I don't completely buy that argument. On my setup, even gimp-2.6 cold-starts faster than FF 3.5.4, and gimp seems to be pretty featureful. FF and Thunderbird are the slowest apps I use, and presumably they share some code. That tells me there's something really wrong with how Mozilla is writing or deploying their programs.
Not only is FF slow, but it uses amazing amounts of memory. I can't understand what it's doing with all that memory, because it's obviously not using it to cache stuff to make it faster. Or if it is, it's failing. In the very least, I find it amazing that even after all these years, it's still noticeably leaky.
Actually, I've noticed FF seems to be zippier on Windows, so maybe Mozilla just struggles with with Linux port... Regardless, after chromium grows up a little bit more, I'll also probably be leaving FF.
Wrong. One-letter domains were never made available by ICANN except for just a few exceptions made because of trademark issues: q.com for qwest, x.org for the former Open Group and a few others, including (obviously) x.com, though I don't remember who was the original owner of that one.
It's a popular and wrong sentiment that Republicans are connected with "big business" and Democrats are connected with Hollywood. Clearly both parties are in bed with big business (see Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama). Democrats just have the advantage of support from prominent figures in Hollywood and the old media, but that doesn't at all means that they somehow have no inclination to cater to big business any less than do Republicans.
If you buy a copy of OS X from Apple, you are an Apple customer, even if you don't have a mac.
If you pirate a copy of Windows, then even though you are a Windows user, you aren't a Microsoft customer. (unless you also buy other stuff from them)
If you buy a copy of OS X and install it on non-Apple hardware, you are a customer who has broken his license agreement. Remember software is licensed, not outright purchased, and you have no legal standing at all outside of the terms of the license.
Whether or not that makes Apple the bad guy is up for pointless debate, which I'm sure we'll get a lot of.
If I buy a legal boxed copy OS X, then I should have the same rights to do as I please, which includes installing it on my own hardware regardless of it been an Apple branded box or not.
Whether or not you should have the same rights is not the issue. The fact is, as the law currently stands, you don't have the rights you think you should have simply because software is not bought, it is licensed. If you cannot or will not adhere to the stipulations of the license, you have no legal right to use the software, even if other software is licensed differently. That is Apple's prerogative, and it doesn't matter if you receive the software on a disk in a box or by any other method of data transfer.
If you don't like it, you can always continue bitching about Apple or ignore their licenses. Or you could do something proactive and try to affect change in copyright law.
1) It forgets to mention the 1 major thing that gave the Iphone such a major push forward. Marketing!
Actually, I'd say the major thing that gave the iPhone such a major push was the fact that it was the best thing at the time. People seem to have forgotten the awful "smart" phones we had before Apple decided to shake things up. The iPhone may or may not still be the best thing around (I don't know), but it seems to me we probably would have no Android today without the fresh competition Apple provided.
So will Android devices overtake the iPhone? Well I sure hope so. It would be pretty sad indeed if Android wasn't able to gain any headway seeing as how it will be on multiple devices and multiple networks and there is only one iPhone on one network. Ultimately, I think Android will be considered a success, but I also think it won't have much impact on Apple.
I'm also working from memory, but I think that Gecko is the engine. Firefox used to be the engineering test-bed browser component for the Mozilla suite, but end users decided they liked the light and fast standalone browser.
Well before 2020 a 250 GB SSD will be $20, and will have ample capacity for most users, and will be cheaper than any HDD.
Rather like the average user will ever need more than 640k of RAM.
By 2020, 250GB will be as much of a joke for the average user as a 250MB drive would be today; 250GB will probably be just about big enough to hold one super-extra-high-definition video file.
Actually, I don't think this is true. We are at the point of diminishing returns in so many areas. For example, we used to be okay with black and white. Then 4-bit color. Then 8-bit color. Now we're at 24 or 32-bit color, and anything more than that would pretty much be wasted because our eyes can't see any more colors. The same thing is happening with audio and video. There comes a point when adding more data won't make a difference. So while you're correct in saying that people use more disk storage space than they did ten years ago or even one year ago, you can't really extrapolate and say for sure that we're going to be using more and more at the same rate of increase we've seen in the past.
