This works, right up until your application becomes ultra popular! Then, do you really think people go to the developer for support anymore? Nope... They go to the corporate umbrela companies that offer support for all your linux applications. They go to the IBM's and Red Hats of the world. To use an example... say when XYZ Corp has problems with a faulty Apache web server, or needs some extension built ( closed source ) do you think they go to the origional developers and contract them in? Maybe... but I would say 9 out of 10 would go to a RedHat type company for their support services.
On the bright side though, your development is helping to make work and money for others.;-) How does that make you feel?
For example if I set up a cybercafe and write some software to deal with scheduling and billing, I'm not looking to make money from it. Instead I'm looking to make money from the business that relies on it. Providing a service is what is going to make me the money, and by opening the source of my billing software I may find a wealth of people willing to help me improve it and to use it themselves in other commercial products which pay their bills (and not mine). I get free upgrades and enhancements and they get the basis of a product that runs their business.
Ok... lets look at the flipside. What if that software you designed to make your business more efficent is released open source, and your competitors start using it. What happens when your competitor starts running more efficently and has an excess of money available? On thing they can allocate that money towards, is dealing with you. Granted, in your example its a rather out there scenario. However...
If you look at in house developed software... many times the reason something is developed in house, is because there isnt an off the shelf product ( affordably ) available for you to buy... or with the feature set required for your industry.
I'll use my company as an example... im a developer/analyst with a specialized die cast company, in a very specialize niche of the marketplace. We have about 6 competitors world wide, of which we are the largest. Now, if I develop software to aid our business process ( which I have ) do I have the slightest bit of incentive to give it away "for free"? Good god no! The people that would directly benefit from my work would be our enemies. Whats the business logic behind that?!?! I tell you one thing... senior management here would be quite extremely pissed at me! Now... I imagine in many cases this scenario exists at any organization larger then a mom and pop shop.
Just my 0.02$ from the capitalistic world I currently dwell in.
I agree with you to some degree, in that "Operating Systems" were part of the package deal. But the home computing industry, from the earliest days had shrink wrapped software you paid for. ( Or, zip bagged wrapped, if you want to go far enough back in time ). In the days before MS Offices domination of the desktop office software, Word Perfect did the same things. Then there was software like AccPac, simply accounting, Autocad, Lotus 123, etc... etc... Actually as a trend, home computer software actually got cheaper... as hard as it is to believe.
While I agree that there are cases where certain things ought to be protected, Drugs, and in my opinion Software are not neccesarrily good examples of these.
I hate to tell you something, but in a capitalist soceity, you have to protect things like software and drugs. The reason why these things need to be protected is, if you didnt they would not be created. Software is a bit of an exception to this ( you could argue either way as first off... the open source community obviously flies in the logic of this statement... but the counter argument, is that there would be no software industry in the first place, if not for the corporations that created it... without the incentive ( $$$ ), why would IBM have made the PC popular... sorry, sidetracked a second there. )
But, thats the thing... if you do not offer companies, pharmacaeutical companies as a perfect example, protection on the work they create... its simple... they wont create it! All those drugs that save and prolong lives will never be create, because there is no profit in creating them. Pure and simple. If this was a purely socialist soceity, sure... everything would be open and free, and there would be no need for protection. Sadly enough... it isnt. Capitalism, pure and simple!
Aside from buckling down to maintain a monopoly, has anyone seen substantial change in Office since 2000?
Office 2K to Office XP, no im not seeing much of a big difference... but 2K/XP to Office2K3 Beta 2, the difference is night and day! Im in an office environment that requires me to use MS Office products... ive never been a huge fan of outlook. That said, Im now using the Beta version of 2k3 over any other version ( at least for stuff I dont have to share with other people ) and it is night and day better. Builtin translation from language to language, builtin web searching that actually works and doesnt feel like a bolt on feature. Spam filters that actually work ( spam filter has about a 99% success rate from my view sofar ). The other biggy is the integration of sharepoint and office 2k3... this is the first version of office im actually looking forward to seeing rolled out. It solves SOOOOOOOO many problems in the enterprise, that previously my team would have to program around. It truly is a nice product... it seems to be the Microsoft way... any product that goes through at least 3 revisions, gets much much much better in time. If you havent looked at 2k3, and live in a world where you have to use Microsoft... look into it!
