apple licensed the GUI from Xerox. Bill Gates STOLE the interface from a preview given to him by Steve Jobs himself.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
LONGHORN vs. JAGUAR ?
- Thread starter citizensane
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No... Apple did not license it. That is why Xerox sued Apple... In many ways the same lawsuit Apple showed M$ a year later.
Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are both businessmen. That is why they have survived for so long. And Steve has showed many ruthless sides of himself through the years too. Don't blame Gates for everything. There are other people working at that damn MS too.
Re: Forget LONGHORN. And: is JAGUAR really the answer we need?
I'll tell you what, you get to work on that, and I'll get to work on ending poverty, curing cancer, increasing life expectancy to 135 worldwide, ending famine, disease, and democratizing the world. Cheers.
ummm you'll have to do more than that. theres no way he'll be done with his OS yet. It won't even be at alpha stage
Originally posted by Beej
Wow... OK... I'm easily distracted, especailly on the Internet... I must admit I didn't read more than the first two paragraphs of your post.
Ever heard the thing about having to get people on the Internet what they want within 7 seconds or they lose interest and go elsewhere? I'm one of them
Originally posted by JonGretar
No... Apple did not license it. That is why Xerox sued Apple... In many ways the same lawsuit Apple showed M$ a year later.
Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are both businessmen. That is why they have survived for so long. And Steve has showed many ruthless sides of himself through the years too. Don't blame Gates for everything. There are other people working at that damn MS too.
The difference in my mind is that when Apple 'appropriated' Xerox's technology (GUI, mouse, ethernet, etc..), it was languishing in PARC. If I remember correctly, Xerox had no plans to use any of it.
Microsoft, on the other hand, took a look at the application of that technology (which is as important as, if not more important than, the technology itself) and copied both.
Noah Whiley vs. Bill Gates
To settle the historical matters: it's time we all rented Pirates of Silicon Valley.
To settle the historical matters: it's time we all rented Pirates of Silicon Valley.
http://www.woz.org/letters/pirates/12.html
Q from E-mail:
Woz, Did you feel wrong stealing outright from Xerox, and what did you think when Microsoft stole from Apple? Do you think Microsoft has a monopoly on the computer industry? Plan on going back to Apple? Also, can you point out more of the minor flaws in the movie? Thanks, David
WOZ:
Steve Jobs made the case to Xerox PARC execs directly that they had great technology but that Apple knew how to make it affordable enough to change the world. This was very open. In the end, Xerox got a large block of Apple stock for sharing the technology. That's not stealing outright._
Apple didn't get any stock from Microsoft. Nor was Apple dealt with openly in this area by Microsoft._
Q from E-mail:
Woz, Did you feel wrong stealing outright from Xerox, and what did you think when Microsoft stole from Apple? Do you think Microsoft has a monopoly on the computer industry? Plan on going back to Apple? Also, can you point out more of the minor flaws in the movie? Thanks, David
WOZ:
Steve Jobs made the case to Xerox PARC execs directly that they had great technology but that Apple knew how to make it affordable enough to change the world. This was very open. In the end, Xerox got a large block of Apple stock for sharing the technology. That's not stealing outright._
Apple didn't get any stock from Microsoft. Nor was Apple dealt with openly in this area by Microsoft._
This is the original work from which citizensane stole his post (I'm assuming he is not the author because of the great disparity in organizational & argumentative skills).
I would recommend EVERYONE who cares about thier OS with more than a fleeting smile/frown, take the time to read the whole thing:
http://www.spack.org/words/commandline.html
I would recommend EVERYONE who cares about thier OS with more than a fleeting smile/frown, take the time to read the whole thing:
http://www.spack.org/words/commandline.html
Re: Re: So . . .
I think you should make the comparison between Rhapsody (Darwin?) and Windows XP in 1997, because back then there were already rumors about the OS that's now called os X.
I think you should make the comparison between Rhapsody (Darwin?) and Windows XP in 1997, because back then there were already rumors about the OS that's now called os X.
Citizen Sane = Neal Stephenson?
Strange. Before C.S.'s posts got popular, his signature was (literally) "[lines and lines of gibberish]"--which I remembered from Neal Stephenson's novel CRYPTONOMICON (http://www.cryptonomicon.com). Owning this, I decided to check it out--and sure enough, the same is written where a "signature block" would appear in an e-mail conducted by one of the characters in NTS's 910 page beast.
