So money cures all ills? It's legal to do illegal things, as long as there's enough money involved?
The DOJ is *not* imposing restrictions on what software can and can't do, and how (within the bounds of legality) software can and can't be written, marketted, licensed, or sold. The DOJ is regulating simply one thing: the pracitices of a company that has a unique stranglehold on the PC desktop (the only desktop that currently counts).
*IF* and only *IF* Linux is installed on virtually every computer, and *IFF* a linux company tries to push another product down the public's throat based on the Linux monopoly, will the DOJ intervene.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: It's not illegal to have a monopoly; it's illegal to use your monopoly power to do something you couldn't achieve without the monopoly. In Microsoft's case, it's drive Netscape out of business, as well as a ton of other, littler companies and products (such as Digital Research's DOS).
If you have a bully on the schoolyard, should it be legal for the bully to steal your lunch money, or chase you off the swing? Hell no! And it shouldn't work in business, either.
If a community gets together and builds a cable company, does that infringe on the rights of other cable companies? If the community starts from scratch, and, using their own money, buys a satellite dish, runs cable to every home in that community, and everyone gets 125 channels, does that constitute dumping? (I'm assuming they all adhere to the appropriate laws WRT subscription programming.)
Here's my understanding:
Mr. Stallman is *not* trying to keep people from earning money from intellectual property. This is a common misconception, especially among people who see the world as a circulatory system for money. He has often stressed that people can make money from their ideas; they just shouldn't do it in an immoral way.
What he (and I, as far as that goes) does *not* like is the hoarding of information, especially when there is no net good that comes from that hoarding.
Large corporations hoard money and resources. As a people, we cannot get those resources from them. Large companies hoarde information. We *can* re-create that information, or even better that information. That is what we are doing. In this way, we wrest a small but substantial chunk of power and put it back in the hands of individuals.
The world is changing. We no longer base our lives on industrialism. The means of production have been transferred from the elite to the collective. And we, the collective, are exsercising that power. As the means of production is popularized, the idea of central publishing becomes less relevent. If *I* am the producer of the information, shouldn't I see the benefits directly, by making it available directly? And if we cut out the middle-man (the publishers), aren't we simply making the information more directly available?
This is not "dumping." I think there has to be some sort of economic leverage to be considered dumping. Instead, it is a populist movement against the entrenched and outdated companies that have a stranglehold on production and distribution.
You're right, though, Mr. Glass. Selling telephones is not like the Free Software movement. Rather, free software is more like public access cable, where anyone can contribute, and where anyone can be heard.
I can see that you'd be terrified, as a journalist. Your job may be outdated in just a few years. Well, welcome to the real world, where everyone has an opinion, and we all get to share them equally; and we are all terrified we may be outdated in just a few years.
I'd like to think I'm agile enough, and have enough foresight, to survive.
Actually, proprietary software *is* imminent doom. But I speak from a moralistic, and not absolute, point of view.
However, the two cases you bring up are not good ones. The KDE/Qt rift came because of the incompatibility of the GPL and the Qt licenses. Since KDE was essentially GPL, it should not have used a non-free toolkit as its foundation. I'm not sure there was any legal implications, but there were some fundamental distribution questions that were left unresolved.
And Apple bragged about its "Open Source" software. "Open Source" is a licensed mark. To claim to be "Open Source" means that the Apple license had to fit certain criteria. A lot of people felt their license did *not* meet the standards, and so there was a sound and fury signifying nothing.
It isn't about hypocricy. It's about standing up for your beliefs, and stopping people from warping the core of your beliefs. If you want a commercial model, by all means, go commercial. We may taunt you, but we will not deny your right to sell your wares. However, if you claim to adhere to the core of the belief, then you had best be prepared to adhere to the cause of the belief.
We are too painfully aware of marketing rape. If some large software company released a few lines of code to their standard office package, but did not allow that code to be used in a way fitting the free software model, and claimed they were suddenly "free software," we'd of course be suspicious.
If they wanted to do the same thing and call it, "Bound Software," we wouldn't complain. It isn't the act that is abhorrent to us, but the perversion of our ideals.
And lastly: proprietary software companies *have* disappeared, leaving their customers hanging in the air. If you haven't been around long enough to notice, please read a little history. Let's talk Atari, and Amiga, and Ashton-Tate. Let's talk WordStar. Let's talk Geo.
Hypocrisy is a strong accusation. I trust you can back it up with facts, and not just rhetoric?
Linus, Alan Cox, et al, do document their work. It's called "source code."
Why should they spend so much time working on English-text (or German-text, or what-have-you) documentation, when they have perfect documentation right there?
How many people really need to understand the kernel? Basically, if you can't read the source code, should you even think about touching the kernel?
I can understand a Gnome Programmer's Guide (though for this, too, I use the source as documentation). This benefits neophytes. But the kernel isn't *for* neophytes. It's for people who know what the hell they are about. It's for people who like to work on bare metal, and already know *how* to work at this level.
Say what you want about Linus' coding style. (Many people do.) But to complain because he doesn't document is like complaining because your stereo doesn't come with a schematic.
Am I a freak? I have yet to make it through a Gibson novel, including Neuromancer. I can't stand his style, his depiction of technology seems rather sophomoric, and his characters are generally just barely-likable. Plus, every story he's ever written seems to be the same story.
