Dude, you are so on the mark it is scary. I've been preaching the same defense for years, but never quite so succintly.

I've often used the analogy that MS is to software what the Japanese are to cars - they are experts at taking a bunch of good ideas invented by others, polishing the implementation, making them accessible to the masses, then mass marketing so the masses are bound to choose them. Bravo, capitalism at its best. Gives me an entire market economy to base my business in, along with thousands of other companies. How could that be a bad thing?

You're kidding, right? I don't see any similarity. The guy in the "users and groups" icon has a goatee.

$100?! If they were really clever they would steal MS' business strategy too and give it away for free.

See http://www.mackido.com/Interface/ui_history.html :

"Jobs was so hot on the concepts of UI, and the living Demos he say (sic), that he, later, negotiated a deal with Xerox. He gave Xerox a large sum of stock in Apple (worth Millions) if he could come back, and bring some programmers -- to inspire them more on the concepts of GUI. This was like a one-day tour. This was agreed to by Xerox."

That's a good point, Evan.

The way the word "steal" is thrown around is a bit confusing.

I think that most people simply mean "copy" when they say "steal," but "copy" doesn't have quite the sting that "steal" does.

If you side with Sun, then you might say that Sun "borrowed" or "extended" ideas found in other systems to come up with Java, whereas you might say that Microsoft "stole" when doing the same thing with C#.

It's all just spin - Changing the definition of a thing so that you can justify your actions. When "they" kill "our" people, it's "murder." When "we" kill "their" people, it's "justice."

I was gonna say soemthing about sticking it where the sun doesn't shine....but, anyways - that desktop looks like ass - they grabbed the UI from MS and the icons and gay window dressing from some sorry ass skin at deviantart.com. Or at least thats my take on it.

So it took a UI design that's been around for over 10 years now (Chicago was around long before Windows 05 shipped) and worked on it for years to make it their own? What I want to know is that if it crashes and core dumps, does it use the same blue background as Windows 2000?

As to "stealing" versus "modeling after" this is all about emotion, intent, and politics. An American citizen thinks of the battles in the Pacific during 1942 as World War II. A Japanese citizen thinks of these same battles as The Fifteen Years War. Same war, same battles, same outcome, but totally different views and definitions based on emotion, intent, and politics. Same thing applies here, except the Java people can never seem to make any point aside from "it's not Microsoft so it's good".

Watch for a copyright lawsuit within a year !

What is really funny is that there has been a window manager for Linux that emulates Windows XP for quite some time and it is called xpde (http://www.xpde.com/index.php). =)

that's what I personally love about Linux... the way the names of programs roll off your tongue... "xpde"... beautiful...
can someone tell me how to pronounce that?

I started trying to pronounce "xpde" to myself and gave up when I decided that it sounded to much like some sort of perversion.

Hmmm, xpde, must be something like [expede]... You know, like Qt translates to [cute]..
Now, as for Rory's brilliant rant: I totally agree. The Romans used to have this idea that the biggest achievement an artist can achieve, is to copy the work of a big-shot artist, and make it better. To me, that's just what Microsoft has been doing since year 1. Take good ideas, throw their brains at it, and make it excellent. Whereas in the Holy Warriors Against Microsoft Domination department, you all too often see people making stuff that's supposed to be "just like Microsofts, but Good, not Evil". (Yes, there are some gems out there, but let's face it: Linux just isn't a GUI-OS...)

I'll never understand open source naming and self-riteousness. I picked up a book on Linux to try to improve my skills, but never made it past this line in the book: "This book was written entirely with Open Source software: emacs, vi, LaTeX, CVS, Ghostview, xdvi, ps2pdf, xpdf, and dvipdf on Linux and OS X. Frankly we couldn't imagine writing something of this length and complexity in Word. Shudder." We are talking about a 500pg book, with a couple of pictures and a table of contents. The replaced Windows and Word with two OSes and eight programs, and claimed improved ease of use. WTF?

I might as well pimp myself out with a link to my orginal post: http://weblogs.asp.net/pscott/posts/8335.aspx

Oh for Pete's sake...this is just a ridiculous argument. Everyone steals from everyone, end of story. Microsoft is just more blatant about it. Folks get all worked up around this issue just to ignore the bigger problem at hand: innovation on the desktop has been nil since 1984, period. The Taskbar is not innovation, the Dock is not innovation and multiple desktops is not innovation. The new sidebar thingy in Longhorn isn't innovation either -- it's just a waste of space. Yes, MSFT does rip off folks, mostly Apple, but so what? MSFT's short-sightedness in doing this has only made the issues more glaring. Instead of defending or deriling MSFT, how about coming up with some innovative ideas that truly push user experience forward. Of course, I'll duck adding my two cents to what is innovation or give up some ideas, but isn't that a more interesting discussion? The other part is just plain boring...

ah... the memories... that may be my favorite comment ever, Phil...

Phil -

I've seen similar introductions, and felt the same way.

'Course, I never pictured it quite like this:

"...replaced Windows and Word with two OSes and eight programs, and claimed improved ease of use. WTF?"

Thanks for getting my morning off right :)

"In time for the holidays" ?? What the hell, does Sun think that universities give christmas presents to compsci students??

"More than two decades ago, Sun Microsystems developed its first
workstation for institutions of higher learning," Jonathan Schwartz,
executive vice president of Sun's Software Division, said. "Today, Sun
is as committed as it was on day one to partnering with universities
and research institutions to deliver the highest-quality technology.
The solution best suited for the academic environment is Sun's Java
Desktop System. It gives universities the opportunity to continue
pushing the envelope in research. Sun will also offer a very
aggressive pricing model just for the education market, just in time
for the holidays."

You're absolutely right about zealots and everything, but I don't see a lot of Windows in that screenshot. The windows are "ripoffs" of Nautilus (unless they're using Nautilus), and the taskbar is from GNOME. Unless you're referring to the naming of control panels and things like that, there's not much resemblance.

"...but I don't see a lot of Windows in that screenshot."

The Start menu, the task bar, the quick launch, and even the placement of the clock - These are all pretty Windowsish, as is the Minimize/Maximize/Close button set in the upper right-hand corner of each window. The icons being used also exhibit a marked resemblance to XP's icons.

If you follow the link to Sun's site, you'll see an image of the "Launch" menu in action, and it's a blatant rip-off of the Start menu.

I'm not saying that *everything* is ripped-off. Rather, I'm more concerned with why it's considered "OK" to rip-off Microsoft, but not OK for Microsoft to rip-off anybody else.