One small note ( of disdain... but hey, it is a beta ). Outlook 2k3 changed something in my mailbox that causes Exchange 5.5 to crash whenever I try to use OWA. Even with this flaw... im sticking with the beta! Had to finally get off my lazy ass, and set up my VPN from home to work, in order to read my email... small cost.
Actually, doesnt anyone out there believe that maybe just maybe the DMCA *should* be going against products like OpenOffice?
Before you light up the torches, let me explain a second... there is a difference between interoping with a product, and *cloning* it. How would you feel if you had vested multiple millions of dollars into research into what an ideal user interface is, or how to be enable X or Y feature... to have another team clone it exactly, and sell it as their own. Wouldnt you want your work to be somewhat protected?
I dont like the fact that Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop office software area... but as someone who makes money off creating software... I do like the fact their are protections in place to protect my livelhood. The open source system doesnt work for all software development... making money off software, isnt itself evil.
This is one of the few area's where I actually see the DMCA doing what its supposed to! Protecting the rights of ownership in a digital age... ( and yes, I hate the law as much as everyone else... especially I hate the RIAA... but for much different reasons.)
Imagine spending millions developing the forumla for a drug, then having someone knock off a cheap copy? We have laws in place to prevent ( or at least hinder ) this sort of activity. It more of these open source projects refined... instead of cloned the windows version, I might have a different standpoint. But, in most cases, they seem like ugly step children to the commerical equivelant. So, therefore there only reason for existance ( at least on a windows platform ) is because they are free... not because they are different or better.
Shrug... flame away... I just expressed a very anti/. type opinion.
No intention of slighting the noble profession of burger flipping. You fulfill a very required and appreciated role... namingly keeping me fed and unhealthy!;)
I suppose it would depend on the type of systems you program for, and your importance to the projects themselves. I gaurantee, at some level in your development world, there is *somebody* on call... I have yet to have a programming position where in their wasnt somebody on call. Actually, almost every job ive been involved in, I have required a cell phone, although I wasnt always called frequently.
Although, I suppose if you are developing systems that dont need 24/7 uptime, or are sold in shrink wrap... there is less of a need to be available... although, around release time, I imagine you have to make yourselve more available then normal. There are some bugs out there, in almost every piece of software, that have to be fixed *NOW*!
That said, im in more a designer/manager type position now... which makes the need to carry a cell phone even greater. Although, even now... I still dont get that many calls. Your right, good design and tight code reduce the need to be on call a great deal... but some problems always slip through the cracks.
As much as I hate the damned things... I don't really see how you can be part of the professional world, without carrying a cell phone, a pager or any other such communication device?
Most professions of a greater scale than say... burger flippers, require anytime anwhere access... to some degree anyways. Granted, as an employee thats a pretty crappy thing... but heh... it aint a strong job market right now, so put up or shut up eh?;)
That said, cell phones do have one good point... they are a nice piece of mind device... so if your car breaks down, you get abducted by UFO's, or attacked by a yeti... you can call for help. Granted... when you need the damned things... they never seem to work. Hell, during the East Coast blackout a few weeks back... the sheer call volume killed the network around my area.
I hadnt considered those... minivan-esque vehicles... or SUV's ( Minivans for those people that refuse to admit they need a minivan ), I suppose it makes sense... although I think I would go batty listening to kids watch Shrek or whatever... over and over while I had to drive... Or worse yet... Barney!
I had more intended the Stereo add-on screens you can buy. I think its one of those things that fast and the delerious crowd started. Then again... nobody ever said people that pay 60K for a civic, are the smartest of shoppers, now are they?:)
I have never understood why people buy these things. Granted... its a cool gimmicky toy... but for 600USD!!! wow. Really, how much do you want to watch video on a 3" screen? Its kinda like those 15" plasma displays... that sell for a grand. Hey... plasma looks ultra cool, but... any movie looks bad on a 15" display... sheeesh... pay the same and get a nice 36" tv... it aint as sharp, but you can actually read text on the screen!
