Hehe, It was sarcasm. I know it has been around. I was just saying. Gee, like that hasn't been doen before. My whole post was a "move along, nothing to see here tone":)
I don't care of you have the smartest people in the world, which is likely with Intel, if you mismanage and drive products the way Intel has it does not matter.
Sure you have a ton of smart people but I just have a lack of faith in the whole architecture. You can have the brightest bunch of people in the world but if you make them cook burgers does it matter? Not to discredit your post on other means, but saying because Intel has smart people is kinda silly. They also have stupid people by the same token, does that make them less likely to suceed?
Thank you. I hear everyone bitching about how shitty US stuff like cell phones and mass transit are compared to US. I have found most major united states cities to be rather well wired and having good enough mass transit. Eruope is one big bunch of people in a small place, the united states is a huge sprawl of which is still not fully populated.
I was going to post the exact same thing about size comparison.. Thanks:)
I personally boot to FreeDOS for any dos related activities on a completely seperate machine, but I suppose I could do that on my main machine if I wanted too. I avoid DOS for the most part and dont game much in all honesty, but I did game heavily for sevral months and found 2000 more than up to the challenge. And still that is one of the weaker arguments for upgrading to XP.
8) Cookie management in the new IE. You can block and accept cookies
to your liking based on hostnames. So.. you can let hotmail write
cookies, but choose to block some random ad site from doing it.
Install IE6, problem solved
6) "My Computer" can be on the start bar now (the new default) so you
no longer have to minimize everything and search for that stupid icon
on your desktop. It kicks ass once you get used to it.
I put the entire shortcut to my desktop on my taskbar. Click, My Computer is always at the top.
1) It is replacing that hunk of shit Win9x/me I game just fine on 2000 professional 1.5) Remote desktop. Uses terminal services ala win2k server, except you can take over the desktop on the remote machine. It supports more colors than the win2k version,and even does sound. It is like vnc only it is actually fast and redraws the screen properly.
What is wrong with VNC, it is not like remote computing is feasible for much other than administration. No way your gonna game over a remote link. So that was a reason because...?
5) Compatibility modes let your programs run thinking they're in
win9x, win95, windows2000, etc so that things that wouldn't normally
work, will.
Could you be any more vague? Ive run programs that were compiled 10 years ago for a very old dos, yeah.. I think the backwards compatability is already there and win2k does a good job of making it all work.
3)No reboots required to install or detect hardware (most of the
time)I've been spoiled by this one. In fact the number of reboots has been cut down to ~10% of what they used to be. I think win2k sucks now;)
Got me there, I wouldnt know of any other commerical OS that would let you hotswap processors or anything... But since these are reasons to upgrade that is one of the only valid ones, not that it should ever have been one to begin with.
The rest of the reasons are just basically minor points not worth 200 dollars when I can already do everything but skin windows..
We played a cruel joke in my office. We found someone who was not the most technically savvy. Then we maximized and made the flash full screen (For WinRG). So it really looked like we had replaced his windows with Windows really good. It was hillarious when we showed him it was really just a spoof.
That is a safe way to play it honestly. I don't mean to sound like im paranoid or that people can completely just steal the works of others.. But it would take lawyers and a court case to settle any kind of dispute and most open source people do it to scratch an itch or have fun, just as I do. Where is the fun in going through a legal battle? It seems pretty hopeless but that is what corporations with lawyers on payroll can do. Pretty scary. While a lot of people dislike RMS and dont really like the FSF if you believe in the GPL as a lic and can get your project brought under the FSF umbrella it is a really cool thing.
The tagline for the FSF's mission is too "develop, preserve, and protect" free software. Free in their sense of the word free.
One of the most helpful places I found to learn about copyright, albeit with the obvious slant towards "FSF Free" software, was this page
I don't agree with a lot of the FSF ideas but I also dont agree with the way copyright applies to software, at least the current court case examples.
I suppose the main reason I jumped in and am being so stubborn is that people have to realize how powerful copyright can be in anyones hands, especially pertaining to software and corporations control of software. Some of the papers are outdated making references that it is unfeasible for your average computer user to copy a CD onto another, its obivous this has the MPAA terrified.
