It's remarkable how many people here are suddenly on the side of Time Warner Cable(!) and iPads(!!) as long as they're providing Teh Shiny New Modality.
How dare someone go against the Slashtard groupthink!! BURN THEM!!!
In terms of growth, though - Android is growing rapidly, iOS isn't growing nearly as fast.
Which is clearly to be expected as Apple only releases a new iPhone model about every 2 years whereas there are literally a dozen or more new Android phones EVERY YEAR.
I would say Android is doing more than "holding up well" against iOS.
Sure, but there are about a magnitude more Android phone models out there versus iPhone models so one would EXPECT more sales. Yet, if you break down the sales per device per quarter it is far less than what the iPhone averages per quarter (which is about 6 million since Q1 2009). Factor in the fact that Apple itself holds about 51% of all profits for global smartphone sales and I doubt they really care. To them, having potentially less sales but clearly far more profit is to them more important.
Oh and let's not even get into the fact that Red Hat will cancel your support contract if you dare to exercise your GPL rights:
Distributing the Software or any portion of the Subscription Services to a third party or using any of the Subscription Services for the benefit of a third party is a material breach of the Agreement even though the open source license applicable to individual software packages may give you the right to distribute those packages.
How is THAT not scummy? They tout all the "freedoms" of open source and the GPL on their website and then lock you in from being able to actually use those freedoms by saying that if you do it's a breach of your support agreement. What fucking bullshit.
If you want scummy, look to companies like Oracle which just take, repackage, and rarely give back.
But isn't the whole point of the GPL so anyone CAN take what you've released and repackage it as long as you release your changes to that product? Why is this somehow "scummy" just because Oracle does it? Because they dare to compete with Red Hat? If Red Hat doesn't want to have to compete with others they shouldn't have released their code as GPL or built their business on GPL.
and significantly undermine RH's ability to earn revenue from their distro.
Boohoo? If they don't want people to be able to do so they shouldn't gave built their business on GPL code. Secondly, why SHOULDN'T their customers be able to switch to Novel or Oracle for support if they want to? They supposedly claimed to believe in that according to their supposed values:
when customers are unhappy with one vendor, they can choose another
Well that seems to be unless those customers choose not to get support from Red Hat anymore because then Red Hat will do whatever it takes to lock you into their support. Oh and don't dare exercise your GPL rights because then that means you lose your support contract. What fucking hypocrites.
I can point out plenty of C/C++ programs that have plenty of problems as well.
Great, but neither I nor anyone else tries to claim that C and C++ programs are immune to those problems. Java weenies on the other hand are constantly telling us how Java eliminates memory management issues, null pointers, etc and yet numerous high profile Java programs suffer from all those issues.
Bad programmers are a bad programmers regardless of the language they are using.
Yes, which is why we shouldn't be ENCOURAGING more bad programmers by allowing them to get away with not actually learning enough to do their craft correctly.
You're references to Java programmers as "mouth breathers" is pure ignorance.
I can't count the number of times I've had to come into a C or C++ project because the team of programmers working on it could not resolve the reliability issues which were primarily due to pointer problems or memory leaks.
because you were attempting to try to paint a picture where Java programs don't have those problems yet it's trivially easy to find Java programs with memory leaks and throwing nullpointerexceptions. And it all has to do with shitty mouth breathers who learn Java but know jack and shit about how to write software because all those things like pointers are "too hard".
Err, umm, in this particular case, as I noted, there are BSD-licensed alternatives, but Apple chose to use the GPLed software rather than the BSD-licensed alternatives used by the *BSDs, including, err, umm, the FreeBSD of which Jordan was a co-founder.
So what? Again, as he said they usually PREFER to choose a BSD alternative but as you shown (and the original poster never claimed contrary) they won't ALWAYS choose that alternative. You are arguing over a non point just to argue.
Why would you have to switch her systems? Why couldn't she just keep using what she already is? You do realize you don't have to upgrade the OS just because Apple releases a new version, right? It's not as if any such change is going to be forced on you.
Yeah and in 2000, AOL had a market cap of ~$160 billion (which is ~$200 billion taking into account inflation) and we all know that AOL is a thriving leader in the ISP space. Oh wait...
I have already heard where Apple is considering moving to an AppStore model for software distribution for OS-X,
OS X has had an app store since January. You are still able to install software from outside the app store. 10.7 doesn't change this.
which would pretty much put the nail in the coffin for GPL applications and tools. Caveat User!
