Am I supposed to copy and paste your entire comment to not be selective?
Without wishing to get involved in a pointless finger pointing exercise, I think leaving off the final 'in many ways (though not all)' from my quote qualifies as setting up a straw man.
No, we were talking about innovation in free software.
Ok then, in that case in my experience Linux servers running on server class hardware are inferior (although they certainly offer more bang for your buck) to say, Irix running on SGI server hardware. So I don't see innovation. I see gradual improvement of the Linux kernel, and it's certainly competitive with other current Unix server offerings but I don't see how this would classify as innovation.
Which means it was buzzword compliant? What tangible, useful features did the BeOS filesystem enable?
Linux 2.6 has excellent multimedia support, especially if you use an optimized kernel. But again, what tangible features did this enable in BeOS that Linux cannot do?
Ok so the latest kernel which we're not going to be able to use for a good year or so likely (while we wait for our apps to be certified) is competitive with an operating system developed circa 1997. Look I'm not actually trying to be a BeOS advocate here, the fact is it was extremely advanced for it's time. I'm not sure why it offends you so greatly that I should suggest it bests Linux in some areas.
As a matter of fact, I think it has been shown that it works very well. There is no "problem". For instance, the KDE project has produced a usable and quite advanced desktop environment that is quite comparable to any other OS on the market today, in just a few years with zero external funding. Now, it does have its issues as far as integration with the underlying system, but to say that the Linux desktop is a failure is simply incorrect. It is quite usable even today if you know what you are doing. It is lightyears ahead of any commercial UNIX offering (such as Solaris, Irix, and so on).
The Linux desktop is OK. KDE is OK, but your assertion that it's comparable with Windows or OS X is highly subjective. I personally think it's a fair way behind XP (which is now 2 years old) and a long, long way behind OS X.
Irix is clunky and old, but it's remarkably solid for what it does. It lacks many of the holes that pervade the Linux desktop experience (KDE or Gnome).
Did I ever say that? Or are you putting words in my mouth? It doesn't have to be IBM. It could be Novell, Wal-mart, Intel, Dell, or any large company that buys or sells large quantities of inexpensive desktop computers. After all, hardware prices tend to decrease over time, and I see a problem when your $100 computer needs a $140 operating system.
I have my own theory about what happens here. I personally think that eventually, Linux (or something like it) will occupy the centre ground of the computer desktop market. That's assuming the computer desktop continues to exist in it's current form.
However that doesn't necessarily mean someone is going to pay to make it into a super slick desktop OS. I think that given time, the Linux desktop will be become 'good enough' for the majority of users, since the needs of the average user are fairly modest.
Perhaps there'll still be a more refined alternative for those of us that want such a thing - or perhaps not, depends how things pan out over the next decade.
Anyway, I personally think that nobody is going to put the kind of funding into developing the Linux desktop that means it will ever improve at the same rate as Windows or Mac OS. You're welcome to disagree.
I personally believe that BeOS as it stands is more advanced than Linux in many ways (though not all)
Was what I actually said.
Does it have the same kind of enterprise features? Can it run a huge, powerful server? Hell no.
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about about clones of iTunes & iPhoto. I don't see where the performance of Linux as a server is relevant to that discussion.
That just means you don't know jack shit about Linux.
Believe what you want dude - I support and set up Linux machines all day. The industry I work in has gone massively for Linux (post production). Why do you think that is? Because it's cheap, and runs on cheap hardware. If it wasn't so massively cheaper than SGIs we'd all still be running on them.
What's so impressive about BeOS?
That just means you don't know jack shit about Desktop systems. BeOS had many features that are unparalleled on all modern desktops (even OS X). Things like a pervasive metadata led high performance filesystem. Like high performance multimedia even on limited hardware through excellent SMP & threading.
If you are talking about the desktop side of things -- nobody invested any money in that yet, unlike the server side of things. Once someone does invest, you can expect it to surpass Windows and OS X pretty quickly.
