You were replacing a machine at work and you were considering "XP Home Edition" and a low end Dell? Is it a small business?
Were I work, we buy IBM ThinkCentre A50 $1,208.00 USD with:
40GB 7200RPM ATA/100 (EIDE) Hard Drive
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Intel Pro/1000 T Gigabit Adapter
IBM 1.44MB 3.5-Inch Diskette Drive
IBM 48X Max CD-ROM Drive
512MB PC3200 CL3 NP DDR SDRAM UDIMM For A Series
IBM Preferred Pro PS/2 Keyboard
IBM Optical Wheel Mouse
64MB DDR NVIDIA Quadro4 200NVS VGA or DVI-I Dual Head
plus a 3 year extended support warranty.
I consider that low end for "business".
If you want to do an "honest" comparison of a dual G5, you have to compare against another dual proc workstation machine. The P4 is a "consumer" CPU.
As it has been mentioned by others, the filesystem assigns a unique number identifying each file/directory. You can see this if you open and save a file in MS Office v.X or other Carbon apps which have not been updated to support long filenames(or classic apps) if the original filename was longer than 31 characters. The file gets a really really weird filename with a series of numbers.
I don't don't see why other *nixes could not have this feature via inodes since they are not supposed to change when you move or rename a file.
Come to think of it, HFS+ might be using inodes to reference to the directories/files in these operations internally.
The major performance hit mac suffer from is cause by the GCC compiler. It has very few optimizations for the PPC platform so you will see better performance even out of GCC compiled code running on X86 platforms. If you were to compare code compiled with the IBM compiler against code compiled with the intel compiler, the G5 would stack well against it.
The VT cluster uses the IBM C/C++ and Fortran compilers as does the COLSA cluster. Too bad IBM charges so much for them.
You guys had your chance. OSX was already ported to X86 but you did not "buy" it because it cost over 400 dollars per copy. it was called NeXTStep back then. Steve Jobs learned from that experience and will never allow a port to X86 again.
So because Dell and IBM workstations ship with crappy mechanical 2 button mice, I should assume they don't support USB optical mice, scroll wheels or 3+ buttons?
All of those engineers should be canned. TCP/IP networking started on BSD and even classic mac OS supported TCP.IP natively "before" windows did.
I don't understand how anyone with a clue can consider macs a toy when it has a modern BSD subsystem and for all intents and purposes is a modern incarnation of NeXTStep/OpenStep.
Project builder was there until Panther (replaced by Xcode) and interfacebuilder is still there. We also owe NeXTStep for Mail.app, Preview.app, Terminal.app, Console.app and Network Utility.app.
I thought NeXT was the darling of some larger corporations and government agencies in the 90's as well as consultancies such as SHL System House and Sierra.
Perhaps someone should direct these "engineers" to the VT cluster or COLSA cluster pages.
I must be hallucinating but I could swear that I'm on the net right now typing this on my powerbook.
Uh, no you are wrong. That 130 bucks is the upgrade price from any version you have for your mac that you are installing it on. The CD might not check for a previous version but you are violating your license if you install on non apple hardware.
Since all "macs" come with mac OS from the factory, all "macs" are eligible for the upgrade price.
"uhhh yeah, it might on some CD in a box, in a dwarer in the basement of one of our campus facilities" is not an answer you'd ever get from a software centric corporation EVER.
It might take them an hour or two to dig it up at most. But don't fool yourself into thinking they buried away anything that contains ant form of intellectual property.
Have you ever actually "worked" as in being "paid" as a software developer? I think you are dreaming if you think finding code for a cancelled project would be "easy". Trust me, I've had to try to resurrect a project before at work. You don't have a clue.
2) determining whether it embodies any patents that Apple licenses from other parties
-- Patent licenses should be well documented by any intellegent corporation, if not, they are cruisin' for a bruisin'. If they didn't license and thus infringe, then they might have a case for not opening up the source.
Again, I don't think you have a clue about software development in a corporation. If project is cancelled, there is not much need for readily available information on patents you no longer use. Patent licensing information would not necessarily have been stored electronically.
3) seeing if it builds
Who gives a rats ass? Put it all under the GPL.
That bit at the top? You know, about "NO GAURANTEE OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR USE" covers all that quite nicely.
LOL you are hilarious. Why would anyone release code that does not build?
4) documenting it
-- Once again who gives a rats ass?
You want it, you got it, as is, no gaurantee or warranty implies.
You do with it as thou wilt, you want support? Tough, figure it out on your own, but to be good sports, here's whatever in house tech docs we have on it, you figure it out.
