I say Windows, Linux, MacOS because that's what they are.
Mac OS X is not Mac OS, in any way, shape, or form. That's like saying BSD is Linux because it shares some of the Linux's API. It is a completely different OS. It is not mere pedantry, it is simple correctness.
As to what you're saying about various APIs... the point is that the app was not written for Linux, it was written for a specific API (most of which is POSIX and X11 at its root, with other libs on top of those). And you completely missed this point when I said "an app 'for Mac OS X' that is also written for POSIX" when you responded that it uses "way more APIs than what are defined in POSIX." No. In my hyopthetical, it is written *for POSIX*. You can write an app for Mac OS X that uses the POSIX API primarily, or exclusively. The point is that it is all about the APIs, not about the OS.
You're complaining that PART of Mac OS X is proprietary.
Yeah I am, because it's the parts that all the apps use.
Since I wrote such an app last week -- an app for Mac OS X that doesn't use any proprietary libraries -- I guess I'll have to disagree. Even if you were correct that all Mac OS X apps use the Cocoa or Carbon libraries -- which you aren't -- there is an open source port of much of the Cocoa API.
So, do you always say Microsoft Windows 2000? Red Hat Linux?
Red Hat Linux is Linux. Mac OS X is not Mac OS. It is an entirely different OS.
I don't call any specific Windows version anything, if I can help it.
If Apple want me to pronounce OS X 'correctly'
Those quotes are misplaced. There is a correct way to pronounce the name. You don't have to like it, but it does exist. The correctness of it is not a matter for opionion or debate. Apple owns it, Apple gave it a name, and a pronouncation, and that name and pronounciation are correct. Fine, be a rebel without a cause and call it what you want, but don't pretend that there isn't a correct way to do it.
I could pronounce "Hobbit" as "dorkwad". I won't try to pretend it is correct.
To distinguish between OS X and OS 9 in the context of a Mac discussion I say OS X and OS 9 (or 8, or 7...). Outside of the context, I would say Mac OS 9 and OS X.
I use their actual names. Mac OS, and Mac OS X.
Just out of interest, how do you pronounce it, in full?
How Apple says it actually is pronounced (text-to-speech notwithstanding:-).
I'd overlook "MacOS" if it were not for the fact that Mac OS and Mac OS X are almost completely different operating systems, and in the context of this discussion, are not the same thing. And on the flipside, all the Linuxes are the same in the context of this discussion. Narf!
Twirlip was far too absolute in the statement, but you must recognize there is a lot of truth to it. The whole reason copyright and patent exist in the US is because the people who wrote the Constitution recognized that one of the best (not the only) ways to encourage innovation was to grant temporary monopolies to the innovators.
That is, unless you believe the Supreme Court of the United States... Free Mickey!
It's a funny kind of "synergy" where apps written for Linux will work pretty well on MacOS, but it's actually utterly impossible to do the reverse with a Wine style/scale reverse engineering project.
Right. Except... no.
First, you don't mean "apps written for Linux," you mean "apps written for POSIX." (You also don't mean "MacOS", which doesn't exist, nor "Mac OS", but "Mac OS X"). An app written for POSIX works on Mac OS X, because Mac OS X has POSIX built-in. And if you write an app "for Mac OS X" that is also written for POSIX, then it will work just fine on Linux, as well as the opposite does. Big deal.
You're complaining that PART of Mac OS X is proprietary. Ever hear of the Serenity Prayer?
Eighth Mac -- all at once? I think you get a short hop in Jobs' jet if you have that many.
He said "in his life", not "all at once." I am on my sixth Mac at one time... an iMac, two PowerBook G3s, old iBook, new iBook, and PowerBook G4 (to you filthy, stinking, trolls: none of them given by Apple). I've had about six others, and a new PowerBook G4 is on the way (to replace the other one... that one is "given" by Apple, to replace the previous one, which was defective and after a month and three attempts of trying, couldn't be repaired...).
Um, Apple gave a LOT back to BSD. That is, as much as BSD wants. The source of the BSD core of Mac OS X is fully available for download, as it has been for a long time now. It's called Darwin. Look it up.
No, it is written in C, perhaps with some AppleScript. There is a third-party indexer on that page, written in Perl. iCommune never actually serves the MP3s, it just writes an index of the MP3s and configures Apache to serve them; so a third-party indexer can write the index, and a user can configure his own Apache server, without needing iCommune to do it. In this way you can either avoid having iCommune do it on your Mac OS X box for some reason, or have some non-Mac OS X box (e.g., Linux) act as server. iCommune came with a Python indexer, but I wanted one in Perl (easier to add to it and modify it, for me), so I wrote that one.
Um, except that Slash uses gzip for its compression. So, no.:-)
What is different, as has been pointed out, is that Slash compresses a particular post and looks at how well it compresses, but does not compress/compare with other posts.
I am well-acquainted with Rendezvous; I was just saying that maybe Apple is afraid that iCommune, which works similarly to what we saw in the Macworld demo, might steal their thunder or conflict with their feature set. Maybe they aren't afraid of that, I was just positing that they could be. Dunno.
