?