I was reading throught all the posts and remembering all that I've read about this project, and I thought of this... Will documents and programs all reside in the same database? Or will they be stored seperately like the Public and Private Stores in Exchange Server? I personally would much rather have them seperate, so that when I'm searching for documents and such I don't get results pertaining to installed programs. Hmm...
Take a look at the database system Microsoft uses in Exchange Server 2000 (and SharePoint Portal Server 2000), they call it the web store or something. It allows you to access the data contained within just as you would using the normal Windows file system. Exchange has also allowed storage of files in its storage system for awhile now, and even large files (never tried one at 1GB+) handle relatively well (and this is in Exchange 5.5).
Hopefully the move to a database based file system will provided Windows with a certain feature I have wished it had since well, Windows 95. I'm not sure how many of you do this too, but I am constantly reorganizing the folders and shortcuts in the Start menu, usually breaking them up into function categories. I've always thought it would be useful if you could dynamically sort the Start menu items based on the properties of each item, say grouping them by the Vendor/Developer or by their function/use. You can already do this in Explorer under Windows XP (more so than in any previous version), and I'm sure it wouldn't be all that hard to extend this to the Start menu.
Yes it is a markup language that contains instructions for how its contents should be rendered. What most people call programming languages do the, they instruct on how to perform methods or and other such items. Without a compiler the language by itself doesn't do anything, same as HTML, without a browser it does nothing. Check out the definition of software to see what it covers.
Tbis means learning the proper way to design web pages using HTML (or XHTML now). This means using layers (div tags) more often than tables (which should only be used to display tabular data/information), and with the use of CSS to seperate content from presentation. This is often a hard practice to follow as some browsers don't work well with CSS (Netscape 4) and others can often render the same elements differently. I suggest checking out A List Apart (http://www.alistapart.com) for some good information.
So Outlook forces me to reply in HTML huh? I use Outlook at home and at work and I know for a fact that it actually allows you to select how you want to send and reply to e-mail messages. And if Microsoft is to blame for HTML e-mail formatting then why are there open-source/free software sites that offer to send you their newsletters in HTML format? Get your facts straight before you ramble on.
Hmm... Have you ever actually read the Art Of War? Or did you just skim through it? I have been working full-time jobs since I was 15, in various industries, and I have always found that the message contained in that book always applies. The book was not only written as a guide-book to war, but rather to strategy.
I was given AOW when I was 15 by a guy I helped do contract roofing work, and I have read it several times over since that time. Each read I have gained even more insight into the principles contained in the book.
You are right that AOW doesn't apply to "everything", however it more than applies to the corporate world.
Another good saying I like to think of is this, paraphrased, "A good manager doesn't yet those under him near those who hate him.", can't remember who said that or the exact wording. The point is that working and suceeding in the corporate world is all about politics and strategy.
I realize you're just trying to be funny (didn't work), but I hope you realize that trademark infringement involving product confusion generally only occurs if the products are in competing marketplaces.
I think alot of people are missing the point of this whole issue. I really don't agree with what MS is doing, as I see it as a waste of their money. Lindows will probably never become anything more than alot of the other niche Linux OS's (compared to say Red Hat or Suse).
However the issue at hand is whether there is some sort of trademark infringement going on here. Which from what I've gathered, there is. "Lindows" is definately close to sounding and looking like "Windows", so much so that it might be confusing to the average consumer/user, who we all know can easily be confused when shopping for and/or using computer software.
Whether or not the Lindows developers intended to use the name as a way to gain attention and possible sales is not the issue either. Although I'm sure not one person here, who is thinking intelligently, would disagree that they intentionally picked the name Lindows for that very purpose.
I know the majority of people may think that it is unfair for MS to be able to hold a trademark for Windows (which they do), but it is perfectly legal for them to do so. There are several other companies that hold trademarks to very common names/words; such as Apple, Sun (yeah I know, Sun Microsystems), etc... And you are fooling yourself if you think that any of these companies wouldn't go after another for using a common trademark they own in a competing product.
If Lindows was a Windows-based program or even a Linux program like WINE, I doubt MS would have even bothered to file for trademark infringement, however Lindows is an operating system (Linux-based if course) that is being developed to allow for the running of Windows-based software. If this isn't a competing product then I don't know what is, and as such MS can go after them for marketing a product name that has the potential to confuse and/or obtain commercial business by using a name that is very close to a competing product.
As I stated before, I think this is a waste of MS's money and time, and I think it is also indicative of the past behavior. However the developers of Lindows knew from the start that there was the potential for this to happen, and as such I'm sure they went ahead with their chosen name just to obtain the attention/publicity that they are now receiving.
Warning a shameless plug is to follow, which may contain a friend of a friend story...