Although Microsoft has had some unquestionably unethical business tactics in the past, my main complaint about their products is the quality of their experience from a user standpoint. While I think that .NET has a lot going for it, I am regularly annoyed by Windows XP for technical and aesthetic reasons. Compared to the freedom of customization with Linux and other free operating systems, Windows seems deliberately limited to user access. This principle that the user does not really 'own' the software is something that has been part of (what I see as the) Microsoft business approach from the beginning. There is a lot to learn from Unix's approaches and I think that there is quite a bit of uneducated Unix-bashing here, apparently in response to galling examples of Microsoft-bashing from Unixites. But, honestly folks -- all the major operating systems could benefit from learning from each other. Learning is not stealing.

SoClose - would desktop innovations include the hasn't-quite-taken-off-yet mouse gesture idea, or is that just plain crap?

i'm not digging at you. I'm just want to hear the opinion of an expert. :)

chrootstrap -

"Compared to the freedom of customization with Linux and other free operating systems,
Windows seems deliberately limited to user access."

It is a very different world, true. But, I think it has to do with the fact that MS has to provide for everybody from developers/sysadmins to, for example, people who know next to nothing about PCs. Keeping a tight grip on what can and cannot happen is one way to prevent things from going totally haywire, especially considering the wide range of hardware Windows must support.

Apple does the same thing with OS X, except that Apple's control is even tighter. I learned that in my tech support call last week. The OS is more open, but Apple doesn't provide tech support for the sorts of activities that might take advantage of that openness - The whole command-line portion of OS X doesn't even exist in the eyes of the support staff. They *will not* touch your problem if it doesn't involve some officially sanctioned Apple product/process - They see "MacOS" and not "Unix."

So, even with an OS that's more open, like OS X, your average end user still won't realistically be able to take advantage of all that's offerred.

For a so-called "power user," though, I think that Windows, OS X, and other various *nix systems have much to offer. Joe and Jane User, however, do not only not need the freedom, but might actually suffer for it.

You're exceptionally smart - I've seen you in action both in code and in conversation, and it would be a little unfair to compare the ease with which you tackle mental obstacles with the abilities of the other 99% of the population. It's not an egalitarian world, and you just happened to have been born with one hell of a brain...

"...I think that there is quite a bit of uneducated Unix-bashing here, apparently in response to galling examples of Microsoft-bashing from Unixites."

This much is true - Ever since I was called a Microsoft "dittohead" blogger, I must admit that I've been a little touchy about the debate. I obviously have a preference (MS), but it doesn't mean that I hate everything else, and I've resented the implication that I'm a blind devotee of one company.

That's why, if you go back and look at the "bashing" I've done, quite a bit of it has been from the point of view of "We're *all* guilty of this - not just the MS crowd." I've lost my temper at times, but that's because I get a little passionate about this stuff.

"But, honestly folks -- all the major operating systems could benefit from learning from each other. Learning is not stealing."

Right - Learning and stealing are two different things, but if you combine them, you might just get "progress."

Making sausage isn't pretty :)

Nobody noticed icon for mouse in 'Hardware' window?

It is exact same Microsoft IntelliMouse I have on my desk :) Tell about irony :)

I'm sorry if I appeared to be singling anyone out and I shouldn't have used the term, 'uneducated'. There is tonnes of MS, Linux, and Mac bashing going on all over the place and I think its tiresome. The main thing I like about open software more than closed stuff is if there is something that bugs me, I can take responsibility to fix it. One thing that has really pleased me is that the .NET SDK is free to use. I think that is just plain swell! :) Being able to use a computer and explore what it can do is more important to me than if this particular driver works in this particular way. In the older days, lots of people learned basic simply because it was on their machines. I think one of the greatest advantages of free software is having a high quality compiler and lots of languages without having to pay thousands of dollars (as opposed to Sun, IBM, etc as well as Microsoft). .NET, Java, GCC, these are all good things, imho.

I don't read your blog anymore Rory but whenever you go into an anti-Sun rant some .NET Weblogger links to you. There's too much venom in your blog for me.

Anyway, I didn't see anywhere on Sun's site that they claim that they are innovating with the Java Desktop. They're just providing yet another Linux distrubution and Sun Marketing stupidly put "Java" on it. Sun is playing around with packaging Java to gain more revenue. Definitely nothing wrong or innovative about that. For $50, the distro is a pretty good deal. A comparable Windows installation with Office costs a lot more.

The reason people talk about Microsoft's lack of innovation so much is because Microsoft so frequently claims to being innovative. Check out the letters to the editor of the latest Newsweek magazine: http://www.msnbc.com/news/998984.asp?cp1=1. If Microsoft would stop making those claims there wouldn't be so much derision.

Defending Microsoft by attacking Sun on this silly desktop thing isn't productive and just reinforces the Microsoft dittohead label. A better defense would be to specifically point out areas where Microsoft has innovated. That would be productive and could end all the bickering (on that subject at least). But I won't tell you how to debate; go ahead and criticize Sun, Java, Linux, etc. any way you want. After the trial somebody asked Bill Gates about Microsoft's innovation and he said something about voice recognition and standards (couldn't find the actual quote maybe somebody else can?). No comment needed on that, eh?

And notice not once did I call anyone a dickhead or make a hateful comment.

Ta ta until another rant I guess.

"Defending Microsoft by attacking Sun on this silly desktop thing isn't productive and just reinforces the Microsoft dittohead label."

I wasn't defending Microsoft.

I was pointing out that *everybody* is guilty of "stealing." This post wasn't about MS vs. Sun, but rather about the one-sided public nerd perception of MS as a technology thief.

"A better defense would be to specifically point out areas where Microsoft has innovated."

Again, the post had nothing at all to do with whether or not MS innovates. I think they do, but I also think they "steal" - *Just like every other company*.

My point is that MS shouldn't be singled out when *everybody* is "guilty."

T.S. Eliot once wrote a great essay on how nobody ever has an original idea. I wish I had a copy I could link to. It was a very fine bit of work. He was talking about poetry (Eliot stole in great heaping gobs from other poets), but the discussion was pretty similar.

I think I'll go look for that essay, actually. He was, on an order of magnitude, a better writer than I am, and did a brilliant job of expressing what I'm feeling right now.

"Anyway, I didn't see anywhere on Sun's site that they claim that they are innovating with the Java Desktop."

I didn't see anywhere on my site where I was claiming that Sun was claiming that.

::shrug::

This is some pretty typical stuff in the sense that you're arguing against my post, but you're counterpoints aren't countering anything I wrote - You're just making stuff up.

I'm pretty used to that, though.

"I don't read your blog anymore Rory but whenever you go into an anti-Sun rant some .NET Weblogger links to you."

Judging from your "response" to my post, I certainly do believe that you aren't reading my blog. I don't know what you tried to respond to here, but it definitely isn't anything *I* wrote.

