First of all, Hemos, will you _please_ get over your hatred of Apple and stop posting sarcastic anti-Apple comments on the front page of/.?
When are you ever going to follow up on that "More coming soon..." comment you made on the front page a while back? Did you decide not to follow up when it turned out you were wrong about Apple in that case?
Now, of course Apple is considering action against FishPC. The designs are similar enough to cause confusion - however, Apple has not YET sued them (see, Hemos, the reason they aren't suing AMD is because they AREN'T SUING FishPC yet, if they ever will!)
However, Apple has not filed suit and in this case, I don't think they will. They don't have a great chance of winning, because it isn't standalone, even though the monitor does remind me of an iMac. Moreover, the pricing structure on the thing places its cost way above what you can get an iMac (I think.. dunno AU->US conversion rates).
Any major company's legal department is going to be eagle-eyed in watching for infringement.. what about LucasFilms and THX and Dr. Dre? Everyone still likes Star Wars.
Apple has come a very long way in the past couple years. They have an entire Open Source operating system available, are basing their next generation Mac OS on that Open Source operating system (and for those of you who complain it's not GPL, there's a reason. You can't mix GPL and proprietary software).. a UNIX, for god's sake.
They use industry standard parts.. IDE, PCI, AGP, SDRAM, etc - have led the way with USB (naysayers say what you will, but USB exploded with the advent of the iMac) and continue to implement Firewire, a digital video standard they invented, across the board.
They use IEEE 802.11, an open standard, to communicate wirelessly, when they could have developed some proprietary scheme.
Did you know that one of the first questions when Apple meets with a third-party hardware/software supplier is? "Can we release this?"... as in "Can we make this part of Darwin and release the source code to it?"
That's a big change for Apple.
You may not like the company because you grew up using PCs... I have never understood the vehement dislike those who grew up on PCs seem to have for the Mac. They constantly go on about the Mac being inferior and a toy and that there's more games or software, and that (once these people go from being MS zealots to Linux zealots) Apple is proprietary and they just want to steal our good ideas and so on and so forth...
Everywhere you turn, there are IT managers who have a dislike of Macs for no other reason than they don't understand them. That's what it boils down to. You hate what you don't understand.
Well, understand this: Apple is developing machines with industry standard parts implementing industry standard protocols designed to run an OS that is based on the tried and true BSD Unix heritage and is at the same time based on a core that is Open Source, and said core is even designed to run on Intel-compatibles.
The end of cloning was a blessing: the inferior quality machines Power Computing, Motorola and UMAX produced (I know they are, I've used and maintained them) were being sold into Apple's own base and killing off the company. No Apple, no MacOS, no clones. In the end the result would be the same.
Can't you see the writing on the wall? Apple is preparing for a new era -- PPC and Intel machines, an OS constantly improved via Open Source development -- it doesn't matter if the Linux zealots join in.. there are other developers out there -- and is leading a charge that is masterfully executed.
The iMac is Apple's cash cow. You people seem more concerned about plastics than freedom of code, something Apple has shown a renewed commitment to on its Darwin listservs. You should join in sometime and find out how this company is changing itself for the better.
Stop blinding yourselves with learned rage. Look honestly at what Apple has done over the past two years and tell me that they have done nothing good. If you can tell me that, you have no clue where the future of the desktop is going.
PHP isn't limited to embedding in HTML. Sure, it works great WITH html, but isn't limited to it. I've written whole applications that deal with nothing but text and interface with a template system (also PHP) to insert the content into a template.
One extremely nice feature of PHP that a lot of Perl users overlook is mod_php. As an Apache module, PHP scripts have a smaller memory footprint, a faster startup and parsing time and lower server load than Perl. One could use mod_perl, but the number of servers offering mod_php far outnumbers those offering mod_perl, due to various issues with unscoped variables.
OTOH, Perl's text capabilities are legendary.
Also, someone noted that you had to put PHP in every page in the site to accomplish what this guy wants. Not true. I have coded sites with only one real page and many 'virtual' pages. I use a combination of ForceType and globbing PATH_INFO to make it look as if you're navigating a bunch of different real pages, but you're not.
The PHP does all the work of talking to the db and seeing what pages should show up where and getting the correct content.
Oops. I did ask for that one. But one mistake isn't as bad as all of his. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes, but consistent incorrect usage of spelling and _grammar_ belies a problem of greater magnitude.
Yes, I misspelled grammar. I didn't do it, however, because I didn't know better, but because I made a mistake.
I'm not perfect, by any long stretch. However, I at least know the correct way even if I do mess up sometimes.
