it is based on Darwin which uses the Mach kernel and you can get the source and build it if you like. It is all free and open source. Heck it is also cross platform.
no the GPL does restrict how you use the software and you agree to it when to do. the restriction is on use of the software for profit by distributing it without the source or the ability to get the source.
the GPL is like a EULA in the sense that you must agree with it to utilize it in certain ways.
no, i mean modify the kernel to my liking and distribute it binary only as a closed source app. In such a case, i got it with the GPL since it was the easiest thing to get. Later I decided that the GPL just didnt cut it when i need to distribute it as closed source so, i ignore it.
This thread has been very intersting.
at the moment, i am ripping out references to the GPL from a copy of the linux 2.6 kernel source i have been doing some research with.
Once that is done, i will post a tar.gz it on a site binary only.
Come and stop me. If you do, i will put it up on p2p networks. What isnt GNU supposed to be different? infomation wants to be free. I dont like copyrights.
Honestly, i probably wouldnt buy from them. End of the matter. Alternatively, if i did get songs from the site, i probably wouldnt have a problem with it (given it is the exact same thing) the reason being, if you look at the licence, it not all that bad. It doesn't bother me until i want to distribute the song which i shouldnt be doing anyway.
Why? if you dont like the itunes licence, don't use it. There are other ways of getting music online either legally or illgally. There are WMA options or you could just buy a real CD. When you bought the song on itunes, you agreed to the licence
The way people are talking here, it is ok if you bought a box of GPL software, decided it had commercial potential then released it. I make the comparison becasue, like the GPL, in the itunes system, you understand clearly what you agree to when you get it.
How is violating the itunes licence (that being you can share it with 3 machines, unliited ipods yada yada yada) different from voilating the GPL?
dude OSX uses an Openstep implematation as its API. have you written any code on OSX? All the objects derive from NSobject and they all have the prefix NS. NS obviously standing for NextStep. Oh yeah and we still use Objective-C. The Next iterfacebuilder that Lee liked so much? Yes it is called interface builder and saves files as.Nib (next step interface builder). If you look at early versions of OSX like Raphsody you see it is nearly identical to Next. Finally, lots of code written for OSX builds on Gnustep and Openstep. For example GNUmail
So, yes it is correct to say that OSX is the modern version of NextStep just like WinXP is the modern Windows
i think it is silly to claim that one person is the father of the web. Yet, the BBC loves to claim that it was Lee. With the number of different technologies that comprise the Internet today it is ignorant to say it has an inventor. Why HTML? and not Gopher? why not the creators of TCP/IP? why not routers? How about the first people to set up the network (who the US media claim invented the web).
what is the point of this? I mean the sites that are being taken down are already anti-patent and the people who visit it are also already anti patent. How often does anyone here even visit the GNU website? we have a minority of the people in a minority group (those who use OSS ) protesting this. i see it as ebinf as effective as me shutting down my site in protest of law x... no one who aready does not does not care will care.
did anyone see the japanese lady who is the hostage in iraq. I thought that was really quite disturbing video. The sheer terror in her voice as she screamed while the put a knife to her thorat.
I found it really distrubing. But in another way it also gives you some idea of who and what we are dealing with and why the response is necessary.
sigh im not talking about how to write one, ive written DES too.
read page 284 "design of S-boxes" it clearly states the controversy about them. No one other than the NSA knows for sure whats it all about. There are a lot of theories though.
read page page 284 "design of S-boxes" it clearly states the controversy about them. No one other than the NSA knows for sure whats it all about. There are a lot of theories though.
are we both talking about p=np? i am not trying to say anything about that. Im just saying that existing encryption algorithm s are considered safe becasue publically there is no known method to quickly crack them. That does not mean that such algorithms dont exist.
bitness of what? i'm gonna guess you are talking about something like RSA. Bitness is not the same for all encryption algorithms. Also even for an RSA like algorithm im pretty sure you need at least 512 to be reasonably secure and that was a few years ago. Aditionally, just becasue everyone does not know how to crack it does not mean the NSA does not. Take DES for example you probably use it in SSH or SSL from time to time, it was partially made by the NSA no one really knows how it works especially these things weird boxes of seemingly random numbers that you have to use... similarly for most other problems there is no real mahematical fact backing up that they are hard to crack just assumptions that the RSA principple or the discreet log of something is hard to find.
i dont think you know what you are talking about. There is nothing to say that many existing encryption algorithms are hard to crack it is merely an assumption that they are hard.
Slashdot Mirror
it is based on Darwin which uses the Mach kernel and you can get the source and build it if you like. It is all free and open source. Heck it is also cross platform.
no the GPL does restrict how you use the software and you agree to it when to do. the restriction is on use of the software for profit by distributing it without the source or the ability to get the source.
the GPL is like a EULA in the sense that you must agree with it to utilize it in certain ways.
no, i mean modify the kernel to my liking and distribute it binary only as a closed source app. In such a case, i got it with the GPL since it was the easiest thing to get. Later I decided that the GPL just didnt cut it when i need to distribute it as closed source so, i ignore it.
im talking about a modified binary with no way yo get the source.
