I'm not going to argue 'who' is to blame in terms of MS being a monopoly.
The issue at stake is that they *are* a monopoly, and they have use said monopoly in ways that hurt the consumer, and in the process have also done illegal things to boot.
Even without the monopoly, those two things can be dealt with, but with the monopoly, they are much graver issues.
'For the average user at home Windows is the best operating system'
Did you forget the fact that there exists a system called Mac OS?
For the average user at home, perhaps the 'cheapest' system is a Windows OS with an Intel PC. But there are plenty of non cheap WinTel systems that put them in the same price range as the Mac OS. What then?
Then the fact that most people couldn't install Linux. Most people can't even install Windows! The cute thing is that those same people *can* install Mac OS. Not that I've done it (I can install Windows or Linux, btw), but it's supposed to be as simple as dragging a MacOS folder from a bootable CD onto the Apple machine, or something like that.
Microsoft does have a rival. The fact that people don't know about it is Apple's fault for being too stealthy in advertising. What if Apple advertised on all the strengths of their platform? I dunno what would happen, but I would think Macs would be more popular and common, and due to economic volume, cheaper and higher performance to boot!
It'll raise the level of computer literacy by a notch. Not only will it be divided into the standard 2 groups:
Can program VCR
Cannot program VCR
The Can program VCR group will be divided into
Can read PCB
Cannot read PCB
Joking aside, it wouldn't be difficult to, like a script kiddy, just download blueprints and get yourself a homebrew mp3 player, but how can you 'trust' such kits, implicitly, any more than you can trust software?
Mostly it should be okay, but the odd virus here and there could wreak havoc on someone. So a new class of 'anti-trojan' software, as well as more literacy in computer skills in general, needs to taught.
I would like to have a private fab and rapid prototype lab in my garage. That would be muy nifto.
The same way that literacy, pencils, pens, ink, paper, and books destroyed the iron grip of the autocracy and nobility of hundreds of years ago, printable computers can break the grip of monolithic oligarchies dictating hardware and standards to people who don't need them.
Don't you have any sense of decency, to post such utter garbage in the first place, perdida?
(go ahead mark me as troll or whatever, it really doesn't matter)
Argh, I'm so frustrated. Bad day, just need to vent a little.
This post isn't insightful. Some moderator has mistaken this for a thoughtful, considered statement balanced between two extremes.
Just to dissect this post a little:
When considered rationally, it's obvious that funding support for the ISS is much more important than research about the atmosphere of Pluto.
I doubt anyone can rationally argue the merits of one over the merits over another. Both sides have merits, and the powerful thing about science and research is that you don't know the value of those merits until it is tied in with other bits of knowledge.
... but I doubt that over that time[centuries] period the composition of Pluto's atmosphere will ever be relevant in any practical sense.
Again, this isn't something one can judge except in hindsight. I can agree with the logic that we can't afford to send a probe to Pluto, I can't agree with the logic that the knowledge gained won't 'ever be relevant in any practical sense.'
Argh, I'm just pissed. Apologies to the readers who have to see this rant ^^
I want to know about shows and performances in my area. If the Circus comes to town. If Cirque Du Soleil is playing. If Stomp! or whatever hot new show is there.
I want the link to connect to a ticket office, to schedules and fares, to a map service, and reviews of the performance.
I want to know about music performances as well, of Taiko drums and Chinese acrobats and martial arts tournaments in the area.
How do we get the banner ads to work like this?
For product or services, I rely on Google. I want a new video card? I do a Google search on the appropriate websites. I look for "video card reviews performance price"
But for topical, local, and timely information, Google isn't very good.
And I don't want to be always trawling various ticket sites for what's new. I just want to know if Disney's Lion King on Ice is in the area, or something.
I'm sure that's worthy of advertising as much as anything else!
And thus we underscore the significance of individual disconnect.
I thought it was about front/back, someone though browser buttons front/back, someone else thought the left-rightness of humans as associated with left-right writing.
What about a radial species, like a starfish? They may have a totally different idea of front/back
It's already done, in language, for slightly similar reasons.
