Quasi 95% iOS Funktionen....

(Ps: bezogen auf die Liste der Funktionen, die auf diversen News Seiten beworben wurde)

Quasi 95% iOS Funktionen....

(Ps: bezogen auf die Liste der Funktionen, die auf diversen News Seiten beworben wurde)

Was ist/wäre so schlimm daran, wenn sich beide einander annähern, angleichen? Ist/wäre das nicht völlig normal und üblich und auch völlig in Ordnung und im Sinne des Nutzers/Verbrauchers, wenn diesbzgl. wechselseitige Angleichungen stattfinden, Feature X schaut der Eine sich dort ab, Feature Y der Andere im umgekehrten Fall – so war und ist es immer gewesen bei technischer Entwicklung und mit dem technischen Fortschritt?

"Ideenklau" ists ja nur dann, wenn andere es tun.

Das Gleichnis von den Zwergen auf den Schultern von Riesen (oder Giganten; lateinische Phrase Nanos gigantum humeris insidentes, „Zwerge auf den Schultern von Riesen sitzend“) ist ein Versuch, das Verhältnis der jeweils aktuellen Wissenschaft und Kultur zu Tradition und den Leistungen früherer Generationen zu bestimmen. Aus der Sicht traditionsbewusster „Gelehrter“ erscheinen deren Vorgänger in vergangenen Epochen als Riesen und sie selbst als „Zwerge“, die von den Pionierleistungen der Vergangenheit profitieren: Indem sie dem vorgefundenen Wissensschatz ihren eigenen bescheidenen Beitrag hinzufügen, kommt Fortschritt zustande. Nur auf diese Art können die Zwerge die Riesen überragen.
[…]

“If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of giants.”

„Wenn ich weiter geblickt habe, so deshalb, weil ich auf den Schultern von Riesen stehe.“

[…]
Chronology

The fact was that the Macintosh project was officially started-- it had really been started in 1978-- it was approved and was a going project before that visit took place. So it's chronologically not possible for that visit to have sparked the Macintosh. I have read over and over that that visit is what started the Macintosh project, that Jobs saw it and said, "There shall be Macintosh." But no, the Macintosh project was already in existence. Actually, I had worked with Bill Atkinson and some other people because I was on the outs with Jobs by then, and Bill Atkinson was on his wonderful list; so I had finagled things to get Jobs to PARC so he could begin to understand what I was trying to do.

Most people don't know also that the Lisa machine in those early days-- this was 1979-- was a character-generator, green-screen machine; it didn't have a bitmapped screen, it was not Macintosh-like. That all came from the Macintosh project to the Lisa. I went over then to Ken Rothmuller, and I was telling him why this was a dumb thing you're doing, that the future is in bit-mapped screens, and take a look at what we're doing on the Macintosh project. But it was Lisa that got all the funding, and Jobs behind it, and two hundred engineers, and cost $15,000, and my little project with just a handful of people was doing the right thing.

But the basic idea of a graphics-based, user interface-oriented machine for Lisa came from the Macintosh project. The only book I've ever seen that mentions that is Owen Linzmeyer's Apple Confidential. Everyone else has gotten it wrong: they say that the Macintosh was a downsized Lisa, when really the Lisa was an upsized Macintosh. Exactly backwards.

Orchestrating Jobs' Visit

Pang: One thing that's been said about Jobs' visit to PARC-- which was one of several that Apple people made to PARC-- was that it was necessary to get him to understand the importance of this technology, and that it mainly served a political purpose.

Raskin: That was my intent, yes. There were other things going on that I didn't know about. The deal between Apple and Xerox over stock, I didn't know about any of that at the time. And I don't know if that was after the visit, or before it, or in conjunction with it, I have no first-hand knowledge. But apparently other things were grinding away. And of course the Macintosh project was killed several times, and it was usually Jobs who was killing it, because he didn't understand it; I figured if he understood it, and could see something like it, before we were ready to show anything, that he would be more sympathetic. And I think that became true. He decided to take the Lisa project and try to do it there.

Now, the Lisa was very Star-like; the Lisa stole things from Star right and left-- it stole people, it stole ideas, even stole the font names, exactly. I didn't like that, and I thought we could do better. Certainly the Macintosh benefited from Lisa development; later on, Lisa software came over to Macintosh, and Macintosh software went over to Lisa. And there was cross-pollination, which was fine. But the Lisa was very Star-like. And the Macintosh also inherited things which to this day I don't think are very good interface ideas. But that's what happens when you don't have someone who has their own ideas, and has to borrow a lot.

Soll heißen, Ideenklau ist ok

und alle Erfindungen bzw. Ideen sollten Allgemeingut werden?

Warte, dafür gibt‘s doch einen Namen…
Ach ja, Kommunismus!

Jef Raskins lehnte Maus und Mac GUI ab

[…]
Pang: Why do you think it was that Apple didn't get it?

Raskin: The people in charge at Apple, and I think Jobs was one of them, were not visionaries. He's always been called a visionary, and I've never seen that, in all the years I worked there. Being a visionary is not what he's great at. Look at OS X, that Apple's coming out with: everybody who works on it says it's a throwback to the 1970s in terms of structure. It's UNIX, it's backwards.

