Similar sentences exist in other languages. German: Die Männer, die vor dem Schokoladenladen Laden laden, laden Ladenmädchen zum Tanzen ein, meaning "The men, who loaded chests in front of the chocolate shop, asked shop girls for a dance". Or Wenn hinter Fliegen Fliegen fliegen, fliegen Fliegen Fliegen nach, meaning "When flies fly behind flies, flies fly after flies". Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian: Bar barbarbarbarbar bar bar barbarbarbarbar, meaning "naked barbarian-bar-barbarian [barbarian usually hanging out in bars for barbarians] carried naked barbarian-bar-barbarian." Or Når graver Graver graver grave, graver graver Graver grave for andre, meaning "When digger Graver [his name is Graver] digs graves, digger Graver digs graves for others." Spanish: Cómo como? Como como como, meaning "How do I eat? I eat the way I do". Dutch: Als achter vliegen vliegen vliegen vliegen vliegen vliegen achterna, meaning "If flies fly behind flies, then those flies are flying behind flies". Or "Als graven graven graven graven graven graven graven graven", meaning "When counts dig graves for other counts, counts are digging graves for other counts".
It is generally prudent policy to, before one pulls out all the stops and engages in some heavy no-holds-barred law-fu, gently remind your opponent of the possible consequences of their actions. A bluffing match, perhaps, but no one wants to rush headlong into costly or damaging litigation. The slashdot lawyer's letter seems to be outlining slashdot's possible course of defense, should the matter ever go to trial, and is warning MS that they are on shaky ground.
ah yes, but if you build the most popular car, and release the specs of what your car requires for an engine, and some other companies come along and build fantastic, reliable, cheap engines that all fit perfectly in your car, then suddenly there's some competition, no?
hell yeah. open the APIs. Open APIs means plenty of middleware, like Netscape, like Java. Middleware means easy cross-platform development. (Look at the GIMP-based online photo-editing service http://www.onlinephotolab.com!!) Easy cross-platform development means that Joe User, who just wants to run (spreadsheet | video editor | database) can choose *any* OS they want. MS loses dominance, fades into one among many CHOICES, all you Open Source advocates get the satisfaction of winning a fair fight on a level playing field. That's pretty much what Judge Jackson concluded in his Findings of Fact.
This white paper on Netscape's Gecko (requires Acrobat Reader) is full of great quotes like this one "The Internet appliance is about to arrive, in force. This is a simple, streamlined computer that handles only the Internet and e-mail, and does so very well. It may take the form of a desktop or laptop PC, or a box atop a TV, or a specialized phone, but it won't use Windows or any other obtrusive operating system. In an appliance, the operating system isn't king: it's just plumbing." --Walt Mossberg,"Using a PC Got Harder, But A New Age Is Dawning," 28 October 99 Wall Street Journal
which seem designed to give Bill Gates the night sweats, and nicely explains why he perceived Netscape as such a threat.
Jackson's Findings of Fact seemed to lean heavily in the direction of opening the APIs, but since then it seems to have become a non-issue in the media, and instead everyone is talking about breaking up MS. Why is that? Opening the APIs seems like, as you say, the most effective solution for removing MS's monopoly leverage, and would gradually erode their platform dominance, but perhaps it's too technical an issue to gain media attention, while the dramatic solution of breaking up the company (like a hydra) is all anyone ever talks about.
I am not a programmer, nor am I a lawyer, but I read the entire Dept. of Justice's Findings of Fact against MS, and came to the conclusion that (at the time) the judge realized that MS's dominance was maintained by keeping its APIs secret, thus preventing other companies (Netscape, Sun) from writing decent code on the MS platform. It seemed as though Judge Jackson was advocating the release of this information rather than the breaking up of MS.
Does it follow that if MS reveals its code to its competitors, that those companies will be able to write middleware apps that take advantage of MS's APIs, and in turn provide a platform for further applications (i.e. a web-based spreadsheet), which would make cross-platform programming much easier (easier to port apps to other platforms), eroding MSs platform dominance?
Does this make sense, or am I misunderstanding something?
The mac interface is now and probably will continue to be customizable by anyone who cares to expend a little effort into doing so. The Appearance control panel within the OS, and extensions like Kaleidoscope, Prestissimo, etc. allow for control over aspects of the interface.
I think, however, that the majority of consumers don't give any thought to Human Interface Guidelines, Useability, and Interface Philosophy. They're easily wowed by sexy liquid transparent glowing gewgaws. It's only aesthetic sticklers like us that want to rearrange the close-boxes and have opaque high-contrast 2-bit ambidextrous scroll-bars that consume less processing cycles. And why should anyone else care? And why shouldn't Apple sell more boxes to your grandparents?
Slashdot Mirror
Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.
Similar sentences exist in other languages.
