Darwin is free, you can download a copy from apple's site opensource.apple.com
You get an ISO and you burn a copy then install it. How is that not free as in beer and free as in speech? You can download the entire source and binary version completely free.
Microsoft couldn't do this because almost all Linux distros are GPL. And the GPL explicitly forbids mixing free and proprietary because of it's viral nautre. That is one of the reasons that Linux itself doesn't underly OS X.
You want to point out that OS X isn't free, but the actual operating system underneath, Darwin, is free and open for all to play with. If someone else wants to build thier own GUI and drawing system on top then they are free to do so.
You believe that OS X harms OSS because Apple claims that it is the best of both worlds. The fact of the matter is that OS X IS the best of both worlds, I have free and open source to everything underneath my toolset and a platform that proprietary software doesn't run from. I can look at the source to CoreFoundation that is toll-free bridged with all the Cocoa foundation objects. I can look at the filesystem code, or networking code, and it's all free. I can use Gimp or Photoshop, I can use vi or Dreamweaver, I have the CHOICE to use either. Isn't the entire point of OSS that warm feeling you get when you have choices? I don't have to use anything and can compare them directly next to each other.
If Gnome or KDE was closed sourced would you be making such a gripe? All OS X is doing is it packages a completely free and open OS with a beautiful DE on top of it, and you never see the ugly scrolling lines. Gnome + GRUB does the same thing. You get a somewhat pretty startup, you get dumped at a login screen if you have that setup and you get a pretty desktop never needing to open a terminal to get anything done.
OSS Developers that get new macs are a good thing because like an earlier poster said, they can finally aim their efforts at making products that are better than OS X rather than as good as windows.
You can't possibly be referring to "Nan0tech r0x0r5", I'm not sure if it's the wisdom it expresses or the fact that it totally misses that this is a sham that more succinctly demonstrated the posters grasp of the material contained in the article.
Yes, having more obnoxiously long and loud phone calls in public in exchange for a small growth on your face from radiation exposure. Sounds about right.
dammit, I was cheated. If only I had not spent that time pontificating I could have been first post. Oh what a cruel world that has such posters in it.
My First, First Post. If only I had something to say, or had read the article. Then again countless people are about to comment having not read the article, only difference being that I was the first.
That's because the entire purpsoe of this machine is just that. It's to grab Developers to come and work on Mac software. Basically it's like a Lays Potato Chip, they assume that once you start, you won't be able to stop.
As a developer your primary concern will be either how can you make money off this, or how what are the APIs like.
For the former you have the comfort of lower piracy and that Mac users not only pay for software that they like, but tell their friends about them. On the latter you have the gorgeous Cocoa API to work with where everything you want to do is usually very simple or done already in the many years that people have been using the NeXtStep frameworks and adding categories, subclasses, and extensions for your use that fit in with the desgin of Cocoa.
New Users aren't that important as those will come if you have new Developers leading to new apps, apps that those user will in turn come for.
ROFL, Quicktime is NOT A FORMAT. Quicktime is a media wrapper in the same way that AVI is, except Quicktime is superior.
Quicktime files can have media of any type in them, several tracks of video, audio, and even a movie skin all spliced together seamlessly.
Quicktime files can have Xvid, MPEG/2, DivX, or whatever you like. Just because what you pirate is in a certain format doesn't mean its the best around, means it's either the most easily pirated, the most free, easiest to use, or some combination thereof.
Lastly Xvid is just a decent format, the 3IVX encoder/decoders are superior and have no qualms with being in a.mov file, the windows version even allows you to watch.mov files in any DirectShow application(media player, real player, etc). If you want to piss/moan/rant about something, make the effort to know what your talking about first.
I have to admit that I did the same when I first launched Interface Builder, but guess what I opened the help and it told of connecting objects to code and I was done, I understood.
You seem to speak ill of IB because its not like everything else you used, you seem unable to realize that this is a GOOD thing, a strength, not a weakness. Interface Builder doesn't generate crappy code for you, instead it generates real objects that are instantiated at runtime then bound to your code. Show me a pre-existing GUI designer that does that and then your point makes sense.
Interface Builder is unilke everything you have ever seen in every way, but every way is better. There is no craapy code generated, there is no retarded boxes nor grids to lay things out with, but instead struts that decide the resizeMask of widgets, and almost all the setting can be made in IB, much more powerful than all teh other GUI editors, and so much easier once you udnerstand.
