Those were vaugly cool at the time (like 8 years ago) but are just totally lame now. First, its a "24-bit" system...i think i remember it having one 16bit processor and one 8 bit processor... the carts were HUGE...
You speak as though later hardware automatically translated to better gameplay. Yet I'll bet you that every now and then you still curl up with a good game of Tetris, which runs on anything made in the last fifteen or so years.
AND cost about 150 to 200 bucks...
OK, you got me here. The next time people say Macs are grossly overpriced, I'll point them to the Neo-Geo, a real example of overpriced hardware.
the game selection became fairly bad after a while, with about 3000 fighting game clones.
And a surprisingly large selection of others. Yes, the fighting games were what you see in the arcades, and that's for one reason and one reason alone: fighting games are popular in arcades. That's why you see them there. Look at a home system and you'll see much better selections.
I mean SNK is still tryin to pawn off those games in the arcades with their now-crappy graphics and gameplay and rehashes of once-great games like Samurai Showdown.
One: Last I checked the Neo-Geo still had very good graphics, except for a couple of games whose graphics were never considered great by any standard. Two: Yeah, 'rehashes' of Samurai Showdown. And you say that 'rehashes' are automatically bad, yet I'll bet you play Tekken III and other such sequels all the time.
This is pretty much a 3d gaming world now...time for the NeoGeo to go awaaaaaaay
You speak as someone with a really bad case of LAGS (Latest-And-Greatest Syndrome). Most of the games I see in the arcades anymore, especially in the 3-D category, have near-zero replay value, bad storylines that just don't get you into the game, and (in the case of almost every 3-D fighter I've ever seen) absolutely atrocious play control. Superior hardware does not make superior games; on the contrary; it creates an attitude where gameplay is seen as secondary to flashy effects and hyper-l33t 3eph3kt$.
There's a problem with that: People can and will abuse the system if given votine rights. The way it works now, if I'm not mistaken, moderator points are given to people who post a certain number of comments and have not been moderated down too much. This is a calcualted risk; these people are obviously at least semi-regular users, and they would be more likely to respect their duties and not abuse them.
It isn't complately fair, I know. But there is no other way unless you want Rob or the Mammals to personally visit every single person who has ever posted on Slashdot.
I find it very disappointing that Apple reserves the right to revoke a developer's license at any time. That makes it pretty scary to devote your time to a project only to find out that Apple changed its mind after six months of work.
For crying out loud, read the license, people! Apple can't do that!!! If you'll look at the license, the only time Apple can terminate a license is if it has evidence that a developer has violated a patent (might I add that if they didn't do this they would be breaking the law), and they can only terminate the license to that developer (plus remove that bit of code, which was illegal to add to the codebase anyway.).
What you are talking about is known in PPC circles as booting via Open Firmware. LinuxPPC has always been able to do that. Until BootX came out, that's what I did; now I just use BootX because I don't intend to ever switch exclusively to Linux. That's how CHRP and PreP boxes (and BeBoxen, if I'm not mistaken) still do it. And, by the way, BootX is GPL'd.
You do need MacOS for MkLinux, but you don't for LinuxPPC.
Maybe I'm just not being open minded...
on
iMac Linux
·
· Score: 1
No kidding, if your gonna run Linux, run it on the system is was originally made for, PC's!!!
Admittedly, you have a point here. Linux is not a cross-platform OS. It's a PC operating system which happens to run on other platforms too. Take a look at any Linux FTP site of sufficient size and you'll see it: Intel-only binaries, source which only works right on Intel, etc.
Whats the point in paying a ton for a Mac to run Linux on it when you can save a load of money and buy a PC and install Linux.
It's called "you get what you pay for." You pay more for a Mac, but you get much better hardware. Couple that with Linux (especially once they get a hold of the stuff in OSX, if not the code then at least data) and you have one seriously kickass machine.
The reason: this savagery. Apple is trying to get on its feet in the OSS community, and the OSS community, rather than trying to help it, is visciously attacking it because it is Apple.
Case in point: The original NPL was rather like the current APSL. There was a bit of griping from the zealots, but all in all the community worked to help Netscape.
Another case in point: the QPL. Now there's a can of worms, bit I'd like to point out that the original draft was even worse than the APSL, yet it was accepted by many of the same people whi now hypocritically attack Apple. Once again, there was some complaining from the zealots, but the community helped Troll work on its license until it got something which was tolerable.
But what do they do when Apple tries? They gang up on this poor company. They take a license which does not violate any of the principles of Open-Source (note that I do not say Free Software here; the two are not necessarily the same, and once again I will go into why they aren't violating anything later on here) and yet when they should have been greeted with open arms they were attacked.
Now, let me reiterate why this license does not violate the Open-Source philosophies: 1) People complain that if you make changes to the software you have to tell Apple about it and make the changes available. In other words, you have to make the changes Open-Source and tell Apple. Yeah, that's one more restriction than the GPL (telling Apple about it) but that's hardly a violation of anything. I might add that there are other licenses which even RMS accepted as Free Software which do require you to submit your changes back. 2) The infamous termination clause. For the last time, people, read the stupid document again: Apple cannot terminate this license. It can terminate the license on sections of the code which violate patents, yes. If Apple did not do this it would be committing a crime (contributory infringement of patents, if I am not mistaken). Note that Netscape did this with Mozilla too, and nobody has complained.