"And notice not once did I call anyone a dickhead or make a hateful comment."

::double shrug::

I care about this stuff, and I tend to get a bit heated. I do honestly try to keep from attacking people, but I sometimes get pushed over the edge and respond appropriately - the one time I got *really* bad was in response to a troll who was calling himself "JRE" - going back and reading his comments, you'd be hard pressed to convince me that he wasn't asking for it.

That's part of what having a blog is about, though. If I were writing for someone else, I'd bite my tongue, but I'm not doing that right now, and nobody's forcing anybody to read what I'm writing.

If you hear a song on the radio that you don't like, do you turn the radio up?

"One of the surest of tests is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different from that from which it was torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion."

The latest Microsoft rant, is that they took Mozilla (Netscape) XUL concept for Avalon (XAML), "This is true, and I know it's true". How sad, its bad enough you killed their browser by giving it away FOR FREE (Linux Anyone?) when they were making good money selling it, now your after their latest innovation. Frankly I don't care, as long as its reciprocal, so now if the MONO program clones .NET -- "SO WHAT"; Linux too needs to make sure it can provide an upgrade path for Windows CONVERTS be it the Start button, Visual Studio, or Office. At the end of the day, as long as you are willing to give back to the scientific community after all, this only came from "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants (JAVA)". So I was very pleased that Microsoft gave the CLR/C# to a standards organization so we can use it royalty free. But what bothers me now is when Bill Gates then goes onto say that cloning .NET without even looking at the code may still result in patent violations, since they submitted the whole API as one large patent is not fair. So its perfectly OK for us (Microsoft) to do it, but we are going to scare the shit out of anyone else who does?

http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=43532
"There's no question that in cloning activities, IP from many, many companies, including Microsoft, is being used in open-source software," Gates said. "When people clone things, that often becomes unavoidable." - Bill Gates
In Star Trek speak, the above line translates to "Resistance is Futile" - hence the Borg Gates.

I see a SCO type tactic coming up with MONO as soon as it becomes successful, and companies use it to bypass Microsoft licensing on servers. So when comments like that appear, its why the open source community gets very vigilant when it comes to new technology by Microsoft, we need to prove that 'prior art' exists so we don't relinquish any new upcoming technology to Microsoft's patent portfolio.

Rory - I think it's time to start smacking people around with a couple Timex Sinclair's again.

To the people that are debating the age old debate:

- FACT: The new Sun OS looks like Windows. Why? Because people are used to using it.

- FACT: Sun has bitched about Microsoft stealing technology and killing innovation yet they have sadly opted to not innovate their OS plans.

- FACT: Microsoft can't steal from Sun this time, because they've had this UI for almost 10 years now.

- FACT: Sun makes Unix based OS's. Micrsoft doesn't. Both can be at the top of their class in co-existance.

- FACT: SCO will sue both sides of this argument for using the term Linux without paying them royalties

- CONCLUSION: Savor the irony and get on with life.

Gary -

"The latest Microsoft rant, is that they took Mozilla (Netscape) XUL concept for Avalon (XAML), "This is true, and I know it's true". How sad, its bad enough you killed their browser by giving it away FOR FREE (Linux Anyone?) when they were making good money selling it, now your after their latest innovation."

What was the "latest" innovation? A UI markup language? There's a pretty popular one that's been around for a while now that predates everything we're talking about here.

"Frankly I don't care, as long as its reciprocal, so now if the MONO program clones .NET -- 'SO WHAT'; Linux too needs to make sure it can provide an upgrade path for Windows CONVERTS be it the Start button, Visual Studio, or Office."

I agree that it's in the interest of those who would profit from Linux to provide a migration path from Windows. Of course, this is true for migrating from *any* platform to another.

Also, just so that it's perfectly clear, I'm excited about Mono :)

"At the end of the day, as long as you are willing to give back to the scientific community"

I think that the developer community is many things, but "scientific" isn't one of them.

"But what bothers me now is when Bill Gates then goes onto say that cloning .NET without even looking at the code may still result in patent violations"

Well, think about it from Bill Gates' position: It would bother *him* to just give away this technology in which MS has invested some major cash.

Microsoft is a *business* and has every right to protect its investments.

You don't see the Coca-Cola company giving away the recipe for Coke, do you?

"...since they submitted the whole API as one large patent is not fair."

Not fair according to *what*? They produced the work, and they're going to do whatever they can to protect it. They're taking reasonable, legal actions to do so.

Some people think that the manner in which the GPL works is "not fair."

Anyway, "fair" is irrelevant. The rules are written by the people who do the work - There's no objective rule by which we can judge whether or not this is "fair."

"So its perfectly OK for us (Microsoft) to do it, but we are going to scare the shit out of anyone else who does?"

"Perfectly OK" for Microsoft to do *what*? Protect its investment and go after people who want to undermine those efforts?

"I see a SCO type tactic coming up with MONO as soon as it becomes successful, and companies use it to bypass Microsoft licensing on servers."

I don't claim to have the kind of foresight to be able to determine what's going to happen to Mono, but I'll say this: If what you're saying is right, then I'd be sad about it, but I'd also completely understand.

Just because you don't *like* what might happen doesn't mean that it's unfair.

"So when comments like that appear, its why the open source community gets very vigilant when it comes to new technology by Microsoft, we need to prove that 'prior art' exists so we don't relinquish any new upcoming technology to Microsoft's patent portfolio."

If you don't want to worry about MS coming after you, then don't violate MS's patents.

There's nothing unusual about this - Replace "MS" with any other company's name, and the statement will make just as much sense.

*Nobody* gets into business to lose money, and MS is just particularly good at not losing the stuff.

This all fits back in with my original reason for writing this post: What MS is doing is *nothing special* - MS does what other companies do. The main difference is that MS does it rather well.

Hey Rory, check out the suggestions for your man Jacko's new CD: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/music/B0000DJE9R/advice/103-9282456-7457459

And to stay on topic, this is why I'm careful what I post. I'll take a "playful" jab at Microsoft, and get the usual no comments on the post. I take the same playful jab at a Sun/Java/Linux/MySQL and people come out of the woodwork to call me Steve Ballmer's own personal boy toy, and start e-mailing my mom and telling her she raised one stupid bastard for a son (That didn't happen actually (the e-mail, not the raising a son who is a stupid bastard)).

Once person even e-mailed me once and told me that ASP.NET sucks ass because my old weblog looked bad in Konqueror and that PERL and MySQL is therefor much better. WTF?

