I don't live in the U.K., but this makes sense to me.
I don't care if the government or whoever knows who I am and where I live. They already know that, because I pay taxes. So now because of opposition to this national ID thing, my name's in a database somewhere. Well, God forbid anyone would put me in a database besides the oh-so-trustworthy twenty to a hundred direct marketing firms who are sending me catalogs all the time.
But: The fact that my name is in the hands of this random anti-ID petition site whereever does not put me at risk that in a year, I'll go to sign up for a Barnes and Noble discount card or something, and they'll demand to see a copy of my signature on this anti-ID petition before they will give it to me. Or that someone-- maybe the clerk at Barnes and Noble-- will get hold of the SQL ID for my signature on the anti-ID petition website, and use that, since it is valid proof of my identity, to go sign up for two or three credit cards in my name.
A national I.D. card of the sort that's being proposed here, however, does neatly create these problems and a number more like them. The problem here isn't the mere act of being identified, it's everything that happens after that. So I don't really see being identified by some random website somewhere in order to prevent or just protest a problematic ID card program as being a problem.
and focusing on developing your nation's IT infrastructure with an emphasis on software which is or can be locally developed while allowing your people access to AIDS medication,
You do realize that this "first" version of OS X on Intel is the exact same OS that runs on PPC, right? This "first" release is 5 years old, they build them both at the same time.
Well, to play devil's advocate here, there are certain classes of buffer overflows which are possible on the x86 architecture but not the PPC. So it is possible that there are security holes at this exact moment in time which effect OS X/x86 but not OS X/PPC, simply because OS X/x86 has not had as much testing for such done on it. However, since Darwin-- basically everything except the GUI in OS X-- has run publicly on x86 for some time, this is extremely unlikely.
It was entertaining to hear that every release of OS X was built for PPC and x86. Something a lot of people thought but couldn't confirm.
Actually MacWorld and other Apple-related news sources have run Apple-sanctioned articles on that exact project in the past, and one of them actually contained a photo of the development team.
It wasn't so much unconfirmed as not widely reported ^_^
In your initial post you strongly imply that it is somehow wrong to imply china is "corrupt above and beyond" the democracies elsewhere.
But then you say "I of course don't mean to say they're equivalent"?
So you're saying they're not equivalent, they're... just not any worse? And then you say that western democracies are "just as rotten"? But "just as rotten" is different from "equivalent"?
when really the ruling parties in the West are just as rotten
This has nothing whatsoever to do with "the west", the media, "identity politics", or "propaganda"; this is just about you entirely lacking a sense of perspective. The greater of two evils is still a greater evil. Being "bad", or "rotten", or containing nations which abuse prisoners of war, or whatever it is you're upset at contemporary western democratic systems over, still doesn't come even with executing 89 people a day without a legitimate trial.
A country that materially represses dissent, has no free press, no internal checks on corruption, no limits on police power or abuse, and in a larger sense is the most successful fascist nation on earth... is equivalent to some other countries which just happen to have imperfect democracies.
Guess what. Just because you dislike someone doesn't make them equivalent to the fucking CCP. If the press is trying to make the impression that China is somehow worse than other countries, then good, that means at least on this one tiny issue they have a sense of perspective. Frankly I tend more to see the press taking a disturbing tack that China's government can't be all that bad, because after all they're a U.S. ally.
I think something of this sort was needed, clearing out entrenched and increasingly useless NASA upper management who have in the last 20 years largely robbed the program of both vision and scientific relevance.
Unfortunately with an event as large-scale as this, and given some of the other circumstances involved, I have serious questions as to whether the 20 managers axed are the ones who have been holding NASA back, or if they were selected on some other criteria...
The free market is still free. However the broadcast television market isn't a free market, and never has been.
Don't like this? Okay, then go actually buy from the free market. It still exists, you know, if you actually want to make use of it instead of just complaining that it's not the only option. Buy a computer monitor and a digital cable subscription and some funny cables and congratulations, you now have functional television service transmitted over privately held resources and without mean old Mr. Government getting involved at all.
So long. Y'know. At least as long as you can put up with the electronics safety regulations governing the monitor, and the fact that the government is, in fact, a wholly owned subsidiary of the cable companies.
off prep. 2. With the means provided by: living off my pension. 3. Informal. From: "What else do you want off me?" (Jimmy Breslin). 4. Extending or branching out from: an artery off the heart.
The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable.
