Posts by DarkPhoenix 5 publicly visible posts • joined 2 Feb 2007
For a great example of this, figure out how much money was spent on the Steady State theory of the universe's birth before overwhelming evidence of the Big Bang theory was discovered. They didn't just spend decades on that theory; Steady State was the preferred theory for centuries...
You know, bringing Thomas Edison into a patent argument is a bad idea; Edison was the first true patent troll. In fact, he did more to damage human innovation with his concern about patenting anything and everything than most people could ever imagine. Look up the history of alternating current (which, BTW, the entire world now uses as a standard) to see this sort of thing in action; the US intentionally held themselves back listening to Edison and his claims that his patented DC power system was safer (and helped line his own pockets, as his patent on the DC power system gave him a monopoly on it).
"They killed the idea of images and the markup being integrated when they stupidly decided to kill XHTML"
XHTML isn't dead. If you read the HTML5 standard, you'll note that there are two versions; HTML5 and what they're calling XHTML5, an XML rendering of HTML5. And that's where the SVG and MathML support stuff are expected to be used.
"patents are essential.
the solution is an intelligent and competent patent office not to outlaw patents."
No, patents are essential in CERTAIN MARKETS. Software isn't one of them, and patents like this just prove it. Software development is a lot like the development method of mathematics; what appears to be new is generally someone reorganizing or adding to existing knowledge. In this sort of market, patents simply block entire development branches (good example: encryption, which can only be developed by groups with LARGE wallets, due to massive patenting; now no one can develop encryption algorithms without a large bank account to back it up with).
Everywhere I look, it's "How OpenSolaris can crush Linux" or "What Linux has to do to fend off BSD/Solaris threats" or some such. I get the strange feeling the writers of those stories have forgotten that open source does not work like the commercial market. There doesn't have to be any X vs. Y BS here. Since Linux, *BSD and Solaris (and Hurd, and Darwin) basically all run the same sorts of programs on top, I fail to see why they have to be considered "enemies". I thought the concept of a monoculture was bad?
What we have here are 5 different kernels, with similar compatible services on top. Ultimately, it's more choice for the user, and I think that is a good thing.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
