Re: ADTPro beta available

[pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <JpidndI-6v_8niXZnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote:

> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>> In article <Y9CdndLdO9znNCvZnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>Paul Schlyter wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <OcGdnUmXsNjKwSjZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>>>Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>A more useful definition of a platform is any layer of uniformity that
>>>>>enables a common market in applications.
>>>>
>>>>:-) ...that's the first time I've seen anyone use a marketing definitin
>>>>of what a "platform" is.  By this definition, the Apple II is no longer
>>>>a platform, because there is no longer any market for it.
>>>
>>>No, you have to look at it with a time machine.  The Apple II *was*
>>>a big market, hence a big platform, and, to those who enjoy nostalgia,
>>>that period is forever frozen in time.
>> 
>> As you say, the Apple *was* a platform.... its market is in the past
>> and today it has vanished.  Is it still a platform today?
> 
> Not practically.  Today it is a *past* platform, of historical interest.

In my terminologi it's a platform with past significance....  :-)

 
>>>But from the point of view of *new* applications, the Apple II has
>>>(almost) ceased to be a platform.
>> 
>> Of course it's a very insignificant platform today - but IMO it's
>> still a platform.  It's even a more useful platform today than back in
>> the 1980's, because today it can be emulated on several other host
>> platforms -- just like Java!
>> 
>> Being insignificant is not the same as being nonexistent.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> And I like your point about the Apple II living on in emulation as
> a platform.  Quite true (though it will almost certainly never again
> support a market).

Probably not -- unless you count those very small hobbyist "markets"
probably with little or no profit, such as the Replica-1 which sold
a little bit.
 
>>>>>(Unix, for example, never quite made it to this status, mostly for
>>>>>competitive reasons.)
>>>>
>>>>There was never just one Unix, true.  But that doesn't mean that a
>>>>particular Unix platform wasn't a platform.....
>>>
>>>Right, it's just that they were all separately much less viable
>>>than they could have been if merged--though that might have meant
>>>that some hardware vendors were winners at the expense of others.
>>>
>>>The cost of developing and deploying applications for the "Unix
>>>platform" was hugely increased by the disparity of the many vendors'
>>>platforms, which created considerable "drag" for the whole market.
>> 
>> I know --- I've done some cross-platform Unix development myself,
>> in plain C, which should run on both Linux, Solaris and HP-UX....
> 
> Yes--we (at HP) found that a huge additional cost to developers that
> was almost unrecognized in theoretical discussions of "compatibility"
> was the need to have multiple testing, training, and support efforts
> for each supported flavor of Unix.
> 
> Developers certainly figured it out soon enough, though, and pruned
> their list of supported systems to the "top 3" or fewer, to maximize
> ROI.  So if you didn't make the top 3, you were out of the market!

...unless you put up the money to pay for an extra round of tests... :-)
 
>>>There was a window (no pun intended) of opportunity for a converged
>>>Unix to play a significant role (maybe even dominant?) on the corporate
>>>desktop, but that opportunity was missed.  The market growth that would
>>>have enabled $50 Unix applications never happened.
>> 
>> 
>> Instead we got $0 Unix applications, thanks to Linux and the
>> Open Source movement.
> 
> I'm tempted to ask, "So how's that working for you?", but the play
> on Dr. Phil probably doesn't work outside the US.  ;-)
> 
> The jury is still out on whether there is a sufficient supply of
> altruism to provide all the applications that people want, and are
> willing to pay for, free.  There certainly aren't enough for me,
> but YMMV.

Certainly not all such applications.  If you work for free, you have
the privilege to choose to do what you think is fun, rather than what
your boss or your customers tell you to do.  So there's room for
commercial development also on open-source platforms.
 
> My concern is that much of this effort is a "childrens' crusade" and
> will pass like love-ins and free concerts.
> 
> If the movement persists and succeeds, then it will have a long-lasting
> effect on both platforms and markets.  But so far, it is a small ripple
> on a large pond, in terms of its economic impact.

