I don't know if Google has been all about profit. Maybe they just want to elevate the level of technology out in the world. In other words - be good. Google Glass is a good example of that.
I read Mac Tel's post as subtle sarcasm, even though the /S hasn't been deployed. Also, "successful" is valid, "winning" maybe not, but clearly he did not use the latter word and thus he is neither refuting nor agreeing with the article, merely making his own valid statement.
If he's being sarcasm then more power to him. If not, then the bolded part was incredibly naive.
I'm old enough to remember CP/M: it wasn't open, it was the product of Digital Research and MS-DOS was a fairly shameless clone of it, sort of like Linux is a Unix clone.
Second: NeXT was as "open" as Apple, the reason for NeXT's failure is the same as the reason for OS X' success: lack/existence of an installed base; the reason why OSX is not called NeXTstep is simply that Jobs needed to fool enough Apple fan boys into believing that it's a new version of Mac OS rather than the introduction of a new OS called NeXTstep.
If you really want to know what OS you're running look at the Darwin version numbers which correspond to the equivalent NeXTstep release.
NeXTstep was chock-full of proprietary technology, e.g. DPS, RenderMan, etc.
Pretty much the opposite of open except at the lowest levels at which OSX is open, too.
I could go on, but I rather have a beer on a Saturday night than waste me time educating the clueless...
Dude, read the article again:
OpenStep was the variant that Jobs proposed to the big vendors using Unix, and not NeXTStep which was proprietary to the NeXT hardware.
Surely you also recall that post-Jobs Apple successfully sued NeXT, preventing the company from offering anything in the price range of the Mac, which severely hindered its take-up owing to the steep startup price forced on it. So lack of installed base as cause of failure is correct, but there were additional causative factors.
MS-DOS wasn't a "shameless clone" of CP/M: Digital Research foolishly sold its rights to Microsoft, who in their wisdom merely licensed MS-DOS to IBM. The ensuing profit is the stuff of Silicon Valley legend.
The article, contrary to being cluelessly illiterate, implies quite clearly that the open (or cross-platform to be clearer) aspects of technology are much harder to monetize without being crafted with proprietary extensions designed to drive revenue accurately in the direction of the vendor, generating profits.
I'm old enough to remember CP/M: it wasn't open, it was the product of Digital Research and MS-DOS was a fairly shameless clone of it, sort of like Linux is a Unix clone.
Second: NeXT was as "open" as Apple, the reason for NeXT's failure is the same as the reason for OS X' success: lack/existence of an installed base; the reason why OSX is not called NeXTstep is simply that Jobs needed to fool enough Apple fan boys into believing that it's a new version of Mac OS rather than the introduction of a new OS called NeXTstep.
If you really want to know what OS you're running look at the Darwin version numbers which correspond to the equivalent NeXTstep release.
NeXTstep was chock-full of proprietary technology, e.g. DPS, RenderMan, etc.
Pretty much the opposite of open except at the lowest levels at which OSX is open, too.
I could go on, but I rather have a beer on a Saturday night than waste me time educating the clueless...
You seem to be caught up on this word OPEN and implying I said something different. There are various definitions of the word OPEN when it comes to this stuff. Someone can take an OPEN SOURCE Kernel and create and OS that is only allowed (CLOSED) to be used on one vendor's hardware as in the case of Apple currently, but some have hacked it to run on generic PCs, but they just hacked the installation process, but Apple did release DARWIN as Open Source Code, but it wasn't the full version of OS X as it had certain code not in it.
NeXT originally ran only on NeXT hardware (CLOSED architecture), but it was ALSO based on an OPEN SOURCE KERNEL, they also eventually licensed it to other X86 vendors (Open architecture) similar to how Microsoft licenses Windows to run on an HP PC.
Windows is a CLOSED KERNEL and it's proprietary source code. It's actually kind of a closed because you have to have a license that you have to pay for in order to run it, but you can run in clone PCs, but you STILL have to PAY for the license. They did open it up to be able to run on various processors, which older versions of Windows only ran on X86. But from a licensing point of view, it's actually closed since you have to pay for the licensing, even though some will install it without paying for it, which in that case is illegal. They do the same thing with OS X, but OS X is only meant LEGALLY for Mac hardware. Same with iOS.