Well, depends on if you're talking local security or network security for the Mac... the Mac's local security is very low without the help of third-party utilities. OTOH, the Mac's network security is very HIGH without the 'help' of third-party utilities like web servers, ftp servers, etc., and even then, there's no 'command-line' to access if you can hack the web server/ftp server... yet.. (telnetting into a Mac OS X box is a kinda cool feeling)
[poking fun at hemos-time] It's amusing that Hemos posted "I hate issue retread," when in the past he's been known to post a story that had already been posted a day or two before.. 'fess up, Hemos..:)
Personally, I think the unpoison guy is a little paranoid. He does make some valid points about DNS issues and non-cacheability, however; I tested this exact same idea about a year ago (3453453454.suchandsuch.com) and probably a bunch of other people did too, but abandoned it for various reasons, including those above.
There are ways to do this using mod_rewrite, and they're probably better for ya in the long run.
I don't think it's unique enough an idea to support a patent, especially considering the way in which it is implemented: a wildcard DNS. _That_ has a lot of prior art.
First Apple helped develop MkLinux, and you were too young to remember. Then Apple started using industry-standard parts (PCI, AGP, SDRAM, USB, etc) and you chided them still for their proprietary black boxes. Then Apple decided to use a time-tested kernel for their new OS, and you poo-poohed it. Then Apple came out with an industrial-strength server OS, and you laughed and went back to your Linux boxen.
And then Apple _open-sourced_ code and you said "They don't care, they just want our blood, sweat and tears". And then Apple worked with the OSF to try and get their license improved, and still you hated them.
Now Apple stands on the cusp of releasing a UNIX-compatible OS with the kernel and underlying layer open-sourced and fully runnable as an OS in itself, has "brought itself back from the dead" and posted over 2 years of profitable quarters when the rest of the computer hardware industry has been posting losses. Their machines use well-made, low-power chips that have existed for years before low-power became possible on x86 with the Crusoe. They have not only cracked the consumer market but have continued to expand their market by winning converts from the PC and the computer market as a whole by gaining a leading number of first time buyers.
And still you troll. Still you viciously attack Apple. But most of you don't know a first thing about the OS, except when you used it for 10 minutes at a local school or what you heard from your friends.
Most of you think it's kewl to mention egomaniac and Steve Jobs in one sentence, even though you don't know what you're really talking about.
Some of you have valid grudges against Apple. I have some gripes against them. No company is perfect, obviously. Those of you who have used a Mac for any length of time greater than an hour begin to show some understanding of Apple and its OS and the workings of the beast.
But the rest of you are sounding like a broken record and will continue to sound like a broken record. Worse yet, most of you are acting like hypocrites - embracing Sun and IBM's open-source efforts even though those company's efforts are probably designed to "cash in" on the benefits of open source as well. What's the difference?
The difference is most of you grew up being PC people and were taught to hate Apple and the Mac and think they were inferior. People told you things like preemptive multitasking and protected memory made Windows more stable. They rarely told you that most of the code in Windows has neither. You were taught to be computer bigots and to sneer at the pansy Mac users. You equate using a Mac with being one of _those_ artsy-fartsy types.
Unlike most of you, I work daily on Macs, Windows AND Linux. I have a lot of experience with all three. I like parts of all three (for example, the pervasive copy/paste in Windows context menus), I love the stability of Linux (and Mac OS X DP2;) and I appreciate the ease of use of a Macintosh. For design I use a Mac at home and Windows at work and Perl and PHP and PGSQL and MySQL on UNIX for web programming. So _unlike most of you_ I have heavy experience with all three platforms.
I don't care that you know how to spell Macintrash or Crapple or any of those other 3l337 sayings you can come up with. Get a life and stop hating the Mac because its kewl.
You can't have a closed mind and truly believe in open source.
Seems like everybody's hyped up about the anti-drug law, and I understand their concerns, but I definitely support the Senate's stand against cybersquatting.
There are limits to how much of a limited resource companies can use, and I do think that domain names qualify as a limited resource- after all, there are only so many words and meaningful phrases in the english language and nobody really wants a url like dsafs453swa.com
I don't know, but I estimate that a good 20% of all domain names are in the hands of squatters right now. I once wanted to get a domain name for my business, but someone else had it.. a relatively obscure name, too. They had no relation to that name, they probably bought it on a whim.
They said they had no plans to use it- they once had but changed their minds. So I offered them $100 for it. They replied with: Sorry, we won't accept anything under $5000 for the domain name.
That's fscking ridiculous! These speculators do nothing but hold onto a name and hope someone wants it bad enough to pay their 1000% premium.
I hope the law is broad enough to kill squatting. It's one thing to buy domain names that pertain to a project you're doing or will be doing, but to buy them for resale???