Unfamiliar framework, yes, bad documentation, no. I mean come on, its new to you so your not familiar with its ins and outs, but just because it doesn't do something like API or library foo doesn't mean it is somehow limited. The docs and the API itself has a clear seperation of tasks and responsibilities, all you need to do is glance through the API docs, or if thats not clear enough for you, start at the Conceptual Docs that explain things without introducing the code involved in detail.
Also as to searching the OS X developer resources, your not doing it right, since the ADC library consolidation makes looking up info generally work the first time and finds exactly what I was looking for when I search not related documents, or documents that will lead me to teh answet, but th answer itself.
The language, lets not cry foul there either, ObjC is blindingly simple to learn if you already know C. It's a few extensions and a CLEAR way of handling objects. The entire reason for teh bracket syntax is to clearly dileaneate object interaction from just memory manipulations of other functions.
You bought a book to introduce you to something new that you didn't know and had to learn, what is surprising about this? Some buy books, some read example code, some just get it. No shame in not understanding, seeking out the knowledge doesn't hurt anyone.
Wrong, WinFS was vaporware it seems to have never existed and MS has ditched it with the final release date of Longhorn pegged in late 2006. By then we will all be able to see SpotLight trounce what might have been.
That's not true, search by content works correctly for files that it understands. And all the Apple Search technologies are very fast unlike another OS companies' attempts.
Mac OS X does not need this, Tiger's SpotLight technology is much more technologically impressive, requires less resources, searches faster, returns betters results, and doesn't require the use of your web browser to search for anything.
Add to that the fact that it's an entire framework that applications plug into in order to allow it to search their own proprietary and non standard fiel formats, as in finding that Adobe file with that layer named "pigeons", or that UML document where you created that "user-visit" use case, or even that IRC log where you pwned someone asking why [Insert OS/Browser/Technology/Model here] Sucks.
The only thing it doesn't have is the google search intercept, manipulate results, then return to browser business. That can be done with a Safari plugin easily enough.
I love google and all, but this tech doesn't hold a candle to SpotLight.
Sarcasm aside, those people have MUCH higher likelihood of appearing on Punk'd than you do. No matter how much you think so in your own mind, you aren't famous, don't make hit records, don't headline blockbuster movies, and have yet to secure a multimillion dollar sports contract.
So the likelihood that we will see you on Punk'd is ZILCH, ZERO, ZIP, NADA.
Who in the name of fuck moderated this insightful?
Welcome to sarcasm.
As to your problem did you send an email to Apple or somehow let them know about the problem? They are generally very helpful with these things. Yes, playfair will make your AACs work in your MP3 player, congrats. After all after ripping the DRM out them converting to MP3s of lesser quality, your so getting your money's worth then. Why not get an iPod?
"Imagine that every book you bought came in a different crypto script and you needed real, microsoft or apple glasses to read each different type of book - effectively a corporate tax on reading. Would you accept this? Would you call a person who circumvented this device a "criminal" with double standards?"
YES, unlike you I don't feel it's my god given right to read books. I simply wouldn't read the books that I don't feel provide me with terms that I like.
Is that illegal, no? However if I instead figured out the exact optic manglements each "format" used then provided a universal pair of glasses, and then you bought it to read the books, both you and I would be breaking the law.
Perhaps the glasses allow me fairer use of the books I have bought, what makes it fair? the fact that the competing companies then don't get my money for their particular glasses? After all competition sin't about competing with each other to create products I want to use, it's really about competitors using interchangeable products since they want me to mix my LOTR with Harry Potter and Crytonomicon because that makes each companies' product that much better.
What you simply don't get is that when a product makes effort to exclude you why make effort to use it? Leave it the fuck alone, let it wither and die, then you know you contributed to its eventual demise.
The rest of your diatribe is bullshit, your red bands are showing comrade.
Your absolutely right, it's not "your music" you didn't write it, compose it, produce it, nor perform it. All you did was purchase the right to listen to it freely.
Slashdot Mirror
Darwin is free, you can download a copy from apple's site opensource.apple.com You get an ISO and you burn a copy then install it. How is that not free as in beer and free as in speech? You can download the entire source and binary version completely free.
Microsoft couldn't do this because almost all Linux distros are GPL. And the GPL explicitly forbids mixing free and proprietary because of it's viral nautre. That is one of the reasons that Linux itself doesn't underly OS X.
