Why do people continue to be ignorant of the fact that Darwin is open source?
Google builds good stuff, and they sell it on their systems or partners' systems, and you can STILL run in on anything you can make it work on, since they provide the source code.
So, yes -- Google good, Apple bad.
I can't believe you're posting this in a discussion about an OS that is restricted to Google's browser, will be tied to Google web services, and will only run on Google-approved hardware. Could your double standard be any huger? Why don't you just admit that you love Google simply because they use Linux and throw the phrase "open source" around a lot (even though their search engine, the core of their business, remains as closed as ever)?
Yeah, but Google uses Linux. That's all it takes to win the hearts of Slashdotters. Use Linux and throw the word "open source" around while indexing their data with your ad bots.
Let's replace the OS from the giant company that's trying to tie all its services together to lock you in with another OS from a giant company that's trying to tie all its services together to lock you in.
So why would you need Chrome OS to run web apps? A Linux distro already runs them on top of supporting native apps. I just don't see a use for this other than Google's continued branching out into non-core markets.
Welcome to the future, where we abandon decades of established desktop APIs for the web in order to return to the glory days of DOS, where everyone re-implements their own!
By the way, finding out Chrome OS is as reduced in its functionality as I feared is really disappointing. Why would anyone use this if they could install a Linux variant that can run things other than Google-brand web apps? And it can run them at native speeds instead of at JavaScript speeds?
It's just amazing to me how many top players in this industry are so eager to step backwards in progress without realizing it.
Right. It's about accountability, or lack thereof, like this story about funding of the "scientific stimulus."
Call me crazy for expecting the government that's forcibly spending my money to pay attention to the results it gets before trumpeting them as a success, especially when it gets job creation numbers from districts that don't even exist.
Obama is the same old bullshit and is quickly swinging the public back toward the GOP.
Absolutely, having the government do it is a lot worse. It's much harder to change governments. You may think we need a gigantic, expensive, centralized nanny-government that micro-manages everything, but the free market has proven time and time again that it's more flexible, more affordable, and easier to punish.
Well, if Obama didn't lie when he got information telling him a certain number of jobs were created, then Bush didn't lie when his intelligence departments told him there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Stop being biased toward one side just because you're a member of that side's political party. Learn to step outside the bubble.
It's a lack of accountability in verifying the numbers, which relates it to this story about the accountability in funding of the "science stimulus."
Just a thought, but maybe Obama shouldn't trumpet job creation numbers his administration didn't verify first. Maybe his administration should try being a little suspicious about job creation numbers coming from districts that don't even exist. Maybe he shouldn't use incorrect numbers to convince taxpayers to pay for stimulus packages.
Do people know what the "death panels" comment was mockingly referring to? There really are government panels in public health care systems that hold meetings to decide if you're worth rationing money for to address your illness.
I don't feel quite as untrusting of Apple as I do of MS, though the changes that they made in their EULA about 3 years ago mean that I will no longer buy or recommend them. Or trust them connected to the internet. (I *can't* agree with the EULA that they tried to slip into a security update...so the one Mac I still have is no longer in active use.)
Oh, god, you're one of those online no-lifers for whom EULAs have become a matter of life and death.
If your suggestion for learning to use Objective-C is that I use Apple's guides, then that's a reasonable reason to avoid Objective-C.
Apple has a fantastic Objective-C programming guide online, but if you want to be paranoid and untrusting over freakin' online documentation, then feel free to remain ignorant about the language, you spergy nerd.
Go isn't an "improved version of C." It's an alternative to C. Just because Chrome is based on an existing rendering engine doesn't mean it also acts as a replacement for Firefox. Google OS uses Linux for its kernel but will replace X11 and will run its own web apps.
Just because they base their alternatives on existing technologies doesn't mean it's not still a NIH mentality.
Actually, they would have had to add more code to disable the specific processor in question.
Not at all. By all accounts, lack of Atom support is due to compiler optimizations that generate instructions the Atom doesn't support. It would make sense for Apple to do that since they don't use Atom chips in any of their products anyway.
Nobody would go after Apple for not supporting a chipset they don't sell any hardware for. That would just be ridiculous and unfair. It would be like going after Microsoft for not being able to run X11 apps natively.
Microsoft got in trouble because it was using its monopoly position to prevent competition. Apple not supporting a chip that they don't use in any of their hardware doesn't fit that definition.
I was expecting some damning evidence from the comparison shots, but it just looks like Google made their own implementation of the same features. Copying features happens, and it's not illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do people continue to be ignorant of the fact that Darwin is open source?
