"Maybe a simple command line, with command-line tools, _would_ be the easiest system for a novice to learn. There would be a relatively small number of new words to learn, not a bewildering array of graphical user actions, often with contradictory or counterintuitive effects (especially on a Windows system.)"
You mean intuitive Unix commands like "ls" to list the contents of a directory, "cat" to print the contents of a file to the screen, and "grep" to search for a text string?
Seriously, I think the historical evidence is pretty clear; the use of personal computers was not widespread until interfaces like the MAC OS and Windows became available.
You forgot the part about how Jobs stole from Xerox. Actually, I believe "stole" is too strong a word, but it's just as appropriate to apply it to Apple as MS. Neither one invented the GUI.
It would be interesting to see if any of the licenses of Unix clones could be enforced. The best chance of enforcement would be if the Unix clone was created in a "clean-room" environment where none of the programmers had ever seen AT&T source code or received any information about the source code from others.
"MS and IBM told them that OS/2 was "the next bug thing", so they spend millions porting their cash cow apps to Presentation Manager."
I don't know about Lotus, but I remember reading that the president of WordPerfect Corp said that they really didn't want to do a Windows version, but they would make one reluctantly since some customers wanted it. At that time they had a much larger market share than Word and ran on many non-PC platforms so it was their lead to lose.
I think disinformation may have played a role, but I think the primary reason was that WordPerfect's philosophy was in conflict with Windows. WordPerfect Corp. prided themselves on the fact that their word processor had a "clean" interface without menus or other distractions. It was just you and the cursor (they added a menu bar in late DOS versions, but I believe it was disabled by default). Even when they finally made the transition to Windows they still retained their custom printer drivers rather than taking advantage of standard windows printer drivers. I just think it was a word processor who's time had passed.
"Then MS moved into the applications area, and suddenly, companies like Lotus and Corel (and Netscape!) were history."
If you are talking about WordPerfect, it had already lost against Word long before Corel bought it (remember Corel was the third owner of WordPerfect). Corel also wasted a lot of money trying to rewrite WordPerfect in Java.
Netscape made the same mistake, trying to rewrite Navigator in Java instead of competing with IE.
Come to think of it, you could probably make the case that Sun had more to do with Corel and Netscape's problems than Microsoft, at least indirectly.
"Coleco was definitely more powerful than the Atari 2600, and comperably priced, but Atari won."
The Atari 2600 was released in 1977. Colecovision was released in 1983. It's not surprising that Colecovision had superior technology. In any case, most of the 2600s were purchased before Colecovision existed.
It's the PC makers that decide to bundle Office with their machines, not MS. If you look at computers at COMPUSA, you'll find that most of them don't come with Office.
Also, Corel is the third owner of Wordperfect which was in trouble long before Corel bought it.
At the time that Windows 3.0 was released, Wordperfect was the dominant PC word processor. I remember reading comments by the president of WordPerfect corp. saying how reluctant they were to make a version of WP for Windows. When a windows version was finally released, they refused to use the standard Windows printer drivers and instead used their DOS based drivers. I remember I crashed the program in the 1/2 hr of use.
So WordPerfect has a smaller market share than the old days because they did too little, too late for Windows.
"It often also *seems* easier to rewrite something than to learn how somebody else's code works."
Rewriting IS easier sometimes while other times it only *seems* to be as you say. I think if a function or component is well designed, you don't even need to look at the code, you can just use it. However, if it relies on global variables or has other non-local effects, it's going to be difficult to interface with. Another problem is when a component has compound functionality and you only need a portion of it. In those situations, it may be faster to write your own version than to figure out the side effects.
"It doesn't always turn out like this though - some projects are clearly "the" projects in their class, e.g. Apache, GIMP. I wonder why.. ?"
I suspect that the successful projects have the benefit of good timing and knowledgeable implementers. I think it's also an advantage to limit the number of contributors until the project is well established.
"Every new project represents a coder who wants to write free software, but chooses not to work with an existing project for whatever reason."
One of the reasons for choosing not to work on a project may be the rigidity of low-level coding standards. Naming conventions, indentation style, bracing style etc. may have more to do with our ego and our compulsion for order than it does with good programming practice.
If a project lead is less anal about these rules, it encourages other programmers to participate since they don't have to follow arbitrary religious beliefs.
If open-source hardware is analogous to open-source software, shouldn't it be available for free?
Since I make a living writing software, I would much rather see hardware be free than software. This is the opposite of computer manufacturers who embrace open-source simply because it increases their profits.
"Computers are complex and get in the way, because people want to do complex things that go in so many different directions that no matter where the OS is it is bound to be in the way eventually."
I agree. That is the reason that computer "appliances" will never replace a PC. Sure, you can make an application as easy to use as a toaster; as long as you limit the functionality to a start button and a slide control. Every function has a minimum complexity that you can't avoid.
As an outsider, I find the difference of opinion on the purpose of open source to be very interesting. If the purpose is to be successful with the masses, open source projects will have to become easier to use. If the purpose is to entertain yourselves, there's no point discussing Apple and Microsoft, they're irrelevant. You can "sell out" or you can be a cult, but you can't be both.
Slashdot Mirror
"you think linus gives a crap about fuckin eyecandy GUI like Aqua/MacOSX?"
Envious or not, Linus must "give a crap" or he wouldn't have mentioned it.
