There's a perfectly sensible solution to problems with criminals -- lock up the criminals, or better, fine them to an extent where the fines make up for their theft.
Which is virtually impossible to do in the digital realm. (Unless you're willing to throw out both the general purpose PC and the Constitution, and you'll probably fail even then.)
The ransom model doesn't work. Nobody wants to pay for vapor. If it was really a viable model, people would use it now.
PBS. Any charity.
The problem is that the ransom model provides a disincentive to put money in.
Not necessarily. The ransom that you pay can be held in an escrow account, to be returned to you (possibly with interest) if sufficient funds aren't raised by a specified date. Now you're risking very little by paying what you think the product will be worth, (Credit to John Kelsey and Bruce Schneier, whose Street Performer Protocol is essentially the same as the ransom model, with some additions such as escrow).
does this mean they'll finally manage to have TYPE and CREATOR code metadata
More than that, if they do it right. This sounds like it has very interesting possibilities. I'm disappointed that Apple seems to be moving in the opposite direction with Mac OS X (type and creator codes deprecated, file extensions mandatory).
In the end, it is the income tax that allows the government to control your life. It is the income tax that makes possible a government of barely-restricted size and power. It is the income tax that allows the government to bribe the majority with money coerced from the minority. It is the income tax which spawns most of the tyranny that the US government practices (admittedly, still less than most places in the world). It is the income tax which sterilizes citizenship by removing the ability of citizens to control their government's behavior by changing their own behavior. It is the income tax which poisons public debate by allowing people to obtain benefits without costs, and thus makes the incentive for an individual to go along with a government program - lest their own government teat be attacked by the beneficiaries of another program - unless they are in the unheard minority who have to fund whatever the latest government program might be. It is the income tax which is LEAST useful and sensible to a free people.
Excellent points. I agree entirely, just quoting this so it's more visible for those with comment length limits.
Check out the Fair Tax. In addition to the benefits you've listed, it would abolish Social Security payroll taxes (a hidden and regressive tax), and pave the way for a repeal of the 16th Amendment.
Puts a bunch of accountants, tax lawyers, etc. out of business. (Or at least makes them re-structure their businesses.)
This is a Good Thing. The vast resources that we spend on compliance with the current convoluted tax system will be redirected toward economically productive activities. Some people will have to make changes, like candlemakers did after the advent of the light bulb.
They fixed a number of things that Java developers have screamed at Sun since day one, but which cannot be introduced into Java at this late day.
Is there a reason why boxing couldn't be added to Java? It seems like it could be done with some compiler additions to automatically create object wrappers around the primitive types and vice versa when needed. The compiler already knows the types of primitives, so if you write "int i=foo(); array.add(i);" it should just be able to turn the second statement into "array.add(new Integer(i));". Ditto for unboxing; the compiler could just transparently insert intValue() (or floatValue() or whatever) calls when you assign a Number subclass to a primitive type. Of course, I've only thought about this for about 2 minutes so I could be completely wrong...
Many recessions are caused by the reduction in consumer spending, to which erasing all money spent on software would be an economic equivalent.
You're committing the same error that Mundie is by assuming that if I don't buy a piece of commercial software because I use a free alternative, the money that I would have spent simply vanishes from the economy. Of course, it does not; I'll either buy something else with that money or invest it.
But he DOESN'T have the god-given right to make money from doing it. Any capitalist will tell you that.
Exactly. And to expand on a point Perens made, the creation of free software that offers functionality formerly only available with proprietary software is *always* good for the economy. Money that users would have spent on the proprietary software will now be redirected toward more economically efficient alternatives. The arguments espoused by Mundie and Plouffe are just variations on the broken window fallacy.
Mr. Plouffe has demonstrated that he is willing to see everyone else suffer economically in order to prop up his preferred business model. (And I'd really like to know what he means by "We should not allow software to be free"). In this he is no better than the RIAA parasites, and he is an embarrassment to himself and his profession.
Sorry, but the loss of 5000 people on that day is not enough to justify unleasing the nuclear floodgates on the world. How dare we.
Please take several deep breaths. This is not an announcement that we are going to nuke a bunch of countries. This is the development of contingency plans describing under what conditions we should consider using nuclear weapons. Don't you think the military should consider these issues in advance, rather than flying by the seat of their pants if an actual emergency develops?
yes, what do you think a contingency plan means? it means they're ready to do it
Of course we're ready to use nuclear weapons, as we have been for several decades. There's no point in having any weapon if you're not prepared to use it. Did you honestly think that before this announcement it was our policy to never use nukes?
