Not sure if this is correct, but if it is then it sure sounds good:
The Graphics cards in this new macpro are swappable. But they are bespoke and a new form factor it seems. Ram / GPU and the Main drive is all updatable - it does seem that there is the possibility of installing 2 or more of these PCIe drives + 2.5" SSDs they have just not shown us that yet. 3.5" are definate 'NO'
The product will launch with ATI and perhaps Nvidia / OEM will have a form factor later or at launch.
We don't have any specs yet, but it looks like the internal flash is at least connected to a standard PCIe slot; so in theory you should be able to replace it with third party storage. It looks like they are using the same thing as they are using in their MacBook Airs, and there are third party options available for that as well.
That is correct. They don't want GPLv3 in the operating system, but ports is OK. FreeBSD is very different from many Linux distributions in the sense that the operating system and most third party software is managed separate from each other. In Linux you often have a single package manager that handles both the operating system and all your software, with no clear distinction between them. In FreeBSD these are completely separate.
Which if done maliciously, for example with the purpose of unauthorized sharing of copyrighted works, is illegal. The technical details involving flipping bits is not important. It's the intent that matters.
Or maybe it is the case that the police can work on multiple fronts at the same time. This is probably handled by a special work group within the police, not something that every police officer is involved with.
Yes they have since changed the license. But the point is that this is no different than any other dual licensing scheme. The license [1] is GPLv3. The only thing they've added is a linking exception for two libraries they require which is not compatible with GPLv3, OpenSSL and ATL. As far as I can see there's nothing else added or removed from the license which would make this any different than any other GPLv3 project.
That's not at all what GPL is about. GPL has a condition which says that any modification or derived work has to be distributed under the same license. As far as I understand when you build software using LiveCode then that software uses code that is part of LiveCode, and should therefore be licensed under the same license. This is very little different from Qt, which used to use the same model.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure if this is correct, but if it is then it sure sounds good:
The Graphics cards in this new macpro are swappable. But they are bespoke and a new form factor it seems. Ram / GPU and the Main drive is all updatable - it does seem that there is the possibility of installing 2 or more of these PCIe drives + 2.5" SSDs they have just not shown us that yet. 3.5" are definate 'NO'
The product will launch with ATI and perhaps Nvidia / OEM will have a form factor later or at launch.
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=7601739&postcount=88
That sounds reasonable.
No matter what it is I'm sure Apple will provide spare parts. They usually do for quite a long time anyway.
The PowerMac G3 used to have a model with integrated CRT, if you count that as the Pro line.
We don't have any specs yet, but it looks like the internal flash is at least connected to a standard PCIe slot; so in theory you should be able to replace it with third party storage. It looks like they are using the same thing as they are using in their MacBook Airs, and there are third party options available for that as well.
The GPU story looks more complicated though.
The only problem is that the other 10 % is different for everyone.
What about Finder? I think that would have been a good choice for sharing files and getting apps.
Python is terrible and the primary implementation is far beyond terrible.
That is correct. They don't want GPLv3 in the operating system, but ports is OK. FreeBSD is very different from many Linux distributions in the sense that the operating system and most third party software is managed separate from each other. In Linux you often have a single package manager that handles both the operating system and all your software, with no clear distinction between them. In FreeBSD these are completely separate.
No, but readers outside the US should know by now that these kind of settlements are restricted to the US only.
Not sure, but it sure isn't OK for them to do so.
People obviously want it since they pirate it, it's just that they are too cheap to pay for it.
Which if done maliciously, for example with the purpose of unauthorized sharing of copyrighted works, is illegal. The technical details involving flipping bits is not important. It's the intent that matters.
Of course it is, and home robbery is not a crime; it's just about moving around physical objects. Is moving physical objects a crime?
Well you can't stop speeding either without installing black boxes in every car. I guess we should just stop enforcing it then.
So vote on someone that represents you in the next election. That's how a democracy works.
It looks like they are trying to stop and prevent crime. I would say that's good use of public funds.
The file itself is not illegal, but using it in an illegal manner is. Carrying a hammer is also not illegal, but using it in an illegal manner is.
Specially it's the parliament, which is elected by the people.
The crime is not about shifting bits, it's about illegally copying works of others.
Or maybe it is the case that the police can work on multiple fronts at the same time. This is probably handled by a special work group within the police, not something that every police officer is involved with.
The links are probably no, but the act of creating and using them could be if it's done maliciously.
I guess Secure Boot can lock you into Android as well then.
Yes they have since changed the license. But the point is that this is no different than any other dual licensing scheme. The license [1] is GPLv3. The only thing they've added is a linking exception for two libraries they require which is not compatible with GPLv3, OpenSSL and ATL. As far as I can see there's nothing else added or removed from the license which would make this any different than any other GPLv3 project.
[1] https://github.com/runrev/livecode/blob/master/LICENSE
That's not at all what GPL is about. GPL has a condition which says that any modification or derived work has to be distributed under the same license. As far as I understand when you build software using LiveCode then that software uses code that is part of LiveCode, and should therefore be licensed under the same license. This is very little different from Qt, which used to use the same model.
I for one found it interesting to read.