I could go into theories as to why the Open-Source community is so prejudiced against Apple (mainly because they don't want to see really open computing, that is computing which is easy enough to learn that no one has to be dependent on command-lines and so-called "experts," a category into which Linux and the BSD's do not fall)_but that would take far too much space and this comment is probably going to get moderated out of existence as it is. But the truth hurts, doesn't it? Think about it for a second before you respond with a flame: why is it that you're just flaming Apple instead of trying to offer help?
1) Windows may have been new, but it was never innovative. 2) Linux really isn't innovative, other than the economic model on which it is based. But in a way, this is good. What it is, is a rock-solid implementation of almost every computing standard out there, standards which the "innovative" guys tend to forget. 3) I'm sad to say that he was right about the factions, however. And it is starting now. Not the distro's (that's a common misconception). I'm talking the emacs vs. vi people; the Gnome vs. KDE people, and probably, once it's released, the Berlin vs. X people. Just watch; I'm going to say "Gnome Rules" (which I do honestly believe) and I'll bet you a flamewar starts as the reply to this post. It's sad, really, but do you see what I'm getting at?
Rational? I wouldn't say that...
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
Consider this: 1) Disrespect for privacy, as he calls it. Other Open-Source licenses which he has accepted already require you to notify someone. I find just a hint of hypocrisy here. 2) The bit about not being allowed to use the code for your own private purposes. Completely untrue. 3) The termination clause. Again, sounds like Stallman didn't read the license very carefully, if at all: Apple cannot terminate the license to the full codebase. Only the bit of code which was in fact illegal to put into the code in the first place; were Apple not doing this they would be committing a crime.
Now, let's dissect his "other flaws":
1) He talks about it allowing the linking of files which may be proprietary. The GPL can be made to do this if the author desires; it's called a Section 10 excption, if I'm not mistaken (I've had to use this one before myself, actually). 2) "It is unfair, since it requires you to give Apple rights to your changes which Apple will not give you for its code." What rights? I don't see anything special about them. Not, at least, that weren't in the NPL, which RMS did in fact accept. 3) "It is incompatible with the GNU GPL." So are most Open-Source licenses that I've seen. I see an ego trip here.
Basically, what I see is an uninformed interpretation of what is only a draft of an Open-Source license. Stallman has to accept that he's no longer the only leader in this movement, and he appears to have been voted out.
A ".bin" file extension on a file known to be a Mac file signifies that it's been encoded into MacBinary format. This is necessary because most filesystems can't handle the dual nature of Mac files, and the resource fork gets destroyed (this is a Very Bad Thing for applications, though for most data files like graphics, text, and MP3's it is no big deal). The MacBinary format combines the two forks so that it can safely be stored on a non-Mac computer without having to worry about the application's integrity. This is, by the way, why the gzip format will never take very much of a hold on the Mac platform (outside of emulation, where it is popular to gzip a ROM file to save space); that format can only handle one file so it can't handle resource forks at all.
Anyway, there are indeed two Mac files in the build directory: mozilla-mac.sea.bin and mozilla-mac-headers.sea.bin. Gee, I wonder which one contains C++ headers? Gee, I wonder which one contains the application?
Come to think of it, I really do wonder why they put the headers in their own file; they're not even needed to run Mozilla and they don't seem to do this for any other platform...
MS has closed software, can't stand competition, is overpriced, and likes to bump off rivals.
Agreed. It's been documented more times than most believe.
Apple has closed hardware AND software, can't stand competition, is grossly overpriced, and likes to bump off rivals.
Wrong and wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Let's dissect your arguments one-by-one...
Closed hardware - give me a break. I can gets the specs on absolutely anything I want, with the exception of the Mac ROM, which is itself being phased out (which you would know if you'd bothered to actually LEARN anything about Apple, but your hatred apparently blinds you to such possibilities).
Apple can't stand competition - No company can stand competition, that's the way of business. Some are more, shall we say, demonstrative of this hatred than others (MS being a prefect example). But Apple? Nope. Tell me the last time they bumped off anyone.
Apple is grossly overpriced - Al, we have a PC lemming who's still clinging to the idea that superior hardware should cost the same as inferior. Apple's prices are perhaps a bit high, but quite fair when you consider what you get. You get a machine which'll outperform a PC at the same price, in a more reliable configuration, and to top it all off it looks better too. That's the hardware I'm talking about, by the way. If you talk about software, I remind you that every single piece of software Apple makes is at most half the price of its Microsoft counterpart, so why is it that Apple is "grossly overpriced" while Microsoft is just "overpriced"?
