Can you find prior art? A published description of using a single DNS wildcard for user's subdomains prior to 8/99?
So the technology was patented or just the method? The technology is described here:
RFC1034 or RFC1035
So then we need an implementation that can take advantage of multiple subdomains using a wildcard, prior to 1999. This will show it's possible to do what the patent describes without inventing new technololgy/writing new software:
So we need someone actually doing it, so the method wasn't invented by them either (I've only done a quick search on google here)
These two links:
Google Group, and http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/417/1998/2/50/2275350/.
So there you go, prior art, or at least close enough to prior art. The can't patent this technology or idea. The best they could do would be to perhaps claim copyright on a particular implementation, but I doubt that would hold up either.
Microsoft have never been innovators, they've simply started with mediocre software, added in features that competing software has got, and marketed it like crazy.
Microsoft started with BASIC. They didn't invent BASIC, it had been around for years.
Microsoft then moved on to MSDOS. They didn't invent DOS, it had been around for years. They didn't even write MSDOS from scratch, they bought it off another company (QDOS).
They then moved onto Windows. They didn't invent GUIs, they'd been around for years.
They then started copying other stuff:
MSWord: A WYSIWYG word processor. Already been done (WordStar).
Excel: A WYSIWYG spreadsheet. (Lotus 1-2-3 anyone?)
Internet Explorer: A graphical web browser - done before by Mosaic.
Microsoft have never invented anything new, they've just attempted to produce something better than the competition. Even if it's not better, that's nothing a good bit of marketing can't fix.
What about technologies invented by Microsoft? I can't think of any. Multitasking was in UNIX long before Windows. Long Filenames? UNIX again, and countless other OSes. What about OLE and later ActiveX? Nope - Microsoft stole bits of this patented technology from Wang Labs (settled out of court, so um - they didn't really "steal" it. Honest guv).
There's loads of things MS has patents for, but nothing they've done has been innovative. Without Microsoft, what do we have though? All of these things listed above existed, but in different places. Microsoft packaged them up, made them easy to use, then marketed them to death.
Would do we have now that we wouldn't have if Microsoft hadn't existed?
...if you're working on an program that will need to work with objects on several different systems (local disk, database, web, ftp) but right now you're only got the disk based story card (user stories being broken up into small tasks) you hard code everything in your program to go right to the disk. Even though you know that you will need web support, because the customer insists on it, you are not allowed to plan for that whatsoever by adding a layer of abstraction between your code and the abstracted 'object holder'. Rather, when someone needs to add web support, they will just code it right in, maybe at least out in a separate web class. It will have a slightly different interface than the disk class, since there's almost no design, no planning, and different people coding it. Then later on you will refactor the code and merge these three or four different systems, make them behave the same, and clean up the code.
Okay, now I've used XP, and this overview seems to be both completely inaccurate and insightful at the same time. It's inaccurate because if you're writing something to work on all those different systems it'll be part of the system metaphor (an explicit XP practice), so wouldn't be hardcoded as described by any sane programmer - but the comment is insightful as it shows how blindly following one particular tenet (YAGNI) of XP can lead to a contradiction with another (System Metaphor).
XP does not advocate no design, it advocates minimal design. It's a contradictory design methodology in this respect, as different people will tell you different things. If you don't like the idea of of not doing any upfront design, you can produce a system metaphor that acts as a design to keep you on course. What XP says is that you don't spend any significant time creating this design, and that there's no need for this to be a deliverable for the project.
The thing the customer should be asking themselves in the above situation is: "How important is this disk based requirement?" If it's the most inmportant thing as the example seems to suggest, what's wrong with the programming team putting in all of their effort into getting this requirement finished first, so that the customer will have a usable system in the minimum amount of time? Or should they add interfaces for all of the other stuff they're not programming yet, which may or may not be correct when (or if) they get around to programming those other parts?
But also bear in mind that code had already been delivered to the customer, and parts of the system were already in use when the project was cancelled, and parts are still in use, and are successful.
They may not have created a whole new payroll system, but they successfully broke it down into constituant parts and delivered real working code to the customer of a high standard. Other methodologies may have failed at doing this, others may have succeeded - but who's to say?
I stopped reading the review after the author described UML as a software design methodology. I'll have another go at reading it in a bit, but I've got a feeling I'm not going to agree with it.
Fuck the issues of monopoly, I could really do with one of these cat washers. I'll trade one of those brushes for a copy of Media Player too while you're at. Cheers.
I use Windows, I use Linux, I use Media Player, I use Xine. That's my choice.
I can install different things if I want.