That's amazing because just the other day I installed 3 pieces of GPL software on a system running the beta of 10.7. I guess I must have some sort of magic powers.
You do realize that removing copyright wouldn't make business open source their code right? They may no longer be able to stop you from DISTRIBUTING copies of the program or trying to painstakingly reverse engineer it but it wouldn't compel or obligate them to release their source. All eliminating copyright will do is let them use all that previously GPLed code in a closed source program and there's anyone could do to stop them. All your "user freedom" will be gone in a flash if copyright ceased to exist.
Well, that certainly explains why OS X's make is the Berkeley make rather than the GNU make and its sh is the Almquist shell rather than BASH. Oh, wait:
He said they PREFER to use BSD licensed software not that they ONLY use BSD licensed software. Way to fail at elementary grade reading comprehension.
You can't offer an alternative explanation based on the actual facts
What facts? All I see from the original post was someone making unevidenced assertions. If Apple owns patents that cover Samba then they should be very easy to provide the links to them.
Sure if you only look at it superficially. You also have to deal with all the uncertainty of what is a derived work or not. Obviously the FSF would like it to be as broad as possibly but there isn't much hard case law to back either way so that uncertainty is something that a commercial company is not going to want to put up with.
if you give someone the binary, you make the source code available to them.
Until people complain that you aren't supplying the source in the form they want and they start a huge stink about it. And that's just a single example and there are many others.
The same goes for pretty much any other non-FOSS license, where you need a lawyer to slog through it to make sure it's OK.
Really? I've seen many of the license in the source code deals at a number of companies I've been at and they are completely clear and upfront about what you can and can not do. There is no manifesto and all other sorts of shit you have to wade through like the GPL. There is also none of the associated GPL/FOSS politics to deal with.
Also, statements like "What exactly is so hard about pointers?" is just geek bravado. I'm a long time hired gun and I can't count the number of times I've had to come into a C or C++ project because the team of programmers working on it could not resolve the reliability issues which were primarily due to pointer problems or memory leaks. While there are definitely performance considerations in Java (and a wise man knows that nothing in life is free), Java offers productivity gains over C (and even Obj-C IMHO) while still maintaining reasonable performance. This combination is unmatched by other language platforms at the current time (although I'd say C# runs a close second - again IMHO).
Yeah, how dare someone actually learn about how the internals of hardware works and how their code actually runs!! Such bravado!! Oh wait, that's just common knowledge that pretty much EVERY programmer should know. Secondly, I can quite trivially point you to a famous Java program, Minecraft, that has dozens up dozens of posts on the Minecraft forums about nullpointerexceptions and memory leaks. Yeah, Java may have been "more productive" (a completely subjective term because I know numerous people who are far more productive in C and C++ than many Java mouth breathers could ever hope to be) for making Minecraft and yet it seems to have all the same issues with memory leaks and pointer problems as you whine about in those C and C++ projects. This is the reason why even Java mouth breathers need to learn these concepts because having your hand held by the JVM clearly doesn't seem to be working.
Also, Minecraft isn't the only example one can bring up that share those memory leak and nullpointerexception problems. I've seen it in tons of them. Also, I've seen numerous C# applications and libraries that have all sorts of null exceptions and memory leak issues too. They probably also had the same mindset of "Durrrr learning pointers and memory management is too hard so I'm just going to chunk out mah code and hope duh JVM/.NET runtime handles all the problems".
Java is immensely easier to develop with than any flavor of C because of garbage collection and lack of pointers.
What exactly is so hard about pointers? Unless you're a mouth breather pointers are quite easy to learn. Also Java DOES have pointers that's why there is even an exception for when they are NULL.
Yes, but using the same logic as many people apply to these abandoned books, why should anyone have to wait until 2050 for the copyrights to that code to expire when most of that code has probably been replaced and rewritten. That sounds perfectly like it should enter the public domain if we are going to be consistent in our logic. If it's okay to strip copyright status from "abandoned" books, it should be perfectly acceptable to strip the copyright status of abandoned GPLed works or old code that has long since been removed, deprecated, or rewritten.
Did you miss the part where it said he bought it at a "local computer fair". That's basically the equivalent of buying something at a flea market. Most of those sellers travel around and you'll probably never hear from or see that seller again.
Slashdot Mirror
It's remarkable how many people here are suddenly on the side of Time Warner Cable(!) and iPads(!!) as long as they're providing Teh Shiny New Modality.
