Right... I don't think given the current state of the space program, in light of the Columbia disaster, and some of NASA's previous debacles on Mars (read: mars rover) that NASA is going to even bother trying to beat China. I don't think the average American cares that much, and I doubt Bush cares that much at this point. But then again, we might not have Bush in the White House in a little over year. We'll see how the elections go.:)
In my second example (a small company with an innovative new widget), I am positing that the widget in question is innovative enough that at least one critical electrical part won't be "off the shelf" and offered by a larger supplier who has already run the UL gauntlet, thus forcing the small company through the UL process (due to the "innovative" design of their product).
But any non-battery-powered electrical widget (and it's worthwhile to note here that devices that run strictly off of battery do not have to be UL listed, and I don't think that UL even tests these anyway) has to have a power cord or a power supply of some kind. Power supplies are relatively generic. Simply insert a UL-approved power supply, throw the UL sticker on the box near the power supply, and voila! No expensive testing process. Right? That's what you said bigger companies do, why not the little guys?
Let's look at what you said backwards a bit shall we? You said:
Many national chains (Wal-Mart etc.) will not carry anything electrical if it doesn't have that UL logo. The testing costs money and takes time which can put small companies at a disadvantage. If your creation is so innovative that UL's quickie lab doesn't quite know what to make of this thing from a company they've never heard of, then it may take a long time (longer than your capital lasts) to get your new widget into national distribution.
But *before* that you said:
Now component makers get UL approval for their components (power supply, power cord, etc.) and then a manufacturer buys this component, uses it in some design that the folks at UL never even saw.
Now we have you and others comparing Mandrake to RH and already, and I sense the same pattern of the OS battles in the early 90s. Sooner or later,/. will become a spectacular arena in which to watch the distro battle/FUD flingfest. How this will resolve itself, I have no idea. But it sure will be interesting to see which Linux distro prevails, and to what extent.
Questions:
1: Where have you been? This has been going on for sometime.
2: What OS battles of the early 90s? Do you mean the bloody beatings that Microsoft did to everyone else in the early 90s?:)
Just a small point, but Mandrake started out as Red Hat+KDE. This is no longer true, of course, but it's still largely a Red Hat clone in many aspects.
1. Why doesn't Apple open source more of their software, like QuickTime?
2. Why doesn't Apple open source more of OS X than just Darwin? An OSS version of the GUI would be a big boon to the community.
3. Why does Apple cling so tightly to its patents? Why does it STILL apply for software patents (i.e., Expose). If they truly support OSS, surely they would see that software patents harm the OSS community.
Answer those three questions and you'll most likely arrive at the same conclusion I did.
Know what? I'm not a Mac zealot. I don't have a single piece of Apple hardware or software (well, except the Quicktime plugin on a Windows box I happen to have, but that hardly counts for anything).
But I will tell you -- I have used Macs in the past for desktop publishing work, and I have used a colleague's G4 machine before, and I've taken a close look at the hardware and software of modern Macs while considering whether or not to purchase one.
I decided that for my own needs, a Mac wasn't going to cut it and I didn't find it necessary to add yet another machine to my ever-growing little LAN at home.
That being said, they *do* make nice hardware. I agree with you that Apple's main goals behind OS X were to gain acceptance in the open source hacker community that was in some ways (believe it or not) responsible for the success and popularity of Windows, and that Apple's only goals in *appearing* to support that community (IBM has done wayyyy more for open source than Apple ever *thought* of doing) is to sell them a product.
But don't go around totally knocking Apple's stuff because they *do* have some good points, and they *have* been helpful to the community. If people show them enough appreciation, maybe they'll wisen up and begin to truly support the community by loosening up their stance on software patents and open sourcing the rest of their OS. But if when going into the open source community they encounter bitter sounding people like you, they won't do shit. And I wouldn't blame them.
First off, glibc doesn't have a man page. The book isn't $60, it's like $98 and even discounted it's going to be around $75-$80. Secondly, the guy specifically states that the GDB stuff isn't a regurgitation of the man page, which I assume would hold true for other pieces of the book as well.
Secondly, although I have publically stated my fundamental disagreements with Apple about their policies on patents and their general disregard for some of the fundamental concepts behind open source software, Apple makes *great* hardware -- it's *much* better stuff than you can find in value-priced x86 machines. A little overpriced, yes, but you expect that from a strong brand like Apple.
