1. Integration is combining parts so that they work together or form a whole. Nothing common with refactoring the ideas.
OK, I'll concede that there's some small amount of innovation in taking an idea from somewhere else & integrating it into your product.
2. Virtual desktops: you mean "Stepping Out" feature that has been available in old Mac OS that has been created by Wes Boyd in 1986?
No. Think multiple virtual desktops the same size of your real desktop, rather than a single desktop larger than your real desktop.
The ideas are similar, but neither idea originated from Apple.
3. Konfabulator: OK, you are one of those, who claims Dashboard is a rip-off, ignoring the fact of different code base, engines and markup. But probably you also have to remember "Desk Accessories" that has been available in Mac OS yet in 1984, and has been written as a device driver, conforming to a particular programming model.
As I've stated repeatedly through this thread, I don't think anyone's ripping off anyone - just that Konfabulator predated Dashboard.
As far as Desk Accessories go, from the link you provided:
This misconception [that Konfabulator is actually just a rip-off of Apple's Desk Accessories] stems from the fact that many widgets perform functions similar to those of some well-known Desk Accessories.*snip*
When Konfabulator was introduced, it was (rightfully) seen as a new kind of thing on the Mac platform. *snip*
This couldn't be more different from the "big idea" that spawned Desk accessories. *snip*
While Konfabulator's primary innovation has nothing to do with Desk Accessories, the "big idea" behind both Konfabulator and Dashboard is the same: to provide a runtime environment that enables the creation of simple applications using widely-known "Internet age" technologies: XML, HTML, JavaScript, etc. No compiling is necessary, and widgets have a completely open format that encourages users to learn from the work of others. *snip*
The worst part of the misconception that Konfabulator and Dashboard are both obvious derivatives of Desk Accessories is that it adds nothing to the debate, regardless of its validity. The not-so-hidden agenda of the Desk Accessories connection is that "Apple did it first," therefore Dashboard did not copy Konfabulator.
Me: OS makers borrow ideas from each other all the time. You: Linux only borrows from windows - why doesn't linux borrow ideas from OS X like x, y & z. Me: But linux does have x, y & z. You: But they're not implemented everywhere! Turned on by default! Me: *Shrug* Linux is a little slower - takes a while for the good ideas to percolate down.
I can't really be bothered having a discussion about various features in linux vs OS X. Yes, OS X is superior in many ways to linux, particularly in respects to integration. If that's the point you're trying to make, well done.
Your line however that Linux copies only from Windows & not from OS X however is horseshit - pure & simple. Most of the examples you chose are being implemented by various linux vendors and not one linux vendor is implementing say a windows-style init or vista-style expose.
Let me preface my comment by reminding you that your original line was:
"What I find interesting is that major Linux developers don't copy those features from OS X."
Not:
"What I find interesting is that major Linux developers don't copy those features from OS X - and instantly have working implementations"
Sigh. Why is explaining deficiencies in Linux like pulling teeth?
*sigh* Because some of your deficiencies are imagined. For instance:
Yes, somebody cloned Expose for KDE. It even works fairly well (at least on my Kubuntu box). I still had to go out and search for it and then add the package by hand.
Kompose is only one of the expose-type features on linux. Another is the expose-like feature in Compiz, enabled by default in Ubuntu. Kubuntu is a community-supported distro & doesn't develop as quickly as Ubuntu.
Now, to the rest of your comment.
Yes, there are certainly zeroconf implementations on Linux. My point was "ubiquitous zeroconf." You now what 'ubiquitous' means, right?
So - according to you, 'linux' developers aren't interested in zeroconf, but you even point out in your own post that the XO linux developers do support ubiquitous zeroconf.
You don't even know what "system services" are on OS X.
I misread that as SystemStartup - my apologies, linux indeed does not have something like system services - this is the consequence of being a bazaar rather than cathedral project.
[on Launchd] Yes, every distro has such a project and as far as I know none of them are compatible (except as backward compatible modes) and none of them are finished and in production use in default installs.
