Never did. Apple sure as heck didn't want that decision to turn out the way it did either. But notice that Apple quickly started patenting everything they did
Not to defend MS but the problem isn't that they apply for these patents but that they can and that they have to.
Apple's case against MS defined the legal benchmark by which you could protect any new features in an OS and by extension, I think, in an application.
Companies, especially public companies, now know that the only way to defend themselves against litigation, especially in the US, is to establish patents covering features. Even if those patents are utterly bogus.
MS might also be in a position where they could be held legally responsible by their shareholders for not trying their upmost to defend the companies work via patents.
Its stupid that companies can get these sorts of non-trivial patents but don't complain about MS or other companies that do this. Complain about the legal precedents and the patent system that allows it.
Self referential reporting is the best
on
Top 10 Web Fads
·
· Score: 1
Why isn't C|Net lsited as a fad? When was the last time it was relevant?
And what about Flash? Surely the entire "Skip Intro" thing was just a crazy designer fad and not a sign of a glaringly usability flaw?
An what about this "teh" thing I keep on seeing. Surely that is one of those mad acronyms that the kids use?
YMMV. I find it to be just as big a bloated pig as Office. And don't get me started on the UI. Horrors!
I understand the decisions they made in their development process (heck we've discussed them here before) but OO doesn't work for me. I want a streamlined app that does some very minimal tasks and *any* app that tries to replace Office, IMO, makes the same mistakes and conseqquently isn't usable for me.
I'm quite happy with Keynote and Pages and if this is actually true then I am quite looking forward to an Apple created spreadsheet program.
You read that in at the end and both of those are examples of great concepts that Lucas just glosses over.
As someone mentions in an earlier post Aniken does reunite the Force but does it at the end of his life sacrificing himself to save his son.
The true horror of Lucas' handling of this series is that its actually a *powerful* story of one man's fall and ultimate redepmtion and Lucas turns it into a pulp series.
While this movie wasn't as bad as the previous two prequels the plot and the acting really did little to present a compelling story of a man's descent into evil.
Anakin's path to the Dark Side just isn't believable. He goes from being confused and petulent in the morning to killing little children in the evening? Based on what? Certainly not the limited dialogue and character development we see on screen.
His reasoning for wanting to save Padme isn't explored enough. Hell Lucas could have just been a little more concrete and gien Padme a medical condition that *would* have killed her in childbirth. That would have been more believable than a dream that Aniken has.
The main problem really is that Lucas doesn't have the writing nor the directorial skills to explore this type of emotional material. His actors are always wooden and deliver really badly written lines with flat performances. This movie is no exception and its no surprise that the path from Aniken to Darth vader just isn't believable.
The movie looks nice but Lucas should stick to pulp sci-fi and avoid anything than hints of emotion or depth...he can't pull it off.
-- Yeesh, I'm sick of people bitching that Lucas ruined their childhood fantasies with his subsequent movies.
Subsequent experience with treasured childhood movies or shows is always a bad idea. Nothing is as good as it was when we were young.
I used to love Gilligan's Island when I was a child and I think that the shows are utter and irredemable cr*p now.
Does that invalidate my childhood memories? No it doesn't. It just means that I grew up, became a more critical viewer and now demand more depth to my comedies and TV show.
Face it folks, the original Star Wars movie were fluff and we all lvoed them when we were young but that just means that we had different tastes then.
As much as I liked the original trilogy I really can't watch them now because the acting is terrible (Harrison Ford in TESB is horrible) and the plots are really thin.
But I certainly cherish the memories that I had of watching them.
Frankly I'd be more worried if I actually did like the movies as much now as I did when I was younger.
-- Those of us with Macs know that Firefox is really obnoxious on our platform.
I won't disagree that Safari is a much better behaved OS X app and it looks much better but since 99% of my expectation of the suitability of a web browser is, at this point in time, based on my ability to remove ads and Flash banners from web pages I am using Firefox.
I don't have a free solution under Safari to remove ads. AdBlock and FlashBlock simply don't exist and, IMO, without them the web is almost unreadable now.
So while I would love to use Safari to browse I don't want to have to view ad after ad after ad. So no Safari for me
-- As the parent touched on, the possibility of "Google OS" is definitely real.
Given that his blog entry complains about the problems of shipping code when working on something like an OS as opposed to a web application or set of web services I frankly doubt that he will be then going to google to work on an OS.