You want to point out that OS X isn't free, but the actual operating system underneath, Darwin, is free and open for all to play with. If someone else wants to build thier own GUI and drawing system on top then they are free to do so.
You believe that OS X harms OSS because Apple claims that it is the best of both worlds. The fact of the matter is that OS X IS the best of both worlds, I have free and open source to everything underneath my toolset and a platform that proprietary software doesn't run from. I can look at the source to CoreFoundation that is toll-free bridged with all the Cocoa foundation objects. I can look at the filesystem code, or networking code, and it's all free. I can use Gimp or Photoshop, I can use vi or Dreamweaver, I have the CHOICE to use either. Isn't the entire point of OSS that warm feeling you get when you have choices? I don't have to use anything and can compare them directly next to each other.
If Gnome or KDE was closed sourced would you be making such a gripe? All OS X is doing is it packages a completely free and open OS with a beautiful DE on top of it, and you never see the ugly scrolling lines. Gnome + GRUB does the same thing. You get a somewhat pretty startup, you get dumped at a login screen if you have that setup and you get a pretty desktop never needing to open a terminal to get anything done.
OSS Developers that get new macs are a good thing because like an earlier poster said, they can finally aim their efforts at making products that are better than OS X rather than as good as windows.
You can't possibly be referring to "Nan0tech r0x0r5", I'm not sure if it's the wisdom it expresses or the fact that it totally misses that this is a sham that more succinctly demonstrated the posters grasp of the material contained in the article.
Yes, having more obnoxiously long and loud phone calls in public in exchange for a small growth on your face from radiation exposure. Sounds about right.
Hurry before someone patents it.
dammit, I was cheated. If only I had not spent that time pontificating I could have been first post. Oh what a cruel world that has such posters in it.
My First, First Post. If only I had something to say, or had read the article. Then again countless people are about to comment having not read the article, only difference being that I was the first.
I'm not talking about Safari, I'm talking about the same browser as the parent, FireFox. It doesn't support middle click at all on the mac.
Now if only they got around to supporting middle click on macs.
That's because the entire purpsoe of this machine is just that. It's to grab Developers to come and work on Mac software. Basically it's like a Lays Potato Chip, they assume that once you start, you won't be able to stop.
As a developer your primary concern will be either how can you make money off this, or how what are the APIs like.
For the former you have the comfort of lower piracy and that Mac users not only pay for software that they like, but tell their friends about them. On the latter you have the gorgeous Cocoa API to work with where everything you want to do is usually very simple or done already in the many years that people have been using the NeXtStep frameworks and adding categories, subclasses, and extensions for your use that fit in with the desgin of Cocoa.
New Users aren't that important as those will come if you have new Developers leading to new apps, apps that those user will in turn come for.
ROFL, Quicktime is NOT A FORMAT. Quicktime is a media wrapper in the same way that AVI is, except Quicktime is superior.
.mov file, the windows version even allows you to watch .mov files in any DirectShow application(media player, real player, etc). If you want to piss/moan/rant about something, make the effort to know what your talking about first.
Quicktime files can have media of any type in them, several tracks of video, audio, and even a movie skin all spliced together seamlessly.
Quicktime files can have Xvid, MPEG/2, DivX, or whatever you like. Just because what you pirate is in a certain format doesn't mean its the best around, means it's either the most easily pirated, the most free, easiest to use, or some combination thereof.
Lastly Xvid is just a decent format, the 3IVX encoder/decoders are superior and have no qualms with being in a
I have to admit that I did the same when I first launched Interface Builder, but guess what I opened the help and it told of connecting objects to code and I was done, I understood.
You seem to speak ill of IB because its not like everything else you used, you seem unable to realize that this is a GOOD thing, a strength, not a weakness. Interface Builder doesn't generate crappy code for you, instead it generates real objects that are instantiated at runtime then bound to your code. Show me a pre-existing GUI designer that does that and then your point makes sense.
Interface Builder is unilke everything you have ever seen in every way, but every way is better. There is no craapy code generated, there is no retarded boxes nor grids to lay things out with, but instead struts that decide the resizeMask of widgets, and almost all the setting can be made in IB, much more powerful than all teh other GUI editors, and so much easier once you udnerstand.
Unfamiliar framework, yes, bad documentation, no. I mean come on, its new to you so your not familiar with its ins and outs, but just because it doesn't do something like API or library foo doesn't mean it is somehow limited. The docs and the API itself has a clear seperation of tasks and responsibilities, all you need to do is glance through the API docs, or if thats not clear enough for you, start at the Conceptual Docs that explain things without introducing the code involved in detail.