Oooookay? Again - you said "What I find interesting is that major Linux developers don't copy those features from OS X." - not "What I find interesting is that major Linux developers don't copy those features from OS X - and instantly have working implementations"
So they're trying to implement it, but thats still not good enough for you.
The closest I''ve actually come to people with real experience using both is from recent switchers to OS X, or people who use Linux as a server
Recent OS X switchers tend to come from Windows via Linux (for a month or two) & don't really have 'real experience' with Linux. People who use Linux on the server? In a desktop software discussion? Yeah they'd know heaps about Avahi & Kompose.
Furthermore, if we're swapping anecdotes, the closest I've come to people with real experience using both are people who actually use both daily. I'm one of them (along with windows).
Yes, OS X & Linux are completely different in their approach & style. Mac's have a single source for hardware & software, which is great for integration, but bad if you want flexibility.
Try pointing out the deficiencies in OS X if you really want to know what pulling teeth feels like.
Apple has also done some serious innovating in OS X: expose, ubiquitous zeroconf, system services, launchd, etc. What I find interesting is that major Linux developers don't copy those features from OS X. [emph mine]
Let's have a look at your examples.
Zeroconf - Avahi Expose - Kompose System services - errr, that's been replaced by Launchd on your list. Launchd - ReplacementInit - Considered Apple's LaunchD and Sun's SMF amongst others, but none were quite the right fit.
I have several theories as to why this is.
Out of the three feature examples you've given, two are implemented in linux, your premise is incorrect, your theories are utter bollocks.
The context of the discussion is innovation, not who got it right. Taking someone elses idea & putting it in your OS is called integration, not innovation.
However, Konfabulator got it right - or do you disagree?
Just nitpicking, but Konfabulator was a shareware, not OSS. Spotlight was predated by Sherlock 2 which was released as a part of Mac OS 8.5, years before beagle's 0.0.0 release.
You are correct about Konfabulator, but I'm not sure Sherlock 2 is a good example - its indexing wasn't really any different to AppleSearch (did it search your browser history, mail, pdf content - ie all things we mean when we refer to 'desktop search' apps?).
FWIW, I don't think Beagle started the desktop search frenzy - all desktop search apps are a natural evolution of indexed search going waaaaaaaaaay back to at least the early 90s
I agree with your point, Apple 'borrows' ideas and code from anywhere regardless of their origins, but at least get the facts straight and don't guess if you really don't know. It only undermines your claim.
My point is that everyone 'borrows' ideas (not code) from anywhere regardless of their origins. I used Apple to make that point.
and Apple usually does it right more often than others when it comes to UI.
They do - particularly with integration.
You can call me an Apple fanboy.
No way - you're far to reasonable to be a true Apple fanboy - try again with more mouth-frothiness.
If you're going to claim that Dashboard is a ripoff of Konfabulator,
No, I didn't claim that - I said Konfabulator predates Dashboard.
then it's utterly disingenuous to claim that K-ator is not a "ripoff" of Desk Accessories in exactly the same sense. To anyone with a functioning brain, K-ator is much more similar to Desk Accessories than to Dashboard. If you disagree, I invite you to explain why rather than trotting out troll talking points.
Konfabulator could fetch information from a network & was easy to develop for, but again - I don't claim that anything's ripping off anything.
And Spotlight a ripoff of Beagle? A laughable, intentional lie. Again, if those two are similar enough to call Spotlight a "ripoff", then Beagle is a ripoff of every indexed search project since 1935.
But I do think Beagle has borrowed from every indexed search project since 1935 - I even said (in the post you're replying to): "
all the majors [os makers] copy concepts from each other & rarely come up with original features (they mostly come from research projects)"
But, "Dashboard (predated by Konfabulator)"... I seem to remember 1984, which might be a little bit before your time. They both seem to look a little bit like Desk Accessories don'tyathink?
No. I don't think Dashboard is anything like Desk Accessories - the only similarity between the two is that they're both small apps.
And Beagle? Apple hired Dominic Giampaolo in early 2002, who knows if he started working on Spotlight right from the get-go?