How dare we say that we have the right to go around the world and root out our enemies, bombing the shit out of lands just because we believe that they're hiding somewhere.
It's called "self-defense". If nuking a foreign city is the only way to prevent 10 million American deaths from a biological attack, I'm all for it. Yes, we all hope that choice never has to be made, but there are lots of unfriendly people out there, and it's wise to consider how to deal with a worst-case scenario.
Re:They'll never get me
on
Penguin2Apple
·
· Score: 2
The last two are the only real viable options. In any case, the first time I need to add a user, I have to waste a half hour for this most basic administration task.
It took me roughly 30 seconds with Google to locate these scripts.
The music and movie industry does tend to favor the Democrats because the party tends to favor the 1st amendment moreso.
More accurately, the Democrats favor the same kind of free speech that Hollywood does. On the other hand, they are eager to prohibit speech when it suits their purposes, campus speech codes and encryption controls being prominent examples.
It's not that the Republicans don't also support this legislation, they do.
Can you substantiate this claim at all? Republicans don't like excessive government regulation of industry, which is exactly what the SSSCA does.
I think his problem was that the interface for doing so is not intuitive, and he has a point. The text on the installer window says "Click the lock to make changes", which is rather vague; it should be something like "Click the lock to enter your password." Better yet, it should ask for your password right away.
The "botton line" is this: I should be able to write whatever contract I want to with you regarding my property which I may or may not agree to sell you, and the government should not interfere with me.
Agreed, but I don't sign a contract when I buy a DVD. If Time Warner insists on limiting my non-infringing use of a DVD, they are free to require my agreement before money changes hands. (This applies to EULAs also). I also don't dispute that they can use whatever technological "protection" measures they want, but users should be able to defeat such measures provided they don't violate copyright in the process.
As a Libertarian, you should be adamantly opposed government-mandated copy controls; it goes far beyond what the Constitution empowers the government to do.
However, software as you buy it is pretty useless-- it is a shiney disk that you cannot legally install (copying it in whole or part onto your hard drive) without the express permission of the copyright holder.
US copyright law (17 USC 117) allows the "owner of a copy of a computer program" to make copies which are "essential steps" in using the software.
You merely bought the media, the actual content is licenced (buying a piece of paper with a copyrighted work printed on it doesn't mean you've bought the rights to that work) and you either agree to the license or can't install it.
Wrong. I don't need the publisher's permission to use the software any way I want to, including clicking on the "OK" button when I really don't agree. (What if I used a hex editor or other tool to swap the "OK" and "Cancel" buttons before running the installer?) Holding a copyright on a work does not grant the power to control all use of that work, only the ability to duplicate it (i.e. the *right* to *copy*).
You'd have a shit fest if I released modified versions of GPL software without the source
That would be copyright violation. The GPL is simply a statement that you are allowed to redistribute the software (normally not permitted by copyright law) provided you fulfill certain conditions. It's what you would use as a defense against coypright infringement, in which case you would have to show that you complied with its terms. EULAs, on the other hand, are statements (with no legal force IMO) that claim that you may not engage in activities that are *not* illegal under copyright law.
you seem to think a software company can't obligate you to the terms of a license even though you went ahead and subscribed with the agreement
EULAs are completely separate from the terms of an ongoing service. I don't dispute that Blizzard can kick people off battle.net for TOS violations (or for pretty much any reason they want).
I always thought they were legal. What is your basis for the statement?
Several reasons, here's what I find the two most compelling (and IANAL, although I have seen several episodes of The Practice):
- EULAs claim that in exchange for removing your rights (fair use, reverse engineering, resale, etc) you are "granted" the right to run the software. This is meaningless because copyright law already allows the owner of a piece of software to make whatever copies (e.g. to hard drive or RAM) are essential to running it. Thus, you get no consideration and the "contract" is void.
- Somewhat more metaphysical: I read the EULA and decide I don't want to agree to it. But I click the OK button because that's the only way to install the software. Blizzard would claim that clicking OK means I agreed to the EULA, but the only thing that backs up their claim is the EULA itself, which I did *not* agree to. I believe somebody else summarized this as "it's my software, I can lie to it if I want to".
If this is true then I'm going to set up a booth at the flea market and sell enterprise software at half price.
