What I mean by "unmodified?" was if they would translate the libraries to i386 code equivalents (ie creating a 'clone' library) or stricly emulation, since I already knew PPC code won't run on i386 CPUs.
A fully functional Darwin binary compatibility on NetBSD/powerpc & NetBSD/i386 will imply getting MacOS X libraries to run any Mac OS X program
Actually, this part from the story confuses me; do they mean that the i386 version could run OSX libraries, unmodified? Or would this be emulation (which I would not consider 'binary compatibility' in such a case)?
'cause it's been proven that blacklist are run by zealots that do not have any appeals process and ignore legitimate request on why they've banned mail servers.
So, we're stuck with 'defective' products (like most other sw publishers provide these days...)
One of these days one of them is going to get seriously taken to court over this.
Either that, or the government is eventually going to have to get sw publishers to provide a warranty for their sw, like all other good are forced to have. I guess it's just up to us to stop settling for defective sw.
If it is found that the patent is invalid after the reexamination, is the associated fee refunded (since, afterall, they got paid for NOT doing their work properly when the thing first got submitted).
Or do we, as the population, need to sue the patent office for their incompetence which is costing us not only the original fee, but the cost of all the extra bureaucracy of the court system needed to rectify their fuck-up?
Considering they still played the russian-roulette game described in the Challenger report when Columbia happened (ie. still having below-standard criticality 1 items flying), this should really be no surprise to anyone.
I thought that the Columbia board's statement that it had no confidence that things would improve considering NASA's history speaks volume.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, this part from the story confuses me; do they mean that the i386 version could run OSX libraries, unmodified? Or would this be emulation (which I would not consider 'binary compatibility' in such a case)?
That would require emulating the Apple's APIs for everything in the OS.
Given that most of it is proprietary, this is very unlikely to happen, though not impossible (just look at Wine)...
What happened with that? Do any developers have any insights?
Can you actually decipher that one, or am I going to have to explain it to you?
Get a clue!
NTR
Go ahead an mod me down, but you know I'm right.
Jaguar has bugs; they finally announce they'll fix them after all the storm over this.
Panther didn't have the bugs, because they were 'fixed' as part of development.
I ask why it took so long for Apple to announce the fixes, even waiting until after the bugs were revealed.
You tell me the list of fixes for Panther are for bugs that don't exist in Panther, only in Jaguar.
I ask why the list for Panther then.
You tell me it's for bugs that don't exist in Panther, only Jaguar.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
"Oh, here's a list of fixes, for bugs that don't exist." Yeah right.
It was released last week. In beta before that.
So, again, what was the hold up?
Clearly it was feasible, so why wasn't it quick?
Granted, Apple doesn't control the guys that release it, but in this case Panther already has the fix built in, so where's the one for Jaguar?
Time (and public opinion) will tell I guess...
One of these days one of them is going to get seriously taken to court over this.
Either that, or the government is eventually going to have to get sw publishers to provide a warranty for their sw, like all other good are forced to have. I guess it's just up to us to stop settling for defective sw.
At least MS tries to patch its bugs; if Apple refuses to offer patches for free, it's setting itself up for some serious troubles methinks
If it is found that the patent is invalid after the reexamination, is the associated fee refunded (since, afterall, they got paid for NOT doing their work properly when the thing first got submitted).
Or do we, as the population, need to sue the patent office for their incompetence which is costing us not only the original fee, but the cost of all the extra bureaucracy of the court system needed to rectify their fuck-up?
Considering they still played the russian-roulette game described in the Challenger report when Columbia happened (ie. still having below-standard criticality 1 items flying), this should really be no surprise to anyone.
I thought that the Columbia board's statement that it had no confidence that things would improve considering NASA's history speaks volume.