He's advocating that Open Source start to engage the interest of younger people by making open source work better with things like iPods and other proprietary formats. This is a far cry from "advocating closed source." Being useful is part of the deal here. How else is FOSS supposed to catch on, if no one wants to use it?
:P Okay, so I forgot to run the spellchecker.:) At least I didn't think there was a country called "Hungaria" and, on top of that, didn't know where the hell it was in the world.:)
I believe you misunderstand. I was not saying that there were syntax enhancements for supporting garbage collection. Someone suggested that there are syntax enhancments in Objective-C 2.0 in general. What these are, I have no clue, what I was saying is that I suspect that the syntax changes are the "big deal" about 2.0 since GC is already available.:)
The garbage collection mechanism by Hans Boehm has been available in GNU GCC for C, C++ and, yes, it also works for ObjC, for quite a while. And the big deal about this being added to Apple's implemnentation of ObjC is?
The "big deal" regarding ObjC 2.0 is the syntax "enhancements" I'll bet. So far, I haven't seen any examples of "ObjC 2.0" code.
"You folks"?? I assume you're talking about us "GPL folks" And, yes, I know exactly what I'm saying.:) Both licenses have merit, one is not better than the other. I, personally, don't use the BSD license because it would enable a company to take my work and, effectively, steal it and creating their own closed derivative. I prefer the GPL since it makes certain that the software that I've written remains free to use, even when someone modifies and redistributes it.
Given that about 68%-75% of all open source and free software is GPL'd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL), it seems that the BSD license has found it's niche, but that most people feel the same way I do.
It allows more freedom for the person. The point is to keep the SOFTWARE free, not to allow someone to, in essence, steal your work. THAT's the point. Sometimes preserving the freedom of the masses means restricting the freedom of the individual.
It's not Free since it allows a developer to *RESTRICT* the freedoms of users by closing the software. It's about keeping the software free as well as your freedom to use it.
I think you know what he means, and he's right.:) Sometimes when one company buys another there is a mass exodus especially if the company doing the buying is not well liked.
Because one of SCO's arguments has been that they "never meant to distribute the code." If they *willfully* distribute the code, such as it is, then they (per the distribution clause in the GPL) will effectively eradicate thier own argument.
Not that they had a case in the first freakin' place.
The FSF's beef with DRM is that it is currently used to restrict the fair use rights of users and can potentially be used to put the vendor in complete control of the computer purchase by the user. It can be used for anything from protecting music to restricting what programs you can run on your machine. It undermines the idea that the USER is in control of the computer, not the companies which make media.
DRM is an attempt by big companies to control the ability of the machine to make, distribute and view media because, since you can now make as many perfect digital copies as you like, they can no longer control what happens to thier content. It is because thier business model is failing that this is happening and they want to put it on everyone else by forcing you to buy crippled computers.
You can call me fanatical, or "evangelical" or anything else you like, but my opinions are my own. DRM is a malignancy and needs to be fought.
With the wave of virtualization technologies starting to pop up, people have a wider variety of applications available to them than ever before. Also, the idea of web-based productivity suites and other OS-independent technologies indicate that the trend is towards becoming more and more technology independent.
Microsoft is not acknowledging these trends and is continuing on its way as it always has. If they don't change direction soon, they will be a dinosaur.
Having the daemons running in userspace means that it's much more difficult for them to take down the entire machine if they do have bugs. That's the point.:) I never said it would magically fix anything, just that it would make the system more resilient.
This may look like flamebait, but I'm actually serious. Microkernels are more reliable because of drivers running on userspace. If a driver crashes, it can't take down the whole system. Also, given that some microkernels are only about 3500-6000 lines of code (as opposed to Linux's million or so) it's relatively easy to make certain that the code is bug free (given that the average number of bugs is 16 bugs per 1000 lines of code according to some recent studies).
So, if the kernel needs an overhaul, the why not do it right this time? Now some may say that microkernels have a performance hit, but todays machines are certainly fast enough to render any performance hit negligible.
Finally, Apple seems to have seen the light and is moving away from HFS+. I thought a while back I'd heard rumbings about bringing back resource forks, which would be a huge mistake.
I'm an avid Linux user and developer, but I must say that this is unfortunately where many many projects fall short of the mark. We need to realize that, unless we are willing to take the time to educate people about Linux and all of the options it opens up to people without belittling them, then we will never be ready for the desktop.
I go out of my way to help people who have questions about any of the projects I'm part of, because I realize that people won't use them unless they feel comfortable doing so. Making people feel stupid isn't the way to do it.
