Last year, we tried to contact the Simputer folks on three different occasions to license the design, with no response. For being an "open" platform, the docs and schematics were locked-down, making it impossible to even do a review.
How is the Internet not "public communication?" That said, it's great to see this going forward. Though it's interesting to note that, as reported before, most people don't want to give free reign to blogs. Issues like this set precedent for future legislation, though simply because this goes forward doesn't mean the government wouldn't happily sneak in some other law later on that gets used in nefarious ways, much like the DMCA which was signed in by Clinton in October of '98. So get this one passed, but be watchful of stuff coming in from the side.
Okay, they've gotten the election out of the way. Now release Sarge! Seriously, they haven't had a stable release in nearly three years. Ubuntu was created due to the complete lack of leadership on Debian's part. And with Red Hat's withdrawal, Debian should be thriving right now. But it's not.
No. Cocoa/Carbon are not the same as GNOME and KDE whatsoever. Carbon is the procedural API to program for OS X while Cocoa is the object-oriented API.
GTK and QT are completely different APIs from Cocoa. Cocoa is a message-based API based on Objective-C and is generally regarded as the easiest API to develop applications for on any system. The only equivalent OSS version might be GNUstep, but it's far behind Cocoa.
Today, Steve Jobs announced a new line of upgrades for existing Macintoshes.
"These upgrades will continue Apple's trend of dying since 1984," he said. "With the iPod owning the music player market, and Mac sales increasing every quarter to the highest in Apple's history, as well as Forbes predictions of market increases, we are pleased to continue dying all the way to the bank."
Apple's death has been occuring for decades, but the current death cycle began with the introduction of the iPod in 2001. CmdrTaco, co-founder and editor of tech news site Slashdot described the failure of the iPod best--"No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame." The iPod went on to fail with 10,000,000 sales in the next three years.
With profits up and sales the highest in Apple's history, Apple hopes to continue dying for the rest of the quarter.
Does he not realize that OS X is simply a packaged up pretty version of BSD, which is almost identical besides licensing to Linux.
OS X is simply a packaged up pretty version of BSD? Identical to Linux besides licensing? How did misinformation this get modded up?
OS X is a repackaging of NeXTStep. There is an underlying BSD subsystem attached to a Mach kernel, but OS X is a platform because of Cocoa/Carbon. Last I checked, BSD and Linux didn't have Cocoa/Carbon.
Morpheus supports Creative Commons, and properly tagged MP3s are recognized in search results in the client. Creative Commons will soon begin tagging all their mp3 files in the Copyright id3 tag. On Morpheus, you can even search 'cc:sampling' and 'cc:sharing', and you'll find and be able to download all properly tagged Creative Commons content.
From the infamous Slashdot IRC interview (granted, it's fron 2003, but Taco has stated since that IE is still the majority browser on Slashdot):
[20:18:36] <Questions> theLinGer asks: What percent of website hits originate from Internet Explorer? [20:18:49] <CmdrTaco> Shit, I just looked this up an hour ago. [20:18:58] <CmdrTaco> 50% MSIE ish. [20:19:22] <hemos> CmdrTaco: I'll find it a second. [20:19:24] <CmdrTaco> 35% Moz, 2% Konq
I detect a bit of bias on the part of the submitter. Who cares if one third of the respondents hadn't visited a blog? They still wouldn't want their addresses or phone numbers published on the Internet. Who would? Would the submitter? I think this is an attempt to stir up the masses with references to "censorship."
It could be argued that publishing such information is a violation of a person's privacy. Free speech extends so far that it does not violate the rights of another person.
Wikipedia even has an entry on the software patent debate.
The amusing section is the list of quotes for and against software patents, both lead by a Gates quote:
Quotes supporting patentability
Bill Gates (Microsoft) 2005 "...There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist... I'd be the first to say that the patent system can always be tuned...the United States has led...because we've had the best intellectual-property system."
Quotes against patentability
Bill Gates (Microsoft) 1991 Internal memo "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today...The solution is patenting as much as we can. A future startup with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high. Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors."
Man, when I was in college, we had 8 or 9 different "Industry Standards". While most teachers were absolutely convinced that their method was the "Industry Standard", there were a few knowledgable enough to explained the whole thing to us. Mostly when people talk about "Industry Standards", it's manager-speak for "The Way We Do Things Here." So if you don't follow the "Industry Standards", you will not be working for long.
Also keep in mind that "Industry Standards" in the sense that I'm talking about has absolutely nothing to do with real ISO or QS standards. Those are actual organizations that create a set of standard rules for companies to follow, usually for the safety of workers and quality assurance of products. No, I'm just talking BS manager-speak...
Moore's law describes component integration on integrated circuits that are economical to manufacture. This results in, among other things, increased processor speed. Generally speaking, Moore's Law has been adopted as an observation on general computing power.