Also as to searching the OS X developer resources, your not doing it right, since the ADC library consolidation makes looking up info generally work the first time and finds exactly what I was looking for when I search not related documents, or documents that will lead me to teh answet, but th answer itself.
The language, lets not cry foul there either, ObjC is blindingly simple to learn if you already know C. It's a few extensions and a CLEAR way of handling objects. The entire reason for teh bracket syntax is to clearly dileaneate object interaction from just memory manipulations of other functions.
You bought a book to introduce you to something new that you didn't know and had to learn, what is surprising about this? Some buy books, some read example code, some just get it. No shame in not understanding, seeking out the knowledge doesn't hurt anyone.
Oooh, Java. It MUST be good.
locate creates an index updated nightly/weekly at 2AM of file names.
This indexes files by name, and content, as they are created, past the original scan at least.
How exactly is locate comparable?
right... To clarify, this is more of a grep with locate's speed. So since I know unix doesn't have that, how can you pretend they are comparable.
Don't forget that SpotLight isn't limited to merely your boot drive.
Oh and along with that plugin support one file isn't limited being of only one type but instead all possible data is extracted from it for indexing.
Wrong, WinFS was vaporware it seems to have never existed and MS has ditched it with the final release date of Longhorn pegged in late 2006. By then we will all be able to see SpotLight trounce what might have been.
That's not true, search by content works correctly for files that it understands. And all the Apple Search technologies are very fast unlike another OS companies' attempts.
Mac OS X does not need this, Tiger's SpotLight technology is much more technologically impressive, requires less resources, searches faster, returns betters results, and doesn't require the use of your web browser to search for anything.
Add to that the fact that it's an entire framework that applications plug into in order to allow it to search their own proprietary and non standard fiel formats, as in finding that Adobe file with that layer named "pigeons", or that UML document where you created that "user-visit" use case, or even that IRC log where you pwned someone asking why [Insert OS/Browser/Technology/Model here] Sucks.
The only thing it doesn't have is the google search intercept, manipulate results, then return to browser business. That can be done with a Safari plugin easily enough.
I love google and all, but this tech doesn't hold a candle to SpotLight.
I'm beginning to see how you can support Bush.
Sarcasm aside, those people have MUCH higher likelihood of appearing on Punk'd than you do. No matter how much you think so in your own mind, you aren't famous, don't make hit records, don't headline blockbuster movies, and have yet to secure a multimillion dollar sports contract.
So the likelihood that we will see you on Punk'd is ZILCH, ZERO, ZIP, NADA.
then add support to Xbox media player for it, after all VLC is Open Source and GPL as is Xbox Media Player.
Who in the name of fuck moderated this insightful? Welcome to sarcasm. As to your problem did you send an email to Apple or somehow let them know about the problem? They are generally very helpful with these things. Yes, playfair will make your AACs work in your MP3 player, congrats. After all after ripping the DRM out them converting to MP3s of lesser quality, your so getting your money's worth then. Why not get an iPod?
VLC already plays the files on Linux without stripping them of the DRM, if all you wanted was to be able to play them, how is that not sufficient?
"Imagine that every book you bought came in a different crypto script and you needed real, microsoft or apple glasses to read each different type of book - effectively a corporate tax on reading. Would you accept this? Would you call a person who circumvented this device a "criminal" with double standards?"
YES, unlike you I don't feel it's my god given right to read books. I simply wouldn't read the books that I don't feel provide me with terms that I like.
Is that illegal, no? However if I instead figured out the exact optic manglements each "format" used then provided a universal pair of glasses, and then you bought it to read the books, both you and I would be breaking the law.
Perhaps the glasses allow me fairer use of the books I have bought, what makes it fair? the fact that the competing companies then don't get my money for their particular glasses? After all competition sin't about competing with each other to create products I want to use, it's really about competitors using interchangeable products since they want me to mix my LOTR with Harry Potter and Crytonomicon because that makes each companies' product that much better.
What you simply don't get is that when a product makes effort to exclude you why make effort to use it? Leave it the fuck alone, let it wither and die, then you know you contributed to its eventual demise.
The rest of your diatribe is bullshit, your red bands are showing comrade.
Your absolutely right, it's not "your music" you didn't write it, compose it, produce it, nor perform it. All you did was purchase the right to listen to it freely.