Re: (OFF) What Ever Happened To OpenDoc?
Re: (OFF) What Ever Happened To OpenDoc?
- Subject: Re: (OFF) What Ever Happened To OpenDoc?
- From: Brennan Young <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 02:30:02 +0200
- Organization: Magic Lantern
Stefaan Degryse <email@hidden> wrote
>
Didn't that have something to do with pressure from Microsoft too, who were
>
not at all happy (understatement) with the OpenDoc technology from Apple
>
'cause they believed it was some sort of copyright rip off of one of their
>
own technologies?
Not a ripoff, but a head-on competitor. Component technologies were
developed in the mid 1980s by Nikolas Wirth (Creator of Pascal and Modula)
and others with the Oberon language and system, a strictly typed, late
binding OS/language which allowed users to 'paste' applications together
from pre-compiled GUI parts and data structures.
You can download the very latest version of this experimental OS (less than
7MB) at
<
ftp://ftp.inf.ethz.ch/pub/Oberon/System3/Macintosh/beta/>
...and find out more information at...
<
http://www.math.tau.ac.il/~guy/Oberon/>
It runs on top of the MacOS (and many others), obscuring the underlying OS.
It uses a very weird mousing system but is full of excellent ideas. Well
worth a look on a rainy day, but take some time to get used to the multiple
mouse cursors or you will miss everything.
Microsoft picked up the component idea with OLE and 'COM', and was able to
use its monopoly to make it succeed, even though COM still required
programmers to cobble the parts together (i.e. it did not really do what was
intended). COM has been a big hit with MS developers.
The non-MS axis, led by Sun, developed a non-properietary alternative,
called CORBA and Apple's OpenDoc was intended to be part of that drive.
CORBA is still in use by some diehards, and the broader technology of
JavaBeans, another component technology is still lukewarm.
Again, most people, regardless of technological level will greet the term
'Java Bean' with a blank stare. It's a bit like trying to sell the idea of
objects in the early 1980s. Even most of the experts missed the point.
Component technologies are at least as revolutionary as object technologies
(arguably they are objects taken to the nth degree), but they have such
broad application, and the idea is so abstract that it's difficult to
convince people why they are useful or interesting.
I believe that another reason component technologies have failed thus far is
because they favour small companies and a 'guerilla' marketplace, so none of
the big companies have wanted to get behind them unless they can control the
market completely - hence Microsoft, Adobe and Macromedia all have their own
properietary component tech (COM, plug-ins and Xtras respectively).
Cyberdog failed at least partly because it appeared just as the browser wars
were warming up. Most people saw OpenDoc as an internet technology, when in
fact it could have been much broader. The goal would doubtless have been
seamless integration between Clarisworks, Cyberdog and the entire Claris
range.
It would have been most meaningful if third-parties had come with
alternative mail 'parts' or browser 'parts' for cyberdog. If only one
company makes all the parts, the advantage to the user (i.e. software
*buyer*) is limited. If Apple had pulled this off, I think the advantages
would have been clear to any level of user. Too bad.
AppleWorks still has this 'publish/subscribe' feature which is similar to
Microsoft's OLE. If you use this extensively with stationery documents you
can get some of the benefits. I am certain most ClarisWorks/Appleworks users
have no idea how powerful this feature is. The weird nomenclature does not help.
Many of the 'component-oriented' developers at Apple defected to Be, which
offered system level component support in the form of 'replicants'. This was
one of BeOS's best features, but of course, only those who knew what it was
could fathom why it was useful.
.NET is going to be where we see components really kick in, and kick ass.
Microsoft will use .NET components to abstract other operating systems' APIs
so even if we are not running Windows, we will be using Microsoft APIs
anyway, and, after a few years of settling into a false sense of security,
probably paying Bill for the privilege.
--
_____________
Brennan