Well, from what I remember it was that "Export" clause that got people angry. That clause is no longer in the APSL. The clause you mention above is the same as it was in APSL so I guess nobody complained about it the first time.
To me the clause you mention just means that the License is not above the laws of the United States or California... which makes sense. Whether that implies any export laws I don't know, but they've obviously left it up to the government to decide if that were the case.
not to take anything away from the fact that it is there... but it is not part of the changes in 1.1, that clause was present, word for word, in APSL 1.0.
this is not meant as a slander towards you, anonymous coward, but it just goes to show how few people actually read, and understood APSL 1.0.
oh please... like someone has already pointed out... word for word, the other licenses are just as long. It doesn't take long to read it (I compared 1.0, 1.1 for changes in less then 15 minutes), and if you are going to seriously use the code and contribute to the project then it is worth your while to read and understand the most important points.
It is basically all common sense anyway... document your sources, post your changes, play nice. You follow those three rules and you'll be able to contribute with all the blessings of Apple. Now is that that complicated?
why not? the benefits are obvious. Also they would have been hung by their ex-Next customers for not providing an alternative to Rhapsody for Intel.
Darwin can be ported to any platform... now QT can go along with it. That's a powerful combination, and if I was programmer I'd be in there like a dirty-shirt. If you want an awesome API, then MacOS X will provide YB which is the single most awesome OO API I have ever seen. They have nothing to lose by doing Darwin. And they can't yank it now because they will be ridiculed and completely abandoned by developers if they do.
No it means that, as stated in previous sections Apple is allowed to use your code as is determined by your patents, and you can't just slap them with a lawsuit for using that code unless you have a reason for doing so. Which would then fall into section 9.1.
Obviously, if you're intent on sueing Apple for stealing your idea that you saw in their code then you probably won't care whether you are protected by the APSL because it will have already passed that point... it will be a matter of "who did it first" and "who wrote it first".
Just like when you are using Apple code with Apple patents and credits and documenting them correctly (like every good essay writer should) Apple is not allowed to slap you with a lawsuit for patent infringement.
to get at the actual source you have to register (give a Name and e-mail). After that you can download everything.
It's the core bits of the recently released MacOS X Server. Includes the kernel, driverkit, soundkit, networking (AppleTalk), file system (HFS+) etc that makes up an the core of an OS. Apple will be releasing installable binaries (so you can just dl and go instead of compiling etc.) in the near future. It is an OS... very portable.. very extensible.
now they've added the QT Streaming Server to the source.
So lets see how much of the initial furor over APSL 1.0 was just a whole bunch of people feeling threatened by a "closed" company stepping into their (not so) "open" territory or real concern that Apple didn't get it right the first time.
If you don't like APSL 1.1... tell Apple. they might just listen...
Here are the changes... go at it...
New Definitions: "Affected Original Code": means only those specific portions of Original Code that allegedly infringe upon any party's intellectual property rights or are otherwise the subject of a claim of infringement.
9.1 "Infringement" Big changes here... (rightly so) Basically instead of "terminating Your Rights to use the Affected Original Code" end-of-story...
They will "suspend your rights....until a final determination of the claim is made by a court or governmental administrative agency of competent jurisdiction and Apple lifts the suspension as set forth below." They clearly state that you can make any changes you wish to the code so that it no longer pisses Apple, or someone else, off. They also clearly state that only the *portion* of the code is affected... all the code won't be yanked.
"If Apple suspends Your rights to Affected Original Code, nothing in this License shall be construed to restrict You, at Your option and subject to applicable law, from replacing the Affected Original Code with non-infringing code or independently negotiating for necessary rights from such third party.
It goes on... "Upon such final determination being made, if Apple is legally able, without the payment of a fee or royalty, to resume use, reproduction, modification, sublicensing and distribution of the Affected Original Code, Apple will lift the suspension of rights to the Affected Original Code"...
13 "Miscellaneous" 13.1 "Export Law Assurances" has been removed
then it is to give up. I'll miss the EvangList. Not only was a rallying point for the Mac community it was a darn good source of information too. Job postings, PR, articles, editorials, jokes.
I have 879 of the 1403 digests that the Evangelist produced and I still reference them.
It's good that it's done though... it sends a message to the computing world that Apple and it's followers no longer need a group of fanatics to go defend their cause. I think Apple is finally climbing back into the mainstream.