This is like the people who desperately argue that "hacker" originally meant something else, and that we should all use "cracker" instead. You and I know what we're all referring to, so the argument is just a nuisance.
I agree with you to a point, but in 2001, I was never saying 300mhz was all anyone would need. Applications like Office were still slow and memory-hungry. Booting up Windows was a minute-long affair.
That has changed. 512MB of RAM and 1Ghz are a very common baseline now. Office runs just fine on it. E-mail clients run just fine. Web browsing has never really been a system-hungry activity. Gamers are a special niche; most computer users have no need now for more than 512MB of RAM and 1Ghz.
Honestly, can you tell me what they'd need more for if all they're going to do is type documents, send pictures, and surf the web? A friend of mine is still running his 800mhz Powerbook at work with 128MB of RAM with no complaints.
Look at it this way. Cars used to be really slow, and you had to hand-crank them. They got faster and faster and more practical with each decade. Now you could build a car that could go 500mph, but nobody needs it except race car drivers. The only thing that's really changed with cars is more efficient fuel consumption and various niceties like stereo systems and computer navigation. And yet, I'm still getting along with my car made in 1993. Before that, a car made in 1984. A friend of mine still drives a 1960s pickup truck. He simply doesn't need more than that.
I think computers have hit that plateau. I also think that's part of the motivation behind rearchitecturing all of Windows Longhorn so that it's all "managed" and requires an extra layer and more hardware resources to run it all, and therefore a new computer purchase much to Intel's delight. In the Apple world, Mac users hang on to their machines longer because they're not living in a Moore's Law-inspired annual PC upgrade cycle that takes your money every year.
For those interested, here is the original paper. While I think it was a valid observation at the time, it's unfortunately become a driving marketing factor for the industry. While processor speed may be increasing all the time, I question the demand for it. Already, computer sales are leveling off as people realize they don't really need more than a 1Ghz to surf the web, send pictures, and listen to music. Even an Intel research paper suggested Moore's Law was coming to an end based on simple technical limitations.
I guess I'm just finding it difficult to imagine what I would ever need, say, 32Ghz for, other than gaming--which would be what my ultra-hip game console would be for.
Agreed, but some people think there shouldn't be any rules on anything and that you can say absolutely anything you want. Releasing trade secrets affects Apple's release schedule, gives a headstart to competitors, and generally screws them over. I can't possibly imagine how that could be compared to exposing corporate corruption like Enron. It's not like you have a right to know about Apple's upcoming products.
The scientists involved were unavailable for comment, as they were too busy constructing levels out of Lego blocks and playing them with their new remote-controlled flies in a real-life videogame.
Work has already begun to interface with the flies using an NES controller. "Up-up-down-down-left-rifgt-left-right-B-A-select" makes their wings spin off!" exclaimed one sugar-charged geek.
In the meantime, it's a hassle for everyone (both users and developers). Issues like this are exactly why the "choice is great in all situations" mindset doesn't always apply. Here, we have a Debian-based distro that has gotten so popular that it's creating incompatibility issues. Now imagine if Ubuntu had instead been a group of developers who decided to combine their efforts with the Debian group to improve Debian? We'd have a better Debian and no incompatibility between two popular distros and two communities.
It's the same thing with KDE and GNOME, where I have to have two entire desktop environments installed just to run all the apps out there. The idea of choice has affected compatibility. You need to balance out all these ideals, not let one take over all aspects of thinking in all situations.
People flame RMS zealots because RMS zealots flame anyone who uses something that doesn't fit their narrow definition of "free." These zealots go on and on about a "free world" that they define and others must follow.
That is not freedom. Freedom is letting me use BitKeeper if I want to. Remember that it is one of these RMS zealots who wasn't satisfied with BitKeeper providing an SCM-independent export function (McVoy offered it directly to Linus) and just had to reverse-engineer the binary data itself to make it "free." I'm sorry, but you guys look bad in this. The extremism of fitting everything into your definition is hindering progress--now we get to wait while kernel development seeks an alternative SCM.
If you wanted a free SCM to compete with BitKeeper, why didn't you guys write a new one yourselves? Software freedom apparently means not just access to source code, but access to anything else you want just because you want it to be "free." That's not the OSS movement I signed up on.
If people want to use BitKeeper, let them! It's called freedom of choice.
But in this post, Linus says he was writing scripts to export data in an SCM-independent format. McVoy actually offered to support this directly in BitKeeper, but Tridge insisted on "being difficult about it" and gaining access directly to the binary data. Linus suggests he's bitter at Tridge for it, and now he can't use BitKeeper.
