IMHO, something I've long thought about regarding LSB is that there should be a Package Management specification. Much like the way IEEE defines specifications for things, ANSI, ISO, and so on.
After that, it should be up to a developer to decide how to implement that standard and thus conform to it. I like RPM. It's pretty easy to write for and deal with, at least for me, but I feel it is lacking a lot of things that I think it should have by now.
It should be more modular, with regards to how package.spec files are written. It should provide more feature sets. i.e. Why does redcarpet, up2date, urpm, and others provide auto package dependancy checking and fulfillment while the standalone "rpm" base program doesn't? Yes, I know apt does, but I'm speaking only from within the realm of RPM. There are similiar tools available that do different things, on the same side of the fence.
This is why I believe a full-on specification for what RPM is should be better established than it is today. IMHO, this offers people a much better reason to decide rpm over apt or apt over rpm or whatever else, when the playing field is leveled.
Wishful thinking I guess.
Re:As I've said before...
on
LCD Price Fixing?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Indeed, I can imagine... and what's the point?
Well, in this case it doesn't sound like you're using the "fun" part of your imagination. People make low-rider bicycles for crying out loud. People will mod anything they can because it's a chance at practical application of their imagination. To many that's "fun." So as to your question about the point being, the point is to have fun trying it.
Not to mention, not just use imagination in some kind of applicable way, but actually create something new for the sake of trying. Lots of good things have come out of imagination, like creativity.
Seems to me there are a few things at play regarding this. It could be a test of public opinion, as another reader suggests. It's done, rather shamelessly, here in the US *all the time*. Other thing it could be as well, that since the US and Mexico are trying to be a bit closer together, who knows what deals are being made with them regarding copyright. Look what we're trying to do to ourselves. If certain parties who intend to serve self intrests are global, or at least multi-national, wouldn't they try to influence governments in each region they had a stake in?
So back to my question above, who set the precident first of life-term + some number of years for copyrighting works? Seems to me the US is to blame for this, even though it will really, really, really, hurt our youth and generations to come. It's poison in the resevoir. Beware Mexico.
They might get fired, but if it's not *them* doing it, and no one else knows who's doing it they won't get "caught" per se, but are still helping to purportrate a leak. I'm sure if they knew it was going on behind their backs, it would be stopped. It's just a thought, though I predict it *will* still happen. Look at Micorosoft. I've seen links to desktop shares within their own infrastructure which were said to have contained XP and Longhorn snaps.
Well, why hasn't anyone given thought to this that it could actually be someone at Apple doing it in an unbeknownst manner? I mean, aren't there developers who work for Apple, who work on this, and say, have kids at home, or a room-mate?
I'm sure that those developers who take their work home, always use secure passwords that the kids or room-mate can't guess. Right? Guys? Right?
So regardless, it may still continue to happen, and Apple took the only proper recourse they can at this time to see if leaks still happen. I'm predicting they will.
It's not like Ximian's desktop is *bad*. It's certainly a nicely polished interface for those of us who like to have a constant and stable desktop, with simple ways to change things we'd like. Ximian certainly offers that, but IMHO, Gnome2's desktop framework offers this as well. Ximian though, in contrast to just Gnome2, is a bit easier for most Windows converts than just plain Gnome/Gnome2. Also, Ximian's desktop is rather inclusive of some pretty "user-friendly" tools.
I think KDE and Ximian's Gnome2 are going to be the usual first-used desktops by most converts. This is important for those who care about making Linux a more "popular" desktop for the general populous. We should always try to encourage this type of activity, because it inspires choice.
After a convert learns about all the features, and shortcomings of their "starter" environment, they will inevitably change something, or just find something they like more. Without a "starter" type desktop though, they wouldn't be as encouraged to find something they like more, thus stifling the overall acceptance of Linux as a general purpose desktop.
We should always try to change the negative to be positive, if it is possible. A good Linux desktop, which wins converts from Windows, will increase the popularity of Linux, thus increasing the acceptance of OpenSource software, thus increasing how much people rely on OSS, and then people will care more about it than they previously had. At least a little.