CP/M was licensed to run on a variety of vendor's hardware including a variety of processors which takes a OS with a proprietary kernel and then creates and OPEN ARCHITECTURE TO BE LICENSED to others for a fee, which is what companies like Altair, Kaypro, Osborne, Microsoft (CP/M card), etc. DR went out of business and they've changed it to be a more BSD-LIKE kernel, and its now out in the open. So some would view it as OPEN in that it could be run on a variety of hardware with a variety of vendors, but it was still not FREE.
My suggestion is understand the different ways something can be open or closed, based on kernels that can based on OPEN SOURCE or PROPRIETARY, commercially sold, etc.. Go to Wikipedia and look up what NeXT, Digital Research, etc.
Just to be VERY clear, there are always and will always be pros and cons to EVERY Platform whether it's open source, proprietary kernel, source code, open architecture, etc., etc. etc. Just because Android is Open Source, doesn't mean it's better than IOS, or anyone else's OS. It's just who has permission to modify or not modify, put on what hardware, who supports it, what's legal, illegal, etc. etc. etc.
In some ways Open Source can be good, but in a LOT of ways, it can be seen as bad. If there is no mainstream applications that businesses, people want to use on a specific OS, then the OS is worthless since there's nothing to run on it that is considered a good application. NeXT was a cool OS in its day, very advanced in a lot of ways and back then there were some pretty cool apps one could buy, but, they didn't have wide mainstream appeal from the most popular app developers, they were expensive, NeXT was small and didn't have wide distribution, etc., but it is what they later changed to become OS X and then stripped down as iOS. They changed the kernel, and other attributes of it, but kept Objective C and other aspects of the development software which has evolved into what X-CODE, etc is all about. But in it's day, it has a spreadsheet that was actually far superior to Excel, but Excel was mainstream on both Mac and PC, and Microsoft didn't want to write a version for NeXT, probably because they didn't have enough install base. Kind of a chicken or the egg concept. But it has some pretty cool features. NeXTSTEP evolved into OpenSTEP with Sun. So Sun is an evolved, kinda version of NeXT in some respects. Again, I'm going by a lot of things from memory and light reading to get refreshed, but go to WIkipedia on each and read up on them if you are interested.
But please don't confuse the issue by not comprehending what I said.
I don't know if Google has been all about profit. Maybe they just want to elevate the level of technology out in the world. In other words - be good. Google Glass is a good example of that.
Originally Posted by airmanchairman
I read Mac Tel's post as subtle sarcasm, even though the /S hasn't been deployed. Also, "successful" is valid, "winning" maybe not, but clearly he did not use the latter word and thus he is neither refuting nor agreeing with the article, merely making his own valid statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
If he's being sarcasm then more power to him. If not, then the bolded part was incredibly naive.
WIndows Vs Open is more Windows Vs Unix. The difference between Windows and Unix = Unix works, its scalable and have zero viruses/"server grade security".
If closed was better, then Windows Phone should do much better, also Windows on ARM.
Windows simply could not fit the GUI/Power requirement in a post PC world.
Okay, I'll ask. You answer with specific projects without which these things could not have been made.
Steven Johnson, author of the seminal book Interface Culture,
“For starters, the Internet and the Web would instantly evaporate. Every Android smartphone, every iPad, iPhone and Mac would go dark. A massive section of our energy infrastructure would cease to function. The global stock markets would go offline for weeks, if not longer. Planes would drop out of the sky. It would be an event on the scale of a world war or a pandemic.”
iPhone users need to do go to into General > about > legal notices on an iPhone. Among the items listed are multiple open source GPL components. The legal notices also identify Ted T'so, a well known Linux kernel developers for his code as well.
iOS developers launched nearly 2,500 open source projects for Apple's mobile platform in 2012, a 32 percent increase year over year, which isn't half bad when you consider that the Apple App Store isn't particularly friendly towards open source apps.
Erm... Your claim: "Sun ... copied the most valuable concepts of the OpenStep specification to deliver Java" is news to me, and a quick search did not corroborate. Citation needed.
