Exactly what I am getting at. The regular users needs solutions not systems. We geeks who use and develop systems are to take it further and simplify those systems and take advantage of those systems and turn them into specific solutions to the individual.
For this purpose I believe the unixes are the best systems to use. They are generally open and pretty stable. And there is a large community behind them to deliver the needed support and ongoing developments.
We take those unixes as systems and make solutions of various kinds that suits the users individual needs. While doing so, we also improve the level of compatibility of all unixes. So we stand as one force without being cribbled by internal agendas.
What is important is that it is based on open community commitments. Where the individual are being served. That way we geeks who like both complex systems and real solutions can do our job and make the real solutions that are powerful, simple in construction, logical in use and surprisingly well featured with creative openings, for everyone. Doing it right, doing it with honour.
You all suck! - what is the big deal.. interfaces?
on
Natural Language CLIs?
·
· Score: 2
Provoked? Good, that was also my intention.
It amazes me to see how the crowd sits and listens to the announcements of a company who really brings nothing but their less competent version of something that others are far much further ahead with in development and might I add, are doing it right and with open plans.
Microsoft are once again presenting an idea at a fairly early stage of development. What provokes me is that it is not the first time and it makes them achieve attention based on false basis which they use for catching the interests of the potential users blindfolded.
I fear that the process of Microsoft will only lead to more time spend leading users in a wrong direction with only one intention: holding the crowd stuffed to milk 'em for every penny they got. How about doing things the right way? The only way to make this right is to make it with open and fully documented systems where participation of the development is open to everyone and the basic elements are settled as a standard with a particular purpose. These open basic elements, being systems with middlelayer functions will then be standard and in the overall interest of everyone, not just one company.
But, then we can't make money can we? some may say. On the contrary my friend, everyone in the world can take the middlelayer systems and implement it in their systems of whatever form it may be and produce real solutions for the people, which is what really sells and pleases. And might I add, solutions that are with the peoples interests in mind, not less competent systems where the company benefits more than the user. The systems which are only general construction elements can be taken free to use by any developer, independent or corporate and the developer can then make solutions which can be distributed in any way the developer sees fit for his/her/their purpose.
I see solutions based on open middlelayer systems developed with the participation of everyone in the world with an interest in such systems. Independent developers, large developing corporations and the users. What is important is what the user need/can use.
The initiating and ongoing development & research seems to be a job for an organisation like ISO and the open source/project community. (I see a lot of such generic system element development projects in the future in all areas of technology, as this is the way freedom is best preserved).
Personally I have my view of a user interface. Having used computers since the eighties, understanding and speaking both geek and layman languages and paid attention to desires and needs of all parties I also have a pretty good feeling of what is needed. We are talking user interfaces with the purpose of users to interface best possible with another element. For this one single form of communication method is not suitable for general purposes. Interfaces are to be available with modularity support, so each individual, disabled included, have the freedom to adapt it to personal needs without the crap.
A human user interface consist of every part of the human in question. And a computer/technology interface consist of whatever technology humans can deliver at present, and in future biotech etc.. just imagine. Both interfaces have multiple input/output facilities and they will be used by both interfaces to interact under different and changing conditions. We are talking communication between senses.
Facilities I can come to think of are..
The Human input/output interface:
.inputs are achieved via our senses which we translate to our computing brain via our nerve system: we can taste, smell, see, hear and feel. .outputs are performed by every single part of our body. by movement and voice.
The computer input/output interface: .input devices: mouse, keyboard, touchpad, trackpoint, touchscreen, microphone, pen, scanners etc.. you name it and with the evolution in biotechs to come it is only up to the imagination and a suitable solution will be available to all kinds in need. .output devices: screendisplay, print, sound etc and the line will be extended to accommodate all our the senses/input options of humans and other operators/communication parties the computer may have.
Biotechs was sleightly mentioned and will have purposes in the foreseeable future. I didn't include the possibility of communication directly via the human mind. We can imagine the possibility so I can't rule out the functionality will be to be reckoned with in the distant future, but right now it is not to be concidered, although the development in science with sensors on specific locations of the brain should be interesting to follow and what comes next?
Well back to the basic user->computer input interface of today..
The keyboard is the most common and it is often accompanied by a mouse and now more and more computers in the multimedia age are equipped with a microphone.