Personally, I think ICANN should require a clause in the registrar's contracts that says "Domain names may not be resold at a higher price to third parties. Doing so will result in immediate forfeiture of the name to the registrar."
That would kill this silly business once and for all.
I bet you don't hire black people if you're not black, or Jewish people if you're not Jewish. Are you aware that gender, race and religion-based employment screening is illegal?
What you don't get is that these people aren't victims but rather people struggling for equality and equal treatment.
When people of all races, creeds, genders and sexual preferences can walk our streets without fear for their safety - if you're a white male, you probably don't know what it's like - I am and I didn't until I had my eyes opened by my wife and other female and black friends - and don't have to worry that their qualifications for a job won't be overshadowed by a bigoted boss's ignorant misunderstanding of the issues of our society, that's when these people won't be struggling for equality.
Funny, I hope you own your company, because if your boss got wind of your sexist, potentially racist, etc. attitude (Like those who are trained to think of themselves as "regular people" who don't "oppress" people who aren't like them), you're a real legal risk, in my view.
Email me- I won't tell anyone your name. But you need some real eye-opening when it comes to how our culture treats women and minorities, and why certain groups exist.
Yes, but the thrust of the comment is wrong. The file "format" is open- the Sorensen codec is what is closed, and that's not Apple's code, it's someone elses. Why not petition Apple for a Linux QT rather than complaining when you only know half the facts?
IANAL, but I thought that emails were considered public unless you notified the person on the other end they were private.
I wouldn't publish any email anyone sent me, but the fact is those emails are malicious. I think we need to realize that what we'll be held accountable for what we say and should be responsible in how we communicate with each other.
I don't know the legal aspects of publishing emails, but I doubt a copyright suit would prevail. I'd think a defamation/libel suit by Mindcraft against the people who emailed those letters would have more success- especially if they CCed others.
I don't support Mindcraft's testing procedures, as they've been used falsely against Quicktime and Apple in the past, and what I know about the Linux tests galls me too, but I also don't support the zealots who don't know how to respond rationally and responsibly.
Just because this is the Internet and flames are common does not make this type of conduct alright. I can't say it's morally wrong or anything of the sort, but please, act responsibly. If there's one thing you can do in life, it's take control of your life. If you like to flame people and call them all manner of nasty things, please reconsider your actions.. expressing your anger may satisfy you, but it does more harm than good, to yourself and to others.
Well, I wrote this back during the APSL controversy, put it on the web but didn't let anyone know about it. So now I am... I'd post it here but it's a little long for the boards.
It's an essay about preference, evangelism and zealotry and the best way to win converts.
"In comparisons and discussions over the various merits and demerits of various operating systems, conversations usually degrade into the inevitable 'zealotry' argument. As a Mac OS and a Linux user, I've found myself and members of both communities called 'zealots' and dismissed in an argument which is frustratingly self-referential."
Your argument makes sense, and I do think that Apple could _eventually_ make a profit as a hardware company working on GPL code. But right now, as we all know, Apple's market share is not enough to differentiate it, especially in the cutthroat hardware atmosphere these days.
Increasingly, it's the operating system the differentiates the hardware. Apple's success, while partly due to its revelation in using industry-standard parts to improve the PC, is mostly due to the brand loyalty of Mac OS users.
Increasingly, margins on hardware are growing thinner and thinner. Apple's "upper" OS is both the differentiator from other OSes and the consistent money-maker.
In order to succeed in a world where Apple's own code, including that "wedge," has been ported to its competitors' hardware, Apple needs to be able to provide hardware the trumps the rest. Right now, as has been noted, Apple's hardware is very powerful, but many feel it is too expensive and others feel it's not powerful or expandable enough.
Apple needs a market-share cushion so that when it does go fully open-source (if it does), the resulting loss of some market share will not result in the folding of the company.
Therein is the core of my argument: Apple just can't afford to do it right now. Perhaps sometime in the future that will be different. My point here is that Apple can only move so fast because of its position.
P.S. The "easy interface" of which you speak is exactly what Apple is holding onto- that's the resource which, right now, guarantees its survival.
My wish in asking for perspective is that people will realize that the Free Software revolution, if there is to be one, must really be an _evolution_ over time, of the prevailing corporate atmosphere into the new paradigm. Until the GNUlians =) recognize that, they'll push and push and cause strife, which is not what the Open Source/Free Software movements need right now.
Apple has made a tremendous step toward legitimizing the Open Source movement in the minds of major businesses and enterprise shops in its decision to open the lower layers of its next-generation operating system.