Go right ahead, but only if you bought the software legally (which means you're unlikely to profit). Even if EULAs are invalid, copyright law still applies, so you can't go around duplicating CDs and selling them any more than you can photocopy and sell the pages of a book. Software publishers like to conflate EULAs and copyright, implying that they need EULAs to protect themselves from piracy, but that's completely false.
People already pay (in time) for driving on congested roads or on peak hours. Additionally, gas taxes already partially discourage this behavior, since cars get less mileage in stop and go traffic. I can't see the possible minor increase in economic efficiency being worth the huge potential for abuse of the tracking system.
The deficit grew at an astounding rate under Reagan and Bush. Under Clinton we had budget surpluses.
And who controlled Congress (you know, the entity that actually passes the budget) during each of those Presidents?
Now, since we're back in Republican hands, we're increasing the deficit.
Yes, it's all because of the Republicans. Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the recession, or that minor incident last September.
The corporations bought Bush with campaign donations, then Bush tried to buy votes with harebrained tax cuts.
You've got to be kidding. You seriously think Al Gore was a paragon of integrity? I will give him points for creativity; in addition to taking tons of money from corporations he looked to nontraditional sources of funding such as the Chinese military. And can I assume that you sent your tax rebate back to the IRS?
As a self confessed libertarian, it's odd now that he's talking about the dangers of a free market economy.
Right, and he slightly misses the point. He talks about totalitarianism being caused by "corporate capitalism in a completely unregulated environment", but excessive regulation is precisely the problem. Without government guns enforcing the DMCA, the Sonny Bono Infinite Copyright Act, UCITA, and other consumer-hostile legislation, these corporations would not anywhere near as much a threat to liberty as they are.
Or have you forgotten that the folks who contribute to kernel development have no stake whatsoever in market share?
You've gone from all Linux users in your original post to just kernel developers now. I'll grant that Mac OS X won't have much impact on the Linux kernel, but that's one particular aspect. Have you considered that there might be other areas where OS X and Linux could learn from each other? Just a few examples:
a recent article here was discussing the problem of user configuration under Linux, and several people observed that Apple's solution in Mac OS X might be worthy of consideration.
Lots of Mac OS X code already runs on Linux, such as Darwin Streaming Server, CoreFoundation, and NetInfo.
Apple is working with the FSF to get their enhancements to Objective C integrated into the main gcc source.
Even if none of Apple's actions have any impact on you personally, you are in no position to extrapolate that to the entire Linux community.
User base is of no consequence if you aren't making a profit from it.
I disagree entirely. In addition to motivating developers, a larger user base means more testing, bug reports, and feedback, and ultimately a better quality product. And it works the other way too; Mac OS X developers might create Unix tools that also benefit Linux users.
You're certainly free to live in your own little world ignoring everything that isn't Linux, but that seems extremely shortsighted.
Frankly put, why should us linux-using folks give a rats ass if the Mac does well or poorly? I don't see how Mac marketshare or 'cooperation' with the open-source crowd could be of any benefit whatsoever to Linux.
Maybe because they're doing the best job of bringing Unix to the desktop? Most software written for Linux can easily be ported to OS X, so it gives you a larger potential market.
you have to buy very specific hardware, all approved by Apple, and most of it overly expensive
Aside the motherboard itself, this is completely false. Macs use USB and Firewire and support tons of third party equipment. Buy any USB mouse, plug it in, and it works immediately (yes, even the right button and scroll wheel). Ditto with just about any USB or Firewire CD burner or other drive.
Apple didn't stop Be from doing anything. Be wanted specs handed to them on a silver platter, Apple said they could figure it out themselves (which is possible, as the existence of Linux and BSD ports shows). Instead Be decided to go after the Intel space, where they received far worse treatment from MS (see recent/. story about MS OEM agreements preventing alternative OSes).
Apple have done precisely the same, with the same BSD code, except they took the entire kernel, instead of a few protocol clients (ftp, finger etc)
And released their modifications as open source, which they didn't have to do. Further, they've also released a great deal of their own code.
Emracing and extending is a good thing, as long as it doesn't break compatibility. Cite an example of MS breaking compatibility by doing so.
Kerberos and Java come immediately to mind.
How about the holes they introduced into Apache?
Huh? Reference please. Does it compare even remotely to MS continuing to ship XP for weeks after the gaping hole in UPnP was found?
Apples tech support is limited and patronising.
