* Posts by Ian Joyner

448 posts • joined 6 Jun 2014


Don't get the pitchforks yet, Apple devs: macOS third-party application clampdown probably not as bad as rumored

Ian Joyner

Re: Apple are Nazis thinking - REJECTED

>"they just mostly get things right, where most others fail."

I understand, I just don't agree.>

This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. You fail to put up any facts or reasons for what you state.

"I am just against abuse, and I believe that Apple behaves in an abusive way. Not as abusive as many of its competitors, but still..."

Again a bald statement, no facts, reasons, or examples – just some vague feeling you have. You need to understand what Apple is doing and why. The computing industry has a very serious security problem. Apple locking down the systems for end users is protecting them in the right way against the abuse of others. Apple builds its knowledge of security into their systems. End users have little knowledge of security, but even for us professionals we are glad to have that security in our systems.

A fundamental of security is convenience and usability against security. We want systems that are easy to use for legitimate users, but impossible or almost impossible for malicious intent. We know that it is easy to download malicious programs, so Apple tries to prevent that happening saying applications can only come from a checked and trusted source. Your spin is making that out to be abuse by Apple, but it is exactly the opposite.

Ian Joyner

Re: Apple are Nazis thinking - REJECTED

I did not make any claim for Apple being saintly – they just mostly get things right, where most others fail.

Would you prefer we just had some latter-day Apple II? No things moved on from that kind of computing. Instead of making computers for computer people, Apple made them for the rest. Thinking of computers as appliances is the right way to think. Most of the options and configurations that need to be done on other systems are mostly rubbish, and appeal to technocrats who like to keep computers mysterious to others.

Vendor lock in is not a consequent of what Apple does – it is just the nature of computers. Once people start using a system, they get locked into it – no matter how bad or poorly designed it is. Luckily Apple mostly do good design.

As for "people-hostile" decisions, I completely disagree with that. Most of the others are people hostile, but Apple protects its users. What do you have in mind when you say "people hostile" anyway?

Your third paragraph is just plain wrong, but as you admit you have something against Apple anyway.

Ian Joyner

Apple are Nazis thinking - REJECTED

"I have always considered Apple Computer Inc. to be the Nazi's of the technology sector."

Completely willy and wrong view. Apple have done more to put technology into the hands of people for people power than any other company. The whole paradigm was developed in Silicon Valley with people like Ted Nelson who sought to liberate from linear thinking of regular text with hypertext (and invented the hypertext link), Douglas Englebart, who invented the mouse, that Apple brought to you, Alan Kay who invented the Window, Larry Tesler, many people who have worked at Apple, all who liberated computing from any "computer controls people" thinking.

In contrast, when I look at Windows, I see the IBM influence of it being an office computer, controlled not by the user, but by support staff. Windows does not understand windows and fills the screen with a single task by default. Remember IBM actually helped the Nazis with census machines to implement the holocaust.

Apple have championed the people in control of machines, not machines in control of people.

With security problems, the power is again being taken out of control of the user and put in the hands of malicious hackers. Apple is not about restricting the user, but restricting these hackers.

"Linux/Unix you can do whatever you want'

MacOS is Unix. It is a more secure version of Unix than Linux.

"Most people who buy Macs are not computer savvy."

Most people who buy a computer are not computer savvy. However, some people who buy Macs are the most computer savvy people I know.

"However, it puts additional burdens on the developers"

Exactly the way it should be. The onus is on developers to be both correct and secure. Following on from that comes performance.

"Just my 2 cents."

Not really worth the 2c was it?

Apple's revamped iPad beams a workhorse in from Planet Ludicrous

Ian Joyner

Re: The Pencil needs charging?

"And the Russian answer to the NASA space pen - a pencil"

I remember Rick Wakeman pointing this out on his radio show. "NASA spent $1 million on developing a ball-point pen that works in space – the Russians took pencils".

I sent an email to Rick "I'm looking for a pen that will just work here on Earth". He immediately read it out after the next song had finished!

Another time he gave a great answer to my "Ask Rick" question about the organ on Close to the Edge, which was done at St Giles Cripplegate.

Galaxy S10's under-glass fingerprint reader, quelle surprise, makes mobe a right pain to fix

Ian Joyner

Re: Smaller is always harder to repair

I should add that making something repairable also makes it more likely that it will need repair. For example, having chips that are unplugable rather than soldered in are more likely to fail because of bad connection.