At least according to some linguistic theory (me not being a linguist, cunning or otherwise) the conjugation and tense structure adds more layers of context around a piece of speech so that even if taken by itself, or distorted, or mangled, meaning can still be extracted from it.
It's definitely redundant encoding of information, and learners of the languages in question (like Latin!) say it's horrible, but it probably stems from oral times when data transmission was horribly unreliable and error prone.
So perhaps what your proposing is encoding more structure into a language, meta-language like, something unlike Perl.
I think you're mixing up computer science, software engineering, and programming.
Computer science, to stress the science, is real. It touches complexity and information theory, entropy, transmission and coding theory, algorithmic analysis, and statistics.
CS is an artificial construct only as much as math is our approximation of the way information is conveyed, or physics an approximation of the way the universe works.
CS is separated by math by only a thin boundary, at parts.
Languages, kernels, etc, are software implementations of CS theory and thought. It is a step lower than CS, and on the job experience is not enough to qualify for CS status. I'm not very good at CS, myself, but have some of the training from college.
Everything you're talking about concerning CS is more related to programming and work. "How many times have you had to learn something for a specific project and never had to use it again." Deals with programming and instances, not with algorithms, complexity, computability, efficiency, or optimization. All of the above is closer to CS, and as such are irreduciably common to all problems.
Being good at CS doesn't translate to being good at programming. Compare CS to being good at critical analysis and diagnosis, where programming is being good at surgery.
One is a thought game, the other an implementation one.
A computer scientist is not defined by the existence or use of computers. As a macho ego statement, "Real Computer Scientists don't use computers" is silly, but not ridiculous.
Just like the analogy that physicists don't play with physical objects. Some do, but quite a few don't. They border on the realm of math, of course.
You're right that it is elitism, but computer science is much more about the science of computation than the science of computers. In that sense, CS can live perfectly fine without computers. Just a pen and paper will do.
On the other hand, programmers are much more intimately tied to computers, and as such can't trivially exist without them. Programming is an implementation and a justification of the science of computation in the same way that carpentry and architecture are implementations and justifications of the science of physics.
To repeat what everyone else is saying, Math cannot be avoided if you're interested in computers ^^
Algorithms, optimizations, sorting, searching, patterns, etc, are all mathematical in nature. Even if you can't grok the math, you have to have some intuition involved, or you're just not going to be able to do the CS work.
You're correct that 90% of jobs can be doen by either a CSc or CEng. But those 90% of jobs can also be done by math majors who programmed on the side, or people who were EEs, or whatever. If you can do some real analytical thinking, and can handle structured work, you can program ^^
They actually have a patent that already covers theme switching by changing resources or drawing procedures.
09/074,543
That one (can't find it, but it's referenced) covers sound effects in a GUI.
So I don't know that there is anything 'wrong' with this patent, given that there are other similar patents in the system, or that this is anything other than 'business as usual' for corporate America...
This one was filed in Jan 97,
Systems and methods for providing a user with increased
flexibility and control over the appearance and behavior of
objects on a user interface are disclosed. Sets of objects can
be grouped into themes to provide a user with a distinct overall
impression of the interface. These themes can be switched
dynamically by switching pointers to drawing procedures or
switching data being supplied to these procedures. To buffer
applications from the switchable nature of graphical user
interfaces, colors and patterns used to implement the interface
objects are abstracted from the interface by, for example,
pattern look-up tables.
Seems to have been granted in 1999 and covers the concept of theme switching by changing resources in look-up tables.
As opposed to the patent in the current story, which covers the theme engine, which is the process by which themes are changed.
I don't know Apple's intentions. I do know that 'behavior' is vague enough that if you went to the extreme of it's definition that it *may* be patent worthy.
I just didn't want the thought that it might be a valid idea be drowned out by all the posts declaiming skins and patents.
I dunno if widget and menu redefinition was the intent of the Apple patent.
Does the xterm change behavior if the menus attached to it change? Does it change behavior if the buttons attached to it change place and use?
I don't know if Enlightenment and Apple 'themes' are the same. I just know that the patent claims more than just appearance, and 'application behavior'
It could very well be that Apple's patent is invalid insofar as the scope in which Apple intends to apply it.