So what is desired of the user interface of tomorrow based on these 3 input devices. For the user interface to be applicable to the most wide range of users possible, we have to preserve modularity and extensive customization possibilities.
Personally I do not see one of these tree input devices as optimal for all purposes, but I see a decentsolution when using all of them in combination.
I hope one day we can put together a system as a module on unix where the user interface is featuring, both mouse, keyboard and voice control. Each control element are used for various purposes.
I also believe one day that the mouse will be taken out of the system so we are back to only keyboard and voice control for the general user interface. This requires excellence in development of the eye-cursor movement technology.
This is the future that becomes today. I hope my thoughts matches the desires and thoughts of others and we can pull it off eventually.
As for a real navigation system for the end users as well as geeks, then I have a solution in mind which is simple in navigation, yet extensively customizeable.
If anyone are serious about any of these issues and wish to communicate, my email is caspera@sophistic.com (spam is not welcomed).
GENERAL We at OWP feel the time has come for a MS Windows clone. There are a growing number of alternative operating systems available today, but we feel they lack the familiarity and usefulness of Windows. We feel Windows put the user into "userfriendly". We want to create a product that Windows users can migrate to without the drawbacks of other alternative operating systems. Take, for example, Linux. Setup can be difficult, even more so for novice users. There are GUI's available that are easy to understand, but the file system can be completly alien to those new to Linux. And hardware support?... Filesystem: As mentioned above, we will use the FAT filesystem. The O.W. group feels that it is very intuitive and widely understood.
They refer to FAT as was the UFS the directory structure (FHS). Makes me hope they begin research before carrying on such a project.
What good would it make users to make another nightmare windows system. yes it is open. but even if they should succeed in time which is highly doubtful, then they would make another system which is incompatible with all the unix based solutions, and when unix is the answer, what good is it to develop another windows nightmare?
My point is that it will not enhance the speed and ease of migration from windows to unix platform for the users. It will confuse and noway can a new windows system starting development now catch up with windows today. So why not take the ressources planned to be invested on put efforts into improving wine, windows compatibility on unix. when they first can run their killer/must have/no present serious alternative applications on unix, they will have completed first stage. And from there they have only one way to go.
Yes the open systems/unixes are the future in my eyes. They are capable of providing as real solutions. We should collect our efforts on compatibility between all open unixes.. linux, *bsd, solaris etc. When we stand together, we stand strong. Remember.. we geeks are responsible for making the IT solutions for the non-geeks. Lets do it with honour.
Laptop Compatibility for FreeBSD This document is meant to serve as a resource for identifying successes and difficulties running various versions of FreeBSD on laptop computers. This is notably different from the PAO survey in that we are interested in laptops not necessarily running PAO. This page is manually maintained.
this comment of your say more about lack of competence on your part than the qualities of the systems you claim is not a success.
Btw, why are some linux and windows users (sorry for putting you both in the same boat) so afraid of the *BSD solution? When reading the comments to the original post, I wonder what your priorities are and what all the fud is about. *BSD is not to dizz linux, for all its worth, this is not a who is the best, biggest, you know fight.. its about making things right. And for coexistence and having solutions for whatever purpose necessary. I feel with you..
the authors of those comments that you are quoting are either incompetent or non existing.
I am a new to running unixes on my local systems. I installed FreeBSD 4.0stable less than a week ago on my laptop. Now I run 4.1stable and keeping a fresh updated system, automatically. This is my story. First I downloaded the kernel and mfsroot disks which I found through a logical visit at www.freebsd.org. I had a problem with my nic at first (I was doing a ftp/net installation off the boot disks), but after a few minutes browsing of freebsd - mobile and friendly chats at #freebsdhelp I solved it and the freebsd installation ran beautifully. At the installation I had a clear list of choice for the base setup and I chose what suited my purpose. I chose to install X with gnome&enlightment and in a short time I was up and running. Tweaked the X setup to present my desktop as I enjoy and that was set. Next I intented to see how I have to go about maintenance and here again usenet and #freebsdhelp on efnet became quite useful. I learned about cvsup with which I could keep my sourcetree and ports updated, so now I can either issue a few commmands in which I can check for updates to the sources, do a system update of the entire system build a new custom kernel for optimal performance and install or do it all in one script which I eventually intend to activate via cron... so the system updates itself and I can concentrate on my work.
With this system I finally see a future with computing as a solution to accomplish whatever purpose one may have.