Also . . . the first line of C.S.'s "biography" ("Citizen Sane issues from a rootless clan of itinerant [blah blah blah]") matches the biography of Neal Stephenson which appears in the endpapers of his 1992 novel, SNOW CRASH (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=lib_dp_TFCV/002-7458785-0574467#reader-link).
Another strange thing. In his earlier profile (which has undergone significant revision), C.S. had "http://www.well.com/~neal" as his "homepage".
And notice: when C.S. become a popular target to criticize, he, suddenly and completely, vanished. Hm . . .
Strange. Before C.S.'s posts got popular, his signature was (literally) "[lines and lines of gibberish]"--which I remembered from Neal Stephenson's novel CRYPTONOMICON (http://www.cryptonomicon.com). Owning this, I decided to check it out--and sure enough, the same is written where a "signature block" would appear in an e-mail conducted by one of the characters in NTS's 910 page beast.
Also . . . the first line of C.S.'s "biography" ("Citizen Sane issues from a rootless clan of itinerant [blah blah blah]") matches the biography of Neal Stephenson which appears in the endpapers of his 1992 novel, SNOW CRASH (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=lib_dp_TFCV/002-7458785-0574467#reader-link).
Another strange thing. In his earlier profile (which has undergone significant revision), C.S. had "http://www.well.com/~neal" as his "homepage".
And notice: when C.S. become a popular target to criticize, he, suddenly and completely, vanished. Hm . . .
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
funny shiznite
ha ha ha. neal steph's codename on boston u's mainframe comp. was "citizensane_nts ". cool. u guys got nts to do posts here. (even for a little while)
ha ha ha. neal steph's codename on boston u's mainframe comp. was "citizensane_nts ". cool. u guys got nts to do posts here. (even for a little while)
Re: Cars & Operating Systems.
The car example's good, but the Linux part is woefully off (For example, M1 tanks aren't street legal. I would have chosen Ferraris® or something. But I'll let that go.) Anyway, I would have described the Linux dealership more like this:
Across the street is a Linux dealership...etc etc. The buyer may, if he likes choose to purchase for a competitive price a fully assembled M1 tank, complete with all of the limited options available to an M1 tank. Or, he can simply take home an engine for free. He will then be expected to assemble the rest of the tank from scratch and without any sort of a manual, using whatever parts he can find for free that fit with the other parts he finds, and the appropriate parts required by the parts he finds. However, if, for example, the cylinder heads don't fit in his cylinders, he will be expected to resize them himself. If his transmission happens to be missing a rod, he'll be expected to make his own rod. If he can't find a gear box for his particular model of tank, he'll be expected to build his own. Finally, if he goes back to the dealership to service his partially assembled tank, they'll say they don't offer service to free models, and will offer to sell him a fully assembled tank.
So there.
The car example's good, but the Linux part is woefully off (For example, M1 tanks aren't street legal. I would have chosen Ferraris® or something. But I'll let that go.) Anyway, I would have described the Linux dealership more like this:
Across the street is a Linux dealership...etc etc. The buyer may, if he likes choose to purchase for a competitive price a fully assembled M1 tank, complete with all of the limited options available to an M1 tank. Or, he can simply take home an engine for free. He will then be expected to assemble the rest of the tank from scratch and without any sort of a manual, using whatever parts he can find for free that fit with the other parts he finds, and the appropriate parts required by the parts he finds. However, if, for example, the cylinder heads don't fit in his cylinders, he will be expected to resize them himself. If his transmission happens to be missing a rod, he'll be expected to make his own rod. If he can't find a gear box for his particular model of tank, he'll be expected to build his own. Finally, if he goes back to the dealership to service his partially assembled tank, they'll say they don't offer service to free models, and will offer to sell him a fully assembled tank.
So there.
street legal?
why does it matter if it's street legal? how does that relate to the analogy? oh, it doesn't.