At the same time, it provides a core OS for free for the tinkerer, and I believe that at least those tinkerers who have come onto the Darwin mailing lists will not only add value to the Darwin environment but perhaps bring some of Apple's technology back to Linux.
Yes, the license is written in such a way that it is hard to understand and can be misconstrued. Bruce Perens has said many times now that he and others are working with Apple to help them revise the license to better support Open Source's ideology.
This company- which has endured tremendous abuse on the Slashdot forums- witness the transition of the most popular argument from "Apple is overpriced" to "Apple is closed and proprietary" (so are IBM and Sun, for most of their stuff) to "Apple's license is evil and a threat to our freedoms"- has made an offer of great import to the Open Source community... "Here. Here is the source code to everything that makes our OS run. You can use the technology for your purposes and we get some of your innovations and bug fixes too."
Of course they keep the top layer. This is a company that NEEDS to make money in order to survive. Unlike a band of programmers unified only by their passion for the project- with no corporate expenses to pay- Apple must pay for its very survival. And it does so by maintaining control of the GUI and high-level layers of the OS. That's why the argument "I'll think they're serious about Open Source when they give away the entire source for the Mac OS" doesn't fly.
Apple has made great strides- perhaps they still have a distance to come, but I don't see why they need to be continually attacked for their efforts.
I do understand, however, the viewpoint of the GNU people, whose very purpose is the same as the ant-establishmentarians from the 60s- to provide a radical counterpart to the closed corporate culture that prevails. They embrace an extreme that substitutes the cry "freedom of code" for "free love."
Apple, by its very nature, can not be Free Software because they need to retain some control over the code they release. Unlike a lone programmer, Apple has billions in assets to lose over a patent lawsuit.
But the company can, and is trying to embrace the ideals of Open Source. I think, despite the initial stumblings, that Apple will continue to refine its license and move closer toward those ideals.
Let's wait and see. Perhaps Apple is making an effort to break from its past mistakes. Based on its performance and actions in the past year, I'd bet they really are trying.
Your former domain www.*tacobell*.com had EVERYTHING to do with the Taco Bell restaurant. Just because the content has nothing to do with it doesn't excuse you from the fact that the domain you registered is unmistakeably similar to the trademarked name of a restaurant.
Things like Ajax.org I can understand, there are several ways to get "Ajax" has a domain name. Even apple.org or something seems like an OK name, because it's ambigious enough not to conflict with trademarks.
On the other hand, Microsoft.org or Intel.net and the like are clear attempts to cash in on a brand name. What on earth did you use the tacobell.com domain for? Was it even related to tacos or bells?
I'm sorry, but I don't have a lot of respect for those who register trademarked names knowing full well that the names are trademarked and without any pertinent, related use to the domain name.
To me, that's domain name speculation, and I don't hold much truck with speculators. In fact, I believe speculation should be either made illegal or forbidden in the Internic licenses. It's a scourge on the whole system that people can hoard domain names and charge outrageous prices for them.
Domain names are a limited resource, because they are limited to the number of words and phrases pertinent to the content of the site (for the most part) multiplied by the number of TLDs. As TLDs will tend to remain few in number, and the main language of domain registration is English, domain names are quite limited and they should be protected resources.
None of this "they had no legal claims," because they did. They owned the trademark to the Taco Bell name AND had a pertinent use for the domain name. By your own admittance (unless you talked about Tacos or Bells or both) you had no trademark for the name nor did you have pertinent content.
This ruling would most likely have been against you had it been earlier. After all, the case was against someone who'd registered umbro.com and was brought by, you guessed it, Umbro. The someone lost not only the domain name, but also all of his domain names in order to pay the $25,000 legal bills. I hope this becomes a lesson to speculators.
On the other hand, I hope that the registrars remain in a position of "leasing," because it gives them more control over the system. Now to get them to destroy speculators.
Damn it, Be has fooled so many people with that G3 bullshit.
Haven't you ever wondered why LinuxPPC runs just fine on G3 with no help from Apple when Be, a company with millions in financing and some great programmers, just can't seem to figure it out? It's not because Apple helped LinuxPPC.
Come on.. the LinuxPPC guys have been able to port to G3 machines with no more help from Apple than Be had. I believe they even offered the necessary information to Be, who turned it down.
Be continues to spread this FUD about how Apple won't release the specs and that's why they can't port to G3, but it's nothing but a big lie. All they need to do is look at how the _open-source_ LinuxPPC and figure it out.
Why don't they do that? Look at all the Intel logos on their site. Figure it out.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, Hemos, will you _please_ get over your hatred of Apple and stop posting sarcastic anti-Apple comments on the front page of /.?