In the early days of computing, components could easily fail and needed to be replaced easily. But these times are different – components are very reliable and rarely need replacing. Making them non-replaceable actually enhances reliability.

Actually, most people would prefer reliability over repairability.

Ian Joyner

Smaller is always harder to repair

I usually criticise Samsung (they are a greedy hardware company trying to take over software, computing, and everything else), but repairability in small forms is difficult. If you want something repairable, get a boat anchor for under the desk, or a 1970s mainframe. Oh but the mainframe will cost you more – around £1 million. So what we get in these tiny packages for relatively little money is amazing.

At least Sony offered a t-shirt, says macOS flaw finder: Bug bounties now for Macs if you want this 0-day, Apple

Ian Joyner

Re: It Doesn't Matter...

"Because look how shiny my Apple device is! Look! It's soooo shiny! Loot at it! Shiny! Shiny! Shiny!"

No. Macintosh users are more serious than that. As Steve Jobs once said "Interface design is less about the way it looks, but the way it works".

For people who make idiotic snide straw man comments like this, security is not black and white but a spectrum. For many technical reasons, MacOS is more secure than others like Windows and Linux. Any Unix is less secure than Burroughs/Unisys MCP (which has bounds checking in the architecture). While these machines are even more secure, vulnerabilities are always there, but less of them and harder to exploit.

That is all you can do for security. But you don't ignore it because you can't be 100% secure.

Ian Joyner

Re: But

"macOS is so secure you don't even need...."

For people who make idiotic snide straw man comments like this, security is not black and white but a spectrum. For many technical reasons, MacOS is more secure than others like Windows and Linux. Any Unix is less secure than Burroughs/Unisys MCP (which has bounds checking in the architecture). While these machines are even more secure, vulnerabilities are always there, but less of them and harder to exploit.

That is all you can do for security. But you don't ignore it because you can't be 100% secure.

Apple yoinks enterprise certs from Facebook, Google, killing internal apps, to show its power

Ian Joyner

Security in a dangerous and insecure world

“While Apple's action can be appreciated from a privacy and safety perspective, it also underscores the exceptional power the company holds over its hardware and software ecosystem.”

In this complex and dangerous world of lack of security in computing it is good to have this. Security is an inconvenience, but breached security can be a disaster. Modern processors and languages lack security features like bounds checking. Brokered message passing between processes with non-shared memory would be best.

“That presents more danger from malicious code but it also treats mobile users like adults capable of making their own decisions.”

Nothing to do with treating their users as adults, – in fact, quite the reverse. That is just silly emotive language. In the complex world of security, even people with some expertise in security appreciate that it is done for us in the way Apple does it.

If anything it is Google’s ripping off of data, thinking the can do big-data analysis, use AI to control advertising, etc that is treating people contemptuously like idiots.

And Android based on Linux is inherently less secure that Apple’s Unix based on Mach.

What's that, Skippy? You want a taste of Windows 10 19H2? Oops, too late

Ian Joyner

Waratah National Park

Having grown up two minutes walk from Waratah National Park (I always live near the most famous parks in the world, the other being Kew Gardens, but that is not fictional, Waratah Park is actually Kuringgai Chase NP) I can say Skippy would never fall for such a thing.

However, kangaroos are not that intelligent. And in all my bush walks around there I never saw a single kangaroo. You are more likely to see one in Kew Gardens maybe in the Palm House or the greenhouse where they keep Australian flora. Come to think of it, the dentist who lived on the corner of West Park Avenue was Australian!

Maybe Skippy has transformed into Skypy.

The Apple Mac is 35 years old. Behold the beige box of the future

Ian Joyner

Re: @Ian Joyner

Your premise that (I assume) Mac is identical hardware to a PC is wrong. Apple (and the better known brands) generally make higher quality hardware than cheap clones. Apple could reduce their price by reducing quality, but have deliberately decided not to participate in that race to the bottom.

Clones also tend to make cheaper configurations. With a Mac you have everything built in, ports, WiFi, etc. There is less need for expansion ports to plug in extra devices.

Clones also use cheaper components of less quality. I once heard a criticism of Dell a few years ago that Dell used whatever component was cheapest that week. Hence they were more likely to fail, but to repair was difficult since you mostly had to source the exact same part.

