And that "damn good reason" would be, as I said, because the PPC platform was for some reason many times slower than current Intel technology.
The whole point is that apple is poised to switch IF THEY HAVE TO.
If they had a 5x or more difference between INtel & PPC to deal with, do you not think there would be enough speed on the intel platform to do a reasonable job of emulating the old software? I do (think 68K emulation on the first PPC macs)
Yes, we can run vmware... but that requires windows licenses as well. I might as well just buy windows then.
Your point that they can but don't because nobody wants to is totally off: can you imagine how much more viable Redhat's product would be if you could just go out and grab any old piece of MS software and install it?
These things are purposefully difficult to run on non-ms systems, because MS wants it that way.
A couple of years ago I was outfitting an office with Office 2000.
We needed about 60 copies.
I first called Microsoft; they told me there was no real discount to be had unless we had more copies (or more other microsoft products in the same class in the same purchase). We weren't large enough to get a discount.
Okay.. fine. So I called my favorite var.
They gave us a nice price.. better than what MS offered us on bulk licensing. Then they came back with an even better deal:
"Well, if you buy 50 copies of Microsoft Works, and then 50 copies of Office 2000 Upgrade, you end up saving about $150 off each copy".
Now. think about this for a second. Going to a retail outlet and buying a truckload of software I'm never even going to use along with the product I want was actually way cheaper than simply asking microsoft for bulk licensing (which doesn't require them to ship a truckload of boxes).
Microsoft is saying that according to the contracts that K-mart signed in good faith, they DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to transfer the license on that software to anyone else.
This is very common in large enterprise software, by the way.. it is not 'trampling on their rights'. I'm sure their lawyers looked at it and agreed to it way back when.
bound by the paper contracts that you signed with Microsoft when you set up your enterprise agreements with them as a major purchaser of softwarek, and THOSE are legally binding without question.
Do you think an enterprise like K-mart just buys it's software of the shelf at best-buy?
He's saying that it's not hacking when you aren't bypassing any form of security.
If I put a new memo up behind another piece of blank paper on a public bulletin board, and someone moves that blank page aside to look at the confidential company information on that memo, have they illegally accessed the information? No, I was just stupid.
This is not about browsing a house; this is a public webserver with absolutely no access controls, and with human readable URL's that make some kind of sense. It's very common for people to look at urls and guess at the meaning to navigate to other parts of a site (ie: changing an obvious date to get older listings, changing resolution values to get a larger than normally provided map, etctera). These things are hardly illegal.
What should really be at issue is whether Reuters should have known the information was not to be released yet.
Just one question: If running on x86 is all it takes to run Office, or IE, then why don't we have those utilites running nicely in Linux? Or OpenBSD? or FreeBSD? Or on BeOS? Why do they only run in windows?
If they build an x86 mac, yes, on a certain level, we can virtualize things a-la vmware and get a good speed boost over pure emulation, but there would still be APIs to deal with, and different hardware to deal with (they won't be using standard PC clones with a BIOS and whatnot.. to be sure. They will have their own hardware)
To a potential software developer, OSX will still be OSX, regardless of the underlying platform: the build tools will remain the same.
This is one reason apple is so religious about protecting it's APIs and ensuring everyone uses them. It's why they are so picky about 'private' apis as well.
The point of having a really well defined set of APIs is so that developers won't have to change anything to re-target to a new platform... The API stays the same (just as a linux app for x86 builds just fine for sparc).
So.. aside from developers who may be using hand-built assembler routines in their products, there would be no issue.. that's the whole point.
AltiVec instructions being replaced would be the responsibility of the build tools, not the developers themselves.
Who said anything about 2 years later?
And yes, you are right, if they released it, it would run none of the other software. I didn't say they were GOING To release it, or that it would be smart now.. but if they got to the point where the PPC architecture just had nothing to offere anymore, and Intel's products were, say, 10x faster, then switching architectures would make very good, obviuos sense.
And people bought CD's back when they couldn't copy them either.
But the difference is, NOW people accept the ability to copy cds as standard, and if you take that away, people will see that they have lost something.
Which of the standard C or C++ libraries are those?
And your original statement "Due to the viral nature of the GPL, any software compiled using GCC could be considered a "derivative work" of the GCC, thus forcing that software to be open- source under the terms of the GPL"
Is still totally wrong. Any software including GPL libraries that come with GCC, yes, they would be restricted by the GPL... but you quite clearly stated that all software built with gcc is automatically GPL, which is BS.
But the parent poster didn't mention anything whatseover about the GPL or the license on compiled code.. he was referring to performance issues of the resulting code.
Apple works on a partial x86 port of OS X (Darwin x86). Not that they are ever going to deploy a full x86 OS X, but they want to let microsoft know they can do so at any moment.