It's a chain of events that will lead more use of OSS software in general, and something we should continue to help the growth of. Not say "why the hell would anyone use that shit? I use WindowMaker and it's just fine!". Maybe once those converts are on Linux for a while, they may agree. Give'm the opportunity.
Rather than just a boycott, a boycott with a letter writing campagin to as many of the "pop-artists" as possible to let them know why as well. The main point there is that just like you write to your congress/senate persons, they are in a sort of way, senate/congress persons to the RIAA. Actually, write your favorite artist's label as well. (send multiple coppies of the same letter, one to the artist, and one to their label), so they know why.
We, the little people as it were, can only do so much. If those we enjoy/support, etc, realized how much more they are really appreciated, and how much less they'd have to give to RIAA, regardless of the recently announced "royalty payment process overhaul", by directly marketing to the masses, I think this level of organized boycott would be well heard.
The whole idea, is to have as much understanding on both sides of the RIAA Curtain as possible. Just because the artists may not directly get the letters, if enough people do this, they *will* get the *message*. Just as we would like to directly be able to buy music from our favorite artists, bypassing the RIAA since they're no longer really necessary, the communication channels need to be opened that way as well.
In a world where people are packaged, sold, and bought over and over, I'm sure artists feel left out in a way they can't understand, or are unwilling to discuss without fear of losing a label, etc.
Maybe the boycott is really "Recording Artists Appreciation Day?"
An aspect, which I'm sure has been tossed around, is that the GPL won't let those involved "lose" their intellectual property, it will only strengthen it. The free support of the community, for something which is useful, can far outweigh the risks of going GPL. Though, I should point out, that GPL isn't the ONLY good open license. I particularly like the BSD license when dealing with "for profit" software. Take the Apache Foundation for example. Most of their software, all?, is BSD style licensed. Covalent is a company which makes money from that licensing. So, as you can see, it is worth while opening up the source, just a manner of deciding what you want people to do with it. For profit, BSD, for anything, GPL. The end result, IMHO, is that they won't have to waste time and money with cease and desist orders, if they use BSD licensing. It's a more clear avenue for business uses, where drivers are concerned. Drivers and other modular pieces of software which enable devices hold a special kind of importance for companies. Almost a "trade secret" mentality. Problem is, they're usually written to a specification which people can pay for, license, etc, and then build their own anyway. Hope you got something out of this.
It is a bit difficult to get working, but it is "strong", centralized, password and user management.
The only thing I've found missing from kerberos, is simplified high-level documentation in a cook-book format for different ways of implementing and administering the KDC and the realms.
Fortunately I'm working on such documentation, and it may become part of the FAQ. After I make some adjustments, maybe it will.
1. Just go away and leave the tech scene alone forever.
That won't really work, mainly because their like the kid that won't leave his scraped knee alone: "keep touching it till it hurts to see how much he can take, till it gets infected, then he's sorry."
2. Stop "pretending" to be giving source code to the masses, and just do it. Even go so far as to fully disclose all source, in it's ugly tainted forms, and just do it, It CAN be BSD licensed. OpenSource is about trust, the more they keep pretending to give it away, the more people will feel made fun of, or patronized. I for one, don't like a company to patronize my beliefs of trust, good will, and open communication.
3. If they can't stop pretending, they can stop whining about how releasing their code will destroy the company, blah blah blah, and just *conform* to RFCs with NO extra things so as to break other people's technology, AND the RFCs.
Perhaps they should actually USE MORE OpenSource software, admit to it, and let people HELP them make a good OS Shell and underlying bits. How great would that be for them if they got FREE help. There are plenty of windows programmers out there already who release stuff under gpl, bsd license, etc. If MS would use more cross-platform and compliant standards, not MS standards, RFC, totally non-MS, compliant standards, to do all the things they want to do, and allow people to help them develop MS Windows(tm) without having to give away their right to look, hear, see, touch, feel, barter, etc, their code, as it is with.NET.