And you say this based on what evidence? Apple has been consistently rated as having good support compared to other manufacturers (not that that says a whole lot...)
I really don't understand your hostility. Apple is among the most open source-friendly of all companies, and they've successfully brought Unix to the normal user. They're certainly not perfect, but who is?
Bingo. This perfectly illustrates the fundamental unfairness of the DMCA and similar abusive laws. Vendors are allowed to use technology to impose restraints above and beyond what copyright provides for, while users are forbidden from using technology to remove those restraints. In a real free market, any attempt at market segmentation via region coding would swiftly fail; yet the US and other governments have deemed it necessary to use their guns to prop up otherwise unworkable business models.
They don't need to buy millions of dollars in mass media ads every two years to keep their power, so they don't need to whore themselves to the megacorps.
And possibly more importantly, they don't have to make grandstanding "for the children" gestures. This was especially obvious during the CDA battle; several Congressmen were reported as saying off the record that they knew it was a useless and unconstitutional bill, but they couldn't afford to let their opponents demagogue them as being pro-pornography. On the other hand, the Supreme Court unanimously struck it down without hesitation.
Can you point me to a link that discusses the pros and cons?
Apple's tech note #25316 has a brief discussion. They make you sign up for an account before you can access it, but here's the relevant part:
When you install Mac OS X you can choose to optionally erase and format a hard disk or volume using the Mac OS Extended (HFS Plus) or UFS (UNIX File System) format. (In some cases you may be required to erase the selected volume.) Unless you have a specific reason to use UFS, you should use the Mac OS Extended format since it provides a more familiar experience to Macintosh users.
While I don't have a source, I recall reading a comparision that found that HFS+ was much faster than UFS. Also I've been at a Mac OS X presentation where Apple engineers stated that because HFS+ was the preferred filesystem, a lot more work goes into it than UFS.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is virtually impossible to do in the digital realm. (Unless you're willing to throw out both the general purpose PC and the Constitution, and you'll probably fail even then.)
The ransom model doesn't work. Nobody wants to pay for vapor. If it was really a viable model, people would use it now.
PBS. Any charity.
The problem is that the ransom model provides a disincentive to put money in.
Not necessarily. The ransom that you pay can be held in an escrow account, to be returned to you (possibly with interest) if sufficient funds aren't raised by a specified date. Now you're risking very little by paying what you think the product will be worth, (Credit to John Kelsey and Bruce Schneier, whose Street Performer Protocol is essentially the same as the ransom model, with some additions such as escrow).
More than that, if they do it right. This sounds like it has very interesting possibilities. I'm disappointed that Apple seems to be moving in the opposite direction with Mac OS X (type and creator codes deprecated, file extensions mandatory).
Excellent points. I agree entirely, just quoting this so it's more visible for those with comment length limits.
Puts a bunch of accountants, tax lawyers, etc. out of business. (Or at least makes them re-structure their businesses.)
This is a Good Thing. The vast resources that we spend on compliance with the current convoluted tax system will be redirected toward economically productive activities. Some people will have to make changes, like candlemakers did after the advent of the light bulb.
I believe all of Mac OS X is built with gcc. Apple allegedly has several engineers working on the PPC backend.
Is there a reason why boxing couldn't be added to Java? It seems like it could be done with some compiler additions to automatically create object wrappers around the primitive types and vice versa when needed. The compiler already knows the types of primitives, so if you write "int i=foo(); array.add(i);" it should just be able to turn the second statement into "array.add(new Integer(i));". Ditto for unboxing; the compiler could just transparently insert intValue() (or floatValue() or whatever) calls when you assign a Number subclass to a primitive type. Of course, I've only thought about this for about 2 minutes so I could be completely wrong...
You're committing the same error that Mundie is by assuming that if I don't buy a piece of commercial software because I use a free alternative, the money that I would have spent simply vanishes from the economy. Of course, it does not; I'll either buy something else with that money or invest it.
Exactly. And to expand on a point Perens made, the creation of free software that offers functionality formerly only available with proprietary software is *always* good for the economy. Money that users would have spent on the proprietary software will now be redirected toward more economically efficient alternatives. The arguments espoused by Mundie and Plouffe are just variations on the broken window fallacy.
Mr. Plouffe has demonstrated that he is willing to see everyone else suffer economically in order to prop up his preferred business model. (And I'd really like to know what he means by "We should not allow software to be free"). In this he is no better than the RIAA parasites, and he is an embarrassment to himself and his profession.