Another thing to consider is this growing fad of putting everything on the "cloud." Maybe it is just that, a fad, but perhaps one day people will store all their photos, music, videos, documents, or anything that would take a lot of disk space today entirely on this cloud thing and not keep copies of anything on their disks. I hope not, but you never know.
I just assumed all that was common knowledge surrounding Dvorak. He's most infamous for his Apple trolling, but I guess he's (recently?) started trolling Windows. It's been a while since I've paid any attention at all to anything that had anything to do with Dvorak, so I don't know...
The open source movement is interested in a development methodology aimed primarily at businesses, not framing issues in terms of user's software freedom. Open source proponents aren't taught to think in terms of user's software freedom.
Umm, no. The supposed "Free" software proponents like to try to make this distinction, but unfortunately it's bogus. You think some coder has business in mind as he contributes to Apache projects or zlib/MIT/BSD licensed projects? Haha, right... He has the users of his software in mind (which probably includes himself), and that's not any different than someone who is contributing to GPL software.
If you want to make a distinction, it's that so-called "open source proponents" realize that businesses may also be users, and they don't have a problem with that or forcing users to meet certain obligations with respect to modifications and distribution. That's all. As someone who agrees with the ideals of "copyleft" and the GPL, it might stroke your ego to think that your kind are the only ones who have the user's freedoms in mind ("think of the users!"), but perhaps its good if a little truth helps deflate some of that for you.
This too can lead to the loss of software freedom.
Software licensed under Free licenses such as MIT, zlib, and BSD can become less free no easier than can GPL software. I know this may fly in the face of the dogma you've always thought concerning how the GPL is supposed to be more protective of users' freedoms. In reality, if a company cannot meet the requirements of the GPL, we are no better or worse (in terms of the amount of public code) even if said company finds some BSD-licensed code to build off of and keeps their changes proprietary. Their alternative would be to build everything in-house, and it will still be proprietary anyway. On the other hand, many companies (that are legally able) do contribute their changes back to Apache, MIT, zlib, BSD-licensed projects every day (even if they have no legal obligation), as they do GPL projects. These two facts combined with the realization that code which has been licensed freely cannot then be retracted (there will always be a public fork) should be enough to make obvious to you that the popular assumption that the GPL is legally or morally better for users' freedoms resides on shaky ground.
The GPL is a decent license, although considerably more complicated than most people and projects need. It does have one notably interesting feature, although ironically (and arguably) it is related to user freedom in a negative way, which is what this article is about: the GPL can be used alongside a proprietary one. That's not something that is easily accomplished with other Free software licenses, but I don't consider it a bad thing. It's the one unique feature that really makes the GPL worthwhile in my estimation.
an alternative to itunes would be great, but it would have to sync non jailbroken iphones ipod touch / whatever comes next and apple clearly doesn't want any program other than itunes doing that. see palm.
Huh? I assume you're trying to reference Palm's Pre, but that whole debacle doesn't have anything to do with Apple devices syncing with non-Apple software.
But somehow, Apple gets a pass for that kind of behavior...
Apple gets a pass for... what kind of behavior exactly? Is it suddenly bad now for a company to provide software for syncing the devices they sell? Yeah, that sounds just horrible...
Even FreeBSD did the right thing after OSS was closed by building upon what they already had, and sound works much better on that OS because of it. Linux is essentially the only mainstream operating system which is still plagued by audio problems which were solved years ago by everyone else.
GPL vs. BSD is essentially a matter of business (or non-business) strategy. You pick the rules that work for you, and then you pick a license.