Re:You're right about the technologies in his hous
on
Bill Gates On Linux
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, I remember it's near his parent's house. Might've actually been Bellvue, I don't remember 100%. But it seems like I remember that the site was changed at some point.
I'm not so sure. Jobs is obsessed with making great things. If he chose to use open source software it was because he believed that with it could produce a great product. If he didn't think he could then no amount of money would have changed his decision.
You're kidding, right? The open source software community existed *well* before Jobs left Apple Computer sometime in the late mid-to-late 1980s. If Jobs thought open source was such a great idea *then* why didn't he use it in the creating of the original Macintosh?
The original Macintosh was one of the most proprietary, closed platforms that ever existed, a distinction that earned it the nickname 'beige toaster' by the open source hacker community in the 1980s. Apple patents were closely guarded, even then -- especially then.
Jobs wouldn't have *dreamed* of using open source then.
Yes, Jobs is in someways obsessed with making 'insanely great' products. But Jobs is also first and foremost a businessman and always has been. He's not a hacker, he's not an engineer. That's why he teamed up with Woz in the first place... Woz had the mad skills, but Jobs had the business vision. Don't forget that.
Yeah, but Team OS/2 was started by IBM. So call it 'quasi astroturfing' if you like, but OS/2 was never a true grassroots thing like Linux is.
Microsoft's only open methods of attack against Linux are legal and in marketing. SCO's threat to sue every Linux user on the planet has already caused several companies that I know about to back away from the operating system. Expect to see more legal attacks from Microsoft or their minions and possible lobbying in Congress to make the OSS method of application development illegal. I expect a huge marketing campaign attacking the credibility of Linux as well. Don't put anything past them, they're protecting their monopoly here. You don't stay the world's richest man by luck or chance either.
Yeah, but bottom line is that SCO can't sue everyone Linux user on the planet, they have zero credibility and zero legal standing. The few companies that are backing away probably aren't very entrenched in Linux anywhow.
Microsoft *will* go down, it's just a question of when. Look at this history of the computing industry and tell me how they won't.
You get to complain about apples support of open source the day you create the second most popular operating system in the world, and then choose to open source it!
Mac OS X isn't open source. Darwin is. There's a *very* large difference.
There are more computers out there running OS X than Linux, and if Apple hadn't decided to pay more than lipservice to open source, that wouldn't be the case.
No, there are more Macintoshes out there. I doubt very much that there are more computers running OS X. Besides, if having more users meant that they were better somehow, nobody would be complaining about Microsoft.
After their technology was stolen from them for 20 years, they decided to start protecting it. Good for them.
Do you know why the 'trash can' in Windows is called the 'recycle bin'? Because Apple patented the trash can icon, sued Microsoft and won. This was, in fact, almost 20 years ago.
Open source isn't about pirating technology- it is about the creators of innovations freely sharing that technology.
Which Apple clearly ISN'T doing with Expose, or with major portions of OS X.
Hell, if Apple had been awarded the patent they'd applie for way back when, we wouldn't have the Microsoft goliath making our lives miserable today.
They *did* get the look and feel patent, and it was upheld by the court, they just lost the case in court because the judge felt that Microsoft's GUI was different enough from Apple's. Go figure.
(And if you think Apple is just as bad, or worse than Microsoft, your living in your own reality distortion field.)
No, I don't. But I think that Mac fanboys give Apple wayyy more credit than they deserve. Apple is a good company. They are one of the good guys, for the most part. But if you think that for one minute that their goal with Mac OS X was *anything* except to capitalize on and commercialize the success of open source development and take financial advantage of the Linux movement, then *you* are the one living in your own reality distortion field.
There were not one, but TWO versions of this book. IF you manage to find a copy at a bookshop, you're more likely to come across the second edition, which is basically an entire rewrite that includes the Internet. Most of it was about how Microsoft software would run your refrigerator, dish washer, TV, change the pictures on your walls etc. It was kind of a description based on his own house, which is a technology showcase in its own right, in Redmond, Washington.
the community is much bigger than the OS/2 community was, at least online (a rought comparison, as OS/2 was largely before the internet wave).
Do you remember the "Team OS/2" astroturfing? The Linux community doesn't even need to do stuff like that. It's truly grassroots, even as it's attracted the help of the big names, including OS/2's father, IBM.
