News and commentary from the cross-platform scripting community.
|
||
|
Mail Starting 9/10/97 | |
I respect your opinion but believe you are completely wrong regarding the Ric Ford vs Steve Jobs interchange. Developers, managers, and other professionals need to make professional decisions. Jobs and Apple seem to be making very unprofessional ones. Sure, we, the great ignorant outsiders, are going to conclude many things in the absence if concrete direction for a 'leaderless' ship. How can respect be extended to those who do not respect you. We need space to develop plans. Apple is not giving us the space. So Ric was dead on. We need information and respect fast.
From: redfield@aimnet.com (Redfield);
Sent at 9/11/97; 9:00:55 AM;
Steve Jobs etcYou focus on one card from the first set of six cards.
From: radke@uni-bonn.de (Andre Radke);
Sent at 9/11/97; 9:16:00 AM;
Mysterious RabbitThen you notice that the "mixed-up" set of only five cards doesn't contain your card. Your conclusion: Your card is missing!
What you don't notice is that *none* of the cards from the first set show up in the second "mixed-up" set - they only look similar!
First set: King of Spades, King of Hearts, Queen of Clubs, Queen of Diamonds, Jack of Clubs, Jack of Diamonds
Second set: King of Clubs, King of Diamonds, Queen of Spades, Queen of Hearts, Jack of Hearts
I've grown tired of Steve's games (Randall Stross's book is excellent, BTW), so I've got a technical question for you and the rest of the Mac developer community to ponder.
From: wesf@mail.utexas.edu (Wesley Felter);
Sent at 9/10/97; 5:56:46 PM;
Yellow BoxingWhat's up with "Yellow Box for Mac OS"? Supposedly, you'll be able to just link your Objective-C application that uses the Yellow Box APIs against a new library and it will run under classic Mac OS 8. First there's the obvious fact that the Yellow Box APIs were designed to run under a robust, fully multithreaded OS like NEXTSTEP and thus Yellow Box for Mac OS apps will have all the features but none of the stability of Rhapsody. Secondly, I really don't see why developers would really want to use this to port Rhapsody apps "backwards" to Mac OS. Mac OS certainly has a larger user base, but since there will be a *large* glue layer, Yellow Box for Mac OS apps will run slower than native Mac OS apps.
I fully see the use for Latitude and moving code from Mac OS to Rhapsody, since Latitude apps will probably get faster and more robust just by being recompiled. Although there may be a hitch: I've heard from some long-time NEXTSTEP developer friends that Rhapsody's UI is heavily tied to the Objective-C object model, so the only way to do UI stuff is with Objective-C (or its cousin Java). This is not terribly different from BeOS, where you can't create a window unless your app is written in C++ (AFAIK). I'm not sure how they intend to solve this in Rhapsody. --Wes
You're almost right about lack of respect for Gore. I didn't say that I know what he believed. I said I wouldn't be surprised if he wanted to resurrect the CDA. Big difference. I told you about me, not about him.
From: dwiner@well.com (Dave Winer);
Re:"Respect and a pair of Daves"BTW, people close to Gore tell me that it's true. But I haven't heard him say it so I can't know for sure.
Dave
Yes, there's a tremendous lack of respect out here in Cyberspace. I hear it all the time, even from Dave Winer when he talks about Al Gore.
From: Arlen.P.Walker@jci.com (Walker, Arlen P);
Sent at 9/10/97; 2:11:31 PM;
Respect and a pair of DavesThe Internet has a chaotic, anarchic tradition, and it's that very tradition which has fostered the growing lack of respect and civility. Some individuals are willing to show respect even in an unstructured environment. Some are not. The larger the grouping, the greater the number of people in both camps. If we want to keep the anarchy, we have to put up with the loss of respect. It's a choice we all must make. As we choose, we should remember that while the Truth is not always civil, it is rarely found without civility. Truth, spoken disrespectfully, will be resisted rather than heard. And what does it say about your respect for Truth if you present it in a manner that drives people away, not welcomes them to it?
As for the Dave's: Mr Nagel, you should ask yourself a question in response to the one you asked Dave Winer. (Why should Apple work with Winer when he criticizes them?) Is Apple Computer a cause, which should only be served by the ethnically pure (cloners that only make MacOS systems and offer them only for sale to non-Apple customers, and developers that only develop for Apple and sit quietly at Apple's heel) or is it a company, that doesn't care as much about what your ideology is as it does about helping you get where you need to be? Yes, choirs of developers all singing from the same hymnal would be glorious. But it doesn't happen. People are different. Anytime I see a roomful of developers all agreeing that x is wonderful, I know a good many of them are lying, mouthing the words just to get something they think they need. If two people agree on everything, one of them is superfluous. And I don't believe in the existence of superfluous people.