More and more arguing with Linux or Java zealots is like when the Jahova's witnesses come to your door. You know they mean kinda well, they just want you to get into heaven and all that. But they got the facts one off, and are really just going with what the watchtower (or slashdot (the linux people = slashdot (a Jehova's witness could read Slashdot of course (unless it involves a blood transfusion (does it require a blood transfusion?))))) told them was the truth. They can point out minute facts that are about 95% true or the way the word them can't be disputed, and at that point either you have to bust out your bible to argue with them, or become a Jehova's Witness yourself. Either way, it's a pain in the ass to deal with, you are happy with the choices you've made so far, and honestly being a bastard and banging on my door while I'm trying to fornicate with my girlfriend is not the best way to convert me, and even if you did I certainly wouldn't be a model citizen, you know with the fornication and the such.

I mean nothing personal against anyone by this post of course (except michael jackson, sorry Rory).

The innovation, friends, is that tiny stack-o-boxes icon between the camera and phone. That's a nice thing to have! :)

>"...since they submitted the whole API as one large patent is not fair."

>Not fair according to *what*? They produced the work, and they're going to do whatever they can to protect it. They're taking reasonable, legal actions to do so. "

I think that's awful. They're promoting the openness of .NET, but by 'patenting' the API they completely cripple any unlicensed implementation of it. I think that that would a really rotten thing for them to do and I hope that they don't do it. I would not use .NET out of protest if they did.

For what its worth, I don't think they can patent an API any more than they can patent a reference manual. They would own a copyright on their API, but if someone developed an implementation that fit it I don't believe they could stop it any more than if they could stop me from making my own implementation of one of their system calls. Of course, this is a company that wants patent licensing for short-to-longname FAT munging at 25 cents a device! (Interesting to me because we are doing homebrew FAT stuff at work right now)

"I think that's awful. They're promoting the openness of .NET, but by 'patenting' the API they completely cripple any unlicensed implementation of it."

That's not entirely true - Patenting something and *enforcing* that patent are two entirely different things.

Plus, there might be quite a few slippery issues. I'd be pretty surprised if a patent on an API could even be enforced.

"I think that that would a really rotten thing for them to do and I hope that they don't do it. I would not use .NET out of protest if they did."

I think it would be a fairly reasonable thing for a company of 55,000 to do. It might not be very "cool," but they have to protect their investments.

"For what its worth, I don't think they can patent an API any more than they can patent a reference manual."

That's something I agree with, and I wish I knew more about it. All I have to go on at the moment is a gut feeling.

"Of course, this is a company that wants patent licensing for short-to-longname FAT munging at 25 cents a device!"

Going back to my argument concerning pointing fingers at MS and nobody else, I'd have to ask you how this makes MS different from other companies that hold and enforce patents - As far as I can tell, this is just another company making use of the patent system.

If we had a "Pepsi Taste Test" of corporate behavior, you'd have a hard time picking MS out from other companies. Patent enforcement? "Theft" of ideas? Buying competitors and trying to crush the competition? This is all par for the course. Sun, Oracle, Nabisco, Topps, Ford, Sony, Kleenex - It's all the same thing.

I'm not arguing that it's good or bad, but simply that MS isn't the only company out there engaging in the type of behavior one would expect of a company.

> I think [patenting/enforcing .NET's API] would be a fairly reasonable thing for a company of 55,000 to do. It might not be very "cool," but they have to protect their investments.

It has nothing to do with 'cool' and it has everything to do with whether they are honest and reputable. They have been advertising .NET as an 'open', 'standards-based' system which can interoperate on multiple platforms. They had the C# language made an open international standard. If they suddenly pull the rug out of other implementations of .NET they are betraying the supposed 'openness' of the system. It is neither in coordination with their interplatform business plan nor is it necessary to protect their investments, as the .NET SDK is a free product. The main reason I could see them doing it would be to stop Linux with Mono from being an effective competitor as a cheaper server alternative for ASP.NET code. They are simply liars about being open if this is their intentions. The 'like every other company' argument isn't sufficient if you compare it with free software, which has largely tended to be very ethically developed and licensed.

As for FAT licensing, the 4 patents are from 1995-1997 and are just being enforced now to get money from the solid-state memory card companies. It's for munging longfiles to short and is simplicitic to an extreme. Just because there are many companies out there abusing the patent laws doesn't cause me to forgive a company when they do.

I am arguing that it is bad and that, while Microsoft might not be much worse than other, similar companies in these regards, they are considerably worse than the free software ideals. And, that matters to me.

For one. Xerox GAVE thier ID to Apple, A stupid idea, but hardly true theft. They just didn't realize the power, and Apple did.

Microsoft steals from everyone, and if they can't they buy them out. Look @ the Longhorn Pre-release screens, smells strangely like the brushed metal in OS X.

Gates also stold CFM and GEM (correct me if I got these names wrong) from a guy way back in the day. First he stole CFM and made DOS, then stole GEM and made Windows. At the release of Windows 1, GEM was far superior, in everything except for marketing. Gates somehow convinced everyone to wait for Windows 2, and in the meantime kileld of GEM, which led to the poor creators suicide. Imagine coming up with DOS and then Windows and have them both stolen by the same man.

Microsoft has been using these same cut throat tactics for years, and it is unlikely to stop. Not to say that other companies don't do the same, but they tend to do it the most.

Sun steals and tries to make things only work for them, of course, but this OS reeks of GNOME and KDE as much as windows. Why doesn't anyone mention that?

Then there is Apple. They use similar tactics all the time as well. For one they "convinced" Xerox to give them their UI, and they also buy out companies to help save their ship. Examples of this are Logic Audio and Final Cut Pro. The difference between Apple and Microsoft here is that Apple doesn't hold 80%+ of the market share, and doesn't tend to take small business owners and hang them out to dry.

Don't tell me that everyone makes these arguments, and so what. They have their basis, and most of them are usually true, just skewed to one side or another. It's the people that deny the wrongdoings of one company just to support another, that really irk me.

I appreciate that you brought up the fact that everyone does it, but you left out the fact that Microsoft does it worse.

Actually, Sun can do MUCH better than the Java Desktop. Check this out:
http://wwws.sun.com/software/images/products/I1_JS_creator_lg.jpg

@Raj - Great. That looks like a clone VS.NET's IDE. One less innovation for the world.

Of course if they could just get Forte/SunONE to stop crashing every 14 minutes, it would be better than a new IDE.

"Gates also stold CFM and GEM (correct me if I got these names wrong) from a guy way back in the day. First he stole CFM and made DOS, then stole GEM and made Windows. At the release of Windows 1, GEM was far superior, in everything except for marketing. Gates somehow convinced everyone to wait for Windows 2, and in the meantime kileld of GEM, which led to the poor creators suicide. Imagine coming up with DOS and then Windows and have them both stolen by the same man. "

Wow. That's an interesting take on the life and death of Gary Kildall.

