It would seem that Apple (which in spite of some good recent years is still none too rich) woud be more likely to liscence than buy, especially since I don't think 3com would want to part with a very sucessful division.
MS ported IE to Unix a while back (SunOS at least) so it shouldn't be to difficult for them to port it to linux. Actually I'm suprised they haven't done this before they tackle Office, IE would be an easier port.
I believe taht Object-only files can be added to the kernel under certain circumstances, as long as they don't require changes to other parts of the kernel (I think this is for device drivers) I am unfamiliar with exactly when and where this can happen. Does anyone more familiar with the technical aspects know if this could be used by MS to skew their performance?
Fine, so the Apple liscence isn't 100% pure Open-source-free-as-in-free-speech, but should we be criticizing a company that is opening its code up? Sure ideally it would be nice to have it all GPL'd, but isn't this better than what we had? What does it serve to condemn apple for taking a step in the right direction. And I know that this will certainly help groups like LinuxPPC open up the Mac platform to other OSes.
technologies fail, that doesn't mean that apple is always to balme for not supporting them. Apple also was the company which said go forth and develop GUI and multimedia and user-friendly applications. And the masses did and virtually every desktop spends most of its time with windows and pulldown menues.
aren't these the people who don't allow third party vendors to clone their machines? Did I miss when they started publishing the secritive hardware specs for the macintrash?
different companies publish different things. Intel doesn't release the schematics for the PIII, or Motorolla for the G3, or Ford for the Mustang or Gillett for its latest razor because their competitive advantage is that they have this information and others don't. IBM didn't WANT clones, they just couldn't stop them. Criticizing apple for not giving away all their specs is misunderstanding that Apple is at heart a hardware company who doesn't want to surrender their main source of income - their hardware.
how do you mean "let him do it"? is MS ported Office, and released it, how could we stop them? We could not buy it, but there are many who would just because they need to open Office docs or need it to exist in an MS-shop office.
Slashdot Mirror
the x11perf
It would seem that Apple (which in spite of some good recent years is still none too rich) woud be more likely to liscence than buy, especially since I don't think 3com would want to part with a very sucessful division.
MS ported IE to Unix a while back (SunOS at least) so it shouldn't be to difficult for them to port it to linux. Actually I'm suprised they haven't done this before they tackle Office, IE would be an easier port.
I believe taht Object-only files can be added to the kernel under certain circumstances, as long as they don't require changes to other parts of the kernel (I think this is for device drivers) I am unfamiliar with exactly when and where this can happen. Does anyone more familiar with the technical aspects know if this could be used by MS to skew their performance?
Fine, so the Apple liscence isn't 100% pure Open-source-free-as-in-free-speech, but should we be criticizing a company that is opening its code up? Sure ideally it would be nice to have it all GPL'd, but isn't this better than what we had? What does it serve to condemn apple for taking a step in the right direction. And I know that this will certainly help groups like LinuxPPC open up the Mac platform to other OSes.
technologies fail, that doesn't mean that apple is always to balme for not supporting them. Apple also was the company which said go forth and develop GUI and multimedia and user-friendly applications. And the masses did and virtually every desktop spends most of its time with windows and pulldown menues.
aren't these the people who don't allow third party vendors to clone their machines? Did I miss when they started publishing the secritive hardware specs for the macintrash?
different companies publish different things. Intel doesn't release the schematics for the PIII, or Motorolla for the G3, or Ford for the Mustang or Gillett for its latest razor because their competitive advantage is that they have this information and others don't. IBM didn't WANT clones, they just couldn't stop them. Criticizing apple for not giving away all their specs is misunderstanding that Apple is at heart a hardware company who doesn't want to surrender their main source of income - their hardware.
how do you mean "let him do it"? is MS ported Office, and released it, how could we stop them? We could not buy it, but there are many who would just because they need to open Office docs or need it to exist in an MS-shop office.