Anything that expands the job market of lawyers and patent law helps you and your firm. For if your competition is doing opensource-patent-stuff, then your firm has clients they would not serve.
Trolling for work on slashdot isn't a good use of time. And you seem brighter than that.
Onto why I feel your comments may be correct, but unworkable.
Your model is the traditional model of patent law.
The OpenSource-esque movement tries to turn tradition on its head, and establish new traditions.
A legal battle requires: 1)money 2)desire to fight it 3)money and 4)properly filed buercatic paperwork
The openSource world, as a whole, doesn't do 1-4 well. So any workable solution for OpenSource-types has to not rely on 1-4. (most PEOPLE don't do 1-4 well. Corporations do 1-4. Most of OpenSource is people...not corps.)
You may be correct in your evaluation, but methinks it comes from the box you live in, as a lawyer. Other solutions suggested (workable or not) try to not rely on 1-4. And, they may or may not work in the long run.
(And, I remember your comments on the Trac Tran FFT thread. A actual, real life expert, is rare here. So, don't quit posting meaningful comments just because I wanted to establish what you more-or-less did for a living.)
>As an acknowledged marketing expert with some (a lot) of knowledge of Linux, AND >Here is my admittedly non-techno savvy view of how to do it.
So you, as a marketing expert, feel you have the proper knowledge to dictate technology?
Ohhh, how charming.
I have a better idea: Why don't you take the opensource code, get some programmers, create a Linux IPO to do just this, and get back to us. If you are so correct, you should be able to do better than posting on slashdot.
>MOZILLA MUST BE TIED TO THE LINUX KERNEL ASAP.
Oh, gee. What about MacOS (both the unix and non unix versions), Windows, BSD, Solaris, AIX, VMS, HPUX and others?
>Every time a Windows user downloads a windows version of Mozilla, a potential consumer for Linux is lost forever
I see, well by your logic, if I download the Linux version and run it on FreeBSD, Linux hasn't lost anything?
>The market demands the OS be dependant on the browser. Tell ya what....why don't you post PROOF to this statement, in the form of REAL market research?
From what I can tell, you are just blowing hot air.
As I understand the US law, you are allowed to copy whatever you want from patents for PERSONAL USE.
Under this clause, many things become a non-violation.
No where am I seeing a discussion of PROCESS patents. Like one-click shopping. Or scratch and win (as a web application)? Exactly HOW are you going to create a 'defense pool' of the classification of process patents?
And the final flaw in the idea of a patent pool: So you have the $10,000 to file the patent. Now what about the money to defend the patent? Both infringement and attempts to have the patent thrown out.
As a vendor who makes ASIC devices said "We infringe all the time. And we only pay if asked." Does this sound like the attitude of a certain company in Redmond? Who has the time and money to prove an infringement in a closed-source product?
An example: Search slashdot for code warrior by metroworks. (the slashdot crew would have to fidn it...static pages can't be searched by us mortals) There was a claim by an AC that while they worked at metroworks, they used gcc GPLed code in the product. Now, where is the outrage for the alledged violation by Metroworks? Corel has gotten its fair share of tounge lashings....so I know the "community" is able to tounge-lash. Because Code warrior is closed-source...it will take work to figure out if the allegation is true. And I don't see anyone who is taking the time to examine the serious claim of infringement in the Metroworks case. (If you can't defend what you have already...why are you seeking more to defend?)
(and why do people want to assign patents to the FSF? So they can make money off the patent when they lease it out to companies?)
At least they didn't use Red Hat as the posterboy
on
Red Hat Finishes Last
·
· Score: 1
for OpenSource.
I note that they point out: "But if you need an inexpensive alternative that will give you bare-bones network services with decent performance, Red Hat Linux can certainly fit the bill."
And
"However, Linux did not perform well handling large loads - those tests in which there were more than 100 users."
Given BSD has a reputation for the ability to keep functioning under a high load, it would have been nice to see BSD in thier test.