Otherwise, if you define success by making money, free tends to fail. Yup.
Great timing AI. I'm sitting by the pool, just popped open a Shiner (beer), and now settling in for what I'm expecting will be another great read..
I'm not sure how anybody can read the nonsense that DED posts. Like many other instance I get two or three paragraphs into the article and realize you can not fix stupidity.
The big problem with this whole article is that it is pure nonsense. Apple is more "open" than probably any other big tech company out there. They have piloted LLVM and CLang to an enviable position in a few years. This in and of itself is a huge undertaking with contributors world wide. Then you have web kit. OpenCL was driven by Apple to an industry standard. It is Apple engineers that develop and maintain CUPs, the UNIX printing standard. Apple distributes its OS with open solutions like SQLIte, Python and others. Further Apple promotes the use of standardized languages like C/ C++ along side Objective C, nothing half assed like dot net. Frankly the BSD community has folded much of Apples technology back into BSD. Beyond all of that Apple has become most forthcoming with developer support to make sure they have fresh software available for their platforms.
In other words the whole premise of the article is bull crap.
The problem with many people is that they confuse security with a platform that isn't open. This isn't really the case, the security and vetting that Apple goes through has made a positive impact on their devices and stands in stark contrast to the unsecured platforms like Android. Some may find it problematic that Apple takes a cut of apps sales revenue and forces App Store use on IOS hardware. However this is balanced by a massive amount of software they distribute for free. What does this do for me? Well it means that every time I reach into my pocket for my iPhone it works.
I don't know if Google has been all about profit. Maybe they just want to elevate the level of technology out in the world. In other words - be good. Google Glass is a good example of that.
Nonsense. Google is certainly interested in profits.
Every company has a strategy for how to create profits. For Apple, the strategy is "we'll create insanely great products that lead to incredible customer delight". For Google, the strategy is "we'll insert ourselves everywhere to harvest every bit of personal information we can so that we can sell massive amounts of advertising". To that end, they couldn't care less whether a technology is exciting or innovative. Whichever technology sells the most ads is the best choice for them. Given the choice between an incredibly advanced technology which doesn't sell many ads and an older technology which sells tons of ads, the latter is the route they would go (if they had to make a choice - of course they have the resources to invest in things that MIGHT lead to future revenues, as well).
Google Glass is one more tool toward that objective. It is therefore well within Google's strategy of increasing their advertising revenues. Watch, however, as it becomes more and more ad-driven as it evolves.
There is no failure of open. Open is a great way for devs to get started. Free, great knowledgeable hacker/geek support community, etc. However, no business or individual worth their salt is going to be able to rely on products, services, ecosystems, apps etc that are not supported by a dedicated well funded team. There is a reason why Apple are killing Blackberry, and beyond usability, it is because they are increasingly trusted in a corporate environment. And that is because they have the money to pay for employees to focus on security, reliability etc.
There is no failure of open. Open is a great way for devs to get started. Free, great knowledgeable hacker/geek support community, etc. However, no business or individual worth their salt is going to be able to rely on products, services, ecosystems, apps etc that are not supported by a dedicated well funded team. There is a reason why Apple are killing Blackberry, and beyond usability, it is because they are increasingly trusted in a corporate environment. And that is because they have the money to pay for employees to focus on security, reliability etc.
I'll start with the easy one. Where would those products be without the Internet? You do realize a humungous portion of the Internet runs on open source software, right?
I'm not sure I see where the disagreement is coming from. Are you suggesting that open source projects haven't helped to move the world forward?
Actually, most of the Internet runs on Cisco and Juniper routers. And HTTP/TCP/IP isn't "open source", it's an "open standard", as is HTML.
But, no doubt you were referring to all the LAMP servers out there, like the one's Google uses. Oh, wait, Google doesn't use LAMP servers, do they? Nor do a lot of other companies. But, maybe you meant all that "open source" code running search algorithms at Google or that Amazon runs their store with. What? That stuff isn't open source either? (Actually, in fairness, I think Google has built more software that it distributes over the internet using "open source" software than it admits. In fact, I think they are in violation of numerous open source licenses by not making the source code for that software available to users.)