Seriously though, a good buddy of mine's cousin (who I know on a casual basis), worked for the company that developed the game, 2015 (http://www.2015.com). There are located here in Oklahoma and have some pretty sweet offices. Anyways, more than 6 months ago he showed us some of the game at that point and it was awesome. I haven't played the release version yet so I don't know what all's in it or whatnot, but the version he showed us really expanded on the 1st person shooter.
The game at the time allowed you to interact with almost anything in the game environment, including picking up a pebble off the ground! I hope that they kept stuff like that intact in the game... guess I can download it and find out.
Hmm... what does Linux have to do with a payment system for viewing web pages/sites? I am a Linux and Windows user (I dual boot), but sometimes I feel a little disappointment in some other Linux users b/c they feel that they must make a point about Linux even when the topic at hand has nothing to do with it.
Yeah Linux is free, but its also charged for by the majority of distributors (except if you download a basic or slimmed down version). The reason that companies do end up making money on it is exactly why, combined with developer enthusiasm for it, Linux will last, maybe not forever (does anything?), but definately for the forseeable future.
Also you responce to my post is childish. 'Free' in the commercial world does not last entirely on its own, that's why we have basic/free and full/payed-for versions of so many software titles. And if you have ever followed trends in our industry you would know that companies that provide free software either follow the aforementioned model or they end up charging for their once free software in the end. My statements revolved entirely around the fact that 'free' is not a viable commercial business model, unless there are other models or such that work along side it.
"Business models based on 'intellectual property' don't work"
I'd have to strongly disagree with that one. Look at IBM, they hold one of the largest collections patents and intellectual property. A large amount of commercial and open source programs are based on intellectual property, I don't see alot of them (the commercial ones at the least) not making any money. A large amount of companies use intellectual property in licensing schemes, such as company A has a patent and possibly the technology based on that patent developed, company A licenses that patent or technology to company B, company B pays company A money to use that license. It works. I will agree however that a solid business model does not rely solely on intellectual property, but uses that intellectual property to develop a product of some sort. And it all really has not thing to do with a "web presence", as intellectual property was around before there even was a "web".
Oh and no one says that there can't still be the "open exchange of information" on the Internet if this system went into effect, sites that wanted to charge could, sites that didn't... wouldn't.
I hate to admit it, but this idea does have some merit and could work if certain guidelines were layed out. While I really don't like the initial thought of paying for every web page I visit, I, as a web site owner, understand how hard it is to make money (to just pay for the hosting costs at the very least). So here are my thoughts on how this could work...
1) An organization seperate from any ISP or web site operator would be setup to govern the whole penny-per-page payment system. 2) Each web site would submit its domain(s) to this organization for inclusion in the payment system, also submitting any pages they do or do not wish to be included (such that maybe just articles on a site would be charged for viewing). This also enables a way for sites to opt-out of the payment system 3) You would only be charged once for any page, unless that page was dynamic in content (i.e., source code pages on Planet Source Code)(maybe exclude web site home pages from being charged for), in which you would be charged for each page view. A modification of this might to only charge a per search fee for search engines and sites such as PSC. 4) As stated in the article, there would be a maximum amount you could be charged per month, say $20.00. 5) The organization would have to develop some way to track you, maybe a browser plug-in that automatically tracked page views. If you didn't have the plug-in then maybe you would have to manually login to some sort of tracking system... 6) The plug-in would also be able to detect pop-up windows and other trickeries of the sort. 7) You would either be billed directly by this organization or maybe by including the charges into your ISP bill (hopefully ISP's could lower their monthly charges somehow, maybe by compensation from the organization, since all this web sites will now be making all this money...). 8) Hmmm... I think that sums it up...
In practice the system might work like this:
1) User opens their web browser and goes to the Slashdot home page, 2) The browser plug-in checks to see if the Slashdot domain is participating in the payment system. The user does not get charged at this point b/c they are on the home page of the site, which for (hopefully) obvious reasons should not be charged for, 3) The user then clicks on a link on the home page that takes them to an article, 4) The plug-in checks to see if this page is to be charged for or not, 5) The user is charged a penny (or however much) b/c this page has been found to not be exempt from the system, 6) The user then follows a link from this page to another, which resides on another domain, 7) The new page automatically opens a dozen pop-up windows, 8) While the user is charged for the new page, b/c it is not a home page, they are not charged for the subsequent pop-up windows b/c the plug-in recognizes them as such. 9) The user later receives a bill from the organization or their ISP for that months charges from the payment system.
Obviously there will be ALOT of specifics and safety nets and such to work out if this system ever went into effect, but I think that it might actually work given the right cost and the option to opt-out for web sites. I know we all love FREE, but it can not last forever and it would be wise of us all to develop this system now rather than waiting for it to be forced on to us in terms that aren't beneficial or reasonable for the general population. Just my 2 cents (for the two pages I've viewed so far, not counting the home page of course)...
