Sure, if you want to capitalise it as 'Open Source' and use their trademark then it can go to mean exactly their definition. However the more common 'open source' is simply the general interpreted meaning of the words in normal speech - not even necessarily in reference to software - which is the accessibility of the source rather than the licensing and distribution terms that the OSI has tacked on to it. The term 'open source' was around long before the OSI came along and trademarked 'Open Source' for use in terms of software.
The FSF term 'Free Software', or even the hybrid 'Free Open Source Software' seem to be better terms since unlike the general 'open source' - which doesn't even necessarily refer to software, much less licenses - they were coined for software and for explicitly including specification of licenses and distribution terms. Though even in this case the 'Free as in Freedom' vs 'Free as in Free Beer' conflict is still a pain, i mean if you tell someone that something is free in general they would take it to mean 'Free as in Free Beer'.
The fact that it's just not true. The word has a definition.
I count 2 words. In any case 'Open Source' software is pretty much synonymous with 'Free Software', which is why it does seem to make sense to have both terms. Whereas 'open source' software is much more generally any software to which you are given access to the source code.
Wrong. i have dozens of relatives with windows (XP, Vista, 7), and dozens more with OS X. lately most have mac laptops and keep their old windows desktops around.
Ah anecdotal evidence. I can't be bothered typing it so just whatever you said but the other way round;)
Or, to put it another way, an abstraction, like DirectX, is an API aimed at a fictional, simplifed thing, mapped onto something else, whereas an emulation, like SoundBlaster support, is an API aimed at something that does really exist, mapped onto something else.
Assuming you are talking about a Soundblaster emulator that would be an emulator with an Application Programming Interface, the API itself is not an emulator, it is a way of interacting with the emulator, this would be the same API that you would use to interact with a real Soundblaster so that from the application perspective you don't know whether it is a Soundblaster or a Soundblaster emulator, which is the whole point.
Never forget. Microsoft has never helped open source. They have only contributed to their own version of it, which is very much unlike open source as it was defined 10+ years ago.
Im certainly not saying they have pushed open source development but they have contributed, like for example the release of the DLR under an Apache 2.0 license.
Damn right. The web (Internet) was supposed to provide a platform that could be accessed by all devices, providing they adhere to the web standards. And that means HTML. Not Flash, or Silverlight, or even Java Applets.
So bugger off and make your own proprietary network standard. Just don't go bitch about a company that's brought out a devive that DOES support just the standards.
How do the standard mouse-overs work? I know on my N900 i have a cursor-simulator built into the native browser.
That's some nice revisionist history there, especially when you consider that the initial "development platform" for the iPhone was purely HTML web apps. A development platform, I should add, that is still 100% fully supported on all the iOS devices.
And why did they move away from that? Because apps want to interface directly with the camera, the flash, the multitouch display, the accelerometer, the GPS, your contacts, photos, music, WiFi etc...
Well that example is a little different. Apple has no right to kick people off of AT&T's network.
Of course, because I didn't say that, i said 'disable phone functionality'.
Sure, I would see that as acceptable. I don't see anything wrong with Apple/At&T making decisions about what devices and software packages can access their network.
oh bullshit you would, only an idiot would find it acceptable to purchase a product and have features removed whenever the manufacturer feels like.
Sony's situation is different. They cut off access to a free non-contractual service, and they had always reserved the right to change or modify their Terms of Use. Granted it was an advertised feature and the majority of users purchased their PS3's for that reason, but Sony still must have the right to say who can and can't access their networks. Right?
No, because it is an advertised feature, you can no longer use the product as advertised because they intentionally disabled it. They can't just arbitrarily deny access 'because they feel like it'. The ToS does not overrule the law, some people just don't understand that.
Apple uses the same trick as Microsoft did in the past, they modulate how easy/convenient it is to pirate/jailbreak their shit to maximize earnings. Once they decide it's no longer to their benefit they will really start doing their best and they won't need scare tactics... it will simply become nearly impossible.
Oh yeah, im sure they can write 100% secure software but just choose not to. Pretty much all of the exploits have been there since the start, they haven't modulated shit.
So everything is suitable for the R18+ category that is now RC will be classified and available. Hence less banned material.
All you've done is move the age higher, but not stopped the government from banning adult material (like the Playboy Game) they deem inappropriate for 18 year olds.
Strictly speaking it's R18+, as in you must be at least 18. Currently the highest level of material available for classification is that which fits into the 15-18yo range, anything above 18 is RC.
Did you still want to keep Other OS? You had the option to decline their update. Sony didn't send killbots to your house to force you to update.