In spite of my general dislike of cypberpunk as a genre, though ("Darwinia" being the best example I've read, and a damn fine read at that-- I've not tried "Snow Crash," but I plan to, as I'm assured it's an excellent book), I did like "The Matrix," in spite of the flaws. It's definitely the best cyperpunk movie ever, and probably the one by which all subsequent cp movies will be judged.
It even inspired me to try "Neuromancer" again (for the third time). I made it through the first 2 chapters and gave up in disgust. Yikes.
Here's an interesting historical note: there were once two competing electric transmission standards in New York (or was it Chicago?), back when the light bulb was new. Thomas Edison was a proponent of DC electricity, even though it would require a DC generator on every block because of impedence. Another guy (whos name escapes me) wanted to install 60Hz high-voltage lines, and transmit everything from a central powerplant.
Edison pushed the DC idea, not because it was technically superior (he admitted it was not), but because he was part owner of a company that produced DC generators.
Can you imagine what life would be like today if Edison had won?
Today, we take 60Hz (in the US) AC for granted. In 20 years, the OS will be just as ubiquitious (and just as ignored) as the outlets in our homes today. But currently, we are fighting a battle just as important as the one fought in Edison's day, with similar stakes, and similar motivation.
Money.
Now, if you are willing to lock yourself into a single vendor just because of a non-unique product that vendor produces, feel free. After all, that is the core of the free-software movement-- to live free, and die free. (Or, in my case, live free forever.) And if you wish to use inferior products because the package has that Microsoft logo, none of us will stand in your way.
We ask just one thing: don't force us to use those same inferior products. And, if you do not take that company to task for trying to destroy all other software, you are implicitely forcing us to use those products.
We offer you choice by the sweat of our collective brow; please extend us the same courtesy.
There is no difference between Microsoft selling MS-office or MS-office+library. The benefits of having Microsoft cave in and start providing their products on Linux far outweigh the risk of giving them a chance to try an "embrace and extinguish" strategy.
Remember what MS tried to do with Java (and this was their stated goal): extend the language in a proprietary fashion so that Java programs would only run on an MS platform. If you control the platform, you control access to the net. If MS released MS-Office in such a way that it will only run on official MS-Linux, then they still control the OS. If people buy only MS-Linux because it's the only thing that will run MS-Office for Linux, then nothing has changed; MS will still control the desktop, and then they can start re-engineering protocols to suit their own needs, freezing out all other Linux distros.
And don't forget the PR: Microsoft is the only company that can make MS-Office run on Linux, and they had to put a *lot* of engineering into it, so obviously MS is the only company who can make a reiable and robust OS. It's a case of the tail wagging the dog.
Only the Sun3 used the 680* processor. Even the IPCs used the Sparc chip. You can generally get a Sun3 (or was that a SparcStation 3?) for a couple of hundred bucks. Unless you collect oddball computers, it's definitely not worth it.
We still have a bunch of the old optical mice hanging around. They're kinda neat, because I hold my hand at about 45 degrees from logical north; I have to turn the gridded mouse pad, or my mouse doesn't move like I expect.
I think I agree with you. Finally. If I read you correctly, it isn't so much that Linux *can't* be like a Mac, but that it *won't* be like a Mac. (Same with FreeBSD, which pretends to be different from Linux, but really isn't.)
I don't see it. You say the Mac has the most homogenous applications-- but Lightwave is as different from Photoshop on the Mac as it is in NT. The Mac is just as bad at it as MS-WinXX. At least, in my limited experience.
I agree; you should be able to approach a new application and figure it out from the interface. A push-button should be the same in a word processor as it is in a RAD environment.
I haven't read "Tog on Software Design." Where do I find it? I mean, I can think of a couple of oddball reasons to have a 3D modeller talk to a word processor. (Self-documenting models come to mind with little imagination.) And manipulating a procedural texture should be similar whether I'm using a modeller or a vector-graphics program. But to insist on integration constrains what a computer can be, just as insisting that all cars have automatic transmissions constrains what a car can be.
Integration isn't the key to ease-of-use; intuition and human nature is. The world is not integrated. My home life is so completely different from my work life it's unbelievable. And at work I wear at least 3 different job descriptions, and each job is different.
I'm gonna take a wild leap and predict where the next leap in ease-of-use will be, and it has nothing to do with whether the menu is at the top of the screen or under the title bar.
It's in AI. Or at least, Adaptive Environments. (I just made that up.) The computer should be able to profile a user, make adjustments to the user's preferences (based on past experience and use), and adjust the environment to the user.
I just figured out what it is about Cassius's arguments that upset me; not only does he assume programmers are idiots, but he also assumes that we aren't even smart enough to copy the Mac, as is, and catch up to it in ease-of-use. We'd have to be damn stupid not to be able to do that.
I think we want something better. The Mac leaves a funny taste for most computer geeks. It's that funny taste that puts most of us off. I think we want something better. And we know we can do better. And its taking us a lot of time, but I think we are getting there.
It's not just Linux. It's everything. We're stagnating into arguing over whether a mouse should have one button or three. (Nobody wants two.) We've reached a point where *we don't know what to do next.* I don't think there's been a true innovation in 10 years. (Can you think of one?) It's just bigger, better, faster, better-looking.
I fear the day KDE or Gnome win the interface war. On that day, diversity and *variety* die. Figuratively, of course.
