Yes, indeed. The Free Staters failed miserably in trying to get their 20,000 pledges to move to New Hampshire, but they've done well in befriending the locals and attaining positions in local government (yeah, you heard me, the people who don't like manipulative government are becoming selectmen and women) and using those roles to undermine the efficiency of government.
In the town of Winchester some "Porcupines" lost their positions after embezzling money to hire a lawyer to try to oust the town manager. Thankfully the town saw through them and ousted the pair. True Libertarians would use their own money, and not rely on stealing taxpayers' money to do their dirty work.
No, Apple did not kill off BeOS for their platform. BeOS killed off their OS for the Macintosh platform.
Oddly enough, this dropping of support came just a short while after a big investment by Intel.
The LinuxPPC guys have had NO problem keeping up with the Motorola chips and the Apple motherboards. Why should Be? Why, for that matter, couldn't they just look at how LinuxPPC handles all that stuff and reimplement for themselves?
Be perpetuates this little lie on and on, but make no mistake, JLG decided to go wholly Intel. Apple may not have been very cooperative with him, but he made the decision.
So Xenex, why don't you ask JLG why he doesn't want to run BeOS on the Mac platform? Why don't you ask JLG why they can't/won't keep up with Apple equipment when LinuxPPC and some BSD teams HAVE NO PROBLEM?
But let go of the idea that Apple killed BeOS on Macs. Apple didn't.
Yes, he hijacked Mach from the guy who wrote a large chunk of it. Oh, wait. No, he hired the guy who wrote a large chunk of it. Made him a VP, too. Go figure.
You probably don't spend much time on Darwin development lists, or you don't know that Apple does contribute its work back to open-source projects such as Apache (they made modifications to support Mac OS X, for example)...
Perhaps you don't understand that due to the BSD license that if Steve Jobs really hated open source that much, he wouldn't HAVE to share back if he didn't WANT Apple to do so. If this were so, Apple would not have anything called Darwin, or the APSL, or any of its other released code.
I imagine he feels there's a place for free code and a place for proprietary code.
I don't know about the Steve Jobs of old, but the man at Apple now seems different. Perhaps the years in between gave him a little maturity in how he handles things. This isn't Steve Jobs I or Steve Jobs of NeXT.
I can see why you posted as an AC. Almost all of your statements are inflammatory and unfounded.
I don't think you understand me. Let's say I have "powerCheckout.class" that is a GPL object. Now let's say I'm writing a online store application that will be closed-source "NotOpenStore."
I decide to use powerCheckout.class in my application, making improvements to that class while I integrate it into my application.
Everything everyone has ever told me about the GPL is that I would have to release all of the code of "NotOpenStore" in order to use powerCheckout.class as part of my code.
What I'm talking about, rather, is a license that says: "If you use my code, you're probably going to modify it or improve it. Please share back your modifications/improvements _to my code_ with the community."
As I understand the GPL, it requires me to share back not only the GPL code I modified and improved but also share my own _unrelated, non-GPL_ code (which by necessity to use that class becomes GPL), which heretofore had not been licensed. Do you see what I mean? With the GPL, its viralness is in that, not in the "share back your improvements" idea.
No, I'm not pissed off. My original post had to do with the utility of code. GPL limits the utility of the code except to people who want to play in the same sandbox. The greatest utility is in a license that simply says "You can use your code for anything you want, as long as I have that same right and we don't sue each other regarding the code."
This is a valid reason to use the GPL, in my opinion.
But it doesn't reflect the high and mighty ideals expressed by many supporters of the GPL -- that it makes people and code more free.
This reason makes the GPL a contract between you and anyone who wants to use it: If you use this, be nice and share back.
But let me ask this question: wouldn't this work without the viral part of the GPL? Wouldn't this work if there were simply a requirement that open code that is modified must have its modifications/improvements returned back to the community, but if it is part of a closed whole the closed whole may remain?
(Something like the last part of what you said)
I don't know a lot about the LGPL so I can't respond to that last paragraph.