.NET should be the "Code Motel"
"Your code goes in, but it can't come out! Kills your code branch, Dead!"
Come ON MS. Stop patronizing intelligent people and actually DO what THEY want, and not TELL them what they want.
That would be because you're trying to issue cookies, or have third-party cookies getting issued for some reason. Either that or you are using "unsatisfactory" cookies.
Either way, ONLY IN THE MEDIUM or MEDIUM-HIGH PRIVACY SETTINGS, should you NOT be flagging IE 6.0 if all you do is issue "first-party" cookies.
To actually implement P3P, you only need mod_headers when using apache. There is no magic here, it's only a damn header + two XML files, at it's most basic.
At it's most basic P3P just a header being looked at by a http user agent which has a P3P agent built in. I believe to date it's only I.E. 6.0. Though Mozilla, Opera, Galeon, and Konquerer are sure to follow.
Many aspects of P3P are positive, but there are parts of the specification which have yet to be properly determined and implemented, in a real-world environment.
The main parts affected would be any "Third-party"
though any "First-party" running a site and issuing cookies of any unacceptable fashion, mainly things which are PII related and cannot be opted out of, will be flagged. .
In short, be sure you have an opt-out mechanism for your shoppers if you're an e-commerce site.
Also, any "Third-party" acting as an "Agent" on behalf of any "First-party" which is issuing cookies or collecting data, regardless if PII is involved. The spec for being a "Third-party Agent" has yet to actually be implemented by anyone, though I know some people who will try this soon. Up to this point, the view of "Third-party Agent" is quite desireable to anyone on the 'net who operates in such a manner. It nearly absolves them of "having" to deal with any consumer related issues regarding their data collection because you can point people back to the "First-party's" P3P policy, rather than having to maintain your own.
The obvious problem here though, is scalability and maintainability. It's tantamount to remote key-managment. You must then manage your "First-party" client's P3P Policies and keep in contact/communication with them to ensure that any changes are propagated to you, should it change, yet you continue to serve an *out of date* P3P Compact Policy in the web server's headers for that client, you very well could be blamed for screwing the data they hired you to collect for them in a very bad way.
Aside from that, P3P is a very positive thing for consumers and business persons in such a way that it opens a channel of communication which did not exist so much in the foreground, as P3P enables, before. Hope this is useful to anyone trying to understand some of what P3P really is.
Sun tried to do all this type of stuff with thin clients about 8 years ago. The idea was, and still is, though SUN doesn't understand why they failed so long ago, that the internet will eventually be "My Network". So, Sun made this logo "The network is the computer."
Now that so many people are into "Grid computing" and the like, web-services are just the beginning.
Sun had the right idea with their java stations so long ago, but they were trying to force the change, and be the ones to make the money, rather than just let it happen natrually, and be more of a benefactor/enabler. You can say It's the MS way of thinking..but it's not..MS is just "embracing/extending" a way of thinking, probably so they can say they invented it too.
Before sun thought of it though..Larry Ellison, from Oracle corp was actually saying it first. SO it's really the Oracle way of thinking if you want to say who's thinking it is!
MusicCity's prior practices have set precedent for the way they will handle their code. They make the gnucleus source available, but not the morpheus source available it seems.
That said, there is no actual source being posted, which constitutes the derivative work based from gnucleus.
That's what it looks like so far after reviewing the source linked to on their site.
Nahhh..the OS only costs like a hundred bucks or so, I'd much rather pay that then the >150+ pricetag of MicroCrasht. Of course with just Linux or a PPC port of FreeBSD or something, I could pay absolutely nothing. If they just gave everyone the WM stuff they've got, even for sale, then people would use it.
Perhaps one thing Apple and Steve have been avoiding is "breaking" up all the different pieces of MacOS so they can run on something *not* proprietary to Apple.
If they did that, they could segment their stuff and penetrate many different markets while *still* holding on to the "MAC experience" they provide with the HW/SW integration they already do.