I just didn't think all the anti-patent bashing folks should be the only voice.
On the other hand, it might not be the same. The wording of the patent is vague enought that E might be in the same field, and if it is then the patent falls due to prior art.
But if E is not at all what Apple's patent means when they say 'behavioral change', then E also has nothing to fear from Apple's patent, right?
The claim mentions behavior changes of an application when a theme is selected. Does the behavior of an application change under Motif or any other skinnable apps when a theme is selected?
All these examples only cover half the claim in the patent, where appearance is selected by the theme engine.
The other part of the first claim was that behavior would change when selected by a theme engine.
I don't know that applications have changed behavior when a theme is changed. Does your DOS box change to a CSH shell when you change themes in Windowblinds? That's a speculation on my part on theme selected behavior modification.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not going to argue 'who' is to blame in terms of MS being a monopoly.
The issue at stake is that they *are* a monopoly, and they have use said monopoly in ways that hurt the consumer, and in the process have also done illegal things to boot.
Even without the monopoly, those two things can be dealt with, but with the monopoly, they are much graver issues.
'For the average user at home Windows is the best operating system'
Did you forget the fact that there exists a system called Mac OS?
For the average user at home, perhaps the 'cheapest' system is a Windows OS with an Intel PC. But there are plenty of non cheap WinTel systems that put them in the same price range as the Mac OS. What then?
Then the fact that most people couldn't install Linux. Most people can't even install Windows! The cute thing is that those same people *can* install Mac OS. Not that I've done it (I can install Windows or Linux, btw), but it's supposed to be as simple as dragging a MacOS folder from a bootable CD onto the Apple machine, or something like that.
Microsoft does have a rival. The fact that people don't know about it is Apple's fault for being too stealthy in advertising. What if Apple advertised on all the strengths of their platform? I dunno what would happen, but I would think Macs would be more popular and common, and due to economic volume, cheaper and higher performance to boot!
Geek dating!
It means you can choose not to have a 'gay' color on your iMac, just download and print in your fav color, to match your favorite color scheme.
Geek dating!
It'll raise the level of computer literacy by a notch. Not only will it be divided into the standard 2 groups:
Can program VCR
Cannot program VCR
The Can program VCR group will be divided into
Can read PCB
Cannot read PCB
Joking aside, it wouldn't be difficult to, like a script kiddy, just download blueprints and get yourself a homebrew mp3 player, but how can you 'trust' such kits, implicitly, any more than you can trust software?
Mostly it should be okay, but the odd virus here and there could wreak havoc on someone. So a new class of 'anti-trojan' software, as well as more literacy in computer skills in general, needs to taught.
I would like to have a private fab and rapid prototype lab in my garage. That would be muy nifto.
Louis
Geek dating!
The same way that literacy, pencils, pens, ink, paper, and books destroyed the iron grip of the autocracy and nobility of hundreds of years ago, printable computers can break the grip of monolithic oligarchies dictating hardware and standards to people who don't need them.
Don't you have any sense of decency, to post such utter garbage in the first place, perdida?
(go ahead mark me as troll or whatever, it really doesn't matter)
Geek dating!
Argh, I'm so frustrated. Bad day, just need to vent a little.
... but I doubt that over that time[centuries] period the composition of Pluto's atmosphere will ever be relevant in any practical sense.
This post isn't insightful. Some moderator has mistaken this for a thoughtful, considered statement balanced between two extremes.
Just to dissect this post a little:
When considered rationally, it's obvious that funding support for the ISS is much more important than research about the atmosphere of Pluto.
I doubt anyone can rationally argue the merits of one over the merits over another. Both sides have merits, and the powerful thing about science and research is that you don't know the value of those merits until it is tied in with other bits of knowledge.
Again, this isn't something one can judge except in hindsight. I can agree with the logic that we can't afford to send a probe to Pluto, I can't agree with the logic that the knowledge gained won't 'ever be relevant in any practical sense.'
Argh, I'm just pissed. Apologies to the readers who have to see this rant ^^
Geek dating!
I wish targetted ads work!