The difference with IBM and OS/2 is that they were in an already weakened position when OS/2 was around. The PS/2 line was one of the biggest flops of all-time for IBM, and they were simultaneously trying to sell Windows-based machines and still push OS/2 as their main OS. They were too scattered with that, along with the big divorce lawsuit with Microsoft over their Joint Development Agreement. On top of all that, this is when Microsoft was insisting on per processor license agreements, a practice which got them hand-slapped by the FTC and later the Justice Department.
Linux, on the other hand, is relatively unencumbered by all that baggage, with the noteable exception of the SCO lawsuit, which at this point, has no direct bearing over Linux itself, just IBM, and I don't think they're really sweating it any, despite what Darl McBride would have you think.
Most TV producers are not computer scientists and don't see the irony and/or don't care.
Can you imagine how awful TV would be if it WERE produced by computer scientists?
Channel 45: The Slashdot channel! Geeks rant and rave about Microsoft, SCO, and RIAA! Then they geek out over Linux, *BSD (which they always seem to point is dying), and Mac OS X!!!
Channel 52: The Microsoft Channel! Bill Gates discusses his plans for world domination!
Channel 54: The Linux channel! Kernel hacker Alan Cox takes you line-by-line through the Linux source code!
Channel 58: The Apple Channel! Steve Jobs demonsrates his famous "Reality Distortion Field" and exaggerates a lot about Apple's latest G5 computers!
Channel 62: The FSF Channel! RMS talks about how Channel 54 should be called the GNU/Linux channel!
Channel 69: The SCO Channel! *** programming unavailable ***
I agree. Creative Commons is more geared at the content scene than the software scene. But I think you could apply a CC license to a software project just as easily as you could to other creative content. The only thing I think is missing is the explicit statement that source code must be provided.
Slashdot Mirror
Right... I don't think given the current state of the space program, in light of the Columbia disaster, and some of NASA's previous debacles on Mars (read: mars rover) that NASA is going to even bother trying to beat China. I don't think the average American cares that much, and I doubt Bush cares that much at this point. But then again, we might not have Bush in the White House in a little over year. We'll see how the elections go. :)
In my second example (a small company with an innovative new widget), I am positing that the widget in question is innovative enough that at least one critical electrical part won't be "off the shelf" and offered by a larger supplier who has already run the UL gauntlet, thus forcing the small company through the UL process (due to the "innovative" design of their product).
But any non-battery-powered electrical widget (and it's worthwhile to note here that devices that run strictly off of battery do not have to be UL listed, and I don't think that UL even tests these anyway) has to have a power cord or a power supply of some kind. Power supplies are relatively generic. Simply insert a UL-approved power supply, throw the UL sticker on the box near the power supply, and voila! No expensive testing process. Right? That's what you said bigger companies do, why not the little guys?
Let's look at what you said backwards a bit shall we? You said:
:)
Many national chains (Wal-Mart etc.) will not carry anything electrical if it doesn't have that UL logo. The testing costs money and takes time which can put small companies at a disadvantage. If your creation is so innovative that UL's quickie lab doesn't quite know what to make of this thing from a company they've never heard of, then it may take a long time (longer than your capital lasts) to get your new widget into national distribution.
But *before* that you said:
Now component makers get UL approval for their components (power supply, power cord, etc.) and then a manufacturer buys this component, uses it in some design that the folks at UL never even saw.
I think you just solved your own problem...
What?! But I want to blow things up!
This is Agent Smith. We've had our eye on you for sometime, Mr. Aardvark..
Bigger than the American nickel, smaller than the a U.S. Kennedy half-dollar. :-P
:(
I dunno. maybe about 1.5 inches or so in diameter. I don't have one to measure.
Now we have you and others comparing Mandrake to RH and already, and I sense the same pattern of the OS battles in the early 90s. Sooner or later, /. will become a spectacular arena in which to watch the distro battle/FUD flingfest. How this will resolve itself, I have no idea. But it sure will be interesting to see which Linux distro prevails, and to what extent.
:)
Questions:
1: Where have you been? This has been going on for sometime.
2: What OS battles of the early 90s? Do you mean the bloody beatings that Microsoft did to everyone else in the early 90s?
Just a small point, but Mandrake started out as Red Hat+KDE. This is no longer true, of course, but it's still largely a Red Hat clone in many aspects.
No, no. You were supposed to stick it in the slot labelled 'USB port'. It takes a bit of force to make it fit, though....
