Well since OOo doesn't even run on the Mac, maybe they should get rid of this huge bloatastic "API abstraction layer" they have burdened themselves with and just target the native Windows and X11/GTK APIs.
"It runs on some other platform that you don't use" is not an excuse that flies with end users. MS learned that the hard way with MacWord 6.
At least in my experience the Mac versions of Office is not nearly as fast or stable as the Windows versions, although it has a few unique ease-of-use features. It also has its own set of slightly-incompatible file format issues.
Probably was a stupid decision in retrospect if they shipped much later than expected. But they aren't the only one -- Doom3 was originally targeted towards a GeForce3-level card and still has a special path for really old GeForces.
Without getting into the argument about Hungarian, Microsoft invented it and it their recommended style for weak-typed languages. So you can't pin that on Petzold or whoever.
The term "open source" was copped from the intelligence world, where it meant roughly "things you can read in publicly published materials such as a newspaper". There was no implication that there was any copyright license to it.
Your definition of "open source" was pretty much invented from whole cloth by ESR and OSI as an attempt to counter-balance the FSF's influence in approving licenses; and so that companies like Netscape and Apple could be brought into the fold. Previous to that the term "open source software" was applied generally to a lot of things that would never be considered "OSI-compliant" (specifically AT&T-encumbered BSD Unix).
No, that does not compute. Why would Microsoft use "OSI-Approved" or the logo if wasn't actually true? However, they can use the term "open source", with or without OSI.
Also, if you've followed Russ' previous posts, he is very intent on maintaining an illusion (or a lie) that OSI holds a trademark on the term "open source".
No, it's actually quite easy to build web applications where the Back Button works properly... I've been doing it for years now. Simply ask yourself "Does the HTTP Request have all the information needed to recreate the server state by itself?" And if the application state is maintained in storage such as a database, this is quite easy to do (even if not the most scalable).
Incidentially, ASP.NET meets this requirement, the user just sees an ugly dialog about resubmitting forms. In general, session-based Java toolkits do a poor job at this, and "it's an application" doesn't translate well to users who understand how the web is supposed to work.
"Defend" is the wrong term here. OSI has no trademark on the term "Open Source" (and you've admitted that), so what you are really trying to do is claim the term so that you are able to trademark it in the future. In order to take possession of the term, you need to be universally accepted as the arbiter of Open Source certification, and that means treating MS & Sun on an equal basis as the FSF.
Regardless, Open Source was intended to be an ideological program, so I'm unclear on why the market implications of too many licences is even a consideration.
And pages do fit MVC naturally - a page is nothing more than a view in that system, a controller is what processes an HTTP request, and the model is what handles DB access and business logic.
Well the root problem with the web model and MVC is that the "page" is actually a mostly stateless request, but a MVC framework needs to maintain the state of the "view". Java designers tend to solve this problem simply by shoving all the page state into the server's session, which can dramatically reduce scalability. ASP.NET shoves everything into a hidden form field.
Neither approach really deals with the web model of "page navigaiton" very well, because in both cases the Back/Forward buttons really don't work as expected.
"Everyone does it" is probably good enough reason. (I myself would support year around daylight time.)
California has their flat earth ideas as well -- the state rejected posting exit numbers on the highways. Now they are doing it (in a haphazard manner), largely because it's expected by out-of-state travellers and not because californians need exit numbers to get around.
I dunno, I used to work for a company that was HQ'd in Arizona, with their flat-earth policy towards DST, we would routinely miss phone conferences. (The crappy scheduling system that only showed original timezones didn't help.) Cow-orks tell horror stories about working at companies located around Indiana. At least we will all be able to easily figure out what time it is in Ontario.
Compatability is an illusion -- you can't install WinXP on a 16-bit processor, much less an 8-bit one.
Boy do you have it backassward. The point is that one can run any 32-bit or 16-bit or 8-bit OS on brand-new Intel hardware. This allows you to upgrade your hardware enviornment without forcing a much more expensive software migration.
You see, the value is not backward-compatibility, it's forward-compatibility. No matter what software stack you choose to purchase today, it will always work on PC hardware in the future.
This is one thing Apple Computer never has understood. If they had allowed users to upgrade software on their schedules, rather than Apple's, their marketshare would probably be over 20% today.
So why are the hardware limitations of XP systems still being driven by compatibility with 8-bit processors?
There's very few such limitations left today. Most legacy PC AT features are emulated on top of hardware which leads the industry in performance. Big exception is BIOS, and that's getting the same treatment next year.
It may have been resolved, but apparently some 64-bit Linux distros had problems running 32-bit software. Thus they only had 64-bit browsers and no compatibility option, unlike Windows.
