We *know* that MSFT developers read/modified GPLed source code (their IPv6 & the GPL web server).
No, that line of reasoning is way of course.
As a matter of fact, *many* people copy UI from MS.
When you do that, according to the above poster reasoning, you *steal* from MS.
MS makes extensive usability studies, so it's pretty much certain that copying the interface will gives you at least some of the advantages that they got from their usability studies.
MS never did anything about it. Now, they probably might be able to do something if it's a balatant rip off (Apple does it for much less, frex).
But for code you wrote on your own? I seriously doubt it.
A> MSDN is pretty much essensial if you want to develop under Windows, period.
B> You can get large parts of MSDN if you install the Platform SDK, which is free.
Bonobo is largely based on COM, you know.
So it shouldn't be a problem to port it.
Not to mention that COM is by no means tied to Win32.
There has been implementation of COM on Mac & Solaris, frex.
Not quite.
.NET don't run interrupted code, it compile it on install/runtime.
So if you ship the binaries, they are still being compile to whatever platform you are on.
MS wants C# to be like C/C++.
Unlike Java, which you can't extend, they are saying outright that they expect vendors to add their own extentions.
Winforms, for examples, are Windows features, you wouldn't be *able* to use them on Linux.
But you can probably take the API and do it on GTK+
Or create similar API.
NT's kernel is actually quite tiny.
Most of the code is *not* on the kernel, you know.
Put Linux, X, KDE/GNOME, Bonobo, J2EE implementation, TCP/IP, Apache, sendmail, together, how many LOC does this come out?
Depend on what you think of as Linux.
If you are talking about the kernel, it was usable quite some time ago.
It still need to be worked out around some problems that it has, but the kernel is mature.
But the kernel isn't the problem with Linux, it's the rest of the system that raise many objections.
Especially in the desktop market.
Actually, I think that Win9x is a master-piece of engineering.
The one thing that MS needed with 9x is compatability with DOS & Win16 applications.
They damn well got *that* one.
The problem is that this compatability *cost*. And that cost is in the stability of the system. The OS can't guard itself against rouge applications.
Not at all.
What she (it's a she, not he) says is that:
A> Don't advertise during the super bowl your *1.0 product*. It's not going to be good enough, and you'll lose people's trust that way.
B> Don't create over-ambitious goals. Don't say, "I want to create a word processor", and then try to copy every feature of Word on your 1.0 product.
C> *Keep* a scheduale. Without one, programmers code for fun, not for the best of the application.
D> Don't expect *immediate* commercial success.
First things first, you *can* replace the TCP/IP on windows, it's quite easy and painless.
All you need to do is write your own WinSock2 library (the spesification is free, as well as any implementations).
Second, yes, it *is* easy to replace IE with Mozilla.
If Mozilla implement *all* of IE's interfaces.
IE is implemented as a seria of COM objects, with well-defined and *un-changable* interfaces.
I understand that Mozilla implement much of IInternet interface, so it's a good start.
Next, you register Mozilla with IE's GUID, and instantly you get Mozilla where-ever you used to get IE.
The JVM that IE has isn't exactly the best of breed. (Although I understand that it used to be), so making the users get it on their own is not a devestating blow to Java.
Not to mention that Java's promise as a desktop application language have flopped big time.
Java is now a server-centric language, applets are at a distant second place. I can't recall the last time I've seen a Java applet, for that matter, except for maybe that annoying "hit the monkey" ads, and I won't miss those.
Beside, considerring how trendy web developers are, *what is the big deal*?
Already, if you use many things, you require your user to download a plug-in to do it. And in many cases, this can be fully automated process.
In any case, this is not very threatening to Java.
You *do* realize that nearly everything that MS does is bet the farm move?
Every couple of year they do it. Two years ago it was Windows DNA & COM+, now it's.NET
(And no, there isn't that much of a difference between the two, COM+ can easily be converted to.NET)
They've enough money, and are big enough, that they can afford to lose more than a couple of farms.
MS naming policy is currently sticking.NET after each product name, before, it was 2000.
Don't pay much attention to it.
.NET is the CLR and the class library, and maybe a little more, but not the monster that MS makes from it.
Slashdot Mirror
We *know* that MSFT developers read/modified GPLed source code (their IPv6 & the GPL web server).
No, that line of reasoning is way of course.
As a matter of fact, *many* people copy UI from MS.
When you do that, according to the above poster reasoning, you *steal* from MS.
MS makes extensive usability studies, so it's pretty much certain that copying the interface will gives you at least some of the advantages that they got from their usability studies.
MS never did anything about it. Now, they probably might be able to do something if it's a balatant rip off (Apple does it for much less, frex).
But for code you wrote on your own? I seriously doubt it.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
A> MSDN is pretty much essensial if you want to develop under Windows, period.