How dare someone go against the Slashtard groupthink!! BURN THEM!!!
be overtaken by more change happy competitors
What competitors?
In terms of growth, though - Android is growing rapidly, iOS isn't growing nearly as fast.
Which is clearly to be expected as Apple only releases a new iPhone model about every 2 years whereas there are literally a dozen or more new Android phones EVERY YEAR.
I would say Android is doing more than "holding up well" against iOS.
Sure, but there are about a magnitude more Android phone models out there versus iPhone models so one would EXPECT more sales. Yet, if you break down the sales per device per quarter it is far less than what the iPhone averages per quarter (which is about 6 million since Q1 2009). Factor in the fact that Apple itself holds about 51% of all profits for global smartphone sales and I doubt they really care. To them, having potentially less sales but clearly far more profit is to them more important.
Oh and let's not even get into the fact that Red Hat will cancel your support contract if you dare to exercise your GPL rights:
Distributing the Software or any portion of the Subscription Services to a third party or using any of the Subscription Services for the benefit of a third party is a material breach of the Agreement even though the open source license applicable to individual software packages may give you the right to distribute those packages.
How is THAT not scummy? They tout all the "freedoms" of open source and the GPL on their website and then lock you in from being able to actually use those freedoms by saying that if you do it's a breach of your support agreement. What fucking bullshit.
If you want scummy, look to companies like Oracle which just take, repackage, and rarely give back.
But isn't the whole point of the GPL so anyone CAN take what you've released and repackage it as long as you release your changes to that product? Why is this somehow "scummy" just because Oracle does it? Because they dare to compete with Red Hat? If Red Hat doesn't want to have to compete with others they shouldn't have released their code as GPL or built their business on GPL.
and significantly undermine RH's ability to earn revenue from their distro.
Boohoo? If they don't want people to be able to do so they shouldn't gave built their business on GPL code. Secondly, why SHOULDN'T their customers be able to switch to Novel or Oracle for support if they want to? They supposedly claimed to believe in that according to their supposed values:
when customers are unhappy with one vendor, they can choose another
Well that seems to be unless those customers choose not to get support from Red Hat anymore because then Red Hat will do whatever it takes to lock you into their support. Oh and don't dare exercise your GPL rights because then that means you lose your support contract. What fucking hypocrites.
I can point out plenty of C/C++ programs that have plenty of problems as well.
Great, but neither I nor anyone else tries to claim that C and C++ programs are immune to those problems. Java weenies on the other hand are constantly telling us how Java eliminates memory management issues, null pointers, etc and yet numerous high profile Java programs suffer from all those issues.
Bad programmers are a bad programmers regardless of the language they are using.
Yes, which is why we shouldn't be ENCOURAGING more bad programmers by allowing them to get away with not actually learning enough to do their craft correctly.
You're references to Java programmers as "mouth breathers" is pure ignorance.
Nope.
Your references to Minecraft mean nothing.
Actually it means quite a bit in counter to your:
I can't count the number of times I've had to come into a C or C++ project because the team of programmers working on it could not resolve the reliability issues which were primarily due to pointer problems or memory leaks.
because you were attempting to try to paint a picture where Java programs don't have those problems yet it's trivially easy to find Java programs with memory leaks and throwing nullpointerexceptions. And it all has to do with shitty mouth breathers who learn Java but know jack and shit about how to write software because all those things like pointers are "too hard".
Err, umm, in this particular case, as I noted, there are BSD-licensed alternatives, but Apple chose to use the GPLed software rather than the BSD-licensed alternatives used by the *BSDs, including, err, umm, the FreeBSD of which Jordan was a co-founder.
So what? Again, as he said they usually PREFER to choose a BSD alternative but as you shown (and the original poster never claimed contrary) they won't ALWAYS choose that alternative. You are arguing over a non point just to argue.
Why would you have to switch her systems? Why couldn't she just keep using what she already is? You do realize you don't have to upgrade the OS just because Apple releases a new version, right? It's not as if any such change is going to be forced on you.
Yeah and in 2000, AOL had a market cap of ~$160 billion (which is ~$200 billion taking into account inflation) and we all know that AOL is a thriving leader in the ISP space. Oh wait...
I have already heard where Apple is considering moving to an AppStore model for software distribution for OS-X,
OS X has had an app store since January. You are still able to install software from outside the app store. 10.7 doesn't change this.
which would pretty much put the nail in the coffin for GPL applications and tools. Caveat User!
