"But in terms of innovation and functionality, X11 is second to none."
But the main driving force behind network transparency was the particular ecosystem that X was developed for: Centralized processing and relatively dumb terminals. Once computing power is decentralized, you're left with a system that unnecessarily couples networking and windowing.
I think they won't "replace" X11 because it's more of a network framework with minimal windowing capabilities than it is a windowing framework. Once you take X11 out of it's historical context, it really isn't a very good architecture for a windowing system.
"This is a foundation for a new generation of apps which aren't beholden to binary APIs controlled by the likes of Microsoft. In parallel with Chrome it lets them dictate the future of web/desktop integration, and start really pushing HTML5 features, and online/offline integration, rather than being continually held back by Microsoft's attempts to hobble the web and tie it to Windows."
Yes, I can see it now: "Error: You need the Chrome Operating System to view this web page"
Andreessen can't come up with any new big ideas (not that Netscape invented the browser anyway) so he can use the excuse that he's too old and everybody else his age is too old too.
The unsurprising truth is that 24 year-olds are better at coming up with ideas that teens and young adults can relate to. That's not to say that the ideas are good or profitable.
Andreessen should do what most of the other high tech luminaries do after their peak - become a "fellow" at some famous company. You don't have to do any real work - it's basically being a high-tech celebrity spokesmodel.
Actually, that's not exactly true. If there were a EULA, you might still be bound by it. The author of the original GPL'd work may be able to take action against the author of the derived work, but you are merely a third-party with no standing to enforce the GPL.
Standard organizations should return to their traditional role: codifying existing practice. They should not be dictating the "correct" future of technologies.
You should take a look as some early Mac TV ads. They were all about the little team that was able to create PowerPoint-like printed material without having to use expensive outside services.
A lot of BS material is created by management, but it goes all the way back to the first Pointy-Haired-Primate (PHP) who used rocks for bullet points.
Well, it sounds like a combination of a bug and workaround for official MS file systems. You'd have a hard time proving that this is a "scheme", particularly if MS fixes the bug in the future.
Windows has its file systems which isn't an abuse. I don't know whether there's an API for installing a foreign file system, but the lack of one isn't abuse either.
If you wanted to implement a file system on top of Windows, there's nothing to prevent you from doing so. It's not as if Windows uses AI to scan your code and displays an error message like "You are running a patent-free filesystem, application will close".
"What does that make Mono? A really really bad idea?"
Not really because MS (like any patent-savvy corp) uses very broad language in it's patents. That means it's unlikely that Mono will be in more patent danger than any other significant software project (open or closed).
"If that isn't abuse of their monopoly, I don't know what is."
Perhaps you don't know what it is. If MS denied third parties a license, then you could make the case that there are abusing their position, but enforcing your patents and requiring a license fee, isn't abuse.
Is that anything like "What is good for GM is good for the country"?
Seriously, when a good idea and lucky timing come together and you succeed beyond your wildest dreams, it's easy to develop superstitions about your success. One can imagine all kinds of web goodness that wouldn't be in Google's best interests.
To put it in OO terms, philosophies sometimes have logical elements as part of their aggregation. On the other hand, logic isn't part of a philosophical composition, nor is it a subclass or superclass of philosophy.
What branch of physics do Computer Science graduates work in? Where does philosophy fit in?
I suspect that most CS graduates can be divided into 3 groups: 1) Those who debase themselves in the eyes of their professors by "merely" performing software development. 2) Those who preserve their purity by staying in academia and thus propagate the meme that CS isn't about programming. 3) Those who are unemployed.
My definition of a "real job" is one for which you are paid and it sustains you to the extent that you don't have have to turn your office into your home or have other people support you.
I think the jury is still out on whether RMS has "changed the world" and who are the winners and losers if "free" software dominates.
There's a lot of rank and file programmers and engineers of RMS's generation who, while not famous or interested in self-aggrandizement, are nevertheless collectively responsible for the technology we have available.
Nobody elected RMS as representative of our generation and it pains me to see such a narrow view of the history of computer technology being promoted by a guy who has no experience in the real engineering world.
I've read the actual patent your link refers to http://tinyurl.com/5ns2 and.Net is just the example used in the patent. This patent would cover anything that did something similar to.Net. Like most patents, it has a long list of claims. For example:
"31. A method, comprising: calling one or more first functions to facilitate browser/server communication; calling one or more second functions to facilitate construction of client applications; calling one or more third functions to facilitate connectivity to data sources and XML functionality; and calling one or more fourth functions to access system and runtime resources."
That covers a lot of ground that you don't need to develop something like Mono to be in conflict with.
"With the way things *currently* work, the problem is: Microsoft sues => Linux distros must stop using the.NET framework => Tomboy stops working. Of course C# !=.NET, but many applications currently make use of.NET APIs."
If you really believe that there are patents specifically covering.Net or C# and nothing else, why don't you tell us what they are?
As I've stated before, if there's any patent that applies to.NET it would also apply to a lot of other non-Mono F/OSS code. Companies always make their patents as broad as possible, MS would never create a patent specifically for C# or.Net. That would offer them less protection in a defensive posture and less potential revenue in an offensive posture.
Slashdot Mirror
"But in terms of innovation and functionality, X11 is second to none."
But the main driving force behind network transparency was the particular ecosystem that X was developed for: Centralized processing and relatively dumb terminals. Once computing power is decentralized, you're left with a system that unnecessarily couples networking and windowing.
I think they won't "replace" X11 because it's more of a network framework with minimal windowing capabilities than it is a windowing framework. Once you take X11 out of it's historical context, it really isn't a very good architecture for a windowing system.
