Funny, IE loads in 1 second on my 300 Mhz iBook as compared to 2 seconds on my Athon XP 2000+
My mac can easily handle me opening 4 applications at the same time and open them all in a reasonable amout of time. My Athon on the other hand has a heart attack when I try to open AIM, IE, Outlook and WinAMP at the same time.
Did I mention that the mac is just a hell of a lot easier to use, and hence faster on the user end?
I personaly woul dbe less interested in seeing processor improvements (since they really don't do much for me any more) and more improvements elsewhere. What good is a 3 Ghz processor and 5mhz memory when the PCI bus is still slow? Or the AGP slots are slow? What about HDDs? Those things haven't seen a significant speed increase in a long while, and SCSI is still too expensive to make it a viable alternative. Or instead of working on upping the processor speed, let's work on improving the current processors. Let's take our 15 and 20 stage processors and work on developing them so that they maintain their speed while running with shorter pipelines. Let's see some real innovations.
Question. Why would Apple release a PowePoint presentation of their developments? It would seem more likely to me that they would release it on the Appleworks Presentation or some other form
An "Apple Document" without the 3 pages of legalize that accompanies every Apple document? I DON'T THINK SO. Show me proof from Apple's web site, not from somewhere else
But wouldn't the people using the software within your company, internaly, be the users? In that case, does it not make sense to make the source code availible? I'm really sorry if I seem like a pain about this, but the way you're explaining it makes a hell of a lot more sense than the propagnda at GNU so I hope you don't mind clearing these things up for me.
So, if you deploy a working version of code to be used within your business, the fact that you are required to make the sourcecode availible is a bad thing? I thought the whole point of the GPL was to require that the sourcecode to any version of the software which you use be availible. So now I'm confused, is the GNU/GPL philosophy that code must be availible or that it must only be availible under special circumstances.
I don't know why I loose time trying to teach people who can't to their homework reading.
Because if you don't, you wind up doing nothing at all. Your reply, by shoving document after document of propaganda, doctrine and philosiphy at me has only proven one thing, you are an extremist in your views. You have not convinced me to join your side, nor have you convinced me that corporations and proprietary software are evil. The extremes to which you would want to go with free software is unatainable at best, and at worst, absolute insanity. I have not experienced this evilness of corporate which does not allow me to get my work done. While I do not in any way shape or form suggest that all software should be proprietary, neither should it be free. Philosophy is well and good, but philosophy means nothing without fact and proof. I have yet to come across a person who uses only free software and who's life has dramaticaly improved because of it. In fact it is a rare enough instance just to come across someone who uses all free software period. When you show me the proof of corporate evil and rule. When you show me the proof of GNU Nirvana, then I will consider your position. But sending me link after link of propaganda is nothing more than that. Propaganda.
Again though, where is the might of the OSS comunity? I thought OSS could accomplish anything. With the development iformation present on Apple's web site, the version of QT which runs under OS X (your UNIX port) you should be able to develop your own version. I personaly would rather have Apple do the port, but if you want something that badly, you should port it yourself.
Re:The word is treason (Well, not really...)
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2
I don't care what the politics of the time was or who was trying to even what score. The point was, there are times when freedom of speech is not guarenteed. Infact, the supreme court rulling was there is no absolute freedom to speech.
My opinion, when it comes to working with code or any such mind bending piece of work is that it should more or less be done on the workers standards. The employer should force a bare minimum (in most cases 8 hour days) and the extra time put in should be determined by the worker. Let's face it, when dealing with anything that requires massive ammounts of thought, there are just somedays when you've gone as far as you can, and you can't think of anything else. You need the downtime to clear your mind and do other things. However, there are also days when you get on a roll, where the code and ideas are just spewing forth left and right and your putting them down as fast as you can type. Those days more often then not in order to avoid breaking the thought train, the worker would voluntarily work late hours, just to get it done.
There was a great book written called "The Hacker Ethic" by Pekka Himanen. In this book there is a wonderful section on how much we've destroyed liesure and ignored how useful it is to us. Case in point, when you have books on "Managing your free time" you know something is wrong with society. The problem seems to be this ever increasing belief that the only thing that matters is work and productivity. There is no room in the digital age for liesure. For kicking back and taking things slowly. What was once lunch hour is now lunch break. The 9 to 5 work day is seemingly unexistant, and anyone who just wants to sit down and listen to music for a bit, or type on slashdot is considered lazy. We're heading down a sad road, and I don't want to be there when we hit the end.