When are you ever going to follow up on that "More coming soon..." comment you made on the front page a while back? Did you decide not to follow up when it turned out you were wrong about Apple in that case?
Now, of course Apple is considering action against FishPC. The designs are similar enough to cause confusion - however, Apple has not YET sued them (see, Hemos, the reason they aren't suing AMD is because they AREN'T SUING FishPC yet, if they ever will!)
However, Apple has not filed suit and in this case, I don't think they will. They don't have a great chance of winning, because it isn't standalone, even though the monitor does remind me of an iMac. Moreover, the pricing structure on the thing places its cost way above what you can get an iMac (I think.. dunno AU->US conversion rates).
Any major company's legal department is going to be eagle-eyed in watching for infringement.. what about LucasFilms and THX and Dr. Dre? Everyone still likes Star Wars.
Apple has come a very long way in the past couple years. They have an entire Open Source operating system available, are basing their next generation Mac OS on that Open Source operating system (and for those of you who complain it's not GPL, there's a reason. You can't mix GPL and proprietary software).. a UNIX, for god's sake.
They use industry standard parts.. IDE, PCI, AGP, SDRAM, etc - have led the way with USB (naysayers say what you will, but USB exploded with the advent of the iMac) and continue to implement Firewire, a digital video standard they invented, across the board.
They use IEEE 802.11, an open standard, to communicate wirelessly, when they could have developed some proprietary scheme.
Did you know that one of the first questions when Apple meets with a third-party hardware/software supplier is? "Can we release this?"... as in "Can we make this part of Darwin and release the source code to it?"
That's a big change for Apple.
You may not like the company because you grew up using PCs... I have never understood the vehement dislike those who grew up on PCs seem to have for the Mac. They constantly go on about the Mac being inferior and a toy and that there's more games or software, and that (once these people go from being MS zealots to Linux zealots) Apple is proprietary and they just want to steal our good ideas and so on and so forth...
Everywhere you turn, there are IT managers who have a dislike of Macs for no other reason than they don't understand them. That's what it boils down to. You hate what you don't understand.
Well, understand this: Apple is developing machines with industry standard parts implementing industry standard protocols designed to run an OS that is based on the tried and true BSD Unix heritage and is at the same time based on a core that is Open Source, and said core is even designed to run on Intel-compatibles.
The end of cloning was a blessing: the inferior quality machines Power Computing, Motorola and UMAX produced (I know they are, I've used and maintained them) were being sold into Apple's own base and killing off the company. No Apple, no MacOS, no clones. In the end the result would be the same.
Can't you see the writing on the wall? Apple is preparing for a new era -- PPC and Intel machines, an OS constantly improved via Open Source development -- it doesn't matter if the Linux zealots join in.. there are other developers out there -- and is leading a charge that is masterfully executed.
The iMac is Apple's cash cow. You people seem more concerned about plastics than freedom of code, something Apple has shown a renewed commitment to on its Darwin listservs. You should join in sometime and find out how this company is changing itself for the better.
Stop blinding yourselves with learned rage. Look honestly at what Apple has done over the past two years and tell me that they have done nothing good. If you can tell me that, you have no clue where the future of the desktop is going.
Please ...
:)
PHP isn't limited to embedding in HTML. Sure, it works great WITH html, but isn't limited to it. I've written whole applications that deal with nothing but text and interface with a template system (also PHP) to insert the content into a template.
One extremely nice feature of PHP that a lot of Perl users overlook is mod_php. As an Apache module, PHP scripts have a smaller memory footprint, a faster startup and parsing time and lower server load than Perl. One could use mod_perl, but the number of servers offering mod_php far outnumbers those offering mod_perl, due to various issues with unscoped variables.
OTOH, Perl's text capabilities are legendary.
Also, someone noted that you had to put PHP in every page in the site to accomplish what this guy wants. Not true. I have coded sites with only one real page and many 'virtual' pages. I use a combination of ForceType and globbing PATH_INFO to make it look as if you're navigating a bunch of different real pages, but you're not.
The PHP does all the work of talking to the db and seeing what pages should show up where and getting the correct content.
Now, no more FUD!
Oops. I did ask for that one. But one mistake isn't as bad as all of his. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes, but consistent incorrect usage of spelling and _grammar_ belies a problem of greater magnitude.
Yes, I misspelled grammar. I didn't do it, however, because I didn't know better, but because I made a mistake.
I'm not perfect, by any long stretch. However, I at least know the correct way even if I do mess up sometimes.
No, it wasn't possible UNTIL the DOJ got involved.
Don't try to revise history on us now.