Unix in whatever form or shap it may be is the cure for Microsofts deceases which have hurt so many for so long without them knowing it and many still don't. Now think of narcotics. Do you see a pathern?. Unix, as any cure it is not successful before being spread and I certainly hope the entire world of unixes would help doing so. It is not important whether you run *linux, *bsd, solaris, whatever.. as long as you can do the same on all systems and they become compatible with each other as they will do eventually, when we start doing something about it. All unixes are in the process of making this new bright world and everyone can contribute. The Open* world of development is a result of people fighting for freedom and making things right, making them how they were supposed to be in the first place. After all its not about computers its about what you use it for. freedom for choice, possibilities for all!
With OpenOffice.org delivering the open platform for all future office applications, Applixware will suffer similar to how msoffice will get to become nothing but a joke and an ongoing marketing consuming application to continue to exploit users who know no better.
I can't the purpose of your concerns, unless you are applixware company related. Course if you are, you better be damn scared, and clean up your act. As the future of computing whoops your lamas ass.
haha nice one.. anyways, I went to the MS FUD Central and look what I found..
The very definition of Linux as an Open Software effort means that commercial companies like Red Hat will make money by charging for services. Therefore, commercial support services for Linux will be fee-based and will likely be priced at a premium. These costs have to be factored into the total cost model.
And now I am thinking of how much MS is pricing support and service to both private and commercial consumers in addition to the overpriced packages. And also to concider is the fact that their closed environment adds up extra costs to commercial consumers needing to really fix the shit. They often depend on MS. And the depending factor is the oposite of freedom.
People have been fighting for freedom from the date of birth.. This is just another one.. and yes, freedom will prevail sooner or later.
yeah now I wonder.. is this the oportunity microsoft waited for. are we now to see them in court against every domain owner with micro, soft, og dollars in their domain name.
watch out, microbrains/megabucks or should we say randoM$oft loves you..
I'm just as much fed up with all this as I can be. The patent system as we knew it no longer match its purpose.
For how much longer are we to hear about these incidents?. Companies attempting to enforce patents they have obtained of legacy systems that they have no rights to.
Its about time this is to be changed. In Denmark we've had the discussion, and politicians appears to be dealing with the issue. But how about the states.. Its about time this gets straightened out. Denmark was the first country to legalize porn, who will be the first to straighten out the patent mess?
NB. Just for the record.. how about the hyperlink system used in gopher? & I would assume a company such as the size of BT would care for its image and customers much more than trying pull of such a scam like this.. Its large scale and we know it. I wonder when the big boards will begin concidering their relationship to their customers/people again. Are randoM$oft just the first in a row?
I'm wondering how many of todays projects in development such as gnome, gtk, qt, kde, and all the windowmanagers and tools that will become obsolete, if berlin should become a must.
Should the developers involved in these projects already now concider Berlin's oportunities and adapt their ideas and ressources to this development?
In the the X vs Berlin advantage overview we are presented with the advantage of 'Consistent user interface policy'. I can see this as an advantage for the mainstream, when having a standardized userinterface.. but how about when people take it to the next level and feel like really wanting/needing to tailor their system into personal desires. I know from myself that I have my ideas of how I want my tools organized and presented. Is this customization still possible?
X has it flaws, that is certain, but will Berlin correct them? Will the Berlin development be controlled by one organization or by an OpenProject consortium for the people, by the people with no commercial interests like for instance w3c? I hope so and then I really can see Berlin as a part of the unix future.
Another concern, compatibility with current products developed under X.. Should they need to be updated with Berlin required libs?
Ok nuff said.. Lots to think about when designing new fundamental tools. Actually the base GUI system is such an obvious necessity, that should it not be concidered as a static issue to be dealt with on/. ?
A replacement for X? why?.. is X(XF86) not good enough? I wonder..
Is this a fight for a better GUI platform for unix in general? or just a battle between organisations for the credits they get from providing it?, which is their platform for the future.
If these organisations are developing the GUI platform for the future FOR THE PEOPLE.. why not open the R&D(Research&Development) share and cooperate organisations in between aiming at developing THE GUI platform that the WE the users, are to BENEFIT from and USE as OUR FOUNDATION for OUR CREATIONS.. In our future.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly what I am getting at. The regular users needs solutions not systems. We geeks who use and develop systems are to take it further and simplify those systems and take advantage of those systems and turn them into specific solutions to the individual.