Now, the bit about bumping off rivals, I'm seeing some very contradictory evidence here. To start with "QTW" (which I can only assume means QuickTime), you're likely referring to the Sorenson thing, never mind that a beta of the Java port of QuickTime was just released, and the fact that Apple has been planning a Linux port of QuickTime for some time. As for the killing of the clone market, you forget that this had to be done (while the idea of Mac cloning was a Good Thing, it was done at a Bad Time; the mistake had to be rectified one way or another). Plusyou have the fact that, as I mentioned before, the Mac ROM's are fast disappearing plus the fact that two of the three most important parts of the OS (the kernel and drivers, the third being the interface) were recently Open-Sourced; it seems to me as though Apple will soon be back in the cloning business (they're certainly making it a hell of a lot easier to clone, and I doubt they'd do that with no reason). Now, as for Apple's refusal to cooperate with BeOS: I see little if any refusal at all. Everything Be needs to get their OS ported to the recent Macs is right there; all they have to do is use the stuff and stop whining about how Apple won't hand it to them on a silver plate, wrapped up with pretty six-colored ribbons and Bondi Blue paper.
Everyone knows Bill Gates only has four steps to success:
1) Lie. 2) Cheat. 3) Steal. 4) Repeat as necessary.
That about sums it up, don't you think? By the way, some people are talking about how M$ has done good things. Frankly, I'd like to see one good thing MS has done which a) was actually good and b) was actually done by M$. I can't think of any off the top of my head.
One: You have to notify Apple of any changes you make. What the hell is the matter with that? Last I checked, certain other licenses which have been classified as Open-Source make you contact the maintainers when you do make changes to the code. Two: The termination clause. Not the greatest, but if you're trying to use the code in an illegal manner (which this basically covers) then why doesn't the maintainer of a project have a right to correct the problem?
Talks of a Linux port of QuickTime by Apple have been around for ages. I would consider this a good sign that Apple could be willing to do this; why prohibit something from being ported to a platform unless you have plans to do that yourself?
I think that, once again, we should wait and see what happens. That's one thing I've noticed on Slashdot: the average reader is far too quick to jump to conclusions.
First, consider that, stupid as it may be, Apple still considers itself a hardware company. Second, consider that this is in fact the first time this has been done with an operating system (Linux and *BSD do not count, since their chief maintainers aren't computer companies). Third, Netscape did this, but with with a browser which wasn't making money, IBM did it with a Java VM which isn't making money, etc. Apple intends to make money from this. I personally think it'll be a great experiment in the commercial viability of Open-Source software. Even if whoever wrote that press release did, admittedly, word that particular phrase quite poorly.
Look at what it says. If you violate the license, either your software's going to get legit with Apple's help (possibility A), be modified so it's legit (possibility B) or become illegal (possibility C).
Those seem to be the same things that happen if you violate the GPL. The difference is that Apple's enforcing it instead of the FSF. That and the fact that Apple spells out quite plainly what it will do right in the license, which the FSF doesn't do.
Apple is more of a closed platform than Microsoft. The OS only runs on Apples, Apple only wants it on apples, Apple doesn't even let people like the Be developers get info about the G3 so they can make BeOs for it.
One: the OS does NOT only run on Apple machines. Two: Yeah, Apple only wants it on the machines they make. Just as Gateway only wants Windows to run on Gateways, Compaq wants people to run it only on COmpaqs, etc. They're a business, for crying out loud. Three: Be's to blame for Be not having the specs. They can get the information they need whenever they're willing to get off of their lazy asses and get it from the LinuxPPC source (using cleanroom techniques, since they want to stay proprietary).
Apple is like if microsoft and intel were the same company, and no one else could make pcs.
A company is like a boolean expression. Right. Seriously, however, you're not strictly accurate. Consider: the only thing Apple licensed out to clone vendors was the Mac ROM. Everything else could be made by the clone vendors. Now, also consider that the ROM is disappearing from Mac motherboards; The iMac and blue G3's are down to only a couple of things, and Sawtooth (the next generation desktop) will be down to the last few vestiges and will not contain any OS-level code. That goes a long way toward opening up the machine again; especially with an Open-Source hardware layer it becomes a relatively simple process to make a PPC motherboard and port the OS to it (well, OK, it's not simple, but at least it's easier than before).
This is demonstrated with quicktime, they get developers to make a *.mov file that only the new quicktime can decompress.
Actually, it's not the version of QuickTime that's the limiting factor there. It's the codec, which is called Sorenson and is not made by Apple. The producers of, say, the Star Wars trailer chose QuickTime/Sorenson of their own free will; no one made them pick that format, they could as easily have chosen any other format (though I've noticed that when done correctly Sorenson gets better quality than MPEG at a significantly smaller filesize).
They are a monopoly and would be THE monopoly if they could be.
Apple? A monopoly? Look at the marketshare statistics and tell me that with a straight face. As for your statement that they would be THE monopoly if they could be, so would Red Hat. So would Microsoft. So would GM or Buick or Mercedes-Benz; it's called business. The point is to keep a monopoly from occurring when it stifles innovation (which is always the case in the computer industry).
macs have 1MB of RAM and 10MB of harddrive?
on
MacMafia
·
· Score: 1
I don't think so. But they are still using that crappy Mac"OS" 8 which is (by your own words) designed for the above hardware.