By logical extension, the conscious choice of any license is a matter choosing whatever rules/conditions you would like to release your stuff under. There are more licenses than just two, and while we sometimes group everything that isn't GPL under the term "BSD," there is a reason why hundreds of licenses exist (and it's not a bad thing); people should understand the terms and conditions of the licenses they use, and they should be able to make a conscious decision concerning the various unique clauses.
I'm not a huge fan of this debate of religious proportions. Just use whatever terms and conditions you agree with for a given project.
You're missing the GP's point who is not saying that GPL licensed software should not be relied upon or has played no role in bringing us to this point. Rather, he makes the very good point that people often think that the GPL is responsible for either the success of Linux or the success of free and open source software in general. As he communicated so well, that assumption is debatable at best and certainly not self-evident as there are many, many successful free and open source software packages which are not GPL.
Since you brought up gcc, I'll note that llvm is looking extremely promising and even has corporate backing (by Apple). It's not GPL. It's not even LGPL. The assumption that companies only like to back GPL projects doesn't seem to hold much water either.
There's a business case when XP stops getting security updates. And let's face it, if the CEO wants that big task bar, he's gonna get that big task bar.
Intel can't lose. Most people are going to get Windows 7 on a new PC (only a psycho would pay $299 for an operating system). A large chunk of those new PCs are going to have Intel inside, whether they are Nehalems are not.
Vista was like eight years of G. W. Bush. Then we asked for "change," and they give us the same thing, but.. different... We think it's the best thing we've ever had. Tears of joy stream down our faces on October 22 as they did November 4, 08 as we're caught up in the momentous occasion. Nevermind that the best thing we've been able to come up with to explain 7's greatness is that at least it's not Vista.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, less features.
I don't completely buy that argument. On my setup, even gimp-2.6 cold-starts faster than FF 3.5.4, and gimp seems to be pretty featureful. FF and Thunderbird are the slowest apps I use, and presumably they share some code. That tells me there's something really wrong with how Mozilla is writing or deploying their programs.
Not only is FF slow, but it uses amazing amounts of memory. I can't understand what it's doing with all that memory, because it's obviously not using it to cache stuff to make it faster. Or if it is, it's failing. In the very least, I find it amazing that even after all these years, it's still noticeably leaky.
Actually, I've noticed FF seems to be zippier on Windows, so maybe Mozilla just struggles with with Linux port... Regardless, after chromium grows up a little bit more, I'll also probably be leaving FF.
Wrong. One-letter domains were never made available by ICANN except for just a few exceptions made because of trademark issues: q.com for qwest, x.org for the former Open Group and a few others, including (obviously) x.com, though I don't remember who was the original owner of that one.
It's a popular and wrong sentiment that Republicans are connected with "big business" and Democrats are connected with Hollywood. Clearly both parties are in bed with big business (see Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama). Democrats just have the advantage of support from prominent figures in Hollywood and the old media, but that doesn't at all means that they somehow have no inclination to cater to big business any less than do Republicans.
If you buy a copy of OS X from Apple, you are an Apple customer, even if you don't have a mac. If you pirate a copy of Windows, then even though you are a Windows user, you aren't a Microsoft customer. (unless you also buy other stuff from them)
If you buy a copy of OS X and install it on non-Apple hardware, you are a customer who has broken his license agreement. Remember software is licensed, not outright purchased, and you have no legal standing at all outside of the terms of the license.
Whether or not that makes Apple the bad guy is up for pointless debate, which I'm sure we'll get a lot of.
If I buy a legal boxed copy OS X, then I should have the same rights to do as I please, which includes installing it on my own hardware regardless of it been an Apple branded box or not.
Whether or not you should have the same rights is not the issue. The fact is, as the law currently stands, you don't have the rights you think you should have simply because software is not bought, it is licensed. If you cannot or will not adhere to the stipulations of the license, you have no legal right to use the software, even if other software is licensed differently. That is Apple's prerogative, and it doesn't matter if you receive the software on a disk in a box or by any other method of data transfer.
