MacOS X runs on a closed hardware platform. There is no way an OS running on generic hardware will ever get as many "little thing" right as an OS where the developer controls the hardware.
If you want to compare desktop Linux with MacOS X in any meaningful way, you must compare MacOS X with Linux running on a PC specially build by professionals for a particular Linux distribution.
The way you dress, the shape you keep your body in, and your personal hygiegne all send out messages about who you are. Deliberately or indeliberately.
Piecings and tatoos more so. Unlike the first group of messages, which can be accidental, the only reason to get a visible piercing or tatoo is that you want to tell other people about who you are.
This is neither "professional" nor "unprofessional", these labels should be reserved for how you do your job, not how you look.
However, these non-verbal messages are as important as your verbal messages, especially in a job interview situation.
Wear a tie, and you signal submission. Wear a tatoo, and you signal rebellion (in most cases). Which is best depend on the culture and clients of the workplace.
Probably most bosses of America prefer submissive workers. But maybe the only workplaces you would enjoy are those who cultivate rebels.
The idea was that Motorola would produce cheap PowerPC chips for low end computers, while IBM would continue to create fast POWER chips for their big servers.
Motorola dropped the ball, so Apple switched to IBM for their CPUs. But while you can use a server CPU in a desktop machine, the power consumption is too high for a laptop.
IBM isn't really interested in laptops (or desktops for the matter, they just sold their entire PC division). I suspect the estimnated sales numbers for Apple laptops are too small to warrant the development cost alone (unlike the sale numbers for game consoles).
Makes perfect sense. The short time transaction pain is comparable, but after switching to a free software solution he will no longer be at the mercy of the business plan of a single vendor.
Yes, as a zillion high rated comment already point out, there is no legal doubt that the author own the code. And a "copyright year name" statement is not needed, but anyway encouraged and common (the article actually also state that).
However, the article is about damages, not ownership. If it is unclear to the defendant who the opposing legal party was, it may reduce the chance or size of damages awarded. At least in Holland. No question though, the defendant will be forced to stop the illegal distribution.
Stopping the illegal distribution is what is most important to us, but a lawyer is usually paid to extract as many money as possible, so his point of view is obviously different.
Yes, and that is the strength of it. "Many people do lots of different things". Zillions of ideas are tried out, the vast majority fails, a few bring forward the state of the art. It is evolution in action. It is how the capitalist market is supposed to work, except when we let it be subverted by private monopolies.
... that using mathematical models is not a new concept in medicine. Mathematical models is part of the foundation for just about any other branch of science.
The way to resolve the problem is to have two lists of supported platforms, primary platforms and secondary platforms. Primary platforms must work, there should be no releases that break the primary platforms, and new features must be developed with all the primary platforms in mind.
For secondary platforms, patches that make the application work on those should be accepted and encouraged, but releases won't get delayed, and new features can be accepted even if a solution for the seocndary platform has not been found. In general, users of the secondary platform should not rely on the official releases of the platform, but get their code directly from the maintainer of the secondary platform (or from a cvs branch).
Which platforms are primary and which are secondary should depend on the application. For easy-to-use end-user stuff like ForeFox, IA32 GNU/Linux, IA32 MS Windows and MacOS X would be a good set of primary platforms. For the GCC/binutils/gdb the set need to much more varied, and include popular embedded platforms. The strength of GCC has always been portabiblity and cross-compilation. It has only rarely been the best compiler for native compilation on popular platforms.
Much of the initial work was part of BSD, which was a free as the Unix license from AT&T allowed. And the BSD code was basis for most vendors, including Microsoft.
Or for those who think the Internet is WWW, the original implementation of HTTP and HTML were also free software.
I agree, the IMDB is way better. It reflects what movie interested people in general are interested in, and is thus a much better canon than what some random movie buff believes.
With IBM CPU's powering both the new XBox and Playstation, one would imagine that volume production for cheap Mac's would be possible. Is there any reason you couldn't use a XBox 360 CPU in a Mac?
It seems obvious to me that someone may come up with a sufficiently better search engine that would make people switch. Happened to AltaVista.
However, would that really affect Google the company much? From what I understand, the company is mostly an advertisement agency, connecting advertisers with people who want to sell advertisement space, for the largest effect.
GCC does not have a clean front-end interface, even though a big step forward was taken in GCC 4.0.
GCC development is largely driven by external funding, and getting funding for writting a "GCC front-ends for dumies" is not easy. Especially when the front-end interface is in flux.
Examining the toy front-ends end the most recent real front-ends, plus the more technical documents, is the best advice there is to give for the time being.
But a volunteer for writting better documentation would be appreciated.
Slashdot Mirror
MacOS X runs on a closed hardware platform. There is no way an OS running on generic hardware will ever get as many "little thing" right as an OS where the developer controls the hardware.
If you want to compare desktop Linux with MacOS X in any meaningful way, you must compare MacOS X with Linux running on a PC specially build by professionals for a particular Linux distribution.
The way you dress, the shape you keep your body in, and your personal hygiegne all send out messages about who you are. Deliberately or indeliberately.
Piecings and tatoos more so. Unlike the first group of messages, which can be accidental, the only reason to get a visible piercing or tatoo is that you want to tell other people about who you are.
This is neither "professional" nor "unprofessional", these labels should be reserved for how you do your job, not how you look.
However, these non-verbal messages are as important as your verbal messages, especially in a job interview situation.