(p.s. -- your writing is an eyesore compared to neal's. live the adage: "never be a second rate someone else. be a first rate you.")
i don't know about you, but i can't exactly maintain an M1 Abram tank very well. sure, i could hop into one--but would i be able to drive it off the lot? not likely. they can be as free as air, and it still might take a hundred reference manuals to move it three feet. doesn't change that it was free--(which is all nts meant to stress).
don't argue simply for the sake of arguing. paint's you as a pompous jerk.
why does it matter if it's street legal? how does that relate to the analogy? oh, it doesn't.
(p.s. -- your writing is an eyesore compared to neal's. live the adage: "never be a second rate someone else. be a first rate you.")
i don't know about you, but i can't exactly maintain an M1 Abram tank very well. sure, i could hop into one--but would i be able to drive it off the lot? not likely. they can be as free as air, and it still might take a hundred reference manuals to move it three feet. doesn't change that it was free--(which is all nts meant to stress).
don't argue simply for the sake of arguing. paint's you as a pompous jerk.
it doesn't matter
Crude Analogy is right. Legality doesn't matter. That's why I didn't change it, it is in parenthesis, and I said "I'll let that go." The point of my crappy, 2 minute writing is that I thought his gave Linux too much credit. I don't feel that he used an M1 tank to mean that it is is hard to use, but rather, based on the description of the M1, has everything you need in a car, and the additional benefit of a tank. Linux isn't hard to use, but it is hard to maintain (Volunteers, of course, will take care of the maintenance part). Mostly though, the key idea of my "eyesore" writing was that one doesn't get Linux for free with everything installed and "the key in the ignition." If you want it for free, you have to work your little rear end of for days to build a complete and usable system. You can, of course, buy a distribution with the key in the ignition if you like.
All that, of course, is irrelevant to the actual topic here: LONGHORN vs. OS X, so I better put my opinion in. Why the heck is Microsoft already completely overhauling XP? Wasn't XP (supposed to be) a complete overhaul of Windows? It appears that they were to be planning on LONGHORN and I personally like the fact that Apple at least seems to be intending to keep OS X and beyond based on essentially the same framework for quite sometime to come_ far longer than Microsoft intends to keep their OSes and, from the look of things, at least for as long as OS <=9 was built on the same framework. Although I don't like Microsoft's plans to completely change about every 5 years, and thus forcing everyone expend vast amounts of capital to keep current, we have long since learned that Microsoft wins everything. As bad as they look, as much as their products suck, and as much as they concoct evil schemes to be present at or control every possible access point to the internet, they always win. The computer industry is still young in comparative terms, and very open to shaping by the will of a Mogul such as Microsoft. It's been seen with Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel, AT&T, De Beers... the list goes on and on. So I think LONGHORN will win, not because it's better because it will necessarily suck but it will win because Microsoft has the marketing might to force it on the population. Someday, as has always happened, Microsoft's fate will change, but not that time is not yet.
I'm hate to say it, but that's one point for LONGHORN.
Crude Analogy is right. Legality doesn't matter. That's why I didn't change it, it is in parenthesis, and I said "I'll let that go." The point of my crappy, 2 minute writing is that I thought his gave Linux too much credit. I don't feel that he used an M1 tank to mean that it is is hard to use, but rather, based on the description of the M1, has everything you need in a car, and the additional benefit of a tank. Linux isn't hard to use, but it is hard to maintain (Volunteers, of course, will take care of the maintenance part). Mostly though, the key idea of my "eyesore" writing was that one doesn't get Linux for free with everything installed and "the key in the ignition." If you want it for free, you have to work your little rear end of for days to build a complete and usable system. You can, of course, buy a distribution with the key in the ignition if you like.
All that, of course, is irrelevant to the actual topic here: LONGHORN vs. OS X, so I better put my opinion in. Why the heck is Microsoft already completely overhauling XP? Wasn't XP (supposed to be) a complete overhaul of Windows? It appears that they were to be planning on LONGHORN and I personally like the fact that Apple at least seems to be intending to keep OS X and beyond based on essentially the same framework for quite sometime to come_ far longer than Microsoft intends to keep their OSes and, from the look of things, at least for as long as OS <=9 was built on the same framework. Although I don't like Microsoft's plans to completely change about every 5 years, and thus forcing everyone expend vast amounts of capital to keep current, we have long since learned that Microsoft wins everything. As bad as they look, as much as their products suck, and as much as they concoct evil schemes to be present at or control every possible access point to the internet, they always win. The computer industry is still young in comparative terms, and very open to shaping by the will of a Mogul such as Microsoft. It's been seen with Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel, AT&T, De Beers... the list goes on and on. So I think LONGHORN will win, not because it's better because it will necessarily suck but it will win because Microsoft has the marketing might to force it on the population. Someday, as has always happened, Microsoft's fate will change, but not that time is not yet.
