So far all we've seen from the Intel chip move is a bunch of existing products, essentially rebadged.
I believe what the parent refers to are things like.. Where's the *new* iMac - that's a different design to the iMac G5, Where's the new PowerMac (MacPro?), Where the new designed hardware? iPod Stereo? Hah.
For a hardware fan, Jobs isn't really anything particularly revolutionary here!
The GNU project built the GNU operating system and combined with the Linux kernel, it makes the GNU/Linux operating system. It's really not a bad idea, you know.
Why not just call it Linux? I'll give two reasons... one, as RMS states, Linus is not especially sympathetic to the free software movement - this means people hearing 'Linux' never get to hear about free software. Freedom is much easier for average people to understand than source.
Secondly, if you have skills with the GNU operating system, regardless of the kernel, that's a useful thing for yourself and others to know about.
If people were allowed to buy anything from anywhere over the Internet, how would companies price fix in certain countries, and charge people more because they live in certain countries.
In his own words: "Cal Henderson has been a web applications developer for far too long and should really start looking for a serious job. Originally from London, England, he currently works at Ludicorp R&D, makers of Flickr, in Vancouver, Canada and Sunnyvale, California. He's been working on Flickr from the day it started development (on his laptop) to the present day (where it's now the "Offical website of the Internet"). Before Flickr, he was the technical director of Special Web Projects at emap, a UK media company. By night he works for a whole slew of web sites and communitites, including the creative community B3TA and his personal site, iamcal. In his spare time, he writes windows software, develops web publishing tools, and writes occasional articles about web application development and security. And writes biographies in the third person."
The GNU/ isn't prefix.. it's the name of another thing.
When you run the Linux kernel, you're typically running the GNU operating system with it. GNU and Linux. GNU with Linux. GNU plus Linux... It's not 'GNU' or 'Linux' or 'GNU Linux':)
If you take my code and do something with it - I still have my copy of the code. If you take my car (if I had one) then I don't have a car anymore, and that's a big difference.
My point is that, when the original poster says 'Open Source is a good thing' - I'd like to know how that differs from Richard Stallman believing in software freedom.
Either you support software freedom, or you support software hoarding, it seems to me. If you value the freedom software gives you, won't you want your software to be free? I certainly do.
CC as a brand includes some very non-free licenses toward what you can and cannot do with Creative Content. If you have a piece of content that is CC-BY-SA (Attribution/ShareAlike) licensed, you have a freedom that is truly free, maybe add an NC if you'd like to know who's doing what commercially with your content... but anything beyond that isn't really free.
I can see a reason for putting ND on some content, such as a speech, but it's still non-free. RMS wouldn't support non-free licenses... I don't see why this is a surprise at all.
All he's saying is that software should have freedom. What kind of freedoms does your 'Open Source' statement afford us? If I can only see the code, then it's worthless. If I can't run the program, modify it, and redistribute it, with or without my changes, then what's the point?
Please give an example of your 'Open Source' license.
Slashdot Mirror
So far all we've seen from the Intel chip move is a bunch of existing products, essentially rebadged.
I believe what the parent refers to are things like.. Where's the *new* iMac - that's a different design to the iMac G5, Where's the new PowerMac (MacPro?), Where the new designed hardware? iPod Stereo? Hah.
For a hardware fan, Jobs isn't really anything particularly revolutionary here!
Um, care to back that up?
:)
Um, yeah.. what they said
Search engines pay money to the browser makers to get their search engines in there anyway.
If Google wants their engine to be in IE7 - they should find out how much Microsoft wants them to pay.
I don't have a mousewheel as I'm on a laptop you insenstive clod!
Nah, some mods just don't want certain opinions to get through because they feel threatened by the fact they challenge what they think.
Shame, but if you look at all the crackhead mods around here, it's becoming pretty clear.
Because you might want to run a completely free, or more free OS? That's why I run (just) Ubuntu on my Machine.
Who knows? I expect quite a bit.. the fact is they had a project to create a free operating system.