Oh FFS. Do you think you're adding anything to your case by speculating that Apple may have been developing Spotlight prior to Beagle's first alpha?
Even if you had concrete evidence rather than pointless speculation, you'd still not have shown Apple to be the innovator - how about this from 1987.
I'd like to see some originality, but once again OSS disappoints.
If you want to see where OS X has borrowed from OSS, simply look at spaces (predated by Virtual Desktops), Dashboard (predated by Konfabulator), Spotlight (predated by Beagle), etc.
I'd like to see some OS X fanboys who have a clue about the way OS development works; hint: all the majors copy concepts from each other & rarely come up with original features (they mostly come from research projects), but once again, Apple fanboy disappoints.
that I noticed a number of America-bashing remarks were being modded high
So, you can't even distinguish between the America (referring to the country or the administration) and all Americans (referring to all the people). There's a huge difference.
I'm under no obligation to document it for you.
Nope, but I'm under no obligation not to point out at every opportunity that your sig & hence you are full of shit.
Everyone also knows that I'm the author of RoughlyDrafted,
Jeepers - are you? And you admit it? In public?
please let us know where the market for Mac viruses and exploits is,
Well, there's a Safari exploit being auctioned right now.
But really, the vast majority of exploits to hit OS X won't be OS X specific - but belong to other projects, like Apache, SSH, Samba, etc. This is because OS X sensibly uses open source to do all its heavy lifting security wise.
Also, please fill us in on what you think it means to be a zombie, because a zombie process has nothing to do with being part of a Windows botnet.
Admittedly, (presumably) you're an OS X user, so you're less likely to have experience with zombies, but you'd think you'd at least do a simple google search before attempting to correct someone.
I guarantee you that Hell, Gates, Ballmer & Co. is still laughing all the way to the bank.
Laughing? A market leader is (finally) offering consumers a choice between windows & linux & you think the leaderes of one of the most predatory & unethical businesses in the software word are laughing?
Sure, they're making money on these things - but for the first time since the early 90s, they're not in the drivers seat - Asus has managed to wrangle a XP deal with its use of linux.
OFFTOPIC: Your sig - please point us all to an example of someone with a +5 insightful for saying all Americans suck because of $reason. Personally, I think you're full of shit.
China will be perfectly happy with the new united Microhoo as long as Microhoo is as compliant in handing over dissident's information as Yahoo & Microsoft are as separate companies.
Uh-oh, you've linked to roughly drafted - the least credible & most poorly thought through blog around.
I can't be bothered refuting each of the ten points in the article, I'll just do the first:
1. Exploits discovered for the Mac have little other value outside of contests like CanSecWest.
This is complete horse-crap. Zero day exploits for mac have a good deal of value - there may not be many mac users, but a zombied mac is typically far more useful than a zombied windows install due to the unix-like nature of the O/S.
Please don't link to roughly drafted in future. That blog is an embarrassment.
Congratulations sir. Apple hating Slashdotters' capacity for misquoting for libelous use and getting modded "insightful" for it never ceases to amaze me.
Thank you sir. Apple hating slashdotters are second only to to Apple loving fanboys in their capacity for libelous misquoting and getting modded "insightful" for it.
It should be up to the person who writes it (or company who commissions it) to decide what they want to do with it
If everyone decides of their own free will to make their software free, then it's all free. No coercion.
Or are you advocating that *their* freedom of choice to do with *their* creation what they want
No - you're the one advocating that some software should not be free - meaning that you are the one calling for coercion in the unlikely event that all software makers decide of their own free will to make their software free.
*sigh* I guess thinking you weren't a two year old was hopelessly optimistic. Better luck next time kiddo.
Time to join me in the real world. People are required in order to create software. People need to be paid. Most software would be unable to make money if it is "free" as it would also end up being free as in sale price (as I have explained earlier in this thread).
But that's not a reason why some software shouldn't be free - just a reason why some software won't be free. I'm sure you're not a two year old, so I won't bother to explain the difference.
In the case of this deal, we pay for the right to listen to all the music in the library, on the device, with no other restrictions.