If you don't like it, you can always continue bitching about Apple or ignore their licenses. Or you could do something proactive and try to affect change in copyright law.
1) It forgets to mention the 1 major thing that gave the Iphone such a major push forward. Marketing!
Actually, I'd say the major thing that gave the iPhone such a major push was the fact that it was the best thing at the time. People seem to have forgotten the awful "smart" phones we had before Apple decided to shake things up. The iPhone may or may not still be the best thing around (I don't know), but it seems to me we probably would have no Android today without the fresh competition Apple provided.
So will Android devices overtake the iPhone? Well I sure hope so. It would be pretty sad indeed if Android wasn't able to gain any headway seeing as how it will be on multiple devices and multiple networks and there is only one iPhone on one network. Ultimately, I think Android will be considered a success, but I also think it won't have much impact on Apple.
While Windows 7 is stable, how you can say it's more stable than XP?
There are many things that a marketer or salesperson can say with a straight face.
... because people don't learn from the past.
Or just don't care.
I'm also working from memory, but I think that Gecko is the engine. Firefox used to be the engineering test-bed browser component for the Mozilla suite, but end users decided they liked the light and fast standalone browser.
-Peter
Firefox... light... fast... That's news to me.
Time to suffer the wrath of Mozilla fanboy mods.
Also note that Dependency Walker itself might as well be arbitrary code since I can't read its source code.
Well before 2020 a 250 GB SSD will be $20, and will have ample capacity for most users, and will be cheaper than any HDD.
Rather like the average user will ever need more than 640k of RAM.
By 2020, 250GB will be as much of a joke for the average user as a 250MB drive would be today; 250GB will probably be just about big enough to hold one super-extra-high-definition video file.
Actually, I don't think this is true. We are at the point of diminishing returns in so many areas. For example, we used to be okay with black and white. Then 4-bit color. Then 8-bit color. Now we're at 24 or 32-bit color, and anything more than that would pretty much be wasted because our eyes can't see any more colors. The same thing is happening with audio and video. There comes a point when adding more data won't make a difference. So while you're correct in saying that people use more disk storage space than they did ten years ago or even one year ago, you can't really extrapolate and say for sure that we're going to be using more and more at the same rate of increase we've seen in the past.
Another thing to consider is this growing fad of putting everything on the "cloud." Maybe it is just that, a fad, but perhaps one day people will store all their photos, music, videos, documents, or anything that would take a lot of disk space today entirely on this cloud thing and not keep copies of anything on their disks. I hope not, but you never know.
I just assumed all that was common knowledge surrounding Dvorak. He's most infamous for his Apple trolling, but I guess he's (recently?) started trolling Windows. It's been a while since I've paid any attention at all to anything that had anything to do with Dvorak, so I don't know...
The open source movement is interested in a development methodology aimed primarily at businesses, not framing issues in terms of user's software freedom. Open source proponents aren't taught to think in terms of user's software freedom.
Umm, no. The supposed "Free" software proponents like to try to make this distinction, but unfortunately it's bogus. You think some coder has business in mind as he contributes to Apache projects or zlib/MIT/BSD licensed projects? Haha, right... He has the users of his software in mind (which probably includes himself), and that's not any different than someone who is contributing to GPL software.
If you want to make a distinction, it's that so-called "open source proponents" realize that businesses may also be users, and they don't have a problem with that or forcing users to meet certain obligations with respect to modifications and distribution. That's all. As someone who agrees with the ideals of "copyleft" and the GPL, it might stroke your ego to think that your kind are the only ones who have the user's freedoms in mind ("think of the users!"), but perhaps its good if a little truth helps deflate some of that for you.
This too can lead to the loss of software freedom.