In contrast, Apple designed a machine, verified all the components and used components from the same supplier for the manufacturing life of that model. (This is actually in line with a Deming quality principle of sticking to the same supplier, and not jumping around.)

So hardware is not identical. That is one thing that you are paying extra cash for. This also effects TCO. Where a manufacturer can ship cheaper quality, taken over the whole market the average TCO goes up. More repairs, more frequent upgrading. This iMac is now 5 years old, has not missed a beat, and I don't think I will need to replace it until all drives are at least 4TB of SSD.

Ian Joyner

Re: Typical el Reg

"Macs were also pretty shit. Great at multi media and graphics, awful at most other things"

That is simply not true.

Ian Joyner

Re: Apple? Never again.

"But don't get all high and mighty because for some of us it just doesn't work."

Well, when you say things like:

" I found out that in Apple land "intuitive" meant "I've only ever used Apple machines and have become trained to do things the Apple way.""

I can't take your assessment at all seriously because many of us have used many computers other than Apple. And it is not getting all high and mighty to point out you are wrong.

Ian Joyner

Price of Mac vs PC

So the Mac cost $2,500 and PC $1,500. As I have already noted, the Mac typically came with more memory 128K vs 16K for basic PC and with a far superior processor.

Consider the vision and business model of Apple vs IBM.

Apple's vision was to create the best computer ever usable by everyone. IBM's vision and business model was to crush Apple and put Apple out of business.

Apple was establishing a product. As we know things come down in price once they become established and are manufactured on a massive scale. Apple was starved of these sales numbers (which they had enjoyed on the Apple II).

For Apple, the Mac was a product that they charged what it was worth. IBM's strategy in many markets was to crush competition by cross-subsidy of the market. This is shown by Richard DeLamarter in "Big Blue: IBM's Use and Abuse" of power. They could use this to buy the PC market. But as I have already noted there were many IBM proponents in the industry who hated any other comers in the marketplace, no matter how technically superior their offerings were.

Ian Joyner

Expansion Slots

I should also mention the expansion slots. Expansion slots in the Apple II (which introduced them I think) were a pain in the neck for software developers. The addresses changed depending on the slot the card was in.

IBM just copied the idea.

Apple opted for a more powerful processor (M68000 vs pathetic 8088) to emulate hardware functions in software. Any specific hardware function could be done in an external box. Hardware people hated this - but computing is about software - hardware is there to support software.

A notable example is modems. I worked for NetComm Australia which became one of the largest modem manufacturers in Australia (due to a unique combination of brilliant hardware people (Luke and Ray) and management (Chris) from ICL and software people (Owen and me) from Burroughs (ICL and Burroughs were somewhat unique in the industry of really knowing how to design complete systems with virtual memory and security with memory descriptors). (Apple also gave NetComm one of the first Macs in this country – I was not convinced straight away, but scratched my head for months working out what it was for and what we were going to do with this thing.)

NetComm built a plug in modem for the PC, but external box for everything else. Now all communications is done with an external box. With a few external connectors you can do everything. Apple keeps simplifying this and every time you get bellyaching from the people who still think computing is about hardware.

Again Apple took the right approach by saying that it is software that drives the machine – with a powerful general-purpose processor you can do anything. Only really critical functions are now done in specific hardware like GPUs, and routers at the core of the Internet.

Ian Joyner

Another Register article for the trash can

Poor journalism, based on pseudo facts laced with opinionated adjectives.

For example 'a woeful 128KB RAM'. Today it seems woeful but at the time it was a lot of memory. The IBM PC came with 16-256 KB – most would opt for closer to 16 KB, since memory was expensive.

Then you dismiss the fact that most system code was in ROM. This meant most of the 128KB was for applications.

Your article does not get much better from there.

You are attempting to dismiss Apple's legacy in the computer industry.

Let's make it clear, both the Apple Lisa and Apple Macintosh were brilliant machines at the time, considering what we would today consider cripplingly small configurations. Last week, you criticised the Lisa for its price. Apple more than fixed that with the Macintosh, in fact, leading the way for low-priced and end-user usable computing.

The Macintosh was powered by the Motorola M68000 processor which was far in advance of the pathetic Intel 8088 used in PCs.