Heh. This makes no sense, especially given the stated goals of the FSF, which I believe include either the end of copyright or major changes to it. Thus, the GPL is suicidal from the start.
But your whole analogy is flawed. Code isn't sentient (yet;). People are. Code isn't an organism. People are. While our task is to preserve ourselves, our code only has the tasks we give it. Anyway, I still fail to see how code can just vanish from the desktops of all the people who have it when one company decides to incorporate BSD code into proprietary programs. That's the GPL myth: that if open code can be used in closed code, it becomes unfree. GPL denies the reality that that code is still "free" to whomever else has that code. GPL only concerns itself with the guy who wants to keep it closed. Why? Because the GPL is viral and the FSF wants to infect that guy's code and make it GPL too!
Don't anthropomorphize a license. It's a bunch of legal words.
This is one of the most onerous lies of the GPL, and I'm finally going to come right out and say it.
Code has the most utility when everyone anywhere at any time who wants to use it can use it, unrestricted. The GPL says, "You can only use this code if you give up control of your own code to the GPL community." It places a limitation on how that code can be used!
The GPL is not concerned with keeping existing code free - if you have a copy of code that is licensed under any OSS-compliant license, as long as you have it, and want it to remain free, nobody can take it from you. Code is not like silicon; information can be copied, shared, duplicated, and code is information. Information, once free, is always free until nobody who has rights to that code wants it to be free.
No, the GPL is concerned with forcing open other code. It is concerned with telling me that I can can't use GPL code unless I am willing to GPL my entire application. So I have a choice: release under GPL, or reinvent the wheel. I've done both, myself, but I really don't like the choice, either be forced to release GPL because I have no other option, or take the inefficient route of rewriting code I could have reused. (This is the viral nature that you deny; you claim it keeps software in the OSS community. What, if MS incorporates BSD code it will suddenly disappear from millions of computers? The difference between GPL and BSD is that GPL will infect other code, thus forcing the choice.)
The GPL's chief goal is its viral nature, not its copyleft. The BSD license is just as good at keeping code open and it is not viral.
If you want to talk about utility, think of its use to the most possible people, and you'll find that the BSD offers much more utility than the GPL.
12.1(c) only says that the license terminates if you commence a patent lawsuit against Apple. That makes sense considering other terms in the license stating that you grant Apple right to use your code.
However, you are wrong about termination of the license by discovering an unenforceable condition: 13.5(a) specifically states that if a court of law discovers an unenforceable condition that the remainder of the license shall remain in effect, with the exception of the objectionable clause.
IANAL, but that seems pretty straightforward to me.
Ah yes! NT5 == Windows2000 (don't just believe me, look at what srvrmgr on NT4 reports 2000 as!)
Yeah, you are correct, 8 itself isn't all that hot. But 8.1 and above have really been good for the Mac OS, even if they haven't been the next-gen OS we've all been waiting for. It's like Apple is saying "We've got something great coming up, but we're going to keep making what we've got today better until it's done."
Well, this is mostly correct, but the originally-hyped next-generation OS effort by Apple (right around the time of the PPC conversion) was code-named Copland. About the same time, Microsoft announced its biggest piece of vaporware - it was either Chicago or Cairo... at any event, this was around 1995, after Win95 came out, and was supposedly their next-gen OS (read: Windows_2000_). I don't remember all the features it was supposed to have, but needless to say most of them never materialized in any of MS's OSes.
Anyway, for reasons known and unknown, Copland eventually got scrapped. The research done as part of Copland did not, and a significant portion of that work found its way into 8, 8.1 and 8.5. Pretty much as you stated, OS 8+ is "almost-Copland." The current OSes have a revamped memory system, a new kernel and a lot of the improvements that were to come with Copland.
After the failure of Copland, however, Apple realized it needed proven technology to form the core of its system. Where better to look than the brainchildren of two former Apple employees?