Software licensed under Free licenses such as MIT, zlib, and BSD can become less free no easier than can GPL software. I know this may fly in the face of the dogma you've always thought concerning how the GPL is supposed to be more protective of users' freedoms. In reality, if a company cannot meet the requirements of the GPL, we are no better or worse (in terms of the amount of public code) even if said company finds some BSD-licensed code to build off of and keeps their changes proprietary. Their alternative would be to build everything in-house, and it will still be proprietary anyway. On the other hand, many companies (that are legally able) do contribute their changes back to Apache, MIT, zlib, BSD-licensed projects every day (even if they have no legal obligation), as they do GPL projects. These two facts combined with the realization that code which has been licensed freely cannot then be retracted (there will always be a public fork) should be enough to make obvious to you that the popular assumption that the GPL is legally or morally better for users' freedoms resides on shaky ground.
The GPL is a decent license, although considerably more complicated than most people and projects need. It does have one notably interesting feature, although ironically (and arguably) it is related to user freedom in a negative way, which is what this article is about: the GPL can be used alongside a proprietary one. That's not something that is easily accomplished with other Free software licenses, but I don't consider it a bad thing. It's the one unique feature that really makes the GPL worthwhile in my estimation.
an alternative to itunes would be great, but it would have to sync non jailbroken iphones ipod touch / whatever comes next and apple clearly doesn't want any program other than itunes doing that. see palm.
Huh? I assume you're trying to reference Palm's Pre, but that whole debacle doesn't have anything to do with Apple devices syncing with non-Apple software.
But somehow, Apple gets a pass for that kind of behavior...
Apple gets a pass for... what kind of behavior exactly? Is it suddenly bad now for a company to provide software for syncing the devices they sell? Yeah, that sounds just horrible...
Of course Apple will keep Quicktime as a dependency of iTunes.
Who says you suddenly can't use your iPhone to read books now that B&N has their own reader which might appeal to other people?
like the other two major OSs have.
Even FreeBSD did the right thing after OSS was closed by building upon what they already had, and sound works much better on that OS because of it. Linux is essentially the only mainstream operating system which is still plagued by audio problems which were solved years ago by everyone else.
GPL vs. BSD is essentially a matter of business (or non-business) strategy. You pick the rules that work for you, and then you pick a license.
By logical extension, the conscious choice of any license is a matter choosing whatever rules/conditions you would like to release your stuff under. There are more licenses than just two, and while we sometimes group everything that isn't GPL under the term "BSD," there is a reason why hundreds of licenses exist (and it's not a bad thing); people should understand the terms and conditions of the licenses they use, and they should be able to make a conscious decision concerning the various unique clauses.
I'm not a huge fan of this debate of religious proportions. Just use whatever terms and conditions you agree with for a given project.
In that sense, Linux is already a copyright minefield. That would just have the effect of setting them all off at once... or something like that.
You're missing the GP's point who is not saying that GPL licensed software should not be relied upon or has played no role in bringing us to this point. Rather, he makes the very good point that people often think that the GPL is responsible for either the success of Linux or the success of free and open source software in general. As he communicated so well, that assumption is debatable at best and certainly not self-evident as there are many, many successful free and open source software packages which are not GPL.
Since you brought up gcc, I'll note that llvm is looking extremely promising and even has corporate backing (by Apple). It's not GPL. It's not even LGPL. The assumption that companies only like to back GPL projects doesn't seem to hold much water either.
There's a business case when XP stops getting security updates. And let's face it, if the CEO wants that big task bar, he's gonna get that big task bar.
Intel can't lose. Most people are going to get Windows 7 on a new PC (only a psycho would pay $299 for an operating system). A large chunk of those new PCs are going to have Intel inside, whether they are Nehalems are not.
Vista was like eight years of G. W. Bush. Then we asked for "change," and they give us the same thing, but.. different... We think it's the best thing we've ever had. Tears of joy stream down our faces on October 22 as they did November 4, 08 as we're caught up in the momentous occasion. Nevermind that the best thing we've been able to come up with to explain 7's greatness is that at least it's not Vista.
Some things are worth paying for. Not saying definitely Windows 7 is, but ymmv.