That's why we have the mouse. Jobs saw the mouse at Xerox PARC, and even though I'd done a lot of experiments-- we did a lot of research and experimentation on graphic input devices, joysticks and force input and motion input and all kinds of things-- I still have at home some of the devices I actually built to test different forms of input. Which is also something useful when people say, "I hear you weren't interested in graphics," I say, "Well, then why was I doing this intensive work on graphic input devices?" That was a lot of the stuff I did at Apple for a time. But Jobs saw the mouse, and said "Okay," and just dictated that it's going to be the mouse. That was it. The boss has spoken.

That wasn't really a major problem-- as long we as had some graphic input device. Very often a good way to working with him is to present him a bunch of alternatives, all of which get your idea across; then he chooses one of them, and feels he's made this wonderful invention. It's just a way of handling bosses, and it's a standard procedure. They get to make a choice, but you've already made the basic choice, in this case that there'll be a graphic input device. He chooses which one, not realizing that the big choice was whether to have one or not.

[…]

Pang: Can you say something about your role in deciding how many buttons the mouse would have?

Raskin: Yeah. That's my fault entirely.

I had observed at PARC, in myself and others, that the three-button mouse was confusing. And I said, "What would be the way of making it so there would never be any question about what button to press?" If there's only one button, you can't make any mistakes. So I said, "Let's make a mouse with one button." But the first thing is, how can you do all the things? You have to use a few buttons to do everything on the PARC machine.

So I designed the method of using a one-button mouse, and so invented a lot of methods that are still in use, like click and drag for selecting a region, and for dragging things across the screen. Now the first one, it turns out, I only learned years later-- only a few years ago-- there had been a use of dragging for selecting text in Gypsy, but I didn't know about that editor then, so I invented it independently. But the ones about collecting things, and dragging icons across, that was not at PARC.

So I invented the one-button mouse, and the methods for how to use it, and it's really a very heady feeling to go up to almost anybody in this entire culture, and know that they're using something that I invented every day. They don't know that anybody invented it at all.

Pang: Did you have any contact with the people at Hovey-Kelley who did the industrial work on the mouse?

Raskin: A little bit, but Jobs had so much fun with them that he didn't let too many other people play with them.

Jef Raskins lehnte Maus und Mac GUI ab und brachte mit der Canon Cat eine Benutzerschnittstelle auf den Markt die effizienter ist

und einen nicht krank macht (Sehnenscheidenentzündung wegen der km die man mit der Maus zurücklegen muss).

Er hat die Bedienbarkeit messbar gemacht, sein Buch The Human Interface ist ein Standardwerk zum Thema.

Look at OS X, that Apple's coming out with: everybody who works on it says it's a throwback to the 1970s in terms of structure. It's UNIX, it's backwards.

[…]

Die Entwickler wollen mit Plan 9 eine Antwort auf die Frage „Was versucht Unix wirklich zu erreichen?“ geben. In einem Satz lautet diese Antwort:

"Repräsentiere alle Ressourcen als Dateien, ohne zwischen lokalen und nicht-lokalen Objekten zu unterscheiden."

[…]

[…]

Plan 9 from Bell Labs was originally developed, starting in the late 1980s, by members of the Computing Science Research Center at Bell Labs, the same group that originally developed Unix and the C programming language. The Plan 9 team was initially led by Rob Pike, Ken Thompson, Dave Presotto and Phil Winterbottom, with support from Dennis Ritchie as head of the Computing Techniques Research Department. Over the years, many notable developers have contributed to the project, including Brian Kernighan, Tom Duff, Doug McIlroy, Bjarne Stroustrup and Bruce Ellis.

Plan 9 replaced Unix as Bell Labs's primary platform for operating systems research.
It explored several changes to the original Unix model that facilitate the use and programming of the system, notably in distributed multi-user environments. After several years of development and internal use, Bell Labs shipped the operating system to universities in 1992. Three years later, Plan 9 was made available for commercial parties by AT&T via the book publisher Harcourt Brace. With source licenses costing $350, AT&T targeted the embedded systems market rather than the computer market at large. Ritchie commented that the developers did not expect to do "much displacement" given how established other operating systems had become.

[…]

Golem (08.03.2016): 9Front: Der unterschätzte Beinahe-Unix-Nachfolger
Ein Betriebssystem mit dem Namen des schlechtesten Films aller Zeiten gegen das erfolgreichste OS aller Zeiten: Nach 30 Jahren Entwicklungszeit hat Plan 9 Unix nicht abgelöst - im Gegenteil.

Du überhöhst für mein Dafürhalten Jobs und erniedrigst Raskin auf für mich unfaire, unzulässige Weise. Warum? Jobs war in erster Linie Verkäufer.

Der sich anderer Leut' Idden zu eigen machte und sie an den Mann brachte.

"Well we can agree to disagree." D'accord? Können wir uns darauf einigen?

"Standing on the Shoulder of Giants" – Da waren wir, glaube ich, stehengeblieben. Bei diesem Credo. Bei dieser Art der Bescheidenheit. Bescheidenheit. Und Anerkennung der Leistung und Vorleistung Anderer. Ohne deren Vorleistungen die eigene Leistung ein Nichts wäre, gar nicht erst möglich.
Und da haben wir beide Konsens, so habe ich es verstanden.