My whole philosphy on all of this is there are some fundamental considerations to be had on software. It is so fast moving and so dynamic that it is just too fast for the court system, the patent system, or anything else. Software is treated like a book. I know a lot about book writing and how that goes. I have waded through large grizzly contracts that signed over my copyright on my work to the book I am writing. The courts view software in nearly the same light right now. That is one of the main points that causes the FSF to exist. I just tend to believe they are on a far extreme of where things will most likely end up in an optimal world some day. But without the extremes on both sides I don't think progress and new thinking would ever occur, and for that I admire each and every author who releases his code with the intentions of sharing with others, regardless of the lic or semantics, the fact that people want to share their thoughts and ideas is the profound part for me. I want to see this continue, but I also think that ignorance to how perilously thin those rights are can be jeapordize the very ideals that cause people to share their thoughts, ideas, and software:)
Thanks for actually reading my post and engaging in intelligent discussion, it happens so rarely here;)
I never claimed to know how the Linux kernel was structured. All the more power to the Linux people, its true then with such disparate ownership it would be next to impossible to take over the Linux kernel. Thanks for the info.
I think that virii cost more in terms of the hype they create. I spent more time explaning to my mom and friends that code red would not melt their harddrive and that they were free and clear.
The time lost is real. I must have spent at least 16 work hours patching, researching and explaning to others in the office who "needed" to know. Thats about 500 dollars of lost money for my company.
Anyhow, check out my homepage for a graph of the code red hits my web server has taken:)
I submitted well over 1000 lines of code to several projects, some FSF, some not and the understanding was if you submit it too them its copyright them. Any anonymous patches were rejected.
I still say talk to a lawyer no matter how sure you are of your rights in any situation. Even in the case where there is not that implicit agreement, it is the "understood" agreement as far as copyright law goes.
True, I dunno its really not an easy question to answer. The kernel is probablly an exception, it really all depends on how it all is handled etc. I have never developed on the kernel and dont claim to be familiar with the process, I just know that copyright laws are pretty far reaching and tough.
100% true and right! But I have never seen a major project where I was not told that by submitting a patch xyz person gained total ownership of it.
Same with almost any FSF software. You must agree the FSF gets the copyright on it, for legal protection of the project. I bet anyone who patched or submitted to this was subjected to a similar agreement or acknolwedgement about who owns the code. The point is there is not enough information out there or in this forum to determine this so debating who is right or wrong is rather pointless. I lean towards the "evil" parent company being in the right, but without knowing the actual details it is impossible to know.
Actually, that is just how it works if the contributions are not substantial enough to warrant the other CONTRIBUTORS copyright on the work. And hey if they took the initiative to start the project and get the bulk of it started it is the project starters RIGHT to do what they want with the code. I already have discussed this a lot I will continue to debunk posts like yours mindstrm, no offense.
Read up on copyright law, here are the basics. Unless you contribute enough in the courts eyes to show that you have a substantial amount of work vested in the project, then you have no legal recourse. Generally as tons of individuals none of them would have any legal recourse. Now if a company with individuals all submitted it as the company, yes sure that company has a legal recourse.
The FSF does the exact opposite with projects. They take projects that exist and get the authors to sign away all rights to the FSF basically. Why? So that the FSF can protect the work and ensure that some evil company does not come along and contribute a little and then try and steal the work as their own.
Just like a company if it starts the work and is on the up and up about working with it, can pack up shop and keep the contributions as a part of their original work. This is the essence of what the FSF does for projects, only to ensure they stay free. So a corporation has every right to ensure that later if they want they can take their toys and go home
I think if a project becomes wildly popular the original authors did something right and deserve the credit and additions. Why dont we deride VA Linux for taking source forge and reselling it ehh? How much have people contributed to that. Now all their hard work is being sold and the little contributors are not being paid. How do you like that? Not very cool? Its legal. VA owns the copyright and they can do what they want.
Now to be subjective and totally flamebait. Why did VA do this? To make money of course. What they couldnt make money with the GPL'd version? Suprise? Why is this company taking its toys and going home? Who knows, maybe they couldnt make money on it either? As always there is still the GPL'd version out there tho.:)
Think about it, most people react and think the same thing you do. Even I thought that it was totally wrong. But I got personall involved in a situation and talked with a lawyer, which is what I suggest anyone involved who feels they have legal recourse do.