Why would that be the case? How do you know that the OSS development model just doesn't work well with the wide ranging desktop development problem? And what makes you think that IBM is interested in pouring money into Linux on the desktop?
Why would it slow down the pace of innovation? Apple uses its iTools to sell computers. If they were open-source, every company would use them and improve them (since it would boost sales for everyone). They wouldn't be able to use it as a competitive edge, but it would still increase sales, so they would contribute.
I'm not sure I understand. Apple invests in software R&D for the sole purpose of selling hardware. If they lose this incentive (as they would it they open sourced the iApps) then they wouldn't invest the money, so the iApps wouldn't exist.
Basically, an open-source project cannot and should not innovate until it is out of the catching-up stage. Such projects, like the Linux kernel, are quite innovative. Projects which are behind their commercial counterparts cannot afford to do that.
I'm not implying other software vendors should reinvent the wheel. However, this discussion relates to a near exact clone produced by a profit motivated company for the sole purpose of selling their OS.
Also, consider the following. Free software is kind of like the proverbial tortoise: it doesn't move very quickly, but it does catch up pretty fast if you sit still.
I'd like to believe that but the development model of OSS for better or worse isn't so linear. I personally believe that BeOS as it stands is more advanced than Linux in many ways (though not all) and it hasn't been under development for a few years now.
I disagree, primarily because the software engineering involved in developing an iPhoto clone is nothing special. It certainly doesn't require any R&D.
Would you say that every program ever written required innovation to create? I'd say that's stretching it a bit. You could hire any off the shelf c monkeys and develop a poor iPhoto clone in a few months easily.
A lot of development time (of new apps) is spend experimenting and refining the interface and feature set. That's generally where the innovation comes in. If you already have an interface and feature set nailed down, the rest isn't rocket science.
I'm not talking about success. I'm well aware that capitalism provides an incentive for everyone to shit on everyone else as much possible. That's why we have regulations, to keep it all in check.
I'm talking about what happens if OSS takes over the world like RMS envisions. Will it slow down the pace of innovation? I realise this sounds like Ballmer-speak, and I'm actually an open source advocate generally - but stuff like this isn't really showing the OSS community in it's best light AFAIC.
#2. Most of the simularities are simular across several programs. So what does this tell you? #3. Who is to say that parts of iTunes/iPhoto are not a "defined standard"?
I agree in part, but not every last interface feature which is what we're seeing here.
4. What percentage of people use any other given piece of software related software?
Eh? Come again... I cited the percentage usage of the iApps because people were claiming than Linspire had to copy them because people want software they're familiar with. Since a small percentage of people use the iApps, then that argument is invalid.
#5. You contradicting yourself by one second saying there MUST be innovation, and shortly after claiming "no room for innovation". This is you're opinion. Maybe I believe iTunes carries "no room for innovation".
Where did I say there was no room for innovation? There's ALWAYS room for innovation. iTunes is not the be all and end all for mp3 players. It's my current player of choice, but it would seem silly to pretend it's impossible to improve upon.
That only works as long as the clones that Linspire produce are poor imitations (as is the case judging by the screen shots and movie).
If it was a functionally exact clone then Apple have no product differentiation (which is after all, why they developed the iApps in the first place) and their investment is wasted. Hence less incentive to continue to invest in innovative, well designed software.
The problem is that normally software evolves, people copy bits from various apps and come up with a best of breed (at least that's the theory). But this stuff is a like for like clone, it doesn't advance anything.
Also gestures (also from Opera), download managers, there's actually been a decent amount of UI innovation in the browser market. More so than in say, Word processors.
Just like Justin Timberlake can hear your poor artist's song and write a new song that says the same thing and sounds similar.
And if it sounds close enough to the original, he's liable to be taken to court. This does actually happen.
I think LSongs is close enough to the original to be classified as patent/copyright/whatever abuse. Not because I'm some indignant Mac user, but because I don't think software cloning is either ethical or good for innovation in the software industry..
