The difference is that Mozilla can't legally include h.264 support, but they can and do legally implement support for third party plug-ins. Adobe makes one such plug-in, Sun's Java is another. Apple's HTML5 implementation is non-free only, which is dangerous to the free world if their products become as popular as the hype suggests.
Stop speaking like a fucking advertising agent, and I might take you seriously. "Seamless user experience" just makes you sound like you've got cum dribbling out of your mouth.
Apple wants a patent-encumbered HTML5. I guess it's good enough for Apple if they can have Mozilla and all other free software on the other side of their fence, and they make sure it's impossible for unpatented codecs to enter.
Users don't have the choice to get support for Theora video on Apple's iWhatever platform, for instance. So if "the free web" wants to support Apple, "the free web" needs to support the proprietary h.264. Does "the free web" have the resources to support both Theora and h.264 at the same time? If not, either Apple's customers have been denied access to the free web, or free software support of the free web is impossible, which makes the free web remarkably unfree.
If you had read the next paragraph as well, you would probably have held your idiotic comment as well:
If he had said anything about why user freedom on the Web is important, his hypocrisy would have been explicit. In a nutshell, he says, "Don't use Adobe's proprietary platform to engage with information on the Web. Use Apple's." He doesn't want users to freely wander and creatively explore the Web or their own computers; he wants them to move from the fenced-off "Freedom Zone" based in San Jose to the one based in Cupertino
Jobs doesn't say why open standards are good, because then it would be obvious that that the "freedom" Jobs offers just isn't.
You're an idiot. We have to proposals for a web standard: a) one that can be implemented and shared freely by everyone, and b) one that can only be shared through a proprietary license. Corporations that have to compete with free software refuse to support a), but support b), which would effectively eliminate free software competition. Now, where were we? Oh yes, you think the FSF et al are "dragging their feet" because they aren't willing to concede defeat over a web standard and effectively lock themselves out from a certain part of the web. As I said, you're an idiot.
"Content provider" is a euphemism for publisher, to make it seem like they represent the actual creators. (And they actually do an important job — just look at the low quality of even the best blogs to see how important actual editors are — but most of these newfangled expressions are made up only to confuse.
You're wrong, but instead of pointing out why, I'll just note that my teeth and hairstyle are better than yours, and that my opinion is the opinion of a proven winner. Only disagreeable people would disagree with me!
(This comment is known to cause cancer in the state of California.)
Of course there is an enormous opposition to Apple these days -- and it's been increasing a lot after the over-the-top iPad hype. I'm certainly in that group myself, and I want to contribute to making Apple unfashionable again. They deserve it.
As for OS X being popular among terminal.app users: Apple's laptops are very decent, but OS X is a shit unix.
The difference is that only the Apple fans actually exist. Linux zealots? There are still a bunch of those who would never use anything but free software, but the evangelising fanboys? I saw many of them back in 1999, when Windows was a monopoly and crashed all the time. Now that Windows works well and no longer creates a host of problems for users of other systems, they seem to be a lot quieter, perhaps non-existant. Or perhaps the zealots just left Slashdot, since the whole DIY/geek spirit disappeared when the Apple fans took over and demanded that nothing that the hypothetical grandma couldn't do was valid use of a computer.
Mac fans, OTOH, are a LOUD group on Slashdot, and to a great degree, they're liars and fraudulent advertisers. They've always been ("Windows 95 = Mac System 5" or whatever, "PPC twice as fast as Pentium on the same MHz" and so on). Examples are too numerous to mention.
Apple fans are much worse. You really have to be an Apple fanboi not to see that, and you really have to be an Apple fanboi to insist on comparing one group to the other when they are criticised. And guess what, you are an Apple fanboi.
No, they didn't. They released the code like they had to according to the license -- a bare minimum -- but they never contributed in a meaningful way to khtml.
No, my contention was that "they're not doing all that much more than what they must". I'll give you Darwin is an exception. CUPS and khtml were GPL and LGPL before they started using them, and there wasn't much they could do about it. They're not in any way a major open source contributor.
Yes, and if you'd link just slightly higher up on that page, you'd see that Apple's initial "contributions" to khtml were close to useless, and if you'd linked further down, you'd notice that WebCore and JavaScriptCore are the main parts of WebKit – in fact, the only two parts without which WebKit would be fundamentally useless as a layout engine.
Also, Darwin is only the shit part of OS X, and no one in their right mind would use it for anything but OS X development.
Apple couldn't legally release a closed-source WebKit as it's a fork of the (L)GPL khtml, so saying that they "open sourced" WebKit is disingenuous at best.
Apple never even started upstreaming changes to WebKit. They simply forked it from khtml, and all backporting to khtml has been done by the khtml developers themselves. Or do you seriously think that not breaking the LGPL license is a grand contribution to open source software? Keeping CUPS open is more than keeping it legally compatible with the GPL openprinting drivers?
And oooh, contributing more to open source than Microsoft is like contributing more to science than creationists do. It's not a bragging point. Not that I'm unhappy with Apple's contributions, but really... they're not doing all that much more than what they must.
Let's take your example, and search for a movie trailer. Avatar. Bing's first result is a fucking blog called avatar-trailer -- at Google's own Blogspot.com, followed by traileraddicts, youtube, youtube and Apple. Google's result's are Youtube first (with thumbnails), then three different services, image search thumbnails, then the fucking blog again, followed by the official site. The problem here isn't Google's data mining, but the fact that Bing's first hit just isn't what you're looking for. Bing is simply not very good. You can't blame Google for that.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is that Mozilla can't legally include h.264 support, but they can and do legally implement support for third party plug-ins. Adobe makes one such plug-in, Sun's Java is another. Apple's HTML5 implementation is non-free only, which is dangerous to the free world if their products become as popular as the hype suggests.