I would think if it were an internal release (i.e, within my own company) that it would not have to be distributed.
Re:The word is treason (Well, not really...)
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2
IF they however, broadcast information which would be considered sensative, such as the movements of our troops etc, then they have just aided the enemy. I'm all for freedom of press, however I'm also for discretion and self control.
The press knew of the Cuban Missile crisis beofre the public did, the government knew before the press. Should the government have todl the press? No. Should the press have told the public? No. Creating widespread pandimonium is not bennificial to anyone except your enemies.
http://developer.apple.com/quicktime/qtjava/inde x. html
Alright, let's see some developemnt out of the OSS community. Seriously, this here would be a great challenge for the OSS community, make your own quicktime.
Why don't all the great OSS developers out there, who claim to be so wonderful at their abilities to create nearly identical products make their own Quick Time? I'm not trying to bash on people here or be a troll, but on one hand, you're complaining abou thow evil corporate software is, yet on the other hand, your demending a Quick Time port from Apple.
It doesn't say that they didn't Open Source it, what it's saying is that manufacturers will still have to work with the code a bit to get it to work with theri devices. IOW, they're restating the obvious.
Let me start by saying I'm all for Open Source software, now on to the debate.
We care for freedom, including yours. Because no one can be free in a slave society. If you want to be enslaved to proprietary software, unable even to read your documents without paying a license to a corrupt, greedy corporation, your problem.
Oh grow up!Think for a moment about who you're freeing. The corporations? Most corporations are given the right to modify programs to fit their individual needs. The average consumer? The average consumer doesn't know source code from techno-bable. They couldn't change or modify their programs any way. So it has to be freeeing the developer community. Alright, you've done that, now stop fighting the licence war and make your products useable.
It's very difficult to produce quality software when you have to spend most time reverse engineering proprietary file formats, APIs and protocols, and hardware interfaces.
So then why are people complaining when Apple and other companies release the sorce to programs? Just because it isn't GPL licensed? Give me a break. It's one thing to stand up for your ideals, it's another thing to be a damn fool about it.
Forking is a real problem. GNU GPL is a good antidote, but not enough if people don't agree on what they want. Stop whining and help build consensus.
You can't have consensus because different people want different things. Corporations want protection, some people want open source, but commercial development, others want 100% user end development. There are as many rightous ways of doing this as there are people.
What's the problem with server side? People need servers. The world isn't made only of desktops.
That may be so, but access to the server is done through a desktop. If you don't have a useable desktop, your server is just a big paperwieght with an Open Source OS
Why be imaginative? People need a migration path, including an at least partially familiar interface.
Because if you don't give them a reason to switch, they won't switch. Freedom and Security are on to ends of a scale. There has to be a balance. Complete freedom means no security, complete security means no freedom, but you have to provide a reason. If you show someone M$ Office which they are familliar with, and then an OSS Office which looks and does the same thing, they're going to stick with M$ office. Why? Safety, if M$ Office breaks, theres technical assistance for them. Ease of use, most OSS software is nice sometime seven great once it's running, but getting it up and running is a pain. Extra steps, as nice as the OSS office suite is, the users still have to select M$ Office format to save their documents so everyone else can read them. WHy have to do the extra step when you have the same thing with one step?
Though I don't have the link, I could swear that people have posted hacks and work arround for all of this before. Not only that, but if you're so desperate to watch your QT movies on your linux box, might I suggest you just use wine and the windows version of quicktime?
As I said in a post above, but I'll include it here incase you have any information, I've been over the APSL a few times already, and I don't see any place where it differs from the GPL in that respect, I don't see any requirements to notify Apple. Do you have any specific section links?
Reading over the APSL I haven't yet come accross any place were it states you must inform Apple of any modifications, distributed or not. Maybe I'm just not seeing it, do you have any specific links or section markers?
As to the person that rated me a Troll, it's truley a sad state of affairs when we critisize and ostrisize people who are genuinely confused by our techo/leagal speak. In doing so, you only push people further away from your cause.
Neither, I'm saying that for their value, macs are resonably priced (not great, but cetainly not outlandish). However, if you want a bargin basement deal, you have to look for he older models, because you just won't find it on the newer models. Sure, I can put together a bargin PC for $700, but the hardware quality is nowhere near the same.