Sure, there are actually a lot of LAMP servers on the internet, but even those, to do something useful, are running proprietary software on top of LAMP. Even Android is just a barely useful open source layer with all the important stuff in proprietary layers on top of that. Yes, open source software has become widely used in many Internet applications, it's a useful foundation for a lot of important work, but let's not kid ourselves, most of the really important stuff isn't actually open source.
And, while we're at it, let's not get confused about the terms 'open source' and 'open standards' and start acting like they're the same thing. (Because, historically, in these forums, people seem to have a lot of trouble keeping that fact straight.)
I agree that Open is good if it's really Open, only I don't think Android or even Google is Open. How can an OS which is slaved to carriers be Open. If it's really Open every Android devices should get their updates when there is ones.
Open is just a marketing bullshit from Google, not unlike "Don't Be Evil".
I'm old enough to remember CP/M: it wasn't open, it was the product of Digital Research and MS-DOS was a fairly shameless clone of it, sort of like Linux is a Unix clone.
Second: NeXT was as "open" as Apple, the reason for NeXT's failure is the same as the reason for OS X' success: lack/existence of an installed base; the reason why OSX is not called NeXTstep is simply that Jobs needed to fool enough Apple fan boys into believing that it's a new version of Mac OS rather than the introduction of a new OS called NeXTstep.
If you really want to know what OS you're running look at the Darwin version numbers which correspond to the equivalent NeXTstep release.
NeXTstep was chock-full of proprietary technology, e.g. DPS, RenderMan, etc.
Pretty much the opposite of open except at the lowest levels at which OSX is open, too.
I could go on, but I rather have a beer on a Saturday night than waste me time educating the clueless...
Dude, read the article again:
OpenStep was the variant that Jobs proposed to the big vendors using Unix, and not NeXTStep which was proprietary to the NeXT hardware.
OpenStep was two things with one name:
a) a specification just like Posix, that was even submitted to some open standards committee. That's what GNUStep, OpenStep for Solaris, etc. was based on. Each of these OpenStep implementations was independent and just implemented the same API. OpenStep on SUN had about as little to do with OpenStep as shipped by NeXT as Linux and UNIX, which share POSIX APIs, but not the code that implements it. SUN's implementation of OpenStep was horrible and slow, and burdened by SUN's choice of windowing system that didn't play well with DPS (Display PostScript for the uninitiated).
b) a product sold by NeXT which was essentially NeXTSTEP 4.0. It was the same NeXTSTEP with a updated, modernized API, but based on the same principles as the previous NeXTSTEP APIs. The reason why even to this day in Cocoa you'll find many "NS" and "NX" prefixes, is because they all stand for NextStep and NeXt.
Much like Apple introduced ObjectiveC 2.0 and introduced ARC, etc. so the step from NeXTSTEP 3.3 to OpenStep 4.0 was in essence an API overhaul and clean-up.
What is known now as Cocoa and Foundation are revisions of OpenStep.
Been there starting 1989, done that, got the T-shirts and various NeXT hardware to prove it...
Surely you also recall that post-Jobs Apple successfully sued NeXT, preventing the company from offering anything in the price range of the Mac, which severely hindered its take-up owing to the steep startup price forced on it. So lack of installed base as cause of failure is correct, but there were additional causative factors.
Exactly. The NeXT was only available to higher-ed and developers for a long time (I think 5 years after Jobs left Apple was the time specified in the settlement), which is why I had to jump through hoops to get a NeXTcube at the time.
NeXT's failure had just about nothing to do with being "open" or "closed" regardless of the definition employed, but just about everything with price levels, non-compete agreements, and network effects (aka chicken and egg problem, users not buying for lack of software, and software not being developed for lack of users).
What made NeXTSTEP successful at Apple in the name of OS X was
a) fooling people with the name "Mac OS X" as if it were a better version of "Mac OS 9", when in reality it was a totally new OS
b) a backwards compatibility environment that allowed running old-style Mac software
c) a backwards compatibility API that allowed lazy developers to port their software in a quick and dirty way to the new OS (aka Carbon).