The FCC is charged with regulating who may broadcast and receive to and from the electromagnetic spectrum, an inherently public resource. Some of these bands they regulate more strictly than others. One of the bands they regulate strictly is the one on which television signals are broadcast and received. As part of this the FCC defines what are the standards of televisions.
Well, that's all for this week. Be sure to tune in next time on "fun questions from slashdotters", when a Libertarian playing dumb will want to know why the Department of Education feels like it has to keep getting itself involved with the schools
With physics and mechanical engineering the creation is separate from the idea.
You have the idea for some incredibly innovative kind of windshield wiper. Okay. You now have an idea. What you don't have is a windshield wiper. You can go and get this patent on your idea, then implement your idea, and the two acts are separate.
With a software program the difference between an idea and an implementation is so negligable you can barely define it. You come up with an idea for an algorithm of some kind, and you've got the algorithm. Moreover you've practically got an implementation, so long as you change some punctuation. Pseudocode tends to look a lot like Python, and patents are written in such a deterministic and stilted fashion that you could practically create an interpreter to mechanically translate lawyerspeak into C. About the only times this principle isn't stuck to is when the patent issued is so vague and leaves so much out that it shouldn't have been issued in the first place. Which, as it happens, is almost all of them.
It basically comes down to why we have patents in the first place. Patents are necessary for physical inventions because the most innovative inventors in that area can often be working in fields where it takes tremendous amounts of resources to create an implementation-- if you come up with a great idea for a scanning electron microscope, but you don't have a benefactor to build it for you, you're screwed, because you can't just do that shit in your garage. With software, you can just do this stuff in your garage. If you have the resources to write a patent proposal, you have the resources to write an implementation. In fact one might say an implementation requires less resources than a patent proposal, since patents require filing fees and many compilers can be had for free.
This takes a system designed to balance the needs of various larger and smaller parties, removes any balancing factors in the favor of smaller parties with legitimate needs, and does absolutely nothing to remove one single avenue for abuse.
And since the result in the software patent system has been a system which is only useful for abuse, abuse has been the only thing people have made out of it. Almost all important computer science developments ever to happen occurred without the aid of patents; patents for software didn't appear until a court invented them in the 80s, and even then only in America. Since then software patents have been alternately ignored, used to lock people out of things, or used against independent inventors in such a supermajority of cases you can barely find any other examples. This isn't a few "bad apple" patents, this is an entire barrel full of bad apples within which we are hypothesizing, by the law of averages, there is almost certainly at least one good apple somewhere within. If patents for software are so great then where are the success stories? If this is supposedly beneficial then why isn't anyone benefiting from it?
Unfortunately if you look you'll notice that as the number of frivolous patent lawsuits against Microsoft has gradually increased over the last few years, Microsoft's response has been... to suddenly start filing a whole bunch of patents. Lots of patents. Even more than before. And making a big deal in the press about patents and how important they are. And making a big deal to Europe about why they need software patents. Whereas before software patents was something they didn't really give much public indication of caring about one way or the other.
Microsoft obviously isn't doing this for protection, since the only people who've been suing Microsoft have been tiny parasite IP companies-- the kind of people who a patent shield is useless against. Instead it almost kind of seems to me like Microsoft is brushing off the patent judgments like an elephant swatting flies with its tail, but meanwhile going "wait... you mean patents can be used for evil? Interesting...", as if even though the lawsuits may sting a little they don't mind so much because it's given them some ideas of their own.
I hope to whatever Gods may or may not exist that this is just my overactive paranoid imagination.
It may have been of questionable value to the developers. The important thing about Open Source isn't the benefit it provides to the developers. It's about the benefit it provides to the users.
I still say the old way was a spirit violation (i.e. making it harder to incorporate your changes, when minimal effort could make it easier), but obviously that sort of thing is personal and interpretive.
Well... I would assume that they were doing the old way for one of two reasons. Either it wasn't trivial to open up a cvs, or they were doing it on purpose.
If they were doing it on purpose I don't think they'd have totally reversed things so quickly and so quietly. So I'm guessing opening CVS wasn't quite so trivial. (For one thing I am guessing that the cvs server exposed there is NOT the internally used one, so they had to set that up, they had to convert or remove anything that was specific to Apple's internal versioning, they had to comb the changelogs checking for information which is proprietary (like, 'change was delayed because greg was up all night with his new baby). Probably.)
"Spirit violations" seems like a vague enough thing I would personally prefer not to work with that term except in really unambiguous cases. But I do know that the old way was inconsiderate and the new way was the right thing to do.
