Someone provides a machine on the Internet that contains an up-to-date branch, you can get access fairly easily because it is not official and is far from critical. You merge your changes with the branch and get some peer review by the other guys using the machine. If everyone's happy, you set a tag and notify Linus & co. They review your changes and merge them with the main repository if they like them.
This could lead to a new phenomenom: Linux-clans. Groups of programmers that share a branch and review & test each others work. This could make life a lot easier for the maintainers of various pieces of Linux. Programmers could even mature to a server with a higher status. A very good programmer gets access to an 'elite'-branch, which is heavily monitored by the maintainers. Those on an 'apprentice'-branch would have to get their baseline approved by an elite-programmer before a maintainer is notified.
This sounds extremely useful to me, far better than mailing your rough changes. In my scenario, Linus & co do scale. They don't have to scour the mailing list for patches, but can depend on requests from the elite's. Every request has been reviewed by a good programmer and is thus far more likely to be useful and integrated easily.
Even the BSD licence is restrictive in the fact that people who use the code have to credit the author.
In the new BSD-license you only have to credit the author in the license that you must distribute with binary versions. There is no obligation to credit the author anywhere else.
The old one that forces you to credit the author in the docs, marketing materials, etc is obsolete and should not be used.
Most people choose BSD over PD because of two reasons. It's:
1. A nice standardized lawyer-approved notice to state that you can't be sued. This is especially important if you live in the US.
2. A known license that represents total freedom (in people's mind) and has stature. PD sounds like bad, unsupported code.
Stop arguing about licence "freedom" - it doesn't exist.
I do believe that BSD is a license that is almost entirely free. It doesn't really force you to do anything. It only clearly states the things that you shouldn't expect (and thus may not sue over).
>If a company wants to use your XML-library to built a big app (far beyond your code), why should they be disallowed to do so?
Because you wrote it, and you have just as much right to forbid them from selling your product as they do to forbid you from stealing a copy of theirs.
True, but there is a difference between having a right and being right in using it. I believe that if you put your time in (quality) open source products, you will get repaid by companies. They will put effort in open source software themselves. You will profit from that. Ultimately it's a matter of trust, I trust these companies to do the right thing. AFAIK just about every company that has taken from open source has tried to give something back. If you don't allow them to take, they won't give anything back.
Ah, but with a free (lowercase) license you have relinquished control of the source to the point where you can't even be sure that they haven't completely screwed it up. You can't see what they've done to your code.
Free Software isn't your code anymore, people can screw it up still. You can only take a look at it and weep, but you cannot prevent them from screwing up. Keep the source closed if you're paranoid, that way nobody will touch your preciouss code (that is not a typo). If you decide to trust people with your code, why not trust them to decide what code is useful for others and should be integrated in the main codebase.
This is just false. What's preventing them? They can compile AGAINST the libraries no problem, they just can't distribute modified versions of the code or it's products. But they're writing a new app so this does nothing to them.
Currently not that much. But if the infrastructure becomes GPL, companies are forced to make their code GPL as well (or rewrite the entire infrastructure). This would be the case if there was no commercial license of QT for instance. For me the infrastructure is a fundamental basis of computer science that should be available to everyone, for every use.
No, the reason is to prevent a proprietary vendor from taking my code, adding 1% added value and selling it back to me. With GPL I get that 1% in exchange for giving them the 99%.
No, if that were your goal, you would choose LGPL. That will achieve this almost perfectly. You also musn't forget the forces that oppose such a move:
1. The new product is no longer free.
2. It is no longer open source.
3. The fork is very costly to maintain.
4. The main codebase has a reputation.
5. Taking code without giving back doesn't help your reputation.
6. Who will pay for your 1% addition? Won't the main codebase seek to copy your innovations if they are useful to many?
These are very potent forces. How many BSD-products have been abused?
Ergo, GPL is usually not needed. If you consider the problems and limitations of GPL, it seems that one should try to avoid it. Certainly for infrastructure software.
The GPL simply allows programmers to protect their work in exactly the way the previous poster indicated.
I never disputed that. My argument was that the IT infrastructure should be available for commercial use as well. I also tried to show that you often do not need GPL to achieve a decent protection of your work.
The bios is Open Firmware, an open standard (IEEE 1275). It works with Sparc, ARM and PPC. I assume that these guys will also use it (it's use with the PPC is well described).
I think you mean the ROM, which was moved to RAM when clones were allowed. This post goes into more detail on that: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=27009&cid=2914 246
In short, it might actually work (theoretically). But there probably will be issues with drivers.
What are some examples of companies investing a significant amount of money in a BSD project?
Apple brought us Darwin (and are paying Hubbard's salary to get their changes back into the FreeBSD sourcebase). They also have open sourced their Quicktime Streaming Server with a non-copyleft license.
IBM created the predecessor to Xerces and gave it away. They have also contributed to the Jakarta project and a lot of other open source projects. Furthermore they created the only decent open source Java compiler: Jikes. The IBM Public License it falls under is BSD-like.
Lotus contributed the basis for Xalan.
Sun open sourced Tomcat and Ant.
A load of companies have contributed to Apache (the Apache license is BSD-like, BTW).
Same for XFree (based on the MIT-license, which is almost the same as BSD).
This is only the tip of the iceberg of course, but I shan't spend all day searching the web. A lot of company resources are spend on lesser known software or spend by lesser known companies. Furthermore, many contributions are small bugfixes or additions. The total of these is a substantial (in man-hours) and important contribution to open source products. Apache wouldn't be as stable and full-featured without the contributions by many companies. But we are just at the beginning of open source, many more enterprises will look beyond the hype and see the real value of opening up the source.
That is, if they don't get put off by RMS & co. ESR is doing the right thing with opensource.org (and his involvement with Mozilla) to work together with companies and solve their problems. Thus we end up with the famous "win-win situation"(tm). Companies can lower their expenses and we will have open source software. That is far better than the "I want open source at all cost, screw companies and their developers"-attitude of RMS. That may appeal to students and professors, but it will not convince managers and developers who do not believe in free money (the ones that didn't switch to a.com and thus still have a job).
But, the GPL itself is not viral beyond code already under the GPL.
That was his point wasn't it? GPL'ed code can never become part of a (partly) closed sourced solution (well, there are some loopholes, but basically this is correct) or even a non-GPL open source product. Those are some serious limitations, I think you need a really good reason to license code that way.
If I decide to release code as Free Software, with no real expectation to make money off of it or whatever, then I expect others that want to build on it or redistribute it to give others the same benefits that I've given them. That's the price for using GPL'ed code.