So beyond catering to "the geek that has everything"... I just cant picture why people want this stuff... having portable video, thats too damned small to see... is about as useful as having no video at all. Same guess for those stupid TV displays in cars... not to mention WTF are people putting tv's in cars anyways!!! Sheeeesh.... cell phones are bad enough.
Ok sorry... end of rant. In the end, this product just seems like a massively overpriced, relatively useless gimmick to me.
The posting system rewards people that post early... so, I have a hunch most people dont read the articles. I admit myself, I didnt read the article, but mostly thats just because the subject is just sooooooooo damned boring to me;)
Um... if you dont have access to a few million dollars worth of lab equiptment to start with... are you really going to be dreaming up new applicable radioactive substances... or particle accelerators...
Hell... without going through the prototype stage, you cant even know that your patented idea, is anything more then a concept. I honestly think we should reward the person who makes something work... not the person that dreams it up!
An idea is nothing, if it isnt implemented! There is more value, and work involved in the first implementation than there is in the idea. Granted... this isnt always the case... but say one day I dream of ( 200 years ago ) sending a rocket to the moon, after I watched a fireworks display... is it a valid dream? Yep... but the person who recieves the patents should be the one that actually figures out HOW to put a rocket into space... and without some element of a prototype... its nothing more then a theory.
Your right, a new user wouldnt be able to tell the difference ( initially ). Two things though... 1) the first time the need to run an app that requires the other windowing interface... they have a new gui to learn 2) they need to make a decision at install time, which GUI to use... at least with some distro's. It adds a layer of confusion that just doesnt exist in the windows world. Having too many choices ( and for neophytes... having more then one choice ) makes things more complicated!
Im not talking a full implementation... just a prototype that shows that the idea works... If the small guy isnt capable of that much... his idea is either a) just an idea b) infeasible c) not the right ( or capable ) person to implement it.
Yes, but the type of user that will change the UI for windows, should be techincal enough that they should understand the differences. However, in linux... say with Mandrake installed... you would INSTANTLY as a new user, have to choice between Gnome and KDE. That and... the pure argument of numbers... 99% of XP users would be using the XP interface... there isnt a single UI on linux that has much over 45%, I would imagine. That difference makes it very hard on new users.
Mind you, I think MS dropped the ball by putting in theme support... skinning is singly the most stupid idea, to give to regular users... now only do you have to learn different OS's quirks... now each tom dick and moron, can create their own gui... uhoh!
And all it took was two sticks of gum, a couple marbles and some string. Its really rather simple once you know how... now if only I could get the damned thing to stop!:D
Yes, but I think your missing the message on this one. Windows has *one* user interface at a time... Keep in mind, Windows 98 is a five year old ( at least ) OS... comparing it to XP just isnt applicable.
Microsoft has refined ( ok... thats arguable...;) ) there interface over time. The difference you complain about really isnt anything but an evolutionary change to the UI itself. However, since the Win 9X line of code is now dead... and Microsoft is only working on the XP line... they *have* standardized on one UI. Compare the difference between XP home and pro... and you will see they are oftly friggin close!
Wherease in the Windows world... you have KDE and GNome, and countless other less popular windowing systems. Now only are they different from previous versions ( as you cited MS for doing )... they are massively different then each other.
If you were buying software back in the days of ST/Amiga/800XL/C64... you will rememeber that software for multiple OS's was actually a bit of a pain in the ass! Having to wait a year or more for a port, etc... Having the one dominate OS was a great boon for the average user to be honest... even if you dont like the OS they settled on.
I personally agree that there should only be one desktop environment for linux. Just think how much better it would be if the KDE and GNome teams worked together? Also, there should only be 1 UI component for changing OS settings, not the mishmash of tools we have today. The power user can still work from the commandline... the default install of a Linux GUI, SHOULD NOT have 3 different graphical ways to configure the mouse!!!
Actually thats my biggest complaint about both this, and any other patent lawsuit.
It needs to be more clearly defined *EXACTLY* what is being patented... these vague patents... or more specifically, a patent without an actual implementation, opens us up to all kinds of useless broadreaching patent lawsuits. In the end, this kinda stuff tends to hurt the consumers more then anyone!
IMHO, you should not be able to receive a patent unless you have an exact implementation to demonstrate exactly what it is you are patenting. Patents should be almost as specific and exacting as trademarks are.
