Where do you get these fantasies from? Apple didn't "develop their own operating system" either. They bought NeXT, and NeXT's operating system was a combination of the Mach kernel, the BSD userland, BSD and GNU utilities, and the gcc compiler. This was after Apple had completely lost control of the evolution of MacOS and run that OS into the ground.
And, yes, developing an HTML renderer is harder; for the OS, Apple can simply decide what to implement and how, whereas for HTML rendering, they have to be compatible with billions of pages.
As for "that being back in the 80's", Apple doesn't seem to have changed: they still rip off open source and they still engage in look-and-feel lawsuits.
Yes, I keep on believing that Apple is a big evil bully, and it seems like others are coming around to my point of view.
They based their engine on top of free software, despite that they didn't have to.
If you think Apple had the capability of whipping up a working HTML engine from scratch and bring it to market in the time they needed, you're extremely naive. Apple has very limited and focused software development capabilities, and they certainly had nobody capable of creating a browser engine from scratch. They usually deal with this by buying up some company, but there are so few good independent browser makers that they didn't even have that option.
What's offensive is that you portray Apple as some kind of open source hero. Jobs tried to rip off gcc and they tried to force the KHTML team to sign non-disclosure agreements over bug reports, and had a major falling out. That's on top of their generally offensive behaviors, like their look-and-feel lawsuits and their ridiculous patents. Apple has been a far greater bully and threat to open source than Microsoft.
If you by useless mean allowed Google to base the Chrome browser on Apple's WebKit
WebKit is based on KHTML, and Apple didn't have a choice about the license since it's LGPL. Apple's conduct vis-a-vis the KHTML developers was unfriendly to say the least.
Projects like FreeBSD must have found Apple's involvement in LLVM very useless,
Apple didn't choose to open source those projects, they merely participated in an existing project.
and I'm sure they found libdispatch useless as well.
libdispatch isn't really used much outside OS X, since other platforms have better alternatives. libdispatch is indeed typical for the kinds of projects that Apple chooses to open source.
I know of no software open sourced by Apple either out of altruistic reasons or that constitutes a win-win situation. And unlike Microsoft, Jobs explicitly and clearly tried to screw the gcc developers and circumvent the GPL.
Maybe this will break the stranglehold that a few large companies have on the payment market. And it is these fees that have allowed credit card companies to be so sloppy with security and privacy.
If they contributed, they contributed. Does it matter that they did so because there is a demand for their VMs to run Linux, rather than out of the goodness of their hearts?
Yes, motivation matters a great deal. You can contribute out of altruism, or because you think everybody wins (including yourself) when you contribute, or to advance only the interests of your own, proprietary products. Microsoft has mostly done the latter. (For that matter, so has Apple, since their open-source release have also largely been useless to non-Apple users.)
The code was "written" by a contractor, and MIcrosoft immediately took action. I think turning that into "Microsoft has already stolen code" is unfair. Much as I dislike Microsoft and their business practices, I'm pretty sure they don't make a habit of "stealing" GPL code themselves. It would make very little sense for them to do so.
Which part of "video standards aren't replaced overnight" went over your head?
You can look at PNG/JPEG to see how this is likely to play out, except that the incentives to move from H.264/5 to WebM are actually stronger for many people.
1) Windows 7 is arguably the best desktop OS out there right now for the vast majority of the public. Even many of the Apple fans I know, myself included, have been forced to concede that Windows 7 is better than OS X in many ways.
I find Windows 7 (and 8) fall seriously short in those areas that actually matter in day-to-day usage: file management, WiFi configuration, software updates, disk management, device driver installation, system cleanup, and a few others. All those are unnecessarily complicated and tedious on Windows.
I have yet to find any useful app in the Microsoft app store. Microsoft is probably desperate to get anything in there.
But they can change their TOS at the drop of a hat, so just because they may be "open source friendly" right now doesn't mean that they won't become quite open source unfriendly again when their app store picks up.
They also included it in Chrome, with the intent to replace H.264, but this attempt never materialized.
Apart from the awful English, WebM has been quite successful, too: a lot of software packages use WebM because they don't need to license H.264, and not just open source software.
Video standards aren't replaced overnight, and in fact, in a lot of places can't be replaced at all. The best way of dealing with these kinds of compatibility issues is to offer an alternative when people need to upgrade and change hardware/software anyway. So, let's hope that WebM can compete with H.265, because then we have a real chance of largely getting rid of proprietary video standards.
If people stopped buying locked phones, or contracts, then carriers would stop offering them. You do have plenty of unlocked and no-contract alternatives.
The data indicates that neither incarceration rates nor gun ownership is a primary driver or deterrent of violence on a society-wide level
Incarceration doesn't function as a deterrent, it simply keeps criminals off the street. It's easy to calculate how many extra crimes the US would have if people weren't locked up by looking at recidivism rates. That doesn't require any comparisons between countries or complicated inferences, or statistical analyses.