As stated before in previous posts, most businesses are not rushing out to adopt Linux fully because it is still an "unproven" technology, even if it is superior in ways to Windows. What everyone seems to be missing or overlooking is, where will Linux stand in comparison to Windows in three to five years?
Linux is already very stable and relatively secure (as secure as anything can be), and it is definately becoming more end-user friendly and robust. New applications are appearing and being developed that rival, if not leaping beyond, their Windows counterparts. In the next three years it is a very realistic assumption that Linux will be consumer ready.
The question is, will this be fast enough? Microsoft has shown that it can make a relatively stable OS and it is already consumer friendly, not to mention its deep market penetration. If MS can make the OS even more secure, along with advancing the aforementioned items, it may be a hard product to beat, even for Linux.
The problem resides in the fact that no matter how much Linux progresses and advances, Windows has the ability to stay one step ahead. This is painfully obvious if we all remember the old saying that goes along with MS, "Embrace and extend"... and then, sometimes, destroy.
If I were the head of a business or just an average user, I'm sure I would be really confused by all this. Everytime you read an article or headline, Microsoft or "Not Microsoft" (For lack of a better term and it seems to fit these days), are touting the failure of the other and the success of their own.
First with the story about Amazon and a few others moving to Linux. I was amused at the first couple articles in response to this, in which Linux was touted as having overtaken Windows at these companies... and the like. When in reality Linux systems were simply replacing the older Unix systems, which truth be known is a great idea. Alot of Linux advocates also seemed to miss out on the fact that the systems being replaced were not the big backend servers, but rather web servers and the like.
Now we have this little story about how businesses are slow to adopt Linux. Well the answer to this is almost too obvious, one of the reasons is the same as why most businesses aren't rushing out to upgrade to Windows XP. A large number of businesses are already in the, time consuming, process of moving to Windows 2000 and could not afford, and yes it does cost something, to move to Linux. Another reason is that alot of businesses have already moved their web servers and such to Linux, while the adoption rate is slower on backend servers and desktops. I think a big reason businesses haven't adopted Linux in these areas is that the solutions available on the other platforms aren't really available on Linux.
As I noticed in another post here, both sides should quit worrying (although I don't think most Windows users are the least bit concerned with Linux at this point) each other. Linux does not need to compete with Windows to succeed, that should be obvious. It simply needs to be focused at what it does best (not saying it can't do other things equally well), acting as a server and embedded operating system.
Hmm from the posts it looks like alot of geeks might play paintball. I know I do every chance I get, mainly b/c its a perfect way to get away from the sometimes boring life of being a programmer.
I didn't see this posted on here already, but for those that are interested you may want to check out Microsoft's R&D efforts into OS UI's. Although their efforts are not perfect, nor the best way to do things, it is definately interesting. You can find the site at "http://research.microsoft.com/ui/". Of the projects under development here, the main one is the TaskGallery project, "http://research.microsoft.com/ui/TaskGallery/inde x.htm", which I've almost positive I've seen mentioned on Slashdot before. Besides MS, there are some very interesting projects under development,by other companies, into unique ways to present the WWW to users (3D worlds and such). But I think, as I've seen it mentioned here, that the key is to developing interactive and immersive sytems where screen real-estate is almost infinite (possible using VR glasses/goggles) and input device gestures are recognized and adapted to.
I think you're right about OS X having this capability, and I know Windows XP does. However they both (well I'm not sure about OS X) use drivers and software that is much like those used in applications like EasyCD Creator (Toast for Mac)(in fact I think Roxio provided MS the sofware for XP). The file system being developed by Philips may have this same capability built into the actual system, as opposed to a seperate application or driver.