Yep, but MS basically has its hands tied. Pulling a profit isnt enough... they need to show growth to the analysts that monitor MS stocks. When you own damned near 100% of your market... you are forced to go into new markets. Now, Microsofts best way into new markets its to leverage the assets they already have.
XBox was a good example of this way of thinking... as was MSN, and in this case... now so is music. So long as one of these area's they succeed in, MS can really afford to fail in a few others.
However, if MS fails to grow in any area... you are going to see their stock plummet like a rock.... well... that is... if they didnt have 40billion in the bank:) If they had to, they could float the stock price for a while paying dividends...
I hear alot of conversation in this thread about buying ATI or nVidia stock... First off, dont buy Nvidia... not yet atleast... they are still in a bit of a downward spiral.
As to ATI... I already own the stock, I bought it about a month back when it was 13$ on the TSE(tsx.com symbol ATY). You know why I bought it then? ATI ALL BUT CONFIRMED THEY WERE GOING TO BE PRODUCING THE CHIPSET FOR XBOX2!!! When they announced 3rd quarter earnings, they said "a pre-payment of $18.0 million recorded as deferred revenue, associated with a development contract"... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm now, who exactly would spend 18 million in a lump deferred sum ( as in, pay now, record later ) to a graphics card company?!?! I bought that day... and damn am I happy I did!;-) You can click here, to read the full 3rd quarter release.
It still rather annoys me how often analysts miss the boat... im thinking these people know rather jack shit, for the most part. I would argue that somebody thouroughly entrenched in the IT industry with a mediocum of knowledge on financial matters... could pick stocks better then most analysts do!!!
As an asside though, I wonder what this will do to the future relationship ATI mentions with Nintendo. Personally, I doubt there will be another Nintendo Console... regardless to what they say. There has been a management rift at nintendo over exactly this discussion.
My money says "within reason" basically means, anything supporting Microsoft's DRM software... namingly Windows Media 9. Im not too sure how many devices support WM9, but I do know a few handhelds and car stereo's do.
I may not agree with Microsoft's business practices... but I do have to say... this is a smart thing to do. First off, it cosies them up to the media producers, because DRM is built in. Secondly, they make the money from the sale of the music ( well... duh! ) although, I imagine they get maybe a few cents a song. Finally... if you want to play the songs, you need to buy a Microsoft DRM approved device. On the desktop this really doesnt mean squat... as most of the PC's are already wintel. But, on the device side of things... if Microsoft can sell enough songs... its a hell of a sales pitch to buy a MS based phone/pda/stereo/mp3player/dvd.
Still, I doubt it will be very effective against the likes of Kazaa. Getting free illegal music, is still wayyyyyyyy to easy... not that I mind!;)
I still dont see things that way. To use your example above... it would actually be AT&T's philosophy... not Unixes. It was application of a philosophy within AT&T that resulted in Unix, nothing more.
Actually, I suppose your mention of the way things were at AT&T, are exactly what I meant to say... I should have used your example:). Unix is an end result, or a product... not a philosophy.
Philosophies. [OE. philosophie, F. philosophie, L. philosophia, from Gr. ?. See Philosopher.] 1. Literally, the love of, including the search after, wisdom; in actual usage, the knowledge of phenomena as explained by, and resolved into, causes and reasons, powers and laws.
Note: When applied to any particular department of knowledge, philosophy denotes the general laws or principles under which all the subordinate phenomena or facts relating to that subject are comprehended. Thus philosophy, when applied to God and the divine government, is called theology; when applied to material objects, it is called physics; when it treats of man, it is called anthropology and psychology, with which are connected logic and ethics; when it treats of the necessary conceptions and relations by which philosophy is possible, it is called metaphysics.
So, actually no. Metaphysics is an application of philosophy or more accurately a subset... too use a geeky parallel... metaphysics is to philosophy as HTML is to SGML.
Phew... fullfilled my geek analogy quote for the week, and its only tuesday!;)
As an asside... trying to post with the phonetic spelling from a dictionary quote, causes Slashdot to trigger a lameness filter for junk characters....