Turns out I would have just been wasting my time. Most almost all of the time, this is the case.
Im not a lawyer.. but I do know a bit about common sense and a bit about how copyright works.
Common sense to ME dictates that I cant expect a company to reasonably diffrentiate my minor amount of work I contribute to their GPL'd product, from the rest of their product. There is no question who owns the work when I contribute minor amounts of code. They do. They have the copyright on the work as a whole, which includes my CONTRIBUTION to the project. The keyword here is contribution to THEIR work. Contribute. While the word contribution may be a little ambigious it basically means to submit for publication or top bring a result about. Sorry for arguing about the definition of the word, but it is important I think.
If you specifically license your code to them as GPL, yes you can argue that they can't do this. If you just contribute this work to their project, regardless of your intentions, it becomes theirs. If it is a substantial amount them you may actually overide their own copyright, but that is not for you or I to decide. The courts decide what is enough to screw with the original copyright. Not you or I. So its pretty clear that unless your CONTRIBUTING copious amounts of code, it is theirs. That is how it works. Have you ever directly contributed to a FSF owned project? THey have the copyright and they make sure you know that when you contribute it becomes theirs, mostly as a courtesey to you.
That is the thing, most people let the FSF handle their software project copyrighting for the legal protection and assurance that someone cant do just what your talking about, contribute some and say the code is theirs. SO the FSF has a copyright on your software that means that all these little contributors are just giving to your project. The FSF could easily take your project that you signed all rights over too and release it under any lic they want. Thats what having copyright on a work means. Of course they wouldnt because well that would be the end of community faith in FSF, but they very well could and with no legal recourse for the original authors.
Seriously it takes maybe three hours of reading to determine this is how copyright and contribution to copyrighted works is. If you don't believe me you don't have to, ignorance of the law is no excuse:)
Ask a lawyer or research it on your own.
As for the linux kernel... you have to be able to identify the pieces and parts and who has made the most substnatial contributions. Youd be suprised what Linus could actually get away with in reality. Maybe the courts would not let that hold up. It all depends on who has done the most work. It honestly is not up to us to decide in common banter. We can say what we think, but in reality most of the time the authors of the software are in the right.
As the parent said, that is up to the parent company. The parent as a whole owns the work, of which a small portion was submitted by different authors. There is no taking away the GPL'd version you wrote. I think it all matters is how much you wrote and how you went about releasing the software. It is a somewhat murky ground if for example you wanted to keep some of it, but this is pretty easily resolvable. If your worried you should talk to a lawyer, as anyone else who is worried about their rights. I bet lawyers were consulted already on the companies part.
Can I second that? To trumpet my old example of id software.
They released QuakeI under the GPL but since they own it they can resell it to anyone they want for as much as they want, period.
When you author something in a transmittable medium it becomes copyrighted etc.
Just like VA taking source forge and selling it to other sources. They are legally allowed to do this because they own the product. People are friggin spazzing out that it is illegal because they contributed to the source forge code base. Well guess what, if I contributed too any open source project I can't instantly expect the ownership of it to no longer be the original authors because I gave him a piece of code. As with sourceforge VA owns the copyright on the work, when you contribute it becomes copyright VA, you don't own any of the contributions, VA does. PERIOD. If this ever went to court the results would be very predictable.
VLIW processors are a pretty new thing. It is going to take time to get a optimized compiler. The compiler for a VLIW is going to have to be damn good. But IF they can pull off an awesome compiler VLIW chips should totally rock.. Whether or not the dev tools can do it remain to be seen. These chips still have potential.. they just are not ready for prime time
I am the original poster and I do agree with you too an extent. But I still think the net effect is more positive than negative. I am more than glad to help people out and field the odd well thought question coming from a friend.
OT: The message feature that tells how many messages you have is cool for keeping track of a conversation well beyond the lifetime of the article being on the front page:)
That the group of people I am referencing is not most hardcore computer people. Sure I know about it too, I think it is neat but I have yet to really try it (OS X) out. But I do know a lot of people who do think its cool and who have been trying it out. Mostly programmers, guys who like Macs etc.