CPM is what you meant, not CFM, and, while I'm all for giving props to Kildall for his brilliance, coming as I do from the ancient world of DEC machines CPM always looked to me to be simply a clone of their PDP-11 operating systems. I'm perfectly willing to believe Kildall wrote CPM without copying it from the DEC source (which was supplied with every installation of the OS) but nevertheless it was simply a rework of the existing OS's coded to run on an 8080.

And while I've heard numerous explanations of Kildall's death (he died from head injuries, but how they were sustained remains clouded, I've heard everything from falling off a ladder to a bar fight) suicide is a new one for me.

As for the rest, perhaps it'd interest you to know that Gates actually told IBM to go to Kildall and use CPM as the OS for their new PC. It was only after IBM and DRI (Kildall's company) couldn't come to a satisfactory arrangement for using CPM that IBM went back to Gates for the OS. Gates then went out and bought QDOS from SCP, and Kildall's moment had passed.

QDOS, while similar to CPM, was developed in a manner consistent with today's "clean room" cloning. Patterson didn't use CPM source code, but rather the published CPM user's documentation; he copied function, not code, which is to say he created an OS where the same command did the same function, but he wrote the code to perform that function without reference to the original code. Also, it had less features and commands than the original CPM.

BTW, when DRI finally got off the dime and created CPM-86 for the PC, IBM sold both PC-DOS and CPM-86 as options for the machines; you could have either OS on any machine, your choice. Alas, people voted for PC-DOS with their pocketbooks, because DRI insisted on a far higher price for CPM-86; it did substantially more than DOS, true, but evidently the market didn't think it did enough more to justify DRI's higher price.

Hey, I'm no MS fan (I have MS stuff around simply for testing -- I'm a web designer) but I believe in accuracy. The fact that MS steals (or borrows, use your own term of choice) from other companies doesn't bother me that much. We *all* borrow from what we see around us. It's just that after MS borrows it, they often claim to have invented it. The dishonesty about it is what bugs me, not the act itself. If they said things like "Yeah, we thought that toolbar feature in the Full Impact spreadsheet was so cool we decided to implement one in Excel as well" I'd be fine with it.

Arlen -

Thanks, in spite of your not being a big MS fan, for a nice, lucid explanation of what happened.

I'm getting finger cramps from typing so much, and you did a much better job than I could have of refuting Morph's arguments point by point.

I would have had to go back, pull out "Fire in the Valley" (again), read a few chapters, and then attempt to distill the information inside into a few compact paragraphs.

Because you did it, I'm going to have time to brush my teeth and eat breakfast this morning :)

I always thought that Win95 looked much more like the NeXT/OpenStep UI than it did the Mac UI.

chrootstrap -

"They have been advertising .NET as an 'open', 'standards-based' system which can interoperate on multiple platforms."

If you change that to "interoperate *with* multiple platforms," then you'd have something closer to what's being said.

I think that the only multi-platform claim that's been made concerning *where* .NET will run is that it will run on Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP, 2003, CE, and Longhorn.

While not immediately *clear* (most of us would think of "multi-platform" in a rather different way), there's certainly nothing *dishonest* about it.

"If they suddenly pull the rug out of other implementations of .NET they are betraying the supposed 'openness' of the system."

They'd be betraying *your* idea of openness. You have to remember that this is MS, that MS is still a rather large company with much to protect, and that when it *does* change the way it does things, those changes don't happen overnight, and will be done in a fairly conservative manner. There is a *lot* at stake for the company. "Open" to an OSS developer isn't really what "open" is to an MS developer.

The "openness" of MS has more to do with things like Word ML, web services standards, and so on. "Open" in this case doesn't mean "free" or "take our idea and turn it into whatever you want."

And why should it? MS doesn't owe anybody anything.

If you choose to walk away from .NET because you don't like the way the .NET world is structured, then that's your perfectly reasonable choice. However, going *to* .NET, wanting it to fit with what *you* want it to be, and then getting upset upon realizing that it isn't those things, isn't very reasonable.

I personally think .NET is something worth paying for. I love it. I'll continue to use it.

If you feel differently, then then I can *totally* understand, but you have to remember that you're dealing with a company - not a collective. However you feel about companies and capitalism, MS has responsibilities to its employees and investors.

You don't want to have to send 55,000 people packing because you decided that it would be a good idea to allow your main competitors to offer your main technology to your clients for free. It just doesn't make any sense.

I'm sorry, Rory, but I don't believe that, in this day and age, 'openness' and 'standards' should be touted when they just mean, 'within our exclusive product line'. There are thousands of companies who are actually doing things that are open who are not jepordazing their business, contrary to whatever FUD SCO has ready Today. Examples of open designs are OpenSTEP, OpenGL, JCL, the standard C and C++ libraries, and so on. Because adoption of the technology is considered valuable (which really should be the case for a multiplatform product), widespread adaptation is encouraged. Instead of Sun having to make a Java library for every OS under the sun, they can support a few with a canonical, reference version and IBM, GNU, and others can come up with the rest. Microsoft should not be misusing the widely understood meaning of 'open' in the software industry. There is nothing to say they can't make THEIR version of .NET the fastest, most bug-free version and that people won't flock to it. But, if they instead choose to just attack whatever competition exists until the competition is dead, we will end up with a product that has stopped innovation and serious improvement a la Internet Explorer. If Microsoft was as concerned with innovation as destroying their competition through whatever means, they would be a far better software company then they are.

Dom -

"I'm sorry, Rory, but I don't believe that, in this day and age, 'openness' and 'standards' should be touted when they just mean, 'within our exclusive product line'."

My comment might have been unclear, but I didn't say that, to Microsoft, "openness" and "standards" meant "within our exclusive product line."

I said that MS's idea of multi-platform is supporting all the different flavors of Windows.

I also said that, for MS, "openness" has more to do with supporting things like Word ML and web services standards.

I think you're mixing my take on MS's idea of "multi-platform" with my take on MS's idea of "open."

Whether or not we agree with any of what the other is saying, I'd at least like to keep the arguments distinct.

"Because adoption of the technology is considered valuable (which really should be the case for a multiplatform product), widespread adaptation is encouraged."

I totally agree with this, but we have to get back to what MS considers to be multi-platform (which isn't actually an incorrect notion of multi-platform).

For MS, "widespread" deployment within the Windows product line would mean success.

"Microsoft should not be misusing the widely understood meaning of 'open' in the software industry."

MS claims to support open standards with .NET, which isn't the same thing as saying that .NET itself is open.