Slashdot Mirror
This works, right up until your application becomes ultra popular! Then, do you really think people go to the developer for support anymore? Nope... They go to the corporate umbrela companies that offer support for all your linux applications. They go to the IBM's and Red Hats of the world. To use an example... say when XYZ Corp has problems with a faulty Apache web server, or needs some extension built ( closed source ) do you think they go to the origional developers and contract them in? Maybe... but I would say 9 out of 10 would go to a RedHat type company for their support services.
;-) How does that make you feel?
On the bright side though, your development is helping to make work and money for others.
For example if I set up a cybercafe and write some software to deal with scheduling and billing, I'm not looking to make money from it. Instead I'm looking to make money from the business that relies on it. Providing a service is what is going to make me the money, and by opening the source of my billing software I may find a wealth of people willing to help me improve it and to use it themselves in other commercial products which pay their bills (and not mine). I get free upgrades and enhancements and they get the basis of a product that runs their business.
Ok... lets look at the flipside. What if that software you designed to make your business more efficent is released open source, and your competitors start using it. What happens when your competitor starts running more efficently and has an excess of money available? On thing they can allocate that money towards, is dealing with you. Granted, in your example its a rather out there scenario. However...
If you look at in house developed software... many times the reason something is developed in house, is because there isnt an off the shelf product ( affordably ) available for you to buy... or with the feature set required for your industry.
I'll use my company as an example... im a developer/analyst with a specialized die cast company, in a very specialize niche of the marketplace. We have about 6 competitors world wide, of which we are the largest. Now, if I develop software to aid our business process ( which I have ) do I have the slightest bit of incentive to give it away "for free"? Good god no! The people that would directly benefit from my work would be our enemies. Whats the business logic behind that?!?! I tell you one thing... senior management here would be quite extremely pissed at me! Now... I imagine in many cases this scenario exists at any organization larger then a mom and pop shop.
Just my 0.02$ from the capitalistic world I currently dwell in.
I agree with you to some degree, in that "Operating Systems" were part of the package deal. But the home computing industry, from the earliest days had shrink wrapped software you paid for. ( Or, zip bagged wrapped, if you want to go far enough back in time ). In the days before MS Offices domination of the desktop office software, Word Perfect did the same things. Then there was software like AccPac, simply accounting, Autocad, Lotus 123, etc... etc... Actually as a trend, home computer software actually got cheaper... as hard as it is to believe.
While I agree that there are cases where certain things ought to be protected, Drugs, and in my opinion Software are not neccesarrily good examples of these.
... sorry, sidetracked a second there. )
I hate to tell you something, but in a capitalist soceity, you have to protect things like software and drugs. The reason why these things need to be protected is, if you didnt they would not be created. Software is a bit of an exception to this ( you could argue either way as first off... the open source community obviously flies in the logic of this statement... but the counter argument, is that there would be no software industry in the first place, if not for the corporations that created it... without the incentive ( $$$ ), why would IBM have made the PC popular
But, thats the thing... if you do not offer companies, pharmacaeutical companies as a perfect example, protection on the work they create... its simple... they wont create it! All those drugs that save and prolong lives will never be create, because there is no profit in creating them. Pure and simple. If this was a purely socialist soceity, sure... everything would be open and free, and there would be no need for protection. Sadly enough... it isnt. Capitalism, pure and simple!
Aside from buckling down to maintain a monopoly, has anyone seen substantial change in Office since 2000?
Office 2K to Office XP, no im not seeing much of a big difference... but 2K/XP to Office2K3 Beta 2, the difference is night and day! Im in an office environment that requires me to use MS Office products... ive never been a huge fan of outlook. That said, Im now using the Beta version of 2k3 over any other version ( at least for stuff I dont have to share with other people ) and it is night and day better. Builtin translation from language to language, builtin web searching that actually works and doesnt feel like a bolt on feature. Spam filters that actually work ( spam filter has about a 99% success rate from my view sofar ). The other biggy is the integration of sharepoint and office 2k3... this is the first version of office im actually looking forward to seeing rolled out. It solves SOOOOOOOO many problems in the enterprise, that previously my team would have to program around. It truly is a nice product... it seems to be the Microsoft way... any product that goes through at least 3 revisions, gets much much much better in time. If you havent looked at 2k3, and live in a world where you have to use Microsoft... look into it!