Fair enough - but I don't think Linspire are working here out of some community bond with OSS developers. They're in this to make money. If they want to do that, then the onus is on them to pay for their own R&D, not expect others to pay for them.
Let's say you were a not so well known songwriter, and you wrote a song that got a bit of airplay on independent radio. It gets heard by one of Justin Timberlake's producers. Timberlake then goes on to cover it, making millions in the process. You get nothing.
I presume you'd be happy with this - I mean as a small time artist you don't have to market share to do anything with the song yourself. It takes a good deal of 'innovation' for Justin Timberlake to take your song and make millions of $ with it.
You're exaggerating. People often cite the web browser as an example of a static interface, but it's a poor example. The parts of a web browser that have been static are:
- Back/forward buttons - Reload - Address bar - Status bar
Which doesn't make up a lot of interface. The whole point of a web browser is that the bulk of the interface is the web page itself, which is a defined standard (ie. no room for innovation).
Outside of that there has been innovation. For example in Safari, the page load progress bar is an overlay on the address bar.
And as for your point of users expecting software to be consistent, what % of users do you think have ever used iTunes or iPhoto? 5 percent? Certainly not enough to claim that the target audience of Linspire would be confused by anything other than an identical clone of iTunes & iPhoto.
UI widgets have become a standard. There is a disctinct difference between sharing a widget and doing a complete clone of an existing interface.
Someone brings out a nice product, then someone brings out an OSS clone of it. If anyone complains, slashdotters insist that you can't patent 'usability', and that the original product was somehow the obvious end result of solving a particular usabiliity problem
Then someone brings out another product that solves it in a different and superior way. Then someone clones that, etc...
It's blatantly not true that the iTunes or iPhoto interface is the only possible way of solving the music/photo management usability problem. It's blatantly true that the Linspire dudes are saving money on R&D by ripping off Apple (& Microsoft) so they can invest it in other things like marketing (and legal defence).
But what happens if the innovating companies go away? What happens if nobody bothers with R&D? Who will Linspire rip off then?
If a random error or crash occurs, the application shouldn't display the error message to the user.
It should display a generic 'The application has unexpectedly quit.'. It should then prompt the user to automatically mail the developers with a crash log, and suggest he launch the application again.
At the same time, a crash log should be written to known location, so that a power user can interpret it if necessary.
This, incidentally, is exactly what happens on OS X.
The problem with a lot of Linux users is that they think they'll lose something by making the desktop user friendly.
In reality, the benefits from having a consistent and effective UI extend to everyone, power and non-power users alike.
For example, how many of the Linux users who've switched or are now dabbling with OS X worry about the loss of flexibility they have transitioning from Gnome or KDE? Very few in my experience - the benefits of consistency far outweigh the potential negatives.
Plus it is possible to provide advanced functionality & configurability , but make it so hidden that the vast majority of users will never see it. It's not as if the people who want to use it will mind digging it out!
Slashdot Mirror
Am I supposed to copy and paste your entire comment to not be selective?
Without wishing to get involved in a pointless finger pointing exercise, I think leaving off the final 'in many ways (though not all)' from my quote qualifies as setting up a straw man.
No, we were talking about innovation in free software.
Ok then, in that case in my experience Linux servers running on server class hardware are inferior (although they certainly offer more bang for your buck) to say, Irix running on SGI server hardware. So I don't see innovation. I see gradual improvement of the Linux kernel, and it's certainly competitive with other current Unix server offerings but I don't see how this would classify as innovation.
Which means it was buzzword compliant? What tangible, useful features did the BeOS filesystem enable?
Ok, after a 5 minute google search:
BeOS filesystem
Linux 2.6 has excellent multimedia support, especially if you use an optimized kernel. But again, what tangible features did this enable in BeOS that Linux cannot do?
Ok so the latest kernel which we're not going to be able to use for a good year or so likely (while we wait for our apps to be certified) is competitive with an operating system developed circa 1997. Look I'm not actually trying to be a BeOS advocate here, the fact is it was extremely advanced for it's time. I'm not sure why it offends you so greatly that I should suggest it bests Linux in some areas.