At least Linux have made a large impact on the Unix world, where the
number of different Unices still significantly used are decreasing and
probably will continue to decrease.  Microsoft has also noticed the
competition from Linux -- for instance China (that BIG country you
know, with some 6 times the population of the US....) has decided to
focus on Unix for government and other official computer systems.  A
few European countries has made a similar decision, as well as some
large cities in Germany.  So Linux has definitey reached beyond the
children's crusade.
 
>>>Linux is trying to rekindle that flame, but it's so late and so far
>>>down the road that their primary "fuel" is not the excellence of
>>>thier offering, but fear and hatred of Microsoft.  Truly a movement
>>>driven by negative energy.  ;-)  (BTW, this in no way applies to the
>>>high priests of Linux, who are all devoted idealists--only to the
>>>_hoi polloi_ who chant in the streets waving firebrands, or to the
>>>corporate opportunists who see a stick to swing at MS.  ;-)
>> 
>> Otoh Linux does also offer an economical advantage compared to M$...
> 
> If you look at "total cost of ownership", many companies have come to
> different conclusions.  Much depends on things that haven't yet
> happened...

That decision depends on how expensive labor is.  In countries where
labor is expensive, such as the US, it can be economical to go with
M$.  But in countries where labor is cheap, such as China, Linux is
a much more attractive alternative.

>>>A revolution may take hold, but, like all revolutions, not without
>>>most of its participants becoming tainted with the same ugliness that
>>>they were revolting against.  Never underestimate the power of the
>>>dark side.  ;-)
>> 
>> Perhaps the dark side is your father.... ;-)
> 
> Ha!  ;-)
> 
> For all of us, the dark side is our father--and the light side is
> our mother.  What we do about it is up to us!
> 
> Think of the "dark side" as the reptilian brain, and the "light side"
> as the frontal cortex.  ;-)  Both have proven necessary at one time
> or another to our survival!

Yep -- without the reptiles we would not be here.... :-)

 
>>>>>For this to be viable, the platform definition must be sufficiently
>>>>>"complete" that one does not need to go outside it to write useful
>>>>>applications, and it must be sufficiently "strong" that a single
>>>>>testing regime is sufficient for deployment on all implementations
>>>>>of the platform.
>>>>
>>>>By this definitions, I think there are no platforms.  There are always
>>>>some holes somewhere...
>>>
>>>That's why I said "sufficiently".  Avoid the trap of the ideal.
>> 
>> ....and introduce subjectiveness, making people disagree....
> 
> I see it as practical vs. theoretical, but have it your way.

Even if you use a theoretically correct terminology, you can still act
practically.  The only difference is that you call things what they
really are, instead of what you'd wish them to be.  Actually knowing
what you're doing can not be a disadvantage.
 
>>>>The conclusion is that there are different opinions on what a "platform"
>>>>actually is.  Different people have somewhat different semantics here.
>>>
>>>Yep--that's what makes it interesting.  But try mine out from the point
>>>of view of living your life and making decisions, as opposed to writing
>>>textbooks, and I think you'll find it quite useful--even profitable. ;-)
>> 
>> Even if I consider an insignificant platform a platform, I can still
>> decide that I ought to settle for significant platforms -- unless I do
>> it in my spare time, just for enjoyment.  Writing software for the ENIAC
>> could actually be fun, at least for a little while.... and now there
>> are ENIAC emulators one can execute such programs on.
> 
> OK, we have no operational disagreement.
> 
> I might compare this to a discussion of what constitutes a "species".
> Is every lethal mutation a "potential" species, or do we prune our
> language to include only those that successfully reproduce to fill a
> niche?

In particular, the new species must not be able to reproduce with the
old species to qualify as a new species.  That's the operational
definition: two individuals belong to the same species if they can
reproduce and if their offspring also is able to reproduce.

So a lethal mutation from a species is not a new species: since it cannot
even live, it can even less reproduce.
 
> If you prefer to use an adjective prededing "platform" to make this
> distinction, go for it.
> 
> I have some code to write for an obsolete platform...  ;-)
> 
> -michael

If it's important to make that distinction, I'll add it of course.
Maybe I'll encounter someone sometime who've never heard of the
Apple II and when hearing me mentioning it believes it's a brand
new platform with huge potential for the future... :-)

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Grev Turegatan 40,  SE-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW:     http://stjarnhimlen.se/