Not to say that your statement isn't true, in my experiences I have noticed that most users don't seem to realize that they can resize windows to make them bigger, not just smaller. They will leave the windows in their original non-maximized state (unless of course the app opens in a maximized state) and wonder why they have to use scroll bars to see the entire contents of the windows. But even in this they do not know or aren't aware of the ability to resize windows to the size they prefer. Another problem seems to be that even after they may resize their app windows to their prefered sizes, the apps don't remember the size or position the next time they are launched. This in itself is a problem and one that should never happen, as it is very easy to add this functionality to a program during development. On the point of using VWM's (virtual window managers), for the average user they are as much of a problem to use as the full-screen window. They require to user to still press a button or use a key combination to switch between virual windows (desktops in Windows), which for the average user is no easier to do than clicking on a taskbar button for the window they want. Don't take this as a put down of VWM's, I use them all the time and couldn't manage my computer workspace without them. Of course this is because, at least at work, I am constantly switching between development, graphic, and network applications. The only way any of this will be solved is if we, as developers and users, work on developing OS UI's that are truly adaptable to the end-user and their skill level in using a computer. We must learn how to develop applications and OS's that no longer assume what the user may want to do or is doing, but rather learn what the user's preferences and skill level is. Microsoft has tried to get to this point, but they always seem to end up doing a little bit too much assuming. The OS must also be more intelligent in how it presents its UI for particular users. For example, a new computer user who may only use a few programs at a time may be presented with a taskbar (sorry for the lack of a better term, as I am a Windows user) that shows a small screenshot of their open applications (much like what OS X does). Another area of improvement needs to be how application shortcuts/program groups are presented. In Windows now, the user is forced to remember what each application does and where each one is located in the Start menu. I like to group my shortcuts on the Start menu under related (their primary use; i.e., development, graphics, etc.) named folders, but to do this I have to create these folders and move everything to those folders... which newly installed programs don't know to intall under. There should be an easier way to do this, something like queries in databases based on certain fields or properties (think of the categories view in MS Outlook or the new grouped view in Windows XP). Until a time when this is done I will still be showing users to remember that they can access their open applications by clicking on the buttons in the little "bar" that runs along the bottom of their screen (unless they moved it of course), so that they don't keep opening the application using its Start menu shortcut and wondering why it doesn't look the same as when they had it open before.
Its funny how many times we hear that some new UI or like change in how an OS handles Windows and everything else, is going to change how we work or make using any OS easier. The keyboard was invented to make computer based input easier (remember punch cards), making it easier to quickly enter random information and such. The mouse followed intending to complement (and in some ways replace) the keyboard. The mouse made it easier in some ways for the vast majority of users to navigate past and current OS's. Of course ask any accountants, secretaries, and alot of programmers what they think about the current mouse based computing present in today's OS's... they would much rather type and tab. Now we get into how windows are displayed/presented on-screen to the user. Some applications maintain a single interface (with the occassional prompt window), while others bombard the user with multiple windows (the biggest culprits being web browsers, but that is due to web page designers). The fact of the matter is that developers of applications and indeed OS's, need to truly consider which type of interface would be the most beneficial to the end-user. We, as developers, must also design our applications with keyboard and mouse users in mind, providing easy access to all functions for both. Ironically, Microsoft has some very good articles on MSDN concerning what they call "equal rights" for both types of users. What is the best way to arrange and present windows to users? What are the best ways to allow "equal rights" for keyboard and mouse users? These are questions that we will continue to come up with new answers and solutions for. Part of the solution will be creating better user interfaces and interface analogies (while it seemed like the ideal solution, the Desktop and file cabinet approach doesn't seem to have worked for the average user), and by increasing research into voice technologies and alternative input devices. Maybe someday we'll all have panoramic plasma displays that can display a couple hundred windows at once, which all respond to voice and thought commands...(BR)
Gotta love this circus. First the DOJ promises to bring the beast called Microsoft to justice for its "crimes", and now all this time later the case is still dragging on and Microsoft is making the deal sweeter for themselves all the more... and of course our tax dollars are hard at work... aren't they? The proposed terms don't really affect MS at all, they just have to make some concessions that most of us won't ever even notice. Although the whole stripped down version of XP is interesting, since this is actually what MS should have been doing all along, while supplying the extras as add-ons or features in the Plus! packs. I guess we'll all see what happens. This reminds me of the original proposition of breaking MS into smaller companies that would be independent of each other. That was perfect, lets break up a major minopoly and make a bunch of smaller ones, since MS as a whole is alot less dangerous than its parts. Think about it, MS as a whole often loses direction, but smaller MS's would have an intense focus on their goals. Too bad it didnt happen... MS might have been turned into some truly innovative companies. Oh well sign me up for my copy of Windows LX...
Seems to me that InfoWorld is either the only credible news source left in the tech world or there is something inherently wrong in their tests... just seeing how every other test (independent or not) of XP has shown that it is generally faster than 2000 and ME. Yes it lags behind somewhat on some tests, it speeds ahead on others, but for the most part it performs on par or slightly better than its counterparts. I also heard no complaints from beta testers and, now, owners of XP about the OS's speed. In fact I'm running the bare minimum configuration many have suggested for XP, a PII 350MHz with 128MB SDRAM, and XP runs circles around 2000 (well at least when I'm playing a little UT).
I noticed near the beggining of the posts that some thought that the XP interface was so different from the previous versions (and the same for all versions compared to the previous version) that users would have to be retrained on the OS. This seems to contradict with the same group of people attacking XP and Windows in general for NOT chaning the UI enough or adding more "true" functionality to it. Can't have it both ways folks... and those that I know who have used it, actually find it alot more intuitive than any version before it... well save some of my old OS2 stalwarts.