Slashdot Mirror
Last year, we tried to contact the Simputer folks on three different occasions to license the design, with no response. For being an "open" platform, the docs and schematics were locked-down, making it impossible to even do a review.
How is the Internet not "public communication?" That said, it's great to see this going forward. Though it's interesting to note that, as reported before, most people don't want to give free reign to blogs. Issues like this set precedent for future legislation, though simply because this goes forward doesn't mean the government wouldn't happily sneak in some other law later on that gets used in nefarious ways, much like the DMCA which was signed in by Clinton in October of '98. So get this one passed, but be watchful of stuff coming in from the side.
Okay, they've gotten the election out of the way. Now release Sarge! Seriously, they haven't had a stable release in nearly three years. Ubuntu was created due to the complete lack of leadership on Debian's part. And with Red Hat's withdrawal, Debian should be thriving right now. But it's not.
A lot of people didn't seem to realize in the Ubuntu compatibility article that if Debian dies, so does Ubuntu.
Why'd you take out the jokes?
Do you realize how many people will miss "Beware of the Leopard?" Almost all the dialogue in that skit is gone, so it's not even a joke anymore.
No. Cocoa/Carbon are not the same as GNOME and KDE whatsoever. Carbon is the procedural API to program for OS X while Cocoa is the object-oriented API.
GTK and QT are completely different APIs from Cocoa. Cocoa is a message-based API based on Objective-C and is generally regarded as the easiest API to develop applications for on any system. The only equivalent OSS version might be GNUstep, but it's far behind Cocoa.
Today, Steve Jobs announced a new line of upgrades for existing Macintoshes.
"These upgrades will continue Apple's trend of dying since 1984," he said. "With the iPod owning the music player market, and Mac sales increasing every quarter to the highest in Apple's history, as well as Forbes predictions of market increases, we are pleased to continue dying all the way to the bank."
Apple's death has been occuring for decades, but the current death cycle began with the introduction of the iPod in 2001. CmdrTaco, co-founder and editor of tech news site Slashdot described the failure of the iPod best--"No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame." The iPod went on to fail with 10,000,000 sales in the next three years.
With profits up and sales the highest in Apple's history, Apple hopes to continue dying for the rest of the quarter.
OS X is simply a packaged up pretty version of BSD? Identical to Linux besides licensing? How did misinformation this get modded up?
OS X is a repackaging of NeXTStep. There is an underlying BSD subsystem attached to a Mach kernel, but OS X is a platform because of Cocoa/Carbon. Last I checked, BSD and Linux didn't have Cocoa/Carbon.
Morpheus supports Creative Commons, and properly tagged MP3s are recognized in search results in the client. Creative Commons will soon begin tagging all their mp3 files in the Copyright id3 tag. On Morpheus, you can even search 'cc:sampling' and 'cc:sharing', and you'll find and be able to download all properly tagged Creative Commons content.
I detect a bit of bias on the part of the submitter. Who cares if one third of the respondents hadn't visited a blog? They still wouldn't want their addresses or phone numbers published on the Internet. Who would? Would the submitter? I think this is an attempt to stir up the masses with references to "censorship."
It could be argued that publishing such information is a violation of a person's privacy. Free speech extends so far that it does not violate the rights of another person.
Wikipedia even has an entry on the software patent debate.
The amusing section is the list of quotes for and against software patents, both lead by a Gates quote:
Quotes supporting patentability
Bill Gates (Microsoft) 2005
"...There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist... I'd be the first to say that the patent system can always be tuned...the United States has led...because we've had the best intellectual-property system."
Quotes against patentability
Bill Gates (Microsoft) 1991
Internal memo
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today...The solution is patenting as much as we can. A future startup with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high. Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors."
I'm confused; I thought we were against software patents?
Man, when I was in college, we had 8 or 9 different "Industry Standards". While most teachers were absolutely convinced that their method was the "Industry Standard", there were a few knowledgable enough to explained the whole thing to us. Mostly when people talk about "Industry Standards", it's manager-speak for "The Way We Do Things Here." So if you don't follow the "Industry Standards", you will not be working for long.
Also keep in mind that "Industry Standards" in the sense that I'm talking about has absolutely nothing to do with real ISO or QS standards. Those are actual organizations that create a set of standard rules for companies to follow, usually for the safety of workers and quality assurance of products. No, I'm just talking BS manager-speak...
Moore's Law has "nothing" to do with clockspeed?
Moore's law describes component integration on integrated circuits that are economical to manufacture. This results in, among other things, increased processor speed. Generally speaking, Moore's Law has been adopted as an observation on general computing power.
This is like the people who desperately argue that "hacker" originally meant something else, and that we should all use "cracker" instead. You and I know what we're all referring to, so the argument is just a nuisance.