As to vaporware: for all we know, it was a rigged demo. I don't think it was, but the point is that until the product is released, the fact remains that it might never be released. Heck, it was supposed to already be out by now, if I remember correctly.
Still, this is just acting as an HTTP client, copying a song from Apache to the desktop. Big whoop. I can download my MP3s with a web browser, too, using Apache::MP3 and the stock Mac OS X Apache/mod_perl, instead of mod_dav. Outlaw Apache!
Um... you wrote all that about Rendezvous as if anything I wrote contradicted what you are saying. It doesn't. Nothing I said there is incorrect.
And yes, that Apple will enable the sharing is theory, as it has not yet been done, and there remains the possibility that it won't be done. It is, for now, by definition, vaporware.
You appear to be under the misapprehension that news cannot contain commentary. Benjamin Franklin, essentially the father of journalism in America, regularly injected commentary into news stories in his Pennsylvania Gazette. As long as it is clear that it is commentary, it's perfectly reasonable; that news cannot contain commentary is a thoroughly modern perspective. There is a place for both objective news as well as news with commentary. Slashdot has always been, largely, a place for the latter.
This is not about P2P. iCommune sucks as a way to share music illegally, because you have to stream it, you can't copy it. Sure, that doesn't make it legal, but it makes it stupid as a means to "steal" music from a friend. The only way to copy an MP3 is outside of iTunes, using some external web client, as iCommune just shares via Apache. And if you are going to do that, you don't even need iCommune, you can just tell Apache to share your MP3 directory!
iCommune does not serve MP3s, Apache does. iCommune does not copy MP3s, only an external web client could. This isn't about stopping P2P. It is about Apple using its license to prevent someone from doing something they don't like, probably because, as only a few people mentioned, Apple is going to enable Rendezvous sharing in iTunes (in theory, someday).
Yeah, how evil of me to correct an incorrect implication in the submitter's post, that this has anything to do with the license of Mac OS X. For shame. Now, I could have left the submission's last sentence off entirely, but I thought it made a valid point about being proprietary, so I pointed out the fact that it has nothing to do with Mac OS X's license, but iTunes'.
If you want to bitch and whine, at least do it when I do something actually *wrong*. It's not that hard to find such cases.
Slashdot Mirror
The correctness of it is not a matter for opionion or debate.
Ha ha. Never heard of language being the one true democracy?
Not when it comes to proper nouns, of course not. That's nonsense.
I say Windows, Linux, MacOS because that's what they are.
... the point is that the app was not written for Linux, it was written for a specific API (most of which is POSIX and X11 at its root, with other libs on top of those). And you completely missed this point when I said "an app 'for Mac OS X' that is also written for POSIX" when you responded that it uses "way more APIs than what are defined in POSIX." No. In my hyopthetical, it is written *for POSIX*. You can write an app for Mac OS X that uses the POSIX API primarily, or exclusively. The point is that it is all about the APIs, not about the OS.
Mac OS X is not Mac OS, in any way, shape, or form. That's like saying BSD is Linux because it shares some of the Linux's API. It is a completely different OS. It is not mere pedantry, it is simple correctness.
As to what you're saying about various APIs
You're complaining that PART of Mac OS X is proprietary.
Yeah I am, because it's the parts that all the apps use.
Since I wrote such an app last week -- an app for Mac OS X that doesn't use any proprietary libraries -- I guess I'll have to disagree. Even if you were correct that all Mac OS X apps use the Cocoa or Carbon libraries -- which you aren't -- there is an open source port of much of the Cocoa API.
So, do you always say Microsoft Windows 2000? Red Hat Linux?
Red Hat Linux is Linux. Mac OS X is not Mac OS. It is an entirely different OS.
I don't call any specific Windows version anything, if I can help it.
If Apple want me to pronounce OS X 'correctly'
Those quotes are misplaced. There is a correct way to pronounce the name. You don't have to like it, but it does exist. The correctness of it is not a matter for opionion or debate. Apple owns it, Apple gave it a name, and a pronouncation, and that name and pronounciation are correct. Fine, be a rebel without a cause and call it what you want, but don't pretend that there isn't a correct way to do it.
I could pronounce "Hobbit" as "dorkwad". I won't try to pretend it is correct.
To distinguish between OS X and OS 9 in the context of a Mac discussion I say OS X and OS 9 (or 8, or 7...). Outside of the context, I would say Mac OS 9 and OS X.
:-).
I use their actual names. Mac OS, and Mac OS X.
Just out of interest, how do you pronounce it, in full?
How Apple says it actually is pronounced (text-to-speech notwithstanding
I'd overlook "MacOS" if it were not for the fact that Mac OS and Mac OS X are almost completely different operating systems, and in the context of this discussion, are not the same thing. And on the flipside, all the Linuxes are the same in the context of this discussion. Narf!
Twirlip was far too absolute in the statement, but you must recognize there is a lot of truth to it. The whole reason copyright and patent exist in the US is because the people who wrote the Constitution recognized that one of the best (not the only) ways to encourage innovation was to grant temporary monopolies to the innovators.
... Free Mickey!