He said no such thing. Certainly you need more RAM than that to run MacOS (hell, even Linux requires more than that nowadays). However, try running any other OS with a GUI enabled from a floppy. Yep, that can still be done with OS8.5.1 (I'm serious, it is possible).
Yes, the grandmother at home DOES care that the Mac doesn't have protected memory. Because it causes multiple system crashes which causes her to lose that precious email.
Spoken like someone who has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what protected memory is. That Mac won't ever cause a single crash; a poorly-programmed email app might, though. That's all protected memory does; it keeps badly-programmed apps from taking down other stuff, and while nice it is not necessary for a stable system.
I also might add that you seem to think that system crashes always cause the loss of a whole hard drive. Obviously you haven't used a Mac, which while it does crash at least can recover from a crash gracefully, which is more than I can say for the many, many Linux installations I've accidentally fried.
At 10 crashes per month this guy isn't even doing very well for MacOS. I'll grant, I still crash occasionally (probably on the order of two to three times per month). But I'm the kind of psychotic user who does stupid things to his machine just to see if it'll work. I've fried far more Linux installations accidentally than I've killed MacOS installations while doing something dumb. That's the thing; MacOS may crash a lot but at least it's resilient and bounces back quickly, something which can't be said for Windoze, and even Linux doesn't have it to the same degree in my experience; crashes might be rare but they take hours, even days to recover from whereas the average MacOS crash is fixed within minutes.
And hey, even if he's getting ten crashes a month, that's far, far better than the average Windoze installation.
As for why the guy's crashing so often, it's probably because he's using Kaleidoscope or some similar extension; I love that tool myself but I can't argue with the fact that my machine became at least six times more stable (and a good deal faster) when I removed the thing.
The idea is that the crank gives you a power source when you can't get to an outlet and your batteries are low. That makes it very useful in educational markets, where they can't provide an outlet in every desk. Also, it'd be good for journalists out in the field, where ready power isn't always accessible. This thing actually could have a lot of uses.
OK, there are are a few things about that program:
1) It only works on SCSI disks. If you have Linux installed on an IDE drive you're out of luck as far as I know. 2) DO NOT use it to write to an ext2 filesystem. While it can theoretically do this, it's very risky to do so; the bugs aren't all worked out yet and while you might be able to get it all right you can also corrupt the filesystem. If you need to get something from a Mac disk to the Linux side of things, use Linux's HFS utilities (which face problems with writing to HFS disks not unlike the problems LinuxDisks has with writing to ext2 volumes). You can also just use FTP if you have sufficient space somewhere. 3) Just a point of interest: it also works on BFS (BeOS File System) drives. 4) I'm afraid I don't know where to find the latest version; its homepage was taken down a while back and nobody seems to know where it moved. Anybody know that one?
Why? Take a good look at section 6, paragraph a, subparagraph 1, the first sentence:
You will not use or exploit the CDDB database...
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but this essentially makes it illegal to access the database, right? After all, when one accesses the database, one is using it. Even if it's not quite that way, it makes a great reason for a boycott of CDDB. That'll shut these profiteering bastards up.
Come to think of it, I've never even seen the need to use that database, anyway.
But even the "mac-like menus" in KDE aren't maclike. I was very excited when I saw this the first time, but then I tried it out and... No.
If your mouse is at the TOP of the screen, you can't click on the menu, but on a mac you can. It defeats the whole purpose of having the menu at the top of the screen if you can't have your mouse at y0 and click to a menu.
What I think BS means is that Mac menus are not just located at the top of the screen; they extend to the top of the screen. That is, if the mouse is at the very top of the screen, over a menu, and the user clicks, the menu is activated. With KDE this isn't the case.
This feature is actually surprisingly useful, as it gives the user the ability to just "fling" the mouse to the top of the screen and know that they'll hit the menubar. Otherwise one must be a bit more careful about mouse positioning; this can be problematic, especially on laptops where the cursor isn't always particularly easy to see when it's moving.
Oh, come on; there's better than that...
on
OpenGL on Newton
·
· Score: 1
This one actually happened, however, which makes it even funnier.
Some college professor had just bought himself a Newton and was proudly showing it off to his class. He was demonstrating the handwriting recognition, and he went into the "How do I..." box to fill in the box with something ("translate," I think it was).
The Newton's translation: "bite me."
Honsetly, I do think that it's better than having to learn a new style of writing; however good that might be it still isn't intuitive, and therefore can never be "good enough." I do hope someday the Pilots will get real handwriting recognition, therefore; they're great machines (frankly I want one myself) but the machine should be made to accomodate the person, not the reverse.
Long live Newton! The Newton is Dead!
on
OpenGL on Newton
·
· Score: 1
Anti-OSS? Not so much as you might think...
Consider this: Apple makes MkLinux, an Open-Source variant of Linux based on the Mach microkernel, which is also Open-Source. I also ask you to notice that the last developer seeds of OSX Server included the source for the entire command-line layer; it included source from all three of the Open-SOurce BSD variants and was quite up-to-date.