For the rest, we agree: neither gun control nor gun ownership have a significant effect on violence in a society; other factors are at work. And that means that guns should remain legal and gun control shouldn't be strengthened, because you shouldn't restrict people's rights without evidence.
Well, you told me to leave the country in order to save taxes. I wouldn't save taxes, and there is nowhere else to go. As I was saying: if you like European style government so much, perhaps you should move here. Here in the US, you have to deal with people like me, who oppose the kind of enormous expansion of governmental powers that Obama has engaged in. I used to vote Democrat, but I doubt I will do so again. And I think a lot of people are going to be pissed off when the economy hasn't recovered in four years, and the way things are going, I don't think it will.
Where taxes are high in Europe, public services generally are too. Most of us prefer it that way. As for freedoms, apart from being able to own an unlimited number of guns and swear racial obscenities at people in the street, Europe is far more free than the US. For a start, you don't have to be a fucking Christian.
I've lived in Europe, and you're wrong on every single count. I think the reason why so many Europeans have so many misconceptions is because the media in Europe aren't free either and educational systems are government-run.
Also, it is far harder to emigrate to the US from Europe than you seem to think, although quite why anyone would choose to do so anyway is beyond me.
Apparently, reading isn't your strength either. I was saying that Americans who complain that the US should be more like Europe should spend some time living and working in Europe; it will quickly cure those desires.
In fact, it is very easy for Americans to get work permits for Europe, while it is hard for Europeans to get work permits in the US. Supply and demand, you know.
(1) No, you're wrong on the "you can emigrate to avoid paying taxes" part. And the $95k+ applies to me. Telling people to emigrate in response to discussing tax policy is also incredibly stupid. And there actually isn't any place to emigrate to. The US has been pretty unique in its support of liberty, and if people like you wreck it and turn it into Europe, there is no other place left to go.
(2) I'm serious, anybody with a master degree or higher can easily immigrate to the EU. If you really think the US is so great and Europe is so wonderful, get a work permit and actually live there for a few years for real. I think that will quickly cure you of your attitudes. It sure did for me. It's a fun and interesting place, but in terms of finances and freedom, it's messed up.
(3) It has nothing to do with "liking" people. When I pay taxes locally, the people who spend it answer to me and I see how the money is spent. Taxes that get paid to the federal government disappear in some large pot, and people with strong lobbies help themselves, and everybody else is poorer because of it. A large part of the federal budget doesn't go to "culture" or "civilization", it goes to propping up unprofitable companies and giving people who don't need it more money.
Slashdot Mirror
A "subtractive 3D printer" is usually called a "CNC machine".
All of those are apps I use on my tablet or in the browser, not on my desktop.
Where do you get these fantasies from? Apple didn't "develop their own operating system" either. They bought NeXT, and NeXT's operating system was a combination of the Mach kernel, the BSD userland, BSD and GNU utilities, and the gcc compiler. This was after Apple had completely lost control of the evolution of MacOS and run that OS into the ground.
And, yes, developing an HTML renderer is harder; for the OS, Apple can simply decide what to implement and how, whereas for HTML rendering, they have to be compatible with billions of pages.
As for "that being back in the 80's", Apple doesn't seem to have changed: they still rip off open source and they still engage in look-and-feel lawsuits.
Yes, I keep on believing that Apple is a big evil bully, and it seems like others are coming around to my point of view.
If you think Apple had the capability of whipping up a working HTML engine from scratch and bring it to market in the time they needed, you're extremely naive. Apple has very limited and focused software development capabilities, and they certainly had nobody capable of creating a browser engine from scratch. They usually deal with this by buying up some company, but there are so few good independent browser makers that they didn't even have that option.
What's offensive is that you portray Apple as some kind of open source hero. Jobs tried to rip off gcc and they tried to force the KHTML team to sign non-disclosure agreements over bug reports, and had a major falling out. That's on top of their generally offensive behaviors, like their look-and-feel lawsuits and their ridiculous patents. Apple has been a far greater bully and threat to open source than Microsoft.
Trying to portray Apple's use of KHTML as some kind of altruistic act is ridiculous and offensive, given their past abuses of open source software.
WebKit is based on KHTML, and Apple didn't have a choice about the license since it's LGPL. Apple's conduct vis-a-vis the KHTML developers was unfriendly to say the least.
Apple didn't choose to open source those projects, they merely participated in an existing project.
libdispatch isn't really used much outside OS X, since other platforms have better alternatives. libdispatch is indeed typical for the kinds of projects that Apple chooses to open source.
I know of no software open sourced by Apple either out of altruistic reasons or that constitutes a win-win situation. And unlike Microsoft, Jobs explicitly and clearly tried to screw the gcc developers and circumvent the GPL.
Maybe this will break the stranglehold that a few large companies have on the payment market. And it is these fees that have allowed credit card companies to be so sloppy with security and privacy.
Yes, motivation matters a great deal. You can contribute out of altruism, or because you think everybody wins (including yourself) when you contribute, or to advance only the interests of your own, proprietary products. Microsoft has mostly done the latter. (For that matter, so has Apple, since their open-source release have also largely been useless to non-Apple users.)