Oh well, BSD will be benchmarked at LinuxWorld. (but red hat won't be part:-( )
Seldom does one person gets rich off of a program or series of programs today.
It is the corportation and the shareholders who make the money. (And really, only Microsoft)
Back in the days Bill made this statement, the market for programmers was if you were employed by someone else. The PC was TRS-80's and Apple ][+es. The people getting fat, dumb and happy on other people's wallets were the hardware makers. And this too has not changed. How many billion+ dollar software companies are there? How many billion+ dollar companies make hardware, hardware that without software is no more useful than a badly designed space heater?
Bill is our whipping boy because, well, he should have been taken out back behind the woodshed years ago. (Let us also take the PC vendors out back also, because none had the balls to hold a press conference and announce they would be willing to shut the doors to their company rather than sign the contract Micro$oft gave them.) But let us not loose sight that Bill did have a point. And his point DID manage to 'win'.
>It's possible to have 5 or 6 Ultra devices on the same bus, but you are likely to have problems.
Specs:
1.5 meters max cable length. Its like 3 or 6 inches spacing per drive min spacing (I forget) So what happens is you run out of cable length b4 you run out of drives.
Solution: 2 scsi re-generators. One to the computer, one in the middle of the SCSI chain. Kingston sells 'em and they are about $300 a pop.
And - it all works!
(Consider: The cable in a kingston drive array tower is 2.5 meters long)
Not only can you do this, but you can have your own changes to 'GPL' code and NOT have to release your code.
Example: Motorola has gcc, they have modified it and distribute it with the cell phone switch computers. They have paid FSF for the right to do this.
The "problem" for your average GPL'ed program is this: No one person owns ALL the rights. Example: Linux. Linus, Donald, etc la all own the copywrite on thier code, and GPLed it. How do you get ALL the copywrite holders to *AGREE* to licence thier code for a special version? Example: GCC. If you produce a major modification, you have to sign over the rights to FSF. So FSF *owns* gcc.
Hence they can re-licence gcc under any damn terms they want.
Given that 4.0 was declared back when 3.1 was officially released, back at the beginning of last year, this announcement is just part of the continued development of FreeBSD.
And, when 4.X ships, I'm sure the new version 5.0 will start development, and we'll see 3.4 become the final stable version (or close to) of the 3.X tree. And 4.X will be the latest and greatest.
And the movement forward of FreeBSD will continue.
The BSD development watches linux for the compatiblity mode, and for the occational code idea.
But, why WOULD a linux release matter to BSD? And, why are you not asking 'Did the Debian code freeze occur due to a pending BSD code freeze?'
Nominations - All nominations, up to 30 days ago. Too large to download individually. (35.3Mb at 30 Dec 1999 - 685,812 entries)
Now I DLed that file. wc -l says some.69 million entries..58 million are from 1999-08-14 date.
1 - that is over 30 days. 2 - The reference site is gone.
Yea, a real service. Using a dead database, and not even following the guidelines they publish.
>I can deal with a probe or two 17 is more than 'a probe or 2.' And they KEEP testing for 14 days (per the text of http://www.orbs.org/verify.cgi)
>And even then, they dont probe a box unless it has been shown that they were the originator of spam. BULLSHIT. http://www.orbs.org/report_1.html and you can add a machine for testing. No 'proof' needed. When *I* asked for 'proof' about spam from my host, no response.
>but there are always going to be inperfections in a system. Yea...lets explain rude behaviour as 'inprefections'.
And they KEEP comming back with their bogus tests. Every 21 days, according to the site.
MAPS at least will contact you and try to work things out b4 taking action. ORBS shoots first and then says Ooops.
My box doesn not relay outside mail. I get probe attacks, and the wanna-be spammers go away.
ORBS has 17 different spam attempts, keeps trying for 14 days (as per their web site) and then re-tests.
Being mentioned in ORBS has increased the number of outside probe attacks. (In fact they WANT this behavior)
They are unwilling to provide the e-mail message that prompts them to think you are a spam site, and if you complain about them, they add you to the ORBS list as a manual entry.