Do you know what happens when a genetic pool collapses into a single point? In all cases, the ecology collapses, as well. Homogeneity is *bad*, pure and simple. If MS or Apple became the only producer of operating systems, the world of technology would shrivel up and die. The same is true of user interfaces, though not on such a dramatic level.
What you want is a world in which everything is the same, and predictable. What I want is a world in which everything is different, but logical. I bet my world is more interesting, and just as "easy-to-use."
*WAY* too many of the posters above look at the world, say, "Nope. That ain't the way it is, Jon," and post a flame. God, you are all pathetic. But then again, *every*one is pathetic.
The world as it is is not going to continue. Just as the world of pre-WWII is not the world of post-Vietnam War, so the Connected world will be different from the pre-Internet world. Some posts say, "But the Internet has been around for *such* a *long* time already!" Ya freaking kids. The Internet is a blink yet, or maybe a dim glow from a rising sun. Or something else equally banal and cliched.
Those who say, "But the majority of the world isn't on the Internet!" See the paragraph above.
And as far as the free flow of information vis-a-vis artists making money: making money was not the point in the pre-industrial age. Survival was the point. Artisans and artists survived by patronage; Beethoven was not paid for his music as much as he was paid to link his name with political figures (Kings and such).
Can't you see a world with "IBM, the Patron Company of Norman Rockwell," or something. (I can see IBM sponsering Norman Rockwell. And Microsoft sponsoring Jackson Pollock. "He's so darn *innovative*!")
My point is: the world is changing. It hasn't changed yet, but it is in the process of changing. This is not a single-state system; we can have multiple states (and transition states) existing simultaneously. Some of you punks are just too young and/or stupid to see any change.
And I think I just figured out why so many people flame on-line. It's because writing a nice, reasoned post gets no reactions. Nobody cares about reason or intelligence.
Forgive me for interjecting a bit of history, but...
Jobs did not start the Macintosh project. It started out as an experiment, and only after Jobs discovered it, did he use it against Steve Wozniak, who was the creator of the original Apple. Although Jobs was the business leader, the techheads at Apple liked Woz better, and followed his lead. This led to such spectacular disasters as the Lisa (man, did I want one of those when the came out). So yes, I *can* deny that Jobs assembled the team that brought the GUI to the end user.
(As a side note: He did assemble the team that brought us the NeXT. Now *that* was an innovative machine-- that used the GNU compiler and the Mach kernel.)
This is just a nit, but I think it is indicative of your general logic; make illogical conclusions based on scanty and often incorrect assumptions.
The list of open successes (as opposed to open-source-software, which is a *very* recent development) is quite long: most successful languages are open (C, C++, Lisp, FORTRAN, COBOL, BASIC, etc), as are most successful networking protocols. (There's a reason Novell gave up on IPX and now uses IP.)
History shows that proprietary non-standards fall to open standards. Why don't machines communicate in EBCDIC instead of ASCII? Why did Beta fail and VHS succeed?
Standards. Open, non-proprietary standards.
Only in the last three or four years has there been a significant number of people programming for Free Software. You have no history to make the judgements you've made; the ratio of developers to innovative ideas is *much* greater in the Open arena.
So, although the Free Software movement may fail, and you may eventually be vindicated, you *cannot* make these great pronouncements as Truth. You may say they are your opinion, but they are demonstrably Not True. (Not the same as false, mind you.)
The average American is so stuck on the idea of commercialism, it's hard to realize there is so much more to life than drinking Coke at a McDonalds after a good shop at the Gap. But commercialism is not the end-all, be-all of existence. Perhaps something better is finally coming along to supplant it, at least in the software field.
Incorrect. Gnome does not aim at the uber-geeks; it's aimed at computer users everywhere. And if it makes *my* life easier, it will probably make the lives of people everywhere easier.
Computers will never be as easy to use as toasters. And they don't have to be. Clerks, grandmas, and kids know a hell of a lot about computers, and as computers grow more ubiquitous, the level of expertise will also rise. Computers will become easier to use than they are now, but they will always require some skill.
Reading is not an easy task-- yet most people are able to read. I maintain that learning how to use a computer is easier than learning to read. And I can prove it. My daughter could use the computer long before she could read. (Computer: 2.5 years. Books: 5 years.)
Since Gnome allows you to make the best use of your computer (of all the desktops I've used, anyway), I don't see why it can't succeed.
Plus, this isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. And since Corel doesn't even *have* a desktop, I don't see why you bring them up. (They may have one in the future. I wouldn't bet on it. Chances are they will just use KDE.) KDE and Gnome can co-exist with a command-line-only interface, and even with MS-Win2k/99/2001. I don't see why that can't continue.
Anybody else laugh at, "Linux is like Unix was 20 years ago," or something like that? Exsqueeze me? Most will attribute that to hyperbole, in defense of his own operating system. Me, I think it's just blindness and stupidity.
I used to believe Mr. Gates actually had a clue, which he chose to ignore. Now I suspect he really is ignorant, and probably a moron, to boot.
I looked at becoming an NT admin once. I would have had to take a major pay cut. And now I'm managing more Linux machines and fewer Solaris machines. And I'm getting payed the same. Odd, isn't it?
Of course, actually understanding computers, networking, and data management helps....
Loved "The Mote in God's Eye." Hate his MS-Bootlicking attitude. At one point, he describes a complete fiasco with the registry on one machine-- talks about how it took him a day to fix it. Yet he goes on and defends the quality of Microsoft's work? I don't get it.