I'm hate to say it, but that's one point for LONGHORN.
pompous jerk accusation stands
people, don't be schmoozed by expired FORTUNE magazine stats. jacka55 is one pitifully undereducated brat. (and apparently anti-mac, if it could get any worse.)
i predict longhorn's failure merely on the basis that it's a bad, milisci name. like "operation latte thunder" or some likewise-clancyish sobriquet. **** the "black promotion engine" that is microsoft. it's only 50,000 members strong. not even enough to fill the hubert-humphries metrodome.
microsoft is not invincible. like codeware said: "impossibility is a dying cynicism." i say: overthrow. steal from the rich to feed the poor. grind down its foundation until critical mass leaves it no other option but to topple, inexorably.
we can do it. we will do it.
the black empire's days are numbered.
people, don't be schmoozed by expired FORTUNE magazine stats. jacka55 is one pitifully undereducated brat. (and apparently anti-mac, if it could get any worse.)
i predict longhorn's failure merely on the basis that it's a bad, milisci name. like "operation latte thunder" or some likewise-clancyish sobriquet. **** the "black promotion engine" that is microsoft. it's only 50,000 members strong. not even enough to fill the hubert-humphries metrodome.
microsoft is not invincible. like codeware said: "impossibility is a dying cynicism." i say: overthrow. steal from the rich to feed the poor. grind down its foundation until critical mass leaves it no other option but to topple, inexorably.
we can do it. we will do it.
the black empire's days are numbered.
Re: Forget LONGHORN. And: is JAGUAR really the answer we need?
Still no takers? This surprises me, because the offer was genuine.
Please! All who have dreamt of a "perfect OS," step forward. Or . . . should I make a new thread?
Still no takers? This surprises me, because the offer was genuine.
Please! All who have dreamt of a "perfect OS," step forward. Or . . . should I make a new thread?
Apple, Xerox and Microsoft
If recall my history correctly, Steve went to Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center and saw the crude beginnings of a graphic interface. Xerox didn't feel it would go anywhere and sold it to Apple for $1 million. Apple then assembled a grand team of UI designers and programmers who built the Mac OS. As I understand it, the Xerox OS was very rough compared to the finished Mac OS.
Wired had a great article on Microsoft. Evidently, Gates was very impressed with the Mac OS and offered to help Steve and Co. get this on everyone's box, from AT&T to Zenith. Steve said no. They wanted to do it all themselves. Interestingly, one of the most vocal opponent to Gates' help was Jean-Louis Gassee, of Be Inc. fame.
Microsoft then decided to move forward with their version of a graphic interface. And the rest is history.
If recall my history correctly, Steve went to Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center and saw the crude beginnings of a graphic interface. Xerox didn't feel it would go anywhere and sold it to Apple for $1 million. Apple then assembled a grand team of UI designers and programmers who built the Mac OS. As I understand it, the Xerox OS was very rough compared to the finished Mac OS.
Wired had a great article on Microsoft. Evidently, Gates was very impressed with the Mac OS and offered to help Steve and Co. get this on everyone's box, from AT&T to Zenith. Steve said no. They wanted to do it all themselves. Interestingly, one of the most vocal opponent to Gates' help was Jean-Louis Gassee, of Be Inc. fame.
Microsoft then decided to move forward with their version of a graphic interface. And the rest is history.
A Popcorn Post
This thread is a rip-roaring, swashbuckling adventure!
Rather than intervene, I think I'll stay in the comfort of this shady palm, sucking down icy daquiri and spectating.
This thread is a rip-roaring, swashbuckling adventure!
Rather than intervene, I think I'll stay in the comfort of this shady palm, sucking down icy daquiri and spectating.