"This is a foundation for a new generation of apps which aren't beholden to binary APIs controlled by the likes of Microsoft. In parallel with Chrome it lets them dictate the future of web/desktop integration, and start really pushing HTML5 features, and online/offline integration, rather than being continually held back by Microsoft's attempts to hobble the web and tie it to Windows."
Yes, I can see it now: "Error: You need the Chrome Operating System to view this web page"
If the definition of a "pointless" language/framework is that it's applications can be ported to C++, then Java, Perl, Python etc are pointless too.
Andreessen can't come up with any new big ideas (not that Netscape invented the browser anyway) so he can use the excuse that he's too old and everybody else his age is too old too.
The unsurprising truth is that 24 year-olds are better at coming up with ideas that teens and young adults can relate to. That's not to say that the ideas are good or profitable.
Andreessen should do what most of the other high tech luminaries do after their peak - become a "fellow" at some famous company. You don't have to do any real work - it's basically being a high-tech celebrity spokesmodel.
Actually, that's not exactly true. If there were a EULA, you might still be bound by it. The author of the original GPL'd work may be able to take action against the author of the derived work, but you are merely a third-party with no standing to enforce the GPL.
Standard organizations should return to their traditional role: codifying existing practice. They should not be dictating the "correct" future of technologies.
You should take a look as some early Mac TV ads. They were all about the little team that was able to create PowerPoint-like printed material without having to use expensive outside services.
A lot of BS material is created by management, but it goes all the way back to the first Pointy-Haired-Primate (PHP) who used rocks for bullet points.
The DOJ investigation of MS started with lobbying and ended with lobbying.
Well, it sounds like a combination of a bug and workaround for official MS file systems. You'd have a hard time proving that this is a "scheme", particularly if MS fixes the bug in the future.
Windows has its file systems which isn't an abuse. I don't know whether there's an API for installing a foreign file system, but the lack of one isn't abuse either.
If you wanted to implement a file system on top of Windows, there's nothing to prevent you from doing so. It's not as if Windows uses AI to scan your code and displays an error message like "You are running a patent-free filesystem, application will close".
"Not that the flash (or silverlight) devs wouldn't mind getting paid to do the same thing in a simpler way in less time and with less effort.."
I'm not a flash developer nor do I know the details of HTML 5. Is developing for HTML 5 actually simpler, faster, and easier than flash?
"What does that make Mono? A really really bad idea?"
Not really because MS (like any patent-savvy corp) uses very broad language in it's patents. That means it's unlikely that Mono will be in more patent danger than any other significant software project (open or closed).
Probably about the same time many other FOSS projects have to.
"If that isn't abuse of their monopoly, I don't know what is."
Perhaps you don't know what it is. If MS denied third parties a license, then you could make the case that there are abusing their position, but enforcing your patents and requiring a license fee, isn't abuse.
"What is good for The Web, is good for Google".
Is that anything like "What is good for GM is good for the country"?
Seriously, when a good idea and lucky timing come together and you succeed beyond your wildest dreams, it's easy to develop superstitions about your success. One can imagine all kinds of web goodness that wouldn't be in Google's best interests.
I don't think an abstraction automatically implies philosophy, no matter what parts of one's brain light-up when thinking about them.
To put it in OO terms, philosophies sometimes have logical elements as part of their aggregation. On the other hand, logic isn't part of a philosophical composition, nor is it a subclass or superclass of philosophy.
Boole was a both mathematician and philosopher, but boolean logic is a mathematical concept, not a philosophical one.
I'd be surprised if philosophy is a core course in most CS programs.
What branch of physics do Computer Science graduates work in? Where does philosophy fit in?
I suspect that most CS graduates can be divided into 3 groups: 1) Those who debase themselves in the eyes of their professors by "merely" performing software development. 2) Those who preserve their purity by staying in academia and thus propagate the meme that CS isn't about programming. 3) Those who are unemployed.
My definition of a "real job" is one for which you are paid and it sustains you to the extent that you don't have have to turn your office into your home or have other people support you.
I think the jury is still out on whether RMS has "changed the world" and who are the winners and losers if "free" software dominates.
There's a lot of rank and file programmers and engineers of RMS's generation who, while not famous or interested in self-aggrandizement, are nevertheless collectively responsible for the technology we have available.
Nobody elected RMS as representative of our generation and it pains me to see such a narrow view of the history of computer technology being promoted by a guy who has no experience in the real engineering world.
I've read the actual patent your link refers to http://tinyurl.com/5ns2 and .Net is just the example used in the patent. This patent would cover anything that did something similar to .Net. Like most patents, it has a long list of claims. For example:
"31. A method, comprising: calling one or more first functions to facilitate browser/server communication; calling one or more second functions to facilitate construction of client applications; calling one or more third functions to facilitate connectivity to data sources and XML functionality; and calling one or more fourth functions to access system and runtime resources."
That covers a lot of ground that you don't need to develop something like Mono to be in conflict with.
In summary, this is not a .Net-specific patent.
"With the way things *currently* work, the problem is: .NET framework => Tomboy stops working. .NET, but many applications currently make use of .NET APIs."
Microsoft sues => Linux distros must stop using the
Of course C# !=
If you really believe that there are patents specifically covering .Net or C# and nothing else, why don't you tell us what they are?
The more interesting question is why Sun put so much effort into killing Java on the Windows desktop.
As I've stated before, if there's any patent that applies to .NET it would also apply to a lot of other non-Mono F/OSS code. Companies always make their patents as broad as possible, MS would never create a patent specifically for C# or .Net. That would offer them less protection in a defensive posture and less potential revenue in an offensive posture.