This thread has been very intersting.
at the moment, i am ripping out references to the GPL from a copy of the linux 2.6 kernel source i have been doing some research with.
Once that is done, i will post a tar.gz it on a site binary only.
Come and stop me.
If you do, i will put it up on p2p networks. What isnt GNU supposed to be different? infomation wants to be free. I dont like copyrights.
wine, vmware... or just don't buy from apple.
Honestly, i probably wouldnt buy from them. End of the matter. Alternatively, if i did get songs from the site, i probably wouldnt have a problem with it (given it is the exact same thing) the reason being, if you look at the licence, it not all that bad. It doesn't bother me until i want to distribute the song which i shouldnt be doing anyway.
really? so when i buy a box of mandrake linux, i own it and can ignore the licence? i didnt know that..
Why? if you dont like the itunes licence, don't use it. There are other ways of getting music online either legally or illgally. There are WMA options or you could just buy a real CD. When you bought the song on itunes, you agreed to the licence
The way people are talking here, it is ok if you bought a box of GPL software, decided it had commercial potential then released it. I make the comparison becasue, like the GPL, in the itunes system, you understand clearly what you agree to when you get it.
How is violating the itunes licence (that being you can share it with 3 machines, unliited ipods yada yada yada) different from voilating the GPL?
dude OSX uses an Openstep implematation as its API. have you written any code on OSX? All the objects derive from NSobject and they all have the prefix NS. NS obviously standing for NextStep. Oh yeah and we still use Objective-C. The Next iterfacebuilder that Lee liked so much? Yes it is called interface builder and saves files as .Nib (next step interface builder). If you look at early versions of OSX like Raphsody you see it is nearly identical to Next.
Finally, lots of code written for OSX builds on Gnustep and Openstep. For example GNUmail
So, yes it is correct to say that OSX is the modern version of NextStep just like WinXP is the modern Windows
i think it is silly to claim that one person is the father of the web. Yet, the BBC loves to claim that it was Lee. With the number of different technologies that comprise the Internet today it is ignorant to say it has an inventor. Why HTML? and not Gopher? why not the creators of TCP/IP? why not routers? How about the first people to set up the network (who the US media claim invented the web).
"this is UNIX! "
costs more than OSX "Suggested Retail Price: $84.90 USD/79.90 EUR"
of course you have to understand the mindset of some of these people, it is not truly free as in speech thush they can't run it :-p
i wonder if the jackass who broke itunes has any part in influencing this decision.
what harm is there from desalinaiton plants? sea level dropping? why are environmental groups protesting it?
what is the point of this? I mean the sites that are being taken down are already anti-patent and the people who visit it are also already anti patent. How often does anyone here even visit the GNU website? we have a minority of the people in a minority group (those who use OSS ) protesting this. i see it as ebinf as effective as me shutting down my site in protest of law x... no one who aready does not does not care will care.
did anyone see the japanese lady who is the hostage in iraq. I thought that was really quite disturbing video. The sheer terror in her voice as she screamed while the put a knife to her thorat.
I found it really distrubing. But in another way it also gives you some idea of who and what we are dealing with and why the response is necessary.
im the op not the poster you replied to :-p
sigh im not talking about how to write one, ive written DES too.
read page 284 "design of S-boxes" it clearly states the controversy about them. No one other than the NSA knows for sure whats it all about. There are a lot of theories though.
read page page 284 "design of S-boxes" it clearly states the controversy about them. No one other than the NSA knows for sure whats it all about. There are a lot of theories though.
are we both talking about p=np? i am not trying to say anything about that. Im just saying that existing encryption algorithm s are considered safe becasue publically there is no known method to quickly crack them. That does not mean that such algorithms dont exist.
how is discussing the legal ramifications of the software in the topic off topic? weird
bitness of what? i'm gonna guess you are talking about something like RSA. Bitness is not the same for all encryption algorithms. Also even for an RSA like algorithm im pretty sure you need at least 512 to be reasonably secure and that was a few years ago. Aditionally, just becasue everyone does not know how to crack it does not mean the NSA does not. Take DES for example you probably use it in SSH or SSL from time to time, it was partially made by the NSA no one really knows how it works especially these things weird boxes of seemingly random numbers that you have to use... similarly for most other problems there is no real mahematical fact backing up that they are hard to crack just assumptions that the RSA principple or the discreet log of something is hard to find.
i dont think you know what you are talking about. There is nothing to say that many existing encryption algorithms are hard to crack it is merely an assumption that they are hard.