Since every Mac is sold with a MacOS license, and you can only install a boxed copy of MacOS on a Mac, it follows that all boxed copies of MacOS are, in fact, only licenced for upgrades. We therefore don't know what would be the price of a full MacOS license, but as is the current industry practice, it should be greater than the upgrade price.
So in essence, Psystar is depriving Apple of the difference between the full and upgrade license prices. And still, that says nothing of other damages related to their business model, but that's entirely another discussion.
Don't like Apple's business model? Don't give them your business; stop using their products altogether, it's not like they're a monopoly and you're forced to.
Yes, it's the right way. Rooting for someone you like has very little to do with the legal merits of their arguments, which may or may not have anything to do with the rightfulness of their cause, the benefits they bring to society and so on. Not in the current legal system anyway.
Subsidies aside, I wonder how much of the lower costs are due to the fact that the US has some of the lowes gas prices, although the US is a net oil importer. I don't know what percentage of the food price is directly related to gas price, but if you think of the process, energy consumption has to be some hefty part of producing food.
VMS? Try RSX-11M - that's mid '70s for you young boys and gals. Yup, everytime you saved a file you'd get a new version; if I saved file.ext, I actually got something like file.ext;17, and accessing file.ext would get the latest version, in this case 17. You had commands to purge files or entire directories - that is, delete everything but the latest version. And this at a time where a 40MB hard-disk was a beast the size of a washing machine. I can't believe I had to wait about 30 years to get this nice little feature back... oh wait, we just got a preview, I'll have to wait a little longer to get my hands on it.
I don't know much about geology, but 30 miles across, that's pretty freaking huge... could it be that the huge shockwaves the impact sent, have actually caused the Siberian Traps?
What if instead of pumping up the car with ever more complex systems that are prone to failure while you're not paying attention, we add a monorail lane to highways and add some mechanical device to the cars to follow the rail?
We could also take advantage of the upcoming hybrids and electrics to power the car with electricity while driving on the rail. Of course, you would have entry/exit queue stations; you specify your destination when you enter the queue, and the system drives you there.
The ecological and economical advantages to this system are obvious.
I can see two big problems with this design: cars malfunctioning while on the rail lane, and exit queues clogged by fallen asleep/sick/drunk drivers.
The first problem could be solved by placing the cars on autonomous pods (simple platforms with four wheels and electric motors), that would run on dual rails instead of monorail. That would significantly increase the cost of infrastructure, but it would enable it to work with any existing car, while also instantly transforming highway traffic into an ecological one. The second problem could be alleviated by building buffer lanes at the exit stations; if you don't manifestly take control of your car just before getting into the exit station, you get parked on the buffer lane. Or it may be an automated parking lot, so you can get out of there before those in front of you do.
IBM just announced the 970MP, with volume production slated for about 6 months from now; which is about the expected time to refresh the current crop of PowerMacs (at or around MWSF). Anyway, the PowerMac is expected to be the last to transition to Intel, towards end 2007, as it is currently the least performance-starved Mac; the Intel roadmap seems to support this too.
So if you think about waiting for an Intel PowerMac, think 1.5 years. But even then, Apple is not reknown for getting the first revision right, plus they have a major platform shift to deal with. And it will take years to have an Intel-native software catalog the size of the current PPC one.
The MWSF refresh could bring dual core dual processors. Or maybe not. But anyway it won't be too much of a difference from the current line, so I think now's a good time to buy.
1) OS X has nothing to do with Copland 2) OS X is not based on the Classic Mac OS 3) Classic apps and the Carbon libraries running on OS X do not directly access the Mach microkernel 4) very few things in OS X and its apps actually know there is a Mach microkernel in there
So given all these things, Apple would certainly NOT have to rewrite much if it were to switch microkernels. Hell, even most drivers are written at such a high level that they wouldn't be affected.
I'm personally acquainted with him, so if you want to know more, contact me at st_popescu at yahoo dt com. I don't know of any of his papers on Actinomicosis being online, but if you're interested, I can scan some pages and send it to you.
Unless Apple decides to resurrect Yellow Box, aka OpenStep for Windows, Cocoa apps aren't easily portable to Windows.
Well, you'd be surprised, but Apple is still selling YellowBox under the guise of WebObjects for Windows. Sure, it doesn't have all the latest Cocoa bells and whistles, but all the basic frameworks and tools (ProjectBuilder, InterfaceBuilder etc.) are there.
The only important distinction is that if your code likes to bypass the AppKit and muck directly with DisplayPDF code, you're out of luck, since the YellowBox inside WO still uses DisplayPostscript.