They know about Linux but never tried it. Along came OS X and they were compiling their own software and asking me a ton of *nix oriented questions.
That is my main point, it has interested a new crowd of people in Unix in a unobtrusive way.
But you know about it, maybeit does not excite you but if your a typical/. person. You know about the flashy graphics of OS X which in turns puts *nix machines on more peoples desktops. Even if they dont know about it, it is there always:)
To myself mostly, and rather quietly usually, how Apple has created OS X and made it excite people so much more than Linux?
I look at Apple and the company they are. They are not special. They took existing software anyone in the world could have downloaded and turned it into something that has geeks and Mac enthusiasts alike excited.
What did they do with their operating system that is freely available that the Linux people have been trying so hard to do on the desktop and have yet to really come through like Apple has.
Surely the combined bulk of Linux developers is not less than the employees of Apple is it?
Apple has taken little open source pieces and parts and turned it into a truly interesting operating system that gets a "Cool factor" from most anyone I know that likes Macs.
Why can't Linux excite people so? Does the money make that much of a difference? Apple steps up and gets the word out using its standard marketing channels and creates a bonafide hype that people buy into, contrast to your average Linux story. Whats the give?
I know this will be seen as off-topic but I argue it is completely relevant to any PPC, or Linux distro. If only they could somehow capture what Apple has done with OS X. Anyway.. just my quiet musings.
None of OS X is perfect, it has bugs, but people do have faith in OS X and they keep on using it for the most part.
While OS X does not have the share of servers nor desktops and has not proven itself in either, it definitely has the mindshare of most everyone. WE all know about it and know its supposed to be the perfect blend of desktop ease of use and a # prompt to the underlying OS.
Just my thinking, I still don't have a good answer.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes but when will Konq be out for Win32?
:-o
Jeremy
Hehe, It was sarcasm. I know it has been around. I was just saying. Gee, like that hasn't been doen before. My whole post was a "move along, nothing to see here tone" :)
I don't care of you have the smartest people in the world, which is likely with Intel, if you mismanage and drive products the way Intel has it does not matter.
Sure you have a ton of smart people but I just have a lack of faith in the whole architecture. You can have the brightest bunch of people in the world but if you make them cook burgers does it matter? Not to discredit your post on other means, but saying because Intel has smart people is kinda silly. They also have stupid people by the same token, does that make them less likely to suceed?
Jeremy
Thank you. I hear everyone bitching about how shitty US stuff like cell phones and mass transit are compared to US. I have found most major united states cities to be rather well wired and having good enough mass transit. Eruope is one big bunch of people in a small place, the united states is a huge sprawl of which is still not fully populated.
.. Thanks :)
I was going to post the exact same thing about size comparison
I personally boot to FreeDOS for any dos related activities on a completely seperate machine, but I suppose I could do that on my main machine if I wanted too. I avoid DOS for the most part and dont game much in all honesty, but I did game heavily for sevral months and found 2000 more than up to the challenge. And still that is one of the weaker arguments for upgrading to XP.
Jeremy
8) Cookie management in the new IE. You can block and accept cookies
;)
to your liking based on hostnames. So.. you can let hotmail write
cookies, but choose to block some random ad site from doing it.
Install IE6, problem solved
6) "My Computer" can be on the start bar now (the new default) so you
no longer have to minimize everything and search for that stupid icon
on your desktop. It kicks ass once you get used to it.
I put the entire shortcut to my desktop on my taskbar. Click, My Computer is always at the top.
1) It is replacing that hunk of shit Win9x/me
I game just fine on 2000 professional
1.5) Remote desktop. Uses terminal services ala win2k server, except you can take over the desktop on the remote machine. It supports more colors than the win2k version,and even does sound. It is like vnc only it is actually fast and redraws the screen properly.
What is wrong with VNC, it is not like remote computing is feasible for much other than administration. No way your gonna game over a remote link. So that was a reason because...?
5) Compatibility modes let your programs run thinking they're in
win9x, win95, windows2000, etc so that things that wouldn't normally
work, will.
Could you be any more vague? Ive run programs that were compiled 10 years ago for a very old dos, yeah.. I think the backwards compatability is already there and win2k does a good job of making it all work.