We might not be reading the same literature here - If you could point me to some claims made by MS (preferably on one of its own sites) that you consider to be somehow misleading or false, then I think we could probably make more progress in this discussion.

From Microsoft's .NET FAQ with all-caps emphasization by me: ( http://www.microsoft.com/net/basics/faq.asp )
".NET technology enables the creation and use of XML-based applications, processes, and websites as services that share and combine information and functionality with each other by design, ON ANY PLATFORM OR SMART DEVICE, to provide tailored solutions for organizations and individual people."

In response to concern, "Competing proprietary software technologies make integration difficult":
"Microsoft .NET is built on OPEN STANDARDS and embraces ALL programming languages."

C# and the CLI have subject to ECMA standardization as seen at http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/ecma/. Fujitsu, HP, Intel, IBM, Netscape, and Sun all worked on the specification with them. Mono is based on these publishes definitions which include a full description of the CLI libraries. You can download them and see for yourself at the aforementioned like (particularly the Class Library XML its detailed specifications). Pretty much everything in System.* is covered.

If Microsoft changed the rules of the game by enforcing patents to block the implementation of this standard it would be completely dishonest. Imagine if W3C all of sudden wanted a $1 licensing fee for anything using XML because they claim a patent on it.

If they seriously think they can or should do this, then that is ample evidence in itself why free software is superior, at least ideologically, to this proprietary shtuff.

".NET technology enables the creation and use of XML-based applications, processes, and websites as services that share and combine information and functionality with each other by design, ON ANY PLATFORM OR SMART DEVICE, to provide tailored solutions for organizations and individual people."

This doesn't mean that .NET runs on any platform - It means that .NET will interoperate with other platforms.

"[S]hare and combine information and functionality with each other by design, on any platform or smart device..."

The key words here are "share," "combine," "services," and "information." The idea is that a .NET app could act as an information provider for an app running on an entirely different platform.

For example, before there was a way of creating native .NET apps for PocketPCs, you could serve a .NET based web app to a PocketPC running a web browser - That's the kind of multi-platform work we're talking about here.

"Microsoft .NET is built on OPEN STANDARDS and embraces ALL programming languages."

The first half of the sentence is in reference to the XML goop in .NET, and the second half doesn't make any claim that .NET doesn't fulfill. "Embrace" doesn't mean that you can just write a .NET app in your favorite language today - It means that you *could* do it if someone provided the .NET implementation of your language of choice.

"C# and the CLI have subject to ECMA standardization... Mono is based on these publishes definitions which include a full description of the CLI libraries... Pretty much everything in System.* is covered."

The statement that "Pretty much everything in System.* is covered" is just plain wrong. The CLI does *not* represent "Pretty much everything in System.*."

MONO has gone beyond the CLI with its implementation.

"If Microsoft changed the rules of the game by enforcing patents to block the implementation of this standard it would be completely dishonest."

I think that the problem here is a misunderstanding of what's what here.

The CLI isn't the full-blown .NET framework.

"If they seriously think they can or should do this..."

As I stated, I think there was a misunderstanding.

"...then that is ample evidence in itself why free software is superior, at least ideologically, to this proprietary shtuff."

I don't see why. If MS wants to create something and retain ownership/control of that thing, then I don't see what the problem is. It only affects "free" software to the extent that "free" software involves itself with "this proprietary shtuff."

In other words, if somebody wants to copy .NET, then that somebody ought to be willing to work according to the rules set out by MS.

This is the way the GPL works, too. If I wanted to make use of a GPL'd project, then you would expect me to respect the GPL, right?

OK, this screenshot <i>is</i> of the GNOME desktop. Perhaps this Sun Java Desktop nonsense is a hack of GNOME, but this GNOME stuff has been around for years. All GUIs today are almost identical from a functionality standpoint, leaving no reason for debate. We can talk about which one looks prettier or which is laid out more efficiently, but ultimately there is little to no difference.

I am surprised that you didn't check the links and see that the ECMA documents included what was in System.* I downloaded and viewed them and saw this to be case. The language, the compiled format, and the base libraries are all published open standards. You can see it for yourself if you don't believe me.

They are clearly doing this to promote the openness and standization of their system. Therein lies the problem of the application of their 'rules'. But, I really appreciate what you've said because it helps me to see how Microsoft could twist around actually being open and standardized. The closer I look at the meaningless of something like 'embrace all languages' (.NET certainly cannot implement all languages), the more galling I find it.

Apparently, you believe that .NET is far less open then say, Java. It is basically just a Windows-only system that exploits the 'openness' of XML, SOAP, etc. XML is just a data-container -- you are free to put all the binary, proprietary format crud in there that you want. How much greater it is than Java, Smalltalk, Python, Ocaml or many other byte-code based is questionable. It looks much less impressive to me when I see that its just a way to tie people to an operating system vendor even as the very VM it runs would allow a person to not have to be concerned with the platform. In that way, it falls flat compared to other environments.

There is a world where the authors of software do not mislead, betray, or exploit their customers and partners. There is a community that survives by sharing, helping each other, and adding to a common, useful corpus of work. It is a remarkable testament to the ingenuity, generosity, and civility of humanity. Long live free software!

>What was the "latest" innovation? A UI markup language? There's a
>pretty popular one that's been around for a while now that
>predates everything we're talking about here.

Yes, you can say its derived from HTML, but the point of my
reply is that for the open source community, we need to make
sure no avenue gets blocked, in case we too feel we need to
develop in the same direction.

> Also, just so that it's perfectly clear, I'm excited about Mono :)

Well I also back and support Java too, hopefully Sun will let RedHat create an
open source version, and its good that they let jBoss do the enterprise tests.


>>"At the end of the day, as long as you are willing to give back to the scientific community"
> I think that the developer community is many things, but "scientific" isn't one of them.

Run time architecture, OS theory - time splicing schedulers, Compilers,
etc, papers written by the academic community, that are the building blocks
of modern OS's. I'm referring to basic research, building blocks, which would
benefit everyone.


>Microsoft is a *business* and has every right to protect its investments.
>You don't see the Coca-Cola company giving away the recipe for Coke, do you?

Has coke sued Pepsi for making a similar soft drink? And they didn't
need the recipe either. Which is my point, I'm all for innovating and
improving on each others work, so we all benefit be it if one person's
principle is to make money, or anothers is to have an open architecture
available for anyone to innovate from - instead of rebuilding everything.


>> "...since they submitted the whole API as one large patent is not fair."

>> Not fair according to *what*? They produced the work, and they're
>> going to do whatever they can to protect it. They're taking reasonable,
>> legal actions to do so.