Does Apple make proprietary products? Yes; I don't know of a software company which makes products for anything other than Linux that doesn't. Are they anti-OSS? No. What are they, then? I don't think there's a term. Perhaps "proprietary but OSS-friendly" fits?
Slashdot Mirror
Those were vaugly cool at the time (like 8 years ago) but are just totally lame now. First, its a "24-bit" system...i think i remember it having one 16bit processor and one 8 bit processor ... the carts were HUGE ...
...
You speak as though later hardware automatically translated to better gameplay. Yet I'll bet you that every now and then you still curl up with a good game of Tetris, which runs on anything made in the last fifteen or so years.
AND cost about 150 to 200 bucks
OK, you got me here. The next time people say Macs are grossly overpriced, I'll point them to the Neo-Geo, a real example of overpriced hardware.
the game selection became fairly bad after a while, with about 3000 fighting game clones.
And a surprisingly large selection of others. Yes, the fighting games were what you see in the arcades, and that's for one reason and one reason alone: fighting games are popular in arcades. That's why you see them there. Look at a home system and you'll see much better selections.
I mean SNK is still tryin to pawn off those games in the arcades with their now-crappy graphics and gameplay and rehashes of once-great games like Samurai Showdown.
One: Last I checked the Neo-Geo still had very good graphics, except for a couple of games whose graphics were never considered great by any standard.
Two: Yeah, 'rehashes' of Samurai Showdown. And you say that 'rehashes' are automatically bad, yet I'll bet you play Tekken III and other such sequels all the time.
This is pretty much a 3d gaming world now...time for the NeoGeo to go awaaaaaaay
You speak as someone with a really bad case of LAGS (Latest-And-Greatest Syndrome). Most of the games I see in the arcades anymore, especially in the 3-D category, have near-zero replay value, bad storylines that just don't get you into the game, and (in the case of almost every 3-D fighter I've ever seen) absolutely atrocious play control. Superior hardware does not make superior games; on the contrary; it creates an attitude where gameplay is seen as secondary to flashy effects and hyper-l33t 3eph3kt$.
There's a problem with that: People can and will abuse the system if given votine rights. The way it works now, if I'm not mistaken, moderator points are given to people who post a certain number of comments and have not been moderated down too much. This is a calcualted risk; these people are obviously at least semi-regular users, and they would be more likely to respect their duties and not abuse them.
It isn't complately fair, I know. But there is no other way unless you want Rob or the Mammals to personally visit every single person who has ever posted on Slashdot.
I find it very disappointing that Apple reserves the right to revoke a developer's license at any time. That makes it pretty scary to devote your time to a project only to find out that Apple changed its mind after six months of work.
For crying out loud, read the license, people! Apple can't do that!!! If you'll look at the license, the only time Apple can terminate a license is if it has evidence that a developer has violated a patent (might I add that if they didn't do this they would be breaking the law), and they can only terminate the license to that developer (plus remove that bit of code, which was illegal to add to the codebase anyway.).
What you are talking about is known in PPC circles as booting via Open Firmware. LinuxPPC has always been able to do that. Until BootX came out, that's what I did; now I just use BootX because I don't intend to ever switch exclusively to Linux. That's how CHRP and PreP boxes (and BeBoxen, if I'm not mistaken) still do it. And, by the way, BootX is GPL'd.
You do need MacOS for MkLinux, but you don't for LinuxPPC.
No kidding, if your gonna run Linux, run it on the system is was originally made for, PC's!!!
Admittedly, you have a point here. Linux is not a cross-platform OS. It's a PC operating system which happens to run on other platforms too. Take a look at any Linux FTP site of sufficient size and you'll see it: Intel-only binaries, source which only works right on Intel, etc.
Whats the point in paying a ton for a Mac to run Linux on it when you can save a load of money and buy a PC and install Linux.
It's called "you get what you pay for." You pay more for a Mac, but you get much better hardware. Couple that with Linux (especially once they get a hold of the stuff in OSX, if not the code then at least data) and you have one seriously kickass machine.
For once, I'm ashamed to be a Linux user.
The reason: this savagery. Apple is trying to get on its feet in the OSS community, and the OSS community, rather than trying to help it, is visciously attacking it because it is Apple.
Case in point: The original NPL was rather like the current APSL. There was a bit of griping from the zealots, but all in all the community worked to help Netscape.
Another case in point: the QPL. Now there's a can of worms, bit I'd like to point out that the original draft was even worse than the APSL, yet it was accepted by many of the same people whi now hypocritically attack Apple. Once again, there was some complaining from the zealots, but the community helped Troll work on its license until it got something which was tolerable.
But what do they do when Apple tries? They gang up on this poor company. They take a license which does not violate any of the principles of Open-Source (note that I do not say Free Software here; the two are not necessarily the same, and once again I will go into why they aren't violating anything later on here) and yet when they should have been greeted with open arms they were attacked.
Now, let me reiterate why this license does not violate the Open-Source philosophies:
1) People complain that if you make changes to the software you have to tell Apple about it and make the changes available. In other words, you have to make the changes Open-Source and tell Apple. Yeah, that's one more restriction than the GPL (telling Apple about it) but that's hardly a violation of anything. I might add that there are other licenses which even RMS accepted as Free Software which do require you to submit your changes back.