You may hold this reasoning for applications, but I don't believe that architecture code should be restricted to disallow commercial use. If a company wants to use your XML-library to built a big app (far beyond your code), why should they be disallowed to do so? Is it not the ultimate compliment to you and an excellent way to spread good code/standards? Similarly, why should application developers be barred from creating commercial apps for Linux or KDE? The only reason seems a hatred of commercial developers, protecting your code from abuse and hidden extensions can be achieved with LGPL.
I don't mind if programmers use LGPL so additions/changes to your code become public again. Asking a price for commercial use (dual GPL/commercial) may also be acceptable although it can hurt small (shareware) developers.
I believe that open source is one of the most potent forms of cooperation. Some companies are starting to get this (Apple, IBM, Netscape). They understand that their infrastructure is not a strategic advantage and open source is an excellent way to reduce costs by sharing code. 'Stealing' code from an open source project is the most stupid decision in this case. Forking is a huge waste of recources, you want your changes back in the main CVS to reduce the cost of merges as much as possible. This argument is the reason I like BSD-like licenses so much, they give up almost all restrictions, allowing managers to experience the benefits of open source and giving them the freedom to learn about the best way to leverage it. They will start to contribute, it's just the most logical thing to do. And if a company does decide to extend the software and keep the changes hidden, the open source project can copy the new features. If they are unable/unwilling to do so, the company clearly has provided a useful product that goes beyond the open source version. This does not hurt the open source project, but does increase "overall happiness" as there is more choice.
This scenario, where companies are a big force in open source and many open source developers will actually get paid, will not happen with GPL. It (rightfully IMO) scares the shit out of managers. They will just keep their programmers on closed sourced projects, instead of assigning them to open source work. Guess who wins here (acronym, starts with a M and ends with an S)?
Microsoft stands to gain the most from this. Now they can write closed libraries and charge for them.
Of course they will do so (for extra services probably). But that will certainly not depend on the BSD-style license of Mono. At most a GPL license can make Mono no longer an option. But do you really believe that MS would change their ways to cater to the few Mono-dev'ers (which will probably be far, far fewer than.NET-developers)?
Personally I believe that we should forgo both.NET and Mono. MS will use.NET in illegal ways to further their monopoly, that is their way. A less-capable Mono will just draw people into the Web (you advocate Mono,.NET can do more, the company you work for decides to switch to.NET, bingo).
I must say that Apple hardware generally can be used a long time, I have been using a G3 for four years now and I used a SE/30 for 9 years. I rebuilt my PC's every two years.
You shouldn't fear about the iMac becoming obsolete to soon, Apple has a 7 month upgrade cycle (roughly). The first few upgrades after a new form factor is just about always small upgrades, 18.1" LCD is totally unrealistic for another three years. So just buy the iMac, don't wait 6 months and be pissed because they upgrade it with USB 2 & Firewire 2 a month later.
So just because they have high profit margins doesn't mean they're where they want to be. growing is better than shrinking, no?
That depends, in a recession it may be better to shrink a bit and still make a profit. Dumping machines is an alternative, but will eat into your savings. It might be better to wait out the storm in comfort while your competitors fade away (gateway+compaq). I believe that Apple is being smart by keeping R&D at full speed so they can take full advantage of the post-depression upbeat.
It's also a bit unfair to compare a booming year with a year in recession. I think that most other companies have a similar loss in revenues (except EBay;) ).
they have never revolutionized the way PCs are sold.
Well, they are changing the PC from a solitairy device to a digital hub. This is changing the reason people are buying computers, the few people who buy a Mac to use the iPod are an example of this (extreme examples, but still). The computer seamlessly works with your iPod, digital camera, videocamera and DVD-player. You get excellent applications for free. More and more people are buying a Mac for one of these killer apps (or the combo).
I do consider this a different way to sell computers (compared to the megahertz-mania that is starting to lose it's magic), but you may be expecting something else (a PC with a box o' cereal perhaps). Do you really know what you want?
Why didn't apple become a bigger player in the server market? Why didn't they ever make a scalable web server? (please don't refute this by pointing to problems in IIS. I'm not a Microsoft ditto-head).
I guess that A/UX didn't work out that well for them;) The classic MacOS is not exactly a server OS, so what should they have stormed the market with?
They are currently working on OS X Server. It's not yet ready for prime time I hear, but it is gearing up. Now if Apple would just start to document the updates so we would know what is fixed/may break, but I digress. I expect them to start promoting a good low-end server solution and slowly going towards the high-end, seeing how far they can go. But I don't expect them to be competing with Sun's and other high-end servers any time soon.
PS. There already was a decent web-server for OS 9, WebStar. Very safe, but not that fast (mostly due to the lack of a multithreaded FS). But under OS X, I would rather use Apache. Safe, fast, easy to extend, lots of stuff available for it, many know it, etc. Apple should focus on making a good interface for it (and for sendmail, etc, etc) and not try to reinvent the wheel.
I think that they currently have a very good business-strategy for a niche-player. The Apple Store is especially a good idea. Apple's products have always been products that look best in real life (most people are sold on the iPod when they use it and find out how easy and small it really is, for instance). Retail stores like CompUSA have always been extremely bad about this (turning off macs and steering those interested in a Mac towards a PC). Up to the point where Apple had to put their own salesmen in the stores. Once you do that, why not go the whole way and create your own store. This also has the big advantage that Mac-users can get software and peripherals that certainly work on a Mac. In a PC-store it's always hunting for the specs.
Remember what I said: competitors like Gateway cannot afford this as they have too little too differentiate themselves from others. They have to compete with every clone-builder that has a store. Apple stores pull in people from many miles away (and do very well).
To go over your other points:
- Apple had a business strategy in the early 90's (try too look business-like, downplay games so Macs are not called toy computers). This resulted in the famous: "You'll be dead next year"-reporting that lasted for some 8 years (and still crops up regularly).
- Apple does have a web strategy. The online Apple store is very succesful. You might also remember iTools services. iPhoto can easily put a page with your photo's on the Internet.
- I think it's very wise to aim for the substantial graphic design market. These guys buy the fastest, most easy to use machines. Apple is now extending the reach to movie editors. Final Cut Pro 3 with real-time rendering is a killer. Besides, I don't believe they are really limiting themselves in other respects by catering to these groups of users. iDVD would not be possible without Altivec (the best implementation of vector computations, somewhat similar to MMX/SSE), which was initially meant for graphic and video designers.
- Schools will mostly buy the cheapest machines. Apple has always had the good strategy selling cheap there (currently having the $799 iMacs and the iBook).
- Ending the licensing was a good move. The licencees were cannibalizing the high-end of the market. Apple might have been MS if they had licensed the OS earlier, but even IBM didn't see the potential of that at the time. Did you think of that before MS became succesful selling DOS?