MS-DOS wasn't a "shameless clone" of CP/M: Digital Research foolishly sold its rights to Microsoft, who in their wisdom merely licensed MS-DOS to IBM. The ensuing profit is the stuff of Silicon Valley legend.
Not quite true. The story is, that IBM wanted to license CP/M-86 for their PCs. But the CEO of DR "went flying" instead of accommodating the IBM execs, which were so pissed that a small company like DR would not bow to the almighty IBM when it came to making a business appointment, so they went to Microsoft in revenge.
Microsoft bought a CP/M clone called QDOS (which stood for Quick'n Dirty OS) which some hacker had written to avoid having to buy CP/M. That's what they sold to IBM as MS-DOS. They later paid some sort of settlement to DR to avoid a lawsuit, but DR at the time didn't sell anything to Microsoft, heck, the products were for sale in parallel for quite some time.
The article, contrary to being cluelessly illiterate, implies quite clearly that the open (or cross-platform to be clearer) aspects of technology are much harder to monetize without being crafted with proprietary extensions designed to drive revenue accurately in the direction of the vendor, generating profits.
The article uses varying and inconsistent concepts of "open" and "closed", randomly mixing open specs, open source, open licensing.
Adroid e.g. isn't open, there is not a single open mobile platform, except for OpenMoko which isn't anymore, because none of the current platforms give the user control over the device without "jailbreaking" or "rooting". All of the significant Smartphone OS contenders are in all relevant aspects closed systems, although both Android and iOS use a lot of open source code in creating their closed platform.
Android is openly licensed, but that makes it as little "open" as MS-Windows.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by airmanchairman
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel
I don't know if Google has been all about profit. Maybe they just want to elevate the level of technology out in the world. In other words - be good. Google Glass is a good example of that.
I read Mac Tel's post as subtle sarcasm, even though the /S hasn't been deployed. Also, "successful" is valid, "winning" maybe not, but clearly he did not use the latter word and thus he is neither refuting nor agreeing with the article, merely making his own valid statement.
If he's being sarcasm then more power to him. If not, then the bolded part was incredibly naive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa
Ugh, wrong on so many counts...
I'm old enough to remember CP/M: it wasn't open, it was the product of Digital Research and MS-DOS was a fairly shameless clone of it, sort of like Linux is a Unix clone.
Second: NeXT was as "open" as Apple, the reason for NeXT's failure is the same as the reason for OS X' success: lack/existence of an installed base; the reason why OSX is not called NeXTstep is simply that Jobs needed to fool enough Apple fan boys into believing that it's a new version of Mac OS rather than the introduction of a new OS called NeXTstep.
If you really want to know what OS you're running look at the Darwin version numbers which correspond to the equivalent NeXTstep release.
NeXTstep was chock-full of proprietary technology, e.g. DPS, RenderMan, etc.
Pretty much the opposite of open except at the lowest levels at which OSX is open, too.
I could go on, but I rather have a beer on a Saturday night than waste me time educating the clueless...
Dude, read the article again:
OpenStep was the variant that Jobs proposed to the big vendors using Unix, and not NeXTStep which was proprietary to the NeXT hardware.
Surely you also recall that post-Jobs Apple successfully sued NeXT, preventing the company from offering anything in the price range of the Mac, which severely hindered its take-up owing to the steep startup price forced on it. So lack of installed base as cause of failure is correct, but there were additional causative factors.
MS-DOS wasn't a "shameless clone" of CP/M: Digital Research foolishly sold its rights to Microsoft, who in their wisdom merely licensed MS-DOS to IBM. The ensuing profit is the stuff of Silicon Valley legend.
The article, contrary to being cluelessly illiterate, implies quite clearly that the open (or cross-platform to be clearer) aspects of technology are much harder to monetize without being crafted with proprietary extensions designed to drive revenue accurately in the direction of the vendor, generating profits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa
Ugh, wrong on so many counts...
I'm old enough to remember CP/M: it wasn't open, it was the product of Digital Research and MS-DOS was a fairly shameless clone of it, sort of like Linux is a Unix clone.