Unfortunately, some people on certain projects aren't disposed to being social. For instance, I had technical question regarding Hurd at one point, only because I was curious about it. So I decided to ask a question in #hurd on freenode and was immediately derided by a certain individual. I left feeling like "Why should I even try Hurd, if they're going to have that attitude" and I confess I haven't bothered to do so since. I am a developer... imagine how this kind of thing would come across to a normal user. Not good.... not good at all.
We need to change our attitude, or we're doomed to remain were we are. So, next time someone asks you a question about your project, resist the urge to call them names and be patient. Try to understand that this person doesn't know the code as well as you do and is simply trying to learn. Do that... and people will not mind switching.
My thoughts exactly... only it will be done by Apple, in which case it will be as seamless as possible. I wouldn't put it past Apple to use the Darwine code as a base.
Apple will likely release a "Classic" like virtualization for OS X so that Windows apps can be run seamlessly from within OS X. This will allow the Windows user to be comfortable since Windows is "nearby" but also be able to access all of the apps available for OS X as well as Windows apps when working under OS X.
What a concept, I mean.. who'da thunk it?? UMD isn't killing the DVD? OMFG, I'm flabberghasted!
For years Sony has played this game and for years they have lost. Anyone remember the minidisc? Betamax? Yet another Sony screw up, UMD.
So long as Sony tries to "own" the market on their own devices (the PSP) they will find that people shy away. I imagine that Sony was charging a bit of money to these companies to allow them to publish movies for the PSP. Now, I can hear you saying it... any fool can put an mp4 on a CD and play it on the PSP, but I'm talking about companies doing this with a license and selling it to you.
Slashdot Mirror
Nina is probably in Russia. Have they checked with the airlines? This is unbelievable.
Later, GJC
If they're doing this with personal information, just imagine what they're doing with code and other sensitive information!
GJC
He's advocating that Open Source start to engage the interest of younger people by making open source work better with things like iPods and other proprietary formats. This is a far cry from "advocating closed source." Being useful is part of the deal here. How else is FOSS supposed to catch on, if no one wants to use it?
GJC
:P Okay, so I forgot to run the spellchecker. :) At least I didn't think there was a country called "Hungaria" and, on top of that, didn't know where the hell it was in the world. :)
GJC
Dude, it's called Hungary and it's in Eastern Europe. It is the homeland of the people formerly known as the Huns (yes, Atilla and all that).
:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary
Heh, "Hungaria". LOL
Later, GJC
I believe you misunderstand. I was not saying that there were syntax enhancements for supporting garbage collection. Someone suggested that there are syntax enhancments in Objective-C 2.0 in general. What these are, I have no clue, what I was saying is that I suspect that the syntax changes are the "big deal" about 2.0 since GC is already available. :)
:)
Does that clarify?
Later, GJC
The garbage collection mechanism by Hans Boehm has been available in GNU GCC for C, C++ and, yes, it also works for ObjC, for quite a while. And the big deal about this being added to Apple's implemnentation of ObjC is?
The "big deal" regarding ObjC 2.0 is the syntax "enhancements" I'll bet. So far, I haven't seen any examples of "ObjC 2.0" code.
GJC
"You folks"?? I assume you're talking about us "GPL folks" And, yes, I know exactly what I'm saying. :) Both licenses have merit, one is not better than the other. I, personally, don't use the BSD license because it would enable a company to take my work and, effectively, steal it and creating their own closed derivative. I prefer the GPL since it makes certain that the software that I've written remains free to use, even when someone modifies and redistributes it.
Given that about 68%-75% of all open source and free software is GPL'd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL), it seems that the BSD license has found it's niche, but that most people feel the same way I do.
Later, GJC
It allows more freedom for the person. The point is to keep the SOFTWARE free, not to allow someone to, in essence, steal your work. THAT's the point. Sometimes preserving the freedom of the masses means restricting the freedom of the individual.
GJC
It's not Free since it allows a developer to *RESTRICT* the freedoms of users by closing the software. It's about keeping the software free as well as your freedom to use it.
BSD zealots have yet to fully understand that.
GJC
I think you know what he means, and he's right. :) Sometimes when one company buys another there is a mass exodus especially if the company doing the buying is not well liked.
GJC
Because one of SCO's arguments has been that they "never meant to distribute the code." If they *willfully* distribute the code, such as it is, then they (per the distribution clause in the GPL) will effectively eradicate thier own argument.
Not that they had a case in the first freakin' place.