Just another thing you have to worry about, Microsoft is Evil, but the
United States Patent Office is even more Evil. I'm not here backing up
some idiots rant about why he hates Microsoft, I'm discussing things that
are a concern to me for Linux and other open source projects. In these
highly litigious times all developers have to watch their backs when it
comes to frivolous patents. Even MS is getting screwed with the Eola
patent, which personally I think has as much innovation as Amazon's
one click patent. The U.S. patent office has already shown you can
patent whatever you want, so more power to them.

>> If you don't want to worry about MS coming after you,
>> then don't violate MS's patents.

I think Dvoark hit that one right on the head:

"What do I tell people who see this as a problem? I just tell them to
patent every idea they can and never produce any sort of product. It looks
impossible to develop anything in this environment except patents and lawsuits.
Yeah, like this is going to fix the economy."
- John C. Dvorak http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1236389,00.asp

Is that what you call progress and innovation?

My opinion is not to even look at the patent, chances are whatever
was done, could be traced back to prior art, also helps to document this as
you go and definitely keep all old implementations with verifiable dates, etc.


>> Some people think that the manner in which the GPL works is "not fair."

There is no gun pointed at anyones head that they must use Microsoft
products, nor is there one that they must use the GPL.


>>"Perfectly OK" for Microsoft to do *what*? Protect its investment and
>> go after people who want to undermine those efforts?

>> *Nobody* gets into business to lose money, and MS is just particularly
>> good at not losing the stuff.

>> This all fits back in with my original reason for writing this post:
>> What MS is doing is *nothing special* - MS does what other companies
>> do. The main difference is that MS does it rather well.

One can say the same thing about Eola or any other company. More power to them,
there is no free lunch in anything, including Linux, you think IBM backs Linux,
because all the suddenly they became tree huggers? Their making their money
on the services side, and having an open platform best fits into their
business plan.

Anyways I feel I'm drifting from the main point of my argument, they way I see
it, the open source model, is slowly but steadily continuing to rival commercial
offerings, and will eventually surpass them. These companies (Not just Microsoft)
have a lot to lose, so obviously they are going to put what hurdles they can
(AKA: Intellectual property) and the new battle ground isn't going to be
innovation, sadly its going to be litigation. So going forward, we must
document and keep track of all future code development. One is to prove
prior art, and second is to prove the authenticity of contributed code.
I'm not interested in bashing Microsoft or Bill Gates, personally I got a lot
of respect for the guy, especially his concern for fighting diseases in
third world countries.

Further more do you see Sun crying that they ripped us off with .NET, yet
at the same time you look at Microsoft documentation and it never mentions
Java when it comes to how .Net came into being, they usually just mention
'continuation of c++'. Obviously they aren't going to give any credit to
Sun, just like others in the open source community aren't going to give
credit to Microsoft - we each have our own agendas to follow.

"Perhaps this Sun Java Desktop nonsense is a hack of GNOME, but this GNOME stuff has been around for years."

Yeah - It's been around for years.

But not since 1995.

I'll let you determine the significance of that date on your own...

GNOME is a very advanced and innovative window mangager/desktop in its own right. Among the many APIs ( http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/ ) are graphics, database, XML, a powerful CORBA-based component system (allowing you to drag and drop fully functional COM-like widgets into your application), accessibility, fonts, etc. Compared to the pain of programming in MFC (which I recognize that .NET heals), it is also a joy to program in. It has had very advanced skinning functionality for years and the actual desktop can be customized in nearly every way. And, running on X-windows, you can seamlessly use applications over the network -- this has been a feature of X-windows since the beginning and is major blessing (With Xfree86-4.0, performance is sweet, too).

"I am surprised that you didn't check the links and see that the ECMA documents included what was in System.* I downloaded and viewed them and saw this to be case. The language, the compiled format, and the base libraries are all published open standards. You can see it for yourself if you don't believe me."

The base libraries do *not* comprise all that is the .NET framework.

ASP.NET, for example, is missing. However, it's implemented in Mono.

My point was that the Mono team knew this, and should be aware of the legal implications.

ASP.NET isn't all that's missing from the CLI, either. I'm aware of what's in the document, and was pointing out that there's quite a bit missing from the CLI that's being implemented in Mono.

"They are clearly doing this to promote the openness and standization of their system. Therein lies the problem of the application of their 'rules'. But, I really appreciate what you've said because it helps me to see how Microsoft could twist around actually being open and standardized."

I don't understand what's being twisted. A close look at the documentation is all you need to understand what's going on.

If there was some deception, then please let me know. Otherwise, your assumptions + reality != Microsoft twisting things around.

"The closer I look at the meaningless of something like 'embrace all languages' (.NET certainly cannot implement all languages), the more galling I find it."

::shrug::

It's marketing talk, and you'll find it at MS, Sun, Red Hat, etc...

"Apparently, you believe that .NET is far less open then say, Java."

I would agree with that. I *do* believe that.

I'm not bothered by it, though. I understood that when I began coding with .NET.

"It is basically just a Windows-only system that exploits the 'openness' of XML, SOAP, etc."

You can use a word like "exploits" to put a negative spin on it if you'd like. "Uses" makes more sense to me.

Anyway, that "exploitation" is quite a bit of what makes it possible for .NET to exist alongside systems from other vendors. I don't consider that to be a bad thing.

"There is a world where the authors of software do not mislead, betray, or exploit their customers and partners."

I've *never* been misled, betrayed, or "exploited" by MS.

How has MS misled, betrayed, or exploited its customers and partners?

Caveat emptor, and all that.

"There is a community that survives by sharing, helping each other, and adding to a common, useful corpus of work."

And that's *good*! But it doesn't make MS *bad*.

It makes MS *different*.

"It is a remarkable testament to the ingenuity, generosity, and civility of humanity. Long live free software!"

I agree. I think that free software is a fine thing.

However, I love my .NET, too. It doesn't mean that I think other software is bad.

I'm sorry, but your approach here is sounding really intolerant. Different != bad. Nobody's forcing you to use MS products.

*But* - If you do, then realize that there is a commitment to a set of rules that you should accept. You don't *have* to accept them. By all means, violate licensing terms when you like. Don't be surprised, though, if it makes somebody angry.

As I pointed out in a previous comment, *this is no different than releasing against the GPL*.

"GNOME is a very advanced and innovative window mangager/desktop in its own right."

I hope you don't think that I was trying to argue that this wasn't the case.

I happen to really like GNOME. It's fun to take it from its "out of the box" form and sculpt it into a highly personalized environment.

Doesn't mean, of course, that I don't like .NET and Windows. These things aren't mutually exclusive.