But, if someone sells me a PC with windows on it, they're not allowed to get rid of Media Player and replace it with something else. They're not allowed to get rid of the multitude of MS bundled software and replace it. They don't have the choice.
So every consumer who buys windows gets all this extra software whether they want it or not. So the first experience most people have will be with MS products. They'll learn how to use these pieces of software, and spend time with them. Eventually they may decide to try a competing product, which they may prefer. Microsoft makes sure that the entire market is likely to have used their software though, and is familiar with it. People who produce content therefore (eg. WMP files, or websites), will make sure that they work 100% on Microsoft products, because of the likelihood that that's what most people will use (not through choice, but because that's what they were given).
Competition can only be fair if Microsoft is not allowed to indoctrinate the populance to their software by forcing companies to bundle it with their operating system.
So you're only a target once you become successful
Exactly! Or to put it more precisely, you're only a target when you become a monopoly, guilty of abusing your position by using anti-competitive practices.
It's not about Microsoft's success, it's about their monopoly and behaviour. A monopoly, in any industry, needs strict governance or competition dissipates and the market can no longer effectively control prices because consumers no longer have a choice.
Rubbish. A free market economy needs intervention when monopolies arise, or it's no longer a free market economy (for many reasons, including price fixing and barriers to trade).
You can easily buy a PC without Windows on it... and if you don't like Microsoft you can use one of the many alternatives.
Companies cannot do this - people need to be educated to use different systems, whereas schools almost exclusively teach MS products. If you choose a "free" alternative to Microsoft, the support and training required costs more than buying the Microsoft product in the first place. There's a skills pollution taking place - people aren't profficient with using computers, they're proficcient with using Microsoft products. That's what monopolies do.
My mail client does not automatically execute things sent to it. Instead, it shows me the text included in a file, and if I want to, I can open an external program to view it (like a movie player.) But under no conditions does it execute the email as a program, unless I save it to a file myself and execute that.
The thing is, people will save the virus as an executable and run it. Viruses are spreading at the moment in password protected zip files - users have to get the password out of the email, unzip the attachment using the password, then physically run the virus. These viruses are still spreading.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you find prior art? A published description of using a single DNS wildcard for user's subdomains prior to 8/99?
/writing new software:
0 /2275350/.
So there you go, prior art, or at least close enough to prior art. The can't patent this technology or idea. The best they could do would be to perhaps claim copyright on a particular implementation, but I doubt that would hold up either.
So the technology was patented or just the method? The technology is described here: RFC1034 or RFC1035
So then we need an implementation that can take advantage of multiple subdomains using a wildcard, prior to 1999. This will show it's possible to do what the patent describes without inventing new technololgy
Apache mod_rewrite
So in 1997 it was definitely possible.
So we need someone actually doing it, so the method wasn't invented by them either (I've only done a quick search on google here)
These two links: Google Group, and http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/417/1998/2/5
Microsoft have never been innovators, they've simply started with mediocre software, added in features that competing software has got, and marketed it like crazy.
Microsoft started with BASIC. They didn't invent BASIC, it had been around for years.
Microsoft then moved on to MSDOS. They didn't invent DOS, it had been around for years. They didn't even write MSDOS from scratch, they bought it off another company (QDOS).
They then moved onto Windows. They didn't invent GUIs, they'd been around for years.
They then started copying other stuff:
MSWord: A WYSIWYG word processor. Already been done (WordStar).
Excel: A WYSIWYG spreadsheet. (Lotus 1-2-3 anyone?)
Internet Explorer: A graphical web browser - done before by Mosaic.
Microsoft have never invented anything new, they've just attempted to produce something better than the competition. Even if it's not better, that's nothing a good bit of marketing can't fix.
What about technologies invented by Microsoft? I can't think of any. Multitasking was in UNIX long before Windows. Long Filenames? UNIX again, and countless other OSes. What about OLE and later ActiveX? Nope - Microsoft stole bits of this patented technology from Wang Labs (settled out of court, so um - they didn't really "steal" it. Honest guv).
There's loads of things MS has patents for, but nothing they've done has been innovative. Without Microsoft, what do we have though? All of these things listed above existed, but in different places. Microsoft packaged them up, made them easy to use, then marketed them to death.
Would do we have now that we wouldn't have if Microsoft hadn't existed?
Oops, you forgot to find out what pair programming is before replying. Better luck next time.