-- If I was a malicious coder, why would I want to spend time writing code that would only attack the 10% of computer users not running windows in the first place?
Well if Windows was secure then you would.
It doesn't matter how popular an OS is. If it is riddled with holes that scammer can exploit to create DDoS or spam zombies then they will.
Regardless of the marketshare. 15 million Mac boxes would still be a tempting target for these people if there was a known security hole they could exploit. The same with Linux, Redhat or any other OS you care to mention.
Windows gets hit with these worms and virii simply because of the inability (or lack of concern on the part) of Microsoft to patch their OS...not because of any market share numbers
-- isn't there an expectation that, if you're in a public area, you're fair game for being photographed?
Why should there be?
The assumption here is that I am giving away all my rights to privacy in terms of being photographed and video-taped simply because I choose to leave the confines of my house.
Given that almost anyone now has the ability to easily publish a photo of me to a large audience (think of how easy it would be to reach 10,000 people via Slashdot) don't we need to reconsider our options in this regard?
I think that the assumption should be that people don't want their lives photographed or shot to video and that we do have an expectation of privacy in public
Which makes one wonder why people would continue to use products and interfaces that are so poor?
Is it that the first experience of having to learn the application or product was so negative that they are now afraid of learning a new application because they think it will be as arduous?
How much of the UI do you need to relearn in actuallity?
Office is notorious for its utterly complicated menus and buried features.
Surely a simpler application with a better UI and better user experience would be a better alternative
I think that the idea that people won't accept an "Office" suite unless it looks like and acts like Office is one of those old chestnuts that haven't actually been tested.
-- I can agree that most people here on/. (myself included) don't like Office, but we're in a minority situation.
Are we?
Do you know people that are happy with Office? I don't know any.
I don't know any people that use Office apps on a regular basis that don't have very negative opinions of the applications. Most people I know use Office by default or because it is assumed that you need to use it to be able to share documents with other people.
-- they're going after those people who are currently using MS Office day-in and day-out, and who expect a competing suite to offer similar features and a similar experience.
Which may be the point but that doesn't mean you have to make the same sort of application as Office. Why does an Office-suite have to look, feel and act like Office?
And of this group of people how many of them use more than 10% of the Office features? Heck, I still run into people that don't even know that Word does change tracking.
-- The only way OpenOffice can take on Microsoft is to not only build a better office suite
Actually I think that path will fail miserably. The path to take is the one I think that Apple is taking. Make sucecssful and compelling apps that provide people with the features they want and make them easy to use and interoperable.
Office apps are typically bloated and infuriating to use. The main reason I don't use OO on any platform is that it tries to mimic the same horrible user experience that Office has.
Why duplicate crappy applications? People aren't that stupid and if you give them useful, functional applications that still do things like read Office files then I am sure they will use them.
No-one likes Office so what is there to lose in trying to duplicate Office formats but with a better app?
I'll be checking out Pages when it comes out but if Keynote is any indication I am sure it will be yet one more reason not to use Office or OO
I gave up waiting for my mug. I sent in a tip, that was published, about the latest Mac version of Netscape being on hold due to it crashing when rendering c|net's websites and never did receive my mug
Then the company threw a fit and pulled it from the US Market.
Actually the company couldn't sell them in the US or in Canada because everyone wanted a Gameboy. Can't blame them for pulling a product it appears that no-one wanted.
Sorry but if its not pejorative then why is it used?
The phrase serves some sort of purpose and if you are correct that it is simply a stand-in for "user" then why is it used and not the simpler word "user"?
I will agree that its not the most pejorative term that can be used but if it has no additional information implied or infered then it wouldn't be used.
Slashdot Mirror
-- The first thing jumps to mind is a typical fanboy response
The next thing that jumps to mind is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
-- And a 2.5" drive? Why the hell would they go and do that? Just to make it more expensive?
Or to make it smaller. A smaller drive takes up less overall space so it allows them to decrease the overall size of the unit
-- Sounds like blame.
Then I suggest that you're not familiar with the case and so don't understand the context of the comment
-- Don't blame Apple.
Never did. Apple sure as heck didn't want that decision to turn out the way it did either. But notice that Apple quickly started patenting everything they did
Not to defend MS but the problem isn't that they apply for these patents but that they can and that they have to.