Second: NeXT was as "open" as Apple, the reason for NeXT's failure is the same as the reason for OS X' success: lack/existence of an installed base; the reason why OSX is not called NeXTstep is simply that Jobs needed to fool enough Apple fan boys into believing that it's a new version of Mac OS rather than the introduction of a new OS called NeXTstep.
If you really want to know what OS you're running look at the Darwin version numbers which correspond to the equivalent NeXTstep release.
NeXTstep was chock-full of proprietary technology, e.g. DPS, RenderMan, etc.
Pretty much the opposite of open except at the lowest levels at which OSX is open, too.
I could go on, but I rather have a beer on a Saturday night than waste me time educating the clueless...
You seem to be caught up on this word OPEN and implying I said something different. There are various definitions of the word OPEN when it comes to this stuff. Someone can take an OPEN SOURCE Kernel and create and OS that is only allowed (CLOSED) to be used on one vendor's hardware as in the case of Apple currently, but some have hacked it to run on generic PCs, but they just hacked the installation process, but Apple did release DARWIN as Open Source Code, but it wasn't the full version of OS X as it had certain code not in it.
NeXT originally ran only on NeXT hardware (CLOSED architecture), but it was ALSO based on an OPEN SOURCE KERNEL, they also eventually licensed it to other X86 vendors (Open architecture) similar to how Microsoft licenses Windows to run on an HP PC.
Windows is a CLOSED KERNEL and it's proprietary source code. It's actually kind of a closed because you have to have a license that you have to pay for in order to run it, but you can run in clone PCs, but you STILL have to PAY for the license. They did open it up to be able to run on various processors, which older versions of Windows only ran on X86. But from a licensing point of view, it's actually closed since you have to pay for the licensing, even though some will install it without paying for it, which in that case is illegal. They do the same thing with OS X, but OS X is only meant LEGALLY for Mac hardware. Same with iOS.
CP/M was licensed to run on a variety of vendor's hardware including a variety of processors which takes a OS with a proprietary kernel and then creates and OPEN ARCHITECTURE TO BE LICENSED to others for a fee, which is what companies like Altair, Kaypro, Osborne, Microsoft (CP/M card), etc. DR went out of business and they've changed it to be a more BSD-LIKE kernel, and its now out in the open. So some would view it as OPEN in that it could be run on a variety of hardware with a variety of vendors, but it was still not FREE.
My suggestion is understand the different ways something can be open or closed, based on kernels that can based on OPEN SOURCE or PROPRIETARY, commercially sold, etc.. Go to Wikipedia and look up what NeXT, Digital Research, etc.
Just to be VERY clear, there are always and will always be pros and cons to EVERY Platform whether it's open source, proprietary kernel, source code, open architecture, etc., etc. etc. Just because Android is Open Source, doesn't mean it's better than IOS, or anyone else's OS. It's just who has permission to modify or not modify, put on what hardware, who supports it, what's legal, illegal, etc. etc. etc.
In some ways Open Source can be good, but in a LOT of ways, it can be seen as bad. If there is no mainstream applications that businesses, people want to use on a specific OS, then the OS is worthless since there's nothing to run on it that is considered a good application. NeXT was a cool OS in its day, very advanced in a lot of ways and back then there were some pretty cool apps one could buy, but, they didn't have wide mainstream appeal from the most popular app developers, they were expensive, NeXT was small and didn't have wide distribution, etc., but it is what they later changed to become OS X and then stripped down as iOS. They changed the kernel, and other attributes of it, but kept Objective C and other aspects of the development software which has evolved into what X-CODE, etc is all about. But in it's day, it has a spreadsheet that was actually far superior to Excel, but Excel was mainstream on both Mac and PC, and Microsoft didn't want to write a version for NeXT, probably because they didn't have enough install base. Kind of a chicken or the egg concept. But it has some pretty cool features. NeXTSTEP evolved into OpenSTEP with Sun. So Sun is an evolved, kinda version of NeXT in some respects. Again, I'm going by a lot of things from memory and light reading to get refreshed, but go to WIkipedia on each and read up on them if you are interested.