Secondly, concerning the refund:
Don't most states have lemon laws? Like, if you buy a product that has defects, the manufacturer is responsible? Couldn't that be used against Microsoft? Even after the package is opened, once you start losing work and the computer crashes-- once all this happens, the product is obviously defective. Invoke the lemon law, if your state has one that covers software (it doesn't have to cover software explicitly).
Just a thought. As usual, I am not a lawyer, and would kill anyone who accussed me of being one. So my advice is worse than useless-- it's probably wrong. Standard disclaimers apply.
Do you have a problem figuring out how to use the scroll bars?
No, it would be a great idea if scroll bars worked the same on every application. But the Athena Widgets work a little strangely compared to more-advanced widget sets like Motif or Qt or Gtk+. But since Xaw isn't used as much these days, it's not that big of a deal.
But if you are using this as a pro-Windows argument, it won't fly. Windows is inconsistent in its use of widgets. Perhaps it isn't as bad as the Athena widgets. I'll grant you that. But I only have two types of scroll bars (as nothing I use regularly uses the Athena widgets), and they both behave the same way.
And if you want your machine to be consistent throughout, use programs based on the same widget set. Don't mix Athena and Motif and Gtk+ and Qt apps, especially if your happiness depends on an homogenous computing experience.
The idea that condescending to the user is "innovation" is ludicrous. And that is all the paper clip manages to do, besides suck up resources. "Agents" will be HAL-- a master agent that interfaces with the user without treating them as if they were stupid, which dispatches invisible agents to take care of the request. Agents will be proactive, helping the user-- not treating the user as if they are stupid and incompetent. That is not innovation; that's how Microsoft has been treating their customers for years. Now they just have an "agent" do it for them.
The sheer amount of control over my computer is innovative. Yes, I know most of the control is inherited from Unix (I'm a sysadmin/DBA/programmer at a Sun shop), but the absolute, complete control of the computer is simply astounding. That, coupled with CORBA on the desktop, is quite innovative. Especially since it works. (Yes, I'm aware of OpenDoc. So maybe this is just good implementation, but since there hasn't been a successful CORBA environment, I consider this quite innovative.)
But the greatest innovation is the development methodology. Even without E, the Gimp, Gtk+ and themes, Gnome and KDE, Samba,.... even without all that, the development model, the philosophy (whether practical or ideological) is *very* innovative. It certainly beats any single "innovation" in the PC world.
(Innovation in the PC world? Visicalc, dBase, MacOS, Word Star/Word Perfect, and Mosaic. Hmmm... None of them are from Microsoft.)
Sounds like you're getting a little defensive, Yoz. Cutting close to home?
And just because you code for Windows doesn't mean you know shit about UI design, either. I have seen more poorly-designed user interfaces to programs than good UIs. So what do you call those who can't program a decent engine *or* a decent UI?
Windows programmers.
Or Mac programmers.
Face it, there are just a lot of bad coders. Me included-- my code sucks. But I'm doing my best, and once in a while I put out something good. And it's easier to learn the principles of UI design then to unlearn years of bad coding practices (which the visual programming systems engender).
C'mon! What you are saying is that users are essentially stupid and can't cope with variety. Hogwash! That's the same thing Microsoft claims, and it Just Ain't True.
Have you read Alvin Toffler's _The Third Wave_? Essentially, he claims the future holds what the past held-- we are becoming a self-service society. Only, we're doing it with the help of technology. Users are becoming *more* aware of their computer. Computers don't have to be simple-- users have to be intelligent.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have easy-to-use software. We should. But we shouldn't assume we're building this software for morons. And that is the failing in the Microsoft camp. They assume they are designing software for morons. That's part of the reason they assume they can foist buggy software off on the public-- after all, the bulk of users are idiots.
I say we welcome the Windows programmers just as we do everyone else. We will learn from them, and they will (hopefully) learn from us. And if our way is truly superior, everyone will win.
The GS was a good machine that could address several (8?) megabytes of memory. It was an advanced design, stable, capable of running legacy software, and much more stable than the Lisa. It had a GUI long before the PC.
Technically, it had it all *over* the PC. But the PC was the shining star of business by the time the GS came out.
But as far as functionality goes, the Apple ][ was as capable as the PC for the first several years of the PC's existence. Functionality wasn't the issue-- name recognition was. Sure, Apple did nothing to make the Apple easier to use; it put all its resources into Mac development. But the PC was not easy to use then, either. The catchphrase of the day was, "No-one ever got fired for buying IBM."
The PC was designed around a more-capable chip, but the design hobbled the chip. The original PC couldn't even use 640k of memory-- there wasn't enough room on the motherboard.
Anyway, you are right-- the PC had more potential. But Apple had the Mac coming out soon (after the Lisa failed-- or was killed by Jobs, who's pet project was the Mac. Actually, it was someone else's pet project, but Jobs usurped it, and used the failure of the Lisa to run Wozniak out).
Anyway, that's all old history. There are many ways to interpret it-- all of them correct. The PC had more potential, technically, but the Apple had better software and a better foundation. In fact, where Apples were snuck in the back door, business people could bring IBMs through the front door.
Slashdot Mirror
So money cures all ills? It's legal to do illegal things, as long as there's enough money involved?
The DOJ is *not* imposing restrictions on what software can and can't do, and how (within the bounds of legality) software can and can't be written, marketted, licensed, or sold. The DOJ is regulating simply one thing: the pracitices of a company that has a unique stranglehold on the PC desktop (the only desktop that currently counts).