Yes, the Mac was monochrome. But it was a high-res (for the day) display. I remember arguing with an IBM proponent who claimed that being able to highlight mono-font text words on a PC in red, green, blue (up to 8 colours) was superior to Mac's graphics. He was really deluded.

Floppy disk drives. Macs Sony 3.5" with case built around disk were vastly superior to the old IBM 5.25" in both durability and capacity. Cue yet again for tirades of abuse from IBM proponents that the 3.5" drives were just a toy.

Compared to that the IBM PC was truly a pathetic machine which could have been invented by two kids in a garage. IBM forgot it needed an OS and dragged in Microsoft which quickly purchased QDOS (Quick and Dirty OS) from Seattle Computer Systems. Despite this the IBM proponents rubbished Apple (like they did Burroughs, DEC, etc) and demanded the awful IBM PC be bought in droves by their office environments.

Apple broke the monopoly of thinking that IBM had over the industry - although it was a long and hard fight against the obdurate IBM supporters. Alas they still exist today, still with there tirades of abuse against Apple. STOP FEEDING THESE TROLLS.

By the standards of the day, the Macintosh was a truly advanced machine.

Stage fright or Stage light? Depends how far you dare to open your MacBook Pro's lid

Ian Joyner

Re: Rinse and repeat

No, that is a silly and incorrect assessment.

Originally computers were designed by electronics engineers. Then Bob Barton said they should be designed by the people who program them. He taught Alan Kay who went to Xerox PARC, then Apple. Apple said computers should be made for the end user (whether they know what they want or not).

Apple is full of very talented designers and software people. Engineers have always had to do what the designers wanted, not be constrained by the technology of the day. And yes that led to clashes between Jobs and engineers.

Many people just accepted (and still accept) the "that can't be done" of engineers. Apple and Jobs say – "well go away and work out how it can be done".

That is actually a very risky path.

Ian Joyner

Re: "Thin&Light" means Piece Of Shit.

"Perhaps Apple should ask Dell how to make hardware that just works"

Me Apple user - across road Dell user. Problems with 4-y-o-iMac none. Dell – constant problems always having support person in. Windows is made for support, Apple devices made to remove support so that it is automated and built into system and end users can do what the need to do.

Yes a particular piece of anecdotal evidence, but it seems more general.

Ian Joyner

Re: "Thin&Light" means Piece Of Shit.

"Dear Manufacturers, some folks actually need a machine that has fans & the thermal exhaust capabilities"

No you don't. You are making exactly the same mistake that you are accusing the manufacturers of, confusing a particular implementation with a general requirement.

"allow the internals to run at or near full speed without getting throttled into oblivion"

Now that IS what you want. If you can get that without fans, there is no problem.

"USEFUL stuff we need to Get Shit Done?"

I recommend staying in the bathroom seated on appropriate device.

Ian Joyner

Delete 'fanboys' from the dictionary.

"what fanbois have dubbed "Stage Light""

The word you are looking for is customers. Those who have an expectation with their supplier.

There is no need to keep using this boring pejorative. It is getting to be bad journalism.

George Orwell decries lazy writing in Politics and the English Language:


I bought it in the bookshop at the Barbican last year.

Apple hardware priced so high that no one wants to buy it? It's 1983 all over again

Ian Joyner

Re: As a dev system?

Yes, the old telephone book Inside Mac.

Maybe the worst part was the example programs were very badly written and one used these as templates for other programs.

Ian Joyner

Re: Being oldish

"Apple made a really good attempt at failing"

Might have had something to do with IBM wanting to crush Apple and the market forces of the time "You don't get fired for buying IBM".

The business model of "crush Apple" has been a failure of many companies (think about PCJr), including IBM and Microsoft and now others in the Android space (which Register has loving pet names for).

Ian Joyner

Re: Just plain embarrassing

Yes, excellent machines. However they (and Sun) were quite expensive at the time, although I can't find exact figures for 1983. It shows really Register's article here is just a beat up.

Then the Mac came out at around $1,000 showing Apple was very price conscious, prepared to make a machine within the confines of technology of the time. This of course resulted in compromises, but showed the way forward for the rest of the industry.

We would not have easy and useful computing as we now know it were it not for Apple.