The code was "written" by a contractor, and MIcrosoft immediately took action. I think turning that into "Microsoft has already stolen code" is unfair. Much as I dislike Microsoft and their business practices, I'm pretty sure they don't make a habit of "stealing" GPL code themselves. It would make very little sense for them to do so.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-admits-its-gpl-violation-will-reissue-windows-7-tool-under-open-source-license/4547
Which part of "video standards aren't replaced overnight" went over your head?
You can look at PNG/JPEG to see how this is likely to play out, except that the incentives to move from H.264/5 to WebM are actually stronger for many people.
I find Windows 7 (and 8) fall seriously short in those areas that actually matter in day-to-day usage: file management, WiFi configuration, software updates, disk management, device driver installation, system cleanup, and a few others. All those are unnecessarily complicated and tedious on Windows.
I have yet to find any useful app in the Microsoft app store. Microsoft is probably desperate to get anything in there.
But they can change their TOS at the drop of a hat, so just because they may be "open source friendly" right now doesn't mean that they won't become quite open source unfriendly again when their app store picks up.
Apart from the awful English, WebM has been quite successful, too: a lot of software packages use WebM because they don't need to license H.264, and not just open source software.
Video standards aren't replaced overnight, and in fact, in a lot of places can't be replaced at all. The best way of dealing with these kinds of compatibility issues is to offer an alternative when people need to upgrade and change hardware/software anyway. So, let's hope that WebM can compete with H.265, because then we have a real chance of largely getting rid of proprietary video standards.
Good Android phones are around $200. If you can't afford to buy one of those, you probably shouldn't lock yourself into a contract either.
If people stopped buying locked phones, or contracts, then carriers would stop offering them. You do have plenty of unlocked and no-contract alternatives.
There's a simple solution: don't buy phones under contract. There are many good unlocked phones around.
Phone contracts are a scam. If you willingly participate in such a scam, you're contributing to the problem.
What's the advantage over Borohydride?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borohydride
Which part of "there is no other place to go" did you not understand?
Despite the damage ignorant and greedy fools like you have been doing, this is still the best country to live.
But we need to change direction away from the direction Bush and Obama have taken us.
Incarceration doesn't function as a deterrent, it simply keeps criminals off the street. It's easy to calculate how many extra crimes the US would have if people weren't locked up by looking at recidivism rates. That doesn't require any comparisons between countries or complicated inferences, or statistical analyses.
For the rest, we agree: neither gun control nor gun ownership have a significant effect on violence in a society; other factors are at work. And that means that guns should remain legal and gun control shouldn't be strengthened, because you shouldn't restrict people's rights without evidence.
Well, you told me to leave the country in order to save taxes. I wouldn't save taxes, and there is nowhere else to go. As I was saying: if you like European style government so much, perhaps you should move here. Here in the US, you have to deal with people like me, who oppose the kind of enormous expansion of governmental powers that Obama has engaged in. I used to vote Democrat, but I doubt I will do so again. And I think a lot of people are going to be pissed off when the economy hasn't recovered in four years, and the way things are going, I don't think it will.
I've lived in Europe, and you're wrong on every single count. I think the reason why so many Europeans have so many misconceptions is because the media in Europe aren't free either and educational systems are government-run.
Apparently, reading isn't your strength either. I was saying that Americans who complain that the US should be more like Europe should spend some time living and working in Europe; it will quickly cure those desires.
In fact, it is very easy for Americans to get work permits for Europe, while it is hard for Europeans to get work permits in the US. Supply and demand, you know.
The fact that this isn't in the kernel and that device manufacturers can't ship it remains a serious problem for Linux.
*If you really think the US is so horrible and Europe is so wonderful,
(1) No, you're wrong on the "you can emigrate to avoid paying taxes" part. And the $95k+ applies to me. Telling people to emigrate in response to discussing tax policy is also incredibly stupid. And there actually isn't any place to emigrate to. The US has been pretty unique in its support of liberty, and if people like you wreck it and turn it into Europe, there is no other place left to go.
(2) I'm serious, anybody with a master degree or higher can easily immigrate to the EU. If you really think the US is so great and Europe is so wonderful, get a work permit and actually live there for a few years for real. I think that will quickly cure you of your attitudes. It sure did for me. It's a fun and interesting place, but in terms of finances and freedom, it's messed up.
(3) It has nothing to do with "liking" people. When I pay taxes locally, the people who spend it answer to me and I see how the money is spent. Taxes that get paid to the federal government disappear in some large pot, and people with strong lobbies help themselves, and everybody else is poorer because of it. A large part of the federal budget doesn't go to "culture" or "civilization", it goes to propping up unprofitable companies and giving people who don't need it more money.
Your exchange is fascinating: it's like two blind people discuss color.
"Money is only useful if you spend it", "encourages hoarding and discourages spending"? Do you have any clue how our economy actually works?