Wear a tie, and you signal submission. Wear a tatoo, and you signal rebellion (in most cases). Which is best depend on the culture and clients of the workplace.
Probably most bosses of America prefer submissive workers. But maybe the only workplaces you would enjoy are those who cultivate rebels.
Basically, a dictorship is uncompatible with a free press, leaving space for ever growing corruption.
That is why the Soviet Union collapsed, while the US (despite its obviously dysfunctional political system) prevailed.
Checks and balances are needed.
> 32-bit clunky piece of junk.
Eh, I do hope they will use AMD64 (whatever the Intel name is) instruction set as a minimum requirement.
When you had some new hardware, you bought a (relatively cheap) Unix source license, and had something running fast
Linux is better though, because the GPL encourage hardware vendors to share their modifications.
With Unix all you had access to was the original source, and the ports done by non-commercial/academic groups (source as UCB). Not other vendors code.
The idea was that Motorola would produce cheap PowerPC chips for low end computers, while IBM would continue to create fast POWER chips for their big servers.
Motorola dropped the ball, so Apple switched to IBM for their CPUs. But while you can use a server CPU in a desktop machine, the power consumption is too high for a laptop.
IBM isn't really interested in laptops (or desktops for the matter, they just sold their entire PC division). I suspect the estimnated sales numbers for Apple laptops are too small to warrant the development cost alone (unlike the sale numbers for game consoles).
Makes perfect sense. The short time transaction pain is comparable, but after switching to a free software solution he will no longer be at the mercy of the business plan of a single vendor.
Yes, as a zillion high rated comment already point out, there is no legal doubt that the author own the code. And a "copyright year name" statement is not needed, but anyway encouraged and common (the article actually also state that).
However, the article is about damages, not ownership. If it is unclear to the defendant who the opposing legal party was, it may reduce the chance or size of damages awarded. At least in Holland. No question though, the defendant will be forced to stop the illegal distribution.
Stopping the illegal distribution is what is most important to us, but a lawyer is usually paid to extract as many money as possible, so his point of view is obviously different.
Yes, and that is the strength of it. "Many people do lots of different things". Zillions of ideas are tried out, the vast majority fails, a few bring forward the state of the art. It is evolution in action. It is how the capitalist market is supposed to work, except when we let it be subverted by private monopolies.
... that using mathematical models is not a new concept in medicine. Mathematical models is part of the foundation for just about any other branch of science.
The way to resolve the problem is to have two lists of supported platforms, primary platforms and secondary platforms. Primary platforms must work, there should be no releases that break the primary platforms, and new features must be developed with all the primary platforms in mind.
For secondary platforms, patches that make the application work on those should be accepted and encouraged, but releases won't get delayed, and new features can be accepted even if a solution for the seocndary platform has not been found. In general, users of the secondary platform should not rely on the official releases of the platform, but get their code directly from the maintainer of the secondary platform (or from a cvs branch).
Which platforms are primary and which are secondary should depend on the application. For easy-to-use end-user stuff like ForeFox, IA32 GNU/Linux, IA32 MS Windows and MacOS X would be a good set of primary platforms. For the GCC/binutils/gdb the set need to much more varied, and include popular embedded platforms. The strength of GCC has always been portabiblity and cross-compilation. It has only rarely been the best compiler for native compilation on popular platforms.
> Why run NeoOffice when Microsoft Office 2004 for Mac is available?
Because NeoOffice has much better compability with OpenOffice, which is the standard office package used by his company.
Why would you pay more for a less compatible product?
I do see it as a promising sign that IBM is actually basing a compute server on the chip.
Much of the initial work was part of BSD, which was a free as the Unix license from AT&T allowed. And the BSD code was basis for most vendors, including Microsoft.
Or for those who think the Internet is WWW, the original implementation of HTTP and HTML were also free software.
I agree, the IMDB is way better. It reflects what movie interested people in general are interested in, and is thus a much better canon than what some random movie buff believes.
I'd expect dissemination of information to be the goal behind the non-profit university presses. A goal which the Google's index should help.
Of course the goal of the non-profits may not be the same as the goals of the people employed by the non-profits...
Anyway, making Google searches refer to the books should increase sales quite a lot.
With IBM CPU's powering both the new XBox and Playstation, one would imagine that volume production for cheap Mac's would be possible. Is there any reason you couldn't use a XBox 360 CPU in a Mac?
> And Microsoft's never been known for "thin".
MS-DOS was pretty slim. Before that, their BASIC interpreter was the basis for som rather low level machines, even for the time.
It seems obvious to me that someone may come up with a sufficiently better search engine that would make people switch. Happened to AltaVista.
However, would that really affect Google the company much? From what I understand, the company is mostly an advertisement agency, connecting advertisers with people who want to sell advertisement space, for the largest effect.
It can be more convenient, certainly. But never better.
GCC does not have a clean front-end interface, even though a big step forward was taken in GCC 4.0.
GCC development is largely driven by external funding, and getting funding for writting a "GCC front-ends for dumies" is not easy. Especially when the front-end interface is in flux.
Examining the toy front-ends end the most recent real front-ends, plus the more technical documents, is the best advice there is to give for the time being.
But a volunteer for writting better documentation would be appreciated.
would probably count on the flop side as well.
The implied meaning is that Microsoft doesn't improve their products on its own, but only when competition force it to do so.
You don't buy a company that compete with your own customers (HP, Dell, IBM...)
Buying Sun would totally screw up their relationship with HP/Compaq, Dell, IBM, and anybody else selling NT based servers.
Bad move.