Slashdot Mirror
I was reading throught all the posts and remembering all that I've read about this project, and I thought of this... Will documents and programs all reside in the same database? Or will they be stored seperately like the Public and Private Stores in Exchange Server? I personally would much rather have them seperate, so that when I'm searching for documents and such I don't get results pertaining to installed programs. Hmm...
Take a look at the database system Microsoft uses in Exchange Server 2000 (and SharePoint Portal Server 2000), they call it the web store or something. It allows you to access the data contained within just as you would using the normal Windows file system. Exchange has also allowed storage of files in its storage system for awhile now, and even large files (never tried one at 1GB+) handle relatively well (and this is in Exchange 5.5).
Hopefully the move to a database based file system will provided Windows with a certain feature I have wished it had since well, Windows 95. I'm not sure how many of you do this too, but I am constantly reorganizing the folders and shortcuts in the Start menu, usually breaking them up into function categories. I've always thought it would be useful if you could dynamically sort the Start menu items based on the properties of each item, say grouping them by the Vendor/Developer or by their function/use. You can already do this in Explorer under Windows XP (more so than in any previous version), and I'm sure it wouldn't be all that hard to extend this to the Start menu.
Yes it is a markup language that contains instructions for how its contents should be rendered. What most people call programming languages do the, they instruct on how to perform methods or and other such items. Without a compiler the language by itself doesn't do anything, same as HTML, without a browser it does nothing. Check out the definition of software to see what it covers.
Tbis means learning the proper way to design web pages using HTML (or XHTML now). This means using layers (div tags) more often than tables (which should only be used to display tabular data/information), and with the use of CSS to seperate content from presentation. This is often a hard practice to follow as some browsers don't work well with CSS (Netscape 4) and others can often render the same elements differently. I suggest checking out A List Apart (http://www.alistapart.com) for some good information.
Actual the definition of software applies to even a single web page, as HTML is a programming language.
So Outlook forces me to reply in HTML huh? I use Outlook at home and at work and I know for a fact that it actually allows you to select how you want to send and reply to e-mail messages. And if Microsoft is to blame for HTML e-mail formatting then why are there open-source/free software sites that offer to send you their newsletters in HTML format? Get your facts straight before you ramble on.
Hmm... Have you ever actually read the Art Of War? Or did you just skim through it? I have been working full-time jobs since I was 15, in various industries, and I have always found that the message contained in that book always applies. The book was not only written as a guide-book to war, but rather to strategy.
I was given AOW when I was 15 by a guy I helped do contract roofing work, and I have read it several times over since that time. Each read I have gained even more insight into the principles contained in the book.
You are right that AOW doesn't apply to "everything", however it more than applies to the corporate world.
Another good saying I like to think of is this, paraphrased, "A good manager doesn't yet those under him near those who hate him.", can't remember who said that or the exact wording. The point is that working and suceeding in the corporate world is all about politics and strategy.
Nope, just their respective names for DOS.
I realize you're just trying to be funny (didn't work), but I hope you realize that trademark infringement involving product confusion generally only occurs if the products are in competing marketplaces.
I think alot of people are missing the point of this whole issue. I really don't agree with what MS is doing, as I see it as a waste of their money. Lindows will probably never become anything more than alot of the other niche Linux OS's (compared to say Red Hat or Suse).
However the issue at hand is whether there is some sort of trademark infringement going on here. Which from what I've gathered, there is. "Lindows" is definately close to sounding and looking like "Windows", so much so that it might be confusing to the average consumer/user, who we all know can easily be confused when shopping for and/or using computer software.
Whether or not the Lindows developers intended to use the name as a way to gain attention and possible sales is not the issue either. Although I'm sure not one person here, who is thinking intelligently, would disagree that they intentionally picked the name Lindows for that very purpose.
I know the majority of people may think that it is unfair for MS to be able to hold a trademark for Windows (which they do), but it is perfectly legal for them to do so. There are several other companies that hold trademarks to very common names/words; such as Apple, Sun (yeah I know, Sun Microsystems), etc... And you are fooling yourself if you think that any of these companies wouldn't go after another for using a common trademark they own in a competing product.
If Lindows was a Windows-based program or even a Linux program like WINE, I doubt MS would have even bothered to file for trademark infringement, however Lindows is an operating system (Linux-based if course) that is being developed to allow for the running of Windows-based software. If this isn't a competing product then I don't know what is, and as such MS can go after them for marketing a product name that has the potential to confuse and/or obtain commercial business by using a name that is very close to a competing product.
As I stated before, I think this is a waste of MS's money and time, and I think it is also indicative of the past behavior. However the developers of Lindows knew from the start that there was the potential for this to happen, and as such I'm sure they went ahead with their chosen name just to obtain the attention/publicity that they are now receiving.
You seem to have forgotten that Apple stole the look and feel of their OS from Xerox PARC.
Warning a shameless plug is to follow, which may contain a friend of a friend story...