But please don't confuse the issue by not comprehending what I said.
DED on arrival.
You could create a train of logic and argue that the purpose of life is to create shit, by picking the right criteria.
You want to know the biggest open source project of all time?
Knowledge.
Pity it's been such a failure with so few monetary rewards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So Google could steal it properly, unlike everything else.
'Course they managed to screw it up anyway.
You can't steal something that's given away freely to everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
Microsoft.
They really have no fucking clue these days.
Stop trying to copy the hardware.
It ain't that.
Stop trying to copy to software.
It ain't that.
Copy Apple's philosophies.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel
I don't know if Google has been all about profit. Maybe they just want to elevate the level of technology out in the world. In other words - be good. Google Glass is a good example of that.
Originally Posted by airmanchairman
I read Mac Tel's post as subtle sarcasm, even though the /S hasn't been deployed. Also, "successful" is valid, "winning" maybe not, but clearly he did not use the latter word and thus he is neither refuting nor agreeing with the article, merely making his own valid statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
If he's being sarcasm then more power to him. If not, then the bolded part was incredibly naive.
On that I agree with you 100%
The difference between Windows and Unix = Unix works, its scalable and have zero viruses/"server grade security".
If closed was better, then Windows Phone should do much better, also Windows on ARM.
Windows simply could not fit the GUI/Power requirement in a post PC world.
Steven Johnson, author of the seminal book Interface Culture,
“For starters, the Internet and the Web would instantly evaporate. Every Android smartphone, every iPad, iPhone and Mac would go dark. A massive section of our energy infrastructure would cease to function. The global stock markets would go offline for weeks, if not longer. Planes would drop out of the sky. It would be an event on the scale of a world war or a pandemic.”
iPhone users need to do go to into General > about > legal notices on an iPhone. Among the items listed are multiple open source GPL components. The legal notices also identify Ted T'so, a well known Linux kernel developers for his code as well.
iOS developers launched nearly 2,500 open source projects for Apple's mobile platform in 2012, a 32 percent increase year over year, which isn't half bad when you consider that the Apple App Store isn't particularly friendly towards open source apps.
Yeah, you could also listen to your ripped music.
Otherwise, if you define success by making money, free tends to fail. Yup.
I'm not sure how anybody can read the nonsense that DED posts. Like many other instance I get two or three paragraphs into the article and realize you can not fix stupidity.
In other words the whole premise of the article is bull crap.
The problem with many people is that they confuse security with a platform that isn't open. This isn't really the case, the security and vetting that Apple goes through has made a positive impact on their devices and stands in stark contrast to the unsecured platforms like Android. Some may find it problematic that Apple takes a cut of apps sales revenue and forces App Store use on IOS hardware. However this is balanced by a massive amount of software they distribute for free. What does this do for me? Well it means that every time I reach into my pocket for my iPhone it works.
Nonsense. Google is certainly interested in profits.
Every company has a strategy for how to create profits. For Apple, the strategy is "we'll create insanely great products that lead to incredible customer delight". For Google, the strategy is "we'll insert ourselves everywhere to harvest every bit of personal information we can so that we can sell massive amounts of advertising". To that end, they couldn't care less whether a technology is exciting or innovative. Whichever technology sells the most ads is the best choice for them. Given the choice between an incredibly advanced technology which doesn't sell many ads and an older technology which sells tons of ads, the latter is the route they would go (if they had to make a choice - of course they have the resources to invest in things that MIGHT lead to future revenues, as well).
Google Glass is one more tool toward that objective. It is therefore well within Google's strategy of increasing their advertising revenues. Watch, however, as it becomes more and more ad-driven as it evolves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW
I'll start with the easy one. Where would those products be without the Internet? You do realize a humungous portion of the Internet runs on open source software, right?
I'm not sure I see where the disagreement is coming from. Are you suggesting that open source projects haven't helped to move the world forward?
Actually, most of the Internet runs on Cisco and Juniper routers. And HTTP/TCP/IP isn't "open source", it's an "open standard", as is HTML.