In the end, Steve Jobs sold his technology more effectively than Jean Louis Gassee, and Apple snapped up NeXT. They announced Rhapsody, and even began showing and previewing it. As early as 1997, Apple had Rhapsody demos at MacWorld. In early 1998(if I have my dates correct) Apple released Mac OS X Server, a direct descendant of NeXTSTEP with some Macintosh beautification. (Note, I may be a year off in my estimates, can't remember now) They started to talk about Mac OS X Client, and it was supposed to come out in mid-2000 and be preinstalled on systems in Jan 2001. Well, it sorta did. We got the beta. And for a beta it's a fine system. If there were more driver support and I could get Classic to work correctly, I'd be using it all the time.
This January? I don't think we'll see preinstalls just yet. So they're late. But judging from the quality of the beta, I think Apple is within months of releasing the system - at the very very latest, at MWNY. (don't quote me on that, just my feeling).
Are they late? Yes. But given that they've consistently improved the classic Mac OS through this whole time (I crash rarely, and then usually because of IE5's crappy popup window handling), I can't be too angry at them.
At the same time, I am acutely aware of how many people need that reliable stability and how many need the underpinnings of OS X. I know that it is imperative for Apple toi release OS X soon. I hope they do.
There's just something wonderful about having a command line and a Mac all rolled up in one!
Doesn't look cross-platform. It requires an x86 chip. If it were really X-Platform, it would also run on Linux (at least) on PPC, and better yet, ActiveState would use the mac ports of python and perl and the mac mozilla engine to really fulfill the x-platform promise of the the three foundations of the project.
All the pieces are there, ActiveState. Why don't you go for the big 3?
The default password for At Ease and later some of the other Macintosh workgroup admin tools used to be set to xyzzy. I don't know if they still use that, but they used to.
Your big mistake here is that you think that people who make $10,000 a year are necessarily not working hard. Some of them are working EXTREMELY hard at that level. I think you'll notice that the higher up you go on the salary scale that the amount of physical work actually goes down and the amount of mental work goes up. (Sometimes the level of work overall goes down, because you delegate it all.)
Don't make the mistake of assuming that $10,000 is easy and getting that raise was hard. Perhaps they'd worked their butt off at the plant for 10 years and the company finally decided to give them a cost of living raise. Sure, it amounts to $1,000 more in the end, according to your example, but they may be doing the exact same work as before.
Don't demean people who work hard for measly wages. They don't deserve it. What would YOU do if you had to work at a lumber mill for $15,000 a year?
%rpcinfo -p localhost
program vers proto port
100000 2 tcp 111 portmapper
100000 2 udp 111 portmapper
200100001 1 udp 756 netinfobind
200100001 1 tcp 759 netinfobind
%showmount -e localhost
RPC: Program not registered: Can't do Exports rpc
Is this what you're looking for?
The difference, young jim;), is that Xerox's corporate management had no intention of using the technology that Apple bought from them. A while later they realized just what a mistake they had made and tried to sue Apple about it, but their bad management decision was already made. So, really, Apple wasn't buying a potential or actual competitor (as Microsoft tends to do) but buying a technology that the company who sold it had no interest in. I don't have a problem with that, do you?
When Microsoft tends to get into a market, they buy up some small company who would have been a competitor and then they stomp around and investors in all the other MS competitors get scared.
One of the big problems of severely large monopolies is that they have too much influence over the economy. It may be painful in the short term to cut down a monopoly, but in the long-term, a more diverse economic system where more companies share the power makes for a more stable and productive system. Look at the stock market every time a significant MS occurrence happens. There shouldn't be that big an effect from one single company!
Both of your statements are untrue, one more than the other. Apple is trying to increase open source developer participation; I saw several posts on the Darwin-Developers list where Darwin leaders asked how they could interest more OSS developers to the project. One of their thoughts was donating hardware to Sourceforge (but of course we know that Sourceforge is a VA product and therefore probably runs on all VA servers:)). They _want_ to get more open source developers; they may not be sure how.
