So X has spent millions of dollars developing U and fixing bugs and tweaking system performance until it's fast and rock solid. Now Y comes along and rewrites a new version (clone) of U from scratch and calls it L.
And "for all intents and purposes", those two things are identical?
X has spent millions of dollars developing U, but most of the work on making it rock solid was done by B (which we'll call BU), and D and S and SM and MS and I have all done their own variants of it. Meanwhile, W and M and Q and others have produced their own commercial versions of U from scratch. W's out of business, but Q and M are still going strong. Meanwhile, some of the folks from B remixed the stuff they'd done with U and released B', and Y has gone and done his thing to produce L (using a lot of the same code as B'). Oh, and MS sold their U to S... who did a bunch of remixes with X's U... and created MW instead. After MW and BU got popular, X sold U to N, who then licensed it to S and switched to a version of L instead. Meanwhile, S changed their name and sold their old name and rights to U to a company called C (who was selling a version of L). Oh, and somewhere in there guy who founded A made a company called N that sold a version of BU remixed with MA while his old company did a version of X's U, and he ended up taking over A again and switching from BU to B' in his variant,... as (to a greater or leser extent) have a lot of the other people theoretically selling X's U.
For "all intents and purposes"... which "U" are you talking about anyway?
For all intents and purposes UNIX is a family of operating systems based on a common core API defined by Bell Labs in the '70s. Any OS where the native API is based on pipes and filters, directory trees and file descriptors, that's basically indistinguishable from the API descriped in Kernighan and Pike... that's UNIX. No matter where it comes from.
You're counting fallacies with fallacies. We're not talking about hopping on a private enterprise rocket next week, we're talking about switching NASA to the same basis as any other government agency... including the DoD.
Can you show me the business plan to make money off of trips to the moon? Trips to the ISS?
Can you show me the business plan to make money off trips to the South Pole? And yet trips to Antarctica are made in vehicles bought from private companies, not purpose-built in government shipyards. Just because the customer is the government, that doesn't meen the supplier should be the government as well.
If NASA had outsourced routine transport to private firms instead of managing the design and operation of the Space Shuttle, not only would they have saved a huge amount of money but it would have been a US company rather than a Russian one running the first space tourist operation. NASA is supposed to be the space equivalent of the FAA and NOAA, not Fedex and U-Haul.
Jesus Christ on a bicycle, folks, Microsoft themselves has been distributing an operating system and other packages containing all kinds of open source code, including GCC, for years. If people aren't up in arms about BSD code in NT and GPL code in Interix then why the hell should they be upset about a company that's just made an agreement with Microsoft?
Whichever way you look at it, Apple is the bad guys here.
I don't think this has anything to do with whether Apple or Cisco are "good guys" or "bad guys". They're corporations, they're pretty much mandated by SEC regulations to be chiselling conniving sons of bitched.
The point is that if this is Cisco's response it's really really stupid.
However, they negotiated in good faith and evidently got screwed by Apple. What happened after that was secondary.
Responding to bad faith with attempted fraud still doesn't seem "reasonable".
Actually, I think "stupid" is a better term. It won't strengthen their case, it will weaken it.
Good idea, but it's Microsoft's job, not Apple's.
on
Vista - iPod Killer?
·
· Score: 1
Oh, come on, this stuff has worked for a long time using automount.
Interesting idea, though that only works in an OS where the applications and GUI are sane and don't randomly poke at devices on their own because the music player/antivirus/spyware/background search index/whatever daemon is feeling lonely and wants a crack at it.
When I don't access the USB drive, it's automatically unmounted after a few seconds and can be safely removed. When I attempt to access it again, it's automatically mounted within a fraction of a second. That setup works even for MSDOS file systems.
I'm sure Microsoft could implement something like that for Windows, but it would be Microsoft that would have to wave the magic want... it's not Apple's job to port automount to Windows. And my experience with Microsoft doing something similar for the Pocket PC has been less than thrilling. I eventually turned autosync off there completely, because that was the only way I could be sure some damn conduit didn't have something magic open on the handheld when I pulled it out of the cradle.
Furthermore, with a correctly implemented transactional file system
Apple has to use MS-DOS FS on Windows. They have HFS, which has journal support, but you can't use HFS on your iPod on Windows... Apple had to pay the MS-DOS file system tax to get the iPod working on Windows at all.
Apple will figure this out one of these days, patent it, claim that they invented it all, and people like you will be clapping their hands.
You misspelled "Microsoft". The disk format it's using is Microsoft's, and the file system it's using is Microsoft's.