Not only does the center look markedly different from the surrounding dust deposits, but there are some clearly visible features sloping down into the center from the right; could it be frozen seepage?
You don't get it, the story is about services that are about to be launched; Spymac is already in business, so it doesn't qualify... sheesh, was it that hard?
1) Ok, so you're against DRM; then don't ever touch anything DRM'ed, and advocate repealing DRM off the face of the Earth. But taking a DRM'ed piece of IP and violating the licence you got it under won't help the cause and certainly won't make you a better person; it's a licence nobody shoved down your throat, just like the GPL.
2) Why is it that when you accept some DRM you automatically accept it all? Do you apply this principle to everything you do? Why must everything be black or white? Since I'm in the mood, let's start a It's extremist people like you that make the Hitlers, Stalins and MacCarthys of this world, that trumpet "You're either with us or against us" from some high moral ground and have no respect for moderate people with a third opinion and an understanding of the art of compromise that makes the world a place to live for everyone, not just the righteous Ok, now that I got this out of my chest, I in fact admire people like RMS, who turned a principle into a movement that really changed the world, and it did so for better. But I hate to have to deal with people like him, because life is rarely black or white, it's mostly shades of gray and you have to adapt.
Re:Bill Gates, Hall of Fame Hacker? (P.S. First Po
on
Hackers Hall of Fame
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Microsoft brought desktop computing to the home user.
Not quite. It was IBM's marketing force that accomplished this feat - it was the PC that mattered, MS-DOS just happened to be there. It got spred with no effort from Gates' part, aside from the initial trick of selling something he didn't have, to IBM. Windows then followed in MS-DOS' tracks, people took it by inertia (with a little help from MS's anticompetitive practices), not because there weren't better alternatives.
It makes me sick to hear ignorant people playing Gates' song, where he's the hero who put the PC and the internet in people's homes; to see it modded +5 Insightful on Slashdot is just too much!
Well, I can't say I've been really using it for a few years now, but I don't have the heart to move it away from my desk. Besides, it's still useful as an external floppy unit (albeit a big and slow to boot one:) for may iMac. Oh, and it was handy when my iMac's Ethernet port died, although browsing the web is not what I would call one of its strengths...
But the most I get of it, is that warm feeling inside when I unleash it upon the unsuspecting visitor, and it still manages to make them go "wow!"
No, the biggest problem will be getting all of the application manufacturers to release two versions of the software...
If you release on two platforms, you have to support two platforms. That is, two compilers, and their associated bugs.
Nope. On MacOS X, as on NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP, gcc can generate FAT binaries, that is the same binary can contain code to run on multiple architectures; the rest of the app's resources are shared between architectures. You just tell ProjectBuilder which architectures you want, not much fuss about it. When you get a fat app, and don't need some of the architectures supported, you strip them out with lipo; check it out, it's alive an kicking on MacOS X, it's just useless because the only architecture currently supported by the ProjectBuilder is PPC. Well, maybe you could build a fat PPC/Intel command line executable on Darwin, but that's not the point here.
As a matter of fact, it seems that they always maintained an internal Intel port, since the days of Rhapsody; check out this post, containing some (allegedly) insider info.
Lots of things are not illegal that I would condemn. Here's a partial list: Klu Klux Clan, Arian Nation, American Natzi Party, etc.
So what makes you think Scientology is any better than, say, Klu Klux Clan? It's common knowledge Scientology is a fake religion that hides its real (evil) purposes, at least the Klu Klux Clan don't hide their real nature.
For that matter, it's worth pointing out that the GPL actually restricts my freedom! I cannot do just anything with GPL-ed code. So Stallman's blathering about "free" software is a little disingenuous.
The "free" in Stallman's "free software" refers to the software, not to the people that interact with it. The GPL is designed to keep the software free at all times, in both its source and binary forms, while restricting some of it's user's rights, so it doesn't contradict with the "free software" term.
Now, whether that is right or wrong is a totally different discussion... all too often heard around here. My take is that any license is ok as long as it's not shoved down my throat, I am given a real chance to understand it and after that I can choose to accept it or not.
Anyone can offer you stuff under his terms, there's nothing devious about it; you don't like his terms, don't take his stuff.
You are going to have to go up against the biggies -- all the small mom-and-pop ISP's have pretty much threw in the towel.
Enjoy your bankruptcy.
Why is this Informative? Why do people start flaming without bothering to check the article?
He clearly states it's countryside Australia he's targeting, and there's only one other ISP to compete; plus, people hate the other guys, so an alternative will be more than welcome.