I agree with you to a point, but in 2001, I was never saying 300mhz was all anyone would need. Applications like Office were still slow and memory-hungry. Booting up Windows was a minute-long affair.
That has changed. 512MB of RAM and 1Ghz are a very common baseline now. Office runs just fine on it. E-mail clients run just fine. Web browsing has never really been a system-hungry activity. Gamers are a special niche; most computer users have no need now for more than 512MB of RAM and 1Ghz.
Honestly, can you tell me what they'd need more for if all they're going to do is type documents, send pictures, and surf the web? A friend of mine is still running his 800mhz Powerbook at work with 128MB of RAM with no complaints.
Look at it this way. Cars used to be really slow, and you had to hand-crank them. They got faster and faster and more practical with each decade. Now you could build a car that could go 500mph, but nobody needs it except race car drivers. The only thing that's really changed with cars is more efficient fuel consumption and various niceties like stereo systems and computer navigation. And yet, I'm still getting along with my car made in 1993. Before that, a car made in 1984. A friend of mine still drives a 1960s pickup truck. He simply doesn't need more than that.
I think computers have hit that plateau. I also think that's part of the motivation behind rearchitecturing all of Windows Longhorn so that it's all "managed" and requires an extra layer and more hardware resources to run it all, and therefore a new computer purchase much to Intel's delight. In the Apple world, Mac users hang on to their machines longer because they're not living in a Moore's Law-inspired annual PC upgrade cycle that takes your money every year.
Just my $0.02.
Emotively citing a monopoly doesn't invalidate the point that standards are good.
Shoudl we have five different versions of web standards so we can all pick and choose which ones we want to use?
For those interested, here is the original paper. While I think it was a valid observation at the time, it's unfortunately become a driving marketing factor for the industry. While processor speed may be increasing all the time, I question the demand for it. Already, computer sales are leveling off as people realize they don't really need more than a 1Ghz to surf the web, send pictures, and listen to music. Even an Intel research paper suggested Moore's Law was coming to an end based on simple technical limitations.
I guess I'm just finding it difficult to imagine what I would ever need, say, 32Ghz for, other than gaming--which would be what my ultra-hip game console would be for.
No prob. Catcha on the dialup, netsplitter.
You just halfcrunched my wordbloggage.
Maybe we should invent fake terminology and get them to print it. I cyberscape on my ripping blog using cyberdyned entrails.
Agreed, but some people think there shouldn't be any rules on anything and that you can say absolutely anything you want. Releasing trade secrets affects Apple's release schedule, gives a headstart to competitors, and generally screws them over. I can't possibly imagine how that could be compared to exposing corporate corruption like Enron. It's not like you have a right to know about Apple's upcoming products.
The scientists involved were unavailable for comment, as they were too busy constructing levels out of Lego blocks and playing them with their new remote-controlled flies in a real-life videogame.
" makes their wings spin off!" exclaimed one sugar-charged geek.
Work has already begun to interface with the flies using an NES controller. "Up-up-down-down-left-rifgt-left-right-B-A-select
In the meantime, it's a hassle for everyone (both users and developers). Issues like this are exactly why the "choice is great in all situations" mindset doesn't always apply. Here, we have a Debian-based distro that has gotten so popular that it's creating incompatibility issues. Now imagine if Ubuntu had instead been a group of developers who decided to combine their efforts with the Debian group to improve Debian? We'd have a better Debian and no incompatibility between two popular distros and two communities.
It's the same thing with KDE and GNOME, where I have to have two entire desktop environments installed just to run all the apps out there. The idea of choice has affected compatibility. You need to balance out all these ideals, not let one take over all aspects of thinking in all situations.
Just my $0.02, that's all.
People flame RMS zealots because RMS zealots flame anyone who uses something that doesn't fit their narrow definition of "free." These zealots go on and on about a "free world" that they define and others must follow.
That is not freedom. Freedom is letting me use BitKeeper if I want to. Remember that it is one of these RMS zealots who wasn't satisfied with BitKeeper providing an SCM-independent export function (McVoy offered it directly to Linus) and just had to reverse-engineer the binary data itself to make it "free." I'm sorry, but you guys look bad in this. The extremism of fitting everything into your definition is hindering progress--now we get to wait while kernel development seeks an alternative SCM.
If you wanted a free SCM to compete with BitKeeper, why didn't you guys write a new one yourselves? Software freedom apparently means not just access to source code, but access to anything else you want just because you want it to be "free." That's not the OSS movement I signed up on.
If people want to use BitKeeper, let them! It's called freedom of choice.
But in this post, Linus says he was writing scripts to export data in an SCM-independent format. McVoy actually offered to support this directly in BitKeeper, but Tridge insisted on "being difficult about it" and gaining access directly to the binary data. Linus suggests he's bitter at Tridge for it, and now he can't use BitKeeper.