3)No reboots required to install or detect hardware (most of the
time)I've been spoiled by this one. In fact the number of reboots has been cut down to ~10% of what they used to be. I think win2k sucks now
Got me there, I wouldnt know of any other commerical OS that would let you hotswap processors or anything... But since these are reasons to upgrade that is one of the only valid ones, not that it should ever have been one to begin with.
The rest of the reasons are just basically minor points not worth 200 dollars when I can already do everything but skin windows..
So.. whatever.
Jeremy
We played a cruel joke in my office. We found someone who was not the most technically savvy. Then we maximized and made the flash full screen (For WinRG). So it really looked like we had replaced his windows with Windows really good. It was hillarious when we showed him it was really just a spoof.
Jeremy
That is a safe way to play it honestly. I don't mean to sound like im paranoid or that people can completely just steal the works of others.. But it would take lawyers and a court case to settle any kind of dispute and most open source people do it to scratch an itch or have fun, just as I do. Where is the fun in going through a legal battle? It seems pretty hopeless but that is what corporations with lawyers on payroll can do. Pretty scary. While a lot of people dislike RMS and dont really like the FSF if you believe in the GPL as a lic and can get your project brought under the FSF umbrella it is a really cool thing.
:)
;)
The tagline for the FSF's mission is too "develop, preserve, and protect" free software. Free in their sense of the word free.
One of the most helpful places I found to learn about copyright, albeit with the obvious slant towards "FSF Free" software, was this page
FSF Philosophy, here is an interesting piece by stallman Stallman on copyright
I don't agree with a lot of the FSF ideas but I also dont agree with the way copyright applies to software, at least the current court case examples.
I suppose the main reason I jumped in and am being so stubborn is that people have to realize how powerful copyright can be in anyones hands, especially pertaining to software and corporations control of software. Some of the papers are outdated making references that it is unfeasible for your average computer user to copy a CD onto another, its obivous this has the MPAA terrified.
My whole philosphy on all of this is there are some fundamental considerations to be had on software. It is so fast moving and so dynamic that it is just too fast for the court system, the patent system, or anything else. Software is treated like a book. I know a lot about book writing and how that goes. I have waded through large grizzly contracts that signed over my copyright on my work to the book I am writing. The courts view software in nearly the same light right now. That is one of the main points that causes the FSF to exist. I just tend to believe they are on a far extreme of where things will most likely end up in an optimal world some day. But without the extremes on both sides I don't think progress and new thinking would ever occur, and for that I admire each and every author who releases his code with the intentions of sharing with others, regardless of the lic or semantics, the fact that people want to share their thoughts and ideas is the profound part for me. I want to see this continue, but I also think that ignorance to how perilously thin those rights are can be jeapordize the very ideals that cause people to share their thoughts, ideas, and software
Thanks for actually reading my post and engaging in intelligent discussion, it happens so rarely here
Jeremy
I never claimed to know how the Linux kernel was structured. All the more power to the Linux people, its true then with such disparate ownership it would be next to impossible to take over the Linux kernel. Thanks for the info.
Jeremy
I think that virii cost more in terms of the hype they create. I spent more time explaning to my mom and friends that code red would not melt their harddrive and that they were free and clear.
:)
The time lost is real. I must have spent at least 16 work hours patching, researching and explaning to others in the office who "needed" to know. Thats about 500 dollars of lost money for my company.
Anyhow, check out my homepage for a graph of the code red hits my web server has taken
Jeremy
Ok, I am actually kind of unclear at this point.
I submitted well over 1000 lines of code to several projects, some FSF, some not and the understanding was if you submit it too them its copyright them. Any anonymous patches were rejected.
I still say talk to a lawyer no matter how sure you are of your rights in any situation. Even in the case where there is not that implicit agreement, it is the "understood" agreement as far as copyright law goes.
True, I dunno its really not an easy question to answer. The kernel is probablly an exception, it really all depends on how it all is handled etc. I have never developed on the kernel and dont claim to be familiar with the process, I just know that copyright laws are pretty far reaching and tough.
100% true and right! But I have never seen a major project where I was not told that by submitting a patch xyz person gained total ownership of it.