So, how is this DRMd music more free then the music from say the DRM-free music from emusic? To qualify as free, I think it should at least allow you the same rights you have under copyright law.
No matter how you try & justify it, DRMd music is not free in any way, shape or form.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I'll concede that there's some small amount of innovation in taking an idea from somewhere else & integrating it into your product.
2. Virtual desktops: you mean "Stepping Out" feature that has been available in old Mac OS that has been created by Wes Boyd in 1986?
No. Think multiple virtual desktops the same size of your real desktop, rather than a single desktop larger than your real desktop.
The ideas are similar, but neither idea originated from Apple.
3. Konfabulator: OK, you are one of those, who claims Dashboard is a rip-off, ignoring the fact of different code base, engines and markup. But probably you also have to remember "Desk Accessories" that has been available in Mac OS yet in 1984, and has been written as a device driver, conforming to a particular programming model.
As I've stated repeatedly through this thread, I don't think anyone's ripping off anyone - just that Konfabulator predated Dashboard.
As far as Desk Accessories go, from the link you provided:Your own link disagrees with you fanboy.
Let me summarise the thread for you:
Me: OS makers borrow ideas from each other all the time.
You: Linux only borrows from windows - why doesn't linux borrow ideas from OS X like x, y & z.
Me: But linux does have x, y & z.
You: But they're not implemented everywhere! Turned on by default!
Me: *Shrug* Linux is a little slower - takes a while for the good ideas to percolate down.
I can't really be bothered having a discussion about various features in linux vs OS X. Yes, OS X is superior in many ways to linux, particularly in respects to integration. If that's the point you're trying to make, well done.
Your line however that Linux copies only from Windows & not from OS X however is horseshit - pure & simple. Most of the examples you chose are being implemented by various linux vendors and not one linux vendor is implementing say a windows-style init or vista-style expose.
Sigh. Why is explaining deficiencies in Linux like pulling teeth?
*sigh* Because some of your deficiencies are imagined. For instance:
Yes, somebody cloned Expose for KDE. It even works fairly well (at least on my Kubuntu box). I still had to go out and search for it and then add the package by hand.
Kompose is only one of the expose-type features on linux. Another is the expose-like feature in Compiz, enabled by default in Ubuntu. Kubuntu is a community-supported distro & doesn't develop as quickly as Ubuntu.
Now, to the rest of your comment.
Yes, there are certainly zeroconf implementations on Linux. My point was "ubiquitous zeroconf." You now what 'ubiquitous' means, right?
So - according to you, 'linux' developers aren't interested in zeroconf, but you even point out in your own post that the XO linux developers do support ubiquitous zeroconf.
You don't even know what "system services" are on OS X.
I misread that as SystemStartup - my apologies, linux indeed does not have something like system services - this is the consequence of being a bazaar rather than cathedral project.
[on Launchd] Yes, every distro has such a project and as far as I know none of them are compatible (except as backward compatible modes) and none of them are finished and in production use in default installs.
Oooookay? Again - you said "What I find interesting is that major Linux developers don't copy those features from OS X." - not "What I find interesting is that major Linux developers don't copy those features from OS X - and instantly have working implementations"
So they're trying to implement it, but thats still not good enough for you.
The closest I''ve actually come to people with real experience using both is from recent switchers to OS X, or people who use Linux as a server
Recent OS X switchers tend to come from Windows via Linux (for a month or two) & don't really have 'real experience' with Linux. People who use Linux on the server? In a desktop software discussion? Yeah they'd know heaps about Avahi & Kompose.
Furthermore, if we're swapping anecdotes, the closest I've come to people with real experience using both are people who actually use both daily. I'm one of them (along with windows).
Yes, OS X & Linux are completely different in their approach & style. Mac's have a single source for hardware & software, which is great for integration, but bad if you want flexibility.
Try pointing out the deficiencies in OS X if you really want to know what pulling teeth feels like.
Apple has also done some serious innovating in OS X: expose, ubiquitous zeroconf, system services, launchd, etc. What I find interesting is that major Linux developers don't copy those features from OS X. [emph mine]
Let's have a look at your examples.