Your last statement is reeking of troll. Does Firewire get wasted? Does the breakthrough of USB get wasted? Does 802.11 get wasted (I absolutely love having a cheap 802.11 option for my future PowerMac G5)? Furthermore, Xerox got 100's of millions of Apple's stock to let Steve in on their stuff. Hardly a steal (pun intended).
Currently there are only two large computer-sellers that make a profit, Dell and Apple. I'm sure that with you at the helm they would not be able to boast about that. I doubt you even know that Apple has the lowest inventory in the industry, a clear business-innovation (saving a lot of money and allowing for a quick transition to new systems).
PS. What is not innovative about a consumer-machine that brings DVD-creation to the masses and has an extremely clean exclosure (even if you hate it, I think you must admit it's minimalistic and yet very usable.)
I think iTunes is pretty sweet, especially when compared to what the PC has to offer.
And that's exactly what Apple wants you to think. Buy a Mac and be happy;)
isn't software inherently more profitable?
No, not by definition. You can make a handsome profit if people buy your higher-end machines and you can keep a decent margin. Apple has always been able to achieve that because they innovated. A clone-builder like Dell can't go too high in the price as there is little to differentiate them from their competitors. Competing by price is the least desirable way to do business (as is told in MBA-courses).
Personally I don't think the extra cost for Macs is wrong as the TCO isn't that bad. A mac will cost far less to maintain and is more productive for many. I have spend far more time fixing PC's and cursing at blue screens than with a Mac. Gartner has a study on this BTW.
Because iTunes and the other iApplication are part of a strategy to make the Mac a much better computer. A task-oriented computer that comes with great, free software and puts a PC to shame.
I don't think the $25 price they could ask for iTunes would compensate for the lost sales of hardware. In fact, I know it won't. Most PC-users would just copy it illegally. Besides, I have never heard of an MP3-player (in software) that made any serious money.
PS. No, it wouldn't be easy to port. The software is heavily tuned for MacOS.
Apple claims it sold 100,000 iPods in two months. I'm skeptical, but assume that's correct. That means a PC-compatible version could have sold a million.
I can remember Steve Jobs saying that they just couldn't produce any more. So no, Apple wouldn't have been able to sell much more of them. I don't even know if enough Toshiba 1.8" drives are available (that's not exactly standard technology you can get from everyone).
Considering the limited supply, does it not make sense to cater to your userbase and especially new converts? Especially when this can get some people to buy a new Mac (sooner). Besides, many Windows-users seem to get along fine with XPlay (reading a few posts here). Apple might sell the device for Windows in the future, probably just a bundle with XPlay. But I wouldn't count on it, it flies in the face of the digital hub strategy.
Re:Unfortunately, an end to wars
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 1
I personally dont give a rat's arse about the morality of the situation, but if the Palestinians really want the United States to stop supporting Israel, they need to do something that Americans can identify with. Strapping 20 pounds of C4 to your chest and walking into a crowded disco full of teenagers before detonating youself is most definitely not something that Americans can identify with. In fact, most Americans are horrified by such an act and would much rather see the folks doing such things stamped out of existance than support them.
Perhaps this is an affront to you, but is a country that goes about torturing people, killing innocents (like the father and kid that were shot when they tried to hide themselves after they accidentily got into a cross-fire) and/or people without trial and taking down houses of innocents any better?
The difference is that the Palestinians + Arabian Israelies are treated like shit (as any independent observer will attest), the violence committed by Palestinians is for the good part not organized by their government and is certainly substantially less, the Palestinian economy is being mangled by Israel (do you believe the US is in a depression, think again) and Palestinians were deported by Israel. Futhermore there are big problems with the water supply, not only are some Palestinians not connected to running water, the infrastructure is lacking to bring water to the Palestinians and the division of water is extremely unfair. Lastly and most importantly Israel is shielded from the UN resolutions by the US veto and their support.
Without support of the US, Israel would have surely been subjected to sanctions (just like South-Africa in the past). This might have forced Israel to actually comply to the resolutions and take note of human rights. Which in turn would probably have reduced the violence in Israel and might even have resulted in peace.
I'm offended that you believe that 'your' one-sided support of a party that is involved in many severe crimes (against humanity) is justified unless the small percentage of Palestinians that commit horrendous crimes stop. I suppose that you believe a police state is also legit if there are a few criminals among us. Personally I don't believe that the innocent should be a victim of the criminals among their group.
The mouse had only one mistake originally, it lacked a way to orient it. This was later fixed (a small indent on the button).
Once you've used it for a while, most people seem to like it:
At the risk of incurring the wrath of the group, I have to say I actually rather like the round mice.
At first I hated them, like everyone else seems to. But after a while, I stopped getting the thing the wrong way up and watching the pointer go the wrong way, and I became pretty neutral.
After a few more months, I noticed I was finding the round mice much more comfortable to work with. I'm not sure why - I think the small size gives me more room to move the mouse up and down with my fingertips, without bumping into my palm or losing touch with the buttons. Anyway, I'm not looking back now - it's round mice for me. Post by Malcolm Cleaton
Those who argue that the round mouse is probably very uncomfortable for experienced mouse users are probably correct. I found it quite horrid for the first 2 to 4 weeks.
But now, it's *great* to use. Those who argue that it simply isn't ergonomic and is therefore completely unfit for use as a mouse are wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Having persevered, I find this the most comfortable and easy to use mouse I've ever used. It's different - but better. It provides effortless fingertip control of the pointer. I use it for hours and hours on end and love it.
Perhaps I wouldn't have come to enjoy the earlier variety - the type without the subtle but completely effective button indent (for orientation) at the top - with it, this USB puck is a delight. Post by Bahi Para
I was a critic also once (without having used it). But I'm convinced now. Also by the fact that there has been research which shows a round mouse to be optimal.
No, you can buy Sorenson Developer Version seperately, so Apple does not 'own' the codec or the company. The exclusive license to bundle the light version is Apple's and Sorenson's right, they have no obligation to you (or the users of *BSD, QNX, Solaris, etc).
Ultimately it's the content-providers fault for using a proprietary codec, just like I blame the DVD-manufacturers for supporting WMP-shit and not Divx 4. M$ is only to blame if they used their monopoly powers, I don't know about that. But you just can't blame the creator of a closed, proprietary codec if others use it, it's still a free world. And you can't blame them for not porting their codec at a loss.
Alternatively you could give Apple and Sorenson a reason to allow/create a Linux Sorenson codec (with or without an official Quicktime player). This would probably involve money: come up with a plan that will make money for Apple/Sorenson. I doubt you can, so stop whining about it already. Go to plan B, a free, good codec that is used to create content. Quicktime might be a good architecture to achieve this with as it is extremely powerful and fully specified. Plus, you get a free, open-source Quicktime Streaming Server already.