In fact BUGTRAQ@SECURITYFOCUS.COM has now been hit with ORBS. (seems above.net doesn't like the probes and rejects them. So ORBS has them 'on the list')
Your right...why is *LINUX* needed on a PDA? No reason Linux.
Yet, because Linux is OpenSource, you don't end up like Apple Newton developers when the maker of the hardware decided to pack up and leave.
Its not about Linux, its about OpenSource. Some people get this confused...like these fine people. (Hint: Its a picture of a company that called FreeBSD a form of Linux. And the BSD is the powerpack, not the straight up OS.)
I remember listening to National Public Radio (NPR) and they had the 2 authors on. The quote that got me to buy and read it was "Yea, we hope that the Pope issues a fauwta against us."
After some nervous laughter from the host, she then explained how the book MIGHT be considered blasphemous and how some people might get upset.
Now, with a movie being proposed, I ll wait to see the Jerry Farwell etc la of the world pick on this movie as evidence of global disaster. (Given Y2K fizzled on them )
A lawsuit isn't about what is right...its about what you can convice a judge to believe. If you can get him/her to agree the sky is pink, its pink.
To that end, carrot and stick
Stick: If you release printed handwriting on a palm, we will sue you for taking our trade secrets. You will be forced to show EVERY line of code, to be sure none of our code (which left in the heads) of your new Palm/ex Netwon employees. [Hint: How many programmers have copywrited code from the last job sill in hard copy/on tape/on CD ROM laying about/in a directory at home/at the new place of employ?]
Carrot: Let us cross-licence the handwriting and the rest of our PDA technology portfolio. Oh, and we get palm OS rights cheap.
Apple has a stick they can swing. And in swinging the stick, they can do damage. Both parties get damaged, but its a threat that can be made.
Which way would *YOU* take?
[The rumor is the ex-newton people have shown off write anywhere on the screen/printed handwriting style palms to management. Clearing any lawsuit issues from past employers (Apple) would go along way to making said technology aviab. to the consumer.]
And with the graffiti authors off doing something else, keeping graffiti as the default/only method isn't the political problem it once was.
*IF* Apple makes its version of the Palm with Graffiti/rosetta, and it becomes the popular version, Palm will do the same under whatever terms it works out with Apple/others.
Back in 1997 when Steve Jobs was let back into Apple, the Newton group was worried about how long they would last. At the developer conference Jobs pointed to a 2000 and said: "Apple makes computers. Computers have keyboards. Does this have a keyboard?"
Amelio, in an attempt to KEEP the Newton group from leaving, spun off the Newton group to Newton Inc to 'sink or swim'. Gil saw the handwriting on the wall: Jobs was removed from Apple by John Scully when Jobs tried to have Scully terminated. As Scully had claimed the Newton as 'his baby', Jobs was working to knife Scully's child. Gil also had watch Newton staff LEAVE for Palm computing when Jobs was brought on board.
At this point, Newton Inc had prototypes of a palm-sized Newton for $500 price point. No PCMCIA card slot etc.
After Gil was gone, the Newton division was spun 'back in'. At this point 32 of the Newton group left IN MASS to Palm. (Other things: Parts for a new run of Newtons were not being ordered, etc) So, the Newton engineers were no longer around. At this point, the Newton was without core developers.
Given the LACK of respect Jobs showed handheld computers/PDA's, was buying Palm a GOOD idea? (IE-would the engineers have STAYED in an Steve Jobs controlled version of Palm...I don't believe so)
Move to present day: Palm has the TALENT that made rosetta (the handwriting engine) Apple has the COPYRIGHTS to rosetta Both sides have lawyers.
If Palm were to come up with REAL handwriting, Apple could sue. Even IF the new version was 'clean' of Apple code, the legal bills would go on for some time. How can Apple get a cheaper Palm licence? Allow Palm to use rosetta technology in a cross licence agreement.
How long has an Apple branded Palm been rumored? Soon, the 2 year mark will be reached. The time to announce this JUST passed....the Apple love in at MacWorld.