If you don't like DRM, vote with your pocketbook
on
Vista - iPod Killer?
·
· Score: 1
If all the peope bitching about what the combination of Vista DRM and Apple DRM is doing to their iPods, they should vote with their pocketbooks and spend their money at eMusic instead, and only use iTunes or Rhapsody as a backup for when they can't find a legal MP3.
Don't be silly. What are people going to do, *not* buy Windows? Waiting to buy Vista was *always* the right thing to do, whether you had an iPod or not, simply because the dot-zero release of ANY new software is basically "extended beta".
I went through the exact same kind of problem with Audible on the Pocket PC, and I had an inside line to Microsoft's Pocket PC support because this was when Microsoft was wooing vocal Palm users... so I'm pretty damn sure this wasn't Microsoft's fault (red letter day, folks, I just said something wasn't Microsoft's fault). And, yes, I was using Microsoft's media player on the Pocket PC to play the books.
I'm sure that Vista will be fine and everything will work on it pretty soon, but I don't recommend buying into the "dot zero" release of any new software or major version upgrade. Doesn't matter if it's Vista, Tiger, Pocket PC, Palm, Photoshop, or iTunes. I always assume that until the first or second service pack or patch kit that you're really dealing with an "extended beta".
Apple's handling of USB mass storage devices sucks: you can't even unplug an inactive iPod from a Macintosh without it telling you that you have done something bad.
You can't unplug any "inactive" but still mounted mass-storage device from any operating system without possibly damaging the file system, and without getting a warning that you did something wrong. I've had flash drives corrupted by users doing this on *every* version of Windows. This is inherent in the way computers and file systems work, and Apple can't wave a magic wand and fix it.
My point is that even if that were true, it doesn't matter, since Apple still isn't using the trademark;
They are, in fact, using the trademark. Product announcements count, as do advertising materials on web pages. Backdated product announcements and photoshopped web pages only count from the date you post them, not the date insinuated into them by the chichanery in question.
You seem to assume that Apple owns this trademark by default
Not at all. I somply don't assume that Cisco owns the trademark by default, and if Cisco is trying to create a fake paper trail implying they've been using it when they haven't then I don't think that Cisco's assuming that either.
OK, so Apple doesn't "think different", they "think just like Microsoft" if not worse.
<matrix>Welcome to the real world.</>
I'd call it reasonable and in good faith. After all, they had the trademark registered, they were talking about selling the trademark to Apple, why would they start shipping a product under that name?
And photoshopping their label on products they had previously been shipping without the label is "reasonable and in good faith"?
How long has Vista BETAs been available to developers? Why was this not discovered until vista launched?
Here's a handful of likely reasons:
Microsoft's "security zones" are based on a continually tweaked ad-hoc set of rules. They can break software from one beta to the next.
How many users are having these problems? What hardware? Apple may simly not have run into the problem.
How long has Vista been running on Macs? Apple's had to get THAT working as well.
Does Apple even have upgrading from XP to Vista running under Boot Camp?
I suppose that makes sense for a small time company like Nortel, but not for a shop like Apple.
Nortel's market cap is around $10B, Apple's is around $6B.
I suspect Microsoft's "security" model is to blame
on
Vista - iPod Killer?
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
I suspect Microsoft's "security" model is to blame as usual.
Instread of letting applications that deal with untrusted documents take responsibility for sandboxing them, Microsoft rejected sandboxing in he '90s as too inconvenient, and having too great a performance cost. Instead, they assume that applications will use COM objects (ActiveX, Office documents, etcetera) and build the whole security model around assigning "security zones" to COM objects. THEN (a) assuming all applications are compromised, and (b) setting up traps to catch out compromised applications.
So every time they hike security, they end up breaking some software or some hardware that was doing things that look fishy to Microsoft. They broke Palm two or three times, so it's no surprised Apple's falling afoul of their stupid design.
A design that, by the way, has caused users immensely more inconvenience than any sandbox possibly could.
I find Apple's behavior in regards to iPhone to be cynical, calculating, and arrogant.
They're a corporation. Cynical, calculating, and arrogant is baked into their genes, lock, stock, and SEC regulations.
On the other hand, Cisco didn't even bother putting an iPhone label on their product WHILE they were in negotiations with Apple. What do you call that?
Slashdot Mirror
If the music was unrestricted, I'd buy it even at $1 a shitty, uber-compressed song.