There's an old proverb: Listen to your enemies, they'll tell you the truth about yourself. Sometimes your friends will, too, Mr. Nagel. But only if you've already made it clear your friendship doesn't depend upon only being toldthe good news. So, do you really only want to work with people who agree with you, or would you rather work with people who'll tell you when you're wrong? I know which *I'd* choose.
As for the Other Dave: I've disagreed with you, Mr. Winer, on many occasions, and sometimes even let you know about it. But I doubt I've ever disagreed more with you than when you wrote in A Request For Respect, "No one is wrong, ever." We all are, all too often. For my part, I know I rarely get through a day without being wrong about something. But the key to it all is that we all have a *right* be wrong, and there are very few of us (if any) who are wrong intentionally. It's those two facts which we keep losing track of, seemingly.
When someone takes a wrong turn and gets lost, we don't yell at them and call them stupid. We don't tell them what's wrong with the road they don't want to take. We give them directions back to the road they want to be on.
It's that simple. It's Nagel's job to tell Winer why he should be working with Apple. It's Winer's job to tell me why I should be working with his tools. It's Apple's job to tell me why my next machine (incidentally, to be purchased real soon now) should have their logo on it. A laundry list of "What's wrong with the other guy" won't cut it in any of these cases, even if successfully presented, and even if true. Nagel could convince Winer that MS is evil; that doesn't help to convince him that Apple is good. He might just stop developing for both. Likewise I could become convinced that every other web site management tool set was useless; that wouldn't mean I'd think Frontier was useful. And while I might be convinced that all sorts of things are wrong with Wintel (and I am, BTW) I still could just put the money back in the bank. Sales lost, nothing won. In politics negativity often works because the ballot is treated as an either-or proposition. But the truth about Real Life is that very few choices are either-or. In such an open-ended venue, the end result of negativity is we all lose.
Sorry about the length.
> No one is wrong, ever.
From: dtp@pluto.njcc.com (David T. Pierson);
Sent at 9/10/97; 2:27:08 PM;
Re:A Request for RespectIf no one is ever wrong, then the Mac "zealots" who flamed Jobs were not wrong in being rude and disrespectful. I understand that you want people to try to look at things from others' perspectives, but we can't pretend that no one is ever wrong. This idea can be very damaging. I heard a college professor on the radio say that many of his students are not willing to condemn the Holocaust, on the grounds that we can't judge the Nazis for doing what they did; i.e., no one is ever wrong. To be sure, you go on to say:
> Ric Ford screwed up.
which is to say he did something wrong. Understanding that people make mistakes or might have of different POV is good, but we don't need to gloss over the fact that some actions and some ideas are wrong.
Going further, there is a great cultural debate now ongoing, which pits relativism versus absolutism concerning the question, "What is Good, and what is not Good?" Many relativists have made the mistake that because people have different frames of reference, no one can answer the question. The absolutists respond that what is good is definite for all people. I think both these views are wrong. People can have different frames of reference, but that does not mean that we should throw out the question. Throwing out the question leads to moral chaos, or to the idea that everything is Good, which ultimately does not stand up. (Consider murder, rape, theft, etc.) So how do I answer the question? Very difficultly. A direct answer is so difficult because our cultural framework has forced us to use glasses with lenses corresponding to subjective and objective viewpoints, respectively. Many "relativists" take the subjective view, while absolutists take the objective view. However, I think Good transcends the division between subjects and objects. For those interested in the removing the glasses, I highly recommend Robert Pirsig's books: "Zen and the Art of Motorcyle Maintenance" and "Lila."
As always, thanks for DaveNet.
I really liked your piece this morning! It (like many of your others) really hit the spot. As I recall, this is not the first time that you have written about "Respect"; regardless, the message is the same. I don't agree with all things that you say, but I have a lot of respect for what you do say and keep reading without registering my disagreement (sounds like enough people already do this).
From: bruceb@cs.uidaho.edu (Bruce Bolden);
Sent at 9/10/97; 11:21:25 AM;
R-E-S-P-E-C-TLike many other Mac Developers/Users, I am a little (ok, a lot) confused about what Apple has been doing. In some ways, I don't miss being directly involved with Mac development. Before moving up here, I worked for a math software company in San Francisco (Prescience). Some days, I look back and wonder why we had a person spending so much time on OpenDoc and other things that Apple floated around. Good stuff, but they decided to kill it. Another story....