One small note ( of disdain... but hey, it is a beta ). Outlook 2k3 changed something in my mailbox that causes Exchange 5.5 to crash whenever I try to use OWA. Even with this flaw... im sticking with the beta! Had to finally get off my lazy ass, and set up my VPN from home to work, in order to read my email... small cost.
Actually, doesnt anyone out there believe that maybe just maybe the DMCA *should* be going against products like OpenOffice?
/. type opinion.
Before you light up the torches, let me explain a second... there is a difference between interoping with a product, and *cloning* it. How would you feel if you had vested multiple millions of dollars into research into what an ideal user interface is, or how to be enable X or Y feature... to have another team clone it exactly, and sell it as their own. Wouldnt you want your work to be somewhat protected?
I dont like the fact that Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop office software area... but as someone who makes money off creating software... I do like the fact their are protections in place to protect my livelhood. The open source system doesnt work for all software development... making money off software, isnt itself evil.
This is one of the few area's where I actually see the DMCA doing what its supposed to! Protecting the rights of ownership in a digital age... ( and yes, I hate the law as much as everyone else... especially I hate the RIAA... but for much different reasons.)
Imagine spending millions developing the forumla for a drug, then having someone knock off a cheap copy? We have laws in place to prevent ( or at least hinder ) this sort of activity. It more of these open source projects refined... instead of cloned the windows version, I might have a different standpoint. But, in most cases, they seem like ugly step children to the commerical equivelant. So, therefore there only reason for existance ( at least on a windows platform ) is because they are free... not because they are different or better.
Shrug... flame away... I just expressed a very anti
No intention of slighting the noble profession of burger flipping. You fulfill a very required and appreciated role... namingly keeping me fed and unhealthy! ;)
I suppose it would depend on the type of systems you program for, and your importance to the projects themselves. I gaurantee, at some level in your development world, there is *somebody* on call... I have yet to have a programming position where in their wasnt somebody on call. Actually, almost every job ive been involved in, I have required a cell phone, although I wasnt always called frequently.
Although, I suppose if you are developing systems that dont need 24/7 uptime, or are sold in shrink wrap... there is less of a need to be available... although, around release time, I imagine you have to make yourselve more available then normal. There are some bugs out there, in almost every piece of software, that have to be fixed *NOW*!
That said, im in more a designer/manager type position now... which makes the need to carry a cell phone even greater. Although, even now... I still dont get that many calls. Your right, good design and tight code reduce the need to be on call a great deal... but some problems always slip through the cracks.
My dog, how did you manage to dog that bullet?!?!
;)
As much as I hate the damned things... I don't really see how you can be part of the professional world, without carrying a cell phone, a pager or any other such communication device?
Most professions of a greater scale than say... burger flippers, require anytime anwhere access... to some degree anyways. Granted, as an employee thats a pretty crappy thing... but heh... it aint a strong job market right now, so put up or shut up eh?
That said, cell phones do have one good point... they are a nice piece of mind device... so if your car breaks down, you get abducted by UFO's, or attacked by a yeti... you can call for help. Granted... when you need the damned things... they never seem to work. Hell, during the East Coast blackout a few weeks back... the sheer call volume killed the network around my area.
I hadnt considered those... minivan-esque vehicles... or SUV's ( Minivans for those people that refuse to admit they need a minivan ), I suppose it makes sense... although I think I would go batty listening to kids watch Shrek or whatever... over and over while I had to drive... Or worse yet... Barney!
:)
I had more intended the Stereo add-on screens you can buy. I think its one of those things that fast and the delerious crowd started. Then again... nobody ever said people that pay 60K for a civic, are the smartest of shoppers, now are they?
I have never understood why people buy these things. Granted... its a cool gimmicky toy... but for 600USD!!! wow. Really, how much do you want to watch video on a 3" screen? Its kinda like those 15" plasma displays... that sell for a grand. Hey... plasma looks ultra cool, but... any movie looks bad on a 15" display... sheeesh... pay the same and get a nice 36" tv... it aint as sharp, but you can actually read text on the screen!
So beyond catering to "the geek that has everything"... I just cant picture why people want this stuff... having portable video, thats too damned small to see... is about as useful as having no video at all. Same guess for those stupid TV displays in cars... not to mention WTF are people putting tv's in cars anyways!!! Sheeeesh.... cell phones are bad enough.