BTW, the Sorenson-codec is not a part of Quicktime any more than a Zip-device driver is part of a device driver architecture. Quicktime is an architecture that accepts many plug-ins, Sorenson is just one of them(which conveniently is bundled with Apple's Quicktime implementation, like a dozen others).
Linux-lusers: "Company x should spend $$$ making a free product for Linux. Whine at company x, whine, whine, whine."
Linux-geeks: "I'll create a free and better alternative."
Sigh, Quicktime is fully open (not the source, but it is fully standardized). You can build your own version. In fact, a few open source projects are under way. This only leaves sorenson as a barrier for Linux, which:
1. Is not owned by Apple.
2. Doesn't have to be used. Blame the content-providers for not using an alternative (or the open-source community for not providing a free codec that is a good alternative).
No way you can blame Apple that the content-providers are using a proprietary, closed codec when Quicktime is an open architecture that can easily accomodate new codecs. Why don't you provide and ask content-provider to use a good cross-platform alternative (perhaps Divx 4). This will solve the entire problem.
What about technology that a company wants to use in their software? It's not just that a company cannot hijack a product, GPL'ed software effectively cannot be incorporated in any commercial product they make. For most companies that means that they can't use the software/technology.
This does shut out perfectly good uses. For instance: TCP/IP would probably not be used as much if the BSD-code would not have existed, but instead GPL would have been used. Or some XML-architecture stuff, why would companies not be able to use it? Why should companies not be allowed to build on work of others? Do you hate them? Do you hate progress?
And why is this so important? For the famous hijacking that rarely happens? One of the few famous hijacks is the use of BSD-TCP/IP in Linux. How much code did Linux hijack from BSD without the latter being able to take anything back? Another famous hijack is the use of BSD-TCP/IP in Windows. Finally Windows was a good netizen and this was the basis for the boom of the Internet. Anything wrong with these things? All in all I think you are just selfish, you want companies to pay for something that they can't use.
Does that mean, if Britain likes, they could simply attack the US with the approval of the government (in Canada)? Yeah, that's kinda stretching it, but it's still scary to think of the limitless ways a country would feel justified in attacking another (Soviet Union reclaiming Germany for East Germany, France and England for each other, et cetera).
The UN has rules and regulations. Ultimately there is nothing a country can't decide to do. But if Iraq would decide to attack Israel with a nuclear or chemical missile, the UN may condemn it and condone military intervention by the US (for instance). This keeps Iraq from doing these things.
Ultimately I believe we need the UN as a 'world-government' to protect the rights of countries and individuals worldwide, without regard to military strength. This is difficult to achieve as many countries have different concerns and often act irrationally (Missile Defense System as a good example) and selfishly (Kyoto).
Unfortunately the US is one of the countries that consistently try to weaken international coorporation (by first weakening treaties and then not signing them). In this regard it is in the company of Iraq, N-Korea and a few other undemocratic countries. Many people outside of the US believe that the USA is extremely selfish and abusive of it's powers. That's why one of the reactions to the 11th was a hope that it would open your eyes (apart from the deepfelt sorrow). Unfortunately little has come of this, most Americans are absolutely determined to view all criticism as anti-american and being based on envy. And most Americans view the suffering of others on this world as not their problem. But 'you' can't keep this isolationist attitude if people take their problems to the US. Unfortunately your politicians have chosen a police state to 'solve' the problem of terrorism. It seems a better solution to me to eradicate terrorism by taking away the anger that people feel.
As for not recognizing the Taliban, then who did the Bush Administration deal with to halt/curb heroin production in Afghanistan?
You can always talk with a bunch of criminals who are in power.
The US never accepted the Taleban as the official government of Afghanistan. Attacking them is thus not a war. It's more like an operation against criminals in foreign territory, with the approval of the government (the Northern Alliance in this case).
Personally I would rather have that you would get upset about the stranglehold the US is placing on the International Court of Justice. In this way you abandon every man locked up for political reasons, every woman being raped and tortured and every victim of genocide. Why? Because American soldiers may be tried. Americans that commit crimes against humanity could be tried the same as every other criminal. Isn't that bad?
Well, sorry for the rant. But it's pretty undemocratic when one country tries to force it's will on the many countries who do support the ICJ (by taking on laws that allow the US to 'liberate' people that are charged with crimes and disallowing aid to countries who support the ICJ). How upset would you be if one man-one vote would be abandoned and wealthy companies could buy political support (a similar form of using 'force' to achieve your goals). Ehhh, nevermind.
Carbon is not hard to port to. Basically you recompile for the new API and fix all the errors. This is mostly gruntwork, replace oldCall(a,b) with newCall(c,d,e). It's only difficult if your application is a horrible mess already or if you loved to 'hack'. A well-programmed app is fairly easy to port.
PS. I don't get all this whining about Office. It's not like many linux-users would actually buy it, Loki clearly shows how viable it is to sell commercial software for linux. You can make more money by selling icecream to eskimo's.
But, starting with Mac OS 7.0, which existed at the same time as DOS 5 and Win 3.1, files on the desktop were placed in a hidden "desktop" folder within the startup drive.
That's not true. Every drive contains a desktop folder. The files from the mounted folders are added to your desktop when drives mount (and removed at unmount). Moving a file to the desktop from a drive other than the startup drive won't copy it, what it would do in your scenario. This would be very confusing to the user (different behaviour depending on the HD the file is on).
A problem with this is that a user may copy a file to a desktop from a removable drive (not a CD, it's read-only) and expect it to stay there. The file will disappear when you eject the drive.
28 may 2001[...]But there were some cool things about the keynote. One is that Apple has truly come about on the Unix front. There was a time when I had lunch with Jason Thorpe of NetBSD, and we were talking about Apple and NetBSD working together. Jason was very helpful, and NetBSD played a key role in getting the BSD subsystem in Rhapsody (which fed into Darwin/OS X) updated. (That work is by no means complete, but it got a lot better.)[...] Diary + other info on Sanchez
Currently FreeBSD is the BSD reference platform for Darwin (the core of MacOS X).
On the other hand WMP may be claimed to be part of OS and GPL allows linking with OS libraries...
That's an interesting loophole. So M$ can claim that IE is part of the OS and link any GPL-library with it. Doesn't this defeat the protection that many GPL-authors seek from the use of GPL?: "M$ can't take x and use it in their proprietary software"
Is there a clear definition of OS libraries in the GPL? It seems that one can 'pervert' this to mean just about any library that is/can be installed in the system and can be called by applications.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone provides a machine on the Internet that contains an up-to-date branch, you can get access fairly easily because it is not official and is far from critical. You merge your changes with the branch and get some peer review by the other guys using the machine. If everyone's happy, you set a tag and notify Linus & co. They review your changes and merge them with the main repository if they like them.