^You mean that on board ethernet? Or maybe you ment the on board ethernet that came on my 5400/180?
Funny, I remember the Firewire extension being present in system 7.5.5, and I know I remember it being in System 8, and I also recall seeing firewire products then too.
By native support for multiple monitor systems, do you mean a video card with 2 outputs, or do you mean system level support, becasue if you mean system level, multiple monitor support has been arround since system 7.
What do you mean by uniform type usage standards?
As for post script, I'm no expert, but I would assume that seeing as how system 7 came with a full set of post-script extentions, that it did have support for it.
Cross program cut and paste? That's easy enough, I've never once had a problem with "unreliable" cut and paste, what are you reffering to? Hell, the mac can even cut and paste from within Windows (running in VPC) to the mac environment.
Audio and Video editing systems that creatives want to use. So... the fact that Moby uses a G4 powerbook and some other macintosh systems for his audio work is't a creative wanting to use the mac? Or what about the fact that macs are used in many TV and movie productions. Or how about just the simple fact that the mac niche market is the creative market?
Yes, I'm glad that hypertext=Hypercard, seeing as how Hypercard was an APPLE technology. HTML = NeXT, that's fine, guess who owns NeXT?
Would someone please explain, in normal english what the major differences are between the GPL policy [which I understand to be, if you modify the code, your modifications have to be open source and GPLed and anyone should be allowed to use them],and the APSL policy [which I understand to be any modifications you make must be distributed with the original code intact, all the disclaimers intact, wiht the source and must be usable by anyone including us].
To me, there seem to be no big differences, so why do people have such a problem wiht the APSL
Would someone please explain, in normal english what the major differences are between the GPL policy [which I understand to be, if you modify the code, your modifications have to be open source and GPLed and anyone should be allowed to use them],and the APSL policy [which I understand to be any modifications you make must be distributed with the original code intact, all the disclaimers intact, wiht the source and must be usable by anyone including us].
Slashdot Mirror
there aren't any $2000 imacs out there. Just thought I'd clear that up for ya
Funny, IE loads in 1 second on my 300 Mhz iBook as compared to 2 seconds on my Athon XP 2000+
My mac can easily handle me opening 4 applications at the same time and open them all in a reasonable amout of time. My Athon on the other hand has a heart attack when I try to open AIM, IE, Outlook and WinAMP at the same time.
Did I mention that the mac is just a hell of a lot easier to use, and hence faster on the user end?
I personaly woul dbe less interested in seeing processor improvements (since they really don't do much for me any more) and more improvements elsewhere. What good is a 3 Ghz processor and 5mhz memory when the PCI bus is still slow? Or the AGP slots are slow? What about HDDs? Those things haven't seen a significant speed increase in a long while, and SCSI is still too expensive to make it a viable alternative. Or instead of working on upping the processor speed, let's work on improving the current processors. Let's take our 15 and 20 stage processors and work on developing them so that they maintain their speed while running with shorter pipelines. Let's see some real innovations.
Question. Why would Apple release a PowePoint presentation of their developments? It would seem more likely to me that they would release it on the Appleworks Presentation or some other form
An "Apple Document" without the 3 pages of legalize that accompanies every Apple document? I DON'T THINK SO. Show me proof from Apple's web site, not from somewhere else
But wouldn't the people using the software within your company, internaly, be the users? In that case, does it not make sense to make the source code availible? I'm really sorry if I seem like a pain about this, but the way you're explaining it makes a hell of a lot more sense than the propagnda at GNU so I hope you don't mind clearing these things up for me.
So, if you deploy a working version of code to be used within your business, the fact that you are required to make the sourcecode availible is a bad thing? I thought the whole point of the GPL was to require that the sourcecode to any version of the software which you use be availible. So now I'm confused, is the GNU/GPL philosophy that code must be availible or that it must only be availible under special circumstances.
I don't know why I loose time trying to teach people who can't to their homework reading.