Later, GJC
Geez... when will it end. Oh, the humanity. :)
GJC
The FSF's beef with DRM is that it is currently used to restrict the fair use rights of users and can potentially be used to put the vendor in complete control of the computer purchase by the user. It can be used for anything from protecting music to restricting what programs you can run on your machine. It undermines the idea that the USER is in control of the computer, not the companies which make media.
DRM is an attempt by big companies to control the ability of the machine to make, distribute and view media because, since you can now make as many perfect digital copies as you like, they can no longer control what happens to thier content. It is because thier business model is failing that this is happening and they want to put it on everyone else by forcing you to buy crippled computers.
You can call me fanatical, or "evangelical" or anything else you like, but my opinions are my own. DRM is a malignancy and needs to be fought.
GJC
Jeez, give it up already. You seem to be exceptionally thickheaded, if you can't get the message that you're wrong.
GJC
With the wave of virtualization technologies starting to pop up, people have a wider variety of applications available to them than ever before. Also, the idea of web-based productivity suites and other OS-independent technologies indicate that the trend is towards becoming more and more technology independent.
Microsoft is not acknowledging these trends and is continuing on its way as it always has. If they don't change direction soon, they will be a dinosaur.
GJC
It's far too profitable to irradiate and sell poisons (in the form of chemo) to cancer patients than it is to offer a cure.
GJC
Having the daemons running in userspace means that it's much more difficult for them to take down the entire machine if they do have bugs. That's the point. :) I never said it would magically fix anything, just that it would make the system more resilient.
GJC
This may look like flamebait, but I'm actually serious. Microkernels are more reliable because of drivers running on userspace. If a driver crashes, it can't take down the whole system. Also, given that some microkernels are only about 3500-6000 lines of code (as opposed to Linux's million or so) it's relatively easy to make certain that the code is bug free (given that the average number of bugs is 16 bugs per 1000 lines of code according to some recent studies).
So, if the kernel needs an overhaul, the why not do it right this time? Now some may say that microkernels have a performance hit, but todays machines are certainly fast enough to render any performance hit negligible.
GJC
Finally, Apple seems to have seen the light and is moving away from HFS+. I thought a while back I'd heard rumbings about bringing back resource forks, which would be a huge mistake.
GJC
I'm an avid Linux user and developer, but I must say that this is unfortunately where many many projects fall short of the mark. We need to realize that, unless we are willing to take the time to educate people about Linux and all of the options it opens up to people without belittling them, then we will never be ready for the desktop.
I go out of my way to help people who have questions about any of the projects I'm part of, because I realize that people won't use them unless they feel comfortable doing so. Making people feel stupid isn't the way to do it.
Unfortunately, some people on certain projects aren't disposed to being social. For instance, I had technical question regarding Hurd at one point, only because I was curious about it. So I decided to ask a question in #hurd on freenode and was immediately derided by a certain individual. I left feeling like "Why should I even try Hurd, if they're going to have that attitude" and I confess I haven't bothered to do so since. I am a developer... imagine how this kind of thing would come across to a normal user. Not good.... not good at all.
We need to change our attitude, or we're doomed to remain were we are. So, next time someone asks you a question about your project, resist the urge to call them names and be patient. Try to understand that this person doesn't know the code as well as you do and is simply trying to learn. Do that... and people will not mind switching.
Later, GJC
If a group of people had a higher collective intelligence than any one individual, this might be the case. Unfortunately, IQ is not cumulative.
GJC
My thoughts exactly... only it will be done by Apple, in which case it will be as seamless as possible. I wouldn't put it past Apple to use the Darwine code as a base.
GJC
Apple will likely release a "Classic" like virtualization for OS X so that Windows apps can be run seamlessly from within OS X. This will allow the Windows user to be comfortable since Windows is "nearby" but also be able to access all of the apps available for OS X as well as Windows apps when working under OS X.
:)
You read it here first.
GJC
What a concept, I mean.. who'da thunk it?? UMD isn't killing the DVD? OMFG, I'm flabberghasted!
For years Sony has played this game and for years they have lost. Anyone remember the minidisc? Betamax? Yet another Sony screw up, UMD.
So long as Sony tries to "own" the market on their own devices (the PSP) they will find that people shy away. I imagine that Sony was charging a bit of money to these companies to allow them to publish movies for the PSP. Now, I can hear you saying it... any fool can put an mp4 on a CD and play it on the PSP, but I'm talking about companies doing this with a license and selling it to you.
Sony needs to seriously change.
GJC