Well, depends on if you're talking local security or network security for the Mac... the Mac's local security is very low without the help of third-party utilities. OTOH, the Mac's network security is very HIGH without the 'help' of third-party utilities like web servers, ftp servers, etc., and even then, there's no 'command-line' to access if you can hack the web server/ftp server... yet.. (telnetting into a Mac OS X box is a kinda cool feeling)
:)
[poking fun at hemos-time]
It's amusing that Hemos posted "I hate issue retread," when in the past he's been known to post a story that had already been posted a day or two before.. 'fess up, Hemos..
Personally, I think the unpoison guy is a little paranoid. He does make some valid points about DNS issues and non-cacheability, however; I tested this exact same idea about a year ago (3453453454.suchandsuch.com) and probably a bunch of other people did too, but abandoned it for various reasons, including those above.
There are ways to do this using mod_rewrite, and they're probably better for ya in the long run.
I don't think it's unique enough an idea to support a patent, especially considering the way in which it is implemented: a wildcard DNS. _That_ has a lot of prior art.
First Apple helped develop MkLinux, and you were too young to remember. Then Apple started using industry-standard parts (PCI, AGP, SDRAM, USB, etc) and you chided them still for their proprietary black boxes. Then Apple decided to use a time-tested kernel for their new OS, and you poo-poohed it. Then Apple came out with an industrial-strength server OS, and you laughed and went back to your Linux boxen.
;) and I appreciate the ease of use of a Macintosh. For design I use a Mac at home and Windows at work and Perl and PHP and PGSQL and MySQL on UNIX for web programming. So _unlike most of you_ I have heavy experience with all three platforms.
And then Apple _open-sourced_ code and you said "They don't care, they just want our blood, sweat and tears". And then Apple worked with the OSF to try and get their license improved, and still you hated them.
Now Apple stands on the cusp of releasing a UNIX-compatible OS with the kernel and underlying layer open-sourced and fully runnable as an OS in itself, has "brought itself back from the dead" and posted over 2 years of profitable quarters when the rest of the computer hardware industry has been posting losses. Their machines use well-made, low-power chips that have existed for years before low-power became possible on x86 with the Crusoe. They have not only cracked the consumer market but have continued to expand their market by winning converts from the PC and the computer market as a whole by gaining a leading number of first time buyers.
And still you troll. Still you viciously attack Apple. But most of you don't know a first thing about the OS, except when you used it for 10 minutes at a local school or what you heard from your friends.
Most of you think it's kewl to mention egomaniac and Steve Jobs in one sentence, even though you don't know what you're really talking about.
Some of you have valid grudges against Apple. I have some gripes against them. No company is perfect, obviously. Those of you who have used a Mac for any length of time greater than an hour begin to show some understanding of Apple and its OS and the workings of the beast.
But the rest of you are sounding like a broken record and will continue to sound like a broken record. Worse yet, most of you are acting like hypocrites - embracing Sun and IBM's open-source efforts even though those company's efforts are probably designed to "cash in" on the benefits of open source as well. What's the difference?
The difference is most of you grew up being PC people and were taught to hate Apple and the Mac and think they were inferior. People told you things like preemptive multitasking and protected memory made Windows more stable. They rarely told you that most of the code in Windows has neither. You were taught to be computer bigots and to sneer at the pansy Mac users. You equate using a Mac with being one of _those_ artsy-fartsy types.
Unlike most of you, I work daily on Macs, Windows AND Linux. I have a lot of experience with all three. I like parts of all three (for example, the pervasive copy/paste in Windows context menus), I love the stability of Linux (and Mac OS X DP2
I don't care that you know how to spell Macintrash or Crapple or any of those other 3l337 sayings you can come up with. Get a life and stop hating the Mac because its kewl.
You can't have a closed mind and truly believe in open source.
Sorry - it's Raspberry-Grape-Blueberry ;)
Seems like everybody's hyped up about the anti-drug law, and I understand their concerns, but I definitely support the Senate's stand against cybersquatting.
There are limits to how much of a limited resource companies can use, and I do think that domain names qualify as a limited resource- after all, there are only so many words and meaningful phrases in the english language and nobody really wants a url like dsafs453swa.com
I don't know, but I estimate that a good 20% of all domain names are in the hands of squatters right now. I once wanted to get a domain name for my business, but someone else had it.. a relatively obscure name, too. They had no relation to that name, they probably bought it on a whim.
They said they had no plans to use it- they once had but changed their minds. So I offered them $100 for it. They replied with: Sorry, we won't accept anything under $5000 for the domain name.
That's fscking ridiculous! These speculators do nothing but hold onto a name and hope someone wants it bad enough to pay their 1000% premium.
I hope the law is broad enough to kill squatting. It's one thing to buy domain names that pertain to a project you're doing or will be doing, but to buy them for resale???