Apple's actions have hurt a lot of companies/individuals, but they have their view of the world---"Perspective". Interesting that "respect" is in "perspective". The two go together. I and most of the rest of the world don't have access to some of the information that Apple is using to make their decisions. Hopefully, there is some rationale for what they are doing (I respect the people regardless of what I think about their decisions).
Maybe Apple's "grand plan" will become clear in the not so distant future. Until then, I will sit back with the masses and wonder which way things are going (I would rather buy a new PowerPC running at 300+ MHz than a Pentium) until that time comes.
Keep it up!
Hello. My name is Chuck Conway and I am a Systems Analyst at California State University, Fresno. I have been reading and enjoying you articles for a few years now and think that you speak your heart in a way that is healthy, entertaining and informative.
From: chuckc@csufresno.edu (Chuck Conway);
Sent at 9/10/97; 10:17:52 AM;
Hello and DaveNet RemarksI too, am concerned with the way so many people think that using the Web to communicate gives them the right to treat others badly. I equate it to driving in a car and yelling at others from the "safe" enclosure of the vehicle. It's just not right. Respect for others ideas is the only way we can all truly grow.
Another concern is the religious fever that this platform war has taken. I purchased my first Mac in 1984 (128K/400K floppy/Word/Paint) and man was it cool back then. Today I write this email on a Micron running NT 4.0 while my Power Mac 8500/120 sits behind me playing some Real Audio radio station. Sure, I like the look and feel of OS8 better then NT4, but most of my current work is in Oracle Developer/2000 and it just doesn't run well on the Mac. Even though I am a long time Mac supporter (still have a Quadra and a Powerbook at home) I realize that NT has a lot to offer as well. Computers are just tools. Enjoy them. Have Fun.
I support your efforts and truly hope that others will step back and refrain from using email for personal attacks of character. Keep the DaveNet coming.
I just unsubscribed the DaveNet mailing list. Since these are such grim-seeming times for Mac Folks I thought I'd drop you a note telling you why.
From: FDrake3335@aol.com;
Sent at 9/10/97; 1:06:59 PM;
Re DaveNet MailIt's NOT IN A MILLION YEARS because I disagree with you! (Although I occasionally do. Hindsight makes fool of us all and you can put me at the head of that line.) In fact, I usually hit Scripting.com at least twice daily. It's SUCH a good place to get news and a fix on the zeitgeist of the day. The only function of DaveNet mail is to alert me that you've posted something (which I'd know in an hour or two anyway). Let's save bandwidth!
You're doing great! More of the same, please.
Your latest article stopped me in my tracks.
From: scottmd@cts.com (Scott M. Dickson);
Sent at 9/10/97; 10:07:00 AM;
Re: A Request for RespectIt brought home insights into the kind of communication medium the Web has become and how it impacts our (my) thinking. A lack of immediate information creates a huge sucking vacuum that demands to be filled. I think that's what Ric was attempting to do: posing questions that were on everyone's mind and filling in the answers with his best guesses. Why did this happen? Should (I mean this in the business sense, not the moral sense) Apple and Steve Jobs have recognized and filled the vacuum earlier to pre-empt all the negative reaction? With the speed of all this, how could they know?
I think all the nastiness you have seen in your e-mail is the "Information Superhighway" version of "road rage". Sitting alone connected only by wires, we are even more isolated from direct experience of each other than we are sitting in our car-shaped shells on the road. Rather than lash out with vehicular manoevers, we lash out with words. What we need in both cases is, as you say, respect. Can either system be improved to reinforce respect?
I don't know. Some people are just more restrained than others. That's the thought that stopped me in my tracks.
The venom was beginning to get really painful. I was starting to avoid scripting.com. Sad thing, since it's one of my very favorite places on the web.
From: mcg@halcyon.com (Michael C. Gilbert);
Sent at 9/10/97; 9:11:41 AM;
Thanks for the peacemakingThanks for your request for respect. We don't need to eat our own.
And thanks again for Frontier, without which I would not have been able to produce Nonprofit Online News http://www.gilbert.org/news/ or the Nonprofit SiteAnalyzer project http://www.gilbert.org/siteanalyzer.
I'll be there for DaveNet Live on September 30th, if you can squeeze me in.
From: apt@thornley.com (A.P. Thornley);
Sent at 9/10/97; 8:30:22 AM;
DaveNet Live! - RSVP>What would you like to discuss?
*A "public" Mac OS, independent from Apple
*Restoring/synthesizing serendipity in agent-assembled e-newspapers and other custom-built publications (sure they know what I want, but what if I don't know I want something till I see it? a lot of the value I get from the "dead-tree" edition of the Sunday NY Times comes from scanning articles which would never fit my "profile").