Seriously though, a good buddy of mine's cousin (who I know on a casual basis), worked for the company that developed the game, 2015 (http://www.2015.com). There are located here in Oklahoma and have some pretty sweet offices. Anyways, more than 6 months ago he showed us some of the game at that point and it was awesome. I haven't played the release version yet so I don't know what all's in it or whatnot, but the version he showed us really expanded on the 1st person shooter.
The game at the time allowed you to interact with almost anything in the game environment, including picking up a pebble off the ground! I hope that they kept stuff like that intact in the game... guess I can download it and find out.
Hmm... what does Linux have to do with a payment system for viewing web pages/sites? I am a Linux and Windows user (I dual boot), but sometimes I feel a little disappointment in some other Linux users b/c they feel that they must make a point about Linux even when the topic at hand has nothing to do with it.
Yeah Linux is free, but its also charged for by the majority of distributors (except if you download a basic or slimmed down version). The reason that companies do end up making money on it is exactly why, combined with developer enthusiasm for it, Linux will last, maybe not forever (does anything?), but definately for the forseeable future.
Also you responce to my post is childish. 'Free' in the commercial world does not last entirely on its own, that's why we have basic/free and full/payed-for versions of so many software titles. And if you have ever followed trends in our industry you would know that companies that provide free software either follow the aforementioned model or they end up charging for their once free software in the end. My statements revolved entirely around the fact that 'free' is not a viable commercial business model, unless there are other models or such that work along side it.
"Business models based on 'intellectual property' don't work"
I'd have to strongly disagree with that one. Look at IBM, they hold one of the largest collections patents and intellectual property. A large amount of commercial and open source programs are based on intellectual property, I don't see alot of them (the commercial ones at the least) not making any money. A large amount of companies use intellectual property in licensing schemes, such as company A has a patent and possibly the technology based on that patent developed, company A licenses that patent or technology to company B, company B pays company A money to use that license. It works. I will agree however that a solid business model does not rely solely on intellectual property, but uses that intellectual property to develop a product of some sort. And it all really has not thing to do with a "web presence", as intellectual property was around before there even was a "web".
Oh and no one says that there can't still be the "open exchange of information" on the Internet if this system went into effect, sites that wanted to charge could, sites that didn't... wouldn't.
I hate to admit it, but this idea does have some merit and could work if certain guidelines were layed out. While I really don't like the initial thought of paying for every web page I visit, I, as a web site owner, understand how hard it is to make money (to just pay for the hosting costs at the very least). So here are my thoughts on how this could work...
1) An organization seperate from any ISP or web site operator would be setup to govern the whole penny-per-page payment system.
2) Each web site would submit its domain(s) to this organization for inclusion in the payment system, also submitting any pages they do or do not wish to be included (such that maybe just articles on a site would be charged for viewing). This also enables a way for sites to opt-out of the payment system
3) You would only be charged once for any page, unless that page was dynamic in content (i.e., source code pages on Planet Source Code)(maybe exclude web site home pages from being charged for), in which you would be charged for each page view. A modification of this might to only charge a per search fee for search engines and sites such as PSC.
4) As stated in the article, there would be a maximum amount you could be charged per month, say $20.00.
5) The organization would have to develop some way to track you, maybe a browser plug-in that automatically tracked page views. If you didn't have the plug-in then maybe you would have to manually login to some sort of tracking system...
6) The plug-in would also be able to detect pop-up windows and other trickeries of the sort.
7) You would either be billed directly by this organization or maybe by including the charges into your ISP bill (hopefully ISP's could lower their monthly charges somehow, maybe by compensation from the organization, since all this web sites will now be making all this money...).
8) Hmmm... I think that sums it up...
In practice the system might work like this:
1) User opens their web browser and goes to the Slashdot home page,
2) The browser plug-in checks to see if the Slashdot domain is participating in the payment system. The user does not get charged at this point b/c they are on the home page of the site, which for (hopefully) obvious reasons should not be charged for,
3) The user then clicks on a link on the home page that takes them to an article,
4) The plug-in checks to see if this page is to be charged for or not,
5) The user is charged a penny (or however much) b/c this page has been found to not be exempt from the system,
6) The user then follows a link from this page to another, which resides on another domain,
7) The new page automatically opens a dozen pop-up windows,
8) While the user is charged for the new page, b/c it is not a home page, they are not charged for the subsequent pop-up windows b/c the plug-in recognizes them as such.
9) The user later receives a bill from the organization or their ISP for that months charges from the payment system.
Obviously there will be ALOT of specifics and safety nets and such to work out if this system ever went into effect, but I think that it might actually work given the right cost and the option to opt-out for web sites. I know we all love FREE, but it can not last forever and it would be wise of us all to develop this system now rather than waiting for it to be forced on to us in terms that aren't beneficial or reasonable for the general population. Just my 2 cents (for the two pages I've viewed so far, not counting the home page of course)...