2) The infamous termination clause. For the last time, people, read the stupid document again: Apple cannot terminate this license. It can terminate the license on sections of the code which violate patents, yes. If Apple did not do this it would be committing a crime (contributory infringement of patents, if I am not mistaken). Note that Netscape did this with Mozilla too, and nobody has complained.
I could go into theories as to why the Open-Source community is so prejudiced against Apple (mainly because they don't want to see really open computing, that is computing which is easy enough to learn that no one has to be dependent on command-lines and so-called "experts," a category into which Linux and the BSD's do not fall)_but that would take far too much space and this comment is probably going to get moderated out of existence as it is. But the truth hurts, doesn't it? Think about it for a second before you respond with a flame: why is it that you're just flaming Apple instead of trying to offer help?
1) Windows may have been new, but it was never innovative.
2) Linux really isn't innovative, other than the economic model on which it is based. But in a way, this is good. What it is, is a rock-solid implementation of almost every computing standard out there, standards which the "innovative" guys tend to forget.
3) I'm sad to say that he was right about the factions, however. And it is starting now. Not the distro's (that's a common misconception). I'm talking the emacs vs. vi people; the Gnome vs. KDE people, and probably, once it's released, the Berlin vs. X people. Just watch; I'm going to say "Gnome Rules" (which I do honestly believe) and I'll bet you a flamewar starts as the reply to this post. It's sad, really, but do you see what I'm getting at?
Consider this:
1) Disrespect for privacy, as he calls it. Other Open-Source licenses which he has accepted already require you to notify someone. I find just a hint of hypocrisy here.
2) The bit about not being allowed to use the code for your own private purposes. Completely untrue.
3) The termination clause. Again, sounds like Stallman didn't read the license very carefully, if at all: Apple cannot terminate the license to the full codebase. Only the bit of code which was in fact illegal to put into the code in the first place; were Apple not doing this they would be committing a crime.
Now, let's dissect his "other flaws":
1) He talks about it allowing the linking of files which may be proprietary. The GPL can be made to do this if the author desires; it's called a Section 10 excption, if I'm not mistaken (I've had to use this one before myself, actually).
2) "It is unfair, since it requires you to give Apple rights to your changes which Apple will not give you for its code." What rights? I don't see anything special about them. Not, at least, that weren't in the NPL, which RMS did in fact accept.
3) "It is incompatible with the GNU GPL." So are most Open-Source licenses that I've seen. I see an ego trip here.
Basically, what I see is an uninformed interpretation of what is only a draft of an Open-Source license. Stallman has to accept that he's no longer the only leader in this movement, and he appears to have been voted out.
A ".bin" file extension on a file known to be a Mac file signifies that it's been encoded into MacBinary format. This is necessary because most filesystems can't handle the dual nature of Mac files, and the resource fork gets destroyed (this is a Very Bad Thing for applications, though for most data files like graphics, text, and MP3's it is no big deal). The MacBinary format combines the two forks so that it can safely be stored on a non-Mac computer without having to worry about the application's integrity. This is, by the way, why the gzip format will never take very much of a hold on the Mac platform (outside of emulation, where it is popular to gzip a ROM file to save space); that format can only handle one file so it can't handle resource forks at all.
Anyway, there are indeed two Mac files in the build directory: mozilla-mac.sea.bin and mozilla-mac-headers.sea.bin. Gee, I wonder which one contains C++ headers? Gee, I wonder which one contains the application?
Come to think of it, I really do wonder why they put the headers in their own file; they're not even needed to run Mozilla and they don't seem to do this for any other platform...
MS has closed software, can't stand competition, is overpriced, and likes to bump off rivals.
Agreed. It's been documented more times than most believe.
Apple has closed hardware AND software, can't stand competition, is grossly overpriced, and likes to bump off rivals.
Wrong and wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Let's dissect your arguments one-by-one...
Closed hardware - give me a break. I can gets the specs on absolutely anything I want, with the exception of the Mac ROM, which is itself being phased out (which you would know if you'd bothered to actually LEARN anything about Apple, but your hatred apparently blinds you to such possibilities).
Apple can't stand competition - No company can stand competition, that's the way of business. Some are more, shall we say, demonstrative of this hatred than others (MS being a prefect example). But Apple? Nope. Tell me the last time they bumped off anyone.
Apple is grossly overpriced - Al, we have a PC lemming who's still clinging to the idea that superior hardware should cost the same as inferior. Apple's prices are perhaps a bit high, but quite fair when you consider what you get. You get a machine which'll outperform a PC at the same price, in a more reliable configuration, and to top it all off it looks better too. That's the hardware I'm talking about, by the way. If you talk about software, I remind you that every single piece of software Apple makes is at most half the price of its Microsoft counterpart, so why is it that Apple is "grossly overpriced" while Microsoft is just "overpriced"?
Now, the bit about bumping off rivals, I'm seeing some very contradictory evidence here. To start with "QTW" (which I can only assume means QuickTime), you're likely referring to the Sorenson thing, never mind that a beta of the Java port of QuickTime was just released, and the fact that Apple has been planning a Linux port of QuickTime for some time.