They very well may release it; if intel processors get far enough ahead, apple will most likely make a new mac based on an intel processor. It won't be a version for the common PC, but it will be a box with an intel chip in it.
Yup. And it's up to the authors of FFMPEG and/or XVID to go after them for copyright violation.
They cannot be forced to reveal source, but they can be forced to stop distributing (and pay damages perhaps).
Remember, it's not a GPL violation, it's copyright violation. They have not accepted the terms of the GPL, they are simply distributing without a license to do so.
If the authors choose not to, then there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Any cable internet install guy I've seen will let you simply declare that you don't want him to touch your computer, and that you will happily sign off on whatever he wants.
Some have a spot for "customer declined to have such-and-such installed" and you can sign that.
Others, the guy will just let you sign off, especially if you are polite and let him know that you do know what you are doing, and it's not going back to haunt him.
Traditionally, if the installer doesn't do something right, then support can't support it right, and he gets in shit.
Let him know you'll sign whatever it is and cooperate in any way so he doesn't personally get in trouble, give him a cup of coffee, and send him on his way.
Well, OBVIOUSLY a website is bound by the laws of the country it is located in.. they don't get diplomatic immunity just because they are websites.
But the power of law comes from the ability to enforce. Your serivce could be in the US, but if France decides they are going to block your site from their country unless you comply.. that's their perogative.
Slashdot Mirror
And that "damn good reason" would be, as I said, because the PPC platform was for some reason many times slower than current Intel technology.
The whole point is that apple is poised to switch IF THEY HAVE TO.
If they had a 5x or more difference between INtel & PPC to deal with, do you not think there would be enough speed on the intel platform to do a reasonable job of emulating the old software? I do (think 68K emulation on the first PPC macs)
Yes, we can run vmware... but that requires windows licenses as well. I might as well just buy windows then.
Your point that they can but don't because nobody wants to is totally off: can you imagine how much more viable Redhat's product would be if you could just go out and grab any old piece of MS software and install it?
These things are purposefully difficult to run on non-ms systems, because MS wants it that way.
A couple of years ago I was outfitting an office with Office 2000.
We needed about 60 copies.
I first called Microsoft; they told me there was no real discount to be had unless we had more copies (or more other microsoft products in the same class in the same purchase). We weren't large enough to get a discount.
Okay.. fine. So I called my favorite var.
They gave us a nice price.. better than what MS offered us on bulk licensing. Then they came back with an even better deal:
"Well, if you buy 50 copies of Microsoft Works, and then 50 copies of Office 2000 Upgrade, you end up saving about $150 off each copy".
Now. think about this for a second.
Going to a retail outlet and buying a truckload of software I'm never even going to use along with the product I want was actually way cheaper than simply asking microsoft for bulk licensing (which doesn't require them to ship a truckload of boxes).
That's messed up.
Microsoft is not saying you can't re-sell your windows license. If you bought it in the store, retail, you can transfer it however you want.
K-mart is not using a 'normal' windows license.
If you bought it with your computer, it was at a discount, and microsoft's license ties it to that computer, usually.
Microsoft is saying that the contract they have with K-mart for the site license stipulates that they cannot transfer the license.
Microsoft is saying that according to the contracts that K-mart signed in good faith, they DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to transfer the license on that software to anyone else.
This is very common in large enterprise software, by the way.. it is not 'trampling on their rights'. I'm sure their lawyers looked at it and agreed to it way back when.
bound by the paper contracts that you signed with Microsoft when you set up your enterprise agreements with them as a major purchaser of softwarek, and THOSE are legally binding without question.
Do you think an enterprise like K-mart just buys it's software of the shelf at best-buy?
BEcause it's fast, stable, and tiny, and does the job well.
Yes, of course it's not a full SQL implementation, of course it doesn't have the scalability of Oracle, etctera...
But a great many web apps have no need for a super heavyweight database.
Every language out there has bindings for MySQL, and there are a truckload of people using it, so information is easy to come by.
What would you pick instead?
He's saying that it's not hacking when you aren't bypassing any form of security.
If I put a new memo up behind another piece of blank paper on a public bulletin board, and someone moves that blank page aside to look at the confidential company information on that memo, have they illegally accessed the information? No, I was just stupid.
This is not about browsing a house; this is a public webserver with absolutely no access controls, and with human readable URL's that make some kind of sense.
It's very common for people to look at urls and guess at the meaning to navigate to other parts of a site (ie: changing an obvious date to get older listings, changing resolution values to get a larger than normally provided map, etctera). These things are hardly illegal.
What should really be at issue is whether Reuters should have known the information was not to be released yet.