Because if you don't, you wind up doing nothing at all. Your reply, by shoving document after document of propaganda, doctrine and philosiphy at me has only proven one thing, you are an extremist in your views. You have not convinced me to join your side, nor have you convinced me that corporations and proprietary software are evil. The extremes to which you would want to go with free software is unatainable at best, and at worst, absolute insanity. I have not experienced this evilness of corporate which does not allow me to get my work done. While I do not in any way shape or form suggest that all software should be proprietary, neither should it be free. Philosophy is well and good, but philosophy means nothing without fact and proof. I have yet to come across a person who uses only free software and who's life has dramaticaly improved because of it. In fact it is a rare enough instance just to come across someone who uses all free software period. When you show me the proof of corporate evil and rule. When you show me the proof of GNU Nirvana, then I will consider your position. But sending me link after link of propaganda is nothing more than that. Propaganda.
Again though, where is the might of the OSS comunity? I thought OSS could accomplish anything. With the development iformation present on Apple's web site, the version of QT which runs under OS X (your UNIX port) you should be able to develop your own version. I personaly would rather have Apple do the port, but if you want something that badly, you should port it yourself.
I don't care what the politics of the time was or who was trying to even what score. The point was, there are times when freedom of speech is not guarenteed. Infact, the supreme court rulling was there is no absolute freedom to speech.
My opinion, when it comes to working with code or any such mind bending piece of work is that it should more or less be done on the workers standards. The employer should force a bare minimum (in most cases 8 hour days) and the extra time put in should be determined by the worker. Let's face it, when dealing with anything that requires massive ammounts of thought, there are just somedays when you've gone as far as you can, and you can't think of anything else. You need the downtime to clear your mind and do other things. However, there are also days when you get on a roll, where the code and ideas are just spewing forth left and right and your putting them down as fast as you can type. Those days more often then not in order to avoid breaking the thought train, the worker would voluntarily work late hours, just to get it done.
There was a great book written called "The Hacker Ethic" by Pekka Himanen. In this book there is a wonderful section on how much we've destroyed liesure and ignored how useful it is to us. Case in point, when you have books on "Managing your free time" you know something is wrong with society. The problem seems to be this ever increasing belief that the only thing that matters is work and productivity. There is no room in the digital age for liesure. For kicking back and taking things slowly. What was once lunch hour is now lunch break. The 9 to 5 work day is seemingly unexistant, and anyone who just wants to sit down and listen to music for a bit, or type on slashdot is considered lazy. We're heading down a sad road, and I don't want to be there when we hit the end.
I would think if it were an internal release (i.e, within my own company) that it would not have to be distributed.
IF they however, broadcast information which would be considered sensative, such as the movements of our troops etc, then they have just aided the enemy. I'm all for freedom of press, however I'm also for discretion and self control.
The press knew of the Cuban Missile crisis beofre the public did, the government knew before the press. Should the government have todl the press? No. Should the press have told the public? No. Creating widespread pandimonium is not bennificial to anyone except your enemies.
http://developer.apple.com/samplecode/Sample_Code/ QuickTime.htm
a
e x. html
http://developer.apple.com/sdk/index.html#QTJav
http://developer.apple.com/quicktime/qtjava/ind
Alright, let's see some developemnt out of the OSS community. Seriously, this here would be a great challenge for the OSS community, make your own quicktime.
Why don't all the great OSS developers out there, who claim to be so wonderful at their abilities to create nearly identical products make their own Quick Time? I'm not trying to bash on people here or be a troll, but on one hand, you're complaining abou thow evil corporate software is, yet on the other hand, your demending a Quick Time port from Apple.
It doesn't say that they didn't Open Source it, what it's saying is that manufacturers will still have to work with the code a bit to get it to work with theri devices. IOW, they're restating the obvious.
Or it could just be possible that maybe Apple is once again a viable company that people outside of just eh mac userbase will pay attention to?
Let me start by saying I'm all for Open Source software, now on to the debate.
We care for freedom, including yours. Because no one can be free in a slave society. If you want to be enslaved to proprietary software, unable even to read your documents without paying a license to a corrupt, greedy corporation, your problem.
Oh grow up!Think for a moment about who you're freeing. The corporations? Most corporations are given the right to modify programs to fit their individual needs. The average consumer? The average consumer doesn't know source code from techno-bable. They couldn't change or modify their programs any way. So it has to be freeeing the developer community. Alright, you've done that, now stop fighting the licence war and make your products useable.
It's very difficult to produce quality software when you have to spend most time reverse engineering proprietary file formats, APIs and protocols, and hardware interfaces.
So then why are people complaining when Apple and other companies release the sorce to programs? Just because it isn't GPL licensed? Give me a break. It's one thing to stand up for your ideals, it's another thing to be a damn fool about it.