As a matter of fact, I think it has been shown that it works very well. There is no "problem". For instance, the KDE project has produced a usable and quite advanced desktop environment that is quite comparable to any other OS on the market today, in just a few years with zero external funding. Now, it does have its issues as far as integration with the underlying system, but to say that the Linux desktop is a failure is simply incorrect. It is quite usable even today if you know what you are doing. It is lightyears ahead of any commercial UNIX offering (such as Solaris, Irix, and so on).
The Linux desktop is OK. KDE is OK, but your assertion that it's comparable with Windows or OS X is highly subjective. I personally think it's a fair way behind XP (which is now 2 years old) and a long, long way behind OS X.
Irix is clunky and old, but it's remarkably solid for what it does. It lacks many of the holes that pervade the Linux desktop experience (KDE or Gnome).
Did I ever say that? Or are you putting words in my mouth? It doesn't have to be IBM. It could be Novell, Wal-mart, Intel, Dell, or any large company that buys or sells large quantities of inexpensive desktop computers. After all, hardware prices tend to decrease over time, and I see a problem when your $100 computer needs a $140 operating system.
I have my own theory about what happens here. I personally think that eventually, Linux (or something like it) will occupy the centre ground of the computer desktop market. That's assuming the computer desktop continues to exist in it's current form.
However that doesn't necessarily mean someone is going to pay to make it into a super slick desktop OS. I think that given time, the Linux desktop will be become 'good enough' for the majority of users, since the needs of the average user are fairly modest.
Perhaps there'll still be a more refined alternative for those of us that want such a thing - or perhaps not, depends how things pan out over the next decade.
Anyway, I personally think that nobody is going to put the kind of funding into developing the Linux desktop that means it will ever improve at the same rate as Windows or Mac OS. You're welcome to disagree.
Nice selective quoting there.
I personally believe that BeOS as it stands is more advanced than Linux in many ways (though not all)
Was what I actually said.
Does it have the same kind of enterprise features? Can it run a huge, powerful server? Hell no.
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about about clones of iTunes & iPhoto. I don't see where the performance of Linux as a server is relevant to that discussion.
That just means you don't know jack shit about Linux.
Believe what you want dude - I support and set up Linux machines all day. The industry I work in has gone massively for Linux (post production). Why do you think that is? Because it's cheap, and runs on cheap hardware. If it wasn't so massively cheaper than SGIs we'd all still be running on them.
What's so impressive about BeOS?
That just means you don't know jack shit about Desktop systems. BeOS had many features that are unparalleled on all modern desktops (even OS X). Things like a pervasive metadata led high performance filesystem. Like high performance multimedia even on limited hardware through excellent SMP & threading.
If you are talking about the desktop side of things -- nobody invested any money in that yet, unlike the server side of things. Once someone does invest, you can expect it to surpass Windows and OS X pretty quickly.
Why would that be the case? How do you know that the OSS development model just doesn't work well with the wide ranging desktop development problem? And what makes you think that IBM is interested in pouring money into Linux on the desktop?
Why would it slow down the pace of innovation? Apple uses its iTools to sell computers. If they were open-source, every company would use them and improve them (since it would boost sales for everyone). They wouldn't be able to use it as a competitive edge, but it would still increase sales, so they would contribute.
I'm not sure I understand. Apple invests in software R&D for the sole purpose of selling hardware. If they lose this incentive (as they would it they open sourced the iApps) then they wouldn't invest the money, so the iApps wouldn't exist.
Basically, an open-source project cannot and should not innovate until it is out of the catching-up stage. Such projects, like the Linux kernel, are quite innovative. Projects which are behind their commercial counterparts cannot afford to do that.
I'm not implying other software vendors should reinvent the wheel. However, this discussion relates to a near exact clone produced by a profit motivated company for the sole purpose of selling their OS.