Just one question:
If running on x86 is all it takes to run Office, or IE, then why don't we have those utilites running nicely in Linux? Or OpenBSD? or FreeBSD? Or on BeOS? Why do they only run in windows?
If they build an x86 mac, yes, on a certain level, we can virtualize things a-la vmware and get a good speed boost over pure emulation, but there would still be APIs to deal with, and different hardware to deal with (they won't be using standard PC clones with a BIOS and whatnot.. to be sure. They will have their own hardware)
To a potential software developer, OSX will still be OSX, regardless of the underlying platform: the build tools will remain the same.
This is one reason apple is so religious about protecting it's APIs and ensuring everyone uses them. It's why they are so picky about 'private' apis as well.
The point of having a really well defined set of APIs is so that developers won't have to change anything to re-target to a new platform... The API stays the same (just as a linux app for x86 builds just fine for sparc).
So.. aside from developers who may be using hand-built assembler routines in their products, there would be no issue.. that's the whole point.
AltiVec instructions being replaced would be the responsibility of the build tools, not the developers themselves.
Who said anything about 2 years later?
And yes, you are right, if they released it, it would run none of the other software. I didn't say they were GOING To release it, or that it would be smart now.. but if they got to the point where the PPC architecture just had nothing to offere anymore, and Intel's products were, say, 10x faster, then switching architectures would make very good, obviuos sense.
1) It's not ICANN's job to stop ping/smurf attacks.
;)
The internet was nearly brought to it's knees.. except basically nobody noticed. It was a massive attack and it had little overall effect.
The internet routes around problems. If icann goes too far, the world will find a way to ignore them.
that is, unless major isp's start doing transparent proxying on dns
And people bought CD's back when they couldn't copy them either.
But the difference is, NOW people accept the ability to copy cds as standard, and if you take that away, people will see that they have lost something.
Which of the standard C or C++ libraries are those?
And your original statement "Due to the viral nature of the GPL, any software compiled using GCC could be considered a "derivative work" of the GCC, thus forcing that software to be open- source under the terms of the GPL"
Is still totally wrong. Any software including GPL libraries that come with GCC, yes, they would be restricted by the GPL... but you quite clearly stated that all software built with gcc is automatically GPL, which is BS.
For some reason the slashdot interface was directing me to something else as the parent...
How confusing.
FLame on. he deserves it.
But the parent poster didn't mention anything whatseover about the GPL or the license on compiled code.. he was referring to performance issues of the resulting code.
CodeWarrior is a compiler? It hought it was just an IDE
Apple works on a partial x86 port of OS X (Darwin x86). Not that they are ever going to deploy a full x86 OS X, but they want to let microsoft know they can do so at any moment.
They very well may release it; if intel processors get far enough ahead, apple will most likely make a new mac based on an intel processor. It won't be a version for the common PC, but it will be a box with an intel chip in it.
I was just thinking this today....
How is an eula enforceable if the person installing it is not of legal age? Certainly they are allowed to buy the software, and to install it....
Yup.
And it's up to the authors of FFMPEG and/or XVID to go after them for copyright violation.
They cannot be forced to reveal source, but they can be forced to stop distributing (and pay damages perhaps).
Remember, it's not a GPL violation, it's copyright violation. They have not accepted the terms of the GPL, they are simply distributing without a license to do so.
If the authors choose not to, then there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Any cable internet install guy I've seen will let you simply declare that you don't want him to touch your computer, and that you will happily sign off on whatever he wants.
Some have a spot for "customer declined to have such-and-such installed" and you can sign that.
Others, the guy will just let you sign off, especially if you are polite and let him know that you do know what you are doing, and it's not going back to haunt him.
Traditionally, if the installer doesn't do something right, then support can't support it right, and he gets in shit.
Let him know you'll sign whatever it is and cooperate in any way so he doesn't personally get in trouble, give him a cup of coffee, and send him on his way.
Since when was solaris free for any type of production environment?
Sure, you could get a personal copy and play with it.. but that's useless to the business world.
I am sad? I am posing a question in the first person.
Perhaps I should have said "Can we sue spammers who do this because they are filling out forms with fraudulent information?"
Oh.. and you mean laws and ethics are two different thigns? Everyone knows that.. thanks for sharing.
I mean, if you can't figure out the debian installer, perhaps you shouldn't be using debian.
It's not a hard installer, as far as installers go. I don't see what the big deal is.
Well, OBVIOUSLY a website is bound by the laws of the country it is located in.. they don't get diplomatic immunity just because they are websites.
But the power of law comes from the ability to enforce. Your serivce could be in the US, but if France decides they are going to block your site from their country unless you comply.. that's their perogative.
Suppose I have a form on my site to collect customer information.
Could filling this form with obviously bogus information and advertising be considered theft of services, or fraud, or something else?