Apple's case against MS defined the legal benchmark by which you could protect any new features in an OS and by extension, I think, in an application.
Companies, especially public companies, now know that the only way to defend themselves against litigation, especially in the US, is to establish patents covering features. Even if those patents are utterly bogus.
MS might also be in a position where they could be held legally responsible by their shareholders for not trying their upmost to defend the companies work via patents.
Its stupid that companies can get these sorts of non-trivial patents but don't complain about MS or other companies that do this. Complain about the legal precedents and the patent system that allows it.
Why isn't C|Net lsited as a fad? When was the last time it was relevant?
And what about Flash? Surely the entire "Skip Intro" thing was just a crazy designer fad and not a sign of a glaringly usability flaw?
An what about this "teh" thing I keep on seeing. Surely that is one of those mad acronyms that the kids use?
-- There is nothing wrong with OpenOffice.
YMMV. I find it to be just as big a bloated pig as Office. And don't get me started on the UI. Horrors!
I understand the decisions they made in their development process (heck we've discussed them here before) but OO doesn't work for me. I want a streamlined app that does some very minimal tasks and *any* app that tries to replace Office, IMO, makes the same mistakes and conseqquently isn't usable for me.
I'm quite happy with Keynote and Pages and if this is actually true then I am quite looking forward to an Apple created spreadsheet program.
You read that in at the end and both of those are examples of great concepts that Lucas just glosses over.
As someone mentions in an earlier post Aniken does reunite the Force but does it at the end of his life sacrificing himself to save his son.
The true horror of Lucas' handling of this series is that its actually a *powerful* story of one man's fall and ultimate redepmtion and Lucas turns it into a pulp series.
-- I agree completely, but you left a lot of other major annoyances of the movie.
I wanted to avoid developing a spontaneous RSI condition listing them all
While this movie wasn't as bad as the previous two prequels the plot and the acting really did little to present a compelling story of a man's descent into evil.
...he can't pull it off.
Anakin's path to the Dark Side just isn't believable. He goes from being confused and petulent in the morning to killing little children in the evening? Based on what? Certainly not the limited dialogue and character development we see on screen.
His reasoning for wanting to save Padme isn't explored enough. Hell Lucas could have just been a little more concrete and gien Padme a medical condition that *would* have killed her in childbirth. That would have been more believable than a dream that Aniken has.
The main problem really is that Lucas doesn't have the writing nor the directorial skills to explore this type of emotional material. His actors are always wooden and deliver really badly written lines with flat performances. This movie is no exception and its no surprise that the path from Aniken to Darth vader just isn't believable.
The movie looks nice but Lucas should stick to pulp sci-fi and avoid anything than hints of emotion or depth
-- Yeesh, I'm sick of people bitching that Lucas ruined their childhood fantasies with his subsequent movies.
Subsequent experience with treasured childhood movies or shows is always a bad idea. Nothing is as good as it was when we were young.
I used to love Gilligan's Island when I was a child and I think that the shows are utter and irredemable cr*p now.
Does that invalidate my childhood memories? No it doesn't. It just means that I grew up, became a more critical viewer and now demand more depth to my comedies and TV show.
Face it folks, the original Star Wars movie were fluff and we all lvoed them when we were young but that just means that we had different tastes then.
As much as I liked the original trilogy I really can't watch them now because the acting is terrible (Harrison Ford in TESB is horrible) and the plots are really thin.
But I certainly cherish the memories that I had of watching them.
Frankly I'd be more worried if I actually did like the movies as much now as I did when I was younger.
Why do the editors bother posting links to C|Net articles?
They are routinely inaccurate or just rehashed PR for companies like Microsoft. Or, in the case of this article, both.
This is the modern quivalent of posting links to John Dvorak articles. You know C|Net articles are rubbish so why waste people's time?
-- Those of us with Macs know that Firefox is really obnoxious on our platform.
I won't disagree that Safari is a much better behaved OS X app and it looks much better but since 99% of my expectation of the suitability of a web browser is, at this point in time, based on my ability to remove ads and Flash banners from web pages I am using Firefox.
I don't have a free solution under Safari to remove ads. AdBlock and FlashBlock simply don't exist and, IMO, without them the web is almost unreadable now.
So while I would love to use Safari to browse I don't want to have to view ad after ad after ad. So no Safari for me
-- So if Microsoft will be incorporating these elements into Microsoft Office, will that include the OS X line?