That's only one of the many things that Windows does to boot quicker. There's even a background deamon that optimizes drive layout for quick booting during idle times.
It's pure sour grapes. An XP desktop is not hindered because something is starting in the background. Linux doesn't do this stuff because the people who put money into development are looking at the server market.
I guess I'm most familiar with commercial Dell/HP systems, where there really isn't that much crap loaded. Maybe realplayer or something, but most people install that sort of thing anyway. Of course, the parent is full of shit because a stock XP Dell will boot the desktop very very quickly.
For kicks, I turned on the TCPA (DRM) chip on my ThinkPad -- that added at least 30 seconds to boot time and was disabled very soon afterwards. What a hunk of crap.
I don't know why Intel is working so hard to try to make Microsoft look good. Improvements to hardware can't fix shitty software.
When Windows 2000 came out, Intel owners were immediately blessed with a conflict-free APIC controller. Meanwhile AMD users were punching their nuts over the "IRQ 9 syndrome". That sort of thing makes Intel look good.
> faster than home-built (i.e. lacking all the extra, cycle-eating horseshit programs that hobble your average Dell or HP PC)
There's 0 evidence that Dell/HP boots slower than home-built. If anything their bios flips through much faster than generic.
One thing kind of disconcerting about my Powerbook G4 1.2(something) is that it hangs on the "Apple Logo" screen for what seems like forever (more than 30 seconds). I'm always wondering if it has hung, although the rational brain tells me this logo is covering up both the firmware and the kernel boot process. Once it gets past that, the user mode starts up lightning quick.
However, XP just rules the roost for fast booting. I've heard people accuse Windows of "cheating", but I think the fact is that they combined 4 or 5 good cheats and the result is an incredible improvement over other full-fledged OS ever released.
Slashdot Mirror
Well since OOo doesn't even run on the Mac, maybe they should get rid of this huge bloatastic "API abstraction layer" they have burdened themselves with and just target the native Windows and X11/GTK APIs.
"It runs on some other platform that you don't use" is not an excuse that flies with end users. MS learned that the hard way with MacWord 6.
At least in my experience the Mac versions of Office is not nearly as fast or stable as the Windows versions, although it has a few unique ease-of-use features. It also has its own set of slightly-incompatible file format issues.
Probably was a stupid decision in retrospect if they shipped much later than expected. But they aren't the only one -- Doom3 was originally targeted towards a GeForce3-level card and still has a special path for really old GeForces.
There were conspiracy theories all over the place that somehow we were gaining financially through the spread of Linux (ha!)
When your ticker symbol is LNUX, that's not a conspiracy theory, it's marketing!
Think the issue was that Halo PC targetted lower-end GeForce 1 & 2-era cards for marketing reasons.
Without getting into the argument about Hungarian, Microsoft invented it and it their recommended style for weak-typed languages. So you can't pin that on Petzold or whoever.
> it needs wire compatible DCOM in order to work properly
Does that mean you've decided to use the Open Group's DCE/RPC stack?
Seems like you are arguing that Russ Nelson is a paranoid idiot, rather than a propagandist or a delusional liar (I'm not sure which). Rock on.
The term "open source" was copped from the intelligence world, where it meant roughly "things you can read in publicly published materials such as a newspaper". There was no implication that there was any copyright license to it.
Your definition of "open source" was pretty much invented from whole cloth by ESR and OSI as an attempt to counter-balance the FSF's influence in approving licenses; and so that companies like Netscape and Apple could be brought into the fold. Previous to that the term "open source software" was applied generally to a lot of things that would never be considered "OSI-compliant" (specifically AT&T-encumbered BSD Unix).
If Russ Nelson wants to clarify what he was saying, that's fine. However the idea that MS would use the OSI logo without approval is silly.
(BTW, I have no problem with OSI, but judging by previous posts, I don't think Russ necessarily reflects their legal position.)
No, that does not compute. Why would Microsoft use "OSI-Approved" or the logo if wasn't actually true? However, they can use the term "open source", with or without OSI.
Also, if you've followed Russ' previous posts, he is very intent on maintaining an illusion (or a lie) that OSI holds a trademark on the term "open source".
No, it's actually quite easy to build web applications where the Back Button works properly ... I've been doing it for years now. Simply ask yourself "Does the HTTP Request have all the information needed to recreate the server state by itself?" And if the application state is maintained in storage such as a database, this is quite easy to do (even if not the most scalable).
Incidentially, ASP.NET meets this requirement, the user just sees an ugly dialog about resubmitting forms. In general, session-based Java toolkits do a poor job at this, and "it's an application" doesn't translate well to users who understand how the web is supposed to work.