As for the killing of the clone market, you forget that this had to be done (while the idea of Mac cloning was a Good Thing, it was done at a Bad Time; the mistake had to be rectified one way or another). Plusyou have the fact that, as I mentioned before, the Mac ROM's are fast disappearing plus the fact that two of the three most important parts of the OS (the kernel and drivers, the third being the interface) were recently Open-Sourced; it seems to me as though Apple will soon be back in the cloning business (they're certainly making it a hell of a lot easier to clone, and I doubt they'd do that with no reason).
Now, as for Apple's refusal to cooperate with BeOS: I see little if any refusal at all. Everything Be needs to get their OS ported to the recent Macs is right there; all they have to do is use the stuff and stop whining about how Apple won't hand it to them on a silver plate, wrapped up with pretty six-colored ribbons and Bondi Blue paper.
Everyone knows Bill Gates only has four steps to success:
1) Lie.
2) Cheat.
3) Steal.
4) Repeat as necessary.
That about sums it up, don't you think? By the way, some people are talking about how M$ has done good things. Frankly, I'd like to see one good thing MS has done which a) was actually good and b) was actually done by M$. I can't think of any off the top of my head.
One: You have to notify Apple of any changes you make. What the hell is the matter with that? Last I checked, certain other licenses which have been classified as Open-Source make you contact the maintainers when you do make changes to the code.
Two: The termination clause. Not the greatest, but if you're trying to use the code in an illegal manner (which this basically covers) then why doesn't the maintainer of a project have a right to correct the problem?
Talks of a Linux port of QuickTime by Apple have been around for ages. I would consider this a good sign that Apple could be willing to do this; why prohibit something from being ported to a platform unless you have plans to do that yourself?
I think that, once again, we should wait and see what happens. That's one thing I've noticed on Slashdot: the average reader is far too quick to jump to conclusions.
First, consider that, stupid as it may be, Apple still considers itself a hardware company.
Second, consider that this is in fact the first time this has been done with an operating system (Linux and *BSD do not count, since their chief maintainers aren't computer companies).
Third, Netscape did this, but with with a browser which wasn't making money, IBM did it with a Java VM which isn't making money, etc. Apple intends to make money from this. I personally think it'll be a great experiment in the commercial viability of Open-Source software. Even if whoever wrote that press release did, admittedly, word that particular phrase quite poorly.
Look at what it says. If you violate the license, either your software's going to get legit with Apple's help (possibility A), be modified so it's legit (possibility B) or become illegal (possibility C).
Those seem to be the same things that happen if you violate the GPL. The difference is that Apple's enforcing it instead of the FSF. That and the fact that Apple spells out quite plainly what it will do right in the license, which the FSF doesn't do.
This one's going to be fun to eviscerate...
Apple is more of a closed platform than Microsoft. The OS only runs on Apples, Apple only wants it on apples, Apple doesn't even let people like the Be developers get info about the G3 so they can make BeOs for it.
One: the OS does NOT only run on Apple machines.
Two: Yeah, Apple only wants it on the machines they make. Just as Gateway only wants Windows to run on Gateways, Compaq wants people to run it only on COmpaqs, etc. They're a business, for crying out loud.
Three: Be's to blame for Be not having the specs. They can get the information they need whenever they're willing to get off of their lazy asses and get it from the LinuxPPC source (using cleanroom techniques, since they want to stay proprietary).
Apple is like if microsoft and intel were the same company, and no one else could make pcs.
A company is like a boolean expression. Right.
Seriously, however, you're not strictly accurate. Consider: the only thing Apple licensed out to clone vendors was the Mac ROM. Everything else could be made by the clone vendors. Now, also consider that the ROM is disappearing from Mac motherboards; The iMac and blue G3's are down to only a couple of things, and Sawtooth (the next generation desktop) will be down to the last few vestiges and will not contain any OS-level code. That goes a long way toward opening up the machine again; especially with an Open-Source hardware layer it becomes a relatively simple process to make a PPC motherboard and port the OS to it (well, OK, it's not simple, but at least it's easier than before).
This is demonstrated with quicktime, they get developers to make a *.mov file that only the new quicktime can decompress.
Actually, it's not the version of QuickTime that's the limiting factor there. It's the codec, which is called Sorenson and is not made by Apple. The producers of, say, the Star Wars trailer chose QuickTime/Sorenson of their own free will; no one made them pick that format, they could as easily have chosen any other format (though I've noticed that when done correctly Sorenson gets better quality than MPEG at a significantly smaller filesize).
They are a monopoly and would be THE monopoly if they could be.
Apple? A monopoly? Look at the marketshare statistics and tell me that with a straight face. As for your statement that they would be THE monopoly if they could be, so would Red Hat. So would Microsoft. So would GM or Buick or Mercedes-Benz; it's called business. The point is to keep a monopoly from occurring when it stifles innovation (which is always the case in the computer industry).
I don't think so. But they are still using that crappy Mac"OS" 8 which is (by your own words) designed for the above hardware.