As stated before in previous posts, most businesses are not rushing out to adopt Linux fully because it is still an "unproven" technology, even if it is superior in ways to Windows. What everyone seems to be missing or overlooking is, where will Linux stand in comparison to Windows in three to five years?
Linux is already very stable and relatively secure (as secure as anything can be), and it is definately becoming more end-user friendly and robust. New applications are appearing and being developed that rival, if not leaping beyond, their Windows counterparts. In the next three years it is a very realistic assumption that Linux will be consumer ready.
The question is, will this be fast enough? Microsoft has shown that it can make a relatively stable OS and it is already consumer friendly, not to mention its deep market penetration. If MS can make the OS even more secure, along with advancing the aforementioned items, it may be a hard product to beat, even for Linux.
The problem resides in the fact that no matter how much Linux progresses and advances, Windows has the ability to stay one step ahead. This is painfully obvious if we all remember the old saying that goes along with MS, "Embrace and extend"... and then, sometimes, destroy.
If I were the head of a business or just an average user, I'm sure I would be really confused by all this. Everytime you read an article or headline, Microsoft or "Not Microsoft" (For lack of a better term and it seems to fit these days), are touting the failure of the other and the success of their own.
First with the story about Amazon and a few others moving to Linux. I was amused at the first couple articles in response to this, in which Linux was touted as having overtaken Windows at these companies... and the like. When in reality Linux systems were simply replacing the older Unix systems, which truth be known is a great idea. Alot of Linux advocates also seemed to miss out on the fact that the systems being replaced were not the big backend servers, but rather web servers and the like.
Now we have this little story about how businesses are slow to adopt Linux. Well the answer to this is almost too obvious, one of the reasons is the same as why most businesses aren't rushing out to upgrade to Windows XP. A large number of businesses are already in the, time consuming, process of moving to Windows 2000 and could not afford, and yes it does cost something, to move to Linux. Another reason is that alot of businesses have already moved their web servers and such to Linux, while the adoption rate is slower on backend servers and desktops. I think a big reason businesses haven't adopted Linux in these areas is that the solutions available on the other platforms aren't really available on Linux.
As I noticed in another post here, both sides should quit worrying (although I don't think most Windows users are the least bit concerned with Linux at this point) each other. Linux does not need to compete with Windows to succeed, that should be obvious. It simply needs to be focused at what it does best (not saying it can't do other things equally well), acting as a server and embedded operating system.
Hmm from the posts it looks like alot of geeks might play paintball. I know I do every chance I get, mainly b/c its a perfect way to get away from the sometimes boring life of being a programmer.
I didn't see this posted on here already, but for those that are interested you may want to check out Microsoft's R&D efforts into OS UI's. Although their efforts are not perfect, nor the best way to do things, it is definately interesting. You can find the site at "http://research.microsoft.com/ui/". Of the projects under development here, the main one is the TaskGallery project, "http://research.microsoft.com/ui/TaskGallery/inde x.htm", which I've almost positive I've seen mentioned on Slashdot before. ,by other companies, into unique ways to present the WWW to users (3D worlds and such). But I think, as I've seen it mentioned here, that the key is to developing interactive and immersive sytems where screen real-estate is almost infinite (possible using VR glasses/goggles) and input device gestures are recognized and adapted to.
Besides MS, there are some very interesting projects under development
I think you're right about OS X having this capability, and I know Windows XP does. However they both (well I'm not sure about OS X) use drivers and software that is much like those used in applications like EasyCD Creator (Toast for Mac)(in fact I think Roxio provided MS the sofware for XP). The file system being developed by Philips may have this same capability built into the actual system, as opposed to a seperate application or driver.
Not to say that your statement isn't true, in my experiences I have noticed that most users don't seem to realize that they can resize windows to make them bigger, not just smaller. They will leave the windows in their original non-maximized state (unless of course the app opens in a maximized state) and wonder why they have to use scroll bars to see the entire contents of the windows. But even in this they do not know or aren't aware of the ability to resize windows to the size they prefer.
Another problem seems to be that even after they may resize their app windows to their prefered sizes, the apps don't remember the size or position the next time they are launched. This in itself is a problem and one that should never happen, as it is very easy to add this functionality to a program during development.
On the point of using VWM's (virtual window managers), for the average user they are as much of a problem to use as the full-screen window. They require to user to still press a button or use a key combination to switch between virual windows (desktops in Windows), which for the average user is no easier to do than clicking on a taskbar button for the window they want. Don't take this as a put down of VWM's, I use them all the time and couldn't manage my computer workspace without them. Of course this is because, at least at work, I am constantly switching between development, graphic, and network applications.