"Defend" is the wrong term here. OSI has no trademark on the term "Open Source" (and you've admitted that), so what you are really trying to do is claim the term so that you are able to trademark it in the future. In order to take possession of the term, you need to be universally accepted as the arbiter of Open Source certification, and that means treating MS & Sun on an equal basis as the FSF.
Regardless, Open Source was intended to be an ideological program, so I'm unclear on why the market implications of too many licences is even a consideration.
You know, you can write ASP.NET just like PHP (with no code-behind or build cycle). You just can't use Visual Studio to do it.
And pages do fit MVC naturally - a page is nothing more than a view in that system, a controller is what processes an HTTP request, and the model is what handles DB access and business logic.
Well the root problem with the web model and MVC is that the "page" is actually a mostly stateless request, but a MVC framework needs to maintain the state of the "view". Java designers tend to solve this problem simply by shoving all the page state into the server's session, which can dramatically reduce scalability. ASP.NET shoves everything into a hidden form field.
Neither approach really deals with the web model of "page navigaiton" very well, because in both cases the Back/Forward buttons really don't work as expected.
"Everyone does it" is probably good enough reason. (I myself would support year around daylight time.)
California has their flat earth ideas as well -- the state rejected posting exit numbers on the highways. Now they are doing it (in a haphazard manner), largely because it's expected by out-of-state travellers and not because californians need exit numbers to get around.
> we have no problems trading with them.
I dunno, I used to work for a company that was HQ'd in Arizona, with their flat-earth policy towards DST, we would routinely miss phone conferences. (The crappy scheduling system that only showed original timezones didn't help.) Cow-orks tell horror stories about working at companies located around Indiana. At least we will all be able to easily figure out what time it is in Ontario.
Compatability is an illusion -- you can't install WinXP on a 16-bit processor, much less an 8-bit one.
Boy do you have it backassward. The point is that one can run any 32-bit or 16-bit or 8-bit OS on brand-new Intel hardware. This allows you to upgrade your hardware enviornment without forcing a much more expensive software migration.
You see, the value is not backward-compatibility, it's forward-compatibility. No matter what software stack you choose to purchase today, it will always work on PC hardware in the future.
This is one thing Apple Computer never has understood. If they had allowed users to upgrade software on their schedules, rather than Apple's, their marketshare would probably be over 20% today.
So why are the hardware limitations of XP systems still being driven by compatibility with 8-bit processors?
There's very few such limitations left today. Most legacy PC AT features are emulated on top of hardware which leads the industry in performance. Big exception is BIOS, and that's getting the same treatment next year.
It may have been resolved, but apparently some 64-bit Linux distros had problems running 32-bit software. Thus they only had 64-bit browsers and no compatibility option, unlike Windows.
Did you try asking the paperclip? He's there to help users like you.
> see my other post
Summary of that post: "DUH I HEARD SOMETHING ABOUT NETWORKING SORRY I'M SO FUCKING USELESS NOW YOU FIX IT LOL!"
Also. I'm around enough Macs to know my boottimes are not atypical.
That's only one of the many things that Windows does to boot quicker. There's even a background deamon that optimizes drive layout for quick booting during idle times.
It's pure sour grapes. An XP desktop is not hindered because something is starting in the background. Linux doesn't do this stuff because the people who put money into development are looking at the server market.
I guess I'm most familiar with commercial Dell/HP systems, where there really isn't that much crap loaded. Maybe realplayer or something, but most people install that sort of thing anyway. Of course, the parent is full of shit because a stock XP Dell will boot the desktop very very quickly.
For kicks, I turned on the TCPA (DRM) chip on my ThinkPad -- that added at least 30 seconds to boot time and was disabled very soon afterwards. What a hunk of crap.
I don't know why Intel is working so hard to try to make Microsoft look good. Improvements to hardware can't fix shitty software.
When Windows 2000 came out, Intel owners were immediately blessed with a conflict-free APIC controller. Meanwhile AMD users were punching their nuts over the "IRQ 9 syndrome". That sort of thing makes Intel look good.
> faster than home-built (i.e. lacking all the extra, cycle-eating horseshit programs that hobble your average Dell or HP PC)
There's 0 evidence that Dell/HP boots slower than home-built. If anything their bios flips through much faster than generic.
One thing kind of disconcerting about my Powerbook G4 1.2(something) is that it hangs on the "Apple Logo" screen for what seems like forever (more than 30 seconds). I'm always wondering if it has hung, although the rational brain tells me this logo is covering up both the firmware and the kernel boot process. Once it gets past that, the user mode starts up lightning quick.
However, XP just rules the roost for fast booting. I've heard people accuse Windows of "cheating", but I think the fact is that they combined 4 or 5 good cheats and the result is an incredible improvement over other full-fledged OS ever released.