On 23 May 2004 at 15:07, Philip Aker wrote: > On Sunday, May 23, 2004, at 09:17 America/Vancouver, David W. Fenton > wrote: > > >> But, as you will observe later on in this post David, most likely > >> not the last. > > > All seem cosmetic, at the shell level. > > You'll have to do some explaining about "shell level". . .
This is not something you mentioned in your examples, so it's not something I could have commented on. > . . . MacOS X runs > critical portions at BSD "shell level". Which, for some utilities, is > the direct interface to what you might call 'kernel'. Hardly cosmetic. Whoop-ti-doo. A command prompt. Who cares? The only major OS without one was MacOS. So, finally, OS X finally catches up with EVERY OTHER OPERATING SYSTEM ON THE PLANET. This does not constitute copying from OS X. Indeed, it's precisely the opposite -- OS X finally incorporates for Mac users features that other OS's have considered essential. But, I repeat: you didn't *mention* this "later on in this post" of yours, so I couldn't have been commenting on it. And it's bloody ludicrous to mention it as something that Windows has copied from OS X. Windows NT copies many things from UNIXen, and has been doing so since it was created in the early 90s (long before OS X was even conceived), so it can't possibly be "ripping off" any of these features from OS X. > > These are the kinds of things that Microsoft always screws up, > > because they tend to copy only the look and not the underlying > > information architecture. > > MS screws it up because they don't have a flexible enough system > architecture. . . No, they screw up the UI issues because they don't really understand that you can't copy surface-level appearance and get the same benefits as that same appearance delivers in the Mac OS. The Mac UI was designed as a whole and incorporates principles that are very basic, but are applied very consistently throughout the user interface. This leads to an ease of use and transparency to the user that cannot be faked by simply pasting pretty pictures on top of a hodge-podge of OS components, as is the case in Windows. > . . . From your reply to DB-K: "This is yet another of those > situations where a fundamental problem is "solved" by pasting on yet > another level of kludges to cover up the fact that at base, something > is wrong with the organization of the OS in the first place if people > have such difficulty managing their files." One example. But that problem could be fixed without needing to change anything in the OS's low-level codebase. It's not a kernel issue -- it's a shell issue (you *do* know the difference, right?). And shell problems are much more easily addressed, though the solutions themselves may be much harder to design. That particular problem is a failure to recognize that they *have* a problem. > >> What's happening is that although the integration of Unix, Carbon, > >> Cocoa, and other technologies into a single new MacOS has not been > >> without growing pains, facts are that it's solid and very usable > >> right now. But more importantly, it's adaptable, malleable, and > >> scalable. Because Longhorn has been taking so long, one must > >> conclude that it does not possess the kind of flexible OS design > >> necessary for a modern operating system. . . . > > > This is to laugh. > > > What was the time frame between the announcement of a successor to > > the MacOS and the first non-beta release of OS X? Copland was > > discarded, and then OS X eventually replaced it. A version of > > Copland was featured onscreen in Independence Day, which was > > released in 1996. > > For a company with at least 10 times the number of programmers that > Apple has, Microsoft should have released Longhorn within two years. > The real laugh is that the so called "Chief Software Architect" of > Microsoft would permit such an inflexible design to proceed in the > first place. \/\/hatever. You are obviously, much much smarter and more experienced with software engineering than anyone at Microsoft, so it's indisputable that Microsoft is incompetent. However, I infer that you still believe in the mythical man-month in regard to software engineering. > >> . . . Instead, it appears to be an awkward kluge of ideas stolen > >> from other operating systems. . . . > > > Again, I'm all ears. > > I'm hoping they aren't the kind made out of tin. > > > > Other than trying to copy the non-essential aspects of the Aqua UI, > > what exactly is Microsoft copying from other OS's? > > I'd say just about everything except for sleazy business practices. > Let's let you do some work David. Please provide proof that Longhorn > features are actually new inventions and not ideas stolen from > elsewhere. . . . Proving a negative? Now I know for a fact that you are intellectually bankrupt. > . . . You keep on referring to UI aspects as if they were > nothing. . . . Er, I said that MS was copying cosmetic aspects of an interface it didn't understand. These don't constitute any real incorporation of the features being ripped off, and won't benefit users. So, they don't really matter, since the ripping off is not at any level of significance in regard to the original model being copied. > . . . If so, why does Microsoft steal them? . . . Probably for marketing purposes. > . . . I'd say that a large > portion of a modern computer system is UI design and implementation. . . . Absolutely. I agree 100%. But you don't implement a UI by copying appearance, which is what MS is doing. So, there's no significance to this copying, as it can't accomplish anything in regard to the implementation of the actual UI features in OS X that are being implemented as a mere shadow of the original. > And that's only possible if one has a flexible supporting > architecture. Gates (so called MS Chief Software Architect) hasn't > come up with that yet. Only, as you've mentioned elsewhere, kludge > upon kludge. I don't know what the hell you are talking about each time you talk about the lack of a "flexible supporting architecture." I'm not even going to speculate. If you want to be taken seriously, you should provide a technical explanation of what you're mysteriously hinting at here, and some examples of exactly where MS has failed to deliver some feature because of the flaws in their OS's "supporting architecture." > > This is an OS-level implementation of a feature that's been present > > in MS's Office applications since the release of Office XP as "Task > > Panes", > > But you previously mentioned that XP is stolen from OS X: "Er, Windows > XP was the one that was a cheap and poorly done ripoff of OS X.". The Luna shell, yes, not the OS as a whole. > And yes, I'm talking about OS-level implementation. Not applications > that users have to purchase in addition to the investment in the OS. But the idea wasn't entirely derived from OS X, then, but from MS's applications. So, your assertion that it was "ripped off" from OS X is wrong. > > Many of these things that you say are stolen from OS X actually > > represent the latest iteration of technologies that MS has been > > working for many, many years. > > What you're not stating is that Microsoft also stole those > technologies. Please, provide chapter and verse. Otherwise, your assertions just look like religious cant. > > Yes, they've often borrowed little bits and pieces and presentation > > aspects from Mac OS X, but the underlying technologies involved have > > been under development in many cases since long before OS X was > > released. > > See above. Unless it's in the area of corporate sleaze, Microsoft is > not an innovative technology company. It only tries to act like one in > advertisements. I agree that MS does not come up with ideas first. But they put them together in ways that allow end users to get work done (though they seem to do less and less of that as the years go by). > > The fact that two clocks may agree with each other about the time > > does not mean that one is copying from the other -- it may indicate > > that both have independently arrived at the same piece of correct > > information. > > Ludicrous statement. None of your examples of OS X rip-offs hold up, except the cosmetic ones. Which is what I said. If you think there's anything deeper being copied, then say so. Otherwise, the discussion is over. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