Ian Joyner

Re: Look and Feel

Xerox invited Apple. Xerox wanted one of the hardware manufacturers to adopt their technology. Xerox management weren't interested in it. Neither was IBM or Tektronix. Apple understood it.

The respect for Xerox PARC was to actually bring it to market – and that paid them huge respect – something the Xerox management did not do.

Ian Joyner

An article that should have been dragged to trash.

"the Lisa was an exercise in seeing how much money Apple could squeeze out of the faithful"

That is a completely false premise. The rest of the article does not get much better from there.

Then there is the fault of ignoring the context of the time – computing was expensive. The Profile disk drive was needed. So the Lisa was way in advance of any other PC of the time.

Would you say Xerox was gouging the market – their machines were around $100,000?

Sorry, Samsung. Seems nobody is immune to peak smartphone

Ian Joyner

Re: So, Apple is lazy and greedy, Samsung a victim?

4 thumbs up and 8 thumbs down – people don't like the truth!

Ian Joyner

Re: "All I really need now is a lot better battery life."

A headphone jack is not needed. Only an adaptor, which is provided with iPhone.

Ian Joyner

So, Apple is lazy and greedy, Samsung a victim?

Register presents Apple as being lazy and greedy, but takes pity on Samsung. That is 180º wrong. The only innovations in this space are from high-end features. Thus we see the high-end new products attracting a high price. For Apple you can still buy the previous models. The truth is there is little innovation to be made in this space anymore. Apple did such a good job of innovation 10 years ago, that not much else could be done.

Along come Samsung and others. Samsung really is greedy and wants to take over the whole world. Samsung is lazy. It copies Apple. There are no famous names at Samsung, like at Apple and Microsoft, IBM, DEC, Burroughs, Unisys, etc. Samsung let others innovate and then copy. Register puts it down to Samsung not being dependent on phones, but they can cross-subsidise from other markets.

Anything based on Android is also subsidised by advertising. They collect the data on you and make you the product.

These indeed are concerning times for anyone involved in the IT industry. What should be very helpful to mankind is becoming a millstone around our neck.

Google Play Store spews malware onto 9 million 'Droids

Ian Joyner

Good article

I'll give Register some credit for once. An article that just states the facts, no editorial.

Now if it were an Apple story you could guarantee much editorial on how Apple is evil and anyone who buys Apple an idiot, followed by much trolling and vitriol (vitroll, I just made that word up!) in comments.

Linux lobby org joins with RISC-V bods to promote open chip spec

Ian Joyner

Architecture rethink

I'm not sure this is the right approach for the future. In fact, it seems more political than anything. Politics aside, what we need is not so much CPU architectures as entire system architectures. Traditional CPUs are designed for old-style computing, when scientific calculations were done and really the machine was dedicated to that.

But now we have multiprogramming and new apps being loaded into machines by innocent users who know nothing much about security. Current CPU architectures (and languages) offer very little in the way of security being based on the thinking that you own the whole machine and can see the whole of memory as a flat space.

Modern systems – even at the low level of an OS need structured memories that respect boundaries. A quick browse through the RISC-V documentation revealed no clues as to any such support for real modern computing.

That seems a shame to me, and most probably a lost opportunity to rethink things. It seems a shame that performance is still put way in advance of user protection, which – built into the lowest levels of architecture – could be implemented in the most performance effective way, rather than building loads of software on top that is far more effective at sapping CPU cycles.

You could look at this idea as the inverse of distributed computing. Instead of a process being distributed, many processes are implemented on a single machine on virtual processors (this is hardly a radical idea either), but the very ability to do this is baked into the system (CPU) architecture. Smalltalk was also an attempt to view the world in this way.

Once systems are designed and implemented in this manner, real distribution becomes easy (but that is another subject).

These are not really new ideas though – they need revisiting.




Apple heading for Supreme Court showdown over iOS App Store 'monopoly' gripe

Ian Joyner

Re: There are alernatives...

"It would be no different than GM being sued because you can't put a cheaper Kia engine in your Cadillac"

But actually, the App Store does allow you to do that. But Apple makes sure the new engines are safe to use. That seems like a good compromise.

Meanwhile the lawyers are set to make good money!

Microsoft Surface kicks dust in face of Apple iPad Pro in Q3

Ian Joyner

316,000 stored in warehouses, NOT SOLD

It's a bit of a non-story really.