Please take several deep breaths. This is not an announcement that we are going to nuke a bunch of countries. This is the development of contingency plans describing under what conditions we should consider using nuclear weapons. Don't you think the military should consider these issues in advance, rather than flying by the seat of their pants if an actual emergency develops?
yes, what do you think a contingency plan means? it means they're ready to do it
Of course we're ready to use nuclear weapons, as we have been for several decades. There's no point in having any weapon if you're not prepared to use it. Did you honestly think that before this announcement it was our policy to never use nukes?
How dare we say that we have the right to go around the world and root out our enemies, bombing the shit out of lands just because we believe that they're hiding somewhere.
It's called "self-defense". If nuking a foreign city is the only way to prevent 10 million American deaths from a biological attack, I'm all for it. Yes, we all hope that choice never has to be made, but there are lots of unfriendly people out there, and it's wise to consider how to deal with a worst-case scenario.
It took me roughly 30 seconds with Google to locate these scripts.
More accurately, the Democrats favor the same kind of free speech that Hollywood does. On the other hand, they are eager to prohibit speech when it suits their purposes, campus speech codes and encryption controls being prominent examples.
It's not that the Republicans don't also support this legislation, they do.
Can you substantiate this claim at all? Republicans don't like excessive government regulation of industry, which is exactly what the SSSCA does.
I think his problem was that the interface for doing so is not intuitive, and he has a point. The text on the installer window says "Click the lock to make changes", which is rather vague; it should be something like "Click the lock to enter your password." Better yet, it should ask for your password right away.
Agreed, but I don't sign a contract when I buy a DVD. If Time Warner insists on limiting my non-infringing use of a DVD, they are free to require my agreement before money changes hands. (This applies to EULAs also). I also don't dispute that they can use whatever technological "protection" measures they want, but users should be able to defeat such measures provided they don't violate copyright in the process.
As a Libertarian, you should be adamantly opposed government-mandated copy controls; it goes far beyond what the Constitution empowers the government to do.
US copyright law (17 USC 117) allows the "owner of a copy of a computer program" to make copies which are "essential steps" in using the software.
Wrong. I don't need the publisher's permission to use the software any way I want to, including clicking on the "OK" button when I really don't agree. (What if I used a hex editor or other tool to swap the "OK" and "Cancel" buttons before running the installer?) Holding a copyright on a work does not grant the power to control all use of that work, only the ability to duplicate it (i.e. the *right* to *copy*).
You'd have a shit fest if I released modified versions of GPL software without the source
That would be copyright violation. The GPL is simply a statement that you are allowed to redistribute the software (normally not permitted by copyright law) provided you fulfill certain conditions. It's what you would use as a defense against coypright infringement, in which case you would have to show that you complied with its terms. EULAs, on the other hand, are statements (with no legal force IMO) that claim that you may not engage in activities that are *not* illegal under copyright law.
you seem to think a software company can't obligate you to the terms of a license even though you went ahead and subscribed with the agreement
EULAs are completely separate from the terms of an ongoing service. I don't dispute that Blizzard can kick people off battle.net for TOS violations (or for pretty much any reason they want).
Several reasons, here's what I find the two most compelling (and IANAL, although I have seen several episodes of The Practice):
- EULAs claim that in exchange for removing your rights (fair use, reverse engineering, resale, etc) you are "granted" the right to run the software. This is meaningless because copyright law already allows the owner of a piece of software to make whatever copies (e.g. to hard drive or RAM) are essential to running it. Thus, you get no consideration and the "contract" is void.
- Somewhat more metaphysical: I read the EULA and decide I don't want to agree to it. But I click the OK button because that's the only way to install the software. Blizzard would claim that clicking OK means I agreed to the EULA, but the only thing that backs up their claim is the EULA itself, which I did *not* agree to. I believe somebody else summarized this as "it's my software, I can lie to it if I want to".
If this is true then I'm going to set up a booth at the flea market and sell enterprise software at half price.
Go right ahead, but only if you bought the software legally (which means you're unlikely to profit). Even if EULAs are invalid, copyright law still applies, so you can't go around duplicating CDs and selling them any more than you can photocopy and sell the pages of a book. Software publishers like to conflate EULAs and copyright, implying that they need EULAs to protect themselves from piracy, but that's completely false.