*IF* and only *IF* Linux is installed on virtually every computer, and *IFF* a linux company tries to push another product down the public's throat based on the Linux monopoly, will the DOJ intervene.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: It's not illegal to have a monopoly; it's illegal to use your monopoly power to do something you couldn't achieve without the monopoly. In Microsoft's case, it's drive Netscape out of business, as well as a ton of other, littler companies and products (such as Digital Research's DOS).
If you have a bully on the schoolyard, should it be legal for the bully to steal your lunch money, or chase you off the swing? Hell no! And it shouldn't work in business, either.
If a community gets together and builds a cable company, does that infringe on the rights of other cable companies? If the community starts from scratch, and, using their own money, buys a satellite dish, runs cable to every home in that community, and everyone gets 125 channels, does that constitute dumping? (I'm assuming they all adhere to the appropriate laws WRT subscription programming.)
Here's my understanding:
Mr. Stallman is *not* trying to keep people from earning money from intellectual property. This is a common misconception, especially among people who see the world as a circulatory system for money. He has often stressed that people can make money from their ideas; they just shouldn't do it in an immoral way.
What he (and I, as far as that goes) does *not* like is the hoarding of information, especially when there is no net good that comes from that hoarding.
Large corporations hoard money and resources. As a people, we cannot get those resources from them. Large companies hoarde information. We *can* re-create that information, or even better that information. That is what we are doing. In this way, we wrest a small but substantial chunk of power and put it back in the hands of individuals.
The world is changing. We no longer base our lives on industrialism. The means of production have been transferred from the elite to the collective. And we, the collective, are exsercising that power. As the means of production is popularized, the idea of central publishing becomes less relevent. If *I* am the producer of the information, shouldn't I see the benefits directly, by making it available directly? And if we cut out the middle-man (the publishers), aren't we simply making the information more directly available?
This is not "dumping." I think there has to be some sort of economic leverage to be considered dumping. Instead, it is a populist movement against the entrenched and outdated companies that have a stranglehold on production and distribution.
You're right, though, Mr. Glass. Selling telephones is not like the Free Software movement. Rather, free software is more like public access cable, where anyone can contribute, and where anyone can be heard.
I can see that you'd be terrified, as a journalist. Your job may be outdated in just a few years. Well, welcome to the real world, where everyone has an opinion, and we all get to share them equally; and we are all terrified we may be outdated in just a few years.
I'd like to think I'm agile enough, and have enough foresight, to survive.
But I could be wrong.
- Tony
Actually, proprietary software *is* imminent doom. But I speak from a moralistic, and not absolute, point of view.
However, the two cases you bring up are not good ones. The KDE/Qt rift came because of the incompatibility of the GPL and the Qt licenses. Since KDE was essentially GPL, it should not have used a non-free toolkit as its foundation. I'm not sure there was any legal implications, but there were some fundamental distribution questions that were left unresolved.
And Apple bragged about its "Open Source" software. "Open Source" is a licensed mark. To claim to be "Open Source" means that the Apple license had to fit certain criteria. A lot of people felt their license did *not* meet the standards, and so there was a sound and fury signifying nothing.
It isn't about hypocricy. It's about standing up for your beliefs, and stopping people from warping the core of your beliefs. If you want a commercial model, by all means, go commercial. We may taunt you, but we will not deny your right to sell your wares. However, if you claim to adhere to the core of the belief, then you had best be prepared to adhere to the cause of the belief.
We are too painfully aware of marketing rape. If some large software company released a few lines of code to their standard office package, but did not allow that code to be used in a way fitting the free software model, and claimed they were suddenly "free software," we'd of course be suspicious.
If they wanted to do the same thing and call it, "Bound Software," we wouldn't complain. It isn't the act that is abhorrent to us, but the perversion of our ideals.
And lastly: proprietary software companies *have* disappeared, leaving their customers hanging in the air. If you haven't been around long enough to notice, please read a little history. Let's talk Atari, and Amiga, and Ashton-Tate. Let's talk WordStar. Let's talk Geo.
Hypocrisy is a strong accusation. I trust you can back it up with facts, and not just rhetoric?
-Tony
Linus, Alan Cox, et al, do document their work. It's called "source code."
Why should they spend so much time working on English-text (or German-text, or what-have-you) documentation, when they have perfect documentation right there?
How many people really need to understand the kernel? Basically, if you can't read the source code, should you even think about touching the kernel?
I can understand a Gnome Programmer's Guide (though for this, too, I use the source as documentation). This benefits neophytes. But the kernel isn't *for* neophytes. It's for people who know what the hell they are about. It's for people who like to work on bare metal, and already know *how* to work at this level.
Say what you want about Linus' coding style. (Many people do.) But to complain because he doesn't document is like complaining because your stereo doesn't come with a schematic.
Am I a freak? I have yet to make it through a Gibson novel, including Neuromancer. I can't stand his style, his depiction of technology seems rather sophomoric, and his characters are generally just barely-likable. Plus, every story he's ever written seems to be the same story.
In spite of my general dislike of cypberpunk as a genre, though ("Darwinia" being the best example I've read, and a damn fine read at that-- I've not tried "Snow Crash," but I plan to, as I'm assured it's an excellent book), I did like "The Matrix," in spite of the flaws. It's definitely the best cyperpunk movie ever, and probably the one by which all subsequent cp movies will be judged.