> Apple's Stan Shebs has taken over the GNU Objective C compiler in GCC from Ovidiu Predescu
Strange move, a couple of years ago Apple refused to offer Ovidiu a job, although he had strong credentials (he's behind lots of stuff at GNUStep, including ObjC runtime, UI, gstep-db and libFoundation) and they initially appeared interested. They also have a long story of biting the hands that feed them - I mean developers. When dealing with NeXT, and later Apple, it always felt like bringing new apps and markets to their platform was the very last thing on their agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, you mean doors large enough to keep out planes. I see.
Since every Mac is sold with a MacOS license, and you can only install a boxed copy of MacOS on a Mac, it follows that all boxed copies of MacOS are, in fact, only licenced for upgrades. We therefore don't know what would be the price of a full MacOS license, but as is the current industry practice, it should be greater than the upgrade price.
So in essence, Psystar is depriving Apple of the difference between the full and upgrade license prices.
And still, that says nothing of other damages related to their business model, but that's entirely another discussion.
Don't like Apple's business model? Don't give them your business; stop using their products altogether, it's not like they're a monopoly and you're forced to.
Yes, it's the right way. Rooting for someone you like has very little to do with the legal merits of their arguments, which may or may not have anything to do with the rightfulness of their cause, the benefits they bring to society and so on. Not in the current legal system anyway.
Subsidies aside, I wonder how much of the lower costs are due to the fact that the US has some of the lowes gas prices, although the US is a net oil importer. I don't know what percentage of the food price is directly related to gas price, but if you think of the process, energy consumption has to be some hefty part of producing food.
VMS? Try RSX-11M - that's mid '70s for you young boys and gals.
Yup, everytime you saved a file you'd get a new version; if I saved file.ext, I actually got something like file.ext;17, and accessing file.ext would get the latest version, in this case 17. You had commands to purge files or entire directories - that is, delete everything but the latest version.
And this at a time where a 40MB hard-disk was a beast the size of a washing machine. I can't believe I had to wait about 30 years to get this nice little feature back... oh wait, we just got a preview, I'll have to wait a little longer to get my hands on it.
NeXT released Enterprise Objects Foundation (EOF) in 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_Objects_F ramework), and the patent summary doesn't mention any features EOF didn't have.
Isn't this prior art?
I don't know much about geology, but 30 miles across, that's pretty freaking huge... could it be that the huge shockwaves the impact sent, have actually caused the Siberian Traps?
We could also take advantage of the upcoming hybrids and electrics to power the car with electricity while driving on the rail. Of course, you would have entry/exit queue stations; you specify your destination when you enter the queue, and the system drives you there.
The ecological and economical advantages to this system are obvious.
I can see two big problems with this design: cars malfunctioning while on the rail lane, and exit queues clogged by fallen asleep/sick/drunk drivers.
The first problem could be solved by placing the cars on autonomous pods (simple platforms with four wheels and electric motors), that would run on dual rails instead of monorail. That would significantly increase the cost of infrastructure, but it would enable it to work with any existing car, while also instantly transforming highway traffic into an ecological one.
The second problem could be alleviated by building buffer lanes at the exit stations; if you don't manifestly take control of your car just before getting into the exit station, you get parked on the buffer lane. Or it may be an automated parking lot, so you can get out of there before those in front of you do.
So if you think about waiting for an Intel PowerMac, think 1.5 years. But even then, Apple is not reknown for getting the first revision right, plus they have a major platform shift to deal with. And it will take years to have an Intel-native software catalog the size of the current PPC one.
The MWSF refresh could bring dual core dual processors. Or maybe not. But anyway it won't be too much of a difference from the current line, so I think now's a good time to buy.
Whoa there, cowboy, hold your horses!
1) OS X has nothing to do with Copland
2) OS X is not based on the Classic Mac OS
3) Classic apps and the Carbon libraries running on OS X do not directly access the Mach microkernel
4) very few things in OS X and its apps actually know there is a Mach microkernel in there
So given all these things, Apple would certainly NOT have to rewrite much if it were to switch microkernels. Hell, even most drivers are written at such a high level that they wouldn't be affected.
So why would't it make sense?
I really hope you answer this.
I'm personally acquainted with him, so if you want to know more, contact me at st_popescu at yahoo dt com. I don't know of any of his papers on Actinomicosis being online, but if you're interested, I can scan some pages and send it to you.
Take care
And they'll release it about the same time that Jobs releases OS X for Intel...
The only important distinction is that if your code likes to bypass the AppKit and muck directly with DisplayPDF code, you're out of luck, since the YellowBox inside WO still uses DisplayPostscript.