For this purpose I believe the unixes are the best systems to use. They are generally open and pretty stable. And there is a large community behind them to deliver the needed support and ongoing developments.
We take those unixes as systems and make solutions of various kinds that suits the users individual needs. While doing so, we also improve the level of compatibility of all unixes. So we stand as one force without being cribbled by internal agendas.
What is important is that it is based on open community commitments. Where the individual are being served. That way we geeks who like both complex systems and real solutions can do our job and make the real solutions that are powerful, simple in construction, logical in use and surprisingly well featured with creative openings, for everyone. Doing it right, doing it with honour.
Provoked? Good, that was also my intention.
.inputs are achieved via our senses which we translate to our computing brain via our nerve system: we can taste, smell, see, hear and feel.
.outputs are performed by every single part of our body. by movement and voice.
.input devices: mouse, keyboard, touchpad, trackpoint, touchscreen, microphone, pen, scanners etc.. you name it and with the evolution in biotechs to come it is only up to the imagination and a suitable solution will be available to all kinds in need.
.output devices: screendisplay, print, sound etc and the line will be extended to accommodate all our the senses/input options of humans and other operators/communication parties the computer may have.
It amazes me to see how the crowd sits and listens to the announcements of a company who really brings nothing but their less competent version of something that others are far much further ahead with in development and might I add, are doing it right and with open plans.
Microsoft are once again presenting an idea at a fairly early stage of development. What provokes me is that it is not the first time and it makes them achieve attention based on false basis which they use for catching the interests of the potential users blindfolded.
I fear that the process of Microsoft will only lead to more time spend leading users in a wrong direction with only one intention: holding the crowd stuffed to milk 'em for every penny they got. How about doing things the right way? The only way to make this right is to make it with open and fully documented systems where participation of the development is open to everyone and the basic elements are settled as a standard with a particular purpose. These open basic elements, being systems with middlelayer functions will then be standard and in the overall interest of everyone, not just one company.
But, then we can't make money can we? some may say. On the contrary my friend, everyone in the world can take the middlelayer systems and implement it in their systems of whatever form it may be and produce real solutions for the people, which is what really sells and pleases. And might I add, solutions that are with the peoples interests in mind, not less competent systems where the company benefits more than the user. The systems which are only general construction elements can be taken free to use by any developer, independent or corporate and the developer can then make solutions which can be distributed in any way the developer sees fit for his/her/their purpose.
I see solutions based on open middlelayer systems developed with the participation of everyone in the world with an interest in such systems. Independent developers, large developing corporations and the users. What is important is what the user need/can use.
The initiating and ongoing development & research seems to be a job for an organisation like ISO and the open source/project community. (I see a lot of such generic system element development projects in the future in all areas of technology, as this is the way freedom is best preserved).
Personally I have my view of a user interface. Having used computers since the eighties, understanding and speaking both geek and layman languages and paid attention to desires and needs of all parties I also have a pretty good feeling of what is needed. We are talking user interfaces with the purpose of users to interface best possible with another element. For this one single form of communication method is not suitable for general purposes. Interfaces are to be available with modularity support, so each individual, disabled included, have the freedom to adapt it to personal needs without the crap.
A human user interface consist of every part of the human in question. And a computer/technology interface consist of whatever technology humans can deliver at present, and in future biotech etc.. just imagine. Both interfaces have multiple input/output facilities and they will be used by both interfaces to interact under different and changing conditions. We are talking communication between senses.
Facilities I can come to think of are..
The Human input/output interface:
The computer input/output interface:
Biotechs was sleightly mentioned and will have purposes in the foreseeable future. I didn't include the possibility of communication directly via the human mind. We can imagine the possibility so I can't rule out the functionality will be to be reckoned with in the distant future, but right now it is not to be concidered, although the development in science with sensors on specific locations of the brain should be interesting to follow and what comes next?
Well back to the basic user->computer input interface of today..
The keyboard is the most common and it is often accompanied by a mouse and now more and more computers in the multimedia age are equipped with a microphone.
So what is desired of the user interface of tomorrow based on these 3 input devices. For the user interface to be applicable to the most wide range of users possible, we have to preserve modularity and extensive customization possibilities.
Personally I do not see one of these tree input devices as optimal for all purposes, but I see a decentsolution when using all of them in combination.