Second, most of the people working on Mac OS X are Apple employees. As a result, a lot of Darwin code, coming from Mac OS X, is worked on by Apple employees. However, the Darwin team itself at Apple isn't that big, and the dev lists show healthy participation and involvement in helping Darwin become a viable OS in its own right.
Not criticizing your final point; just correcting a few things:)
That shows how much you know. Jobs has learned to work much better with his team and the synergy that exists between his creativity and the excellent engineers at Apple has resulted in the resurgence of a company that most left for all but dead three years ago.
The difference between this steve jobs and the old steve jobs is that he has learned how to manage a company. His ways may conflict with your 'any information I want is mine' mentality, but under his leadership Apple has revitalized itself and is _finally_ on track to ship a modern OS.
I don't like everything about Jobs, nor do I like everything about Apple. But unlike any other company I know, the people at Apple truly believe that they are driving the computer industry forward and that they can provide innovative tools for their core markets. They think they can change the world and they often do.
Do I sound like an Apple apologist? Answer me this.. what other computer company could have made fashion as much a part of the computer as its internals? Everyone who thinks that Apple is about making cute toy computers needs to think more critically - exploring the detail and attention that goes into their products reveals that Apple is creating an experience, like Disney or MGM might. Look at the way the power buttons on the monitor and cube pulse in sync! Look at the way the iBook's power light 'beats' slowly on and off while it sleeps.. Look at the integration of software and hardware that only they can do.
Sure, they've got lots of problems. I've read of iMacs catching fire. I'm sure other computers have done that, too. It only shows that Apple or its manufacturing plants aren't perfect. Neither is Jobs.
The point is, he may be a little too imperial and dictatorlike than you can stomach. However, he has passion in Apple's work; he wants to change the world, again and again, and he and his engineers and designers are as much artists as they are technical wizards.
Passion, more than anything else, drives invention. If that is Job's mistake; if that is what he hasn't figured out, then I don't agree with you.
So tell me, FreeUser, what exactly did they do that was wrong? Give me a list.
First of all, Apple owns the copyright to its own pictures of its products. If pictures of the Cube surface, and those pictures were taken by Apple, they have a right to say how those pictures are used.
Second, much of this information originates from people who have signed an NDA, a legal agreement not to disclose certain information. If I break my NDA to tell you about the cool new Windows emulation box on OS X, that makes the information you have the product of an illegal action. As such, by accepting the information you probably accept some of the liability. (Maybe, this is my weakest reason).
Third, these are trade secrets until they are released products. Apple doesn't always ship products soon after secrets are released, and if another company can posess those secrets and bring a product to market based on them before Apple can, Apple has a problem. Corporate espionage is bad enough when you don't have to worry about your best projects getting outed on the Web.
Finally, rumors often hurt the sales of existing machinery. I spent years waiting for the right computer to come along because every one I read about on the rumors sites was just a little bit better than the one I was lusting after previously. I know others do. Rumors may increase lust but they don't actually increase copulation (sales)... in fact, rumors hurt sales of end-of-life machines, which still perform very well and need to be sold. Apple stands to benefit economically from a powerful 'here's our new thing' introduction than a piddling of rumors building up. Thank god both the original iMac and the Cube rumors were nothing compared to the real thing. Also, if Apple, for some reason, decides not to release something when the rumor sites say they will, people get upset and disgusted at Apple; it affects stock market performance, even! And that's not Apple's fault; it's the fault of the people who read the rumors and treated them as gospel.
So that's why I think Apple works so hard to maintain its secrecy. What legal basis they have I don't know - IANAL, and don't want to play one here.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, indeed. The Free Staters failed miserably in trying to get their 20,000 pledges to move to New Hampshire, but they've done well in befriending the locals and attaining positions in local government (yeah, you heard me, the people who don't like manipulative government are becoming selectmen and women) and using those roles to undermine the efficiency of government.
In the town of Winchester some "Porcupines" lost their positions after embezzling money to hire a lawyer to try to oust the town manager. Thankfully the town saw through them and ousted the pair. True Libertarians would use their own money, and not rely on stealing taxpayers' money to do their dirty work.