Not only does the center look markedly different from the surrounding dust deposits, but there are some clearly visible features sloping down into the center from the right; could it be frozen seepage?
You don't get it, the story is about services that are about to be launched; Spymac is already in business, so it doesn't qualify... sheesh, was it that hard?
1) Ok, so you're against DRM; then don't ever touch anything DRM'ed, and advocate repealing DRM off the face of the Earth. But taking a DRM'ed piece of IP and violating the licence you got it under won't help the cause and certainly won't make you a better person; it's a licence nobody shoved down your throat, just like the GPL.
2) Why is it that when you accept some DRM you automatically accept it all? Do you apply this principle to everything you do? Why must everything be black or white? Since I'm in the mood, let's start a It's extremist people like you that make the Hitlers, Stalins and MacCarthys of this world, that trumpet "You're either with us or against us" from some high moral ground and have no respect for moderate people with a third opinion and an understanding of the art of compromise that makes the world a place to live for everyone, not just the righteous
Ok, now that I got this out of my chest, I in fact admire people like RMS, who turned a principle into a movement that really changed the world, and it did so for better. But I hate to have to deal with people like him, because life is rarely black or white, it's mostly shades of gray and you have to adapt.
Not quite. It was IBM's marketing force that accomplished this feat - it was the PC that mattered, MS-DOS just happened to be there. It got spred with no effort from Gates' part, aside from the initial trick of selling something he didn't have, to IBM. Windows then followed in MS-DOS' tracks, people took it by inertia (with a little help from MS's anticompetitive practices), not because there weren't better alternatives.
It makes me sick to hear ignorant people playing Gates' song, where he's the hero who put the PC and the internet in people's homes; to see it modded +5 Insightful on Slashdot is just too much!
Aaahhh, Slashdot... Check your facts before posting, he's Unit 639622, fer crying out loud!
1991 NeXTstation (68040/25MHz, 32MB RAM, 2G SCSI HD).
:) for may iMac. Oh, and it was handy when my iMac's Ethernet port died, although browsing the web is not what I would call one of its strengths...
Well, I can't say I've been really using it for a few years now, but I don't have the heart to move it away from my desk. Besides, it's still useful as an external floppy unit (albeit a big and slow to boot one
But the most I get of it, is that warm feeling inside when I unleash it upon the unsuspecting visitor, and it still manages to make them go "wow!"
No, the biggest problem will be getting all of the application manufacturers to release two versions of the software...
If you release on two platforms, you have to support two platforms. That is, two compilers, and their associated bugs.
Nope. On MacOS X, as on NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP, gcc can generate FAT binaries, that is the same binary can contain code to run on multiple architectures; the rest of the app's resources are shared between architectures. You just tell ProjectBuilder which architectures you want, not much fuss about it. When you get a fat app, and don't need some of the architectures supported, you strip them out with lipo; check it out, it's alive an kicking on MacOS X, it's just useless because the only architecture currently supported by the ProjectBuilder is PPC. Well, maybe you could build a fat PPC/Intel command line executable on Darwin, but that's not the point here.
As a matter of fact, it seems that they always maintained an internal Intel port, since the days of Rhapsody; check out this post, containing some (allegedly) insider info.
That's what I read at the first glimpse of their home page...
So what makes you think Scientology is any better than, say, Klu Klux Clan? It's common knowledge Scientology is a fake religion that hides its real (evil) purposes, at least the Klu Klux Clan don't hide their real nature.
The "free" in Stallman's "free software" refers to the software, not to the people that interact with it. The GPL is designed to keep the software free at all times, in both its source and binary forms, while restricting some of it's user's rights, so it doesn't contradict with the "free software" term.
Now, whether that is right or wrong is a totally different discussion... all too often heard around here. My take is that any license is ok as long as it's not shoved down my throat, I am given a real chance to understand it and after that I can choose to accept it or not.
Anyone can offer you stuff under his terms, there's nothing devious about it; you don't like his terms, don't take his stuff.
Has anyone got a spare .sig ?
Enjoy your bankruptcy.
Why is this Informative? Why do people start flaming without bothering to check the article?
He clearly states it's countryside Australia he's targeting, and there's only one other ISP to compete; plus, people hate the other guys, so an alternative will be more than welcome.
I have no .sig
Strange move, a couple of years ago Apple refused to offer Ovidiu a job, although he had strong credentials (he's behind lots of stuff at GNUStep, including ObjC runtime, UI, gstep-db and libFoundation) and they initially appeared interested. They also have a long story of biting the hands that feed them - I mean developers. When dealing with NeXT, and later Apple, it always felt like bringing new apps and markets to their platform was the very last thing on their agenda.