I hope one day we can put together a system as a module on unix where the user interface is featuring, both mouse, keyboard and voice control. Each control element are used for various purposes.
I also believe one day that the mouse will be taken out of the system so we are back to only keyboard and voice control for the general user interface. This requires excellence in development of the eye-cursor movement technology.
This is the future that becomes today. I hope my thoughts matches the desires and thoughts of others and we can pull it off eventually.
As for a real navigation system for the end users as well as geeks, then I have a solution in mind which is simple in navigation, yet extensively customizeable.
If anyone are serious about any of these issues and wish to communicate, my email is caspera@sophistic.com (spam is not welcomed).
GENERAL ...
We at OWP feel the time has come for a MS Windows clone. There are a growing number of alternative operating systems available today, but we feel they lack the familiarity and usefulness of Windows. We feel Windows put the user into "userfriendly". We want to create a product that Windows users can migrate to without the drawbacks of other alternative operating systems. Take, for example, Linux. Setup can be difficult, even more so for novice users. There are GUI's available that are easy to understand, but the file system can be completly alien to those new to Linux. And hardware support?
Filesystem:
As mentioned above, we will use the FAT filesystem. The O.W. group feels that it is very intuitive and widely understood.
They refer to FAT as was the UFS the directory structure (FHS). Makes me hope they begin research before carrying on such a project.
What good would it make users to make another nightmare windows system. yes it is open. but even if they should succeed in time which is highly doubtful, then they would make another system which is incompatible with all the unix based solutions, and when unix is the answer, what good is it to develop another windows nightmare?
My point is that it will not enhance the speed and ease of migration from windows to unix platform for the users. It will confuse and noway can a new windows system starting development now catch up with windows today. So why not take the ressources planned to be invested on put efforts into improving wine, windows compatibility on unix. when they first can run their killer/must have/no present serious alternative applications on unix, they will have completed first stage. And from there they have only one way to go.
Yes the open systems/unixes are the future in my eyes. They are capable of providing as real solutions. We should collect our efforts on compatibility between all open unixes.. linux, *bsd, solaris etc. When we stand together, we stand strong. Remember.. we geeks are responsible for making the IT solutions for the non-geeks. Lets do it with honour.
Here is a somewhat valuable ressource.
http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/~dkulp/fbsd/laptop.html
Laptop Compatibility for FreeBSD This document is meant to serve as a resource for identifying successes and difficulties running various versions of FreeBSD on laptop computers. This is notably different from the PAO survey in that we are interested in laptops not necessarily running PAO. This page is manually maintained.
this comment of your say more about lack of competence on your part than the qualities of the systems you claim is not a success.
Btw, why are some linux and windows users (sorry for putting you both in the same boat) so afraid of the *BSD solution? When reading the comments to the original post, I wonder what your priorities are and what all the fud is about. *BSD is not to dizz linux, for all its worth, this is not a who is the best, biggest, you know fight.. its about making things right. And for coexistence and having solutions for whatever purpose necessary. I feel with you..
the authors of those comments that you are quoting are either incompetent or non existing.
I am a new to running unixes on my local systems.
I installed FreeBSD 4.0stable less than a week ago on my laptop. Now I run 4.1stable and keeping a fresh updated system, automatically. This is my story. First I downloaded the kernel and mfsroot disks which I found through a logical visit at www.freebsd.org. I had a problem with my nic at first (I was doing a ftp/net installation off the boot disks), but after a few minutes browsing of freebsd - mobile and friendly chats at #freebsdhelp I solved it and the freebsd installation ran beautifully. At the installation I had a clear list of choice for the base setup and I chose what suited my purpose. I chose to install X with gnome&enlightment and in a short time I was up and running. Tweaked the X setup to present my desktop as I enjoy and that was set. Next I intented to see how I have to go about maintenance and here again usenet and #freebsdhelp on efnet became quite useful. I learned about cvsup with which I could keep my sourcetree and ports updated, so now I can either issue a few commmands in which I can check for updates to the sources, do a system update of the entire system build a new custom kernel for optimal performance and install or do it all in one script which I eventually intend to activate via cron... so the system updates itself and I can concentrate on my work.
With this system I finally see a future with computing as a solution to accomplish whatever purpose one may have.