So if you had an iphone and apple said 'we are removing the application functionality in the next update, however it's optional so you can retain the application functionality, but you won't be able to make calls.' you would see that as acceptable?
Why isn't it about the government trying to help parents?
It is! If we had an R18 rating that's exactly what it would do! Instead they absolve parents of their responsibility by just banning anything not suitable for a 15yo.
It's much more logical and consistent for a parent to be able to say "you can't watch any 18 rated films" to a child rather than "well OK, you can watch this one because I've heard a good review of it and it has artistic merit, but you can't watch this other one because it's too violent/pornographic/sweary".
Yes, which is why we want an R18 rating for games, but the government won't do that. That's exactly my point, they decide they will just wield the ban-hammer instead of having an R18 rating that parents would have to be aware of.
Right, assuming by "Greens" you mean "Family First" and by "going to get a serious beatdown" you mean "actually be taken seriously and implemented". A clear win for either of the major parties is a blow to anything this stupid.
No I mean the 'Greens' - as i have written - and 'beatdown' - again as i have written. Im not sure how you could misinterpret that, seemed pretty obvious based on the words i wrote and you quoted.
Slashdot Mirror
build a cross platform compiler
Why would you need to do that?
Sure, if you want to capitalise it as 'Open Source' and use their trademark then it can go to mean exactly their definition. However the more common 'open source' is simply the general interpreted meaning of the words in normal speech - not even necessarily in reference to software - which is the accessibility of the source rather than the licensing and distribution terms that the OSI has tacked on to it. The term 'open source' was around long before the OSI came along and trademarked 'Open Source' for use in terms of software.
The FSF term 'Free Software', or even the hybrid 'Free Open Source Software' seem to be better terms since unlike the general 'open source' - which doesn't even necessarily refer to software, much less licenses - they were coined for software and for explicitly including specification of licenses and distribution terms. Though even in this case the 'Free as in Freedom' vs 'Free as in Free Beer' conflict is still a pain, i mean if you tell someone that something is free in general they would take it to mean 'Free as in Free Beer'.
The fact that it's just not true. The word has a definition.
I count 2 words. In any case 'Open Source' software is pretty much synonymous with 'Free Software', which is why it does seem to make sense to have both terms. Whereas 'open source' software is much more generally any software to which you are given access to the source code.
Wrong. i have dozens of relatives with windows (XP, Vista, 7), and dozens more with OS X. lately most have mac laptops and keep their old windows desktops around.
Ah anecdotal evidence. I can't be bothered typing it so just whatever you said but the other way round ;)
Ummm, I have (and obviously you haven't), and it's quite horrible.
Exactly what Flash content were you looking at?
milliseconds of latency on every single executed flash bytecode instruction...
Sounds like bullshit.
show me a flash application that without it, your phone is useless.
How is that relevant? He certainly never suggested a phone is useless without flash.
Extra bonus points for throwing it away and buying a new one when the batteries wear out.
He doesn't have to go that far, he could just do what the Cupertino folks do to solve a major design flaw...whack a rubber band around it.
You are being a little paranoid, that is not going to happend
Why not? Logically it's a pretty good move for Apple and they have the means to make it happen.
Or, to put it another way, an abstraction, like DirectX, is an API aimed at a fictional, simplifed thing, mapped onto something else, whereas an emulation, like SoundBlaster support, is an API aimed at something that does really exist, mapped onto something else.
Assuming you are talking about a Soundblaster emulator that would be an emulator with an Application Programming Interface, the API itself is not an emulator, it is a way of interacting with the emulator, this would be the same API that you would use to interact with a real Soundblaster so that from the application perspective you don't know whether it is a Soundblaster or a Soundblaster emulator, which is the whole point.
An emulation is just another way of saying 'API' (Well, ABI), except it's an API of a thing that does really exist like that.
Sounds like you're confusing emulation with abstraction. An interface isn't an emulator.
So much for the "Microsoft Tax."
It's a lot more like the 'Microsoft Tax Refund'.
Never forget. Microsoft has never helped open source. They have only contributed to their own version of it, which is very much unlike open source as it was defined 10+ years ago.
Im certainly not saying they have pushed open source development but they have contributed, like for example the release of the DLR under an Apache 2.0 license.
Damn right. The web (Internet) was supposed to provide a platform that could be accessed by all devices, providing they adhere to the web standards. And that means HTML. Not Flash, or Silverlight, or even Java Applets.
So bugger off and make your own proprietary network standard. Just don't go bitch about a company that's brought out a devive that DOES support just the standards.
How do the standard mouse-overs work? I know on my N900 i have a cursor-simulator built into the native browser.