Also, consider the following. Free software is kind of like the proverbial tortoise: it doesn't move very quickly, but it does catch up pretty fast if you sit still.
I'd like to believe that but the development model of OSS for better or worse isn't so linear. I personally believe that BeOS as it stands is more advanced than Linux in many ways (though not all) and it hasn't been under development for a few years now.
Forgive me for not giving a shit about your invented rule book, AC.
But thanks for your contribution, you've certainly put me to rights with your incisive commentary.
I disagree, primarily because the software engineering involved in developing an iPhoto clone is nothing special. It certainly doesn't require any R&D.
Would you say that every program ever written required innovation to create? I'd say that's stretching it a bit. You could hire any off the shelf c monkeys and develop a poor iPhoto clone in a few months easily.
A lot of development time (of new apps) is spend experimenting and refining the interface and feature set. That's generally where the innovation comes in. If you already have an interface and feature set nailed down, the rest isn't rocket science.
I'm not talking about success. I'm well aware that capitalism provides an incentive for everyone to shit on everyone else as much possible. That's why we have regulations, to keep it all in check.
I'm talking about what happens if OSS takes over the world like RMS envisions. Will it slow down the pace of innovation? I realise this sounds like Ballmer-speak, and I'm actually an open source advocate generally - but stuff like this isn't really showing the OSS community in it's best light AFAIC.
I don't see a problem with the analogy.
Compare for example the Bob Dylan & Jimi Hendrix versions of 'All Along the Watchtower'. Two very different sounding versions of the same song.
There's a lot more innovation involved in Hendrix's reworking of Dylan's track than there is innovation in Linspire's reworking of iPhoto.
But royalties for the Hendrix cover go to the song author, Dylan.
#1. Its clearly not a complete clone.
So show me where it differs.
#2. Most of the simularities are simular across several programs. So what does this tell you?
#3. Who is to say that parts of iTunes/iPhoto are not a "defined standard"?
I agree in part, but not every last interface feature which is what we're seeing here.
4. What percentage of people use any other given piece of software related software?
Eh? Come again... I cited the percentage usage of the iApps because people were claiming than Linspire had to copy them because people want software they're familiar with. Since a small percentage of people use the iApps, then that argument is invalid.
#5. You contradicting yourself by one second saying there MUST be innovation, and shortly after claiming "no room for innovation". This is you're opinion. Maybe I believe iTunes carries "no room for innovation".
Where did I say there was no room for innovation? There's ALWAYS room for innovation. iTunes is not the be all and end all for mp3 players. It's my current player of choice, but it would seem silly to pretend it's impossible to improve upon.
That only works as long as the clones that Linspire produce are poor imitations (as is the case judging by the screen shots and movie).
If it was a functionally exact clone then Apple have no product differentiation (which is after all, why they developed the iApps in the first place) and their investment is wasted. Hence less incentive to continue to invest in innovative, well designed software.
The problem is that normally software evolves, people copy bits from various apps and come up with a best of breed (at least that's the theory). But this stuff is a like for like clone, it doesn't advance anything.
Yep, tabbed browsing is another one.
Also gestures (also from Opera), download managers, there's actually been a decent amount of UI innovation in the browser market. More so than in say, Word processors.
Just like Justin Timberlake can hear your poor artist's song and write a new song that says the same thing and sounds similar.
And if it sounds close enough to the original, he's liable to be taken to court. This does actually happen.
I think LSongs is close enough to the original to be classified as patent/copyright/whatever abuse. Not because I'm some indignant Mac user, but because I don't think software cloning is either ethical or good for innovation in the software industry..
Fair enough - but I don't think Linspire are working here out of some community bond with OSS developers. They're in this to make money. If they want to do that, then the onus is on them to pay for their own R&D, not expect others to pay for them.
Sounds like a capitalist dream.
Let's say you were a not so well known songwriter, and you wrote a song that got a bit of airplay on independent radio. It gets heard by one of Justin Timberlake's producers. Timberlake then goes on to cover it, making millions in the process. You get nothing.