Forking is a real problem. GNU GPL is a good antidote, but not enough if people don't agree on what they want. Stop whining and help build consensus.
You can't have consensus because different people want different things. Corporations want protection, some people want open source, but commercial development, others want 100% user end development. There are as many rightous ways of doing this as there are people.
What's the problem with server side? People need servers. The world isn't made only of desktops.
That may be so, but access to the server is done through a desktop. If you don't have a useable desktop, your server is just a big paperwieght with an Open Source OS
Why be imaginative? People need a migration path, including an at least partially familiar interface.
Because if you don't give them a reason to switch, they won't switch. Freedom and Security are on to ends of a scale. There has to be a balance. Complete freedom means no security, complete security means no freedom, but you have to provide a reason. If you show someone M$ Office which they are familliar with, and then an OSS Office which looks and does the same thing, they're going to stick with M$ office. Why? Safety, if M$ Office breaks, theres technical assistance for them. Ease of use, most OSS software is nice sometime seven great once it's running, but getting it up and running is a pain. Extra steps, as nice as the OSS office suite is, the users still have to select M$ Office format to save their documents so everyone else can read them. WHy have to do the extra step when you have the same thing with one step?
Though I don't have the link, I could swear that people have posted hacks and work arround for all of this before. Not only that, but if you're so desperate to watch your QT movies on your linux box, might I suggest you just use wine and the windows version of quicktime?
As I said in a post above, but I'll include it here incase you have any information, I've been over the APSL a few times already, and I don't see any place where it differs from the GPL in that respect, I don't see any requirements to notify Apple. Do you have any specific section links?
Reading over the APSL I haven't yet come accross any place were it states you must inform Apple of any modifications, distributed or not. Maybe I'm just not seeing it, do you have any specific links or section markers?
As to the person that rated me a Troll, it's truley a sad state of affairs when we critisize and ostrisize people who are genuinely confused by our techo/leagal speak. In doing so, you only push people further away from your cause.
Neither, I'm saying that for their value, macs are resonably priced (not great, but cetainly not outlandish). However, if you want a bargin basement deal, you have to look for he older models, because you just won't find it on the newer models. Sure, I can put together a bargin PC for $700, but the hardware quality is nowhere near the same.
http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/hardware/Devel oper_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-PPC_Desktop/PPC_7500_850 0.pdf
^You mean that on board ethernet? Or maybe you ment the on board ethernet that came on my 5400/180?
Funny, I remember the Firewire extension being present in system 7.5.5, and I know I remember it being in System 8, and I also recall seeing firewire products then too.
By native support for multiple monitor systems, do you mean a video card with 2 outputs, or do you mean system level support, becasue if you mean system level, multiple monitor support has been arround since system 7.
What do you mean by uniform type usage standards?
As for post script, I'm no expert, but I would assume that seeing as how system 7 came with a full set of post-script extentions, that it did have support for it.
Cross program cut and paste? That's easy enough, I've never once had a problem with "unreliable" cut and paste, what are you reffering to? Hell, the mac can even cut and paste from within Windows (running in VPC) to the mac environment.
Audio and Video editing systems that creatives want to use. So... the fact that Moby uses a G4 powerbook and some other macintosh systems for his audio work is't a creative wanting to use the mac? Or what about the fact that macs are used in many TV and movie productions. Or how about just the simple fact that the mac niche market is the creative market?
Yes, I'm glad that hypertext=Hypercard, seeing as how Hypercard was an APPLE technology. HTML = NeXT, that's fine, guess who owns NeXT?
Would someone please explain, in normal english what the major differences are between the GPL policy [which I understand to be, if you modify the code, your modifications have to be open source and GPLed and anyone should be allowed to use them],and the APSL policy [which I understand to be any modifications you make must be distributed with the original code intact, all the disclaimers intact, wiht the source and must be usable by anyone including us].
To me, there seem to be no big differences, so why do people have such a problem wiht the APSL
Would someone please explain, in normal english what the major differences are between the GPL policy [which I understand to be, if you modify the code, your modifications have to be open source and GPLed and anyone should be allowed to use them],and the APSL policy [which I understand to be any modifications you make must be distributed with the original code intact, all the disclaimers intact, wiht the source and must be usable by anyone including us].
As I see it, there's no real difference there.