This could lead to a new phenomenom: Linux-clans. Groups of programmers that share a branch and review & test each others work. This could make life a lot easier for the maintainers of various pieces of Linux. Programmers could even mature to a server with a higher status. A very good programmer gets access to an 'elite'-branch, which is heavily monitored by the maintainers. Those on an 'apprentice'-branch would have to get their baseline approved by an elite-programmer before a maintainer is notified.
This sounds extremely useful to me, far better than mailing your rough changes. In my scenario, Linus & co do scale. They don't have to scour the mailing list for patches, but can depend on requests from the elite's. Every request has been reviewed by a good programmer and is thus far more likely to be useful and integrated easily.
Linux on Intel. This is like Wintel, Windows on Intel.
Of course it makes far more sense to go for Linamd or Winamd, but you can't pronounce that.
Even the BSD licence is restrictive in the fact that people who use the code have to credit the author.
In the new BSD-license you only have to credit the author in the license that you must distribute with binary versions. There is no obligation to credit the author anywhere else.
The old one that forces you to credit the author in the docs, marketing materials, etc is obsolete and should not be used.
Most people choose BSD over PD because of two reasons. It's:
1. A nice standardized lawyer-approved notice to state that you can't be sued. This is especially important if you live in the US.
2. A known license that represents total freedom (in people's mind) and has stature. PD sounds like bad, unsupported code.
Stop arguing about licence "freedom" - it doesn't exist.
I do believe that BSD is a license that is almost entirely free. It doesn't really force you to do anything. It only clearly states the things that you shouldn't expect (and thus may not sue over).
>If a company wants to use your XML-library to built a big app (far beyond your code), why should they be disallowed to do so?
Because you wrote it, and you have just as much right to forbid them from selling your product as they do to forbid you from stealing a copy of theirs.
True, but there is a difference between having a right and being right in using it. I believe that if you put your time in (quality) open source products, you will get repaid by companies. They will put effort in open source software themselves. You will profit from that. Ultimately it's a matter of trust, I trust these companies to do the right thing. AFAIK just about every company that has taken from open source has tried to give something back. If you don't allow them to take, they won't give anything back.
Ah, but with a free (lowercase) license you have relinquished control of the source to the point where you can't even be sure that they haven't completely screwed it up. You can't see what they've done to your code.
Free Software isn't your code anymore, people can screw it up still. You can only take a look at it and weep, but you cannot prevent them from screwing up. Keep the source closed if you're paranoid, that way nobody will touch your preciouss code (that is not a typo). If you decide to trust people with your code, why not trust them to decide what code is useful for others and should be integrated in the main codebase.
This is just false. What's preventing them? They can compile AGAINST the libraries no problem, they just can't distribute modified versions of the code or it's products. But they're writing a new app so this does nothing to them.
Currently not that much. But if the infrastructure becomes GPL, companies are forced to make their code GPL as well (or rewrite the entire infrastructure). This would be the case if there was no commercial license of QT for instance. For me the infrastructure is a fundamental basis of computer science that should be available to everyone, for every use.
No, the reason is to prevent a proprietary vendor from taking my code, adding 1% added value and selling it back to me. With GPL I get that 1% in exchange for giving them the 99%.
No, if that were your goal, you would choose LGPL. That will achieve this almost perfectly. You also musn't forget the forces that oppose such a move:
1. The new product is no longer free.
2. It is no longer open source.
3. The fork is very costly to maintain.
4. The main codebase has a reputation.
5. Taking code without giving back doesn't help your reputation.
6. Who will pay for your 1% addition? Won't the main codebase seek to copy your innovations if they are useful to many?
These are very potent forces. How many BSD-products have been abused?
Ergo, GPL is usually not needed. If you consider the problems and limitations of GPL, it seems that one should try to avoid it. Certainly for infrastructure software.
The GPL simply allows programmers to protect their work in exactly the way the previous poster indicated.
I never disputed that. My argument was that the IT infrastructure should be available for commercial use as well. I also tried to show that you often do not need GPL to achieve a decent protection of your work.
The bios is Open Firmware, an open standard (IEEE 1275). It works with Sparc, ARM and PPC. I assume that these guys will also use it (it's use with the PPC is well described).
4 246
I think you mean the ROM, which was moved to RAM when clones were allowed. This post goes into more detail on that: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=27009&cid=291
In short, it might actually work (theoretically). But there probably will be issues with drivers.
Apple brought us Darwin (and are paying Hubbard's salary to get their changes back into the FreeBSD sourcebase). They also have open sourced their Quicktime Streaming Server with a non-copyleft license.
IBM created the predecessor to Xerces and gave it away. They have also contributed to the Jakarta project and a lot of other open source projects. Furthermore they created the only decent open source Java compiler: Jikes. The IBM Public License it falls under is BSD-like.
Lotus contributed the basis for Xalan.
Sun open sourced Tomcat and Ant.
A load of companies have contributed to Apache (the Apache license is BSD-like, BTW).
Same for XFree (based on the MIT-license, which is almost the same as BSD).
.com and thus still have a job).
This is only the tip of the iceberg of course, but I shan't spend all day searching the web. A lot of company resources are spend on lesser known software or spend by lesser known companies. Furthermore, many contributions are small bugfixes or additions. The total of these is a substantial (in man-hours) and important contribution to open source products. Apache wouldn't be as stable and full-featured without the contributions by many companies. But we are just at the beginning of open source, many more enterprises will look beyond the hype and see the real value of opening up the source.
That is, if they don't get put off by RMS & co. ESR is doing the right thing with opensource.org (and his involvement with Mozilla) to work together with companies and solve their problems. Thus we end up with the famous "win-win situation"(tm). Companies can lower their expenses and we will have open source software. That is far better than the "I want open source at all cost, screw companies and their developers"-attitude of RMS. That may appeal to students and professors, but it will not convince managers and developers who do not believe in free money (the ones that didn't switch to a
But, the GPL itself is not viral beyond code already under the GPL.
That was his point wasn't it? GPL'ed code can never become part of a (partly) closed sourced solution (well, there are some loopholes, but basically this is correct) or even a non-GPL open source product. Those are some serious limitations, I think you need a really good reason to license code that way.
If I decide to release code as Free Software, with no real expectation to make money off of it or whatever, then I expect others that want to build on it or redistribute it to give others the same benefits that I've given them. That's the price for using GPL'ed code.