But, no doubt you were referring to all the LAMP servers out there, like the one's Google uses. Oh, wait, Google doesn't use LAMP servers, do they? Nor do a lot of other companies. But, maybe you meant all that "open source" code running search algorithms at Google or that Amazon runs their store with. What? That stuff isn't open source either? (Actually, in fairness, I think Google has built more software that it distributes over the internet using "open source" software than it admits. In fact, I think they are in violation of numerous open source licenses by not making the source code for that software available to users.)
Sure, there are actually a lot of LAMP servers on the internet, but even those, to do something useful, are running proprietary software on top of LAMP. Even Android is just a barely useful open source layer with all the important stuff in proprietary layers on top of that. Yes, open source software has become widely used in many Internet applications, it's a useful foundation for a lot of important work, but let's not kid ourselves, most of the really important stuff isn't actually open source.
And, while we're at it, let's not get confused about the terms 'open source' and 'open standards' and start acting like they're the same thing. (Because, historically, in these forums, people seem to have a lot of trouble keeping that fact straight.)
Open is just a marketing bullshit from Google, not unlike "Don't Be Evil".
OpenStep was two things with one name:
a) a specification just like Posix, that was even submitted to some open standards committee. That's what GNUStep, OpenStep for Solaris, etc. was based on. Each of these OpenStep implementations was independent and just implemented the same API. OpenStep on SUN had about as little to do with OpenStep as shipped by NeXT as Linux and UNIX, which share POSIX APIs, but not the code that implements it. SUN's implementation of OpenStep was horrible and slow, and burdened by SUN's choice of windowing system that didn't play well with DPS (Display PostScript for the uninitiated).
b) a product sold by NeXT which was essentially NeXTSTEP 4.0. It was the same NeXTSTEP with a updated, modernized API, but based on the same principles as the previous NeXTSTEP APIs. The reason why even to this day in Cocoa you'll find many "NS" and "NX" prefixes, is because they all stand for NextStep and NeXt.
Much like Apple introduced ObjectiveC 2.0 and introduced ARC, etc. so the step from NeXTSTEP 3.3 to OpenStep 4.0 was in essence an API overhaul and clean-up.
What is known now as Cocoa and Foundation are revisions of OpenStep.
Been there starting 1989, done that, got the T-shirts and various NeXT hardware to prove it...
Exactly. The NeXT was only available to higher-ed and developers for a long time (I think 5 years after Jobs left Apple was the time specified in the settlement), which is why I had to jump through hoops to get a NeXTcube at the time.
NeXT's failure had just about nothing to do with being "open" or "closed" regardless of the definition employed, but just about everything with price levels, non-compete agreements, and network effects (aka chicken and egg problem, users not buying for lack of software, and software not being developed for lack of users).
What made NeXTSTEP successful at Apple in the name of OS X was
a) fooling people with the name "Mac OS X" as if it were a better version of "Mac OS 9", when in reality it was a totally new OS
b) a backwards compatibility environment that allowed running old-style Mac software
c) a backwards compatibility API that allowed lazy developers to port their software in a quick and dirty way to the new OS (aka Carbon).
Not quite true. The story is, that IBM wanted to license CP/M-86 for their PCs. But the CEO of DR "went flying" instead of accommodating the IBM execs, which were so pissed that a small company like DR would not bow to the almighty IBM when it came to making a business appointment, so they went to Microsoft in revenge.
Microsoft bought a CP/M clone called QDOS (which stood for Quick'n Dirty OS) which some hacker had written to avoid having to buy CP/M. That's what they sold to IBM as MS-DOS. They later paid some sort of settlement to DR to avoid a lawsuit, but DR at the time didn't sell anything to Microsoft, heck, the products were for sale in parallel for quite some time.
The article uses varying and inconsistent concepts of "open" and "closed", randomly mixing open specs, open source, open licensing.
Adroid e.g. isn't open, there is not a single open mobile platform, except for OpenMoko which isn't anymore, because none of the current platforms give the user control over the device without "jailbreaking" or "rooting". All of the significant Smartphone OS contenders are in all relevant aspects closed systems, although both Android and iOS use a lot of open source code in creating their closed platform.
Android is openly licensed, but that makes it as little "open" as MS-Windows.