Answer these questions:
1. Why doesn't Apple open source more of their software, like QuickTime?
2. Why doesn't Apple open source more of OS X than just Darwin? An OSS version of the GUI would be a big boon to the community.
3. Why does Apple cling so tightly to its patents? Why does it STILL apply for software patents (i.e., Expose). If they truly support OSS, surely they would see that software patents harm the OSS community.
Answer those three questions and you'll most likely arrive at the same conclusion I did.
Know what? I'm not a Mac zealot. I don't have a single piece of Apple hardware or software (well, except the Quicktime plugin on a Windows box I happen to have, but that hardly counts for anything).
But I will tell you -- I have used Macs in the past for desktop publishing work, and I have used a colleague's G4 machine before, and I've taken a close look at the hardware and software of modern Macs while considering whether or not to purchase one.
I decided that for my own needs, a Mac wasn't going to cut it and I didn't find it necessary to add yet another machine to my ever-growing little LAN at home.
That being said, they *do* make nice hardware. I agree with you that Apple's main goals behind OS X were to gain acceptance in the open source hacker community that was in some ways (believe it or not) responsible for the success and popularity of Windows, and that Apple's only goals in *appearing* to support that community (IBM has done wayyyy more for open source than Apple ever *thought* of doing) is to sell them a product.
But don't go around totally knocking Apple's stuff because they *do* have some good points, and they *have* been helpful to the community. If people show them enough appreciation, maybe they'll wisen up and begin to truly support the community by loosening up their stance on software patents and open sourcing the rest of their OS. But if when going into the open source community they encounter bitter sounding people like you, they won't do shit. And I wouldn't blame them.
Yeah. Apparently this guy too. And he claims to be a scientist! ;)
It's easy to find devices that are nearly 100% plastic, it's nearly impossible to find something with absolutely no plastic in it whatsoever.
:)
Yeah, people too, especially Hollywood stars.
Uh, did you even read the summary?
First off, glibc doesn't have a man page. The book isn't $60, it's like $98 and even discounted it's going to be around $75-$80. Secondly, the guy specifically states that the GDB stuff isn't a regurgitation of the man page, which I assume would hold true for other pieces of the book as well.
Secondly, although I have publically stated my fundamental disagreements with Apple about their policies on patents and their general disregard for some of the fundamental concepts behind open source software, Apple makes *great* hardware -- it's *much* better stuff than you can find in value-priced x86 machines. A little overpriced, yes, but you expect that from a strong brand like Apple.
Yeah, I remember it's near his parent's house. Might've actually been Bellvue, I don't remember 100%. But it seems like I remember that the site was changed at some point.
I'm not so sure. Jobs is obsessed with making great things. If he chose to use open source software it was because he believed that with it could produce a great product. If he didn't think he could then no amount of money would have changed his decision.
You're kidding, right? The open source software community existed *well* before Jobs left Apple Computer sometime in the late mid-to-late 1980s. If Jobs thought open source was such a great idea *then* why didn't he use it in the creating of the original Macintosh?
The original Macintosh was one of the most proprietary, closed platforms that ever existed, a distinction that earned it the nickname 'beige toaster' by the open source hacker community in the 1980s. Apple patents were closely guarded, even then -- especially then.
Jobs wouldn't have *dreamed* of using open source then.
Yes, Jobs is in someways obsessed with making 'insanely great' products. But Jobs is also first and foremost a businessman and always has been. He's not a hacker, he's not an engineer. That's why he teamed up with Woz in the first place... Woz had the mad skills, but Jobs had the business vision. Don't forget that.
See what I mean? ;)
pr0n. what else? ;)
Yeah, but Team OS/2 was started by IBM. So call it 'quasi astroturfing' if you like, but OS/2 was never a true grassroots thing like Linux is.
Microsoft's only open methods of attack against Linux are legal and in marketing. SCO's threat to sue every Linux user on the planet has already caused several companies that I know about to back away from the operating system. Expect to see more legal attacks from Microsoft or their minions and possible lobbying in Congress to make the OSS method of application development illegal. I expect a huge marketing campaign attacking the credibility of Linux as well. Don't put anything past them, they're protecting their monopoly here. You don't stay the world's richest man by luck or chance either.
Yeah, but bottom line is that SCO can't sue everyone Linux user on the planet, they have zero credibility and zero legal standing. The few companies that are backing away probably aren't very entrenched in Linux anywhow.
Microsoft *will* go down, it's just a question of when. Look at this history of the computing industry and tell me how they won't.