...if you're working on an program that will need to work with objects on several different systems (local disk, database, web, ftp) but right now you're only got the disk based story card (user stories being broken up into small tasks) you hard code everything in your program to go right to the disk. Even though you know that you will need web support, because the customer insists on it, you are not allowed to plan for that whatsoever by adding a layer of abstraction between your code and the abstracted 'object holder'. Rather, when someone needs to add web support, they will just code it right in, maybe at least out in a separate web class. It will have a slightly different interface than the disk class, since there's almost no design, no planning, and different people coding it. Then later on you will refactor the code and merge these three or four different systems, make them behave the same, and clean up the code.
Okay, now I've used XP, and this overview seems to be both completely inaccurate and insightful at the same time.
It's inaccurate because if you're writing something to work on all those different systems it'll be part of the system metaphor (an explicit XP practice), so wouldn't be hardcoded as described by any sane programmer - but the comment is insightful as it shows how blindly following one particular tenet (YAGNI) of XP can lead to a contradiction with another (System Metaphor).
XP does not advocate no design, it advocates minimal design. It's a contradictory design methodology in this respect, as different people will tell you different things. If you don't like the idea of of not doing any upfront design, you can produce a system metaphor that acts as a design to keep you on course. What XP says is that you don't spend any significant time creating this design, and that there's no need for this to be a deliverable for the project.
The thing the customer should be asking themselves in the above situation is: "How important is this disk based requirement?" If it's the most inmportant thing as the example seems to suggest, what's wrong with the programming team putting in all of their effort into getting this requirement finished first, so that the customer will have a usable system in the minimum amount of time? Or should they add interfaces for all of the other stuff they're not programming yet, which may or may not be correct when (or if) they get around to programming those other parts?
But also bear in mind that code had already been delivered to the customer, and parts of the system were already in use when the project was cancelled, and parts are still in use, and are successful.
They may not have created a whole new payroll system, but they successfully broke it down into constituant parts and delivered real working code to the customer of a high standard. Other methodologies may have failed at doing this, others may have succeeded - but who's to say?
I stopped reading the review after the author described UML as a software design methodology. I'll have another go at reading it in a bit, but I've got a feeling I'm not going to agree with it.
Fuck the issues of monopoly, I could really do with one of these cat washers. I'll trade one of those brushes for a copy of Media Player too while you're at. Cheers.
I use Windows, I use Linux, I use Media Player, I use Xine. That's my choice.
I can install different things if I want.
But, if someone sells me a PC with windows on it, they're not allowed to get rid of Media Player and replace it with something else. They're not allowed to get rid of the multitude of MS bundled software and replace it. They don't have the choice.
So every consumer who buys windows gets all this extra software whether they want it or not. So the first experience most people have will be with MS products. They'll learn how to use these pieces of software, and spend time with them. Eventually they may decide to try a competing product, which they may prefer. Microsoft makes sure that the entire market is likely to have used their software though, and is familiar with it. People who produce content therefore (eg. WMP files, or websites), will make sure that they work 100% on Microsoft products, because of the likelihood that that's what most people will use (not through choice, but because that's what they were given).
Competition can only be fair if Microsoft is not allowed to indoctrinate the populance to their software by forcing companies to bundle it with their operating system.
So you're only a target once you become successful
Exactly! Or to put it more precisely, you're only a target when you become a monopoly, guilty of abusing your position by using anti-competitive practices.
It's not about Microsoft's success, it's about their monopoly and behaviour. A monopoly, in any industry, needs strict governance or competition dissipates and the market can no longer effectively control prices because consumers no longer have a choice.
Rubbish. A free market economy needs intervention when monopolies arise, or it's no longer a free market economy (for many reasons, including price fixing and barriers to trade).
You can easily buy a PC without Windows on it... and if you don't like Microsoft you can use one of the many alternatives.
Companies cannot do this - people need to be educated to use different systems, whereas schools almost exclusively teach MS products. If you choose a "free" alternative to Microsoft, the support and training required costs more than buying the Microsoft product in the first place. There's a skills pollution taking place - people aren't profficient with using computers, they're proficcient with using Microsoft products. That's what monopolies do.
Switch to Linux today!!! You'll still get lots of extra free stuff you don't want or need, so switch NOW!!!
...and so on.
Does anyone really give a monkeys?
My mail client does not automatically execute things sent to it. Instead, it shows me the text included in a file, and if I want to, I can open an external program to view it (like a movie player.) But under no conditions does it execute the email as a program, unless I save it to a file myself and execute that.
The thing is, people will save the virus as an executable and run it. Viruses are spreading at the moment in password protected zip files - users have to get the password out of the email, unzip the attachment using the password, then physically run the virus. These viruses are still spreading.