You may hold this reasoning for applications, but I don't believe that architecture code should be restricted to disallow commercial use. If a company wants to use your XML-library to built a big app (far beyond your code), why should they be disallowed to do so? Is it not the ultimate compliment to you and an excellent way to spread good code/standards? Similarly, why should application developers be barred from creating commercial apps for Linux or KDE? The only reason seems a hatred of commercial developers, protecting your code from abuse and hidden extensions can be achieved with LGPL.
I don't mind if programmers use LGPL so additions/changes to your code become public again. Asking a price for commercial use (dual GPL/commercial) may also be acceptable although it can hurt small (shareware) developers.
I believe that open source is one of the most potent forms of cooperation. Some companies are starting to get this (Apple, IBM, Netscape). They understand that their infrastructure is not a strategic advantage and open source is an excellent way to reduce costs by sharing code. 'Stealing' code from an open source project is the most stupid decision in this case. Forking is a huge waste of recources, you want your changes back in the main CVS to reduce the cost of merges as much as possible. This argument is the reason I like BSD-like licenses so much, they give up almost all restrictions, allowing managers to experience the benefits of open source and giving them the freedom to learn about the best way to leverage it. They will start to contribute, it's just the most logical thing to do. And if a company does decide to extend the software and keep the changes hidden, the open source project can copy the new features. If they are unable/unwilling to do so, the company clearly has provided a useful product that goes beyond the open source version. This does not hurt the open source project, but does increase "overall happiness" as there is more choice.
This scenario, where companies are a big force in open source and many open source developers will actually get paid, will not happen with GPL. It (rightfully IMO) scares the shit out of managers. They will just keep their programmers on closed sourced projects, instead of assigning them to open source work. Guess who wins here (acronym, starts with a M and ends with an S)?
Microsoft stands to gain the most from this. Now they can write closed libraries and charge for them.
.NET-developers)?
.NET and Mono. MS will use .NET in illegal ways to further their monopoly, that is their way. A less-capable Mono will just draw people into the Web (you advocate Mono, .NET can do more, the company you work for decides to switch to .NET, bingo).
Of course they will do so (for extra services probably). But that will certainly not depend on the BSD-style license of Mono. At most a GPL license can make Mono no longer an option. But do you really believe that MS would change their ways to cater to the few Mono-dev'ers (which will probably be far, far fewer than
Personally I believe that we should forgo both
Soak the loyal: Geforce 3, CRT's, consumer electronics, TV's, everything else.
I must say that Apple hardware generally can be used a long time, I have been using a G3 for four years now and I used a SE/30 for 9 years. I rebuilt my PC's every two years.
You shouldn't fear about the iMac becoming obsolete to soon, Apple has a 7 month upgrade cycle (roughly). The first few upgrades after a new form factor is just about always small upgrades, 18.1" LCD is totally unrealistic for another three years. So just buy the iMac, don't wait 6 months and be pissed because they upgrade it with USB 2 & Firewire 2 a month later.
So just because they have high profit margins doesn't mean they're where they want to be. growing is better than shrinking, no?
;) ).
;) The classic MacOS is not exactly a server OS, so what should they have stormed the market with?
That depends, in a recession it may be better to shrink a bit and still make a profit. Dumping machines is an alternative, but will eat into your savings. It might be better to wait out the storm in comfort while your competitors fade away (gateway+compaq). I believe that Apple is being smart by keeping R&D at full speed so they can take full advantage of the post-depression upbeat.
It's also a bit unfair to compare a booming year with a year in recession. I think that most other companies have a similar loss in revenues (except EBay
they have never revolutionized the way PCs are sold.
Well, they are changing the PC from a solitairy device to a digital hub. This is changing the reason people are buying computers, the few people who buy a Mac to use the iPod are an example of this (extreme examples, but still). The computer seamlessly works with your iPod, digital camera, videocamera and DVD-player. You get excellent applications for free. More and more people are buying a Mac for one of these killer apps (or the combo).
I do consider this a different way to sell computers (compared to the megahertz-mania that is starting to lose it's magic), but you may be expecting something else (a PC with a box o' cereal perhaps). Do you really know what you want?
Why didn't apple become a bigger player in the server market? Why didn't they ever make a scalable web server? (please don't refute this by pointing to problems in IIS. I'm not a Microsoft ditto-head).
I guess that A/UX didn't work out that well for them
They are currently working on OS X Server. It's not yet ready for prime time I hear, but it is gearing up. Now if Apple would just start to document the updates so we would know what is fixed/may break, but I digress. I expect them to start promoting a good low-end server solution and slowly going towards the high-end, seeing how far they can go. But I don't expect them to be competing with Sun's and other high-end servers any time soon.
PS. There already was a decent web-server for OS 9, WebStar. Very safe, but not that fast (mostly due to the lack of a multithreaded FS). But under OS X, I would rather use Apache. Safe, fast, easy to extend, lots of stuff available for it, many know it, etc. Apple should focus on making a good interface for it (and for sendmail, etc, etc) and not try to reinvent the wheel.
I think that they currently have a very good business-strategy for a niche-player. The Apple Store is especially a good idea. Apple's products have always been products that look best in real life (most people are sold on the iPod when they use it and find out how easy and small it really is, for instance). Retail stores like CompUSA have always been extremely bad about this (turning off macs and steering those interested in a Mac towards a PC). Up to the point where Apple had to put their own salesmen in the stores. Once you do that, why not go the whole way and create your own store. This also has the big advantage that Mac-users can get software and peripherals that certainly work on a Mac. In a PC-store it's always hunting for the specs.
Remember what I said: competitors like Gateway cannot afford this as they have too little too differentiate themselves from others. They have to compete with every clone-builder that has a store. Apple stores pull in people from many miles away (and do very well).
To go over your other points:
- Apple had a business strategy in the early 90's (try too look business-like, downplay games so Macs are not called toy computers). This resulted in the famous: "You'll be dead next year"-reporting that lasted for some 8 years (and still crops up regularly).
- Apple does have a web strategy. The online Apple store is very succesful. You might also remember iTools services. iPhoto can easily put a page with your photo's on the Internet.
- I think it's very wise to aim for the substantial graphic design market. These guys buy the fastest, most easy to use machines. Apple is now extending the reach to movie editors. Final Cut Pro 3 with real-time rendering is a killer. Besides, I don't believe they are really limiting themselves in other respects by catering to these groups of users. iDVD would not be possible without Altivec (the best implementation of vector computations, somewhat similar to MMX/SSE), which was initially meant for graphic and video designers.
- Schools will mostly buy the cheapest machines. Apple has always had the good strategy selling cheap there (currently having the $799 iMacs and the iBook).
- Ending the licensing was a good move. The licencees were cannibalizing the high-end of the market. Apple might have been MS if they had licensed the OS earlier, but even IBM didn't see the potential of that at the time. Did you think of that before MS became succesful selling DOS?