He said no such thing. Certainly you need more RAM than that to run MacOS (hell, even Linux requires more than that nowadays). However, try running any other OS with a GUI enabled from a floppy. Yep, that can still be done with OS8.5.1 (I'm serious, it is possible).
Yes, the grandmother at home DOES care that the Mac doesn't have protected memory. Because it causes multiple system crashes which causes her to lose that precious email.
Spoken like someone who has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what protected memory is. That Mac won't ever cause a single crash; a poorly-programmed email app might, though. That's all protected memory does; it keeps badly-programmed apps from taking down other stuff, and while nice it is not necessary for a stable system.
I also might add that you seem to think that system crashes always cause the loss of a whole hard drive. Obviously you haven't used a Mac, which while it does crash at least can recover from a crash gracefully, which is more than I can say for the many, many Linux installations I've accidentally fried.
At 10 crashes per month this guy isn't even doing very well for MacOS. I'll grant, I still crash occasionally (probably on the order of two to three times per month). But I'm the kind of psychotic user who does stupid things to his machine just to see if it'll work. I've fried far more Linux installations accidentally than I've killed MacOS installations while doing something dumb. That's the thing; MacOS may crash a lot but at least it's resilient and bounces back quickly, something which can't be said for Windoze, and even Linux doesn't have it to the same degree in my experience; crashes might be rare but they take hours, even days to recover from whereas the average MacOS crash is fixed within minutes.
And hey, even if he's getting ten crashes a month, that's far, far better than the average Windoze installation.
As for why the guy's crashing so often, it's probably because he's using Kaleidoscope or some similar extension; I love that tool myself but I can't argue with the fact that my machine became at least six times more stable (and a good deal faster) when I removed the thing.
The idea is that the crank gives you a power source when you can't get to an outlet and your batteries are low. That makes it very useful in educational markets, where they can't provide an outlet in every desk. Also, it'd be good for journalists out in the field, where ready power isn't always accessible. This thing actually could have a lot of uses.
OK, there are are a few things about that program:
1) It only works on SCSI disks. If you have Linux installed on an IDE drive you're out of luck as far as I know.
2) DO NOT use it to write to an ext2 filesystem. While it can theoretically do this, it's very risky to do so; the bugs aren't all worked out yet and while you might be able to get it all right you can also corrupt the filesystem.
If you need to get something from a Mac disk to the Linux side of things, use Linux's HFS utilities (which face problems with writing to HFS disks not unlike the problems LinuxDisks has with writing to ext2 volumes). You can also just use FTP if you have sufficient space somewhere.
3) Just a point of interest: it also works on BFS (BeOS File System) drives.
4) I'm afraid I don't know where to find the latest version; its homepage was taken down a while back and nobody seems to know where it moved. Anybody know that one?
Why? Take a good look at section 6, paragraph a, subparagraph 1, the first sentence:
You will not use or exploit the CDDB database...
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but this essentially makes it illegal to access the database, right? After all, when one accesses the database, one is using it.
Even if it's not quite that way, it makes a great reason for a boycott of CDDB. That'll shut these profiteering bastards up.
Come to think of it, I've never even seen the need to use that database, anyway.
But even the "mac-like menus" in KDE aren't maclike. I was very excited when I saw this the first time, but then I tried it out and... No.
If your mouse is at the TOP of the screen, you can't click on the menu, but on a mac you can. It defeats the whole purpose of having the menu at the top of the screen if you can't have your mouse at y0 and click to a menu.
What I think BS means is that Mac menus are not just located at the top of the screen; they extend to the top of the screen. That is, if the mouse is at the very top of the screen, over a menu, and the user clicks, the menu is activated. With KDE this isn't the case.
This feature is actually surprisingly useful, as it gives the user the ability to just "fling" the mouse to the top of the screen and know that they'll hit the menubar. Otherwise one must be a bit more careful about mouse positioning; this can be problematic, especially on laptops where the cursor isn't always particularly easy to see when it's moving.
This one actually happened, however, which makes it even funnier.
Some college professor had just bought himself a Newton and was proudly showing it off to his class. He was demonstrating the handwriting recognition, and he went into the "How do I..." box to fill in the box with something ("translate," I think it was).
The Newton's translation: "bite me."
Honsetly, I do think that it's better than having to learn a new style of writing; however good that might be it still isn't intuitive, and therefore can never be "good enough." I do hope someday the Pilots will get real handwriting recognition, therefore; they're great machines (frankly I want one myself) but the machine should be made to accomodate the person, not the reverse.
Anti-OSS? Not so much as you might think...
Consider this: Apple makes MkLinux, an Open-Source variant of Linux based on the Mach microkernel, which is also Open-Source. I also ask you to notice that the last developer seeds of OSX Server included the source for the entire command-line layer; it included source from all three of the Open-SOurce BSD variants and was quite up-to-date.
Does Apple make proprietary products? Yes; I don't know of a software company which makes products for anything other than Linux that doesn't. Are they anti-OSS? No. What are they, then? I don't think there's a term. Perhaps "proprietary but OSS-friendly" fits?