Apple wasn't even violating the spirit of the LGPL. They were possibly violating the spirit of the GPL... but alas these are substantially and philosophically somewhat different licenses, and so with the LGPL they weren'tn doing even that.
I'm baffled by the people stating in this thread that the GPL "preferred form" clause means that you have to give people access to your versioning system. Have you people read the GPLs? It offers CDs over postal mail as a valid method of satisfying your GPL obligations! It explicitly lists mailing big chunks of code as a valid option for GPL licensees! I mean, actually read these things, people!
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
Now if emailing big chunks of tarball on demand is violating the spirit of the GPL then why does the GPL suggest you do that?
Dvorak has, if my memory serves, been predicting Apple would switch to x86 since like the mid 90s. Over. And over. And over. So this is even worse, it's like hailing Eisehower for being a visionary for predicting the Soviet Union would fall
Is this supposed Cell/Linux workstation something we actually know jack squat about it, or is it just IBM going "uh, we're gonna make one of these... someday"? Can we make any educated guesses based on what IBM usually does?
Specifically, is this, like, something that will be actually in the affordable range for people, or is this going to be like some kind of $6000 near-server tank?
Also, how many Cells is this likely to have? One? Two? Four? These SPEs are all well and good for computational stuff but the rest of the time it's nice not to be stuck with a single processor.
Contrary to what you may believe, operating systems and development methodologies have progressed enormously since then.
FAT binaries use directories instead of resource forks now. Big whoop. The shareware market hasn't changed all that much. The only thing making this easier is that nearly everyone's using ProjectBuilder/XCode, whereas at the 68k->PPC switch there were more than two IDEs out there (even if most people were just using CodeWarrior). Or in other words, the market is less diverse.
OS 9 and below are build on an architecture that is extremely non-portable, and it didn't make sense to try to fix it. Hence the statement "it was necessary"
Recompiling is trivial
Developers have repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to do trivial things. IDEs have changed in ten years. People haven't.
Firstly, they have not said that they are phasing out G5, on the contrary they have stated that they will support both
According to the keynote summaries I have seen the PPC is being phased out entirely by the end of 2007.
Wow. Are you telling me you can't see that Intel has been whipping Apple's ass in the performance area (especially laptops) during the past years?
I don't care one way or the other. It doesn't make a difference to me if my computer is fast. I just want it to work. Apparently I can only have one of these.
Regarding OO.org, theres plenty of architecture specific code in OO.org that had to be re-written for OS X... there are quite a few apps which make poor assumptions about the architecture they are running on, and quite a few libraries which use code that won't compile on a mac
OK, but surely with OO those problems don't have to do with the CPU arch in specific? I mean, OO works on sparc. I know it does. I've used it.
And maybe there's apps out there with cpu arch assumptions, but I use a lot of UNIX software, and it's almost all on PPC or sparc. I still have more problems with the makefiles than I do with people making bad cpu assumptions. The OS is still so much bigger as a compatibility stumbling block the CPU disappears in the limit. The linux community in particular meanwhile has gotten very good at avoiding hardware arch errors, and the debian police are there to make sure they keep this up. I'd be unbelievably surprised if the number of "mainstream" linux apps which are more likely to run on OS X/x86 than OS X/ppc requires more than one hand to count.
Why *shouldn't* wine work?
Sorry, I don't think I phrased that well. Let me try again: Wine for OS X is going to take some time before it's ready for the average user and it's going to take hugely long amounts of time before it's running anywhere but the X11 ghetto. And, well, it is. I've looked at Cedega and I'm sorry, that thing is a pain. Maybe not so bad by BSD standards, but we need something that someone unfamiliar with the command line can use. Given we don't even have a gui frontend for Fink yet as far as I'm aware the chances someone will do so for Cedega in any reasonable amount of time doesn't seem great.
But the EU executive voiced satisfaction with Microsoft's proposed solution -- even though the sticky question of "open source" licenses was not fully resolved -- and said the plan would now be put to industry peers for their opinion.
Gradually and systematically remove all your competitors from the market, except the open source ones.
Gain freedom from regulators by agreeing to cooperate with your competitors, except the open source ones.
???
Profit
The ???, in case you're wondering, stands for "artificial barriers to entry".
I can only hope they count SUSE as an "industry peer"...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't live in the U.K., but this makes sense to me.
