It means nothing of the kind. The OS X version of IE 5 is written for Apple's Carbon APIs, which make it simple for current Mac apps to be ported to OS X. Unless Apple is planning to move Carbon to FreeBSD or Linux or whatever (which is about as likely as MS GPLing Office, and would probably take quite some time and money), having IE 5 on OS X doesn't help MS on any other *nix.
The same thing applies to the business world. Mac OS and FreeBSD (or Linux or whatever) complement each other quite nicely. Mac OS for usability, *nix for raw power.
Amen to that. A Mac dual booting Mac OS and some *nix is my ideal system. I have Mac OS for when I just want to get things done without worrying about it, and *nix when I'm feeling geeky and in the mood to screw around (of course with Mac OS X I'll be able to both within one OS;-)).
I wonder how much of this decision to port to PPC is based on Apple's use of FreeBSD code in Mac OS X. Apparently Apple has been contributing back to FreeBSD on a regular basis, and I imagine has built a relationship with the FreeBSD people.
To answer the question, no, it's not standard Apple practice to release public betas, but Apple probably realizes that people are getting tired of waiting. Typically, late Apple betas (which the public beta will presumably be) are more stable/faster than the previous release version (this should be especially true with Mac OS X vs. Mac OS 9). And I have a strong suspicion any beta of Mac OS X is going to be less buggy than any release version of certain other comercial OSes....
I'm not aware of any details about how it will be distributed.
The QuickTime file format is open, and the QuickTime streaming protocol is open. Sorenson isn't open. QuickTime does support several totally open codecs, but nobody uses them for streaming video because Sorenson just kicks ass.
If MPEG-4 catches on in a big way, chances are it'll be added to QuickTime and people will start streaming video in it. It should be possible to write a player for Linux.
The right to bare arms is all about protecting yourself from the government. I don't see how you can do this if the government knows how well you are armed.
Do you really think a few people with guns would make much of a difference? I agree it was a good idea when the Constitution was written, but it doesn't really apply in a democratic superpower.
If you actually look at the state of freedom in the US, you'll see that it's disappearing slowly, but (mostly) with the full consent (or simple apathy) of the majority. Oppression in countries like the US takes forms more subtle than those that can be fought with guns.
Which "well-regulated militia" are you a member of, and when was the last time you found it nessasary to make use of a gun to maintain "the security of a free state?"
I just fired up AOL and checked this. The stuff about the political party sites checks out. Unbelievable! However, it won't let me to any of those gun web sites. This is on the highest web restriction.
The original BSD license with it's, as the FSF puts it, "obnoxious BSD advertising clause" is incompatible with GPL. The modified BSD license, which is almost certainly the license being here, is fully compatible with GPL. The FSF states this specifically.
BSD is designed to allow people the freedom to do what they want with code. GPL is designed to keep code free. These types of "freedom" are really very different.
BSD actually causes many fewer headaches, because the code can be used in closed source products with no worries over licensing issues and that sort of thing. And of course, you can always start with some BSD code, make some changes, and release the resulting code under GPL.
Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia, and just about all the other major Mac developers have already committed to Carbon. A Carbonized version of IE 5 for Mac has already been demonstrated.
Of course, developers will probably want to rewrite everything in Cocoa eventually, simply because it provides a much nicer development environment. But this isn't necessary; a Carbon app will take advantage of most of OS X's new features, and typically a current Mac app can be updated for Carbon in a couple of weeks.
Of course OS X was supposed to be released by now. But it's a major commercial OS release, and those are always late. At least Apple has been adding to the feature set as the OS gets pushed back, rather than scaling it back the way MS did with NT 5 AKA Windows 2000.
As for Intel, Apple hasn't announced anything, and I wouldn't bet on it for the initial release. But after that, all bets are off. Trying to predict Steve Jobs is an exercise in futility.
This is probably going to get moderated down, but....
Oh come on, look at the alternive. I'd pick Bush even if I wasn't a republican over "I invened the internet" Gore.
Have you noticed that Bush is somewhat slow? This isn't intended as an insult or anything. The man really isn't very bright. He also doesn't seem to have any opinions or ideas of his own. I get the distinct impression he does nothing but go up on stage and say whatever they tell him to.
The man will do anything for a vote too, including killing people (Texas executes more people by FAR than any other state).
If/.ers are against Bush, they simply won't go to the Polls.