JAGUAR? i'm interested in what's BEYOND ...
it sucks, the position we're in. every time we buy something, from that moment on, it ages. there's nothing we can do about it. macs, pcs, whatever. when i get osx jaguar, i know i'm going to be impressed. but ... new things will come out, neat little haxies, mods to augment jag. and bring about more of its "full" potential. then, who knows, two years down the road: 10.3, cougar. and we'll be ****ed out of 129$ again--or more. why put up with these totalitarian scum? someone needs to make a company that delivers "ultimate upgrade": where, once you buy a product, every time an upgrade is announced, you send off two bucks and they ship you the newest crap. how'd that be? for some of you, i know this will be an excuse to launch massive, dramatic replies with the sole intention of berating or degrading me for "being so short-sighted" or whatever. if you're one of those people, **** you in advance.
it sucks, the position we're in. every time we buy something, from that moment on, it ages. there's nothing we can do about it. macs, pcs, whatever. when i get osx jaguar, i know i'm going to be impressed. but ... new things will come out, neat little haxies, mods to augment jag. and bring about more of its "full" potential. then, who knows, two years down the road: 10.3, cougar. and we'll be ****ed out of 129$ again--or more. why put up with these totalitarian scum? someone needs to make a company that delivers "ultimate upgrade": where, once you buy a product, every time an upgrade is announced, you send off two bucks and they ship you the newest crap. how'd that be? for some of you, i know this will be an excuse to launch massive, dramatic replies with the sole intention of berating or degrading me for "being so short-sighted" or whatever. if you're one of those people, **** you in advance.
Re: pompous jerk accusation stands
That's cute. Actually, I own stock in Apple. (I of course, bought it on a Monday, and on that Friday, Apple didn't meet expectations, made front page news, and took the whole market down with it. That was a few years ago. Yeah for good timing.) I support Apple because it doesn't (appear to) seek to take over the world like some companies do. Like Steve said, We have 5% of the market right now. If we get 5% more, that will double our market share.
Microsoft can play their little game, and Apple can continue to be better. Most people seemed to think that XP was going to fall flat on it's face, but it didn't. I, however, wouldn't want that can of worms scenario opened up where Apple takes over the computing world. That would then make Apple would be the evil empire, and we wouldn't be "Thinking Different" anymore. I didn't say Apple won't increase their market share, because they most definitely will. They just won't "win" this particular round per se. Microsoft has indeed over-stayed its welcome here in Our-Happy-Computing-Home, but John Q. Business (And the current John Q. Conservative-Administration) hasn't quite mustered up the courage to kick him out. Yet. But yes, Microsoft's days are numbered in years.
I'm not anti-mac, just anti-"irrational exuberance" about the infallibility of the Mother Ship. Far too many Mac users lie to themselves, blindly accept everything Apple says, and leap to proclaim the superiority of Apple and how much Microsoft sucks to everyone to the point of annoying the bloody hell out of 90% of people who don't care (Though, that's not to say I'm innocent of the crime of Apple v. Windows instigation). But I'll definitely add that accusation to my quote-of-the-day list. I think it's funny. Reminds me of
- "I think war is bad."
- "You're Anti-American! Get out of this country! You might as well go join the Taliban and Al-Qaeda if you're going to say that!"
- "Whatever."
- "MISSILES! BOMBS! TANKS! OH YEAH!" (drools...)
That's cute. Actually, I own stock in Apple. (I of course, bought it on a Monday, and on that Friday, Apple didn't meet expectations, made front page news, and took the whole market down with it. That was a few years ago. Yeah for good timing.) I support Apple because it doesn't (appear to) seek to take over the world like some companies do. Like Steve said, We have 5% of the market right now. If we get 5% more, that will double our market share.
Microsoft can play their little game, and Apple can continue to be better. Most people seemed to think that XP was going to fall flat on it's face, but it didn't. I, however, wouldn't want that can of worms scenario opened up where Apple takes over the computing world. That would then make Apple would be the evil empire, and we wouldn't be "Thinking Different" anymore. I didn't say Apple won't increase their market share, because they most definitely will. They just won't "win" this particular round per se. Microsoft has indeed over-stayed its welcome here in Our-Happy-Computing-Home, but John Q. Business (And the current John Q. Conservative-Administration) hasn't quite mustered up the courage to kick him out. Yet. But yes, Microsoft's days are numbered in years.