I don't care if the government or whoever knows who I am and where I live. They already know that, because I pay taxes. So now because of opposition to this national ID thing, my name's in a database somewhere. Well, God forbid anyone would put me in a database besides the oh-so-trustworthy twenty to a hundred direct marketing firms who are sending me catalogs all the time.
But: The fact that my name is in the hands of this random anti-ID petition site whereever does not put me at risk that in a year, I'll go to sign up for a Barnes and Noble discount card or something, and they'll demand to see a copy of my signature on this anti-ID petition before they will give it to me. Or that someone-- maybe the clerk at Barnes and Noble-- will get hold of the SQL ID for my signature on the anti-ID petition website, and use that, since it is valid proof of my identity, to go sign up for two or three credit cards in my name.
A national I.D. card of the sort that's being proposed here, however, does neatly create these problems and a number more like them. The problem here isn't the mere act of being identified, it's everything that happens after that. So I don't really see being identified by some random website somewhere in order to prevent or just protest a problematic ID card program as being a problem.
In other words
helping Microsoft to understand Open Source and community-based projects
PR
That would be awesome
So basically it's not an upgrade, it's a casemod in reverse.
Because living in dirt huts without electronics,
and focusing on developing your nation's IT infrastructure with an emphasis on software which is or can be locally developed while allowing your people access to AIDS medication,
are really fucking similar.
You do realize that this "first" version of OS X on Intel is the exact same OS that runs on PPC, right? This "first" release is 5 years old, they build them both at the same time.
Well, to play devil's advocate here, there are certain classes of buffer overflows which are possible on the x86 architecture but not the PPC. So it is possible that there are security holes at this exact moment in time which effect OS X/x86 but not OS X/PPC, simply because OS X/x86 has not had as much testing for such done on it. However, since Darwin-- basically everything except the GUI in OS X-- has run publicly on x86 for some time, this is extremely unlikely.
It was entertaining to hear that every release of OS X was built for PPC and x86. Something a lot of people thought but couldn't confirm.
Actually MacWorld and other Apple-related news sources have run Apple-sanctioned articles on that exact project in the past, and one of them actually contained a photo of the development team.
It wasn't so much unconfirmed as not widely reported ^_^
In your initial post you strongly imply that it is somehow wrong to imply china is "corrupt above and beyond" the democracies elsewhere.
... just not any worse? And then you say that western democracies are "just as rotten"? But "just as rotten" is different from "equivalent"?
But then you say "I of course don't mean to say they're equivalent"?
So you're saying they're not equivalent, they're
when really the ruling parties in the West are just as rotten
No... really... the CCP is worse.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with "the west", the media, "identity politics", or "propaganda"; this is just about you entirely lacking a sense of perspective. The greater of two evils is still a greater evil. Being "bad", or "rotten", or containing nations which abuse prisoners of war, or whatever it is you're upset at contemporary western democratic systems over, still doesn't come even with executing 89 people a day without a legitimate trial.
A country that materially represses dissent, has no free press, no internal checks on corruption, no limits on police power or abuse, and in a larger sense is the most successful fascist nation on earth... is equivalent to some other countries which just happen to have imperfect democracies.
Guess what. Just because you dislike someone doesn't make them equivalent to the fucking CCP. If the press is trying to make the impression that China is somehow worse than other countries, then good, that means at least on this one tiny issue they have a sense of perspective. Frankly I tend more to see the press taking a disturbing tack that China's government can't be all that bad, because after all they're a U.S. ally.
I think something of this sort was needed, clearing out entrenched and increasingly useless NASA upper management who have in the last 20 years largely robbed the program of both vision and scientific relevance.
Unfortunately with an event as large-scale as this, and given some of the other circumstances involved, I have serious questions as to whether the 20 managers axed are the ones who have been holding NASA back, or if they were selected on some other criteria...
The free market is still free. However the broadcast television market isn't a free market, and never has been.
Don't like this? Okay, then go actually buy from the free market. It still exists, you know, if you actually want to make use of it instead of just complaining that it's not the only option. Buy a computer monitor and a digital cable subscription and some funny cables and congratulations, you now have functional television service transmitted over privately held resources and without mean old Mr. Government getting involved at all.
So long. Y'know. At least as long as you can put up with the electronics safety regulations governing the monitor, and the fact that the government is, in fact, a wholly owned subsidiary of the cable companies.
off
prep.
2. With the means provided by: living off my pension.
3. Informal. From: "What else do you want off me?" (Jimmy Breslin).
4. Extending or branching out from: an artery off the heart.
-- dictionary.com
Because that is their job.