German: Die Männer, die vor dem Schokoladenladen Laden laden, laden Ladenmädchen zum Tanzen ein, meaning "The men, who loaded chests in front of the chocolate shop, asked shop girls for a dance".
Or Wenn hinter Fliegen Fliegen fliegen, fliegen Fliegen Fliegen nach, meaning "When flies fly behind flies, flies fly after flies".
Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian: Bar barbarbarbarbar bar bar barbarbarbarbar, meaning "naked barbarian-bar-barbarian [barbarian usually hanging out in bars for barbarians] carried naked barbarian-bar-barbarian."
Or Når graver Graver graver grave, graver graver Graver grave for andre, meaning "When digger Graver [his name is Graver] digs graves, digger Graver digs graves for others."
Spanish: Cómo como? Como como como, meaning "How do I eat? I eat the way I do".
Dutch: Als achter vliegen vliegen vliegen vliegen vliegen vliegen achterna, meaning "If flies fly behind flies, then those flies are flying behind flies".
Or "Als graven graven graven graven graven graven graven graven", meaning "When counts dig graves for other counts, counts are digging graves for other counts".
I'm gonna go with Dan O'Neill's "The Collective Unconscience of Odd Bodkins", and didn't he come up with the term "magic cookie" too?
you could do such a thing with AppleScript, I do believe.
It is generally prudent policy to, before one pulls out all the stops and engages in some heavy no-holds-barred law-fu, gently remind your opponent of the possible consequences of their actions. A bluffing match, perhaps, but no one wants to rush headlong into costly or damaging litigation. The slashdot lawyer's letter seems to be outlining slashdot's possible course of defense, should the matter ever go to trial, and is warning MS that they are on shaky ground.
ah yes, but if you build the most popular car, and release the specs of what your car requires for an engine, and some other companies come along and build fantastic, reliable, cheap engines that all fit perfectly in your car, then suddenly there's some competition, no?
hell yeah. open the APIs. Open APIs means plenty of middleware, like Netscape, like Java. Middleware means easy cross-platform development. (Look at the GIMP-based online photo-editing service http://www.onlinephotolab.com!!) Easy cross-platform development means that Joe User, who just wants to run (spreadsheet | video editor | database) can choose *any* OS they want. MS loses dominance, fades into one among many CHOICES, all you Open Source advocates get the satisfaction of winning a fair fight on a level playing field. That's pretty much what Judge Jackson concluded in his Findings of Fact.
This white paper on Netscape's Gecko (requires Acrobat Reader) is full of great quotes like this one
"The Internet appliance is about to arrive, in force. This is a simple, streamlined computer that handles only the Internet and e-mail, and does so very well. It may take the form of a desktop or laptop PC, or a box atop a TV, or a specialized phone, but it won't use Windows or any other obtrusive operating system. In an appliance, the operating system isn't king: it's just plumbing."
--Walt Mossberg,"Using a PC Got Harder, But A New Age Is Dawning," 28 October 99 Wall Street Journal
which seem designed to give Bill Gates the night sweats, and nicely explains why he perceived Netscape as such a threat.
Jackson's Findings of Fact seemed to lean heavily in the direction of opening the APIs, but since then it seems to have become a non-issue in the media, and instead everyone is talking about breaking up MS. Why is that? Opening the APIs seems like, as you say, the most effective solution for removing MS's monopoly leverage, and would gradually erode their platform dominance, but perhaps it's too technical an issue to gain media attention, while the dramatic solution of breaking up the company (like a hydra) is all anyone ever talks about.
I am not a programmer, nor am I a lawyer, but I read the entire Dept. of Justice's Findings of Fact against MS, and came to the conclusion that (at the time) the judge realized that MS's dominance was maintained by keeping its APIs secret, thus preventing other companies (Netscape, Sun) from writing decent code on the MS platform. It seemed as though Judge Jackson was advocating the release of this information rather than the breaking up of MS.
Does it follow that if MS reveals its code to its competitors, that those companies will be able to write middleware apps that take advantage of MS's APIs, and in turn provide a platform for further applications (i.e. a web-based spreadsheet), which would make cross-platform programming much easier (easier to port apps to other platforms), eroding MSs platform dominance?
Does this make sense, or am I misunderstanding something?
The mac interface is now and probably will continue to be customizable by anyone who cares to expend a little effort into doing so. The Appearance control panel within the OS, and extensions like Kaleidoscope, Prestissimo, etc. allow for control over aspects of the interface.
I think, however, that the majority of consumers don't give any thought to Human Interface Guidelines, Useability, and Interface Philosophy. They're easily wowed by sexy liquid transparent glowing gewgaws. It's only aesthetic sticklers like us that want to rearrange the close-boxes and have opaque high-contrast 2-bit ambidextrous scroll-bars that consume less processing cycles. And why should anyone else care? And why shouldn't Apple sell more boxes to your grandparents?
how deep did that laser penetrate?
set yo clock back for that pre-pre-pre-release action