Same with almost any FSF software. You must agree the FSF gets the copyright on it, for legal protection of the project. I bet anyone who patched or submitted to this was subjected to a similar agreement or acknolwedgement about who owns the code. The point is there is not enough information out there or in this forum to determine this so debating who is right or wrong is rather pointless. I lean towards the "evil" parent company being in the right, but without knowing the actual details it is impossible to know.
Jeremy
Actually, that is just how it works if the contributions are not substantial enough to warrant the other CONTRIBUTORS copyright on the work. And hey if they took the initiative to start the project and get the bulk of it started it is the project starters RIGHT to do what they want with the code. I already have discussed this a lot I will continue to debunk posts like yours mindstrm, no offense.
:)
Read up on copyright law, here are the basics. Unless you contribute enough in the courts eyes to show that you have a substantial amount of work vested in the project, then you have no legal recourse. Generally as tons of individuals none of them would have any legal recourse. Now if a company with individuals all submitted it as the company, yes sure that company has a legal recourse.
The FSF does the exact opposite with projects. They take projects that exist and get the authors to sign away all rights to the FSF basically. Why? So that the FSF can protect the work and ensure that some evil company does not come along and contribute a little and then try and steal the work as their own.
Just like a company if it starts the work and is on the up and up about working with it, can pack up shop and keep the contributions as a part of their original work. This is the essence of what the FSF does for projects, only to ensure they stay free. So a corporation has every right to ensure that later if they want they can take their toys and go home
I think if a project becomes wildly popular the original authors did something right and deserve the credit and additions. Why dont we deride VA Linux for taking source forge and reselling it ehh? How much have people contributed to that. Now all their hard work is being sold and the little contributors are not being paid. How do you like that? Not very cool? Its legal. VA owns the copyright and they can do what they want.
Now to be subjective and totally flamebait. Why did VA do this? To make money of course. What they couldnt make money with the GPL'd version? Suprise? Why is this company taking its toys and going home? Who knows, maybe they couldnt make money on it either? As always there is still the GPL'd version out there tho.
Think about it, most people react and think the same thing you do. Even I thought that it was totally wrong. But I got personall involved in a situation and talked with a lawyer, which is what I suggest anyone involved who feels they have legal recourse do.
Turns out I would have just been wasting my time. Most almost all of the time, this is the case.
Jeremy
Im not a lawyer.. but I do know a bit about common sense and a bit about how copyright works.
:)
Common sense to ME dictates that I cant expect a company to reasonably diffrentiate my minor amount of work I contribute to their GPL'd product, from the rest of their product. There is no question who owns the work when I contribute minor amounts of code. They do. They have the copyright on the work as a whole, which includes my CONTRIBUTION to the project. The keyword here is contribution to THEIR work. Contribute. While the word contribution may be a little ambigious it basically means to submit for publication or top bring a result about. Sorry for arguing about the definition of the word, but it is important I think.
If you specifically license your code to them as GPL, yes you can argue that they can't do this. If you just contribute this work to their project, regardless of your intentions, it becomes theirs. If it is a substantial amount them you may actually overide their own copyright, but that is not for you or I to decide. The courts decide what is enough to screw with the original copyright. Not you or I. So its pretty clear that unless your CONTRIBUTING copious amounts of code, it is theirs. That is how it works. Have you ever directly contributed to a FSF owned project? THey have the copyright and they make sure you know that when you contribute it becomes theirs, mostly as a courtesey to you.
That is the thing, most people let the FSF handle their software project copyrighting for the legal protection and assurance that someone cant do just what your talking about, contribute some and say the code is theirs. SO the FSF has a copyright on your software that means that all these little contributors are just giving to your project. The FSF could easily take your project that you signed all rights over too and release it under any lic they want. Thats what having copyright on a work means. Of course they wouldnt because well that would be the end of community faith in FSF, but they very well could and with no legal recourse for the original authors.
Seriously it takes maybe three hours of reading to determine this is how copyright and contribution to copyrighted works is. If you don't believe me you don't have to, ignorance of the law is no excuse
Ask a lawyer or research it on your own.
As for the linux kernel... you have to be able to identify the pieces and parts and who has made the most substnatial contributions. Youd be suprised what Linus could actually get away with in reality. Maybe the courts would not let that hold up. It all depends on who has done the most work. It honestly is not up to us to decide in common banter. We can say what we think, but in reality most of the time the authors of the software are in the right.