Do you know what I want to see?
I want to know about shows and performances in my area. If the Circus comes to town. If Cirque Du Soleil is playing. If Stomp! or whatever hot new show is there.
I want the link to connect to a ticket office, to schedules and fares, to a map service, and reviews of the performance.
I want to know about music performances as well, of Taiko drums and Chinese acrobats and martial arts tournaments in the area.
How do we get the banner ads to work like this?
For product or services, I rely on Google. I want a new video card? I do a Google search on the appropriate websites. I look for "video card reviews performance price"
But for topical, local, and timely information, Google isn't very good.
And I don't want to be always trawling various ticket sites for what's new. I just want to know if Disney's Lion King on Ice is in the area, or something.
I'm sure that's worthy of advertising as much as anything else!
Geek dating!
And thus we underscore the significance of individual disconnect.
I thought it was about front/back, someone though browser buttons front/back, someone else thought the left-rightness of humans as associated with left-right writing.
What about a radial species, like a starfish? They may have a totally different idea of front/back
Geek dating!
It's already done, in language, for slightly similar reasons.
At least according to some linguistic theory (me not being a linguist, cunning or otherwise) the conjugation and tense structure adds more layers of context around a piece of speech so that even if taken by itself, or distorted, or mangled, meaning can still be extracted from it.
It's definitely redundant encoding of information, and learners of the languages in question (like Latin!) say it's horrible, but it probably stems from oral times when data transmission was horribly unreliable and error prone.
So perhaps what your proposing is encoding more structure into a language, meta-language like, something unlike Perl.
I hope you're not going to reinvinte Python.
Geek dating!
I think you're mixing up computer science, software engineering, and programming.
Computer science, to stress the science, is real. It touches complexity and information theory, entropy, transmission and coding theory, algorithmic analysis, and statistics.
CS is an artificial construct only as much as math is our approximation of the way information is conveyed, or physics an approximation of the way the universe works.
CS is separated by math by only a thin boundary, at parts.
Languages, kernels, etc, are software implementations of CS theory and thought. It is a step lower than CS, and on the job experience is not enough to qualify for CS status. I'm not very good at CS, myself, but have some of the training from college.
Everything you're talking about concerning CS is more related to programming and work. "How many times have you had to learn something for a specific project and never had to use it again." Deals with programming and instances, not with algorithms, complexity, computability, efficiency, or optimization. All of the above is closer to CS, and as such are irreduciably common to all problems.
Being good at CS doesn't translate to being good at programming. Compare CS to being good at critical analysis and diagnosis, where programming is being good at surgery.
One is a thought game, the other an implementation one.
Geek dating!
It's not the ridiculous.
A computer scientist is not defined by the existence or use of computers. As a macho ego statement, "Real Computer Scientists don't use computers" is silly, but not ridiculous.
Just like the analogy that physicists don't play with physical objects. Some do, but quite a few don't. They border on the realm of math, of course.
You're right that it is elitism, but computer science is much more about the science of computation than the science of computers. In that sense, CS can live perfectly fine without computers. Just a pen and paper will do.
On the other hand, programmers are much more intimately tied to computers, and as such can't trivially exist without them. Programming is an implementation and a justification of the science of computation in the same way that carpentry and architecture are implementations and justifications of the science of physics.
Geek dating!
To repeat what everyone else is saying, Math cannot be avoided if you're interested in computers ^^
Algorithms, optimizations, sorting, searching, patterns, etc, are all mathematical in nature. Even if you can't grok the math, you have to have some intuition involved, or you're just not going to be able to do the CS work.
You're correct that 90% of jobs can be doen by either a CSc or CEng. But those 90% of jobs can also be done by math majors who programmed on the side, or people who were EEs, or whatever. If you can do some real analytical thinking, and can handle structured work, you can program ^^
Geek dating!
Gomen!
I stand corrected!
Geek dating!
http://delphion.com/details?&pn10=US05959624
They actually have a patent that already covers theme switching by changing resources or drawing procedures.
09/074,543
That one (can't find it, but it's referenced) covers sound effects in a GUI.