I can't believe you're posting this in a discussion about an OS that is restricted to Google's browser, will be tied to Google web services, and will only run on Google-approved hardware. Could your double standard be any huger? Why don't you just admit that you love Google simply because they use Linux and throw the phrase "open source" around a lot (even though their search engine, the core of their business, remains as closed as ever)?
Yeah, but Google uses Linux. That's all it takes to win the hearts of Slashdotters. Use Linux and throw the word "open source" around while indexing their data with your ad bots.
Let's replace the OS from the giant company that's trying to tie all its services together to lock you in with another OS from a giant company that's trying to tie all its services together to lock you in.
Joe Sixpack doesn't need a stripped-down, Google-branded Linux distro to visit Gmail.
So they're doing what we normally bash Microsoft for doing.
So why would you need Chrome OS to run web apps? A Linux distro already runs them on top of supporting native apps. I just don't see a use for this other than Google's continued branching out into non-core markets.
Welcome to the future, where we abandon decades of established desktop APIs for the web in order to return to the glory days of DOS, where everyone re-implements their own!
By the way, finding out Chrome OS is as reduced in its functionality as I feared is really disappointing. Why would anyone use this if they could install a Linux variant that can run things other than Google-brand web apps? And it can run them at native speeds instead of at JavaScript speeds?
It's just amazing to me how many top players in this industry are so eager to step backwards in progress without realizing it.
Safari. The first Windows release even included Quartz rendering until it was removed due to complaints from Windows users.
I don't know where the submitter got the idea that the word was feline-inspired. The word that was posted was one of my personal favorites, "cunt."
The Democrats are too right-wing for you? That's like saying Steve Ballmer isn't sweaty enough.
Right. It's about accountability, or lack thereof, like this story about funding of the "scientific stimulus."
Call me crazy for expecting the government that's forcibly spending my money to pay attention to the results it gets before trumpeting them as a success, especially when it gets job creation numbers from districts that don't even exist.
Obama is the same old bullshit and is quickly swinging the public back toward the GOP.
How on earth would that be a "step up?" It's a lot harder to change governments or punish them for wrongdoing. Your reasoning is completely backwards.
Absolutely, having the government do it is a lot worse. It's much harder to change governments. You may think we need a gigantic, expensive, centralized nanny-government that micro-manages everything, but the free market has proven time and time again that it's more flexible, more affordable, and easier to punish.
Well, if Obama didn't lie when he got information telling him a certain number of jobs were created, then Bush didn't lie when his intelligence departments told him there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Stop being biased toward one side just because you're a member of that side's political party. Learn to step outside the bubble.
It's a lack of accountability in verifying the numbers, which relates it to this story about the accountability in funding of the "science stimulus."
Just a thought, but maybe Obama shouldn't trumpet job creation numbers his administration didn't verify first. Maybe his administration should try being a little suspicious about job creation numbers coming from districts that don't even exist. Maybe he shouldn't use incorrect numbers to convince taxpayers to pay for stimulus packages.
It's interesting how people will defend obvious corruption when there's a Democrat involved.
Thank the Hollywood stars who keep funding it.
Do people know what the "death panels" comment was mockingly referring to? There really are government panels in public health care systems that hold meetings to decide if you're worth rationing money for to address your illness.
Oh, god, you're one of those online no-lifers for whom EULAs have become a matter of life and death.
Apple has a fantastic Objective-C programming guide online, but if you want to be paranoid and untrusting over freakin' online documentation, then feel free to remain ignorant about the language, you spergy nerd.
Go isn't an "improved version of C." It's an alternative to C. Just because Chrome is based on an existing rendering engine doesn't mean it also acts as a replacement for Firefox. Google OS uses Linux for its kernel but will replace X11 and will run its own web apps.
Just because they base their alternatives on existing technologies doesn't mean it's not still a NIH mentality.
Apple geeks are busy with Objective-C, an existing alternative (or addition, if you want to get semantic) to C that has its own fans.
Not at all. By all accounts, lack of Atom support is due to compiler optimizations that generate instructions the Atom doesn't support. It would make sense for Apple to do that since they don't use Atom chips in any of their products anyway.
In other words, they're a business trying to make money? Have any other shocking insights into the capitalist system you'd like to share with us?
Nobody would go after Apple for not supporting a chipset they don't sell any hardware for. That would just be ridiculous and unfair. It would be like going after Microsoft for not being able to run X11 apps natively.
Microsoft got in trouble because it was using its monopoly position to prevent competition. Apple not supporting a chip that they don't use in any of their hardware doesn't fit that definition.
I was expecting some damning evidence from the comparison shots, but it just looks like Google made their own implementation of the same features. Copying features happens, and it's not illegal.