Your last statement is reeking of troll. Does Firewire get wasted? Does the breakthrough of USB get wasted? Does 802.11 get wasted (I absolutely love having a cheap 802.11 option for my future PowerMac G5)? Furthermore, Xerox got 100's of millions of Apple's stock to let Steve in on their stuff. Hardly a steal (pun intended).
Currently there are only two large computer-sellers that make a profit, Dell and Apple. I'm sure that with you at the helm they would not be able to boast about that. I doubt you even know that Apple has the lowest inventory in the industry, a clear business-innovation (saving a lot of money and allowing for a quick transition to new systems).
PS. What is not innovative about a consumer-machine that brings DVD-creation to the masses and has an extremely clean exclosure (even if you hate it, I think you must admit it's minimalistic and yet very usable.)
I think iTunes is pretty sweet, especially when compared to what the PC has to offer.
;)
And that's exactly what Apple wants you to think. Buy a Mac and be happy
isn't software inherently more profitable?
No, not by definition. You can make a handsome profit if people buy your higher-end machines and you can keep a decent margin. Apple has always been able to achieve that because they innovated. A clone-builder like Dell can't go too high in the price as there is little to differentiate them from their competitors. Competing by price is the least desirable way to do business (as is told in MBA-courses).
Personally I don't think the extra cost for Macs is wrong as the TCO isn't that bad. A mac will cost far less to maintain and is more productive for many. I have spend far more time fixing PC's and cursing at blue screens than with a Mac. Gartner has a study on this BTW.
Because iTunes and the other iApplication are part of a strategy to make the Mac a much better computer. A task-oriented computer that comes with great, free software and puts a PC to shame.
I don't think the $25 price they could ask for iTunes would compensate for the lost sales of hardware. In fact, I know it won't. Most PC-users would just copy it illegally. Besides, I have never heard of an MP3-player (in software) that made any serious money.
PS. No, it wouldn't be easy to port. The software is heavily tuned for MacOS.
Apple claims it sold 100,000 iPods in two months. I'm skeptical, but assume that's correct. That means a PC-compatible version could have sold a million.
I can remember Steve Jobs saying that they just couldn't produce any more. So no, Apple wouldn't have been able to sell much more of them. I don't even know if enough Toshiba 1.8" drives are available (that's not exactly standard technology you can get from everyone).
Considering the limited supply, does it not make sense to cater to your userbase and especially new converts? Especially when this can get some people to buy a new Mac (sooner). Besides, many Windows-users seem to get along fine with XPlay (reading a few posts here). Apple might sell the device for Windows in the future, probably just a bundle with XPlay. But I wouldn't count on it, it flies in the face of the digital hub strategy.
I personally dont give a rat's arse about the morality of the situation, but if the Palestinians really want the United States to stop supporting Israel, they need to do something that Americans can identify with. Strapping 20 pounds of C4 to your chest and walking into a crowded disco full of teenagers before detonating youself is most definitely not something that Americans can identify with. In fact, most Americans are horrified by such an act and would much rather see the folks doing such things stamped out of existance than support them.
Perhaps this is an affront to you, but is a country that goes about torturing people, killing innocents (like the father and kid that were shot when they tried to hide themselves after they accidentily got into a cross-fire) and/or people without trial and taking down houses of innocents any better?
The difference is that the Palestinians + Arabian Israelies are treated like shit (as any independent observer will attest), the violence committed by Palestinians is for the good part not organized by their government and is certainly substantially less, the Palestinian economy is being mangled by Israel (do you believe the US is in a depression, think again) and Palestinians were deported by Israel. Futhermore there are big problems with the water supply, not only are some Palestinians not connected to running water, the infrastructure is lacking to bring water to the Palestinians and the division of water is extremely unfair. Lastly and most importantly Israel is shielded from the UN resolutions by the US veto and their support.
Without support of the US, Israel would have surely been subjected to sanctions (just like South-Africa in the past). This might have forced Israel to actually comply to the resolutions and take note of human rights. Which in turn would probably have reduced the violence in Israel and might even have resulted in peace.
I'm offended that you believe that 'your' one-sided support of a party that is involved in many severe crimes (against humanity) is justified unless the small percentage of Palestinians that commit horrendous crimes stop. I suppose that you believe a police state is also legit if there are a few criminals among us. Personally I don't believe that the innocent should be a victim of the criminals among their group.
The mouse had only one mistake originally, it lacked a way to orient it. This was later fixed (a small indent on the button).
Once you've used it for a while, most people seem to like it:
At the risk of incurring the wrath of the group, I have to say I actually rather like the round mice.
At first I hated them, like everyone else seems to. But after a while, I stopped getting the thing the wrong way up and watching the pointer go the wrong way, and I became pretty neutral.
After a few more months, I noticed I was finding the round mice much more comfortable to work with. I'm not sure why - I think the small size gives me more room to move the mouse up and down with my fingertips, without bumping into my palm or losing touch with the buttons. Anyway, I'm not looking back now - it's round mice for me.
Post by Malcolm Cleaton
Those who argue that the round mouse is probably very uncomfortable for experienced mouse users are probably correct. I found it quite horrid for the first 2 to 4 weeks.
But now, it's *great* to use. Those who argue that it simply isn't ergonomic and is therefore completely unfit for use as a mouse are wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Having persevered, I find this the most comfortable and easy to use mouse I've ever used. It's different - but better. It provides effortless fingertip control of the pointer. I use it for hours and hours on end and love it.
Perhaps I wouldn't have come to enjoy the earlier variety - the type without the subtle but completely effective button indent (for orientation) at the top - with it, this USB puck is a delight.
Post by Bahi Para
I was a critic also once (without having used it). But I'm convinced now. Also by the fact that there has been research which shows a round mouse to be optimal.
No, you can buy Sorenson Developer Version seperately, so Apple does not 'own' the codec or the company. The exclusive license to bundle the light version is Apple's and Sorenson's right, they have no obligation to you (or the users of *BSD, QNX, Solaris, etc).
Ultimately it's the content-providers fault for using a proprietary codec, just like I blame the DVD-manufacturers for supporting WMP-shit and not Divx 4. M$ is only to blame if they used their monopoly powers, I don't know about that. But you just can't blame the creator of a closed, proprietary codec if others use it, it's still a free world. And you can't blame them for not porting their codec at a loss.
Alternatively you could give Apple and Sorenson a reason to allow/create a Linux Sorenson codec (with or without an official Quicktime player). This would probably involve money: come up with a plan that will make money for Apple/Sorenson. I doubt you can, so stop whining about it already. Go to plan B, a free, good codec that is used to create content. Quicktime might be a good architecture to achieve this with as it is extremely powerful and fully specified. Plus, you get a free, open-source Quicktime Streaming Server already.