That said, those who purchased Mac HW, preloaded with MacOS and SW would be the first to feel the improvements, with ports going to the other platforms, later. You could even do a WM or accellerated X server for AIX, Linux, BSD, Solaris, etc. that people would buy, cause it's so freaking slick!
Think of it on a more intelligent scale. Those companies who do business on the web, that take data from you, me or anyone else, for that matter, on our buying or browsing habits. (whether you *like* it or not, it happens, even at the site you visit directly if you buy something, that has no third-party web-bugs, etc)
They will be negatively affected. The outcome is that companies who do NOT re-sell your data, but are custodians of that data for their clients' directly. So only the person who is buying the service from said company is looking at that data, not even talking credit card info here, will NOT have accurate numbers to base their own sales promotions for their own sites, etc.
People like to shop. People also like to get deals. Most of us in the/. community or OSS community, don't like spam, etc. If it's a genuine *DEAL* though, we're all over it. The genuine deals then, will be harder to get if everyong is required to be opted-in, just to get them, where the default is everyone is opted-out, that will hurt "honest" eCRM/data-mining companies quite a bit.
--The GrandMaster
Re:Why RPM? Why have a choice you should say.
on
OpenPKG 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
It really surprises me that they decided to use RPM package format.
I suppose it does surprise someone like you. You use that "other" OS instead of Windows. You prefer CHOICE to stagnation. If you like choice so much, then understand that this is JUST another CHOICE. You've already chosen not to use this it sounds like to me, so there. You're done. Please move on.
You dolt! It's the format that's portable, not the package itself. This was created so you can create packages of the same type using the same package management SOURCE on any platform. Not to mention, source packages could definitely be portable as long as the software being packaged had all that was needed for other OSes. It's not trying to do something magical, just practical.
Slashdot Mirror
IMHO, something I've long thought about regarding LSB is that there should be a Package Management specification. Much like the way IEEE defines specifications for things, ANSI, ISO, and so on.
.spec files are written. It should provide more feature sets. i.e. Why does redcarpet, up2date, urpm, and others provide auto package dependancy checking and fulfillment while the standalone "rpm" base program doesn't? Yes, I know apt does, but I'm speaking only from within the realm of RPM. There are similiar tools available that do different things, on the same side of the fence.
After that, it should be up to a developer to decide how to implement that standard and thus conform to it. I like RPM. It's pretty easy to write for and deal with, at least for me, but I feel it is lacking a lot of things that I think it should have by now.
It should be more modular, with regards to how package
This is why I believe a full-on specification for what RPM is should be better established than it is today. IMHO, this offers people a much better reason to decide rpm over apt or apt over rpm or whatever else, when the playing field is leveled.
Wishful thinking I guess.
Indeed, I can imagine ... and what's the point?
Well, in this case it doesn't sound like you're using the "fun" part of your imagination. People make low-rider bicycles for crying out loud. People will mod anything they can because it's a chance at practical application of their imagination. To many that's "fun." So as to your question about the point being, the point is to have fun trying it.
Not to mention, not just use imagination in some kind of applicable way, but actually create something new for the sake of trying. Lots of good things have come out of imagination, like creativity.
Seems to me there are a few things at play regarding this. It could be a test of public opinion, as another reader suggests. It's done, rather shamelessly, here in the US *all the time*. Other thing it could be as well, that since the US and Mexico are trying to be a bit closer together, who knows what deals are being made with them regarding copyright. Look what we're trying to do to ourselves. If certain parties who intend to serve self intrests are global, or at least multi-national, wouldn't they try to influence governments in each region they had a stake in?
So back to my question above, who set the precident first of life-term + some number of years for copyrighting works? Seems to me the US is to blame for this, even though it will really, really, really, hurt our youth and generations to come. It's poison in the resevoir. Beware Mexico.
They might get fired, but if it's not *them* doing it, and no one else knows who's doing it they won't get "caught" per se, but are still helping to purportrate a leak. I'm sure if they knew it was going on behind their backs, it would be stopped.
