Slashdot Mirror
Apple Posts Their X11 Source
fdiv_bug writes "This happened a day or two ago, but it slipped my mind to report it. Looks like Apple has released the source code to their X11 implementation for Mac OS X." Also check out more downloads at OpenDarwin.org.
You're the one that can't make up your mind. And there's no good reason for it except for your own inadequacies.
Of course it bloody matters. Pretending that copyright laws don't exist is stupid and naive. Real programmers are not stupid nor naive. Or do you perhaps think that RMS, Linus, Alan, Hubbard, Gettys, Dawes, ..., aren't Real Programmers? They have all commented on licensing or made decisions based on licensing.
Jebus Cripes, maybe you ought to chill.
He didn't say to "pretend copyright laws don't exist"
He said that having access to code is good for programmers. just like having access to books is good for people who want to be authors.
He's also saying, I think, that minor license differences aren't as important as the big picture of free software, specifically being able to see source code.
Lindows, only in reverse.
Im not a MAC user, but darn, that is really nice to have the ability to run X apps on a MAC. I think this really enhances the appeal of a MAC to a serious user.
Apple made a great move, adding *nix at its core with OS X.
Who's a year behind? Dell is finally starting to dump the floppy drive, they're five years behind! ;-) More, if you include the old legacy ports they still use.
Oh, you mean CPU speed? My 3 year old iMac is fast enough for everything I do, save for recent 3D games, and I don't really need those anyway. That's one thing hurting Apple's 'marketshare', the quality and longevity of their products.
"Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
It's true enough that they're a company that's out to make a profit, but they've made large contributions to the open source movement over the past couple of years, such as KDE's HTML and Javascript components (Safari and Sherlock) and Darwin, and praising the open-source movement. At the same time, they haven't exactly had mercy on anyone who's violated a contract (see iCommune) or immitated their user-interface appearance too closely, and so on. Their behavior seems quite consistent. So the real problem is: "I wish that I could make up my mind whether or not they're evil."
That's what we need access to!
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
A situation where no one (proprietary) system holds Windows' current position will not be achieved unless people take reality into account.
" Can't our minds cope with the idea that all those different people might not be having exactly the same thoughts? "
/. can't even figure out that /. isn't a homogenous entity,
/. hate the movie industry and are boycotting it, but others aren't. This isn't hypocritical, it is a consequence of having a lot of people.
;-)
Of course, many people on
For instance:
"Wait, aren't we supposed to hate the MPAA and be boycotting movies?" (in response to the new release of a movie)
Of course some people on
So, since we can't even recognize ourselves as a non-homogenous entity, then the probability of us recognizing Apple or Microsoft is slim.
Wait, now I am doing it with the "we"
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
yes let us not encourage this - its that rabid attitude that we are trying to talk you zealots out of. it is more important that the code is out there. "anything you write later will be tainted" - no seriously chill, in the long run (ie after the revolution and the we are rebuilding as a perfect communist......oh wait) well what im saying is the fact that the code is out and in some form however restrictive (in this case not very) that it gets people talking about open source. my mother (an Technology Specialist at a middle school) saw a X11 on OSX link one day looking at a link i had sent her. after explaining to her that no OSX 11 isnt out it prompted a discussion on "what is open source." now laugh if you will but she has only administered Macs and PCs, no one had ever explained to her the concept. and you know i didnt waste a minute explaining the diff between license x vs y....the greater good is more important, many keystrokes have died a painfull death beating these dead horses -
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
Well, it's hypocritical when it's same editor writing about how horrible the MPAA is and also announcing/promoting movie releases and how much he wants to go see them.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
It has nothing to do with "chilling" or "zealotry" or "communism" or whatever stupid buzzword you want to use this week to ridicule people. It has everything to do with comprehending the reality of copyright law. It does affect you, whether you want it to or not. Hiding under a rock and pretending that all the "zealots" are trying to turn you into a communist is pure idiocy. I thought McCarthyism died out in the 60s. Isn't it nice to know it simply spread to the Internet.
The reality of the situation - without your bullshit about communism and zealotry - is that you can't just stare at somebody else's source code without first comprehending the licensing terms. The license ALWAYS matter. You have to care about the license - not for the sake of zealotry or your "greater good" (not a view I share) - but because it's the law.
The original comment that it doesn't "matter" whether it's GPL or FBSD [sic] is pure and utter nonsense. And you are guilty of supporting this nonsense whenever you casually dismiss people as "zealots" simply because they recognise the true danger of copyright; a danger you clearly do not comprehend.
To go even further, here's your typical implementation of AIM for Windows. And then there's Apple's implementation of AIM.
And i don't even have to mention their hardware. Sigh... i hope you get paid handsomely, noble Apple design team. WE SALUTE YOU!
Hypocracy is not writing about how horrible the MPAA is while writing good things about new movies. Hypocracy would be if they wrote about how horrible the MPAA is, told you not to go to any movies, and secretly went to them anyway.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
If you've bought Mac OS X Server 1.0 and a G4 Server afterwards, you'd go for "Evil. Really evil".
For those who don't know: Mac OS X Server cost around $600 (in Europe). If you wanted to use it on your new PowerMac G4, you had to buy the, er, "update" to 1.2. Which cost around $600, as did the retail version. If you bought a new dual processor G4 after that, you had to buy the update to 1.2.1. Which cost, you guessed it, $600.
I bailed out before that and bought a Sun box instead. It runs Solaris 8 which will still be supported for another couple of years. No, there are no patches for Mac OS X Server versions older than a year.
I don't know about the update path from Mac OS X Server 1.2.1 to 10.0, but I do know that the "update" from 10.1.x to 10.2 costs around $650.
Evil. Clearly evil.