Personally, I think ICANN should require a clause in the registrar's contracts that says "Domain names may not be resold at a higher price to third parties. Doing so will result in immediate forfeiture of the name to the registrar."
That would kill this silly business once and for all.
Huh.
I bet you don't hire black people if you're not black, or Jewish people if you're not Jewish. Are you aware that gender, race and religion-based employment screening is illegal?
What you don't get is that these people aren't victims but rather people struggling for equality and equal treatment.
When people of all races, creeds, genders and sexual preferences can walk our streets without fear for their safety - if you're a white male, you probably don't know what it's like - I am and I didn't until I had my eyes opened by my wife and other female and black friends - and don't have to worry that their qualifications for a job won't be overshadowed by a bigoted boss's ignorant misunderstanding of the issues of our society, that's when these people won't be struggling for equality.
Funny, I hope you own your company, because if your boss got wind of your sexist, potentially racist, etc. attitude (Like those who are trained to think of themselves as "regular people" who don't "oppress" people who aren't like them), you're a real legal risk, in my view.
Email me- I won't tell anyone your name. But you need some real eye-opening when it comes to how our culture treats women and minorities, and why certain groups exist.
Yes, but the thrust of the comment is wrong. The file "format" is open- the Sorensen codec is what is closed, and that's not Apple's code, it's someone elses. Why not petition Apple for a Linux QT rather than complaining when you only know half the facts?
IANAL, but I thought that emails were considered public unless you notified the person on the other end they were private.
I wouldn't publish any email anyone sent me, but the fact is those emails are malicious. I think we need to realize that what we'll be held accountable for what we say and should be responsible in how we communicate with each other.
I don't know the legal aspects of publishing emails, but I doubt a copyright suit would prevail. I'd think a defamation/libel suit by Mindcraft against the people who emailed those letters would have more success- especially if they CCed others.
I don't support Mindcraft's testing procedures, as they've been used falsely against Quicktime and Apple in the past, and what I know about the Linux tests galls me too, but I also don't support the zealots who don't know how to respond rationally and responsibly.
Just because this is the Internet and flames are common does not make this type of conduct alright. I can't say it's morally wrong or anything of the sort, but please, act responsibly. If there's one thing you can do in life, it's take control of your life. If you like to flame people and call them all manner of nasty things, please reconsider your actions.. expressing your anger may satisfy you, but it does more harm than good, to yourself and to others.
Well, I wrote this back during the APSL controversy, put it on the web but didn't let anyone know about it. So now I am... I'd post it here but it's a little long for the boards.
It's an essay about preference, evangelism and zealotry and the best way to win converts.
"In comparisons and discussions over the various merits and demerits of various operating systems, conversations usually degrade into the inevitable 'zealotry' argument. As a Mac OS and a Linux user, I've found myself and members of both communities called 'zealots' and dismissed in an argument which is frustratingly self-referential."
Read more of "Fighting the good fight"...
Enjoy.
Thanks for your reply...
Your argument makes sense, and I do think that Apple could _eventually_ make a profit as a hardware company working on GPL code. But right now, as we all know, Apple's market share is not enough to differentiate it, especially in the cutthroat hardware atmosphere these days.
Increasingly, it's the operating system the differentiates the hardware. Apple's success, while partly due to its revelation in using industry-standard parts to improve the PC, is mostly due to the brand loyalty of Mac OS users.
Increasingly, margins on hardware are growing thinner and thinner. Apple's "upper" OS is both the differentiator from other OSes and the consistent money-maker.
In order to succeed in a world where Apple's own code, including that "wedge," has been ported to its competitors' hardware, Apple needs to be able to provide hardware the trumps the rest. Right now, as has been noted, Apple's hardware is very powerful, but many feel it is too expensive and others feel it's not powerful or expandable enough.
Apple needs a market-share cushion so that when it does go fully open-source (if it does), the resulting loss of some market share will not result in the folding of the company.
Therein is the core of my argument: Apple just can't afford to do it right now. Perhaps sometime in the future that will be different. My point here is that Apple can only move so fast because of its position.
P.S. The "easy interface" of which you speak is exactly what Apple is holding onto- that's the resource which, right now, guarantees its survival.
My wish in asking for perspective is that people will realize that the Free Software revolution, if there is to be one, must really be an _evolution_ over time, of the prevailing corporate atmosphere into the new paradigm. Until the GNUlians =) recognize that, they'll push and push and cause strife, which is not what the Open Source/Free Software movements need right now.
Jake
Apple has made a tremendous step toward legitimizing the Open Source movement in the minds of major businesses and enterprise shops in its decision to open the lower layers of its next-generation operating system.
