if you pick up even a short history of Western philosophy (e.g., the books by Kenny or Magee), you'll see that people have been thinking really hard about philosophical questions for a very long time, and that "The Matrix" doesn't address those questions in anything other than a superficial way. That's not to say that it's a bad film, or that popular films in general should entirely avoid addressing complicated subjects.
There is a difference between addressing complicated questions (to me "addressing" implies trying to formulate some kind of answer or understanding) and stimulating people to think about complicated issues themselves. Most people won't sit down and think about deep philosophy. But if while enjoying a fun movie you can also get people to think about some deep subjects too, why demean it?
Keep in mind that eBay lost their first case against Bidder's Edge's because it was solely a copyright case. Then they brought a conditions of use case that they won.
What they did do is make everything about the shell rely on the same code. How is that bad?
I wasn't arguing good vs bad. But someone asked what Microsoft could have done to avoid the bundling argument since almost everyone agrees that including a browser with the OS is a good idea. I was simply offering an alternate implementation that I think would have made most people happy.
The "comes installed on 99% of all PCs" argument has no merit. If KDE were installed by default on 99% of all PCs, would you expect the KDE people to go back through their code and rehook everything so that all desktop interactions either worked by setting callbacks, hooks or a swappable library?
That's a bogus argument. Microsoft had a monopoly prior to developing (I mean, buying) their first web browser. Prior to the decision to bundle IE in the OS web browsers were a separate product, and therefore a separate market. And the Sherman act is pretty clear on this. "I didn't know what I was doing was illegal" has never been a valid defense in the USA.
Then people taht removed it would be breaking other commercial applications that use it just as another tool, like the file access APIs. You want those to be swappable too?
Well, considering it is a Disk Operating System I would imagine that is part of the definition of the OS.
The fact is that Microsoft could have chosen to compete in a way which did not violate the law. But they chose to ignore the law. Whether that was right or wrong for them to do is obviously a long discussion.
Didn't they do that? I can write a VB app right now that calls the IE renderer and then write my own interface to it. I can rewrite IE in VB if I wanted to because of that component.
Can I replace that component? No idea. I'd be afraid to because, like you hinted at, MS likes to hide features.
No they didn't do that. They published an interface to call IE and then linked IE to essential files so it is darn near impossible to remove. They did not write IE as a pluggable component (one that can be removed and replaced with another same-shaped plug).
However, if it's generally accepted that making the browser an object of the OS is an expected evolutionary step, then what choice did MS have?
Well, they could have written the browser as a puggable component and then published the interface. That way developers could still use a browser embedded in their app but if a user wanted to replace IE with another browser (that conformed to the spec), they could. So it's integrated into the operating system yet still replacable. This wouldn't satisfy all the concerns, but it does deal with the technical ones.
Of course, Microsoft would argue that it's not their job to help their competitors and, besides, it would ruin the consistent user interface (meaning, anything not from Microsoft is not consistent). But then Microsoft doesn't admit to being a monopoly either....
Microsoft has been fighting a long war to remove any innovation or product differentiation in PC vendors. Microsoft wants conformity which is at odds with innovation. And as PC companies do try to innovate Microsoft doesn't want to be left out in the cold. A PC vendor that presents a computing value that is outside the confines of Windows is a threat.
Microsoft created the stagnant PC industry. And now they are trying to save it. Kudos to them! LOL
No, that's not the only reason people whine about it. I learned C++ and Java at almost the same time (C++ about a year earlier) and I, like a lot of other programmers, can honestly say that IMO C++ is just a better language than Java. It's more compact, easier and more pleasant to write, etc.
You had me right up until "easier". There is a reason C++ journals have sections devoted to obscure sections of the standard and how code might not compile the way you would expect it to. It's because C++ is not simple. Powerul? Yes. Easy? No. Not to mention the differing implementations by different compilers. Ugh. No thanks. I'd rather spend my time working on solutions instead of fighting the language.
I remember reading about a study earlier this year where researchers found that the average keyboard is dirtier than a toilet. Apparently Microsoft saw that study too....
Except, that it was bought by Apple and essentially took it over. MacOS X is OPENSTEP with a different GUI.
I know. The point I was making was that just because you can it doesn't mean you should.
Where would Apple place Opterons on their marketing? Would they market to the high-end desktop crowd? If they did, would the makers of high-end software actually create two versions of their code, one optimized for each platform (Opteron might be fast but it won't have Altivec)? Even assuming that development for the two environments would simply be a checkbox away ("Compile for PPC or Opteron?") Apple would basically be either killing PPC or dooming Opteron to failure. Software companies would probably pick one system to optimize for and ignore the other (heck, many don't even optimize for Altivec now).
And with all this risk, what exactly would the reward be? What is the prize? Avoiding some future that may never come where IBM doesn't produce a fast enough PPC chip? Not worth it. Why kill the company over a pipe-nightmare?
Microsoft seems to be the case-study in showing that actual employee skill is almost irrelevant to success. Sure, they've got some bright people, but what have they done with it?
Right, because as often as not it's the boss who lost his files....
Seriously, though, in recent years the tools to help direct the users to the LAN have gotten much better. I admit that my admin experience is somewhat dated.