I presume you'd be happy with this - I mean as a small time artist you don't have to market share to do anything with the song yourself. It takes a good deal of 'innovation' for Justin Timberlake to take your song and make millions of $ with it.
You're exaggerating. People often cite the web browser as an example of a static interface, but it's a poor example. The parts of a web browser that have been static are:
- Back/forward buttons
- Reload
- Address bar
- Status bar
Which doesn't make up a lot of interface. The whole point of a web browser is that the bulk of the interface is the web page itself, which is a defined standard (ie. no room for innovation).
Outside of that there has been innovation. For example in Safari, the page load progress bar is an overlay on the address bar.
And as for your point of users expecting software to be consistent, what % of users do you think have ever used iTunes or iPhoto? 5 percent? Certainly not enough to claim that the target audience of Linspire would be confused by anything other than an identical clone of iTunes & iPhoto.
UI widgets have become a standard. There is a disctinct difference between sharing a widget and doing a complete clone of an existing interface.
This argument doesn't hold water.
Someone brings out a nice product, then someone brings out an OSS clone of it. If anyone complains, slashdotters insist that you can't patent 'usability', and that the original product was somehow the obvious end result of solving a particular usabiliity problem
Then someone brings out another product that solves it in a different and superior way. Then someone clones that, etc...
It's blatantly not true that the iTunes or iPhoto interface is the only possible way of solving the music/photo management usability problem. It's blatantly true that the Linspire dudes are saving money on R&D by ripping off Apple (& Microsoft) so they can invest it in other things like marketing (and legal defence).
But what happens if the innovating companies go away? What happens if nobody bothers with R&D? Who will Linspire rip off then?
Are you talking about x86 or PPC here, since iTunes runs on both.
Look again. Now mentally shift all the stuff at the bottom of the window to the top (except the bottom row of buttons). Now do you see?
Honestly, I'm all for free software and I love iTunes but this is taking the piss...
Since when did MSN or Amazon block customers based on what OS the customer wants to use?
I have no idea. But what does that have to do with the question I asked?
I'm genuinely confused. How would hacking an interface to Apple's music store lead to a 'real change in music distribution'?
I mean if I wrote a basic ugly perl front end to MSN or Amazon would that lead to real changes in news or book distribution?
It's also a memory hog (fine if you have loads) and certainly not as powerful as VS.NET at the moment.
CDT is way behind the Java source management stuff available in Eclipse - but as soon as it catches up I'll be the first to use it.
This took me 1 minute to find on Google:
freeware theme patcher
That would be a useful idea.
Although it would only be useful to power users who are happy interpreting the average discussion of a problem on a Linux forum.
Oh well, it would at least save me the select and middle click to mozilla!
If a random error or crash occurs, the application shouldn't display the error message to the user.
It should display a generic 'The application has unexpectedly quit.'. It should then prompt the user to automatically mail the developers with a crash log, and suggest he launch the application again.
At the same time, a crash log should be written to known location, so that a power user can interpret it if necessary.
This, incidentally, is exactly what happens on OS X.
The problem with a lot of Linux users is that they think they'll lose something by making the desktop user friendly.
In reality, the benefits from having a consistent and effective UI extend to everyone, power and non-power users alike.
For example, how many of the Linux users who've switched or are now dabbling with OS X worry about the loss of flexibility they have transitioning from Gnome or KDE? Very few in my experience - the benefits of consistency far outweigh the potential negatives.
Plus it is possible to provide advanced functionality & configurability , but make it so hidden that the vast majority of users will never see it. It's not as if the people who want to use it will mind digging it out!
The problem's always with someone else isn't it?
You'd make an excellent support person.
clueless user: Hey, I tried to send an email and some message came up on the screen, summing about ioslave... I'm not sure what to do?
you: Yeah, yeah - it's always someone else's fault isn't it? WHY CAN'T YOU GUYS LEARN TO READ TO READ MAN PAGES LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!!