So I don't know that there is anything 'wrong' with this patent, given that there are other similar patents in the system, or that this is anything other than 'business as usual' for corporate America...
Geek dating!
http://delphion.com/details?&pn10=US05959624
This one was filed in Jan 97,
Systems and methods for providing a user with increased
flexibility and control over the appearance and behavior of
objects on a user interface are disclosed. Sets of objects can
be grouped into themes to provide a user with a distinct overall
impression of the interface. These themes can be switched
dynamically by switching pointers to drawing procedures or
switching data being supplied to these procedures. To buffer
applications from the switchable nature of graphical user
interfaces, colors and patterns used to implement the interface
objects are abstracted from the interface by, for example,
pattern look-up tables.
Seems to have been granted in 1999 and covers the concept of theme switching by changing resources in look-up tables.
As opposed to the patent in the current story, which covers the theme engine, which is the process by which themes are changed.
Geek dating!
It really depends on the question of whether GTK+ and E, and Windows Plus Pack, are covered by the patent.
If they are, then Apple is just dense and stupid, and I hope the patent gets thrown out.
If they aren't the same, then I hope Apple has something really nifty and cool in mind with this patent. ^^
Geek dating!
No, I don't think it would.
I don't know Apple's intentions. I do know that 'behavior' is vague enough that if you went to the extreme of it's definition that it *may* be patent worthy.
I just didn't want the thought that it might be a valid idea be drowned out by all the posts declaiming skins and patents.
Geek dating!
There's a place for art, there's a place for engineering. There's no reason to try to mesh the two.
What, like a Austin Martin, an F1 racer, an Acura NSX, the Golden Gate bridge, or the Arch of St. Louis?
Engineering helps push what is possible with art. Art helps to push what is feasible with engineering.
Apple likes to believe at least that the products they make are a nice blend of art and form with engineering and function.
So dose Ferrari, I think. Or Lamborghini.
Geek dating!
I dunno if widget and menu redefinition was the intent of the Apple patent.
Does the xterm change behavior if the menus attached to it change? Does it change behavior if the buttons attached to it change place and use?
I don't know if Enlightenment and Apple 'themes' are the same. I just know that the patent claims more than just appearance, and 'application behavior'
It could very well be that Apple's patent is invalid insofar as the scope in which Apple intends to apply it.
Geek dating!
The enlightenment I've played with lets me redefine buttons, skins/bmps/images, and mouse actions/events/menus.
I was definitely overzealous in my responses to the initial flurries of theme posts.
The real question is whether Enlightenment's implementation of behavioral changes based on themes is the intent of Apple's patent.
Geek dating!
You're right, those are trivial aspects of theming.
We don't know what the intention of the patent is by the fact that the then planned OS never quite made it to market.
Everything is speculation unless we can ask Ed Voas or Arnaud Gourdol
Geek dating!
What's gwm?
I am but a single person, and not able to find everything, as vast as the net may be.
What does gwm do?
Other than the speculation of Graphical Window Manager? Good Window Manager?
Geek dating!
You might be right.
I just didn't think all the anti-patent bashing folks should be the only voice.
On the other hand, it might not be the same. The wording of the patent is vague enought that E might be in the same field, and if it is then the patent falls due to prior art.
But if E is not at all what Apple's patent means when they say 'behavioral change', then E also has nothing to fear from Apple's patent, right?
Geek dating!
The claim mentions behavior changes of an application when a theme is selected. Does the behavior of an application change under Motif or any other skinnable apps when a theme is selected?
Geek dating!
All these examples only cover half the claim in the patent, where appearance is selected by the theme engine.
The other part of the first claim was that behavior would change when selected by a theme engine.
I don't know that applications have changed behavior when a theme is changed. Does your DOS box change to a CSH shell when you change themes in Windowblinds? That's a speculation on my part on theme selected behavior modification.
Geek dating!
Where they implement behavioral changes in the application due to theme selection?
I honestly don't know, other than speculating, if there is prior art.
Legalese not being my forte, I had imagined...
A CLI <-> Explorer <-> HTML browser <-> Finder
When selecting themes.
Geek dating!