You are a moron. Look at the links for the skins that Apple Legal is complaining about. Now look at pictures of OS X... wow, they look virtually identical. Now, look at a picture of the Titanium Powerbook. Now find a picture of a Sony Vaio... oh, wait... they look nothing alike... amazing... idiot.
Apple didn't lose that lawsuit, Apple and MS settled out of court because MS was going to lose the case. However, they only settled on version 1.0 of Windows, no other versions, hence Windows 95,98, ME
As in my reply to "Anonymous" above, I didn't phrase what I meant very well at all (2am + caffeine = odd sounding posts); I'm aware that NeXTstep was based on the Mach Kernel and BSD, but my argument was that open sourcing Darwin allowed for the possibility of a fix for this problem. Regardless of whether or not there has been one, and you seem to doubt that there has been, I simply mean to say that we should just wait and see. As for Jobs' dedication to quality, we must remember that he is older now, has shown in the last 6 months or so that he can admit when he's wrong (moreso than before at least) and even at his most stubborn, he does want Apple to succeed and, by most accounts, he does seem to recognize that OS X may make or break Apple from here on out. I'm sure the engineers have been very clear with what must be done to make OS X a great system and I have no doubt that Steve has listened (feedback on OS X resulted in quite a few changes to the UI, the developers no doubt gave an equal contribution). In that light, I think we have to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially when considering that not one of us knows what he's thinking. If Apple (or Steve) royally screws up the delivery of OS X and it's evident after March 24th... well, then I think it's safe to pass judgement.
I obviously didn't phrase that well at all; my point was that while BSD+Mach were part of NeXT and therefore part of OS X, Darwin is not limited by that because of the time it has been in development and because of open source support.
Well, I think it's important to remember that while OS X draws a lot from NeXTStep, it is by no means limited by it. There are massive amounts of BSD thrown in there and the kernel itself is Mach, so... while your concern does have validity, at the same time I would tend to think that given so much time, the open sourcing of Darwin and the combination of tech from BSD and Mach should have eliminated such a significant problem. Besides that, Apple is gambling heavily on this OS, so problems like this should/would have been at the top of the priority list.
Slashdot Mirror
You are a moron. Look at the links for the skins that Apple Legal is complaining about. Now look at pictures of OS X... wow, they look virtually identical. Now, look at a picture of the Titanium Powerbook. Now find a picture of a Sony Vaio... oh, wait... they look nothing alike... amazing... idiot.
They didn't lose, they settled out of court on version 1.0 of Windows. Get your facts straight.
Apple didn't lose that lawsuit, Apple and MS settled out of court because MS was going to lose the case. However, they only settled on version 1.0 of Windows, no other versions, hence Windows 95,98, ME
As in my reply to "Anonymous" above, I didn't phrase what I meant very well at all (2am + caffeine = odd sounding posts); I'm aware that NeXTstep was based on the Mach Kernel and BSD, but my argument was that open sourcing Darwin allowed for the possibility of a fix for this problem. Regardless of whether or not there has been one, and you seem to doubt that there has been, I simply mean to say that we should just wait and see. As for Jobs' dedication to quality, we must remember that he is older now, has shown in the last 6 months or so that he can admit when he's wrong (moreso than before at least) and even at his most stubborn, he does want Apple to succeed and, by most accounts, he does seem to recognize that OS X may make or break Apple from here on out. I'm sure the engineers have been very clear with what must be done to make OS X a great system and I have no doubt that Steve has listened (feedback on OS X resulted in quite a few changes to the UI, the developers no doubt gave an equal contribution). In that light, I think we have to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially when considering that not one of us knows what he's thinking. If Apple (or Steve) royally screws up the delivery of OS X and it's evident after March 24th... well, then I think it's safe to pass judgement.
I obviously didn't phrase that well at all; my point was that while BSD+Mach were part of NeXT and therefore part of OS X, Darwin is not limited by that because of the time it has been in development and because of open source support.
Well, I think it's important to remember that while OS X draws a lot from NeXTStep, it is by no means limited by it. There are massive amounts of BSD thrown in there and the kernel itself is Mach, so... while your concern does have validity, at the same time I would tend to think that given so much time, the open sourcing of Darwin and the combination of tech from BSD and Mach should have eliminated such a significant problem. Besides that, Apple is gambling heavily on this OS, so problems like this should/would have been at the top of the priority list.