Zeroconf - Avahi
Expose - Kompose
System services - errr, that's been replaced by Launchd on your list.
Launchd - ReplacementInit - Considered Apple's LaunchD and Sun's SMF amongst others, but none were quite the right fit.
I have several theories as to why this is.
Out of the three feature examples you've given, two are implemented in linux, your premise is incorrect, your theories are utter bollocks.
The point is who actually get it right...
The context of the discussion is innovation, not who got it right. Taking someone elses idea & putting it in your OS is called integration, not innovation.
However, Konfabulator got it right - or do you disagree?
Just nitpicking, but Konfabulator was a shareware, not OSS. Spotlight was predated by Sherlock 2 which was released as a part of Mac OS 8.5, years before beagle's 0.0.0 release.
You are correct about Konfabulator, but I'm not sure Sherlock 2 is a good example - its indexing wasn't really any different to AppleSearch (did it search your browser history, mail, pdf content - ie all things we mean when we refer to 'desktop search' apps?).
FWIW, I don't think Beagle started the desktop search frenzy - all desktop search apps are a natural evolution of indexed search going waaaaaaaaaay back to at least the early 90s
I agree with your point, Apple 'borrows' ideas and code from anywhere regardless of their origins, but at least get the facts straight and don't guess if you really don't know. It only undermines your claim.
My point is that everyone 'borrows' ideas (not code) from anywhere regardless of their origins. I used Apple to make that point.
and Apple usually does it right more often than others when it comes to UI.
They do - particularly with integration.
You can call me an Apple fanboy.
No way - you're far to reasonable to be a true Apple fanboy - try again with more mouth-frothiness.
No, I didn't claim that - I said Konfabulator predates Dashboard.
then it's utterly disingenuous to claim that K-ator is not a "ripoff" of Desk Accessories in exactly the same sense. To anyone with a functioning brain, K-ator is much more similar to Desk Accessories than to Dashboard. If you disagree, I invite you to explain why rather than trotting out troll talking points.
Konfabulator could fetch information from a network & was easy to develop for, but again - I don't claim that anything's ripping off anything.
And Spotlight a ripoff of Beagle? A laughable, intentional lie. Again, if those two are similar enough to call Spotlight a "ripoff", then Beagle is a ripoff of every indexed search project since 1935.
But I do think Beagle has borrowed from every indexed search project since 1935 - I even said (in the post you're replying to): "Sorry fanboy. You're wrong.
But, "Dashboard (predated by Konfabulator)" ... I seem to remember 1984, which might be a little bit before your time. They both seem to look a little bit like Desk Accessories don'tyathink?
No. I don't think Dashboard is anything like Desk Accessories - the only similarity between the two is that they're both small apps.
And Beagle? Apple hired Dominic Giampaolo in early 2002, who knows if he started working on Spotlight right from the get-go?
Oh FFS. Do you think you're adding anything to your case by speculating that Apple may have been developing Spotlight prior to Beagle's first alpha?
Even if you had concrete evidence rather than pointless speculation, you'd still not have shown Apple to be the innovator - how about this from 1987.
I'd like to see some originality, but once again OSS disappoints.
If you want to see where OS X has borrowed from OSS, simply look at spaces (predated by Virtual Desktops), Dashboard (predated by Konfabulator), Spotlight (predated by Beagle), etc.
I'd like to see some OS X fanboys who have a clue about the way OS development works; hint: all the majors copy concepts from each other & rarely come up with original features (they mostly come from research projects), but once again, Apple fanboy disappoints.
But here's the coral cache link to save their server...
that I noticed a number of America-bashing remarks were being modded high
So, you can't even distinguish between the America (referring to the country or the administration) and all Americans (referring to all the people). There's a huge difference.
I'm under no obligation to document it for you.
Nope, but I'm under no obligation not to point out at every opportunity that your sig & hence you are full of shit.
Can't find a single example huh?
I guess my observation was correct.