Web Foundation launches internet hippie manifesto: 'We've lost control of our data, it is being used against us'

Ian Joyner

"el reg biting the hand..."

I just wonder which hand is feeding reg?

This seems a very poor piece of journalism aimed at those who are trying to protect the Internet from very powerful and dangerous concerns. I just really wonder why this Register piece was written at all?

Apple breathes new life into MacBook Air with overhauled 2018 model

Ian Joyner

Re: Well it will look so stylish...

"...when it fails, is unrepairable and goes into landfill in a year or two."

The only thing going to landfill is rubbish comments like this.

Did you ever stop to consider that making things repairable makes them more susceptible to failure in the first place? Plug connectors fail. Things that are soldered into place are less likely to fail.

Macs do not fail after 2 years. I have given a few of mine to relatives and they have made over 10 years old.

Then when they are past their life, there is a good recycling scheme in place so they don't go into landfill.

Apple to dump Intel CPUs from Macs for Arm – yup, the rumor that just won't die is back

Ian Joyner

Re: Rosetta-a-like is absolutely necessary

"Apple don't want backwards compatibility - they want to sell you new stuff again and again."

Another uninformed and wrong comment. Apple are supporting many generations of previous equipment with no forcing people to buy newer versions.

Well slap my ass and call me Judy, Microsoft's Surface Pro 6 is just as hard to fix as the old one

Ian Joyner

The smaller the harder

The smaller you make something the harder it is to fix. You need special tools to get into things and replace components. This makes repairs costly, so often is cheaper to give you a new one.

People want things small and light and waterproof.

Ian Joyner

Re: Overpriced

Are they really overpriced? Stop and think about the amount of technology in these devices both hardware and software. Then there is the factor of miniaturisation – the smaller the form factor the more expensive.

Microsoft's and Apple's prices reflect more directly the costs. Others cross subsidise from advertising, selling your details and from other parts of their business and then using off-the-shelf software not tailored to the end user.

Everyone always wants to pay less for any item they buy. That does not make them overpriced.

Samsung: Swanky hardware alone won't save a phone maker

Ian Joyner

Re: Better than Apple...

It sounds like there is something not equal in your story. What were the service contracts you entered into? Was it a very old iPhone compared to new Samsung? Was the Samsung under a corporate service contract and the iPhone individual – reading between the lines I get that impression?

Ian Joyner

Dose of Samsung's own Medicine

Now Samsung are worried that others will do to them what Samsung has done to the market. Of course Samsung can see this happening to them – they well know the tactic. Bring out some cut price hardware to destabilise the incumbents (they have not been 100% successful here). Make prices cheaper by not having such good software or support – the hardware looks good in a shop, and most people do not go into all the complexities of computing and software, they make a decision on 'swankiness' and price.

So now Samsung is acting like an incumbent trying to deflect the attacks of others who are now using Samsung's exact tactics.

Android Phones are 10: For once, Google won fair and square

Ian Joyner

Re: Sure Android is 90% of the market..

"the manufacturer doesn't make lots of money"

Which manufacturer would that be?

Apple puts more than others into R&D. The others copy that because it is cheap. The others make money out of selling your data.

"rather than the Apple phone that just sends the vast majority of the overinflated price to the bank..."

That is just a stupid comment.

Ian Joyner

Re: Android won because it was BETTER and CHEAPER.

"Android won because it was BETTER and CHEAPER."

Certainly not better. And cheaper because those who are second to market use some tactic to undermine the originals.

Ian Joyner

Re: Define "win"

"No, I don't have to provide a counter argument"

Oh, yes you do. You obviously can't so that is the end of the conversation. It shows you are working on prejudice and don't know the architectures of these systems.

Ian Joyner

Re: Define "win"

"A tool that's been brainwashed by Apple is the answer of course."

No one is brainwashed, except maybe you who is accepting the advertising.

Ian Joyner

Re: Instead of

"Unless you're a sad loser who likes spending too much money on stuff just to look 'hip' at a coffee bar"

That's a silly thing to say.

Besides with your story, we'd have to take your word for it. Then look at why it might be £9 difference. Maybe they are selling cheaper because they are getting a kick back.

Yes, that happens in this craze world where companies are making you buy cheap junk.