From fcc.gov:
The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable.
The FCC is charged with regulating who may broadcast and receive to and from the electromagnetic spectrum, an inherently public resource. Some of these bands they regulate more strictly than others. One of the bands they regulate strictly is the one on which television signals are broadcast and received. As part of this the FCC defines what are the standards of televisions.
Well, that's all for this week. Be sure to tune in next time on "fun questions from slashdotters", when a Libertarian playing dumb will want to know why the Department of Education feels like it has to keep getting itself involved with the schools
With physics and mechanical engineering the creation is separate from the idea.
You have the idea for some incredibly innovative kind of windshield wiper. Okay. You now have an idea. What you don't have is a windshield wiper. You can go and get this patent on your idea, then implement your idea, and the two acts are separate.
With a software program the difference between an idea and an implementation is so negligable you can barely define it. You come up with an idea for an algorithm of some kind, and you've got the algorithm. Moreover you've practically got an implementation, so long as you change some punctuation. Pseudocode tends to look a lot like Python, and patents are written in such a deterministic and stilted fashion that you could practically create an interpreter to mechanically translate lawyerspeak into C. About the only times this principle isn't stuck to is when the patent issued is so vague and leaves so much out that it shouldn't have been issued in the first place. Which, as it happens, is almost all of them.
It basically comes down to why we have patents in the first place. Patents are necessary for physical inventions because the most innovative inventors in that area can often be working in fields where it takes tremendous amounts of resources to create an implementation-- if you come up with a great idea for a scanning electron microscope, but you don't have a benefactor to build it for you, you're screwed, because you can't just do that shit in your garage. With software, you can just do this stuff in your garage. If you have the resources to write a patent proposal, you have the resources to write an implementation. In fact one might say an implementation requires less resources than a patent proposal, since patents require filing fees and many compilers can be had for free.
This takes a system designed to balance the needs of various larger and smaller parties, removes any balancing factors in the favor of smaller parties with legitimate needs, and does absolutely nothing to remove one single avenue for abuse.
And since the result in the software patent system has been a system which is only useful for abuse, abuse has been the only thing people have made out of it. Almost all important computer science developments ever to happen occurred without the aid of patents; patents for software didn't appear until a court invented them in the 80s, and even then only in America. Since then software patents have been alternately ignored, used to lock people out of things, or used against independent inventors in such a supermajority of cases you can barely find any other examples. This isn't a few "bad apple" patents, this is an entire barrel full of bad apples within which we are hypothesizing, by the law of averages, there is almost certainly at least one good apple somewhere within. If patents for software are so great then where are the success stories? If this is supposedly beneficial then why isn't anyone benefiting from it?
Unfortunately if you look you'll notice that as the number of frivolous patent lawsuits against Microsoft has gradually increased over the last few years, Microsoft's response has been... to suddenly start filing a whole bunch of patents. Lots of patents. Even more than before. And making a big deal in the press about patents and how important they are. And making a big deal to Europe about why they need software patents. Whereas before software patents was something they didn't really give much public indication of caring about one way or the other.
Microsoft obviously isn't doing this for protection, since the only people who've been suing Microsoft have been tiny parasite IP companies-- the kind of people who a patent shield is useless against. Instead it almost kind of seems to me like Microsoft is brushing off the patent judgments like an elephant swatting flies with its tail, but meanwhile going "wait... you mean patents can be used for evil? Interesting...", as if even though the lawsuits may sting a little they don't mind so much because it's given them some ideas of their own.
I hope to whatever Gods may or may not exist that this is just my overactive paranoid imagination.
It may have been of questionable value to the developers. The important thing about Open Source isn't the benefit it provides to the developers. It's about the benefit it provides to the users.
I still say the old way was a spirit violation (i.e. making it harder to incorporate your changes, when minimal effort could make it easier), but obviously that sort of thing is personal and interpretive.
Well... I would assume that they were doing the old way for one of two reasons. Either it wasn't trivial to open up a cvs, or they were doing it on purpose.
If they were doing it on purpose I don't think they'd have totally reversed things so quickly and so quietly. So I'm guessing opening CVS wasn't quite so trivial. (For one thing I am guessing that the cvs server exposed there is NOT the internally used one, so they had to set that up, they had to convert or remove anything that was specific to Apple's internal versioning, they had to comb the changelogs checking for information which is proprietary (like, 'change was delayed because greg was up all night with his new baby). Probably.)