So I wonder if there are any moons on those Gas giants. If one is 2 times the size of jupiter and has a similar year to Earth than maybe it's warm enough to have an atmosphere... that is if the giants gravity doesn't suck it right off...
neat, I can hardly wait for FreeBSD/Mac/Windows versions of the SETI@home clients... all three machines will be searching:)
I don't think it's so much that they decided not to use the 604 but rather they were following a specific roadmap. The G3 was always going to be based on the 603 which didn't have the (double precision?) FP capability that the 604 had. They couldn't put a 604 in a PowerBook cuz they'd burn up. The G3 was meant to go across Apples whole line so it had to be cheaper and cooler.
The G4 is based on the 604, so it will inherit that chips FP while using the G3s advances for low power consumption. What's more I'm sure AltiVec will help the scientific community alot. It'll make for a nice boost to Mathmatica I bet:)
I think the people at LinuxPPC will do fine. They've managed to get it running on almost every PPC Mac by reverse engineering alone. Especially with the release of Darwin and the talk on Darwin lists that they should consider the new "unified UNIX driver" thing I think it will only get easier.
#1 The only reason they can even consider writing this is because of the portability of Darwin. Apple actually encourages people to work on getting Darwin running on Intel. (It's in one of their FAQs) And why wouldn't they? They don't have to "support" it on Intel. They don't have to write drivers (IBM spent millions on drivers for OS/2). They can just sell MacOS X Server for Darwin and it can go to Intel, PPC, Merced, Sparc or whatever platform Darwin runs on. Apple gets money, we get MacOS X, everyone's happy.
#2 Motorola has been working on getting their embedded processors in space for a while. Their high-end embedded product is the 603e core (which were the base of PowerBooks the gen before G3s). Embedded PPCs are nothing new, and if it wasn't for that market desktop PPCs wouldn't be as great as they are today. The major benefits of AltiVec directly affect embedded applications. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Yellow Box as dev platform: I don't know where you get the idea that YB is gone. It's still *the* most important future dev platform for Apple. It is the basis WO. It is the basis of MacOS X Server, for now. Apple is combining YB and Java so that you can use the two APIs interchangeably. After MacOS X is released, Apple will start to push YB, for now they just want support for Carbon so they have software base to start with.
I miss the Newton. However, soon we will have the P1 and or iBook. Which should have everything Newton had plus MacOS and a PPC processor.
Rhapsody on Intel. We have Darwin, which, when you think about it, is better than Apple spending millions to support (probably poorly) the thousands configurations out there. Better we do it with IOKit then Apple. Apple can sell us a MacOS X Server for Darwin product later.
Rhapsody on pre-G3 hardware... well the 603s don't work... so what? Do you really care if you get "support" from Apple when you can easily get better help from the Internet. Go buy a $500 8500/180 (which happens to be what I'm runnning) if you're that cheap.
OpenDoc. OK, you got a point. I don't know what will replace it. Anyone know any possible candidates?
IMHO, I don't see the "apppliance" to really be the future of personal computing. They may dominate in the home environment and they will probably be integrated with everything from your TV to your fridge, but people will always need powerful machines requiring powerful operating systems, with powerful software. These systems will come in many shapes and sizes like they do today... but they will always be there. Linux, MacOS X, Windows, Unix they'll be with us forever.
I want some of that theoretical biological computing... using neurons and stuff. Wow, fast, complex, dream:)
Actually it's a little more (and a little less) than that.
Apple has signed a 5 year, billion dollar, contract with LG Electronics for them to produce *all* iMacs. They will be made in Mexico, Asia and Europe (all cheaper than Apple's facilities)
Apple hasn't really layed anyone off. They hired thousands of "temp" workers before the iMac introduction at the Cork, California, and Singapore plants. Now that they don't make iMacs they don't need those workers so they are all being released.
Unfortunately, there is a nasty *rumor* that they will close production completely at Cork. I don't see what benefit would come of this since Cork manufactures most of the PowerMacs and PowerBooks for the European market and shipping those machines from the US or Singapore would seem more expensive.
Time will tell. As for the fire. AppleInsider said that the Mac production plant wasn't severely damaged by the fire but rather by the water used to put it out. They didn't say what started it.
The mindset of people...
