News and commentary from the cross-platform scripting community.
	Mail Starting 9/24/97

---

From: dwiner@well.com (Dave Winer);
Sent at ;
Re:"Transitions"

Interesting comments.

It's not clear how Apple defines itself these days, whether it's a software or hardware company, but I'd say it's good news if you're right and it's properly viewed as a hardware company.

We can sell hardware, and hardware companies can sell software. If we're not in the same business then win-wins are easy.

I love to take advantage of new features in hardware.

Dave

---

From: JEAMARO@us.oracle.com (JEAMARO.US.ORACLE.COM);
Sent at 9/24/97; 12:05:40 PM;
Transitions

I really enjoyed your article. I try to visit your site and Ric Ford's because I always learn something from them.

Your appeal to Apple on Mac OS and Rhapsody is very interesting. The only thing that I believe you miss is Apple's perception of itself. You are talking as a software developer. As a software developer all you arguments make sense.

Apple is NOT a software company. Apple is a hardware company. They make great software to make their hardware sale, not the other way around. In that sense Apple could not care less about what you are doing with your current box, because they do not make any money on your current box. They do not make any money if you upgrade applications, they do not make any money if you take an old mac and turn it into a web server.

It is that simple.

Yes, as a software company they would care about the transition. As a hardware company all they want is for you to buy a new computer to fill a particular need.

Web Star and others will live after rhapsody. Frontier will live after rhapsody. Because developers will bring it up to speed with the lastest version of Mac OS if it makes sense to.

So as long as Rhapsody can run Mac OS Apps, Mac OS server architectures will continue to thrive.

The decision to Make Rhapsody the server for Mac OS network computers is a decision based on the praticality of bringing Oracle software to Mac OS.

Rhapsody is Unix based. This makes it a lot easier to bring Oracle's products to it. ( I know I do porting at Oracle right now. )

It would be a lot more difficult to port that software from it current base to MacOS.

By the way, I do not read the leaves as you do. Rhapsody will be the server of choice for network computer installations, but not the only sanctioned server software. If you can develop server software that performs like your customers expect on Mac OS no one is holding you back.

And as far as we know Mac OS will be available in it current or better form for a while. Will Mac OS ever have premptive multitasking and protected memory, who knows. But you and others have demonstrated that this is not a requirement to develop useful software.

So my take so far is: Rhapsody is the Server on a "MacOS-Network Computer" environent.

Mac OS is still Mac OS for any other environment. I am sure that some entrepenurial soul may develop a Network Computer server that runs on MacOS. The opportunity is there, any takers?

PS I do not speak for ORACLE and have no knowledge of Applications being ported to Rhapsody. The ideas presented are following your comments about OracleWare.

---

From: dwiner@well.com (Dave Winer);
Sent at ;
Re: i'm puzzled by your stance

Ben:

I actually do trust Gates, to stay to his plan. I've watched them evolve their Embrace and Extend strategy. I have no doubts about the future of Windows NT. Lots of doubts about the Mac OS and even more doubts about Rhapsody.

Read the piece I did about OpenDoc last year for an idea. Reasoning processes for software developers (and users) follow the same basic lines as investors. Everything has to be right for a new platform to make it. Right now, at this point in time, from my point of view, Rhapsody doesn't have it.

Dave

---

From: ben@the2.cogs.com (Ben Greenfield);
Sent at 9/24/97; 11:53:20 AM;
i'm puzzled by your stance

hey dave,

i love frontier i use it everyday even if i don't go near a computer. you have built a wonderful tool so wonderful it can be used and expanded in ways you can't imagine, and it is free all it takes is time to learn.

what puzzles me is your reluctence to appreciate what rhapsody promises.

since i trust you so much and think you have great judgement and makes me want to understand where you see the shortcomings.

i don't see any shortcomings that don't exist in the wintel area.

you don't trust jobs.

do you trust gates?

freeing the macos.

moving that ephemeral thing that is an aspect of the Mac OS to a unix core.

seems like the first step to freeing it.

it at least creates the possibility of reducing brain cell burners by having a portable user interface.

anyway

i'm just trying to answer my own questions but if got a focused repsonse from you with insights it might help draw a picture.

thanks for everything

ben