It's just a thought, though I predict it *will* still happen. Look at Micorosoft. I've seen links to desktop shares within their own infrastructure which were said to have contained XP and Longhorn snaps.
Well, why hasn't anyone given thought to this that it could actually be someone at Apple doing it in an unbeknownst manner? I mean, aren't there developers who work for Apple, who work on this, and say, have kids at home, or a room-mate?
I'm sure that those developers who take their work home, always use secure passwords that the kids or room-mate can't guess. Right? Guys? Right?
So regardless, it may still continue to happen, and Apple took the only proper recourse they can at this time to see if leaks still happen. I'm predicting they will.
It's not like Ximian's desktop is *bad*. It's certainly a nicely polished interface for those of us who like to have a constant and stable desktop, with simple ways to change things we'd like.
Ximian certainly offers that, but IMHO, Gnome2's desktop framework offers this as well. Ximian though, in contrast to just Gnome2, is a bit easier for most Windows converts than just plain Gnome/Gnome2. Also, Ximian's desktop is rather inclusive of some pretty "user-friendly" tools.
I think KDE and Ximian's Gnome2 are going to be the usual first-used desktops by most converts. This is important for those who care about making Linux a more "popular" desktop for the general populous. We should always try to encourage this type of activity, because it inspires choice.
After a convert learns about all the features, and shortcomings of their "starter" environment, they will inevitably change something, or just find something they like more.
Without a "starter" type desktop though, they wouldn't be as encouraged to find something they like more, thus stifling the overall acceptance of Linux as a general purpose desktop.
We should always try to change the negative to be positive, if it is possible. A good Linux desktop, which wins converts from Windows, will increase the popularity of Linux, thus increasing the acceptance of OpenSource software, thus increasing how much people rely on OSS, and then people will care more about it than they previously had. At least a little.
It's a chain of events that will lead more use of OSS software in general, and something we should continue to help the growth of. Not say "why the hell would anyone use that shit? I use WindowMaker and it's just fine!". Maybe once those converts are on Linux for a while, they may agree. Give'm the opportunity.
There was a remake of "aGrandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer" where grandma was replaced with Santa.
:) How else do they make their FHV?(see Enron's CEO skit)
And for the RIAA, it is "Santa Clause."
From: Santa
I hope this little award shows just how much very you're appreciated. Merry Christmas and have a happy New Year.
Santa Clause
P.S. I still haven't seen any royalty checks for "Santa Got Run Over By a Reindeer."
Rather than just a boycott, a boycott with a letter writing campagin to as many of the "pop-artists" as possible to let them know why as well. The main point there is that just like you write to your congress/senate persons, they are in a sort of way, senate/congress persons to the RIAA. Actually, write your favorite artist's label as well. (send multiple coppies of the same letter, one to the artist, and one to their label), so they know why.
We, the little people as it were, can only do so much. If those we enjoy/support, etc, realized how much more they are really appreciated, and how much less they'd have to give to RIAA, regardless of the recently announced "royalty payment process overhaul", by directly marketing to the masses, I think this level of organized boycott would be well heard.
The whole idea, is to have as much understanding on both sides of the RIAA Curtain as possible. Just because the artists may not directly get the letters, if enough people do this, they *will* get the *message*. Just as we would like to directly be able to buy music from our favorite artists, bypassing the RIAA since they're no longer really necessary, the communication channels need to be opened that way as well.
In a world where people are packaged, sold, and bought over and over, I'm sure artists feel left out in a way they can't understand, or are unwilling to discuss without fear of losing a label, etc.
Maybe the boycott is really "Recording Artists Appreciation Day?"