It even inspired me to try "Neuromancer" again (for the third time). I made it through the first 2 chapters and gave up in disgust. Yikes.
Here's an interesting historical note: there were once two competing electric transmission standards in New York (or was it Chicago?), back when the light bulb was new. Thomas Edison was a proponent of DC electricity, even though it would require a DC generator on every block because of impedence. Another guy (whos name escapes me) wanted to install 60Hz high-voltage lines, and transmit everything from a central powerplant.
Edison pushed the DC idea, not because it was technically superior (he admitted it was not), but because he was part owner of a company that produced DC generators.
Can you imagine what life would be like today if Edison had won?
Today, we take 60Hz (in the US) AC for granted. In 20 years, the OS will be just as ubiquitious (and just as ignored) as the outlets in our homes today. But currently, we are fighting a battle just as important as the one fought in Edison's day, with similar stakes, and similar motivation.
Money.
Now, if you are willing to lock yourself into a single vendor just because of a non-unique product that vendor produces, feel free. After all, that is the core of the free-software movement-- to live free, and die free. (Or, in my case, live free forever.) And if you wish to use inferior products because the package has that Microsoft logo, none of us will stand in your way.
We ask just one thing: don't force us to use those same inferior products. And, if you do not take that company to task for trying to destroy all other software, you are implicitely forcing us to use those products.
We offer you choice by the sweat of our collective brow; please extend us the same courtesy.
-Tony
There is no difference between Microsoft selling MS-office or MS-office+library. The benefits of having Microsoft cave in and start providing their products on Linux far outweigh the risk of giving them a chance to try an "embrace and extinguish" strategy.
Remember what MS tried to do with Java (and this was their stated goal): extend the language in a proprietary fashion so that Java programs would only run on an MS platform. If you control the platform, you control access to the net. If MS released MS-Office in such a way that it will only run on official MS-Linux, then they still control the OS. If people buy only MS-Linux because it's the only thing that will run MS-Office for Linux, then nothing has changed; MS will still control the desktop, and then they can start re-engineering protocols to suit their own needs, freezing out all other Linux distros.
And don't forget the PR: Microsoft is the only company that can make MS-Office run on Linux, and they had to put a *lot* of engineering into it, so obviously MS is the only company who can make a reiable and robust OS. It's a case of the tail wagging the dog.
The difference between you and MS, obviously, is that you have integrity and pride.
Only the Sun3 used the 680* processor. Even the IPCs used the Sparc chip. You can generally get a Sun3 (or was that a SparcStation 3?) for a couple of hundred bucks. Unless you collect oddball computers, it's definitely not worth it.
We still have a bunch of the old optical mice hanging around. They're kinda neat, because I hold my hand at about 45 degrees from logical north; I have to turn the gridded mouse pad, or my mouse doesn't move like I expect.
- Tony
Hrm. I'm squinting my eyeballs at you, but...
I think I agree with you. Finally. If I read you correctly, it isn't so much that Linux *can't* be like a Mac, but that it *won't* be like a Mac. (Same with FreeBSD, which pretends to be different from Linux, but really isn't.)
Okay. I'll go there.
I don't see it. You say the Mac has the most homogenous applications-- but Lightwave is as different from Photoshop on the Mac as it is in NT. The Mac is just as bad at it as MS-WinXX. At least, in my limited experience.
I agree; you should be able to approach a new application and figure it out from the interface. A push-button should be the same in a word processor as it is in a RAD environment.
I haven't read "Tog on Software Design." Where do I find it? I mean, I can think of a couple of oddball reasons to have a 3D modeller talk to a word processor. (Self-documenting models come to mind with little imagination.) And manipulating a procedural texture should be similar whether I'm using a modeller or a vector-graphics program. But to insist on integration constrains what a computer can be, just as insisting that all cars have automatic transmissions constrains what a car can be.
Integration isn't the key to ease-of-use; intuition and human nature is. The world is not integrated. My home life is so completely different from my work life it's unbelievable. And at work I wear at least 3 different job descriptions, and each job is different.
I'm gonna take a wild leap and predict where the next leap in ease-of-use will be, and it has nothing to do with whether the menu is at the top of the screen or under the title bar.
It's in AI. Or at least, Adaptive Environments. (I just made that up.) The computer should be able to profile a user, make adjustments to the user's preferences (based on past experience and use), and adjust the environment to the user.
I just figured out what it is about Cassius's arguments that upset me; not only does he assume programmers are idiots, but he also assumes that we aren't even smart enough to copy the Mac, as is, and catch up to it in ease-of-use. We'd have to be damn stupid not to be able to do that.
I think we want something better. The Mac leaves a funny taste for most computer geeks. It's that funny taste that puts most of us off. I think we want something better. And we know we can do better. And its taking us a lot of time, but I think we are getting there.
It's not just Linux. It's everything. We're stagnating into arguing over whether a mouse should have one button or three. (Nobody wants two.) We've reached a point where *we don't know what to do next.* I don't think there's been a true innovation in 10 years. (Can you think of one?) It's just bigger, better, faster, better-looking.
I think that's the *really* frustrating part.
I fear the day KDE or Gnome win the interface war. On that day, diversity and *variety* die. Figuratively, of course.