Ian Joyner

Re: Define "win"

My Post:

>>>Re: Define "win"

> http://ianjoyner.name/Open_Source.html

"The Failure of Open Source

Open-source software is supposed to promote the idealistic notion that software should be freely available and cheap for all. It is actually achieving the opposite effect. Here is why. [...]"

"While Google might have developed Android (???is it open source???), Android is mainly based on Linux (more warm, fuzzy open source sentiments) – a system developed for speed, not security. "<<<

GrumpenKraut's response:

>>>BS of the highest order.<<<

Really? Don't you have anything sensible to say? You have to provide a counter argument. The fact is that Linux IS built for speed not security.

Try to have something intelligent to say.

Ian Joyner

Re: Define "win"

"Android has laid waste to the hardware industry"

That goes for software as well.


Former Apple engineer fights iPhone giant for patent credit and denied cash, says Steve Jobs loved his 'killer ideas'

Ian Joyner

Re: He shouldn't also forget that Steve said....

"The Lisa was actually a commercial failure"

The Lisa was a very good machine, really better than the Macintosh. I saw lots of them. But the price was not right and not able to be less. It needed a 10MB (from memory) Profile disk drive. Not a bad machine for $10,000 and 1/10th of the cost of what Xerox could do.

But the brilliance of the Mac was to do it for 1/10th of that.

The expansion slots of the Apple II was also one of its worst features, but probably not at the time. Any extra hardware like that is now built in on the mother board, or provided by software.

Glad to see you are reading the history. But what Microsoft did to Apple and what Apple did to Xerox are completely different things.

Ian Joyner

Re: It's MOULD, not mold

I wrote: "on(e), plan(e), hop(e), rag(e), sit(e), din(e), min(e), pin(e), sin(e), quit(e), rat(e)"

Since we are talking about mould, I'll add slim(e)!

Ian Joyner

Re: It's MOULD, not mold

"Noah Webster had a tremendous influence on American spelling, and he was down on "ou"s sounded as "o". I do see your point: yet the English-speaking world does manage to get along with quite a few words spelled and perhaps sounded the same."

Some words share spelling but are pronounced differently. The most prominent one in this industry is router and router. One is based on rout, pronounced 'raut' and refers to someone who commits atrocities. The other is based on route, pronounced 'root', and we use a lot of these in the Internet. This is related to routine, and no one says 'rautine'. There are plenty of examples where you (there's one) pronounce 'ou' quite differently. You, group, routine, should, tour, through.

The final 'e' on a word most frequently changes the pronunciation of the final vowel:

on(e), plan(e), hop(e), rag(e), sit(e), din(e), min(e), pin(e), sin(e), quit(e), rat(e)

Thus rout and route are different words that should be pronounced differently.

Ian Joyner

Re: He shouldn't also forget that Steve said....

"Bill Gates for Windows claiming he'd copied Apple's idea to which Bill pointed out they'd both been to see the Xerox OS"

No Apple did not steal from Xerox, but Microsoft did steal from Apple. I don't believe Gates saw anything before Jobs demonstrated the Macintosh to him.

Douglas Englebart invented the mouse around 1963, not Xerox PARC. Jef Raskin at Apple was doing similar stuff to PARC and knew those guys. Raskin did his Ph.D in the 1960s on the graphics package that became Apple's Quickdraw. He was working at Apple doing similar stuff to the Xerox guys. It was Raskin who suggested to Jobs that he take up PARC's invitation to go and see what they were doing.

PARC invited industry players in Apple, Tektronix, and IBM to view their stuff, because they had been ordered by Xerox HQ on the East Coast to drop what they were doing - it wasn't Xerox's core business. Tektronix and IBM didn't get it. But Jobs did. And the Xerox PARC guys were amazed how Jobs got it, since Xerox, Tektronix, and IBM didn't. Some at PARC realised it was the end of the road there, so those like Alan Kay and Larry Tesler left PARC to further this technology at Apple. They went on Apple's payroll, so were rewarded for their efforts.

Apple still took considerable risks to develop this technology. The other part of the story is how PARC machines cost nearly $100,000, but Apple managed to put it in a machine selling for $10,000 (the Lisa), and then $2,000 (the Mac).

Apple also did not exactly copy the PARC interface. Pull down menus at the top of the screen were Apple's innovation.

Now Bill Gates did illegally copy Apple's stuff - particularly Quickdraw that was Raskin's.





Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019