In my experience companies don't like open source software because they have no one to complain to if something goes wrong with it. If they buy software from MS they can complain to MS. Not that MS will ever actually do anything about it, but at least they feel better about having complained because they feel like that have some control over the situation. Yep, that's how business works alright - illusions of power.
Tell the users to save ALL files on S:\. Now set your office prefs default directory to S:, and 99% of the time the user won't even know the difference.
Yeah, they won't notice the difference because they will still save the files on their C drive. At least that's been my experience.
Anyone remember the issues they had with the old mail order catalog Wargames West? When you start selling things yourself on the cheap no one wants to be your distributor. Now that they are getting lots of licensed GW stores it's not hard to believe that they would push other stores out. I don't buy their stuff anymore - too damn expensive.
You keep talking about how it is "supposed" to work but they are just tools. XSLT do not have to be used just for presentation. XSLT can be used to transform from data from one format to another (for instance when converting from one vendor-specific format to another). On the flip side, an XML document can contain all the formatting information ala the Apple Keynote software and its open DTD.
Certainly if one WANTED to erect a high wall between content and formatting one could use XML and XSLT to do so. But to argue that this is the only acceptable use for XML is just rubbish.
Why does certification of a particular version matter? Sure, Microsoft can get C# certified by some standards body. Who cares? What really is important is who controls the version after that. AFAIK Microsoft has not created a community body involving other companies to set the direction for C# as Sun has with Java.
And as we all know, C# is only a fraction of what is necessary to run.NET. Can anyone tell me if Microsoft has submitted their entire shared library to standards bodies or is it just the C# language and underlying virtual machine? If Microsoft is still keeping the libraries proprietary then it will be even more of a red herring.
Re:OS X Finder Laundry List - Please add yours.
on
A Better Finder?
·
· Score: 1
Does not. I have one directory with some 3000 directories in it, each with from 1-500 files inside, and I can open them up and do tonnes of stuff with them. Yes, it starts to slow down, but no more than my Windows box does on the same directory.
If I try to move 100+ files from one directory to another it takes over a minute. The Finder just hangs. Of course the files moved instantly (verified at the command line) but the Finder spends a ton of time cleaning up its mess.
Slashdot Mirror
Using that "logic" wouldn't twice as much information as 32 bit be 33 bit?
if you pick up even a short history of Western philosophy (e.g., the books by Kenny or Magee), you'll see that people have been thinking really hard about philosophical questions for a very long time, and that "The Matrix" doesn't address those questions in anything other than a superficial way. That's not to say that it's a bad film, or that popular films in general should entirely avoid addressing complicated subjects.
There is a difference between addressing complicated questions (to me "addressing" implies trying to formulate some kind of answer or understanding) and stimulating people to think about complicated issues themselves. Most people won't sit down and think about deep philosophy. But if while enjoying a fun movie you can also get people to think about some deep subjects too, why demean it?
Keep in mind that eBay lost their first case against Bidder's Edge's because it was solely a copyright case. Then they brought a conditions of use case that they won.
I didn't get philosophical about the first Matrix movie. But, I'm not a chick, so that makes sense.
Didn't the same thing happen to MC Hammer? You think they'd learn.
Can't touch this....
What they did do is make everything about the shell rely on the same code. How is that bad?
I wasn't arguing good vs bad. But someone asked what Microsoft could have done to avoid the bundling argument since almost everyone agrees that including a browser with the OS is a good idea. I was simply offering an alternate implementation that I think would have made most people happy.
The "comes installed on 99% of all PCs" argument has no merit. If KDE were installed by default on 99% of all PCs, would you expect the KDE people to go back through their code and rehook everything so that all desktop interactions either worked by setting callbacks, hooks or a swappable library?
That's a bogus argument. Microsoft had a monopoly prior to developing (I mean, buying) their first web browser. Prior to the decision to bundle IE in the OS web browsers were a separate product, and therefore a separate market. And the Sherman act is pretty clear on this. "I didn't know what I was doing was illegal" has never been a valid defense in the USA.
Then people taht removed it would be breaking other commercial applications that use it just as another tool, like the file access APIs. You want those to be swappable too?
Well, considering it is a Disk Operating System I would imagine that is part of the definition of the OS.
The fact is that Microsoft could have chosen to compete in a way which did not violate the law. But they chose to ignore the law. Whether that was right or wrong for them to do is obviously a long discussion.
Didn't they do that? I can write a VB app right now that calls the IE renderer and then write my own interface to it. I can rewrite IE in VB if I wanted to because of that component.
Can I replace that component? No idea. I'd be afraid to because, like you hinted at, MS likes to hide features.
No they didn't do that. They published an interface to call IE and then linked IE to essential files so it is darn near impossible to remove. They did not write IE as a pluggable component (one that can be removed and replaced with another same-shaped plug).
However, if it's generally accepted that making the browser an object of the OS is an expected evolutionary step, then what choice did MS have?
Well, they could have written the browser as a puggable component and then published the interface. That way developers could still use a browser embedded in their app but if a user wanted to replace IE with another browser (that conformed to the spec), they could. So it's integrated into the operating system yet still replacable. This wouldn't satisfy all the concerns, but it does deal with the technical ones.