That's something that Linus Torvalds, the X consortium, the KDE project, the Apache Foundation or the PostgreSQL Global Development Group didn't do.
How much of that stuff would you have without the work of the GNU project?
No, it doesn't... unless Argos built your house.
The GNU project built the GNU operating system and combined with the Linux kernel, it makes the GNU/Linux operating system. It's really not a bad idea, you know.
Why not just call it Linux? I'll give two reasons... one, as RMS states, Linus is not especially sympathetic to the free software movement - this means people hearing 'Linux' never get to hear about free software. Freedom is much easier for average people to understand than source.
Secondly, if you have skills with the GNU operating system, regardless of the kernel, that's a useful thing for yourself and others to know about.
Dapper Drake installed without problems on my iMac G5 20 inch.
If people were allowed to buy anything from anywhere over the Internet, how would companies price fix in certain countries, and charge people more because they live in certain countries.
;)
You're not thinking markets
A free fortnight in January.
That's my IP you insensitive clod! I'm going DMCA on you.
And when you're done there, connect to 127.0.0.1 and root me there. Be sure to delete any files you find.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cal_Henderson is the guy who was the original programmer, I believe.
In his own words: "Cal Henderson has been a web applications developer for far too long and should really start looking for a serious job. Originally from London, England, he currently works at Ludicorp R&D, makers of Flickr, in Vancouver, Canada and Sunnyvale, California. He's been working on Flickr from the day it started development (on his laptop) to the present day (where it's now the "Offical website of the Internet"). Before Flickr, he was the technical director of Special Web Projects at emap, a UK media company. By night he works for a whole slew of web sites and communitites, including the creative community B3TA and his personal site, iamcal. In his spare time, he writes windows software, develops web publishing tools, and writes occasional articles about web application development and security. And writes biographies in the third person."
The GNU/ isn't prefix.. it's the name of another thing.
:)
When you run the Linux kernel, you're typically running the GNU operating system with it. GNU and Linux. GNU with Linux. GNU plus Linux... It's not 'GNU' or 'Linux' or 'GNU Linux'
Mach was in NEXTSTEP too.
Classic mistake of the record industry.
If you take my code and do something with it - I still have my copy of the code. If you take my car (if I had one) then I don't have a car anymore, and that's a big difference.
My point is that, when the original poster says 'Open Source is a good thing' - I'd like to know how that differs from Richard Stallman believing in software freedom.
Either you support software freedom, or you support software hoarding, it seems to me. If you value the freedom software gives you, won't you want your software to be free? I certainly do.
Completely. You've got the point.
CC as a brand includes some very non-free licenses toward what you can and cannot do with Creative Content. If you have a piece of content that is CC-BY-SA (Attribution/ShareAlike) licensed, you have a freedom that is truly free, maybe add an NC if you'd like to know who's doing what commercially with your content... but anything beyond that isn't really free.
I can see a reason for putting ND on some content, such as a speech, but it's still non-free. RMS wouldn't support non-free licenses... I don't see why this is a surprise at all.
All he's saying is that software should have freedom. What kind of freedoms does your 'Open Source' statement afford us? If I can only see the code, then it's worthless. If I can't run the program, modify it, and redistribute it, with or without my changes, then what's the point?
Please give an example of your 'Open Source' license.
I'm suing him. He's hacked into my computer and made a carbon copy of all my files. Is this the kind of thing Slashdot has become?!
Actually, don't download it from Mozilla, cause it's not-free software. The binaries are under an EULA, not the MPL or the GPL. Non-free artwork, too.
Steve and Scott are also good friends.
Bytemark - UK based, £15 a month - you get your own User Mode Linux machine, choice of distro, root access, and it's fast and reliable.
/ /cnuk.org
Have a look at my uptime - http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http:
To be fair, the price of the USB sticks is falling all the time. You can get a pair of 512mb on the high street for about £40-50 now.
GNU emacs. Everything else sucks.