LOL Contrary to popular belief in the OSS community, documentation is essential for the end user and for having maintainable code. Try pulling off that kind of attitude in a corporation and see how long you last. I've seen some well documented OSS projects like Apache and some really bad ones. Your suggestion is unrealistic and irresponsible.
So I guess, it would cost them a total of 20k to release it. That includes finding it, reviewing all patent licenses packaging it a.bin or.hex distribution and updating the site to add the download page and all the appropriate links to said page.
While that may sound big to you, apple can literally afford to wipe it's ass on that chump change.
If you really believe that, you are out of touch with salaries in IT and/or have no idea how much time/money it would take to release that code in a functional state as Open Source.
What would be in it for Apple? They have already released a bunch of OSS including Darwin, Quicktime streaming server and contributed changes back into GCC and KHTML.
The following happened while you were under a rock or on LSD:
-Apple has already made a deal with HP for the HP branded iPod (now shipping) and bundling iTunes with HP windows machines.
-Apple have also integrated their device with BMW and VW Beetle cars and Alpine makes an adaptor kit for other vehicles.
-Virgin Airlines offers iPods to use in the first class lounge.
-Some cruise lines are looking at renting iPods to guests.
-Apple has Licensed playback software to Motorola for inclusion in their cell phones.
Apple already has that critical mass by having captured over 60% of the market even before HP jumped on the band wagon just through direct marketing to mac and windows users.
PS. You might also want to take note that the iPod is a status symbol today and many music stars like to brandish them in public (especially diamond encrusted ones). MSFT is not considered cool these days and your "developer, developers, developer" song combined with your monkeyboy dance are partly to blame for this.
PPS. Get some better antiperspirant when you go on stage 'cause large armpit sweat stains are uncool.
Sorry but illegally duplicating that which is not yours and reselling it is stealing. If you use this service, you are purchasing stolen goods. You, as a customer are not infringing on copyright, the reseller is by distributing the materials.
What you and the service deprive the copyright holder is money which would be earned through resale of the item to you. If you are willfully buying stolen goods, you are breaking the law.
Fine, you are not stealing but you are willfully purchasing stolen goods from allofmp3.com which is committing copyright infringement and intellectual property theft. The theft comes in when they resell that which is not theirs.
I'll give you an analogy. say farmer A has a bull and is willing to sell use of this bull to farmer B to inseminate his cows. Now say that farmer B does not want to pay for the service and so he sneaks into the farm of farmer A and steals bull sperm. If farmer B inseminates his cows with it and resells the calfs, he has not only stolen the bull sperm but also deprived farmer A of potential revenue from his bull and has profited from selling his calfs.
First of all. What exactly is a closed standard? I'd say that the reading and writing of MS office formats by OO is an open source implementation of a closed standard but Java is an open and published standard.
Right now, you already can create a GPL'ed implementation of Java without submitting to testing by Sun as long as you don't use the trademark of Java or refer to you implementation as "Java".
I find this lack of understanding of the English language disturbing. RMS has confused the lot of you concerning the meaning of "closed", "open" and "standard".
Java is already an open, transparent and published specification. What Sun wishes to maintain is control over "their" trademark.
Open source is nice and all but open standards are even more important to prevent vendor lock-in. Open Source does nothing for end users for preventing vendor lock-in if they spend too much time remaining compatible with proprietary formats.
By emulating MS-Office, you are just reenforcing MS Office as the de-facto standard. End users will look at OO and then at office but choose MS Office instead because more features work as expected. For the average Joe, OO will seem like an inferior copy of MS Office.
You don't get it do you? You are really the minority of computer users.
Most people don't build machines. But if the majority of people had chosen PPC when intel was faltering with slower clockspeeds, there would have been a market for DYI motherboards based on PPC. For niche markets ike what you represent.
Everyone is afraid of change and nobody is willing to pay extra to be an early adopter. So that is why we have X86 as the standard today.
BTW. For most people, it's the software, not hardware that matters. If enough developers are behind a platform creating commercial software it will succeed.
Exactly. If you guys really hate MS and Intel, stop supporting them.
If you really like what Apple and IBM are doing with and for Open source, support them by buying their hardware and running whatever operating system you wish (be it linux for PPC, one of the BSD's or OSX).
I laugh when I see open source advocated saying how evil MS is and yet they probably helped put MSFT in the position they are now in by not buying Corel/Wordperfect products instead of MS Office and buying PC's bundled with Windows instead of now dead platforms like the BeBox, Commodore Amiga, Next Cube. Even if they had bought macs from Apple, MS would not have the power it now has in the industry and Corel/Wordperfect would still have a significant portion of the office market.