I'm not sure... to me it sounds like a long low .....
"mooooooooooooooooooof"
Actually, that's due to the Reality Distortion Field emanating from your machine. It makes accurate measurement impossible.
Step 1. Remove hot dog from package.
Step 2. Heat in hot water until the hot dog is hot!
Step 3. Heh. There is no step 3. THERE IS NO STEP 3!
No, Apple did not kill off BeOS for their platform. BeOS killed off their OS for the Macintosh platform.
Oddly enough, this dropping of support came just a short while after a big investment by Intel.
The LinuxPPC guys have had NO problem keeping up with the Motorola chips and the Apple motherboards. Why should Be? Why, for that matter, couldn't they just look at how LinuxPPC handles all that stuff and reimplement for themselves?
Be perpetuates this little lie on and on, but make no mistake, JLG decided to go wholly Intel. Apple may not have been very cooperative with him, but he made the decision.
So Xenex, why don't you ask JLG why he doesn't want to run BeOS on the Mac platform? Why don't you ask JLG why they can't/won't keep up with Apple equipment when LinuxPPC and some BSD teams HAVE NO PROBLEM?
But let go of the idea that Apple killed BeOS on Macs. Apple didn't.
Yes, he hijacked Mach from the guy who wrote a large chunk of it. Oh, wait. No, he hired the guy who wrote a large chunk of it. Made him a VP, too. Go figure.
You probably don't spend much time on Darwin development lists, or you don't know that Apple does contribute its work back to open-source projects such as Apache (they made modifications to support Mac OS X, for example)...
Perhaps you don't understand that due to the BSD license that if Steve Jobs really hated open source that much, he wouldn't HAVE to share back if he didn't WANT Apple to do so. If this were so, Apple would not have anything called Darwin, or the APSL, or any of its other released code.
I imagine he feels there's a place for free code and a place for proprietary code.
I don't know about the Steve Jobs of old, but the man at Apple now seems different. Perhaps the years in between gave him a little maturity in how he handles things. This isn't Steve Jobs I or Steve Jobs of NeXT.
I can see why you posted as an AC. Almost all of your statements are inflammatory and unfounded.
I don't think you understand me. Let's say I have "powerCheckout.class" that is a GPL object. Now let's say I'm writing a online store application that will be closed-source "NotOpenStore."
I decide to use powerCheckout.class in my application, making improvements to that class while I integrate it into my application.
Everything everyone has ever told me about the GPL is that I would have to release all of the code of "NotOpenStore" in order to use powerCheckout.class as part of my code.
What I'm talking about, rather, is a license that says: "If you use my code, you're probably going to modify it or improve it. Please share back your modifications/improvements _to my code_ with the community."
As I understand the GPL, it requires me to share back not only the GPL code I modified and improved but also share my own _unrelated, non-GPL_ code (which by necessity to use that class becomes GPL), which heretofore had not been licensed. Do you see what I mean? With the GPL, its viralness is in that, not in the "share back your improvements" idea.
No, I'm not pissed off. My original post had to do with the utility of code. GPL limits the utility of the code except to people who want to play in the same sandbox. The greatest utility is in a license that simply says "You can use your code for anything you want, as long as I have that same right and we don't sue each other regarding the code."
This is a valid reason to use the GPL, in my opinion.
But it doesn't reflect the high and mighty ideals expressed by many supporters of the GPL -- that it makes people and code more free.
This reason makes the GPL a contract between you and anyone who wants to use it: If you use this, be nice and share back.
But let me ask this question: wouldn't this work without the viral part of the GPL? Wouldn't this work if there were simply a requirement that open code that is modified must have its modifications/improvements returned back to the community, but if it is part of a closed whole the closed whole may remain?
(Something like the last part of what you said)
I don't know a lot about the LGPL so I can't respond to that last paragraph.
Heh. This makes no sense, especially given the stated goals of the FSF, which I believe include either the end of copyright or major changes to it. Thus, the GPL is suicidal from the start.