An aspect, which I'm sure has been tossed around, is that the GPL won't let those involved "lose" their intellectual property, it will only strengthen it. The free support of the community, for something which is useful, can far outweigh the risks of going GPL. Though, I should point out, that GPL isn't the ONLY good open license. I particularly like the BSD license when dealing with "for profit" software. Take the Apache Foundation for example. Most of their software, all?, is BSD style licensed. Covalent is a company which makes money from that licensing. So, as you can see, it is worth while opening up the source, just a manner of deciding what you want people to do with it. For profit, BSD, for anything, GPL. The end result, IMHO, is that they won't have to waste time and money with cease and desist orders, if they use BSD licensing. It's a more clear avenue for business uses, where drivers are concerned. Drivers and other modular pieces of software which enable devices hold a special kind of importance for companies. Almost a "trade secret" mentality. Problem is, they're usually written to a specification which people can pay for, license, etc, and then build their own anyway. Hope you got something out of this.
This is only one part of the rememdy, but not the whole cure. Just FYI.
--SuperBug
So it should be relatively easy to get the source and start a new project, right?
It is a bit difficult to get working, but it is "strong", centralized, password and user management.
The only thing I've found missing from kerberos, is simplified high-level documentation in a cook-book format for different ways of implementing and administering the KDC and the realms.
Fortunately I'm working on such documentation, and it may become part of the FAQ. After I make some adjustments, maybe it will.
He couldn't have just brokent the law since backups are allowed under fair use.
My initial thought is, their strategy should be:
.NET.
1. Just go away and leave the tech scene alone forever.
That won't really work, mainly because their like the kid that won't leave his scraped knee alone: "keep touching it till it hurts to see how much he can take, till it gets infected, then he's sorry."
2. Stop "pretending" to be giving source code to the masses, and just do it. Even go so far as to fully disclose all source, in it's ugly tainted forms, and just do it, It CAN be BSD licensed. OpenSource is about trust, the more they keep pretending to give it away, the more people will feel made fun of, or patronized. I for one, don't like a company to patronize my beliefs of trust, good will, and open communication.
3. If they can't stop pretending, they can stop whining about how releasing their code will destroy the company, blah blah blah, and just *conform* to RFCs with NO extra things so as to break other people's technology, AND the RFCs.
Perhaps they should actually USE MORE OpenSource software, admit to it, and let people HELP them make a good OS Shell and underlying bits. How great would that be for them if they got FREE help. There are plenty of windows programmers out there already who release stuff under gpl, bsd license, etc. If MS would use more cross-platform and compliant standards, not MS standards, RFC, totally non-MS, compliant standards, to do all the things they want to do, and allow people to help them develop MS Windows(tm) without having to give away their right to look, hear, see, touch, feel, barter, etc, their code, as it is with
.NET should be the "Code Motel"
"Your code goes in, but it can't come out! Kills your code branch, Dead!"
Come ON MS. Stop patronizing intelligent people and actually DO what THEY want, and not TELL them what they want.
That would be because you're trying to issue cookies, or have third-party cookies getting issued for some reason. Either that or you are using "unsatisfactory" cookies.
Either way, ONLY IN THE MEDIUM or MEDIUM-HIGH PRIVACY SETTINGS, should you NOT be flagging IE 6.0 if all you do is issue "first-party" cookies.
To actually implement P3P, you only need mod_headers when using apache. There is no magic here, it's only a damn header + two XML files, at it's most basic.
At it's most basic P3P just a header being looked at by a http user agent which has a P3P agent built in. I believe to date it's only I.E. 6.0. Though Mozilla, Opera, Galeon, and Konquerer are sure to follow.
Many aspects of P3P are positive, but there are parts of the specification which have yet to be properly determined and implemented, in a real-world environment.
The main parts affected would be any "Third-party" though any "First-party" running a site and issuing cookies of any unacceptable fashion, mainly things which are PII related and cannot be opted out of, will be flagged.
. In short, be sure you have an opt-out mechanism for your shoppers if you're an e-commerce site.
Also, any "Third-party" acting as an "Agent" on behalf of any "First-party" which is issuing cookies or collecting data, regardless if PII is involved. The spec for being a "Third-party Agent" has yet to actually be implemented by anyone, though I know some people who will try this soon. Up to this point, the view of "Third-party Agent" is quite desireable to anyone on the 'net who operates in such a manner. It nearly absolves them of "having" to deal with any consumer related issues regarding their data collection because you can point people back to the "First-party's" P3P policy, rather than having to maintain your own.