I also feel that Open Office should stop trying to closely emulate MS Office and try to produce something much better.
,i>"Not on PC architecture. Apple would have made a killing if they had written a PC OS. I kmow I'd be happier right now."
Not this myth again. Do you remember NeXT and what happened when they ported over to X86?
Who was the head of that company? That's right Steve Jobs. OS X was already tried on Intel given that OSX is basically Open Step 5.x.
I'll give you another example, BeOS. Remember Be Inc. and how much of a success that was when they ported to X86? Oh Wait...
Be Inc. got a settlement from MS for being blocked from the market and oems by MS. Unfortunately for Be Inc. they had already been bought at the scrap sale by Palm so it was too late to continue development of BeOS.
Sorry but MSFT has a virtual lock on the X86 platform and only "free" OSes like linux are able to compete against it. There is also the issue of rampant piracy by PC users.
That's funny. Why did Apple's marketshare in music downloads through iTMS far exceed what it should have given the marketshare/installed base numbers before it was extended to windows?
Why does Adobe generate about half it's sales of Photoshop from the mac version?
The answer here is that mac users are less likely to pirate software and music.
It would make business sense to target the mac market precisely since you would have lower development costs (less QA to test various configs along with free development tools) and a greater return on investment through actual sales.
Your logic is flawed. Marketshare of the platform does not necessarily translate into sales of third-party software and services.
So you are not interested in furthering the linux platform?
How will Open Source developer benefit? Simple, with more wide adoption of their software, they have a better chance of receiving more donations for the project and having more of a chance at being offered a bigger/better job by someone at another company who sees how talented you are after using your software that "just works".
Quickly outdated? We are talking about a standard base so it is assumed that future updates would be developed in such a way that you could update without having things break. If things are breaking, then that software is poorly coded or the base is arbitrarily being changed for no good reason.
New versions should fix bugs and extend functionality without altering the behavior of existing interfaces unless the original implementation was inherently flawed.
Re:What has Apple Records got to loose?
on
Beatles vs Apple
·
· Score: 1
What do they have to loose? Any hope of selling music to their former fans for being total uncool losers and sellouts?
There is such a thing as bad publicity. The Beatles are irrelevant culturally now to tpdays youth and court cases like this will leave people with a bad impression of them as sell outs to corporate greed and hypocrisy. If they push this, sure they will get some money but they will also fade into obscurity faster than they would have otherwise.
If these guys want to be remembered, they should show a little grace and drop the suit and take advantage of ITMS as an opportunity to sell their songs to and entirely new generation of music lovers. Dropping the case would be cool thing to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Were I work, we buy IBM ThinkCentre A50 $1,208.00 USD with:
40GB 7200RPM ATA/100 (EIDE) Hard Drive
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Intel Pro/1000 T Gigabit Adapter
IBM 1.44MB 3.5-Inch Diskette Drive
IBM 48X Max CD-ROM Drive
512MB PC3200 CL3 NP DDR SDRAM UDIMM For A Series
IBM Preferred Pro PS/2 Keyboard
IBM Optical Wheel Mouse
64MB DDR NVIDIA Quadro4 200NVS VGA or DVI-I Dual Head
plus a 3 year extended support warranty.
I consider that low end for "business".
If you want to do an "honest" comparison of a dual G5, you have to compare against another dual proc workstation machine. The P4 is a "consumer" CPU.
I don't don't see why other *nixes could not have this feature via inodes since they are not supposed to change when you move or rename a file.
Come to think of it, HFS+ might be using inodes to reference to the directories/files in these operations internally.
The VT cluster uses the IBM C/C++ and Fortran compilers as does the COLSA cluster. Too bad IBM charges so much for them.
You guys had your chance. OSX was already ported to X86 but you did not "buy" it because it cost over 400 dollars per copy. it was called NeXTStep back then. Steve Jobs learned from that experience and will never allow a port to X86 again.
So because Dell and IBM workstations ship with crappy mechanical 2 button mice, I should assume they don't support USB optical mice, scroll wheels or 3+ buttons?
I don't understand how anyone with a clue can consider macs a toy when it has a modern BSD subsystem and for all intents and purposes is a modern incarnation of NeXTStep/OpenStep.
Project builder was there until Panther (replaced by Xcode) and interfacebuilder is still there. We also owe NeXTStep for Mail.app, Preview.app, Terminal.app, Console.app and Network Utility.app.