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
You know, I had a huge response to that Bzt! comment... but I looked at it at the end and wondered why the hell I was wasting my time. I'm obviously talking to people who are so blinded by *their* righteousness that they are not willing to see change what *might* be good for *their* movement.
Whatever... I know there are more reasonable people who come to this site who have a bit more of a head on their shoulders.
The point of this thread is that Apple has proven that it can change, and listen. So we should give it a little time to change the APSL so that it is better for the Free Software community.
Yeah, I used to be an Apple zealot, too.
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
Did I say they were going to change the world with MacOS X Server and Darwin? No.
Did I even say I use a Mac every day? No.
All I said is that I find it ironic that people who say they value a "community" based outlook are so eager to jump on a company when it makes an effort to become a *limited* part of that community. My point was that perhaps we should give Apple a couple weeks to see if they actually change the APSL for the better. I think if you talk to Bruce Perens you might hear that Apple is trying to do just that right now. If in a couple weeks, the APSL is just as bad as it is now, then you can laugh at Apple's weak effort all you want.
And by the way, it's not like you are *required* to even try out Darwin... personally I'm going to help the effort to get it working on x86 so that Apple can give us Rhapsody for Intel like they promised.
I don't know about the APSL being a sham... personally I think it's just a whole bunch of people being scared of a formerly *very* closed company stepping into *their* "open" turf. I find it quite ironic.
As for MacOS X... I've tried it out and it is *very* cool. Especially if you already know some Unix techniques to get around. The Blue Box works fine... the Next like interface is really smooth. And the bultin utilities for managing networks, services, appearances etc are slick.
I really like the apps that come with too especially MailViewer and OmniWeb... you can see the common dialogs and looks that developing in Yellow Box provides.
I downloaded Samba yesterday and am in the process of compiling and installing it so I can see the rest of our Network.
Apple won't move to a Linux Kernel because they already have a kernel (Mach) that is both very fast and very mature. Mach is the basis of BSD, NextStep, and now MacOS X Server. It's not going anywhere. Linux is good, obviously, but Apple will still have to bring it into it's own mold... making it closed, and who knows whether they'd release the changes they made. That would make the Linux community pissed-off... so why bother.
Apple already has Linux running on Mach (MkLinux) and if they continue to upgrade and improve Mach than perhaps they'll pass those improvements onto Linux... god forbid if MkLinux turns out to be better than LinuxPPC:)
Right, (dugh, for me:) ) of course. It makes sense that Intel would release those specs so that developers would use them.
I disagree on the optimization of MacOS though. At WWDCC 98 and at MacWorld SF this January, Apple made it clear that it would make changes to the internal workings (networking, display rendering, 3D etc.) of the MacOS (from an API and low-level standpoint) so that they (a) take advantage of the new instructions available and (b) take full advantage of the full 128bit AltiVec register and it's interaction with the FP and Integer registers.
I'm sure they'll be alot more clear on what this all means at WWDC 99 in May. Which should be within 6-10 months of the release of AltiVec based PowerMacs.
AFAIK, AltiVec includes knew instructions that software will have to call specifically in order to take advantage of them. However, AltiVec also includes a whole new register that will be optimized for specific applications.
The evolution of the PowerPC has another thing going for it though... with the AIM alliance Apple will be optimizing MacOS (MacOS 8.x/9.x and MacOS X) from the ground up to take advantage of AltiVec.
Microsoft can't do this doesn't do this... and I'm not sure whether the Linux/Unix community has access to the Intel specs in order to do something similar.
Are they EVER going to ship IA-64?? Geez, it's just getting stupid. I wonder whether they're going to ship it first as a server-only type chip... (like they did with XEON)
Looks like they're going to spend so much time trying to do a decent job of emulating the x86 instructions that it's going to hamper the development of the rest of the chip.
Christ, if they just made a chip that was fast enough to do it they could just emulate x86 in software.... I'm sure it could do it now. At least then nothing would hold back future development
Slashdot Mirror
Well, from what I remember it was that "Export" clause that got people angry. That clause is no longer in the APSL. The clause you mention above is the same as it was in APSL so I guess nobody complained about it the first time.