Do you know what happens when a genetic pool collapses into a single point? In all cases, the ecology collapses, as well. Homogeneity is *bad*, pure and simple. If MS or Apple became the only producer of operating systems, the world of technology would shrivel up and die. The same is true of user interfaces, though not on such a dramatic level.
What you want is a world in which everything is the same, and predictable. What I want is a world in which everything is different, but logical. I bet my world is more interesting, and just as "easy-to-use."
*WAY* too many of the posters above look at the world, say, "Nope. That ain't the way it is, Jon," and post a flame. God, you are all pathetic. But then again, *every*one is pathetic.
The world as it is is not going to continue. Just as the world of pre-WWII is not the world of post-Vietnam War, so the Connected world will be different from the pre-Internet world. Some posts say, "But the Internet has been around for *such* a *long* time already!" Ya freaking kids. The Internet is a blink yet, or maybe a dim glow from a rising sun. Or something else equally banal and cliched.
Those who say, "But the majority of the world isn't on the Internet!" See the paragraph above.
And as far as the free flow of information vis-a-vis artists making money: making money was not the point in the pre-industrial age. Survival was the point. Artisans and artists survived by patronage; Beethoven was not paid for his music as much as he was paid to link his name with political figures (Kings and such).
Can't you see a world with "IBM, the Patron Company of Norman Rockwell," or something. (I can see IBM sponsering Norman Rockwell. And Microsoft sponsoring Jackson Pollock. "He's so darn *innovative*!")
My point is: the world is changing. It hasn't changed yet, but it is in the process of changing. This is not a single-state system; we can have multiple states (and transition states) existing simultaneously. Some of you punks are just too young and/or stupid to see any change.
And I think I just figured out why so many people flame on-line. It's because writing a nice, reasoned post gets no reactions. Nobody cares about reason or intelligence.
- Tony (in a flaming mood)
Forgive me for interjecting a bit of history, but...
Jobs did not start the Macintosh project. It started out as an experiment, and only after Jobs discovered it, did he use it against Steve Wozniak, who was the creator of the original Apple. Although Jobs was the business leader, the techheads at Apple liked Woz better, and followed his lead. This led to such spectacular disasters as the Lisa (man, did I want one of those when the came out). So yes, I *can* deny that Jobs assembled the team that brought the GUI to the end user.
(As a side note: He did assemble the team that brought us the NeXT. Now *that* was an innovative machine-- that used the GNU compiler and the Mach kernel.)
This is just a nit, but I think it is indicative of your general logic; make illogical conclusions based on scanty and often incorrect assumptions.
The list of open successes (as opposed to open-source-software, which is a *very* recent development) is quite long: most successful languages are open (C, C++, Lisp, FORTRAN, COBOL, BASIC, etc), as are most successful networking protocols. (There's a reason Novell gave up on IPX and now uses IP.)
History shows that proprietary non-standards fall to open standards. Why don't machines communicate in EBCDIC instead of ASCII? Why did Beta fail and VHS succeed?
Standards. Open, non-proprietary standards.
Only in the last three or four years has there been a significant number of people programming for Free Software. You have no history to make the judgements you've made; the ratio of developers to innovative ideas is *much* greater in the Open arena.
So, although the Free Software movement may fail, and you may eventually be vindicated, you *cannot* make these great pronouncements as Truth. You may say they are your opinion, but they are demonstrably Not True. (Not the same as false, mind you.)
The average American is so stuck on the idea of commercialism, it's hard to realize there is so much more to life than drinking Coke at a McDonalds after a good shop at the Gap. But commercialism is not the end-all, be-all of existence. Perhaps something better is finally coming along to supplant it, at least in the software field.
Better luck on your next argument.
-Tony
Incorrect. Gnome does not aim at the uber-geeks; it's aimed at computer users everywhere. And if it makes *my* life easier, it will probably make the lives of people everywhere easier.
Computers will never be as easy to use as toasters. And they don't have to be. Clerks, grandmas, and kids know a hell of a lot about computers, and as computers grow more ubiquitous, the level of expertise will also rise. Computers will become easier to use than they are now, but they will always require some skill.
Reading is not an easy task-- yet most people are able to read. I maintain that learning how to use a computer is easier than learning to read. And I can prove it. My daughter could use the computer long before she could read. (Computer: 2.5 years. Books: 5 years.)
Since Gnome allows you to make the best use of your computer (of all the desktops I've used, anyway), I don't see why it can't succeed.
Plus, this isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. And since Corel doesn't even *have* a desktop, I don't see why you bring them up. (They may have one in the future. I wouldn't bet on it. Chances are they will just use KDE.) KDE and Gnome can co-exist with a command-line-only interface, and even with MS-Win2k/99/2001. I don't see why that can't continue.
- Tony
Anybody else laugh at, "Linux is like Unix was 20 years ago," or something like that? Exsqueeze me? Most will attribute that to hyperbole, in defense of his own operating system. Me, I think it's just blindness and stupidity.
I used to believe Mr. Gates actually had a clue, which he chose to ignore. Now I suspect he really is ignorant, and probably a moron, to boot.
Who'd of thunk it?
More than I make? I don't think so.
I looked at becoming an NT admin once. I would have had to take a major pay cut. And now I'm managing more Linux machines and fewer Solaris machines. And I'm getting payed the same. Odd, isn't it?
Of course, actually understanding computers, networking, and data management helps....