I thought NeXT was the darling of some larger corporations and government agencies in the 90's as well as consultancies such as SHL System House and Sierra.
Perhaps someone should direct these "engineers" to the VT cluster or COLSA cluster pages.
I must be hallucinating but I could swear that I'm on the net right now typing this on my powerbook.
Since all "macs" come with mac OS from the factory, all "macs" are eligible for the upgrade price.
And UT2k3,UT2K4,WCIII, WCIIIFT, RTCW. Oh wait, the emulator is not fast enough.
"uhhh yeah, it might on some CD in a box, in a dwarer in the basement of one of our campus facilities" is not an answer you'd ever get from a software centric corporation EVER. It might take them an hour or two to dig it up at most. But don't fool yourself into thinking they buried away anything that contains ant form of intellectual property.
Have you ever actually "worked" as in being "paid" as a software developer? I think you are dreaming if you think finding code for a cancelled project would be "easy". Trust me, I've had to try to resurrect a project before at work. You don't have a clue.
2) determining whether it embodies any patents that Apple licenses from other parties
-- Patent licenses should be well documented by any intellegent corporation, if not, they are cruisin' for a bruisin'. If they didn't license and thus infringe, then they might have a case for not opening up the source.
Again, I don't think you have a clue about software development in a corporation. If project is cancelled, there is not much need for readily available information on patents you no longer use. Patent licensing information would not necessarily have been stored electronically.
3) seeing if it builds
Who gives a rats ass? Put it all under the GPL. That bit at the top? You know, about "NO GAURANTEE OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR USE" covers all that quite nicely.
LOL you are hilarious. Why would anyone release code that does not build?
4) documenting it
-- Once again who gives a rats ass? You want it, you got it, as is, no gaurantee or warranty implies. You do with it as thou wilt, you want support? Tough, figure it out on your own, but to be good sports, here's whatever in house tech docs we have on it, you figure it out.
LOL Contrary to popular belief in the OSS community, documentation is essential for the end user and for having maintainable code. Try pulling off that kind of attitude in a corporation and see how long you last. I've seen some well documented OSS projects like Apache and some really bad ones. Your suggestion is unrealistic and irresponsible.
So I guess, it would cost them a total of 20k to release it. That includes finding it, reviewing all patent licenses packaging it a .bin or .hex distribution and updating the site to add the download page and all the appropriate links to said page.
While that may sound big to you, apple can literally afford to wipe it's ass on that chump change.
If you really believe that, you are out of touch with salaries in IT and/or have no idea how much time/money it would take to release that code in a functional state as Open Source.
What would be in it for Apple? They have already released a bunch of OSS including Darwin, Quicktime streaming server and contributed changes back into GCC and KHTML.
-Apple has already made a deal with HP for the HP branded iPod (now shipping) and bundling iTunes with HP windows machines.
-Apple have also integrated their device with BMW and VW Beetle cars and Alpine makes an adaptor kit for other vehicles.
-Virgin Airlines offers iPods to use in the first class lounge.
-Some cruise lines are looking at renting iPods to guests.
-Apple has Licensed playback software to Motorola for inclusion in their cell phones.
Apple already has that critical mass by having captured over 60% of the market even before HP jumped on the band wagon just through direct marketing to mac and windows users.
PS. You might also want to take note that the iPod is a status symbol today and many music stars like to brandish them in public (especially diamond encrusted ones). MSFT is not considered cool these days and your "developer, developers, developer" song combined with your monkeyboy dance are partly to blame for this.
PPS. Get some better antiperspirant when you go on stage 'cause large armpit sweat stains are uncool.
What you and the service deprive the copyright holder is money which would be earned through resale of the item to you. If you are willfully buying stolen goods, you are breaking the law.
Fine, you are not stealing but you are willfully purchasing stolen goods from allofmp3.com which is committing copyright infringement and intellectual property theft. The theft comes in when they resell that which is not theirs.
I'll give you an analogy. say farmer A has a bull and is willing to sell use of this bull to farmer B to inseminate his cows. Now say that farmer B does not want to pay for the service and so he sneaks into the farm of farmer A and steals bull sperm. If farmer B inseminates his cows with it and resells the calfs, he has not only stolen the bull sperm but also deprived farmer A of potential revenue from his bull and has profited from selling his calfs.
Many some of you geeks might know something about technology but you have a lot to learn about economics and basic law. Stealing is wrong.
The "lag" is caused by the wireless mouse you are using.
Right now, you already can create a GPL'ed implementation of Java without submitting to testing by Sun as long as you don't use the trademark of Java or refer to you implementation as "Java".