When will we see IEEE 1394 support for the OpenSource OSes?
When will OpenSource OS users be able to take audio/video from a IEEE 1394 source and make AVI and MP3 files?
The BSD's are working on this support on a kernel level (which means the code can be hi-jacked into the Linux kernel if they want to), yet IEEE 1394 seems to suffer from RS-232ism...It's a great standard because of all the different ways you can implement the standard. Not easy to write code for.
The point is that children, if they are curious and determined, can overcome a command line in just a week or so.
Overcome?
The skills to interact with a machine are learned. Period. Sometimes the machine is a hand planer, other times it is a fighter jet. Sometimes the skill is reading. (how many of you remember mastering that skill?)
But overcome? You make it sound like a command line is some big smeging thing, worthy of praise if you somehow manage to figure out how to type something that gets you a desired response. By painting a command line as an obstacle, you make it so.
Think back to the 1950's (not that many of you can). When making silicon transistors was considered impossible. No EE felt it was possible. Yet, Willis Adcock did it. Why? Because he didn't KNOW it was impossi ble.
Slashdot Mirror
Anything that expands the job market of lawyers and patent law helps you and your firm. For if your competition is doing opensource-patent-stuff, then your firm has clients they would not serve.
Trolling for work on slashdot isn't a good use of time. And you seem brighter than that.
Onto why I feel your comments may be correct, but unworkable.
Your model is the traditional model of patent law.
The OpenSource-esque movement tries to turn tradition on its head, and establish new traditions.
A legal battle requires:
1)money
2)desire to fight it
3)money
and
4)properly filed buercatic paperwork
The openSource world, as a whole, doesn't do 1-4 well. So any workable solution for OpenSource-types has to not rely on 1-4. (most PEOPLE don't do 1-4 well. Corporations do 1-4. Most of OpenSource is people...not corps.)
You may be correct in your evaluation, but methinks it comes from the box you live in, as a lawyer. Other solutions suggested (workable or not) try to not rely on 1-4. And, they may or may not work in the long run.
(And, I remember your comments on the Trac Tran FFT thread. A actual, real life expert, is rare here. So, don't quit posting meaningful comments just because I wanted to establish what you more-or-less did for a living.)
>As an acknowledged marketing expert with some (a lot) of knowledge of Linux,
AND
>Here is my admittedly non-techno savvy view of how to do it.
So you, as a marketing expert, feel you have the proper knowledge to dictate technology?
Ohhh, how charming.
I have a better idea:
Why don't you take the opensource code, get some programmers, create a Linux IPO to do just this, and get back to us. If you are so correct, you should be able to do better than posting on slashdot.
>MOZILLA MUST BE TIED TO THE LINUX KERNEL ASAP.
Oh, gee. What about MacOS (both the unix and non unix versions), Windows, BSD, Solaris, AIX, VMS, HPUX and others?
>Every time a Windows user downloads a windows version of Mozilla, a potential consumer for Linux is lost forever
I see, well by your logic, if I download the Linux version and run it on FreeBSD, Linux hasn't lost anything?
>The market demands the OS be dependant on the browser.
Tell ya what....why don't you post PROOF to this statement, in the form of REAL market research?
From what I can tell, you are just blowing hot air.
>By inventing new, useful and unobvious processes and filing the applications?
Say, arn't you a patent attorney? Looks like your idea is a way to get more work for yourself.
As I understand the US law, you are allowed to copy whatever you want from patents for PERSONAL USE.
Under this clause, many things become a non-violation.
No where am I seeing a discussion of PROCESS patents. Like one-click shopping. Or scratch and win (as a web application)? Exactly HOW are you going to create a 'defense pool' of the classification of process patents?
And the final flaw in the idea of a patent pool:
So you have the $10,000 to file the patent. Now what about the money to defend the patent? Both infringement and attempts to have the patent thrown out.
As a vendor who makes ASIC devices said "We infringe all the time. And we only pay if asked." Does this sound like the attitude of a certain company in Redmond? Who has the time and money to prove an infringement in a closed-source product?