Jeremy
As the parent said, that is up to the parent company. The parent as a whole owns the work, of which a small portion was submitted by different authors. There is no taking away the GPL'd version you wrote. I think it all matters is how much you wrote and how you went about releasing the software. It is a somewhat murky ground if for example you wanted to keep some of it, but this is pretty easily resolvable. If your worried you should talk to a lawyer, as anyone else who is worried about their rights. I bet lawyers were consulted already on the companies part.
Jeremy
Can I second that? To trumpet my old example of id software.
They released QuakeI under the GPL but since they own it they can resell it to anyone they want for as much as they want, period.
When you author something in a transmittable medium it becomes copyrighted etc.
Just like VA taking source forge and selling it to other sources. They are legally allowed to do this because they own the product. People are friggin spazzing out that it is illegal because they contributed to the source forge code base. Well guess what, if I contributed too any open source project I can't instantly expect the ownership of it to no longer be the original authors because I gave him a piece of code. As with sourceforge VA owns the copyright on the work, when you contribute it becomes copyright VA, you don't own any of the contributions, VA does. PERIOD. If this ever went to court the results would be very predictable.
Anyways, enough of that soapbox.
Jeremy
You left out the price of gas
Excursions are expensive to fill to the hilt with gas.
Jeremy
VLIW processors are a pretty new thing. It is going to take time to get a optimized compiler. The compiler for a VLIW is going to have to be damn good. But IF they can pull off an awesome compiler VLIW chips should totally rock.. Whether or not the dev tools can do it remain to be seen. These chips still have potential.. they just are not ready for prime time
Jeremy
Or a LCD monitor instead of the tempest-free room :) Cheaper methinks.
I am the original poster and I do agree with you too an extent. But I still think the net effect is more positive than negative. I am more than glad to help people out and field the odd well thought question coming from a friend.
:)
OT: The message feature that tells how many messages you have is cool for keeping track of a conversation well beyond the lifetime of the article being on the front page
That the group of people I am referencing is not most hardcore computer people. Sure I know about it too, I think it is neat but I have yet to really try it (OS X) out. But I do know a lot of people who do think its cool and who have been trying it out. Mostly programmers, guys who like Macs etc.
They know about Linux but never tried it. Along came OS X and they were compiling their own software and asking me a ton of *nix oriented questions.
That is my main point, it has interested a new crowd of people in Unix in a unobtrusive way.
Jeremy
But you know about it, maybeit does not excite you but if your a typical /. person. You know about the flashy graphics of OS X which in turns puts *nix machines on more peoples desktops. Even if they dont know about it, it is there always :)
To myself mostly, and rather quietly usually, how Apple has created OS X and made it excite people so much more than Linux?
I look at Apple and the company they are. They are not special. They took existing software anyone in the world could have downloaded and turned it into something that has geeks and Mac enthusiasts alike excited.
What did they do with their operating system that is freely available that the Linux people have been trying so hard to do on the desktop and have yet to really come through like Apple has.
Surely the combined bulk of Linux developers is not less than the employees of Apple is it?
Apple has taken little open source pieces and parts and turned it into a truly interesting operating system that gets a "Cool factor" from most anyone I know that likes Macs.
Why can't Linux excite people so? Does the money make that much of a difference? Apple steps up and gets the word out using its standard marketing channels and creates a bonafide hype that people buy into, contrast to your average Linux story. Whats the give?
I know this will be seen as off-topic but I argue it is completely relevant to any PPC, or Linux distro. If only they could somehow capture what Apple has done with OS X. Anyway.. just my quiet musings.
None of OS X is perfect, it has bugs, but people do have faith in OS X and they keep on using it for the most part.
While OS X does not have the share of servers nor desktops and has not proven itself in either, it definitely has the mindshare of most everyone. WE all know about it and know its supposed to be the perfect blend of desktop ease of use and a # prompt to the underlying OS.
Just my thinking, I still don't have a good answer.
Jeremy
Yes and I read in an interesting article about the kid who was doing JUST that.
Unfortunately the FBI got just a bit suspicious when a kid was bulk ordering hundreds of smoke detectors every month or so
Jeremy