Everyone also knows that I'm the author of RoughlyDrafted,
Jeepers - are you? And you admit it? In public?
please let us know where the market for Mac viruses and exploits is,
Well, there's a Safari exploit being auctioned right now.
But really, the vast majority of exploits to hit OS X won't be OS X specific - but belong to other projects, like Apache, SSH, Samba, etc. This is because OS X sensibly uses open source to do all its heavy lifting security wise.
Also, please fill us in on what you think it means to be a zombie, because a zombie process has nothing to do with being part of a Windows botnet.
You're a dumbass.
Admittedly, (presumably) you're an OS X user, so you're less likely to have experience with zombies, but you'd think you'd at least do a simple google search before attempting to correct someone.
I guarantee you that Hell, Gates, Ballmer & Co. is still laughing all the way to the bank.
Laughing? A market leader is (finally) offering consumers a choice between windows & linux & you think the leaderes of one of the most predatory & unethical businesses in the software word are laughing?
Sure, they're making money on these things - but for the first time since the early 90s, they're not in the drivers seat - Asus has managed to wrangle a XP deal with its use of linux.
OFFTOPIC: Your sig - please point us all to an example of someone with a +5 insightful for saying all Americans suck because of $reason. Personally, I think you're full of shit.
China will be perfectly happy with the new united Microhoo as long as Microhoo is as compliant in handing over dissident's information as Yahoo & Microsoft are as separate companies.
Uh-oh, you've linked to roughly drafted - the least credible & most poorly thought through blog around.
I can't be bothered refuting each of the ten points in the article, I'll just do the first:
1. Exploits discovered for the Mac have little other value outside of contests like CanSecWest.
This is complete horse-crap. Zero day exploits for mac have a good deal of value - there may not be many mac users, but a zombied mac is typically far more useful than a zombied windows install due to the unix-like nature of the O/S.
Please don't link to roughly drafted in future. That blog is an embarrassment.
I really hope there's some way I can use those same drivers under linux!
Oh....wait.
Congratulations sir. Apple hating Slashdotters' capacity for misquoting for libelous use and getting modded "insightful" for it never ceases to amaze me.
Thank you sir. Apple hating slashdotters are second only to to Apple loving fanboys in their capacity for libelous misquoting and getting modded "insightful" for it.
because of Apple's rep., people would be eager to take on the Mac first.
Hold on - are you saying that Mac's have a better reputation for security than linux?
Congratulations sir. Apple fanboy's capacity for self-delusion never ceases to amaze me.
It should be up to the person who writes it (or company who commissions it) to decide what they want to do with it
If everyone decides of their own free will to make their software free, then it's all free. No coercion.
Or are you advocating that *their* freedom of choice to do with *their* creation what they want
No - you're the one advocating that some software should not be free - meaning that you are the one calling for coercion in the unlikely event that all software makers decide of their own free will to make their software free.
*sigh* I guess thinking you weren't a two year old was hopelessly optimistic. Better luck next time kiddo.
Time to join me in the real world. People are required in order to create software. People need to be paid. Most software would be unable to make money if it is "free" as it would also end up being free as in sale price (as I have explained earlier in this thread).
But that's not a reason why some software shouldn't be free - just a reason why some software won't be free. I'm sure you're not a two year old, so I won't bother to explain the difference.
Not all software has to be "free" (and not everything *should* be).
I can't think of any good reason why some software shouldn't be free. Care to elaborate?
Opera is now 100% & Apple is back to 2nd place (they should be use to that position by now).
I can't give "world's first computer programmer" to Ada Lovelace - I have to give it to Joseph Marie Jacquard
But Jacquard wasn't programming a computer - he was programming a loom. Not that we're not indebted to him, but a loom is not a computer.
In the case of this deal, we pay for the right to listen to all the music in the library, on the device, with no other restrictions.
So, how is this DRMd music more free then the music from say the DRM-free music from emusic? To qualify as free, I think it should at least allow you the same rights you have under copyright law.
No matter how you try & justify it, DRMd music is not free in any way, shape or form.
Next.