Honestly, I think the entire system is a mess. I don't like or respect Bush or Gore (OTOH, I respected both McCain and Bradley). I'd pick Gore over Bush for the simple reason that he (claims to) support serious campaign finance reform. Campaign contributions by special interests are destroying our democracy.
Of course, Gore is probably just lying his way into office (they all do). And even if he's serious it probably wouldn't get anywhere.
I mean look at the demographic realistically. I use Linux because it outpreforms Windows and I can play with the source. That and I like the FREEDOM, that's speach, not beer. Look at Republican ideology and Libertarian ideolgy closer. Unless I am mistaken most slashdoters are Libertarian. Then look at democarat ideology. it's a no brainer choice.
Libertarianism is something like Communism, in that it's a great idea but it probably doesn't work in practice.
Trying to move back on topic.... Many people on the right don't understand antitrust. Antitrust is not something that limits the freedom of markets, it's something that maintains it. In a monopolized market, the competition that is the goal of a free market ceases. By fighting antitrust, you fight to put the rights of individual companies not only above the rights of consumers, but above the integrity of the free market system.
Microsoft would just fork the code an re-close it.
Obviously this wouldn't be allowed.
We already have open source operating systems that are better.
Define "better." Technically superior? Certainly. Better GUI? No. (Not that there aren't things much better than Windows). More desktop-oriented software? No.
Microsoft's profitability (or lack there of) isn't of any relevance (except to the extent that its absurd profit margins demonstrate corruption of the free market).
Antitrust laws are designed to protect consumers, not companies.
Slashdot Mirror
But now they can pin down that you're in a software store and send to Microsoft ads.
--
Don't need it. OS X's Cocoa API already supports distributed software.
--
Mac OS X manages to be POSIX compliant, and its anything but "Yet Another Unix Clone" which only runs "the same old boring Unix programs."
Hell, NT can be made POSIX compliant, and it isn't a Unix no matter how far you stretch the meaning of the term.
--
Apache will be preinstalled in Mac OS X. The little personal web sharing feature built into OS X is going to be based on it (talk about overkill!).
--
http://www.apple.com/macosx/
--
It means nothing of the kind. The OS X version of IE 5 is written for Apple's Carbon APIs, which make it simple for current Mac apps to be ported to OS X. Unless Apple is planning to move Carbon to FreeBSD or Linux or whatever (which is about as likely as MS GPLing Office, and would probably take quite some time and money), having IE 5 on OS X doesn't help MS on any other *nix.
--
The same thing applies to the business world. Mac OS and FreeBSD (or Linux or whatever) complement each other quite nicely. Mac OS for usability, *nix for raw power.
--
Amen to that. A Mac dual booting Mac OS and some *nix is my ideal system. I have Mac OS for when I just want to get things done without worrying about it, and *nix when I'm feeling geeky and in the mood to screw around (of course with Mac OS X I'll be able to both within one OS ;-)).
I wonder how much of this decision to port to PPC is based on Apple's use of FreeBSD code in Mac OS X. Apparently Apple has been contributing back to FreeBSD on a regular basis, and I imagine has built a relationship with the FreeBSD people.
--
Take a look at DP4. Apple is addressing many of the concerns users had about the new UI.
--
How is the above in any way off topic?
To answer the question, no, it's not standard Apple practice to release public betas, but Apple probably realizes that people are getting tired of waiting. Typically, late Apple betas (which the public beta will presumably be) are more stable/faster than the previous release version (this should be especially true with Mac OS X vs. Mac OS 9). And I have a strong suspicion any beta of Mac OS X is going to be less buggy than any release version of certain other comercial OSes....
I'm not aware of any details about how it will be distributed.
--
Just what are you talking about? The QuickTime file format has always been open. There is no "embrace and extend" here at all.
--
The QuickTime file format is open, and the QuickTime streaming protocol is open. Sorenson isn't open. QuickTime does support several totally open codecs, but nobody uses them for streaming video because Sorenson just kicks ass.
If MPEG-4 catches on in a big way, chances are it'll be added to QuickTime and people will start streaming video in it. It should be possible to write a player for Linux.
--
The right to bare arms is all about protecting yourself from the government. I don't see how you can do this if the government knows how well you are armed.
Do you really think a few people with guns would make much of a difference? I agree it was a good idea when the Constitution was written, but it doesn't really apply in a democratic superpower.