That's amazing because just the other day I installed 3 pieces of GPL software on a system running the beta of 10.7. I guess I must have some sort of magic powers.
You do realize that removing copyright wouldn't make business open source their code right? They may no longer be able to stop you from DISTRIBUTING copies of the program or trying to painstakingly reverse engineer it but it wouldn't compel or obligate them to release their source. All eliminating copyright will do is let them use all that previously GPLed code in a closed source program and there's anyone could do to stop them. All your "user freedom" will be gone in a flash if copyright ceased to exist.
Well, that certainly explains why OS X's make is the Berkeley make rather than the GNU make and its sh is the Almquist shell rather than BASH. Oh, wait:
He said they PREFER to use BSD licensed software not that they ONLY use BSD licensed software. Way to fail at elementary grade reading comprehension.
You can't offer an alternative explanation based on the actual facts
What facts? All I see from the original post was someone making unevidenced assertions. If Apple owns patents that cover Samba then they should be very easy to provide the links to them.
I'd think it was pretty simple:
Sure if you only look at it superficially. You also have to deal with all the uncertainty of what is a derived work or not. Obviously the FSF would like it to be as broad as possibly but there isn't much hard case law to back either way so that uncertainty is something that a commercial company is not going to want to put up with.
if you give someone the binary, you make the source code available to them.
Until people complain that you aren't supplying the source in the form they want and they start a huge stink about it. And that's just a single example and there are many others.
The same goes for pretty much any other non-FOSS license, where you need a lawyer to slog through it to make sure it's OK.
Really? I've seen many of the license in the source code deals at a number of companies I've been at and they are completely clear and upfront about what you can and can not do. There is no manifesto and all other sorts of shit you have to wade through like the GPL. There is also none of the associated GPL/FOSS politics to deal with.
Also, statements like "What exactly is so hard about pointers?" is just geek bravado. I'm a long time hired gun and I can't count the number of times I've had to come into a C or C++ project because the team of programmers working on it could not resolve the reliability issues which were primarily due to pointer problems or memory leaks. While there are definitely performance considerations in Java (and a wise man knows that nothing in life is free), Java offers productivity gains over C (and even Obj-C IMHO) while still maintaining reasonable performance. This combination is unmatched by other language platforms at the current time (although I'd say C# runs a close second - again IMHO).
Yeah, how dare someone actually learn about how the internals of hardware works and how their code actually runs!! Such bravado!! Oh wait, that's just common knowledge that pretty much EVERY programmer should know. Secondly, I can quite trivially point you to a famous Java program, Minecraft, that has dozens up dozens of posts on the Minecraft forums about nullpointerexceptions and memory leaks. Yeah, Java may have been "more productive" (a completely subjective term because I know numerous people who are far more productive in C and C++ than many Java mouth breathers could ever hope to be) for making Minecraft and yet it seems to have all the same issues with memory leaks and pointer problems as you whine about in those C and C++ projects. This is the reason why even Java mouth breathers need to learn these concepts because having your hand held by the JVM clearly doesn't seem to be working.
Also, Minecraft isn't the only example one can bring up that share those memory leak and nullpointerexception problems. I've seen it in tons of them. Also, I've seen numerous C# applications and libraries that have all sorts of null exceptions and memory leak issues too. They probably also had the same mindset of "Durrrr learning pointers and memory management is too hard so I'm just going to chunk out mah code and hope duh JVM/.NET runtime handles all the problems".
Java is immensely easier to develop with than any flavor of C because of garbage collection and lack of pointers.
What exactly is so hard about pointers? Unless you're a mouth breather pointers are quite easy to learn. Also Java DOES have pointers that's why there is even an exception for when they are NULL.
Why can't I use native C or C++ on either of them?
You can use native C for iPhone development. Objective-C is a strict superset of C.
They still sell refurbished desktops and laptops.
Yes, but using the same logic as many people apply to these abandoned books, why should anyone have to wait until 2050 for the copyrights to that code to expire when most of that code has probably been replaced and rewritten. That sounds perfectly like it should enter the public domain if we are going to be consistent in our logic. If it's okay to strip copyright status from "abandoned" books, it should be perfectly acceptable to strip the copyright status of abandoned GPLed works or old code that has long since been removed, deprecated, or rewritten.
Did you miss the part where it said he bought it at a "local computer fair". That's basically the equivalent of buying something at a flea market. Most of those sellers travel around and you'll probably never hear from or see that seller again.
It's a step up at least from the malware-ridden thumb drives they have previously given out.