People already pay (in time) for driving on congested roads or on peak hours. Additionally, gas taxes already partially discourage this behavior, since cars get less mileage in stop and go traffic. I can't see the possible minor increase in economic efficiency being worth the huge potential for abuse of the tracking system.
And who controlled Congress (you know, the entity that actually passes the budget) during each of those Presidents?
Now, since we're back in Republican hands, we're increasing the deficit.
Yes, it's all because of the Republicans. Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the recession, or that minor incident last September.
The corporations bought Bush with campaign donations, then Bush tried to buy votes with harebrained tax cuts.
You've got to be kidding. You seriously think Al Gore was a paragon of integrity? I will give him points for creativity; in addition to taking tons of money from corporations he looked to nontraditional sources of funding such as the Chinese military. And can I assume that you sent your tax rebate back to the IRS?
Right, and he slightly misses the point. He talks about totalitarianism being caused by "corporate capitalism in a completely unregulated environment", but excessive regulation is precisely the problem. Without government guns enforcing the DMCA, the Sonny Bono Infinite Copyright Act, UCITA, and other consumer-hostile legislation, these corporations would not anywhere near as much a threat to liberty as they are.
You've gone from all Linux users in your original post to just kernel developers now. I'll grant that Mac OS X won't have much impact on the Linux kernel, but that's one particular aspect. Have you considered that there might be other areas where OS X and Linux could learn from each other? Just a few examples:
Even if none of Apple's actions have any impact on you personally, you are in no position to extrapolate that to the entire Linux community.
User base is of no consequence if you aren't making a profit from it.
I disagree entirely. In addition to motivating developers, a larger user base means more testing, bug reports, and feedback, and ultimately a better quality product. And it works the other way too; Mac OS X developers might create Unix tools that also benefit Linux users.
You're certainly free to live in your own little world ignoring everything that isn't Linux, but that seems extremely shortsighted.
Maybe because they're doing the best job of bringing Unix to the desktop? Most software written for Linux can easily be ported to OS X, so it gives you a larger potential market.
you have to buy very specific hardware, all approved by Apple, and most of it overly expensive
Aside the motherboard itself, this is completely false. Macs use USB and Firewire and support tons of third party equipment. Buy any USB mouse, plug it in, and it works immediately (yes, even the right button and scroll wheel). Ditto with just about any USB or Firewire CD burner or other drive.
Apple didn't stop Be from doing anything. Be wanted specs handed to them on a silver platter, Apple said they could figure it out themselves (which is possible, as the existence of Linux and BSD ports shows). Instead Be decided to go after the Intel space, where they received far worse treatment from MS (see recent
Apple have done precisely the same, with the same BSD code, except they took the entire kernel, instead of a few protocol clients (ftp, finger etc)
And released their modifications as open source, which they didn't have to do. Further, they've also released a great deal of their own code.
Emracing and extending is a good thing, as long as it doesn't break compatibility. Cite an example of MS breaking compatibility by doing so.
Kerberos and Java come immediately to mind.
How about the holes they introduced into Apache?
Huh? Reference please. Does it compare even remotely to MS continuing to ship XP for weeks after the gaping hole in UPnP was found?
Apples tech support is limited and patronising.
And you say this based on what evidence? Apple has been consistently rated as having good support compared to other manufacturers (not that that says a whole lot...)
I really don't understand your hostility. Apple is among the most open source-friendly of all companies, and they've successfully brought Unix to the normal user. They're certainly not perfect, but who is?
Bingo. This perfectly illustrates the fundamental unfairness of the DMCA and similar abusive laws. Vendors are allowed to use technology to impose restraints above and beyond what copyright provides for, while users are forbidden from using technology to remove those restraints. In a real free market, any attempt at market segmentation via region coding would swiftly fail; yet the US and other governments have deemed it necessary to use their guns to prop up otherwise unworkable business models.
And possibly more importantly, they don't have to make grandstanding "for the children" gestures. This was especially obvious during the CDA battle; several Congressmen were reported as saying off the record that they knew it was a useless and unconstitutional bill, but they couldn't afford to let their opponents demagogue them as being pro-pornography. On the other hand, the Supreme Court unanimously struck it down without hesitation.
Apple's tech note #25316 has a brief discussion. They make you sign up for an account before you can access it, but here's the relevant part:
While I don't have a source, I recall reading a comparision that found that HFS+ was much faster than UFS. Also I've been at a Mac OS X presentation where Apple engineers stated that because HFS+ was the preferred filesystem, a lot more work goes into it than UFS.