That's some nice revisionist history there, especially when you consider that the initial "development platform" for the iPhone was purely HTML web apps. A development platform, I should add, that is still 100% fully supported on all the iOS devices.
And why did they move away from that? Because apps want to interface directly with the camera, the flash, the multitouch display, the accelerometer, the GPS, your contacts, photos, music, WiFi etc...
Heh. Even with four cores and 4 gigs of RAM, I still automatically Noscript Flash, for "technical" reasons.
God forbid that hardware actually be used.
Well that example is a little different. Apple has no right to kick people off of AT&T's network.
Of course, because I didn't say that, i said 'disable phone functionality'.
Sure, I would see that as acceptable. I don't see anything wrong with Apple/At&T making decisions about what devices and software packages can access their network.
oh bullshit you would, only an idiot would find it acceptable to purchase a product and have features removed whenever the manufacturer feels like.
Sony's situation is different. They cut off access to a free non-contractual service, and they had always reserved the right to change or modify their Terms of Use. Granted it was an advertised feature and the majority of users purchased their PS3's for that reason, but Sony still must have the right to say who can and can't access their networks. Right?
No, because it is an advertised feature, you can no longer use the product as advertised because they intentionally disabled it. They can't just arbitrarily deny access 'because they feel like it'. The ToS does not overrule the law, some people just don't understand that.
As an Australian i'd like to redirect that slightly to 'Fuck you Australian Government'.
so now in Australia you have a self-elected goverment? wow ...
I think you misunderstand...I said I'm an Australian, not all the Australian people, or even the majority of Australian people.
Apple uses the same trick as Microsoft did in the past, they modulate how easy/convenient it is to pirate/jailbreak their shit to maximize earnings. Once they decide it's no longer to their benefit they will really start doing their best and they won't need scare tactics ... it will simply become nearly impossible.
Oh yeah, im sure they can write 100% secure software but just choose not to. Pretty much all of the exploits have been there since the start, they haven't modulated shit.
No instead they'd ban everything above R18.
So everything is suitable for the R18+ category that is now RC will be classified and available. Hence less banned material.
All you've done is move the age higher, but not stopped the government from banning adult material (like the Playboy Game) they deem inappropriate for 18 year olds.
Strictly speaking it's R18+, as in you must be at least 18. Currently the highest level of material available for classification is that which fits into the 15-18yo range, anything above 18 is RC.
Did you still want to keep Other OS? You had the option to decline their update. Sony didn't send killbots to your house to force you to update.
So if you had an iphone and apple said 'we are removing the application functionality in the next update, however it's optional so you can retain the application functionality, but you won't be able to make calls.' you would see that as acceptable?
Many of them, yes. Why do you assume pedophiles are some higher intellectual class of criminal?
I don't assume that, but not all criminals are complete dumbasses.
An R18 rating isn't a solution, but a means to introduce further censorship.
Wrong, it means less censorship. Because anything above the M15 rating would not be just outright banned like it is now.
The fact that there is always something 'worse' wouldn't be the point. Right now you have a rating of what T15? That IS your R18 rating.
No it isn't, anything that would receive an R18 rating is refused classification and banned because M15 is the highest rating.
So you increase the level to R18, what difference would that make. All it would do is give people justification for applying more censorship.
No it would mean that actually have a category of material higher than M15 that would be legal and classified rather than just being deemed illegal.
This is the iPhone we're talking about, right? What's the use of downloading apps from IRC if you can't install them?
Jailbreak? My point is that it's the same bunch of morons that proposed the internet filter that are now on another idiotic and unworkable campaign.
Why isn't it about the government trying to help parents?
It is! If we had an R18 rating that's exactly what it would do! Instead they absolve parents of their responsibility by just banning anything not suitable for a 15yo.
It's much more logical and consistent for a parent to be able to say "you can't watch any 18 rated films" to a child rather than "well OK, you can watch this one because I've heard a good review of it and it has artistic merit, but you can't watch this other one because it's too violent/pornographic/sweary".
Yes, which is why we want an R18 rating for games, but the government won't do that. That's exactly my point, they decide they will just wield the ban-hammer instead of having an R18 rating that parents would have to be aware of.
Right, assuming by "Greens" you mean "Family First" and by "going to get a serious beatdown" you mean "actually be taken seriously and implemented". A clear win for either of the major parties is a blow to anything this stupid.
No I mean the 'Greens' - as i have written - and 'beatdown' - again as i have written. Im not sure how you could misinterpret that, seemed pretty obvious based on the words i wrote and you quoted.