Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Switchover, EULA, Perspectives
It's the little things. Time for another cumulative patch for IE, it seems. (Mozilla may have its share of security problems, but at least there's a new build broken in unique and exciting ways more frequently :)). Logica writes with a snippet from this ZDNet article, which reads: "Microsoft released a collection of software fixes Monday to plug six security problems in its Internet Explorer browser, including one that could be exploited to take over a victim's computer."
"Users are urged to download the latest patch."
What happened to the tar-and-feather clause? djmurdoch writes "Back in January, Borland promised to come up with new EULAs without some objectionable terms. They've just posted the new EULAs. Gone are the anti-competitive product clause, the right to audit, and the requirement to give up a jury trial. They still have required registration, and you can't use a 2nd hand copy. They've added a requirement that it be licensed to one named user; you need extra licenses to share a copy. Not perfect, but a big improvement."
Keep in the loop as consolidation continues. craig writes: "AT&T Broadband has now posted instructions for their cable modem users to change their e-mail addresses from @mediaone.net to @attbi.com. The instructions have been posted here. The instructions seem to work, and my upgrade has been smooth.
The instructions have been posted on the web, but it looks like they have not been e-mailed to current AT&T Broadband subscribers. It is probably a good idea to follow these instructions before they are mailed to the masses, because chances are, this is migration is going to keep AT&T Broadband customer support very busy. The old @mediaone.net addresses will stop working on March 15, as was mentioned in this previous posting on Slashdot."
And although it's been said many times, many ways ... LiquidPC writes: "Apple's Ernest Prabhakar is reporting that BSD is now 3 times as popular on the desktop as Linux, largely thanks to MacOSX, of course. He also commented that Microsoft now has Office running on a Berkeley UNIX."
I used to like Borland.
Then they have the code, and it'll be an eazy port job. :)
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
MS Office X runs with Apple's Carbon compatibility layer (even though it's no longer able to run on MacOS 8 or 9.) This isn't the same as running on Apple's Cocoa Nextstep-based libraries and not at all like running on raw Unix.
So yeah, it's running on Unix, however pretty much entirely within a proprietary Apple compatibility library that is MacOS X specific and itself unlikely and probably unable to be ported to other Unix flavors.
Great for MacOS X folks, not very relevant to the rest of the Unix world.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Boohoo
If you want the Soreson codec then find someone to pony up the cold hard cash to license it. The developers put a lot of work into it and decided this is how they want it to go. That they didn't give it away - well hell that's their right. Apple saw it, liked it, ponied up the money to license it. No guns or extortion were involved.
On the other hand QuickTime is pretty much free to use and doesn't depend on the Sorenson codec, works with lots of codecs.
For that matter why aren't you bleating about MS and their licensed formats? Or Real?
Codecs are hard to build, require LOTS of work and yes those folks are loathe to give it away. Sorry - not everything is free and we don't live in a socialist economy.
As to Apple and it's Aqua theme - again they spent a lot of work developing their trade dress and yes have a right to defend it. Sorry it's soo nice, got develop your own look and quit trying to rip off others.
So how's Apple "helping" you? By giving away lots of their stuff. Not all of it - tough. If you disagree send me your car keys or is all property theft in your world?
Soo tired of the gimme-gimme-gimme whiners.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Apple has no control over Sorenson. QuickTime would be on Linux by now it Apple owned Sorenson.
Apple worked hard and spent a lot of their money in the development of that interface. If it was opensource and put together by people not paid by Apple then I would say yes, spread it around.
We must urge companies to open up, but we must not try to force them or criticize them if they don't move as fast or as far as we want. They should want to come to our side.
photosMy Photostream
This is just me, but you'd probably have more sucess complaining to Sorenson about that, if you think you can convince them that 1)There are enough content creators on Linux that they will sell enough copies of Sorenson Video 3 Pro to recoup their porting costs or 2)Content creators feel that there are enough content consumers on Linux that they feel support for the platform is important. You could just try to get Apple to fully implement QuickTime on Linux, if you think you can convince them of #2 above.
How about Aqua themes?
Why the hell do you feel that you have the right to Apple's art? Source code is one thing, pixmaps are another thing entirely. If someone copied art that my design team had spent many long hours designing, I would go after them a lot harder than Apple did.
How is Apple helping me again?
By employing dozens of programmers who work on open source code, perhaps? By building and open source steaming media server that you can run on your favorite OS? By having, "one of the biggest gcc compiler design teams in the world" and giving all that code back?
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
Actually the number of BSD based network appliances is decreasing and the number of Linux based appliances is increasing.
Basically the older the company, the more likely it is that they run BSD under the covers. Newer companies are choosing Linux.
I haven't asked why, but that's the trend I've seen.
I don't have a solution, but I certainly admire the problem.
I mean, do they really consider Mach and Lites to be BSD? Or is it just good to hear BSD in the press?
Then there's Apple's open-sourcing of Darwin. Yeah you don't get the GUI, but at least they are contributing to open source and allowing you to use their core operating system with whatever GUI you want by way of the many open source GUIs out there.