"Maybe a simple command line, with command-line tools, _would_ be the easiest system for a novice to learn. There would be a relatively small number of new words to learn, not a bewildering array of graphical user actions, often with contradictory or counterintuitive effects (especially on a Windows system.)"
You mean intuitive Unix commands like "ls" to list the contents of a directory, "cat" to print the contents of a file to the screen, and "grep" to search for a text string?
Seriously, I think the historical evidence is pretty clear; the use of personal computers was not widespread until interfaces like the MAC OS and Windows became available.
You forgot the part about how Jobs stole from Xerox. Actually, I believe "stole" is too strong a word, but it's just as appropriate to apply it to Apple as MS. Neither one invented the GUI.
It would be interesting to see if any of the licenses of Unix clones could be enforced. The best chance of enforcement would be if the Unix clone was created in a "clean-room" environment where none of the programmers had ever seen AT&T source code or received any information about the source code from others.
If my previous message was flamebait, who am I supposed to be baiting? Certainly not Mac users.
"MS and IBM told them that OS/2 was "the next bug thing", so they spend millions porting their cash cow apps to Presentation Manager."
I don't know about Lotus, but I remember reading that the president of WordPerfect Corp said that they really didn't want to do a Windows version, but they would make one reluctantly since some customers wanted it. At that time they had a much larger market share than Word and ran on many non-PC platforms so it was their lead to lose.
I think disinformation may have played a role, but I think the primary reason was that WordPerfect's philosophy was in conflict with Windows. WordPerfect Corp. prided themselves on the fact that their word processor had a "clean" interface without menus or other distractions. It was just you and the cursor (they added a menu bar in late DOS versions, but I believe it was disabled by default). Even when they finally made the transition to Windows they still retained their custom printer drivers rather than taking advantage of standard windows printer drivers. I just think it was a word processor who's time had passed.
"Then MS moved into the applications area, and suddenly, companies like Lotus and Corel (and Netscape!) were history."
If you are talking about WordPerfect, it had already lost against Word long before Corel bought it (remember Corel was the third owner of WordPerfect). Corel also wasted a lot of money trying to rewrite WordPerfect in Java.
Netscape made the same mistake, trying to rewrite Navigator in Java instead of competing with IE.
Come to think of it, you could probably make the case that Sun had more to do with Corel and Netscape's problems than Microsoft, at least indirectly.
.. Then they send you your toast via UPS
"Coleco was definitely more powerful than the Atari 2600, and comperably priced, but Atari won."
The Atari 2600 was released in 1977. Colecovision was released in 1983. It's not surprising that Colecovision had superior technology. In any case, most of the 2600s were purchased before Colecovision existed.
It's the PC makers that decide to bundle Office with their machines, not MS. If you look at computers at COMPUSA, you'll find that most of them don't come with Office.
Also, Corel is the third owner of Wordperfect which was in trouble long before Corel bought it.
At the time that Windows 3.0 was released, Wordperfect was the dominant PC word processor. I remember reading comments by the president of WordPerfect corp. saying how reluctant they were to make a version of WP for Windows. When a windows version was finally released, they refused to use the standard Windows printer drivers and instead used their DOS based drivers. I remember I crashed the program in the 1/2 hr of use.
So WordPerfect has a smaller market share than the old days because they did too little, too late for Windows.
"It often also *seems* easier to rewrite something than to learn how somebody else's code works."
.. ?"
Rewriting IS easier sometimes while other times it only *seems* to be as you say. I think if a function or component is well designed, you don't even need to look at the code, you can just use it. However, if it relies on global variables or has other non-local effects, it's going to be difficult to interface with. Another problem is when a component has compound functionality and you only need a portion of it. In those situations, it may be faster to write your own version than to figure out the side effects.
"It doesn't always turn out like this though - some projects are clearly "the" projects in their class, e.g. Apache, GIMP. I wonder why
I suspect that the successful projects have the benefit of good timing and knowledgeable implementers. I think it's also an advantage to limit the number of contributors until the project is well established.
"Every new project represents a coder who wants to write free software, but chooses not to work with an existing project for whatever reason."
One of the reasons for choosing not to work on a project may be the rigidity of low-level coding standards. Naming conventions, indentation style, bracing style etc. may have more to do with our ego and our compulsion for order than it does with good programming practice.
If a project lead is less anal about these rules, it encourages other programmers to participate since they don't have to follow arbitrary religious beliefs.
If open-source hardware is analogous to open-source software, shouldn't it be available for free?
Since I make a living writing software, I would much rather see hardware be free than software. This is the opposite of computer manufacturers who embrace open-source simply because it increases their profits.
"Computers are complex and get in the way, because people want to do complex things that go in so many different directions that no matter where the OS is it is bound to be in the way eventually."
I agree. That is the reason that computer "appliances" will never replace a PC. Sure, you can make an application as easy to use as a toaster; as long as you limit the functionality to a start button and a slide control. Every function has a minimum complexity that you can't avoid.
As an outsider, I find the difference of opinion on the purpose of open source to be very interesting. If the purpose is to be successful with the masses, open source projects will have to become easier to use. If the purpose is to entertain yourselves, there's no point discussing Apple and Microsoft, they're irrelevant. You can "sell out" or you can be a cult, but you can't be both.