If you actually look at the state of freedom in the US, you'll see that it's disappearing slowly, but (mostly) with the full consent (or simple apathy) of the majority. Oppression in countries like the US takes forms more subtle than those that can be fought with guns.
--
Which "well-regulated militia" are you a member of, and when was the last time you found it nessasary to make use of a gun to maintain "the security of a free state?"
--
I just fired up AOL and checked this. The stuff about the political party sites checks out. Unbelievable! However, it won't let me to any of those gun web sites. This is on the highest web restriction.
--
The original BSD license with it's, as the FSF puts it, "obnoxious BSD advertising clause" is incompatible with GPL. The modified BSD license, which is almost certainly the license being here, is fully compatible with GPL. The FSF states this specifically.
--
BSD is designed to allow people the freedom to do what they want with code. GPL is designed to keep code free. These types of "freedom" are really very different.
BSD actually causes many fewer headaches, because the code can be used in closed source products with no worries over licensing issues and that sort of thing. And of course, you can always start with some BSD code, make some changes, and release the resulting code under GPL.
--
Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia, and just about all the other major Mac developers have already committed to Carbon. A Carbonized version of IE 5 for Mac has already been demonstrated.
Of course, developers will probably want to rewrite everything in Cocoa eventually, simply because it provides a much nicer development environment. But this isn't necessary; a Carbon app will take advantage of most of OS X's new features, and typically a current Mac app can be updated for Carbon in a couple of weeks.
--
If your issue is "Open source standards" here's a clue, QT is just as closed source.
QuickTime's file format and its streaming protocol are open.
--
Of course OS X was supposed to be released by now. But it's a major commercial OS release, and those are always late. At least Apple has been adding to the feature set as the OS gets pushed back, rather than scaling it back the way MS did with NT 5 AKA Windows 2000.
As for Intel, Apple hasn't announced anything, and I wouldn't bet on it for the initial release. But after that, all bets are off. Trying to predict Steve Jobs is an exercise in futility.
--
This is probably going to get moderated down, but....
/.ers are against Bush, they simply won't go to the Polls.
Oh come on, look at the alternive. I'd pick Bush even if I wasn't a republican over "I invened the internet" Gore.
Have you noticed that Bush is somewhat slow? This isn't intended as an insult or anything. The man really isn't very bright. He also doesn't seem to have any opinions or ideas of his own. I get the distinct impression he does nothing but go up on stage and say whatever they tell him to.
The man will do anything for a vote too, including killing people (Texas executes more people by FAR than any other state).
If
Honestly, I think the entire system is a mess. I don't like or respect Bush or Gore (OTOH, I respected both McCain and Bradley). I'd pick Gore over Bush for the simple reason that he (claims to) support serious campaign finance reform. Campaign contributions by special interests are destroying our democracy.
Of course, Gore is probably just lying his way into office (they all do). And even if he's serious it probably wouldn't get anywhere.
I mean look at the demographic realistically. I use Linux because it outpreforms Windows and I can play with the source. That and I like the FREEDOM, that's speach, not beer. Look at Republican ideology and Libertarian ideolgy closer. Unless I am mistaken most slashdoters are Libertarian. Then look at democarat ideology. it's a no brainer choice.
Libertarianism is something like Communism, in that it's a great idea but it probably doesn't work in practice.
Trying to move back on topic.... Many people on the right don't understand antitrust. Antitrust is not something that limits the freedom of markets, it's something that maintains it. In a monopolized market, the competition that is the goal of a free market ceases. By fighting antitrust, you fight to put the rights of individual companies not only above the rights of consumers, but above the integrity of the free market system.
--
Microsoft would just fork the code an re-close it.
Obviously this wouldn't be allowed.
We already have open source operating systems that are better.
Define "better." Technically superior? Certainly. Better GUI? No. (Not that there aren't things much better than Windows). More desktop-oriented software? No.
--
Microsoft's profitability (or lack there of) isn't of any relevance (except to the extent that its absurd profit margins demonstrate corruption of the free market).
Antitrust laws are designed to protect consumers, not companies.
--
Check it out. It looks like Apple and Palm weren't messing around! I wonder how well it runs Quake....
--
Take a look at those "screenshots" at http://palm.themes.org. Recall that the palm only supports 4 bit greyscale (IIRC) or 8 bit color.
--