An example: Search slashdot for code warrior by metroworks. (the slashdot crew would have to fidn it...static pages can't be searched by us mortals) There was a claim by an AC that while they worked at metroworks, they used gcc GPLed code in the product. Now, where is the outrage for the alledged violation by Metroworks? Corel has gotten its fair share of tounge lashings....so I know the "community" is able to tounge-lash. Because Code warrior is closed-source...it will take work to figure out if the allegation is true. And I don't see anyone who is taking the time to examine the serious claim of infringement in the Metroworks case. (If you can't defend what you have already...why are you seeking more to defend?)
(and why do people want to assign patents to the FSF? So they can make money off the patent when they lease it out to companies?)
for OpenSource.
:-( )
I note that they point out:
"But if you need an inexpensive alternative that will give you bare-bones network services with decent performance, Red Hat Linux can certainly fit the bill."
And
"However, Linux did not perform well handling large loads - those tests in which there were more than 100 users."
Given BSD has a reputation for the ability to keep functioning under a high load, it would have been nice to see BSD in thier test.
Oh well, BSD will be benchmarked at LinuxWorld. (but red hat won't be part
And the same is true today.
Seldom does one person gets rich off of a program or series of programs today.
It is the corportation and the shareholders who make the money. (And really, only Microsoft)
Back in the days Bill made this statement, the market for programmers was if you were employed by someone else. The PC was TRS-80's and Apple ][+es. The people getting fat, dumb and happy on other people's wallets were the hardware makers. And this too has not changed. How many billion+ dollar software companies are there? How many billion+ dollar companies make hardware, hardware that without software is no more useful than a badly designed space heater?
Bill is our whipping boy because, well, he should have been taken out back behind the woodshed years ago. (Let us also take the PC vendors out back also, because none had the balls to hold a press conference and announce they would be willing to shut the doors to their company rather than sign the contract Micro$oft gave them.) But let us not loose sight that Bill did have a point. And his point DID manage to 'win'.
I agree, why flamebait?
>It's possible to have 5 or 6 Ultra devices on the same bus, but you are likely to have problems.
Specs:
1.5 meters max cable length.
Its like 3 or 6 inches spacing per drive min spacing (I forget)
So what happens is you run out of cable length b4 you run out of drives.
Solution:
2 scsi re-generators. One to the computer, one in the middle of the SCSI chain. Kingston sells 'em and they are about $300 a pop.
And - it all works!
(Consider: The cable in a kingston drive array tower is 2.5 meters long)
>even if Linux's SCSI API is bollocks),
Then run something else. Like Sun hardware under Solaris/BSD or Alpha on Tru64/BSD or even Intel under SCO/Solaris/BSD
The world isn't ALL GNU/Linux. Nor should it be.
And given BSD *IS* OpenSource, you should have no problems with making a switch from Linux to BSD from an ideological standpoint.
Not only can you do this, but you can have your own changes to 'GPL' code and NOT have to release your code.
Example: Motorola has gcc, they have modified it and distribute it with the cell phone switch computers. They have paid FSF for the right to do this.
The "problem" for your average GPL'ed program is this: No one person owns ALL the rights.
Example: Linux. Linus, Donald, etc la all own the copywrite on thier code, and GPLed it. How do you get ALL the copywrite holders to *AGREE* to licence thier code for a special version?
Example: GCC. If you produce a major modification, you have to sign over the rights to FSF. So FSF *owns* gcc.
Hence they can re-licence gcc under any damn terms they want.
Given that 4.0 was declared back when 3.1 was officially released, back at the beginning of last year, this announcement is just part of the continued development of FreeBSD.
And, when 4.X ships, I'm sure the new version 5.0 will start development, and we'll see 3.4 become the final stable version (or close to) of the 3.X tree. And 4.X will be the latest and greatest.
And the movement forward of FreeBSD will continue.
The BSD development watches linux for the compatiblity mode, and for the occational code idea.
But, why WOULD a linux release matter to BSD? And, why are you not asking 'Did the Debian code freeze occur due to a pending BSD code freeze?'