At the same time, it provides a core OS for free for the tinkerer, and I believe that at least those tinkerers who have come onto the Darwin mailing lists will not only add value to the Darwin environment but perhaps bring some of Apple's technology back to Linux.
Yes, the license is written in such a way that it is hard to understand and can be misconstrued. Bruce Perens has said many times now that he and others are working with Apple to help them revise the license to better support Open Source's ideology.
This company- which has endured tremendous abuse on the Slashdot forums- witness the transition of the most popular argument from "Apple is overpriced" to "Apple is closed and proprietary" (so are IBM and Sun, for most of their stuff) to "Apple's license is evil and a threat to our freedoms"- has made an offer of great import to the Open Source community... "Here. Here is the source code to everything that makes our OS run. You can use the technology for your purposes and we get some of your innovations and bug fixes too."
Of course they keep the top layer. This is a company that NEEDS to make money in order to survive. Unlike a band of programmers unified only by their passion for the project- with no corporate expenses to pay- Apple must pay for its very survival. And it does so by maintaining control of the GUI and high-level layers of the OS. That's why the argument "I'll think they're serious about Open Source when they give away the entire source for the Mac OS" doesn't fly.
Apple has made great strides- perhaps they still have a distance to come, but I don't see why they need to be continually attacked for their efforts.
I do understand, however, the viewpoint of the GNU people, whose very purpose is the same as the ant-establishmentarians from the 60s- to provide a radical counterpart to the closed corporate culture that prevails. They embrace an extreme that substitutes the cry "freedom of code" for "free love."
Apple, by its very nature, can not be Free Software because they need to retain some control over the code they release. Unlike a lone programmer, Apple has billions in assets to lose over a patent lawsuit.
But the company can, and is trying to embrace the ideals of Open Source. I think, despite the initial stumblings, that Apple will continue to refine its license and move closer toward those ideals.
Let's wait and see. Perhaps Apple is making an effort to break from its past mistakes. Based on its performance and actions in the past year, I'd bet they really are trying.
Your former domain www.*tacobell*.com had EVERYTHING to do with the Taco Bell restaurant. Just because the content has nothing to do with it doesn't excuse you from the fact that the domain you registered is unmistakeably similar to the trademarked name of a restaurant.
Things like Ajax.org I can understand, there are several ways to get "Ajax" has a domain name. Even apple.org or something seems like an OK name, because it's ambigious enough not to conflict with trademarks.
On the other hand, Microsoft.org or Intel.net and the like are clear attempts to cash in on a brand name. What on earth did you use the tacobell.com domain for? Was it even related to tacos or bells?
I'm sorry, but I don't have a lot of respect for those who register trademarked names knowing full well that the names are trademarked and without any pertinent, related use to the domain name.
To me, that's domain name speculation, and I don't hold much truck with speculators. In fact, I believe speculation should be either made illegal or forbidden in the Internic licenses. It's a scourge on the whole system that people can hoard domain names and charge outrageous prices for them.
Domain names are a limited resource, because they are limited to the number of words and phrases pertinent to the content of the site (for the most part) multiplied by the number of TLDs. As TLDs will tend to remain few in number, and the main language of domain registration is English, domain names are quite limited and they should be protected resources.
None of this "they had no legal claims," because they did. They owned the trademark to the Taco Bell name AND had a pertinent use for the domain name. By your own admittance (unless you talked about Tacos or Bells or both) you had no trademark for the name nor did you have pertinent content.
This ruling would most likely have been against you had it been earlier. After all, the case was against someone who'd registered umbro.com and was brought by, you guessed it, Umbro. The someone lost not only the domain name, but also all of his domain names in order to pay the $25,000 legal bills. I hope this becomes a lesson to speculators.
On the other hand, I hope that the registrars remain in a position of "leasing," because it gives them more control over the system. Now to get them to destroy speculators.
Damn it, Be has fooled so many people with that G3 bullshit.
Haven't you ever wondered why LinuxPPC runs just fine on G3 with no help from Apple when Be, a company with millions in financing and some great programmers, just can't seem to figure it out? It's not because Apple helped LinuxPPC.
It's because Intel "helped" Be.
Wonder how it affects the guys over at Be, Inc.?
Come on.. the LinuxPPC guys have been able to port to G3 machines with no more help from Apple than Be had. I believe they even offered the necessary information to Be, who turned it down.
Be continues to spread this FUD about how Apple won't release the specs and that's why they can't port to G3, but it's nothing but a big lie. All they need to do is look at how the _open-source_ LinuxPPC and figure it out.
Why don't they do that? Look at all the Intel logos on their site. Figure it out.