;). People are. Code isn't an organism. People are. While our task is to preserve ourselves, our code only has the tasks we give it. Anyway, I still fail to see how code can just vanish from the desktops of all the people who have it when one company decides to incorporate BSD code into proprietary programs. That's the GPL myth: that if open code can be used in closed code, it becomes unfree. GPL denies the reality that that code is still "free" to whomever else has that code. GPL only concerns itself with the guy who wants to keep it closed. Why? Because the GPL is viral and the FSF wants to infect that guy's code and make it GPL too!
But your whole analogy is flawed. Code isn't sentient (yet
Don't anthropomorphize a license. It's a bunch of legal words.
I don't know who modded my post as a troll, but perhaps you should think that a reasoned post is not meant as a troll but as criticism.
so as to maximize its utility.
This is one of the most onerous lies of the GPL, and I'm finally going to come right out and say it.
Code has the most utility when everyone anywhere at any time who wants to use it can use it, unrestricted. The GPL says, "You can only use this code if you give up control of your own code to the GPL community." It places a limitation on how that code can be used!
The GPL is not concerned with keeping existing code free - if you have a copy of code that is licensed under any OSS-compliant license, as long as you have it, and want it to remain free, nobody can take it from you. Code is not like silicon; information can be copied, shared, duplicated, and code is information. Information, once free, is always free until nobody who has rights to that code wants it to be free.
No, the GPL is concerned with forcing open other code. It is concerned with telling me that I can can't use GPL code unless I am willing to GPL my entire application. So I have a choice: release under GPL, or reinvent the wheel. I've done both, myself, but I really don't like the choice, either be forced to release GPL because I have no other option, or take the inefficient route of rewriting code I could have reused. (This is the viral nature that you deny; you claim it keeps software in the OSS community. What, if MS incorporates BSD code it will suddenly disappear from millions of computers? The difference between GPL and BSD is that GPL will infect other code, thus forcing the choice.)
The GPL's chief goal is its viral nature, not its copyleft. The BSD license is just as good at keeping code open and it is not viral.
If you want to talk about utility, think of its use to the most possible people, and you'll find that the BSD offers much more utility than the GPL.
12.1(c) only says that the license terminates if you commence a patent lawsuit against Apple. That makes sense considering other terms in the license stating that you grant Apple right to use your code.
However, you are wrong about termination of the license by discovering an unenforceable condition: 13.5(a) specifically states that if a court of law discovers an unenforceable condition that the remainder of the license shall remain in effect, with the exception of the objectionable clause.
IANAL, but that seems pretty straightforward to me.
Thanks for correcting me on this. I couldn't remember the exact dates, and thought I might be a year off.
Ah yes! NT5 == Windows2000 (don't just believe me, look at what srvrmgr on NT4 reports 2000 as!)
Yeah, you are correct, 8 itself isn't all that hot. But 8.1 and above have really been good for the Mac OS, even if they haven't been the next-gen OS we've all been waiting for. It's like Apple is saying "We've got something great coming up, but we're going to keep making what we've got today better until it's done."
Well, this is mostly correct, but the originally-hyped next-generation OS effort by Apple (right around the time of the PPC conversion) was code-named Copland. About the same time, Microsoft announced its biggest piece of vaporware - it was either Chicago or Cairo... at any event, this was around 1995, after Win95 came out, and was supposedly their next-gen OS (read: Windows_2000_). I don't remember all the features it was supposed to have, but needless to say most of them never materialized in any of MS's OSes.
Anyway, for reasons known and unknown, Copland eventually got scrapped. The research done as part of Copland did not, and a significant portion of that work found its way into 8, 8.1 and 8.5. Pretty much as you stated, OS 8+ is "almost-Copland." The current OSes have a revamped memory system, a new kernel and a lot of the improvements that were to come with Copland.
After the failure of Copland, however, Apple realized it needed proven technology to form the core of its system. Where better to look than the brainchildren of two former Apple employees?