B> You can get large parts of MSDN if you install the Platform SDK, which is free.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Bonobo is largely based on COM, you know.
So it shouldn't be a problem to port it.
Not to mention that COM is by no means tied to Win32.
There has been implementation of COM on Mac & Solaris, frex.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Not quite.
.NET don't run interrupted code, it compile it on install/runtime.
So if you ship the binaries, they are still being compile to whatever platform you are on.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
MS wants C# to be like C/C++.
Unlike Java, which you can't extend, they are saying outright that they expect vendors to add their own extentions.
Winforms, for examples, are Windows features, you wouldn't be *able* to use them on Linux.
But you can probably take the API and do it on GTK+
Or create similar API.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
The whitehouse site taken down be the chinese?
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Microsofting it is much more devestating, naturally.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Looks like other IIS bugs exploits.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Actually, it's going to be *huge* PR emberassment, both for MS and the US.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Actually, I think that KDE's text editor is similar to notepad.
Just a shell around the text box widget.
It's really trivial to make a notepad clone.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
But the calculator *still* can't do squares.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
NT's kernel is actually quite tiny.
Most of the code is *not* on the kernel, you know.
Put Linux, X, KDE/GNOME, Bonobo, J2EE implementation, TCP/IP, Apache, sendmail, together, how many LOC does this come out?
That is (very roughly) what NT has.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
You haven't seen some of the female soldiers that *I*'ve seen.
r $4
The food the IDF supply *does* make hair grow on your chest.
"I didn't have a boyfriend"
http://joel.editthispage.com/stories/storyReade
Gay?
--
Two witches watched two watches.
"I didn't have a boyfriend"
r $4
http://joel.editthispage.com/stories/storyReade
Gay?
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Depend on what you think of as Linux.
If you are talking about the kernel, it was usable quite some time ago.
It still need to be worked out around some problems that it has, but the kernel is mature.
But the kernel isn't the problem with Linux, it's the rest of the system that raise many objections.
Especially in the desktop market.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Actually, I think that Win9x is a master-piece of engineering.
The one thing that MS needed with 9x is compatability with DOS & Win16 applications.
They damn well got *that* one.
The problem is that this compatability *cost*. And that cost is in the stability of the system. The OS can't guard itself against rouge applications.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Not at all.
What she (it's a she, not he) says is that:
A> Don't advertise during the super bowl your *1.0 product*. It's not going to be good enough, and you'll lose people's trust that way.
B> Don't create over-ambitious goals. Don't say, "I want to create a word processor", and then try to copy every feature of Word on your 1.0 product.
C> *Keep* a scheduale. Without one, programmers code for fun, not for the best of the application.
D> Don't expect *immediate* commercial success.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
*That* would be fairly easy.
First things first, you *can* replace the TCP/IP on windows, it's quite easy and painless.
All you need to do is write your own WinSock2 library (the spesification is free, as well as any implementations).
Second, yes, it *is* easy to replace IE with Mozilla.
If Mozilla implement *all* of IE's interfaces.
IE is implemented as a seria of COM objects, with well-defined and *un-changable* interfaces.
I understand that Mozilla implement much of IInternet interface, so it's a good start.
Next, you register Mozilla with IE's GUID, and instantly you get Mozilla where-ever you used to get IE.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Since MS also can't use those controls without IE, I think that your arguement is a strawman.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Yes, she (female, not male.) wrote a very good article about it.
"Things you should never do"
--
Two witches watched two watches.
They take out Java, not JavaScript.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
The JVM that IE has isn't exactly the best of breed. (Although I understand that it used to be), so making the users get it on their own is not a devestating blow to Java.
Not to mention that Java's promise as a desktop application language have flopped big time.
Java is now a server-centric language, applets are at a distant second place. I can't recall the last time I've seen a Java applet, for that matter, except for maybe that annoying "hit the monkey" ads, and I won't miss those.
Beside, considerring how trendy web developers are, *what is the big deal*?
Already, if you use many things, you require your user to download a plug-in to do it. And in many cases, this can be fully automated process.
In any case, this is not very threatening to Java.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Office & IE on the Mac, anyone?
--
Two witches watched two watches.
You *do* realize that nearly everything that MS does is bet the farm move? .NET
.NET)
Every couple of year they do it. Two years ago it was Windows DNA & COM+, now it's
(And no, there isn't that much of a difference between the two, COM+ can easily be converted to
They've enough money, and are big enough, that they can afford to lose more than a couple of farms.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
MS naming policy is currently sticking .NET after each product name, before, it was 2000.
Don't pay much attention to it.
.NET is the CLR and the class library, and maybe a little more, but not the monster that MS makes from it.
--
Two witches watched two watches.