You can answer that question by trying to find a copy of Access in the Mac version of Office.
App with competitive advantage == no Mac port
-- As the parent touched on, the possibility of "Google OS" is definitely real.
Given that his blog entry complains about the problems of shipping code when working on something like an OS as opposed to a web application or set of web services I frankly doubt that he will be then going to google to work on an OS.
-- If I was a malicious coder, why would I want to spend time writing code that would only attack the 10% of computer users not running windows in the first place?
Well if Windows was secure then you would.
It doesn't matter how popular an OS is. If it is riddled with holes that scammer can exploit to create DDoS or spam zombies then they will.
Regardless of the marketshare. 15 million Mac boxes would still be a tempting target for these people if there was a known security hole they could exploit. The same with Linux, Redhat or any other OS you care to mention.
Windows gets hit with these worms and virii simply because of the inability (or lack of concern on the part) of Microsoft to patch their OS...not because of any market share numbers
-- isn't there an expectation that, if you're in a public area, you're fair game for being photographed?
Why should there be?
The assumption here is that I am giving away all my rights to privacy in terms of being photographed and video-taped simply because I choose to leave the confines of my house.
Given that almost anyone now has the ability to easily publish a photo of me to a large audience (think of how easy it would be to reach 10,000 people via Slashdot) don't we need to reconsider our options in this regard?
I think that the assumption should be that people don't want their lives photographed or shot to video and that we do have an expectation of privacy in public
-- And somebody replied, "they haven't figured out how to make a better spreadsheet than Excel yet."
I can't imagine that it would take more than a two hour brainstorming session to come up with a list of compelling ways that Excel could be improved.
Lets start with data entry and formatting.
Interesting comments. Thanks
Which makes one wonder why people would continue to use products and interfaces that are so poor?
Is it that the first experience of having to learn the application or product was so negative that they are now afraid of learning a new application because they think it will be as arduous?
Or are people just lazy?
How much of the UI do you need to relearn in actuallity?
Office is notorious for its utterly complicated menus and buried features.
Surely a simpler application with a better UI and better user experience would be a better alternative
I think that the idea that people won't accept an "Office" suite unless it looks like and acts like Office is one of those old chestnuts that haven't actually been tested.
-- I can agree that most people here on /. (myself included) don't like Office, but we're in a minority situation.
Are we?
Do you know people that are happy with Office? I don't know any.
I don't know any people that use Office apps on a regular basis that don't have very negative opinions of the applications. Most people I know use Office by default or because it is assumed that you need to use it to be able to share documents with other people.
-- they're going after those people who are currently using MS Office day-in and day-out, and who expect a competing suite to offer similar features and a similar experience.
Which may be the point but that doesn't mean you have to make the same sort of application as Office. Why does an Office-suite have to look, feel and act like Office?
And of this group of people how many of them use more than 10% of the Office features? Heck, I still run into people that don't even know that Word does change tracking.
-- The only way OpenOffice can take on Microsoft is to not only build a better office suite
Actually I think that path will fail miserably. The path to take is the one I think that Apple is taking. Make sucecssful and compelling apps that provide people with the features they want and make them easy to use and interoperable.
Office apps are typically bloated and infuriating to use. The main reason I don't use OO on any platform is that it tries to mimic the same horrible user experience that Office has.
Why duplicate crappy applications? People aren't that stupid and if you give them useful, functional applications that still do things like read Office files then I am sure they will use them.
No-one likes Office so what is there to lose in trying to duplicate Office formats but with a better app?
I'll be checking out Pages when it comes out but if Keynote is any indication I am sure it will be yet one more reason not to use Office or OO
I gave up waiting for my mug. I sent in a tip, that was published, about the latest Mac version of Netscape being on hold due to it crashing when rendering c|net's websites and never did receive my mug
/>
I still sniffle about it to this day.
<sigh
Actually the company couldn't sell them in the US or in Canada because everyone wanted a Gameboy. Can't blame them for pulling a product it appears that no-one wanted.
Sorry but if its not pejorative then why is it used?
The phrase serves some sort of purpose and if you are correct that it is simply a stand-in for "user" then why is it used and not the simpler word "user"?
I will agree that its not the most pejorative term that can be used but if it has no additional information implied or infered then it wouldn't be used.