Stop speaking like a fucking advertising agent, and I might take you seriously. "Seamless user experience" just makes you sound like you've got cum dribbling out of your mouth.
Apple wants a patent-encumbered HTML5. I guess it's good enough for Apple if they can have Mozilla and all other free software on the other side of their fence, and they make sure it's impossible for unpatented codecs to enter.
Users don't have the choice to get support for Theora video on Apple's iWhatever platform, for instance. So if "the free web" wants to support Apple, "the free web" needs to support the proprietary h.264. Does "the free web" have the resources to support both Theora and h.264 at the same time? If not, either Apple's customers have been denied access to the free web, or free software support of the free web is impossible, which makes the free web remarkably unfree.
If you had read the next paragraph as well, you would probably have held your idiotic comment as well:
Jobs doesn't say why open standards are good, because then it would be obvious that that the "freedom" Jobs offers just isn't.
You're an idiot. We have to proposals for a web standard: a) one that can be implemented and shared freely by everyone, and b) one that can only be shared through a proprietary license. Corporations that have to compete with free software refuse to support a), but support b), which would effectively eliminate free software competition. Now, where were we? Oh yes, you think the FSF et al are "dragging their feet" because they aren't willing to concede defeat over a web standard and effectively lock themselves out from a certain part of the web. As I said, you're an idiot.
"Content provider" is a euphemism for publisher, to make it seem like they represent the actual creators. (And they actually do an important job — just look at the low quality of even the best blogs to see how important actual editors are — but most of these newfangled expressions are made up only to confuse.
Compared to a web site hosting an installable .exe file? Really? I don't believe you.
Oh, so Opera has lost the invaluable DWRECK18 market. That's definitely the sign of a company in deep crisis.
You're wrong, but instead of pointing out why, I'll just note that my teeth and hairstyle are better than yours, and that my opinion is the opinion of a proven winner. Only disagreeable people would disagree with me!
(This comment is known to cause cancer in the state of California.)
Only idiots use the word 'WinDOS' these days. I wouldn't take advice from an idiot.
Of course there is an enormous opposition to Apple these days -- and it's been increasing a lot after the over-the-top iPad hype. I'm certainly in that group myself, and I want to contribute to making Apple unfashionable again. They deserve it.
As for OS X being popular among terminal.app users: Apple's laptops are very decent, but OS X is a shit unix.
The difference is that only the Apple fans actually exist. Linux zealots? There are still a bunch of those who would never use anything but free software, but the evangelising fanboys? I saw many of them back in 1999, when Windows was a monopoly and crashed all the time. Now that Windows works well and no longer creates a host of problems for users of other systems, they seem to be a lot quieter, perhaps non-existant. Or perhaps the zealots just left Slashdot, since the whole DIY/geek spirit disappeared when the Apple fans took over and demanded that nothing that the hypothetical grandma couldn't do was valid use of a computer.
Mac fans, OTOH, are a LOUD group on Slashdot, and to a great degree, they're liars and fraudulent advertisers. They've always been ("Windows 95 = Mac System 5" or whatever, "PPC twice as fast as Pentium on the same MHz" and so on). Examples are too numerous to mention.
Ah, yes, Apple's one drawback is just an unintended side effect from them being so close to perfection. Nice ad, fanboy.
Apple fans are much worse. You really have to be an Apple fanboi not to see that, and you really have to be an Apple fanboi to insist on comparing one group to the other when they are criticised. And guess what, you are an Apple fanboi.
Brought what upon themselves? The so-called scene groups always try to crack any copy protection, and so far they've always succeeded in the end.
Reminds me of the situation with Iraq just a few years ago.
Perhaps not so much afraid of Islamist terrorists as of the dreaded -1, off topic, I suspect.
No, they didn't. They released the code like they had to according to the license -- a bare minimum -- but they never contributed in a meaningful way to khtml.
No, my contention was that "they're not doing all that much more than what they must". I'll give you Darwin is an exception. CUPS and khtml were GPL and LGPL before they started using them, and there wasn't much they could do about it. They're not in any way a major open source contributor.
Yes, and if you'd link just slightly higher up on that page, you'd see that Apple's initial "contributions" to khtml were close to useless, and if you'd linked further down, you'd notice that WebCore and JavaScriptCore are the main parts of WebKit – in fact, the only two parts without which WebKit would be fundamentally useless as a layout engine.
Also, Darwin is only the shit part of OS X, and no one in their right mind would use it for anything but OS X development.
Apple couldn't legally release a closed-source WebKit as it's a fork of the (L)GPL khtml, so saying that they "open sourced" WebKit is disingenuous at best.
Apple never even started upstreaming changes to WebKit. They simply forked it from khtml, and all backporting to khtml has been done by the khtml developers themselves. Or do you seriously think that not breaking the LGPL license is a grand contribution to open source software? Keeping CUPS open is more than keeping it legally compatible with the GPL openprinting drivers?
And oooh, contributing more to open source than Microsoft is like contributing more to science than creationists do. It's not a bragging point. Not that I'm unhappy with Apple's contributions, but really ... they're not doing all that much more than what they must.
Highly likely, but trolls should be much harder to refute.
Let's take your example, and search for a movie trailer. Avatar. Bing's first result is a fucking blog called avatar-trailer -- at Google's own Blogspot.com, followed by traileraddicts, youtube, youtube and Apple. Google's result's are Youtube first (with thumbnails), then three different services, image search thumbnails, then the fucking blog again, followed by the official site. The problem here isn't Google's data mining, but the fact that Bing's first hit just isn't what you're looking for. Bing is simply not very good. You can't blame Google for that.
What? You have to use Youtube, Gmail and Wave when you use Google Search? That's actually what you're saying. Sopssa, you're an idiot.