Errr, my servers DON'T relay. Never did.
Yet, my site was attacked, and the web site says it will contiune to be the subject of their probe attacks.
>But there is no way to stop or delay this block, unless you fix your servers.
Hrmmm. You seem to mis-understand how they work.
ORBS puts you on a list, and KEEPS checking your machine. Go read the web site.
ORBS is as invasive as the spammers, as far as I am concerned.
And if you write them telling them you find them rude/no better than the spammers, they put you on the list.
(And here are 2 links about Chairman Jobs. Issue one and Issue two
And remember: Apple's action is typical of the corporation. Just because they say 'they are different' doesn't mean they ACT different.
Sure..... whatever.
.69 million entries. .58 million are from 1999-08-14 date.
From: http://www.orbs.org/database.html
Nominations - All nominations, up to 30 days ago. Too large to download individually. (35.3Mb at 30 Dec 1999 - 685,812 entries)
Now I DLed that file. wc -l says some
1 - that is over 30 days.
2 - The reference site is gone.
Yea, a real service. Using a dead database, and not even following the guidelines they publish.
>I can deal with a probe or two
17 is more than 'a probe or 2.' And they KEEP testing for 14 days (per the text of http://www.orbs.org/verify.cgi)
>And even then, they dont probe a box unless it has been shown that they were the originator of spam.
BULLSHIT.
http://www.orbs.org/report_1.html
and you can add a machine for testing.
No 'proof' needed.
When *I* asked for 'proof' about spam from my host, no response.
>but there are always going to be inperfections in a system.
Yea...lets explain rude behaviour as 'inprefections'.
And they KEEP comming back with their bogus tests. Every 21 days, according to the site.
MAPS at least will contact you and try to work things out b4 taking action. ORBS shoots first and then says Ooops.
Yes. They are a 'screw you' kind of player.
My machine got put on the list when I wrote them and told them I found the probe behavior rude.
Seems they seem themselves as a white knight, and don't like others calling what they do rude.
Got any NANOG links to show off?
ORBS is a greater evil.
My box doesn not relay outside mail. I get probe attacks, and the wanna-be spammers go away.
ORBS has 17 different spam attempts, keeps trying for 14 days (as per their web site) and then re-tests.
Being mentioned in ORBS has increased the number of outside probe attacks. (In fact they WANT this behavior)
They are unwilling to provide the e-mail message that prompts them to think you are a spam site, and if you complain about them, they add you to the ORBS list as a manual entry.
In fact BUGTRAQ@SECURITYFOCUS.COM has now been hit with ORBS. (seems above.net doesn't like the probes and rejects them. So ORBS has them 'on the list')
In short, ORBS is no better than the spammers.
Promoting ORBS is irresponsible.
Your right...why is *LINUX* needed on a PDA? No reason Linux.
Yet, because Linux is OpenSource, you don't end up like Apple Newton developers when the maker of the hardware decided to pack up and leave.
Its not about Linux, its about OpenSource.
Some people get this confused...like these fine people.
(Hint: Its a picture of a company that called FreeBSD a form of Linux. And the BSD is the powerpack, not the straight up OS.)
After some nervous laughter from the host, she then explained how the book MIGHT be considered blasphemous and how some people might get upset.
Now, with a movie being proposed, I ll wait to see the Jerry Farwell etc la of the world pick on this movie as evidence of global disaster. (Given Y2K fizzled on them )
A lawsuit isn't about what is right...its about what you can convice a judge to believe. If you can get him/her to agree the sky is pink, its pink.
To that end, carrot and stick
Stick: If you release printed handwriting on a palm, we will sue you for taking our trade secrets. You will be forced to show EVERY line of code, to be sure none of our code (which left in the heads) of your new Palm/ex Netwon employees.
[Hint: How many programmers have copywrited code from the last job sill in hard copy/on tape/on CD ROM laying about/in a directory at home/at the new place of employ?]