We also have Quicktime Streaming Server, a completely free and open multimedia server that lets you stream video and audio in most open formats out there. No server tax what so ever, what a joy!
Apple also is championing several efforts to keep fees and licensing issues from affecting the "little guys". They are trying to influence the developing MPEG-4 license so that there will be no streaming fees and they have even taken the stance that they will not release software which uses the MPEG-4 format until the fees have been removed. They also have taken a stance that any patents which are involved with W3C standards should be free of charge for use in the standards instead of requiring royalties, see this article for more information.
Finally, having Apple out there definitely helps innovation. With a company like Apple breaking ground and popularizing technology in areas such as PDAs, USB, Firewire, LCD displays, removal of dead-weight legacy equipment, and even computer form factors, they are helping to drive the industry forward. Lets face it, while Linux is a damn fine operating system it would have a tough time facing down the Microsoft bear alone. All of the alternatives will take their tiny bites out of the giant and together they will work toward keeping the monopolies from gaining total control.
Sure Apple is in it for the money. I think that is true of everyone, not just big corporations. I don't see many people volunteering 100% of their time and not trying to make a buck here or there. On a scale from mega-greedy to handing out bushels of money, I think that Apple falls safely in the middle. They make good, solid products, they seem to put some of their souls into their work, and they make some money off it. Sounds like a decent trade-off to me, and far more than we can say about many corporations out there.
Sapere aude!
It would not have happened, if it were not for Microsoft having to follow up and provide Office for the latest mainstream Apple OS. It proves a lot of things: that there is no inherent reason for Microsoft's applications not to run on Unix-based platforms, which has implications for those looking at anti-trust remedies, and such.
And note that even though Linux has wider acceptance than FreeBSD, and far more application support, device support, and so on, this did not happen for Linux first, and it might never happen. This is solely because of the commercializability allowed by the BSD license. GPL'd OS's are far less likely to be embraced by a major player like Apple.
There's a lot of interesting debate between GPL and BSD licensing. I'm a much bigger fan of BSD/X-Windows, etc., licensing, as commercial outcroppings of these are often more interesting, solid and, well, commercial-grade than purely non-commercial products.
And I think this is one of the great examples of where such truly free, and not the forced-freedom of the GPL, achieves a measurable positive result for the industry.
(I think a better overall solution for the industry would be for monopolistic entities to be required to fully open, publish, and standardize the data, interchange, and communication formats and protocols. We have limit choices on what roads to use, but because the specifications are standardized and open, we have a choice of cars to use. I think the government should force proven monopolistic entities to open *all* their interfaces.)
But, in the world of Enron and MS Campaign contributions, and a populace that in general doesn't care (current company, largely excluded
-me
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
>Well, I personally feel Apple's adoption of BSD is a 'poison pill', encouraged and supported by MS, against GNU/Linux.
There are 2 problems with this. First, OSX is NeXT. It was BSD Unix back before anyone cared. It was BSD before Gates began the jihad. It was BSD when BSD wasn't cool.
Second, implementing Carbon on OSX is a lot like programming for MacOS9. That's the whole point of the library. Sure, you can write in Carbon and have it only run on OSX - for example, the OSX Finder is a Carbon but OSX-Only app. MS is sticking with as much non-Unix tech as possible. This is also because of the time and effort to retrain the Mac Business Unit.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
All you guys saying we have to call a certain operating system by the name "GNU/Linux" just because major portions of it come from GNU, are now saying MacOSX is not BSD.
Well screw that! MacOSX has more BSD code than Redhat has GNU code. Make up your minds how you're going to name on OS. You can't have it both ways.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Microsoft is in the business of making Mac software because it is profitable. Having Apple around to keep the DOJ away is nice, but Microsoft wouldn't stick around if they weren't making cash off of Mac users - but they are. A greater percentage of total Mac users buy (as in pay for) MS Office than do PC users (and Office is Microsoft's real cash cow), generating revenue disproportionate to platform market share.
If making MS Office for Mac ceases to be profitable, I do not doubt for an instant that Microsoft will cease to develop it. I don't really expect that to happen for a long time, though.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
> MacOSX has more BSD code than Redhat has GNU code.
I would be very surpised if that was true. All the proprietary Apple API's and GUI applications tend to be much fatter than the lean and mean BSD code.
In contrast, Red Hat's GUI layer is Gnome, a GNU project.
In fact, I suspect MacOSX has more GNU code than BSD code, if you include the development tools, allthough both are dwarfed by the Apple proprietary code.
The instructions have been posted on the web, but it looks like they have not been e-mailed to current AT&T Broadband subscribers.
Just yesterday (the 14th) I received a letter from AT&T discussing the whole changeover. What was changing, why, and what to expect. It was clear, concise, and accurate. Thankfully, they didn't email this to me as I don't use my AT&T email account. Then again, maybe they did.
The instructions on how to change your various settings for your email/web/whatever clients may or may not be accurate - I didn't read them.