I find this lack of understanding of the English language disturbing. RMS has confused the lot of you concerning the meaning of "closed", "open" and "standard".
Java is already an open, transparent and published specification. What Sun wishes to maintain is control over "their" trademark.
By emulating MS-Office, you are just reenforcing MS Office as the de-facto standard. End users will look at OO and then at office but choose MS Office instead because more features work as expected. For the average Joe, OO will seem like an inferior copy of MS Office.
Machine Model: PowerBook G4 12"
CPU Type: PowerPC G4 (3.3)
Number Of CPUs: 1
CPU Speed: 867 MHz
L2 Cache (per CPU): 256 KB
Memory: 640 MB
Bus Speed: 133 MHz
Boot ROM Version: 4.5.5f4
System Software Overview:
System Version: Mac OS X 10.3.5 (7M34)
Kernel Version: Darwin 7.5.0
My first computer was an X86 Sanyo XT 1988-1989. Then I supported the Wintel duopoly again from 1996-2002.
I admit that developing software on Wintel pays my bills but I keep my work at work and deliberately remain binary incompatible with the office.
Most people don't build machines. But if the majority of people had chosen PPC when intel was faltering with slower clockspeeds, there would have been a market for DYI motherboards based on PPC. For niche markets ike what you represent.
Everyone is afraid of change and nobody is willing to pay extra to be an early adopter. So that is why we have X86 as the standard today.
BTW. For most people, it's the software, not hardware that matters. If enough developers are behind a platform creating commercial software it will succeed.
Yes, they can run 32bit code very slowly. Have you tried any benchmarks? The kernel would have emulation support build into it to support the Itanium.
If you really like what Apple and IBM are doing with and for Open source, support them by buying their hardware and running whatever operating system you wish (be it linux for PPC, one of the BSD's or OSX).
I laugh when I see open source advocated saying how evil MS is and yet they probably helped put MSFT in the position they are now in by not buying Corel/Wordperfect products instead of MS Office and buying PC's bundled with Windows instead of now dead platforms like the BeBox, Commodore Amiga, Next Cube. Even if they had bought macs from Apple, MS would not have the power it now has in the industry and Corel/Wordperfect would still have a significant portion of the office market.
I also feel that Open Office should stop trying to closely emulate MS Office and try to produce something much better.
It's still illegal if you are not a resident of russia. The artists and labels get nothing. You are paying to download illegal music.
http://www.apple.com/pro/video/conran/
The washed colors with a sepia tone and slight blur is deliberate. Ms. Paltrow was right. It was a blue screen that they used.
Not this myth again. Do you remember NeXT and what happened when they ported over to X86?
Who was the head of that company? That's right Steve Jobs. OS X was already tried on Intel given that OSX is basically Open Step 5.x.
I'll give you another example, BeOS. Remember Be Inc. and how much of a success that was when they ported to X86? Oh Wait...
Be Inc. got a settlement from MS for being blocked from the market and oems by MS. Unfortunately for Be Inc. they had already been bought at the scrap sale by Palm so it was too late to continue development of BeOS.
Sorry but MSFT has a virtual lock on the X86 platform and only "free" OSes like linux are able to compete against it. There is also the issue of rampant piracy by PC users.
Why does Adobe generate about half it's sales of Photoshop from the mac version?
The answer here is that mac users are less likely to pirate software and music.
It would make business sense to target the mac market precisely since you would have lower development costs (less QA to test various configs along with free development tools) and a greater return on investment through actual sales.
Your logic is flawed. Marketshare of the platform does not necessarily translate into sales of third-party software and services.
How will Open Source developer benefit? Simple, with more wide adoption of their software, they have a better chance of receiving more donations for the project and having more of a chance at being offered a bigger/better job by someone at another company who sees how talented you are after using your software that "just works".
Quickly outdated? We are talking about a standard base so it is assumed that future updates would be developed in such a way that you could update without having things break. If things are breaking, then that software is poorly coded or the base is arbitrarily being changed for no good reason.
New versions should fix bugs and extend functionality without altering the behavior of existing interfaces unless the original implementation was inherently flawed.
There is such a thing as bad publicity. The Beatles are irrelevant culturally now to tpdays youth and court cases like this will leave people with a bad impression of them as sell outs to corporate greed and hypocrisy. If they push this, sure they will get some money but they will also fade into obscurity faster than they would have otherwise.
If these guys want to be remembered, they should show a little grace and drop the suit and take advantage of ITMS as an opportunity to sell their songs to and entirely new generation of music lovers. Dropping the case would be cool thing to do.