BTW, the Sorenson-codec is not a part of Quicktime any more than a Zip-device driver is part of a device driver architecture. Quicktime is an architecture that accepts many plug-ins, Sorenson is just one of them(which conveniently is bundled with Apple's Quicktime implementation, like a dozen others).
Linux-lusers: "Company x should spend $$$ making a free product for Linux. Whine at company x, whine, whine, whine."
Linux-geeks: "I'll create a free and better alternative."
Guess who gets my respect.
Sigh, Quicktime is fully open (not the source, but it is fully standardized). You can build your own version. In fact, a few open source projects are under way. This only leaves sorenson as a barrier for Linux, which:
1. Is not owned by Apple.
2. Doesn't have to be used. Blame the content-providers for not using an alternative (or the open-source community for not providing a free codec that is a good alternative).
No way you can blame Apple that the content-providers are using a proprietary, closed codec when Quicktime is an open architecture that can easily accomodate new codecs. Why don't you provide and ask content-provider to use a good cross-platform alternative (perhaps Divx 4). This will solve the entire problem.
What about technology that a company wants to use in their software? It's not just that a company cannot hijack a product, GPL'ed software effectively cannot be incorporated in any commercial product they make. For most companies that means that they can't use the software/technology.
This does shut out perfectly good uses. For instance: TCP/IP would probably not be used as much if the BSD-code would not have existed, but instead GPL would have been used. Or some XML-architecture stuff, why would companies not be able to use it? Why should companies not be allowed to build on work of others? Do you hate them? Do you hate progress?
And why is this so important? For the famous hijacking that rarely happens? One of the few famous hijacks is the use of BSD-TCP/IP in Linux. How much code did Linux hijack from BSD without the latter being able to take anything back? Another famous hijack is the use of BSD-TCP/IP in Windows. Finally Windows was a good netizen and this was the basis for the boom of the Internet. Anything wrong with these things? All in all I think you are just selfish, you want companies to pay for something that they can't use.
Does that mean, if Britain likes, they could simply attack the US with the approval of the government (in Canada)? Yeah, that's kinda stretching it, but it's still scary to think of the limitless ways a country would feel justified in attacking another (Soviet Union reclaiming Germany for East Germany, France and England for each other, et cetera).
The UN has rules and regulations. Ultimately there is nothing a country can't decide to do. But if Iraq would decide to attack Israel with a nuclear or chemical missile, the UN may condemn it and condone military intervention by the US (for instance). This keeps Iraq from doing these things.
Ultimately I believe we need the UN as a 'world-government' to protect the rights of countries and individuals worldwide, without regard to military strength. This is difficult to achieve as many countries have different concerns and often act irrationally (Missile Defense System as a good example) and selfishly (Kyoto).
Unfortunately the US is one of the countries that consistently try to weaken international coorporation (by first weakening treaties and then not signing them). In this regard it is in the company of Iraq, N-Korea and a few other undemocratic countries. Many people outside of the US believe that the USA is extremely selfish and abusive of it's powers. That's why one of the reactions to the 11th was a hope that it would open your eyes (apart from the deepfelt sorrow). Unfortunately little has come of this, most Americans are absolutely determined to view all criticism as anti-american and being based on envy. And most Americans view the suffering of others on this world as not their problem. But 'you' can't keep this isolationist attitude if people take their problems to the US. Unfortunately your politicians have chosen a police state to 'solve' the problem of terrorism. It seems a better solution to me to eradicate terrorism by taking away the anger that people feel.
As for not recognizing the Taliban, then who did the Bush Administration deal with to halt/curb heroin production in Afghanistan?
You can always talk with a bunch of criminals who are in power.
The US never accepted the Taleban as the official government of Afghanistan. Attacking them is thus not a war. It's more like an operation against criminals in foreign territory, with the approval of the government (the Northern Alliance in this case).
Personally I would rather have that you would get upset about the stranglehold the US is placing on the International Court of Justice. In this way you abandon every man locked up for political reasons, every woman being raped and tortured and every victim of genocide. Why? Because American soldiers may be tried. Americans that commit crimes against humanity could be tried the same as every other criminal. Isn't that bad?
Well, sorry for the rant. But it's pretty undemocratic when one country tries to force it's will on the many countries who do support the ICJ (by taking on laws that allow the US to 'liberate' people that are charged with crimes and disallowing aid to countries who support the ICJ). How upset would you be if one man-one vote would be abandoned and wealthy companies could buy political support (a similar form of using 'force' to achieve your goals). Ehhh, nevermind.
Carbon is not hard to port to. Basically you recompile for the new API and fix all the errors. This is mostly gruntwork, replace oldCall(a,b) with newCall(c,d,e). It's only difficult if your application is a horrible mess already or if you loved to 'hack'. A well-programmed app is fairly easy to port.
PS. I don't get all this whining about Office. It's not like many linux-users would actually buy it, Loki clearly shows how viable it is to sell commercial software for linux. You can make more money by selling icecream to eskimo's.
But, starting with Mac OS 7.0, which existed at the same time as DOS 5 and Win 3.1, files on the desktop were placed in a hidden "desktop" folder within the startup drive.
That's not true. Every drive contains a desktop folder. The files from the mounted folders are added to your desktop when drives mount (and removed at unmount). Moving a file to the desktop from a drive other than the startup drive won't copy it, what it would do in your scenario. This would be very confusing to the user (different behaviour depending on the HD the file is on).
A problem with this is that a user may copy a file to a desktop from a removable drive (not a CD, it's read-only) and expect it to stay there. The file will disappear when you eject the drive.
Wilfredo Sanchez, Darwin developer:
28 may 2001 [...]But there were some cool things about the keynote. One is that Apple has truly come about on the Unix front. There was a time when I had lunch with Jason Thorpe of NetBSD, and we were talking about Apple and NetBSD working together. Jason was very helpful, and NetBSD played a key role in getting the BSD subsystem in Rhapsody (which fed into Darwin/OS X) updated. (That work is by no means complete, but it got a lot better.)[...]
Diary + other info on Sanchez
Currently FreeBSD is the BSD reference platform for Darwin (the core of MacOS X).
On the other hand WMP may be claimed to be part of OS and GPL allows linking with OS libraries...
That's an interesting loophole. So M$ can claim that IE is part of the OS and link any GPL-library with it. Doesn't this defeat the protection that many GPL-authors seek from the use of GPL?: "M$ can't take x and use it in their proprietary software"
Is there a clear definition of OS libraries in the GPL? It seems that one can 'pervert' this to mean just about any library that is/can be installed in the system and can be called by applications.