The obvious problem here though, is scalability and maintainability. It's tantamount to remote key-managment. You must then manage your "First-party" client's P3P Policies and keep in contact/communication with them to ensure that any changes are propagated to you, should it change, yet you continue to serve an *out of date* P3P Compact Policy in the web server's headers for that client, you very well could be blamed for screwing the data they hired you to collect for them in a very bad way.
Aside from that, P3P is a very positive thing for consumers and business persons in such a way that it opens a channel of communication which did not exist so much in the foreground, as P3P enables, before. Hope this is useful to anyone trying to understand some of what P3P really is.
Sun tried to do all this type of stuff with thin clients about 8 years ago. The idea was, and still is, though SUN doesn't understand why they failed so long ago, that the internet will eventually be "My Network". So, Sun made this logo "The network is the computer."
Now that so many people are into "Grid computing" and the like, web-services are just the beginning. Sun had the right idea with their java stations so long ago, but they were trying to force the change, and be the ones to make the money, rather than just let it happen natrually, and be more of a benefactor/enabler.
You can say It's the MS way of thinking..but it's not..MS is just "embracing/extending" a way of thinking, probably so they can say they invented it too.
Before sun thought of it though..Larry Ellison, from Oracle corp was actually saying it first. SO it's really the Oracle way of thinking if you want to say who's thinking it is!
MusicCity's prior practices have set precedent for the way they will handle their code. They make the gnucleus source available, but not the morpheus source available it seems.
That said, there is no actual source being posted, which constitutes the derivative work based from gnucleus.
That's what it looks like so far after reviewing the source linked to on their site.
That is not the most recent source, which is WHY this story came out.
Nahhh..the OS only costs like a hundred bucks or so, I'd much rather pay that then the >150+ pricetag of MicroCrasht. Of course with just Linux or a PPC port of FreeBSD or something, I could pay absolutely nothing. If they just gave everyone the WM stuff they've got, even for sale, then people would use it.
:)
Perhaps one thing Apple and Steve have been avoiding is "breaking" up all the different pieces of MacOS so they can run on something *not* proprietary to Apple.
If they did that, they could segment their stuff and penetrate many different markets while *still* holding on to the "MAC experience" they provide with the HW/SW integration they already do.
That said, those who purchased Mac HW, preloaded with MacOS and SW would be the first to feel the improvements, with ports going to the other platforms, later. You could even do a WM or accellerated X server for AIX, Linux, BSD, Solaris, etc. that people would buy, cause it's so freaking slick!
Just a thought or two.
...is to get rid of that crappy make system.*_O
I wonder if there is still a problem with rt_sigsuspend tho?
Think of it on a more intelligent scale. Those companies who do business on the web, that take data from you, me or anyone else, for that matter, on our buying or browsing habits. (whether you *like* it or not, it happens, even at the site you visit directly if you buy something, that has no third-party web-bugs, etc)
/. community or OSS community, don't like spam, etc. If it's a genuine *DEAL* though, we're all over it. The genuine deals then, will be harder to get if everyong is required to be opted-in, just to get them, where the default is everyone is opted-out, that will hurt "honest" eCRM/data-mining companies quite a bit.
They will be negatively affected. The outcome is that companies who do NOT re-sell your data, but are custodians of that data for their clients' directly. So only the person who is buying the service from said company is looking at that data, not even talking credit card info here, will NOT have accurate numbers to base their own sales promotions for their own sites, etc.
People like to shop. People also like to get deals. Most of us in the
--The GrandMaster
If you like choice so much, then understand that this is JUST another CHOICE. You've already chosen not to use this it sounds like to me, so there. You're done. Please move on.
You dolt! It's the format that's portable, not the package itself. This was created so you can create packages of the same type using the same package management SOURCE on any platform. Not to mention, source packages could definitely be portable as long as the software being packaged had all that was needed for other OSes. It's not trying to do something magical, just practical.