You get to complain about apples support of open source the day you create the second most popular operating system in the world, and then choose to open source it!
Mac OS X isn't open source. Darwin is. There's a *very* large difference.
There are more computers out there running OS X than Linux, and if Apple hadn't decided to pay more than lipservice to open source, that wouldn't be the case.
No, there are more Macintoshes out there. I doubt very much that there are more computers running OS X. Besides, if having more users meant that they were better somehow, nobody would be complaining about Microsoft.
After their technology was stolen from them for 20 years, they decided to start protecting it. Good for them.
Do you know why the 'trash can' in Windows is called the 'recycle bin'? Because Apple patented the trash can icon, sued Microsoft and won. This was, in fact, almost 20 years ago.
Open source isn't about pirating technology- it is about the creators of innovations freely sharing that technology.
Which Apple clearly ISN'T doing with Expose, or with major portions of OS X.
Hell, if Apple had been awarded the patent they'd applie for way back when, we wouldn't have the Microsoft goliath making our lives miserable today.
They *did* get the look and feel patent, and it was upheld by the court, they just lost the case in court because the judge felt that Microsoft's GUI was different enough from Apple's. Go figure.
(And if you think Apple is just as bad, or worse than Microsoft, your living in your own reality distortion field.)
No, I don't. But I think that Mac fanboys give Apple wayyy more credit than they deserve. Apple is a good company. They are one of the good guys, for the most part. But if you think that for one minute that their goal with Mac OS X was *anything* except to capitalize on and commercialize the success of open source development and take financial advantage of the Linux movement, then *you* are the one living in your own reality distortion field.
There were not one, but TWO versions of this book. IF you manage to find a copy at a bookshop, you're more likely to come across the second edition, which is basically an entire rewrite that includes the Internet. Most of it was about how Microsoft software would run your refrigerator, dish washer, TV, change the pictures on your walls etc. It was kind of a description based on his own house, which is a technology showcase in its own right, in Redmond, Washington.
the community is much bigger than the OS/2 community was, at least online (a rought comparison, as OS/2 was largely before the internet wave).
Do you remember the "Team OS/2" astroturfing? The Linux community doesn't even need to do stuff like that. It's truly grassroots, even as it's attracted the help of the big names, including OS/2's father, IBM.
The difference with IBM and OS/2 is that they were in an already weakened position when OS/2 was around. The PS/2 line was one of the biggest flops of all-time for IBM, and they were simultaneously trying to sell Windows-based machines and still push OS/2 as their main OS. They were too scattered with that, along with the big divorce lawsuit with Microsoft over their Joint Development Agreement. On top of all that, this is when Microsoft was insisting on per processor license agreements, a practice which got them hand-slapped by the FTC and later the Justice Department.
Linux, on the other hand, is relatively unencumbered by all that baggage, with the noteable exception of the SCO lawsuit, which at this point, has no direct bearing over Linux itself, just IBM, and I don't think they're really sweating it any, despite what Darl McBride would have you think.
Most TV producers are not computer scientists and don't see the irony and/or don't care.
Can you imagine how awful TV would be if it WERE produced by computer scientists?
Channel 45: The Slashdot channel! Geeks rant and rave about Microsoft, SCO, and RIAA! Then they geek out over Linux, *BSD (which they always seem to point is dying), and Mac OS X!!!
Channel 52: The Microsoft Channel! Bill Gates discusses his plans for world domination!
Channel 54: The Linux channel! Kernel hacker Alan Cox takes you line-by-line through the Linux source code!
Channel 58: The Apple Channel! Steve Jobs demonsrates his famous "Reality Distortion Field" and exaggerates a lot about Apple's latest G5 computers!
Channel 62: The FSF Channel! RMS talks about how Channel 54 should be called the GNU/Linux channel!
Channel 69: The SCO Channel! *** programming unavailable ***
Of course the fact that it's patented precludes Open Source developers from adding to KDE or GNOME or (insert your favorite desktop here), lest they get their asses sued off.
Hooray for Apple, but they only pay lip service to Open Source.
Piles. I know they seem trivial. But I would like it.
/me looks around for Preparation "H".
Nah. You don't piles. Trust me. I have them.
I agree. Creative Commons is more geared at the content scene than the software scene. But I think you could apply a CC license to a software project just as easily as you could to other creative content. The only thing I think is missing is the explicit statement that source code must be provided.