Unix in whatever form or shap it may be is the cure for Microsofts deceases which have hurt so many for so long without them knowing it and many still don't. Now think of narcotics. Do you see a pathern?. Unix, as any cure it is not successful before being spread and I certainly hope the entire world of unixes would help doing so. It is not important whether you run *linux, *bsd, solaris, whatever.. as long as you can do the same on all systems and they become compatible with each other as they will do eventually, when we start doing something about it. All unixes are in the process of making this new bright world and everyone can contribute. The Open* world of development is a result of people fighting for freedom and making things right, making them how they were supposed to be in the first place. After all its not about computers its about what you use it for.
freedom for choice, possibilities for all!
With OpenOffice.org delivering the open platform for all future office applications, Applixware will suffer similar to how msoffice will get to become nothing but a joke and an ongoing marketing consuming application to continue to exploit users who know no better.
I can't the purpose of your concerns, unless you are applixware company related. Course if you are, you better be damn scared, and clean up your act. As the future of computing whoops your lamas ass.
haha nice one.. anyways, I went to the MS FUD Central and look what I found..
The very definition of Linux as an Open Software effort means that commercial companies like Red Hat will make money by charging for services. Therefore, commercial support services for Linux will be fee-based and will likely be priced at a premium. These costs have to be factored into the total cost model.
And now I am thinking of how much MS is pricing support and service to both private and commercial consumers in addition to the overpriced packages. And also to concider is the fact that their closed environment adds up extra costs to commercial consumers needing to really fix the shit. They often depend on MS. And the depending factor is the oposite of freedom.
People have been fighting for freedom from the date of birth.. This is just another one.. and yes, freedom will prevail sooner or later.
yeah now I wonder.. is this the oportunity microsoft waited for. are we now to see them in court against every domain owner with micro, soft, og dollars in their domain name.
watch out, microbrains/megabucks or should we say randoM$oft loves you..
show him this discussion on /. and let him think on his own. If its not obvious to him now, it may be later. and if not, his loss.
I'm just as much fed up with all this as I can be. The patent system as we knew it no longer match its purpose.
For how much longer are we to hear about these incidents?. Companies attempting to enforce patents they have obtained of legacy systems that they have no rights to.
Its about time this is to be changed. In Denmark we've had the discussion, and politicians appears to be dealing with the issue. But how about the states.. Its about time this gets straightened out. Denmark was the first country to legalize porn, who will be the first to straighten out the patent mess?
NB.
Just for the record.. how about the hyperlink system used in gopher?
&
I would assume a company such as the size of BT would care for its image and customers much more than trying pull of such a scam like this.. Its large scale and we know it. I wonder when the big boards will begin concidering their relationship to their customers/people again. Are randoM$oft just the first in a row?
I'm wondering how many of todays projects in development such as gnome, gtk, qt, kde, and all the windowmanagers and tools that will become obsolete, if berlin should become a must.
/. ?
Should the developers involved in these projects already now concider Berlin's oportunities and adapt their ideas and ressources to this development?
In the the X vs Berlin advantage overview we are presented with the advantage of 'Consistent user interface policy'. I can see this as an advantage for the mainstream, when having a standardized userinterface.. but how about when people take it to the next level and feel like really wanting/needing to tailor their system into personal desires. I know from myself that I have my ideas of how I want my tools organized and presented. Is this customization still possible?
X has it flaws, that is certain, but will Berlin correct them? Will the Berlin development be controlled by one organization or by an OpenProject consortium for the people, by the people with no commercial interests like for instance w3c? I hope so and then I really can see Berlin as a part of the unix future.
Another concern, compatibility with current products developed under X.. Should they need to be updated with Berlin required libs?
Ok nuff said.. Lots to think about when designing new fundamental tools. Actually the base GUI system is such an obvious necessity, that should it not be concidered as a static issue to be dealt with on
What is this really?
A replacement for X? why?.. is X(XF86) not good enough? I wonder..
Is this a fight for a better GUI platform for unix in general? or just a battle between organisations for the credits they get from providing it?, which is their platform for the future.
If these organisations are developing the GUI platform for the future FOR THE PEOPLE.. why not open the R&D(Research&Development) share and cooperate organisations in between aiming at developing THE GUI platform that the WE the users, are to BENEFIT from and USE as OUR FOUNDATION for OUR CREATIONS.. In our future.
How OPEN are their eyes really?