In the end, Steve Jobs sold his technology more effectively than Jean Louis Gassee, and Apple snapped up NeXT. They announced Rhapsody, and even began showing and previewing it. As early as 1997, Apple had Rhapsody demos at MacWorld. In early 1998(if I have my dates correct) Apple released Mac OS X Server, a direct descendant of NeXTSTEP with some Macintosh beautification. (Note, I may be a year off in my estimates, can't remember now) They started to talk about Mac OS X Client, and it was supposed to come out in mid-2000 and be preinstalled on systems in Jan 2001. Well, it sorta did. We got the beta. And for a beta it's a fine system. If there were more driver support and I could get Classic to work correctly, I'd be using it all the time.
This January? I don't think we'll see preinstalls just yet. So they're late. But judging from the quality of the beta, I think Apple is within months of releasing the system - at the very very latest, at MWNY. (don't quote me on that, just my feeling).
Are they late? Yes. But given that they've consistently improved the classic Mac OS through this whole time (I crash rarely, and then usually because of IE5's crappy popup window handling), I can't be too angry at them.
At the same time, I am acutely aware of how many people need that reliable stability and how many need the underpinnings of OS X. I know that it is imperative for Apple toi release OS X soon. I hope they do.
There's just something wonderful about having a command line and a Mac all rolled up in one!
Doesn't look cross-platform. It requires an x86 chip. If it were really X-Platform, it would also run on Linux (at least) on PPC, and better yet, ActiveState would use the mac ports of python and perl and the mac mozilla engine to really fulfill the x-platform promise of the the three foundations of the project.
All the pieces are there, ActiveState. Why don't you go for the big 3?
The default password for At Ease and later some of the other Macintosh workgroup admin tools used to be set to xyzzy. I don't know if they still use that, but they used to.
Your big mistake here is that you think that people who make $10,000 a year are necessarily not working hard. Some of them are working EXTREMELY hard at that level. I think you'll notice that the higher up you go on the salary scale that the amount of physical work actually goes down and the amount of mental work goes up. (Sometimes the level of work overall goes down, because you delegate it all.)
Don't make the mistake of assuming that $10,000 is easy and getting that raise was hard. Perhaps they'd worked their butt off at the plant for 10 years and the company finally decided to give them a cost of living raise. Sure, it amounts to $1,000 more in the end, according to your example, but they may be doing the exact same work as before.
Don't demean people who work hard for measly wages. They don't deserve it. What would YOU do if you had to work at a lumber mill for $15,000 a year?
Try again:
%rpcinfo -p localhost
program vers proto port
100000 2 tcp 111 portmapper
100000 2 udp 111 portmapper
200100001 1 udp 756 netinfobind
200100001 1 tcp 759 netinfobind
%showmount -e localhost
RPC: Program not registered: Can't do Exports rpc
Is this what you're looking for?
%rpcinfo -p localhost program vers proto port 100000 2 tcp 111 portmapper 100000 2 udp 111 portmapper 200100001 1 udp 756 netinfobind 200100001 1 tcp 759 netinfobind %showmount -e localhost RPC: Program not registered: Can't do Exports rpc Is this what you're looking for?
The difference, young jim ;), is that Xerox's corporate management had no intention of using the technology that Apple bought from them. A while later they realized just what a mistake they had made and tried to sue Apple about it, but their bad management decision was already made. So, really, Apple wasn't buying a potential or actual competitor (as Microsoft tends to do) but buying a technology that the company who sold it had no interest in. I don't have a problem with that, do you?
When Microsoft tends to get into a market, they buy up some small company who would have been a competitor and then they stomp around and investors in all the other MS competitors get scared.
One of the big problems of severely large monopolies is that they have too much influence over the economy. It may be painful in the short term to cut down a monopoly, but in the long-term, a more diverse economic system where more companies share the power makes for a more stable and productive system. Look at the stock market every time a significant MS occurrence happens. There shouldn't be that big an effect from one single company!