Here. http://www.emusic.com/
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
So X has spent millions of dollars developing U and fixing bugs and tweaking system performance until it's fast and rock solid. Now Y comes along and rewrites a new version (clone) of U from scratch and calls it L.
... as (to a greater or leser extent) have a lot of the other people theoretically selling X's U.
... which "U" are you talking about anyway?
And "for all intents and purposes", those two things are identical?
X has spent millions of dollars developing U, but most of the work on making it rock solid was done by B (which we'll call BU), and D and S and SM and MS and I have all done their own variants of it. Meanwhile, W and M and Q and others have produced their own commercial versions of U from scratch. W's out of business, but Q and M are still going strong. Meanwhile, some of the folks from B remixed the stuff they'd done with U and released B', and Y has gone and done his thing to produce L (using a lot of the same code as B'). Oh, and MS sold their U to S... who did a bunch of remixes with X's U... and created MW instead. After MW and BU got popular, X sold U to N, who then licensed it to S and switched to a version of L instead. Meanwhile, S changed their name and sold their old name and rights to U to a company called C (who was selling a version of L). Oh, and somewhere in there guy who founded A made a company called N that sold a version of BU remixed with MA while his old company did a version of X's U, and he ended up taking over A again and switching from BU to B' in his variant,
For "all intents and purposes"
For all intents and purposes UNIX is a family of operating systems based on a common core API defined by Bell Labs in the '70s. Any OS where the native API is based on pipes and filters, directory trees and file descriptors, that's basically indistinguishable from the API descriped in Kernighan and Pike... that's UNIX. No matter where it comes from.
You're counting fallacies with fallacies. We're not talking about hopping on a private enterprise rocket next week, we're talking about switching NASA to the same basis as any other government agency... including the DoD.
Can you show me the business plan to make money off of trips to the moon? Trips to the ISS?
Can you show me the business plan to make money off trips to the South Pole? And yet trips to Antarctica are made in vehicles bought from private companies, not purpose-built in government shipyards. Just because the customer is the government, that doesn't meen the supplier should be the government as well.
If NASA had outsourced routine transport to private firms instead of managing the design and operation of the Space Shuttle, not only would they have saved a huge amount of money but it would have been a US company rather than a Russian one running the first space tourist operation. NASA is supposed to be the space equivalent of the FAA and NOAA, not Fedex and U-Haul.
Jesus Christ on a bicycle, folks, Microsoft themselves has been distributing an operating system and other packages containing all kinds of open source code, including GCC, for years. If people aren't up in arms about BSD code in NT and GPL code in Interix then why the hell should they be upset about a company that's just made an agreement with Microsoft?
that was my first reaction as well... what the hell do they mean by "system calls", 'cos that looks like a library call graph...
What are they actually measuring, though? They look like a subroutine call tree, very little to do with system calls at all, really.
Whichever way you look at it, Apple is the bad guys here.
I don't think this has anything to do with whether Apple or Cisco are "good guys" or "bad guys". They're corporations, they're pretty much mandated by SEC regulations to be chiselling conniving sons of bitched.
The point is that if this is Cisco's response it's really really stupid.
However, they negotiated in good faith and evidently got screwed by Apple. What happened after that was secondary.
Responding to bad faith with attempted fraud still doesn't seem "reasonable".
Actually, I think "stupid" is a better term. It won't strengthen their case, it will weaken it.
Oh, come on, this stuff has worked for a long time using automount.
Interesting idea, though that only works in an OS where the applications and GUI are sane and don't randomly poke at devices on their own because the music player/antivirus/spyware/background search index/whatever daemon is feeling lonely and wants a crack at it.
When I don't access the USB drive, it's automatically unmounted after a few seconds and can be safely removed. When I attempt to access it again, it's automatically mounted within a fraction of a second. That setup works even for MSDOS file systems.
I'm sure Microsoft could implement something like that for Windows, but it would be Microsoft that would have to wave the magic want... it's not Apple's job to port automount to Windows. And my experience with Microsoft doing something similar for the Pocket PC has been less than thrilling. I eventually turned autosync off there completely, because that was the only way I could be sure some damn conduit didn't have something magic open on the handheld when I pulled it out of the cradle.
Furthermore, with a correctly implemented transactional file system
Apple has to use MS-DOS FS on Windows. They have HFS, which has journal support, but you can't use HFS on your iPod on Windows... Apple had to pay the MS-DOS file system tax to get the iPod working on Windows at all.
Apple will figure this out one of these days, patent it, claim that they invented it all, and people like you will be clapping their hands.