Loved "The Mote in God's Eye." Hate his MS-Bootlicking attitude. At one point, he describes a complete fiasco with the registry on one machine-- talks about how it took him a day to fix it. Yet he goes on and defends the quality of Microsoft's work? I don't get it.
Secondly, concerning the refund:
Don't most states have lemon laws? Like, if you buy a product that has defects, the manufacturer is responsible? Couldn't that be used against Microsoft? Even after the package is opened, once you start losing work and the computer crashes-- once all this happens, the product is obviously defective. Invoke the lemon law, if your state has one that covers software (it doesn't have to cover software explicitly).
Just a thought. As usual, I am not a lawyer, and would kill anyone who accussed me of being one. So my advice is worse than useless-- it's probably wrong. Standard disclaimers apply.
Do you have a problem figuring out how to use the scroll bars?
No, it would be a great idea if scroll bars worked the same on every application. But the Athena Widgets work a little strangely compared to more-advanced widget sets like Motif or Qt or Gtk+. But since Xaw isn't used as much these days, it's not that big of a deal.
But if you are using this as a pro-Windows argument, it won't fly. Windows is inconsistent in its use of widgets. Perhaps it isn't as bad as the Athena widgets. I'll grant you that. But I only have two types of scroll bars (as nothing I use regularly uses the Athena widgets), and they both behave the same way.
And if you want your machine to be consistent throughout, use programs based on the same widget set. Don't mix Athena and Motif and Gtk+ and Qt apps, especially if your happiness depends on an homogenous computing experience.
- Tony
Umm... Customizability?
.... even without all that, the development model, the philosophy (whether practical or ideological) is *very* innovative. It certainly beats any single "innovation" in the PC world.
The idea that condescending to the user is "innovation" is ludicrous. And that is all the paper clip manages to do, besides suck up resources. "Agents" will be HAL-- a master agent that interfaces with the user without treating them as if they were stupid, which dispatches invisible agents to take care of the request. Agents will be proactive, helping the user-- not treating the user as if they are stupid and incompetent. That is not innovation; that's how Microsoft has been treating their customers for years. Now they just have an "agent" do it for them.
The sheer amount of control over my computer is innovative. Yes, I know most of the control is inherited from Unix (I'm a sysadmin/DBA/programmer at a Sun shop), but the absolute, complete control of the computer is simply astounding. That, coupled with CORBA on the desktop, is quite innovative. Especially since it works. (Yes, I'm aware of OpenDoc. So maybe this is just good implementation, but since there hasn't been a successful CORBA environment, I consider this quite innovative.)
But the greatest innovation is the development methodology. Even without E, the Gimp, Gtk+ and themes, Gnome and KDE, Samba,
(Innovation in the PC world? Visicalc, dBase, MacOS, Word Star/Word Perfect, and Mosaic. Hmmm... None of them are from Microsoft.)
Sounds like you're getting a little defensive, Yoz. Cutting close to home?
And just because you code for Windows doesn't mean you know shit about UI design, either. I have seen more poorly-designed user interfaces to programs than good UIs. So what do you call those who can't program a decent engine *or* a decent UI?
Windows programmers.
Or Mac programmers.
Face it, there are just a lot of bad coders. Me included-- my code sucks. But I'm doing my best, and once in a while I put out something good. And it's easier to learn the principles of UI design then to unlearn years of bad coding practices (which the visual programming systems engender).
C'mon! What you are saying is that users are essentially stupid and can't cope with variety. Hogwash! That's the same thing Microsoft claims, and it Just Ain't True.
Have you read Alvin Toffler's _The Third Wave_? Essentially, he claims the future holds what the past held-- we are becoming a self-service society. Only, we're doing it with the help of technology. Users are becoming *more* aware of their computer. Computers don't have to be simple-- users have to be intelligent.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have easy-to-use software. We should. But we shouldn't assume we're building this software for morons. And that is the failing in the Microsoft camp. They assume they are designing software for morons. That's part of the reason they assume they can foist buggy software off on the public-- after all, the bulk of users are idiots.
I say we welcome the Windows programmers just as we do everyone else. We will learn from them, and they will (hopefully) learn from us. And if our way is truly superior, everyone will win.
The GS was a good machine that could address several (8?) megabytes of memory. It was an advanced design, stable, capable of running legacy software, and much more stable than the Lisa. It had a GUI long before the PC.
Technically, it had it all *over* the PC. But the PC was the shining star of business by the time the GS came out.
But as far as functionality goes, the Apple ][ was as capable as the PC for the first several years of the PC's existence. Functionality wasn't the issue-- name recognition was. Sure, Apple did nothing to make the Apple easier to use; it put all its resources into Mac development. But the PC was not easy to use then, either. The catchphrase of the day was, "No-one ever got fired for buying IBM."
The PC was designed around a more-capable chip, but the design hobbled the chip. The original PC couldn't even use 640k of memory-- there wasn't enough room on the motherboard.
Anyway, you are right-- the PC had more potential. But Apple had the Mac coming out soon (after the Lisa failed-- or was killed by Jobs, who's pet project was the Mac. Actually, it was someone else's pet project, but Jobs usurped it, and used the failure of the Lisa to run Wozniak out).
Anyway, that's all old history. There are many ways to interpret it-- all of them correct. The PC had more potential, technically, but the Apple had better software and a better foundation. In fact, where Apples were snuck in the back door, business people could bring IBMs through the front door.
I'm sure any psychiatrist will be happy to help.
- Tony