To me the clause you mention just means that the License is not above the laws of the United States or California... which makes sense. Whether that implies any export laws I don't know, but they've obviously left it up to the government to decide if that were the case.
not to take anything away from the fact that it is there... but it is not part of the changes in 1.1, that clause was present, word for word, in APSL 1.0.
this is not meant as a slander towards you, anonymous coward, but it just goes to show how few people actually read, and understood APSL 1.0.
oh please... like someone has already pointed out... word for word, the other licenses are just as long. It doesn't take long to read it (I compared 1.0, 1.1 for changes in less then 15 minutes), and if you are going to seriously use the code and contribute to the project then it is worth your while to read and understand the most important points.
It is basically all common sense anyway... document your sources, post your changes, play nice. You follow those three rules and you'll be able to contribute with all the blessings of Apple. Now is that that complicated?
why not? the benefits are obvious. Also they would have been hung by their ex-Next customers for not providing an alternative to Rhapsody for Intel.
Darwin can be ported to any platform... now QT can go along with it. That's a powerful combination, and if I was programmer I'd be in there like a dirty-shirt.
If you want an awesome API, then MacOS X will provide YB which is the single most awesome OO API I have ever seen. They have nothing to lose by doing Darwin. And they can't yank it now because they will be ridiculed and completely abandoned by developers if they do.
No it means that, as stated in previous sections Apple is allowed to use your code as is determined by your patents, and you can't just slap them with a lawsuit for using that code unless you have a reason for doing so. Which would then fall into section 9.1.
Obviously, if you're intent on sueing Apple for stealing your idea that you saw in their code then you probably won't care whether you are protected by the APSL because it will have already passed that point... it will be a matter of "who did it first" and "who wrote it first".
Just like when you are using Apple code with Apple patents and credits and documenting them correctly (like every good essay writer should) Apple is not allowed to slap you with a lawsuit for patent infringement.
to get at the actual source you have to register (give a Name and e-mail). After that you can download everything.
It's the core bits of the recently released MacOS X Server. Includes the kernel, driverkit, soundkit, networking (AppleTalk), file system (HFS+) etc that makes up an the core of an OS. Apple will be releasing installable binaries (so you can just dl and go instead of compiling etc.) in the near future. It is an OS... very portable.. very extensible.
now they've added the QT Streaming Server to the source.
So lets see how much of the initial furor over APSL 1.0 was just a whole bunch of people feeling threatened by a "closed" company stepping into their (not so) "open" territory or real concern that Apple didn't get it right the first time.
...
If you don't like APSL 1.1... tell Apple. they might just listen...
Here are the changes... go at it...
New Definitions:
"Affected Original Code": means only those specific portions of Original Code that allegedly infringe upon any party's intellectual
property rights or are otherwise the subject of a claim of infringement.
9.1 "Infringement"
Big changes here... (rightly so)
Basically instead of "terminating Your Rights to use the Affected Original Code" end-of-story...
They will "suspend your rights....until a final determination of the claim is made by a court or governmental administrative agency of competent jurisdiction and Apple lifts the suspension as set forth below." They clearly state that you can make any changes you wish to the code so that it no longer pisses Apple, or someone else, off.
They also clearly state that only the *portion* of the code is affected... all the code won't be yanked.
"If Apple suspends Your rights to Affected Original Code, nothing in this License shall be construed to restrict You, at Your option and subject to applicable law, from replacing the Affected Original Code with non-infringing code or independently negotiating for necessary rights from such third party.
It goes on... "Upon such final determination being made, if Apple
is legally able, without the payment of a fee or royalty, to resume use, reproduction, modification, sublicensing and distribution of the Affected Original Code, Apple will lift the suspension of rights to the Affected Original Code"
13 "Miscellaneous"
13.1 "Export Law Assurances" has been removed
then it is to give up. I'll miss the EvangList. Not only was a rallying point for the Mac community it was a darn good source of information too. Job postings, PR, articles, editorials, jokes.
I have 879 of the 1403 digests that the Evangelist produced and I still reference them.
It's good that it's done though... it sends a message to the computing world that Apple and it's followers no longer need a group of fanatics to go defend their cause. I think Apple is finally climbing back into the mainstream.
So I wonder if there are any moons on those Gas giants. If one is 2 times the size of jupiter and has a similar year to Earth than maybe it's warm enough to have an atmosphere... that is if the giants gravity doesn't suck it right off...
:)
neat, I can hardly wait for FreeBSD/Mac/Windows versions of the SETI@home clients... all three machines will be searching
I don't think it's so much that they decided not to use the 604 but rather they were following a specific roadmap. The G3 was always going to be based on the 603 which didn't have the (double precision?) FP capability that the 604 had. They couldn't put a 604 in a PowerBook cuz they'd burn up. The G3 was meant to go across Apples whole line so it had to be cheaper and cooler.