Of course, Microsoft would argue that it's not their job to help their competitors and, besides, it would ruin the consistent user interface (meaning, anything not from Microsoft is not consistent). But then Microsoft doesn't admit to being a monopoly either....
Microsoft has been fighting a long war to remove any innovation or product differentiation in PC vendors. Microsoft wants conformity which is at odds with innovation. And as PC companies do try to innovate Microsoft doesn't want to be left out in the cold. A PC vendor that presents a computing value that is outside the confines of Windows is a threat.
Microsoft created the stagnant PC industry. And now they are trying to save it. Kudos to them! LOL
No, that's not the only reason people whine about it. I learned C++ and Java at almost the same time (C++ about a year earlier) and I, like a lot of other programmers, can honestly say that IMO C++ is just a better language than Java. It's more compact, easier and more pleasant to write, etc.
You had me right up until "easier". There is a reason C++ journals have sections devoted to obscure sections of the standard and how code might not compile the way you would expect it to. It's because C++ is not simple. Powerul? Yes. Easy? No. Not to mention the differing implementations by different compilers. Ugh. No thanks. I'd rather spend my time working on solutions instead of fighting the language.
I remember reading about a study earlier this year where researchers found that the average keyboard is dirtier than a toilet. Apparently Microsoft saw that study too....
Except, that it was bought by Apple and essentially took it over. MacOS X is OPENSTEP with a different GUI.
I know. The point I was making was that just because you can it doesn't mean you should.
Where would Apple place Opterons on their marketing? Would they market to the high-end desktop crowd? If they did, would the makers of high-end software actually create two versions of their code, one optimized for each platform (Opteron might be fast but it won't have Altivec)? Even assuming that development for the two environments would simply be a checkbox away ("Compile for PPC or Opteron?") Apple would basically be either killing PPC or dooming Opteron to failure. Software companies would probably pick one system to optimize for and ignore the other (heck, many don't even optimize for Altivec now).
And with all this risk, what exactly would the reward be? What is the prize? Avoiding some future that may never come where IBM doesn't produce a fast enough PPC chip? Not worth it. Why kill the company over a pipe-nightmare?
One thing you're forgetting is the NeXT basically failed. They were nearly irrelevant.
Remember that the feasibility of something is quite apart from the practicality and advisability of following that course.
No, the marketers, managers, and business planners did that. What did the coders/testers/designers do?
Microsoft seems to be the case-study in showing that actual employee skill is almost irrelevant to success. Sure, they've got some bright people, but what have they done with it?
Right, because as often as not it's the boss who lost his files....
Seriously, though, in recent years the tools to help direct the users to the LAN have gotten much better. I admit that my admin experience is somewhat dated.
In my experience companies don't like open source software because they have no one to complain to if something goes wrong with it. If they buy software from MS they can complain to MS. Not that MS will ever actually do anything about it, but at least they feel better about having complained because they feel like that have some control over the situation. Yep, that's how business works alright - illusions of power.
Tell the users to save ALL files on S:\. Now set your office prefs default directory to S:, and 99% of the time the user won't even know the difference.
Yeah, they won't notice the difference because they will still save the files on their C drive. At least that's been my experience.
Anyone remember the issues they had with the old mail order catalog Wargames West? When you start selling things yourself on the cheap no one wants to be your distributor. Now that they are getting lots of licensed GW stores it's not hard to believe that they would push other stores out. I don't buy their stuff anymore - too damn expensive.
You keep talking about how it is "supposed" to work but they are just tools. XSLT do not have to be used just for presentation. XSLT can be used to transform from data from one format to another (for instance when converting from one vendor-specific format to another). On the flip side, an XML document can contain all the formatting information ala the Apple Keynote software and its open DTD.
Certainly if one WANTED to erect a high wall between content and formatting one could use XML and XSLT to do so. But to argue that this is the only acceptable use for XML is just rubbish.
Scary. But not quite so scary when you consider that the current WHO estimate is that 250,000-500,000 people die every year world-wide from influenza.
But isn't Sony part of Hollywood?
Why does certification of a particular version matter? Sure, Microsoft can get C# certified by some standards body. Who cares? What really is important is who controls the version after that. AFAIK Microsoft has not created a community body involving other companies to set the direction for C# as Sun has with Java.
.NET. Can anyone tell me if Microsoft has submitted their entire shared library to standards bodies or is it just the C# language and underlying virtual machine? If Microsoft is still keeping the libraries proprietary then it will be even more of a red herring.
And as we all know, C# is only a fraction of what is necessary to run
Does not. I have one directory with some 3000 directories in it, each with from 1-500 files inside, and I can open them up and do tonnes of stuff with them. Yes, it starts to slow down, but no more than my Windows box does on the same directory.
If I try to move 100+ files from one directory to another it takes over a minute. The Finder just hangs. Of course the files moved instantly (verified at the command line) but the Finder spends a ton of time cleaning up its mess.
So what you *really* mean is "if it's not used for much and no one is trying to hack it, it doesn't matter if it's broke" :)