Ok sorry... end of rant. In the end, this product just seems like a massively overpriced, relatively useless gimmick to me.
Ahhhh..... but thats the problem with slashdot...
;)
The posting system rewards people that post early... so, I have a hunch most people dont read the articles. I admit myself, I didnt read the article, but mostly thats just because the subject is just sooooooooo damned boring to me
Um... if you dont have access to a few million dollars worth of lab equiptment to start with... are you really going to be dreaming up new applicable radioactive substances... or particle accelerators... Hell... without going through the prototype stage, you cant even know that your patented idea, is anything more then a concept. I honestly think we should reward the person who makes something work... not the person that dreams it up!
An idea is nothing, if it isnt implemented! There is more value, and work involved in the first implementation than there is in the idea. Granted... this isnt always the case... but say one day I dream of ( 200 years ago ) sending a rocket to the moon, after I watched a fireworks display... is it a valid dream? Yep... but the person who recieves the patents should be the one that actually figures out HOW to put a rocket into space... and without some element of a prototype... its nothing more then a theory.
Your right, a new user wouldnt be able to tell the difference ( initially ). Two things though... 1) the first time the need to run an app that requires the other windowing interface... they have a new gui to learn 2) they need to make a decision at install time, which GUI to use... at least with some distro's. It adds a layer of confusion that just doesnt exist in the windows world. Having too many choices ( and for neophytes... having more then one choice ) makes things more complicated!
Im not talking a full implementation... just a prototype that shows that the idea works... If the small guy isnt capable of that much... his idea is either a) just an idea b) infeasible c) not the right ( or capable ) person to implement it.
Yes, but the type of user that will change the UI for windows, should be techincal enough that they should understand the differences. However, in linux... say with Mandrake installed... you would INSTANTLY as a new user, have to choice between Gnome and KDE. That and... the pure argument of numbers... 99% of XP users would be using the XP interface... there isnt a single UI on linux that has much over 45%, I would imagine. That difference makes it very hard on new users.
Mind you, I think MS dropped the ball by putting in theme support... skinning is singly the most stupid idea, to give to regular users... now only do you have to learn different OS's quirks... now each tom dick and moron, can create their own gui... uhoh!
Too late... I already solved it
:D
And all it took was two sticks of gum, a couple marbles and some string. Its really rather simple once you know how... now if only I could get the damned thing to stop!
Yes, but I think your missing the message on this one. Windows has *one* user interface at a time... Keep in mind, Windows 98 is a five year old ( at least ) OS... comparing it to XP just isnt applicable.
;) ) there interface over time. The difference you complain about really isnt anything but an evolutionary change to the UI itself. However, since the Win 9X line of code is now dead... and Microsoft is only working on the XP line... they *have* standardized on one UI. Compare the difference between XP home and pro... and you will see they are oftly friggin close!
Microsoft has refined ( ok... thats arguable...
Wherease in the Windows world... you have KDE and GNome, and countless other less popular windowing systems. Now only are they different from previous versions ( as you cited MS for doing )... they are massively different then each other.
If you were buying software back in the days of ST/Amiga/800XL/C64... you will rememeber that software for multiple OS's was actually a bit of a pain in the ass! Having to wait a year or more for a port, etc... Having the one dominate OS was a great boon for the average user to be honest... even if you dont like the OS they settled on.
I personally agree that there should only be one desktop environment for linux. Just think how much better it would be if the KDE and GNome teams worked together? Also, there should only be 1 UI component for changing OS settings, not the mishmash of tools we have today. The power user can still work from the commandline... the default install of a Linux GUI, SHOULD NOT have 3 different graphical ways to configure the mouse!!!
Actually thats my biggest complaint about both this, and any other patent lawsuit.
It needs to be more clearly defined *EXACTLY* what is being patented... these vague patents... or more specifically, a patent without an actual implementation, opens us up to all kinds of useless broadreaching patent lawsuits. In the end, this kinda stuff tends to hurt the consumers more then anyone!
IMHO, you should not be able to receive a patent unless you have an exact implementation to demonstrate exactly what it is you are patenting. Patents should be almost as specific and exacting as trademarks are.