It seems that Dominic equates open standards == open source software. Which, I may be corrected by others more in the know, means that theoretically OSS can implement a closed standard.. not real likely but for an example of how they are not addressing the same thing. As of yet has anyone seen the Java source code? Does this make Sun Evil (or Scott if you watch Austin Powers ok bad joke) because you have to meet the license requirements(http://java.sun.com/developer/products/java2cs/index.html)? I doubt it.

Rory is the java license all the much different than that for .NET? I honestly don't know.

I just want to tell you Rory how reading this thread has made my day. :-)

I guess it is just my embarassment that I had been advocating using .NET to my friends as an open solution. I understand the distinction between free software and open standards quite well and this fits neither bill. This has well decided what role .NET will play in my future programming: None.

Most of my bad sentiment towards Microsoft stems from their making MY life harder to improve THEIR profits. For instance, when they produced J++, which is a little Java language compliant but also has Microsoft stuff - I had to learn which commands will work on the Sun Java VM and which commands will work only on the Microsoft Java VM. If I didn't know that Microsoft was trying to push ahead of Sun and take over Java, I would unknowingly be writing web-ready applets that only Microsoft users could utilize (not necessarily what I want to do). In addition, Microsoft produces a version of C++ that is not C++ at all. Microsoft includes 'standard' libraries that are Microsoft 'standard'. When I write a program on MS Visual C++, I cannot compile on an ANSI standard compiler like GCC without days of searching for those 'Microsoft Only' commands. Remember the days before a widespread standardization of web scripting and markup languages and browser support for them, MS Internet explorer would render web pages differently than 'the rest'. They'd add 'special' MS commands that make web development easier, but stray from standards --- 'easier', you say, 'easier is better'. Not necessarily. If my intention is to be able to communicate with the world and I end up with a product that can only communicate with Microsoft users, then I have not accomplished my goal. Hence, one would have to write two web pages, one if the browser was Internet explorer and another for non-internet explorer browsers that implemented standard renderings. All of these tactics seem suspiciously like market takeover tactics - and I do not want to help Microsoft takeover markets unless I'm getting a paycheck from them. If all of this was in the background and gave me no headache, then I would simply live my life.

<a href="http://www.drunk-girls-party.us/">Drunk Girls</a>
<a href="http://www.lokartuzy.friko.pl/">Milf</a>
<a href="http://www.all-we-live-together.com/lesbians_kissing/">Lesbians Kissing</a>
<a href="http://www.all-we-live-together.com/teen-lesbian/">Teen Lesbian</a>
<a href="http://www.milf-hunter-mom.com/milf-seeker/">Milf Seeker</a>
<a href="http://www.milf-hunter-mom.com/milf-rider/">Milf Riders</a>
<a href="http://www.kaktusy.friko.pl/">Hairy Pussy</a>
<a href="http://www.sms1.friko.pl">Gay Boys</a>
<a href="http://www.freewebs.com/oasisoasis/">IntheVIP</a>
<a href="http://www.all-we-live-together.com/naked_girls/naked_girls.html">Naked Girls</a>
<a href="http://www.college-girl-pic.com/">Lesbian Sex</a>
<a href="http://www.group-eurosex.com/captain_stabbin/captain_stabbin.html">Captain Stabbin</a>
<a href="http://www.milf-hunter-mom.com/milf_hunter.html">milf hunter</a>
<a href="http://www.group-eurosex.com/eurosex_parties.html">eurosex parties</a>
<a href="http://www.intermilan.friko.pl/">Captain Stabbin</a>
<a href="http://www.sex-brotha.com/">My first sex teacher</a>

I don't think Sun's trying to say they're innovative on the UI or anything.
Linux desktops are plagued with just cheap rip offs. Sun's Gnome desktop is at least consistent.

MS and their office products are expensive and hasn't change much since office 97, so if someone comes out with a cheaper version of it, great. Companies will be all over it.

Windows is expensive to keep alive in an organisation. Ask the average cubicle user out there, they probably never create their own powerpoint slide.

/tom

http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2772.htm ????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2774.htm ???
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2775.htm ????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2776.htm ??????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2777.htm ??????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2778.htm ??????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2779.htm ????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2780.htm ????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2781.htm ????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2782.htm ?????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2783.htm ????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2784.htm ????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2785.htm ????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2786.htm ????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2787.htm ????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2788.htm ????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2789.htm ??????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2790.htm ??????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2791.htm ??????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2792.htm ??????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2793.htm ??????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2794.htm ??????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2795.htm ??????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2796.htm ??????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2797.htm ????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2798.htm ???
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2799.htm ??av??
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2800.htm ????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2801.htm ??????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2802.htm ??????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2803.htm ????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2804.htm ????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2805.htm ????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2806.htm ????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2807.htm ????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2808.htm ????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2809.htm ????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2810.htm ??????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2811.htm ??????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2812.htm ??????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2813.htm ??????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2814.htm ?????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2815.htm ???????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2817.htm ??? ??
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2818.htm ??a?
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2819.htm ????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2820.htm ?????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2821.htm ??????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2822.htm ??????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2824.htm ??????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2825.htm ??????
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2828.htm ??
http://dmm001.googlepages.com/2732.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2407.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2408.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2409.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2379.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2380.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2381.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2382.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2383.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2384.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2385.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2386.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2387.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2388.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2389.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2390.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2391.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2392.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2410.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2411.htm ???
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2412.htm ???
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2413.htm ???
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2728.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2907.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2908.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2909.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2372.htm ?????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2373.htm ?????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2374.htm ?????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2375.htm ?????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2376.htm ?????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2377.htm ?????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2378.htm ?????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2393.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2394.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2395.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2396.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2397.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2398.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2399.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2400.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2401.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2402.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2403.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2404.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2405.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2406.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2431.htm ???
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2432.htm ?????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2433.htm ?????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2434.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2414.htm ??
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2415.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2416.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2417.htm ??
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2418.htm ??
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2419.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2420.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2421.htm 18??
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2422.htm ??18
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2423.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2424.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2425.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2426.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2427.htm ???????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2428.htm ?????????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2429.htm ?????????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2430.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2435.htm ?????????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2436.htm ???????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2437.htm ???????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2438.htm ???????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2439.htm ????????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2440.htm ??????????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2441.htm ????????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2442.htm ???????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2443.htm ??????????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2444.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2445.htm ??????????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2446.htm ???????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2447.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2448.htm ?????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2449.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2450.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2451.htm ???
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2452.htm ??????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2453.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2454.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2455.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2456.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2457.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2458.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2459.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2460.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2461.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2462.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2463.htm ????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2464.htm ?????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2465.htm ?????
http://xdmmll.googlepages.com/2466.htm ?????

Innovation