You misspelled "Microsoft". The disk format it's using is Microsoft's, and the file system it's using is Microsoft's.
If all the peope bitching about what the combination of Vista DRM and Apple DRM is doing to their iPods, they should vote with their pocketbooks and spend their money at eMusic instead, and only use iTunes or Rhapsody as a backup for when they can't find a legal MP3.
Don't be silly. What are people going to do, *not* buy Windows? Waiting to buy Vista was *always* the right thing to do, whether you had an iPod or not, simply because the dot-zero release of ANY new software is basically "extended beta".
I went through the exact same kind of problem with Audible on the Pocket PC, and I had an inside line to Microsoft's Pocket PC support because this was when Microsoft was wooing vocal Palm users... so I'm pretty damn sure this wasn't Microsoft's fault (red letter day, folks, I just said something wasn't Microsoft's fault). And, yes, I was using Microsoft's media player on the Pocket PC to play the books.
I'm sure that Vista will be fine and everything will work on it pretty soon, but I don't recommend buying into the "dot zero" release of any new software or major version upgrade. Doesn't matter if it's Vista, Tiger, Pocket PC, Palm, Photoshop, or iTunes. I always assume that until the first or second service pack or patch kit that you're really dealing with an "extended beta".
Apple's handling of USB mass storage devices sucks: you can't even unplug an inactive iPod from a Macintosh without it telling you that you have done something bad.
You can't unplug any "inactive" but still mounted mass-storage device from any operating system without possibly damaging the file system, and without getting a warning that you did something wrong. I've had flash drives corrupted by users doing this on *every* version of Windows. This is inherent in the way computers and file systems work, and Apple can't wave a magic wand and fix it.
My point is that even if that were true, it doesn't matter, since Apple still isn't using the trademark;
They are, in fact, using the trademark. Product announcements count, as do advertising materials on web pages. Backdated product announcements and photoshopped web pages only count from the date you post them, not the date insinuated into them by the chichanery in question.
You seem to assume that Apple owns this trademark by default
Not at all. I somply don't assume that Cisco owns the trademark by default, and if Cisco is trying to create a fake paper trail implying they've been using it when they haven't then I don't think that Cisco's assuming that either.
OK, so Apple doesn't "think different", they "think just like Microsoft" if not worse.
<matrix>Welcome to the real world.</>
I'd call it reasonable and in good faith. After all, they had the trademark registered, they were talking about selling the trademark to Apple, why would they start shipping a product under that name?
And photoshopping their label on products they had previously been shipping without the label is "reasonable and in good faith"?
Here's a handful of likely reasons:
I suppose that makes sense for a small time company like Nortel, but not for a shop like Apple.
Nortel's market cap is around $10B, Apple's is around $6B.
I suspect Microsoft's "security" model is to blame as usual.
Instread of letting applications that deal with untrusted documents take responsibility for sandboxing them, Microsoft rejected sandboxing in he '90s as too inconvenient, and having too great a performance cost. Instead, they assume that applications will use COM objects (ActiveX, Office documents, etcetera) and build the whole security model around assigning "security zones" to COM objects. THEN (a) assuming all applications are compromised, and (b) setting up traps to catch out compromised applications.
So every time they hike security, they end up breaking some software or some hardware that was doing things that look fishy to Microsoft. They broke Palm two or three times, so it's no surprised Apple's falling afoul of their stupid design.
A design that, by the way, has caused users immensely more inconvenience than any sandbox possibly could.
So has Cisco, and apparently before the Apple announcement.
Isn't the point to the article is that Cisco was apparently not using the name before the Apple announcement.
I find Apple's behavior in regards to iPhone to be cynical, calculating, and arrogant.
They're a corporation. Cynical, calculating, and arrogant is baked into their genes, lock, stock, and SEC regulations.
On the other hand, Cisco didn't even bother putting an iPhone label on their product WHILE they were in negotiations with Apple. What do you call that?
I have a Cisco phone sitting right here.
:)
Says it right on the faceplate. Cisco IP Phone.
Whoops. Too many letters. Nevermind.
Have we collectively gotten to the point where company branding is actually more important than the item in and of itself?
Yep.
How do we find ourselves in a society where product name is so important?
That's a real Mickey Mouse question.
Disney has been known to send C&D letters to day-care centers where someone had painted a picture of Das Mouse on the wall.
Trading virtual goods for real money is against the TOS for most MMORPGs.
It's not against the TOS for Second Life.
Therefore eBay has no grounds for action against trading SL goods on eBay.