Yep, but MS basically has its hands tied. Pulling a profit isnt enough... they need to show growth to the analysts that monitor MS stocks. When you own damned near 100% of your market... you are forced to go into new markets. Now, Microsofts best way into new markets its to leverage the assets they already have.
:) If they had to, they could float the stock price for a while paying dividends...
XBox was a good example of this way of thinking... as was MSN, and in this case... now so is music. So long as one of these area's they succeed in, MS can really afford to fail in a few others.
However, if MS fails to grow in any area... you are going to see their stock plummet like a rock.... well... that is... if they didnt have 40billion in the bank
I hear alot of conversation in this thread about buying ATI or nVidia stock... First off, dont buy Nvidia... not yet atleast... they are still in a bit of a downward spiral.
;-) You can click here, to read the full 3rd quarter release.
As to ATI... I already own the stock, I bought it about a month back when it was 13$ on the TSE(tsx.com symbol ATY). You know why I bought it then? ATI ALL BUT CONFIRMED THEY WERE GOING TO BE PRODUCING THE CHIPSET FOR XBOX2!!! When they announced 3rd quarter earnings, they said "a pre-payment of $18.0 million recorded as deferred revenue, associated with a development contract"... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm now, who exactly would spend 18 million in a lump deferred sum ( as in, pay now, record later ) to a graphics card company?!?! I bought that day... and damn am I happy I did!
It still rather annoys me how often analysts miss the boat... im thinking these people know rather jack shit, for the most part. I would argue that somebody thouroughly entrenched in the IT industry with a mediocum of knowledge on financial matters... could pick stocks better then most analysts do!!!
As an asside though, I wonder what this will do to the future relationship ATI mentions with Nintendo. Personally, I doubt there will be another Nintendo Console... regardless to what they say. There has been a management rift at nintendo over exactly this discussion.
SCO a big company? No way!
Annoying company yes... but as far as the industry goes... small is a pisant little mom and pop shop!
My money says "within reason" basically means, anything supporting Microsoft's DRM software... namingly Windows Media 9. Im not too sure how many devices support WM9, but I do know a few handhelds and car stereo's do.
;)
I may not agree with Microsoft's business practices... but I do have to say... this is a smart thing to do. First off, it cosies them up to the media producers, because DRM is built in. Secondly, they make the money from the sale of the music ( well... duh! ) although, I imagine they get maybe a few cents a song. Finally... if you want to play the songs, you need to buy a Microsoft DRM approved device. On the desktop this really doesnt mean squat... as most of the PC's are already wintel. But, on the device side of things... if Microsoft can sell enough songs... its a hell of a sales pitch to buy a MS based phone/pda/stereo/mp3player/dvd.
Still, I doubt it will be very effective against the likes of Kazaa. Getting free illegal music, is still wayyyyyyyy to easy... not that I mind!
I still dont see things that way. To use your example above... it would actually be AT&T's philosophy... not Unixes. It was application of a philosophy within AT&T that resulted in Unix, nothing more.
:). Unix is an end result, or a product... not a philosophy.
Actually, I suppose your mention of the way things were at AT&T, are exactly what I meant to say... I should have used your example
From dictionary.com
;)
Philosophies. [OE. philosophie, F. philosophie, L. philosophia, from Gr. ?. See Philosopher.] 1. Literally, the love of, including the search after, wisdom; in actual usage, the knowledge of phenomena as explained by, and resolved into, causes and reasons, powers and laws. Note: When applied to any particular department of knowledge, philosophy denotes the general laws or principles under which all the subordinate phenomena or facts relating to that subject are comprehended. Thus philosophy, when applied to God and the divine government, is called theology; when applied to material objects, it is called physics; when it treats of man, it is called anthropology and psychology, with which are connected logic and ethics; when it treats of the necessary conceptions and relations by which philosophy is possible, it is called metaphysics.
So, actually no. Metaphysics is an application of philosophy or more accurately a subset... too use a geeky parallel... metaphysics is to philosophy as HTML is to SGML.
Phew... fullfilled my geek analogy quote for the week, and its only tuesday!
As an asside... trying to post with the phonetic spelling from a dictionary quote, causes Slashdot to trigger a lameness filter for junk characters....