The only way any of this will be solved is if we, as developers and users, work on developing OS UI's that are truly adaptable to the end-user and their skill level in using a computer. We must learn how to develop applications and OS's that no longer assume what the user may want to do or is doing, but rather learn what the user's preferences and skill level is. Microsoft has tried to get to this point, but they always seem to end up doing a little bit too much assuming. The OS must also be more intelligent in how it presents its UI for particular users. For example, a new computer user who may only use a few programs at a time may be presented with a taskbar (sorry for the lack of a better term, as I am a Windows user) that shows a small screenshot of their open applications (much like what OS X does). Another area of improvement needs to be how application shortcuts/program groups are presented. In Windows now, the user is forced to remember what each application does and where each one is located in the Start menu. I like to group my shortcuts on the Start menu under related (their primary use; i.e., development, graphics, etc.) named folders, but to do this I have to create these folders and move everything to those folders... which newly installed programs don't know to intall under. There should be an easier way to do this, something like queries in databases based on certain fields or properties (think of the categories view in MS Outlook or the new grouped view in Windows XP).
Until a time when this is done I will still be showing users to remember that they can access their open applications by clicking on the buttons in the little "bar" that runs along the bottom of their screen (unless they moved it of course), so that they don't keep opening the application using its Start menu shortcut and wondering why it doesn't look the same as when they had it open before.
Its funny how many times we hear that some new UI or like change in how an OS handles Windows and everything else, is going to change how we work or make using any OS easier. The keyboard was invented to make computer based input easier (remember punch cards), making it easier to quickly enter random information and such. The mouse followed intending to complement (and in some ways replace) the keyboard. The mouse made it easier in some ways for the vast majority of users to navigate past and current OS's. Of course ask any accountants, secretaries, and alot of programmers what they think about the current mouse based computing present in today's OS's... they would much rather type and tab.
Now we get into how windows are displayed/presented on-screen to the user. Some applications maintain a single interface (with the occassional prompt window), while others bombard the user with multiple windows (the biggest culprits being web browsers, but that is due to web page designers). The fact of the matter is that developers of applications and indeed OS's, need to truly consider which type of interface would be the most beneficial to the end-user. We, as developers, must also design our applications with keyboard and mouse users in mind, providing easy access to all functions for both. Ironically, Microsoft has some very good articles on MSDN concerning what they call "equal rights" for both types of users.
What is the best way to arrange and present windows to users? What are the best ways to allow "equal rights" for keyboard and mouse users? These are questions that we will continue to come up with new answers and solutions for. Part of the solution will be creating better user interfaces and interface analogies (while it seemed like the ideal solution, the Desktop and file cabinet approach doesn't seem to have worked for the average user), and by increasing research into voice technologies and alternative input devices. Maybe someday we'll all have panoramic plasma displays that can display a couple hundred windows at once, which all respond to voice and thought commands...(BR)
Gotta love this circus. First the DOJ promises to bring the beast called Microsoft to justice for its "crimes", and now all this time later the case is still dragging on and Microsoft is making the deal sweeter for themselves all the more... and of course our tax dollars are hard at work... aren't they? The proposed terms don't really affect MS at all, they just have to make some concessions that most of us won't ever even notice. Although the whole stripped down version of XP is interesting, since this is actually what MS should have been doing all along, while supplying the extras as add-ons or features in the Plus! packs. I guess we'll all see what happens.
This reminds me of the original proposition of breaking MS into smaller companies that would be independent of each other. That was perfect, lets break up a major minopoly and make a bunch of smaller ones, since MS as a whole is alot less dangerous than its parts. Think about it, MS as a whole often loses direction, but smaller MS's would have an intense focus on their goals. Too bad it didnt happen... MS might have been turned into some truly innovative companies. Oh well sign me up for my copy of Windows LX...
Seems to me that InfoWorld is either the only credible news source left in the tech world or there is something inherently wrong in their tests... just seeing how every other test (independent or not) of XP has shown that it is generally faster than 2000 and ME. Yes it lags behind somewhat on some tests, it speeds ahead on others, but for the most part it performs on par or slightly better than its counterparts. I also heard no complaints from beta testers and, now, owners of XP about the OS's speed. In fact I'm running the bare minimum configuration many have suggested for XP, a PII 350MHz with 128MB SDRAM, and XP runs circles around 2000 (well at least when I'm playing a little UT).
I noticed near the beggining of the posts that some thought that the XP interface was so different from the previous versions (and the same for all versions compared to the previous version) that users would have to be retrained on the OS. This seems to contradict with the same group of people attacking XP and Windows in general for NOT chaning the UI enough or adding more "true" functionality to it. Can't have it both ways folks... and those that I know who have used it, actually find it alot more intuitive than any version before it... well save some of my old OS2 stalwarts.