I'm not anti-mac, just anti-"irrational exuberance" about the infallibility of the Mother Ship. Far too many Mac users lie to themselves, blindly accept everything Apple says, and leap to proclaim the superiority of Apple and how much Microsoft sucks to everyone to the point of annoying the bloody hell out of 90% of people who don't care (Though, that's not to say I'm innocent of the crime of Apple v. Windows instigation). But I'll definitely add that accusation to my quote-of-the-day list. I think it's funny. Reminds me of
- "I think war is bad."
- "You're Anti-American! Get out of this country! You might as well go join the Taliban and Al-Qaeda if you're going to say that!"
- "Whatever."
- "MISSILES! BOMBS! TANKS! OH YEAH!" (drools...)
Dysfunction Junction, What's Your Compunction?
Alright, maybe my decision to resist intervention was a BIT premature . . .
Setting my frosted Joe Columbo glass aside, I'm bound to wonder: who allowed "crude analogy" to register a name at MacRumors.com? Shouldn't there be some kind of screening policy? I mean -- openly hostile comments directed at Apple Computers, Inc. . . . well, shouldn't be regarded as mere fluff. What if this guy's a genuine homocidal freak-pot near the boiling point? Or is that what everyone is, underneath.
Fun-slash-scary to think about.
Alright, maybe my decision to resist intervention was a BIT premature . . .
Setting my frosted Joe Columbo glass aside, I'm bound to wonder: who allowed "crude analogy" to register a name at MacRumors.com? Shouldn't there be some kind of screening policy? I mean -- openly hostile comments directed at Apple Computers, Inc. . . . well, shouldn't be regarded as mere fluff. What if this guy's a genuine homocidal freak-pot near the boiling point? Or is that what everyone is, underneath.
Fun-slash-scary to think about.
War.
war IS bad, but worse is: biting the hand that feeds you.
for a Westerner to trash Western culture is like criticizing our nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere on the grounds that it sometimes gets windy, and besides, Jupiter's is much prettier. you may not realize its advantages until you're trying to breathe liquid methane.
so **** your liberal/wozniak comments. you're only peeling back the facade, revealing a total lack of education beneath.
what i "blindly" accept is filtered and distilled through finely-honed reasoning and logic. it seems you only adopt what the naysayers, the merchants of cynicism, expel.
if you're not innocent, you can't accuse. knowing, not believing, knowing that apple will soar above longhorn and all its connotations is not "irrational exuberance"--it is justified patriotism. which, despite your hippie mindset, is not the result of brainwashing or narrow-mindedness. i don't care what oscar wilde says -- "patriotism is a virtue of the vicious" -- because he wrote that in a letter regarding a certain german political idealist, initials A.H..
so keep knocking down your fellow men. keep assuring yourself that deep inside that head of yours is the only intelligent person on earth--that everyone around you, everyone on this forum, is at least fourteen points dimmer. that's how you come off, and that's how you will always be.
you're right. you're not anti-mac. you're anti-innovation.
war IS bad, but worse is: biting the hand that feeds you.
for a Westerner to trash Western culture is like criticizing our nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere on the grounds that it sometimes gets windy, and besides, Jupiter's is much prettier. you may not realize its advantages until you're trying to breathe liquid methane.
so **** your liberal/wozniak comments. you're only peeling back the facade, revealing a total lack of education beneath.
what i "blindly" accept is filtered and distilled through finely-honed reasoning and logic. it seems you only adopt what the naysayers, the merchants of cynicism, expel.
if you're not innocent, you can't accuse. knowing, not believing, knowing that apple will soar above longhorn and all its connotations is not "irrational exuberance"--it is justified patriotism. which, despite your hippie mindset, is not the result of brainwashing or narrow-mindedness. i don't care what oscar wilde says -- "patriotism is a virtue of the vicious" -- because he wrote that in a letter regarding a certain german political idealist, initials A.H..
so keep knocking down your fellow men. keep assuring yourself that deep inside that head of yours is the only intelligent person on earth--that everyone around you, everyone on this forum, is at least fourteen points dimmer. that's how you come off, and that's how you will always be.
you're right. you're not anti-mac. you're anti-innovation.
Re: JAGUAR? i'm interested in what's BEYOND ...