That is, unless you believe the Supreme Court of the United States
It's a funny kind of "synergy" where apps written for Linux will work pretty well on MacOS, but it's actually utterly impossible to do the reverse with a Wine style/scale reverse engineering project.
... no.
Right. Except
First, you don't mean "apps written for Linux," you mean "apps written for POSIX." (You also don't mean "MacOS", which doesn't exist, nor "Mac OS", but "Mac OS X"). An app written for POSIX works on Mac OS X, because Mac OS X has POSIX built-in. And if you write an app "for Mac OS X" that is also written for POSIX, then it will work just fine on Linux, as well as the opposite does. Big deal.
You're complaining that PART of Mac OS X is proprietary. Ever hear of the Serenity Prayer?
Eighth Mac -- all at once? I think you get a short hop in Jobs' jet if you have that many.
... an iMac, two PowerBook G3s, old iBook, new iBook, and PowerBook G4 (to you filthy, stinking, trolls: none of them given by Apple). I've had about six others, and a new PowerBook G4 is on the way (to replace the other one ... that one is "given" by Apple, to replace the previous one, which was defective and after a month and three attempts of trying, couldn't be repaired ...).
He said "in his life", not "all at once." I am on my sixth Mac at one time
Um, Apple gave a LOT back to BSD. That is, as much as BSD wants. The source of the BSD core of Mac OS X is fully available for download, as it has been for a long time now. It's called Darwin. Look it up.
No, KHTML is LGPL. Apple just releases the changes it makes to KHTML itself, not the browser source.
Yeah ... basically, there are only two fulltime Slashdot editors/programmers who don't use Macs. And soon there will be only one ...
No, they got their laptops months later.
No, it is written in C, perhaps with some AppleScript. There is a third-party indexer on that page, written in Perl. iCommune never actually serves the MP3s, it just writes an index of the MP3s and configures Apache to serve them; so a third-party indexer can write the index, and a user can configure his own Apache server, without needing iCommune to do it. In this way you can either avoid having iCommune do it on your Mac OS X box for some reason, or have some non-Mac OS X box (e.g., Linux) act as server. iCommune came with a Python indexer, but I wanted one in Perl (easier to add to it and modify it, for me), so I wrote that one.
Um, except that Slash uses gzip for its compression. So, no. :-)
What is different, as has been pointed out, is that Slash compresses a particular post and looks at how well it compresses, but does not compress/compare with other posts.
Nope!
I am well-acquainted with Rendezvous; I was just saying that maybe Apple is afraid that iCommune, which works similarly to what we saw in the Macworld demo, might steal their thunder or conflict with their feature set. Maybe they aren't afraid of that, I was just positing that they could be. Dunno.
As to vaporware: for all we know, it was a rigged demo. I don't think it was, but the point is that until the product is released, the fact remains that it might never be released. Heck, it was supposed to already be out by now, if I remember correctly.
Aha! It supports it through drag and drop. Cool.
Still, this is just acting as an HTTP client, copying a song from Apache to the desktop. Big whoop. I can download my MP3s with a web browser, too, using Apache::MP3 and the stock Mac OS X Apache/mod_perl, instead of mod_dav. Outlaw Apache!
Um ... you wrote all that about Rendezvous as if anything I wrote contradicted what you are saying. It doesn't. Nothing I said there is incorrect.
And yes, that Apple will enable the sharing is theory, as it has not yet been done, and there remains the possibility that it won't be done. It is, for now, by definition, vaporware.
You appear to be under the misapprehension that news cannot contain commentary. Benjamin Franklin, essentially the father of journalism in America, regularly injected commentary into news stories in his Pennsylvania Gazette. As long as it is clear that it is commentary, it's perfectly reasonable; that news cannot contain commentary is a thoroughly modern perspective. There is a place for both objective news as well as news with commentary. Slashdot has always been, largely, a place for the latter.
If you don't want editorial comment, go to CNN.com. ;-)
This is not about P2P. iCommune sucks as a way to share music illegally, because you have to stream it, you can't copy it. Sure, that doesn't make it legal, but it makes it stupid as a means to "steal" music from a friend. The only way to copy an MP3 is outside of iTunes, using some external web client, as iCommune just shares via Apache. And if you are going to do that, you don't even need iCommune, you can just tell Apache to share your MP3 directory!
iCommune does not serve MP3s, Apache does. iCommune does not copy MP3s, only an external web client could. This isn't about stopping P2P. It is about Apple using its license to prevent someone from doing something they don't like, probably because, as only a few people mentioned, Apple is going to enable Rendezvous sharing in iTunes (in theory, someday).
Yeah, Apple killing a new product a lot of people were interested in isn't news. What was I thinking?
Yeah, how evil of me to correct an incorrect implication in the submitter's post, that this has anything to do with the license of Mac OS X. For shame. Now, I could have left the submission's last sentence off entirely, but I thought it made a valid point about being proprietary, so I pointed out the fact that it has nothing to do with Mac OS X's license, but iTunes'.
If you want to bitch and whine, at least do it when I do something actually *wrong*. It's not that hard to find such cases.
You mean like mDNSResponder?w00p, indeed.