Both of your statements are untrue, one more than the other. Apple is trying to increase open source developer participation; I saw several posts on the Darwin-Developers list where Darwin leaders asked how they could interest more OSS developers to the project. One of their thoughts was donating hardware to Sourceforge (but of course we know that Sourceforge is a VA product and therefore probably runs on all VA servers :)). They _want_ to get more open source developers; they may not be sure how.
:)
Second, most of the people working on Mac OS X are Apple employees. As a result, a lot of Darwin code, coming from Mac OS X, is worked on by Apple employees. However, the Darwin team itself at Apple isn't that big, and the dev lists show healthy participation and involvement in helping Darwin become a viable OS in its own right.
Not criticizing your final point; just correcting a few things
That shows how much you know. Jobs has learned to work much better with his team and the synergy that exists between his creativity and the excellent engineers at Apple has resulted in the resurgence of a company that most left for all but dead three years ago.
The difference between this steve jobs and the old steve jobs is that he has learned how to manage a company. His ways may conflict with your 'any information I want is mine' mentality, but under his leadership Apple has revitalized itself and is _finally_ on track to ship a modern OS.
I don't like everything about Jobs, nor do I like everything about Apple. But unlike any other company I know, the people at Apple truly believe that they are driving the computer industry forward and that they can provide innovative tools for their core markets. They think they can change the world and they often do.
Do I sound like an Apple apologist? Answer me this.. what other computer company could have made fashion as much a part of the computer as its internals? Everyone who thinks that Apple is about making cute toy computers needs to think more critically - exploring the detail and attention that goes into their products reveals that Apple is creating an experience, like Disney or MGM might. Look at the way the power buttons on the monitor and cube pulse in sync! Look at the way the iBook's power light 'beats' slowly on and off while it sleeps.. Look at the integration of software and hardware that only they can do.
Sure, they've got lots of problems. I've read of iMacs catching fire. I'm sure other computers have done that, too. It only shows that Apple or its manufacturing plants aren't perfect. Neither is Jobs.
The point is, he may be a little too imperial and dictatorlike than you can stomach. However, he has passion in Apple's work; he wants to change the world, again and again, and he and his engineers and designers are as much artists as they are technical wizards.
Passion, more than anything else, drives invention. If that is Job's mistake; if that is what he hasn't figured out, then I don't agree with you.
So tell me, FreeUser, what exactly did they do that was wrong? Give me a list.
First of all, Apple owns the copyright to its own pictures of its products. If pictures of the Cube surface, and those pictures were taken by Apple, they have a right to say how those pictures are used.
Second, much of this information originates from people who have signed an NDA, a legal agreement not to disclose certain information. If I break my NDA to tell you about the cool new Windows emulation box on OS X, that makes the information you have the product of an illegal action. As such, by accepting the information you probably accept some of the liability. (Maybe, this is my weakest reason).
Third, these are trade secrets until they are released products. Apple doesn't always ship products soon after secrets are released, and if another company can posess those secrets and bring a product to market based on them before Apple can, Apple has a problem. Corporate espionage is bad enough when you don't have to worry about your best projects getting outed on the Web.
Finally, rumors often hurt the sales of existing machinery. I spent years waiting for the right computer to come along because every one I read about on the rumors sites was just a little bit better than the one I was lusting after previously. I know others do. Rumors may increase lust but they don't actually increase copulation (sales)... in fact, rumors hurt sales of end-of-life machines, which still perform very well and need to be sold. Apple stands to benefit economically from a powerful 'here's our new thing' introduction than a piddling of rumors building up. Thank god both the original iMac and the Cube rumors were nothing compared to the real thing. Also, if Apple, for some reason, decides not to release something when the rumor sites say they will, people get upset and disgusted at Apple; it affects stock market performance, even! And that's not Apple's fault; it's the fault of the people who read the rumors and treated them as gospel.
So that's why I think Apple works so hard to maintain its secrecy. What legal basis they have I don't know - IANAL, and don't want to play one here.