Oh yeah, I'm afraid I agree with the first half of crude analogy's post here. The question, as I see it, is When is enough enough? In the computing world, apparently never any time soon. Companies have to continue to make money. It sometimes makes me wonder if perhaps a subscription model for software wouldn't necessarily be so bad. Isn't that really more similar to the software development model? What if you did subscribe to a piece of software as long as you were a subscriber, just like a magazine? It might allow a constant stream of income for the developer, encourage quicker updates (since people might feel that the subscription isn't worth it if it isn't updated punctually), and a host of other possible benefits. Unfortunately, it could also be used to milk the customer for all the money manageable, and that, of course, would be bad.
Oh yeah, I'm afraid I agree with the first half of crude analogy's post here. The question, as I see it, is When is enough enough? In the computing world, apparently never any time soon. Companies have to continue to make money. It sometimes makes me wonder if perhaps a subscription model for software wouldn't necessarily be so bad. Isn't that really more similar to the software development model? What if you did subscribe to a piece of software as long as you were a subscriber, just like a magazine? It might allow a constant stream of income for the developer, encourage quicker updates (since people might feel that the subscription isn't worth it if it isn't updated punctually), and a host of other possible benefits. Unfortunately, it could also be used to milk the customer for all the money manageable, and that, of course, would be bad.
A lot of PISSED OFF PEOPLE, Mr. Garrison. Understand?
Curious obnosa of the present dialectal battle:
1., APPLICATION OF GRAMMATICAL DICTUMS, LACK OF ACUITY IN:
subject (a) "crude analogy"
features: A distinct, unwavering ability to deliver streams of clear, fluid
thought -- coupled, however, by an almost utter neglect of conventional
grammatical axioms.
exempla gratia: "you're right. you're not anti-mac. you're anti-innovation."
(lack of appropriate capitalization). "****" (non-existent word use, also
called "false neology"). Many other examples -- refer to the compendium
"LONGHORN vs. JAGUAR ?" for more.
VÍS-A-VÍS:
2., APPLICATION OF GRAMMATICAL DICTUMS, DISPLAY OF ACUITY IN:
subject (b) -- ironically -- "jacka55"
features: An obvious grasp of most grammatical dictums, though certain
excusable slippages appear in unedited posts (viz. "I afraid I agree", etc.).
Capable of delivering long streams of clear, continuous thought. Articles
composed in an overtly professional manner, of a level acceptable by most
major (computing) magazines, WIRED among them (circ. 500,000).
exempla gratia: "I'm not anti-mac, just anti-'irrational exuberance' about the
infallibility of the Mother Ship." (excellent rejoinder). "I support Apple because
it doesn't (appear to) seek to take over the world like some companies do. Like
Steve said, We have 5% of the market right now. If we get 5% more, that will
double our market share." (professional sentence structure).
Curious obnosa of the present dialectal battle:
1., APPLICATION OF GRAMMATICAL DICTUMS, LACK OF ACUITY IN:
subject (a) "crude analogy"
features: A distinct, unwavering ability to deliver streams of clear, fluid
thought -- coupled, however, by an almost utter neglect of conventional
grammatical axioms.
exempla gratia: "you're right. you're not anti-mac. you're anti-innovation."
(lack of appropriate capitalization). "****" (non-existent word use, also
called "false neology"). Many other examples -- refer to the compendium
"LONGHORN vs. JAGUAR ?" for more.
VÍS-A-VÍS:
2., APPLICATION OF GRAMMATICAL DICTUMS, DISPLAY OF ACUITY IN:
subject (b) -- ironically -- "jacka55"
features: An obvious grasp of most grammatical dictums, though certain
excusable slippages appear in unedited posts (viz. "I afraid I agree", etc.).
Capable of delivering long streams of clear, continuous thought. Articles
composed in an overtly professional manner, of a level acceptable by most
major (computing) magazines, WIRED among them (circ. 500,000).
exempla gratia: "I'm not anti-mac, just anti-'irrational exuberance' about the
infallibility of the Mother Ship." (excellent rejoinder). "I support Apple because
it doesn't (appear to) seek to take over the world like some companies do. Like
Steve said, We have 5% of the market right now. If we get 5% more, that will
double our market share." (professional sentence structure).