:)
The G4 is based on the 604, so it will inherit that chips FP while using the G3s advances for low power consumption. What's more I'm sure AltiVec will help the scientific community alot. It'll make for a nice boost to Mathmatica I bet
I think the people at LinuxPPC will do fine. They've managed to get it running on almost every PPC Mac by reverse engineering alone. Especially with the release of Darwin and the talk on Darwin lists that they should consider the new "unified UNIX driver" thing I think it will only get easier.
that article is such poop...
#1 The only reason they can even consider writing this is because of the portability of Darwin. Apple actually encourages people to work on getting Darwin running on Intel. (It's in one of their FAQs) And why wouldn't they? They don't have to "support" it on Intel. They don't have to write drivers (IBM spent millions on drivers for OS/2). They can just sell MacOS X Server for Darwin and it can go to Intel, PPC, Merced, Sparc or whatever platform Darwin runs on. Apple gets money, we get MacOS X, everyone's happy.
#2 Motorola has been working on getting their embedded processors in space for a while. Their high-end embedded product is the 603e core (which were the base of PowerBooks the gen before G3s). Embedded PPCs are nothing new, and if it wasn't for that market desktop PPCs wouldn't be as great as they are today. The major benefits of AltiVec directly affect embedded applications. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Yellow Box as dev platform:
I don't know where you get the idea that YB is gone. It's still *the* most important future dev platform for Apple. It is the basis WO. It is the basis of MacOS X Server, for now. Apple is combining YB and Java so that you can use the two APIs interchangeably. After MacOS X is released, Apple will start to push YB, for now they just want support for Carbon so they have software base to start with.
I miss the Newton.
However, soon we will have the P1 and or iBook. Which should have everything Newton had plus MacOS and a PPC processor.
Rhapsody on Intel.
We have Darwin, which, when you think about it, is better than Apple spending millions to support (probably poorly) the thousands configurations out there. Better we do it with IOKit then Apple. Apple can sell us a MacOS X Server for Darwin product later.
Rhapsody on pre-G3 hardware... well the 603s don't work... so what? Do you really care if you get "support" from Apple when you can easily get better help from the Internet. Go buy a $500 8500/180 (which happens to be what I'm runnning) if you're that cheap.
OpenDoc. OK, you got a point. I don't know what will replace it. Anyone know any possible candidates?
IMHO, I don't see the "apppliance" to really be the future of personal computing. They may dominate in the home environment and they will probably be integrated with everything from your TV to your fridge, but people will always need powerful machines requiring powerful operating systems, with powerful software.
:)
These systems will come in many shapes and sizes like they do today... but they will always be there. Linux, MacOS X, Windows, Unix they'll be with us forever.
I want some of that theoretical biological computing... using neurons and stuff. Wow, fast, complex, dream
Actually it's a little more (and a little less) than that.
Apple has signed a 5 year, billion dollar, contract with LG Electronics for them to produce *all* iMacs.
They will be made in Mexico, Asia and Europe (all cheaper than Apple's facilities)
Apple hasn't really layed anyone off. They hired thousands of "temp" workers before the iMac introduction at the Cork, California, and Singapore plants. Now that they don't make iMacs they don't need those workers so they are all being released.
Unfortunately, there is a nasty *rumor* that they will close production completely at Cork. I don't see what benefit would come of this since Cork manufactures most of the PowerMacs and PowerBooks for the European market and shipping those machines from the US or Singapore would seem more expensive.
Time will tell. As for the fire. AppleInsider said that the Mac production plant wasn't severely damaged by the fire but rather by the water used to put it out. They didn't say what started it.
You know, I had a huge response to that Bzt! comment... but I looked at it at the end and wondered why the hell I was wasting my time. I'm obviously talking to people who are so blinded by *their* righteousness that they are not willing to see change what *might* be good for *their* movement.
Whatever... I know there are more reasonable people who come to this site who have a bit more of a head on their shoulders.
The point of this thread is that Apple has proven that it can change, and listen. So we should give it a little time to change the APSL so that it is better for the Free Software community.
Did I say they were going to change the world with MacOS X Server and Darwin?
No.