"Spirit violations" seems like a vague enough thing I would personally prefer not to work with that term except in really unambiguous cases. But I do know that the old way was inconsiderate and the new way was the right thing to do.
I'm baffled by the people stating in this thread that the GPL "preferred form" clause means that you have to give people access to your versioning system. Have you people read the GPLs? It offers CDs over postal mail as a valid method of satisfying your GPL obligations! It explicitly lists mailing big chunks of code as a valid option for GPL licensees! I mean, actually read these things, people!
Now if emailing big chunks of tarball on demand is violating the spirit of the GPL then why does the GPL suggest you do that?
Dvorak has, if my memory serves, been predicting Apple would switch to x86 since like the mid 90s. Over. And over. And over. So this is even worse, it's like hailing Eisehower for being a visionary for predicting the Soviet Union would fall
Is this supposed Cell/Linux workstation something we actually know jack squat about it, or is it just IBM going "uh, we're gonna make one of these... someday"? Can we make any educated guesses based on what IBM usually does?
Specifically, is this, like, something that will be actually in the affordable range for people, or is this going to be like some kind of $6000 near-server tank?
Also, how many Cells is this likely to have? One? Two? Four? These SPEs are all well and good for computational stuff but the rest of the time it's nice not to be stuck with a single processor.
Wow, that's neat. ... I wish I'd known that existed two months ago :P
Contrary to what you may believe, operating systems and development methodologies have progressed enormously since then.
FAT binaries use directories instead of resource forks now. Big whoop. The shareware market hasn't changed all that much. The only thing making this easier is that nearly everyone's using ProjectBuilder/XCode, whereas at the 68k->PPC switch there were more than two IDEs out there (even if most people were just using CodeWarrior). Or in other words, the market is less diverse.
OS 9 and below are build on an architecture that is extremely non-portable, and it didn't make sense to try to fix it.
Hence the statement "it was necessary"
Recompiling is trivial
Developers have repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to do trivial things. IDEs have changed in ten years. People haven't.
Firstly, they have not said that they are phasing out G5, on the contrary they have stated that they will support both
According to the keynote summaries I have seen the PPC is being phased out entirely by the end of 2007.
Wow. Are you telling me you can't see that Intel has been whipping Apple's ass in the performance area (especially laptops) during the past years?
I don't care one way or the other. It doesn't make a difference to me if my computer is fast. I just want it to work. Apparently I can only have one of these.
Regarding OO.org, theres plenty of architecture specific code in OO.org that had to be re-written for OS X ... there are quite a few apps which make poor assumptions about the architecture they are running on, and quite a few libraries which use code that won't compile on a mac
OK, but surely with OO those problems don't have to do with the CPU arch in specific? I mean, OO works on sparc. I know it does. I've used it.
And maybe there's apps out there with cpu arch assumptions, but I use a lot of UNIX software, and it's almost all on PPC or sparc. I still have more problems with the makefiles than I do with people making bad cpu assumptions. The OS is still so much bigger as a compatibility stumbling block the CPU disappears in the limit. The linux community in particular meanwhile has gotten very good at avoiding hardware arch errors, and the debian police are there to make sure they keep this up. I'd be unbelievably surprised if the number of "mainstream" linux apps which are more likely to run on OS X/x86 than OS X/ppc requires more than one hand to count.
Why *shouldn't* wine work?
Sorry, I don't think I phrased that well. Let me try again: Wine for OS X is going to take some time before it's ready for the average user and it's going to take hugely long amounts of time before it's running anywhere but the X11 ghetto. And, well, it is. I've looked at Cedega and I'm sorry, that thing is a pain. Maybe not so bad by BSD standards, but we need something that someone unfamiliar with the command line can use. Given we don't even have a gui frontend for Fink yet as far as I'm aware the chances someone will do so for Cedega in any reasonable amount of time doesn't seem great.
- Gradually and systematically remove all your competitors from the market, except the open source ones.
- Gain freedom from regulators by agreeing to cooperate with your competitors, except the open source ones.
- ???
- Profit
The ???, in case you're wondering, stands for "artificial barriers to entry".I can only hope they count SUSE as an "industry peer"...
Yeah, but let's face it, you were going to buy a new Mac in that timescale anyway.
I wasn't really planning on it. Now I have to. That's exactly why I brought it up.
...says the slashdot reader to the slashdot reader.
Heh