Carrot: Let us cross-licence the handwriting and the rest of our PDA technology portfolio. Oh, and we get palm OS rights cheap.
Apple has a stick they can swing. And in swinging the stick, they can do damage. Both parties get damaged, but its a threat that can be made.
Which way would *YOU* take?
[The rumor is the ex-newton people have shown off write anywhere on the screen/printed handwriting style palms to management. Clearing any lawsuit issues from past employers (Apple) would go along way to making said technology aviab. to the consumer.]
And with the graffiti authors off doing something else, keeping graffiti as the default/only method isn't the political problem it once was.
*IF* Apple makes its version of the Palm with Graffiti/rosetta, and it becomes the popular version, Palm will do the same under whatever terms it works out with Apple/others.
Beat up martin was the clip I remember.
You forgot:
Apple/Dragon systems had software that would actually understand 20 some words. (numbers mainly)
So you didn't need a keyboard OR stylus....you just talked to the newt.
The new version (in Japan only) has an 8 gig drive, as opposed to the 4 gig in the present picturebook.
Here is a link to the sony page. Not much bigger than a Newton 2000/2100, smaller than the Newton and keyboard.
Back in 1997 when Steve Jobs was let back into Apple, the Newton group was worried about how long they would last.
At the developer conference Jobs pointed to a 2000 and said:
"Apple makes computers. Computers have keyboards. Does this have a keyboard?"
Amelio, in an attempt to KEEP the Newton group from leaving, spun off the Newton group to Newton Inc to 'sink or swim'. Gil saw the handwriting on the wall: Jobs was removed from Apple by John Scully when Jobs tried to have Scully terminated. As Scully had claimed the Newton as 'his baby', Jobs was working to knife Scully's child. Gil also had watch Newton staff LEAVE for Palm computing when Jobs was brought on board.
At this point, Newton Inc had prototypes of a palm-sized Newton for $500 price point. No PCMCIA card slot etc.
After Gil was gone, the Newton division was spun 'back in'. At this point 32 of the Newton group left IN MASS to Palm. (Other things: Parts for a new run of Newtons were not being ordered, etc) So, the Newton engineers were no longer around. At this point, the Newton was without core developers.
Given the LACK of respect Jobs showed handheld computers/PDA's, was buying Palm a GOOD idea? (IE-would the engineers have STAYED in an Steve Jobs controlled version of Palm...I don't believe so)
Move to present day:
Palm has the TALENT that made rosetta (the handwriting engine)
Apple has the COPYRIGHTS to rosetta
Both sides have lawyers.
If Palm were to come up with REAL handwriting, Apple could sue. Even IF the new version was 'clean' of Apple code, the legal bills would go on for some time.
How can Apple get a cheaper Palm licence? Allow Palm to use rosetta technology in a cross licence agreement.
How long has an Apple branded Palm been rumored? Soon, the 2 year mark will be reached. The time to announce this JUST passed....the Apple love in at MacWorld.
Which brings up my question:
When will we see IEEE 1394 support for the OpenSource OSes?
When will OpenSource OS users be able to take audio/video from a IEEE 1394 source and make AVI and MP3 files?
The BSD's are working on this support on a kernel level (which means the code can be hi-jacked into the Linux kernel if they want to), yet IEEE 1394 seems to suffer from RS-232ism...It's a great standard because of all the different ways you can implement the standard. Not easy to write code for.
>A license approach to making it 'corel linux only' would be practically unenforceable.
That does not mean they can't take this option however.
Overcome?
The skills to interact with a machine are learned. Period. Sometimes the machine is a hand planer, other times it is a fighter jet.
Sometimes the skill is reading. (how many of you remember mastering that skill?)
But overcome? You make it sound like a command line is some big smeging thing, worthy of praise if you somehow manage to figure out how to type something that gets you a desired response.
By painting a command line as an obstacle, you make it so.
Think back to the 1950's (not that many of you can). When making silicon transistors was considered impossible. No EE felt it was possible. Yet, Willis Adcock did it. Why? Because he didn't KNOW it was impossi ble.