Did I even say I use a Mac every day?
No.
All I said is that I find it ironic that people who say they value a "community" based outlook are so eager to jump on a company when it makes an effort to become a *limited* part of that community.
My point was that perhaps we should give Apple a couple weeks to see if they actually change the APSL for the better. I think if you talk to Bruce Perens you might hear that Apple is trying to do just that right now. If in a couple weeks, the APSL is just as bad as it is now, then you can laugh at Apple's weak effort all you want.
And by the way, it's not like you are *required* to even try out Darwin... personally I'm going to help the effort to get it working on x86 so that Apple can give us Rhapsody for Intel like they promised.
I don't know about the APSL being a sham... personally I think it's just a whole bunch of people being scared of a formerly *very* closed company stepping into *their* "open" turf. I find it quite ironic.
:)
As for MacOS X... I've tried it out and it is *very* cool. Especially if you already know some Unix techniques to get around. The Blue Box works fine... the Next like interface is really smooth. And the bultin utilities for managing networks, services, appearances etc are slick.
I really like the apps that come with too especially MailViewer and OmniWeb... you can see the common dialogs and looks that developing in Yellow Box provides.
I downloaded Samba yesterday and am in the process of compiling and installing it so I can see the rest of our Network.
It comes with a really slick chess game too.
Apple won't move to a Linux Kernel because they already have a kernel (Mach) that is both very fast and very mature. Mach is the basis of BSD, NextStep, and now MacOS X Server. It's not going anywhere.
:)
Linux is good, obviously, but Apple will still have to bring it into it's own mold... making it closed, and who knows whether they'd release the changes they made. That would make the Linux community pissed-off... so why bother.
Apple already has Linux running on Mach (MkLinux) and if they continue to upgrade and improve Mach than perhaps they'll pass those improvements onto Linux... god forbid if MkLinux turns out to be better than LinuxPPC
Awesome!... I'd love to see people like IBM, Compaq and Dell take advantage of this!... Go Be! Go Gassee!
Just as a note...
As of MacOS 8.5 networking with TCP/IP (don't know 'bout AppleTalk) it can nearly saturate a 100Mbs connection in a mixed LAN.
I've tested it in our class LAN vs. MacOS 8.1, Windows 98, Windows NT, and FreeBSD.
One a 100Mbs connection (transferring a 40MB file) it is faster than MacOS 8.1, and Windows 98 (by *alot*)
It is about as fast as NT (sometimes slower, sometimes faster)
FreeBSD still beats it easily.
Right, (dugh, for me :) ) of course. It makes sense that Intel would release those specs so that developers would use them.
I disagree on the optimization of MacOS though. At WWDCC 98 and at MacWorld SF this January, Apple made it clear that it would make changes to the internal workings (networking, display rendering, 3D etc.) of the MacOS (from an API and low-level standpoint) so that they (a) take advantage of the new instructions available and (b) take full advantage of the full 128bit AltiVec register and it's interaction with the FP and Integer registers.
I'm sure they'll be alot more clear on what this all means at WWDC 99 in May. Which should be within 6-10 months of the release of AltiVec based PowerMacs.
This will change with the release of G4/AltiVec.
AFAIK, AltiVec includes knew instructions that software will have to call specifically in order to take advantage of them. However, AltiVec also includes a whole new register that will be optimized for specific applications.
The evolution of the PowerPC has another thing going for it though... with the AIM alliance Apple will be optimizing MacOS (MacOS 8.x/9.x and MacOS X) from the ground up to take advantage of AltiVec.
Microsoft can't do this doesn't do this... and I'm not sure whether the Linux/Unix community has access to the Intel specs in order to do something similar.
Damn... clicked on the wrong button at the end of that comment....
That last line should read...
...MacOS X Server/LinuxPPC versus PC-based Linux and MacOS X/MacOS 8.x versus Windows 98/NT perspective.
Are they EVER going to ship IA-64??
Geez, it's just getting stupid. I wonder whether they're going to ship it first as a server-only type chip... (like they did with XEON)
Looks like they're going to spend so much time trying to do a decent job of emulating the x86 instructions that it's going to hamper the development of the rest of the chip.
Christ, if they just made a chip that was fast enough to do it they could just emulate x86 in software.... I'm sure it could do it now. At least then nothing would hold back future development
Whatever... i'm sticking with PowerPC.