This is actually a good thing. You know this internet thing we are on? It is built on open standards implemented by open and closed source software (TCP/IP). It does you no good if you write great OSS but non of the closed source guys adopt your standard. OSS is quite useless if you don't have a well defined standard/interface which others (regardless of license) can implement for interoperability.
Would you guys prefer closed source companies pushing closed/proprietary software interfaces?
How is the GPL protecting the enduser? What if the enduser is a programmer? Fascist? Have you read the GPL? Are you telling me that if I give you free code and say that you can do whatever you want with it is somehow fascist? I did not realize freedom was evil. BSD is true socialism (good) because contributing code back to the community is completely voluntary. That is true freedom. If you are forced to do something, you are no-longer free.
Where do you get you figures from? Your arse? I work for a company producing inhouse software and I can tell you that 90% of the products we make do make it into production in our company and our partners which I cannot name for obvious reasons. We might not sell to the general public but the software is in use.
Me whine? Chill out dude. You'll live longer.
That would bother me because??? If my intent was to release software for other people to use freely (without restriction), anyone would be free to do with it as they wished. BSD licenses help promote open standards and interoperability between proprietary and non-proprietary software.
I'll give you a prime example. TCP/IP. If it had not been released under a BSD license, TCP/IP might not have become the standard for all OSes (Commercial proprietary and Open source).
Imagine if you can MS pushing a Netbeui derivative, Novel pushing pushing IPX etc... We would not have the internet as we have now.
Now while it is true that companies can create close-source implementations, the open source versions and other competing closed source implementations seem to encourage adhering to an agreed upon "open standard". You might not be able to see the code anymore but the external interface should be the same non the less to ensure compatibility.
Ok that sounds reasonable.
i personally support the OSS movement but i do have concerns with the GPL and how it might hinder linux acceptance. I'm of the opinion that kernel modules (drivers) should be free to use whatever license they wish. If I was to release Open Source software, I would release it with a BSD license. Why? I would view my software as a gift to the community. I don't believe gifts should have strings attached. GPL has strings attached so a GPL'd product is no-longer a free gift to the community since a gift cannot have conditions attached to it. If you want to control how your software is used, might as well release it as proprietary software.
Yeah, a license. Those hardware set top players made by Sony, toshiba etc... you see in stores on the way to school have a licensed implementation of the decoder.
What's with you people? Get off your butts and get jobs. You cannot be a "professional student" forever.
That commercial player is legal because it includes the price of a license for the mpeg2 decoder. Your "free" player does not have a legal decoder license. Go look up to license fees for decoders. Apple users get a legal DVD player with their OS as well as other goodies.
Let me guess. You are and academic? You see, us programmers who don't have rich parents and don't want to live in our parents basement need to get paid for our work. I hate M$ as much as the next guy but attitudes like yours will hurt rather than help the linux cause. Proprietary software has it's place. Don't like it? Move to cuba. I hear they are still communist.
Proprietary software is not necessarily evil. If you want linux to succeed on the non-geek desktop, you will have to give us programmers the ability to earn a living. Open source and proprietary software can live together if you have "open standards".
Sorry to burst your bubble. The "give away stuff for free and think of a business plan later" dot com era ended a few years ago.
Except you are still part of the problem than the solution. You are not supporting other formats/players by using it. You are also still a part of the MS desktop lockin by using windows.
If you are going to use windows, at least support third-party formats/players.
Since when do you run a computer without an OS?:) Benchmarks are nice for comparing new revisions of the same processor family but are entirely useless for determining if a computer (OS and hardware) will perform well with everyday tasks.
I would have to echo these comments. The task priority system is so bad on XP that you can have one 32bit app starve the system of CPU locking up the system. The memory allocation system is also lacking.
I am speaking as a developer on the Win32/.NET platform and home mac laptop/eMac user.
My 12" pbook feels faster than my work P4 2.2 Ghz desktop.
Have fun with viruses. LOL. These games are more than good enough to play the latest mac ports of the games. Have you ever looked at the spec sheets of mac ports? Their minimum reqs are usually way below the minimum reqs on the PC side. Direct X is a pig and NT (XP) cannot task switch/manage memory with a damn.
I play WCIII and WCIIIFT just fine on my first generation 12" pbook and I burn/author DVD's just fine too.
That's not true. There is a hack for iDVD which let's you use it with any external or internal DVD burner. Actually, it's just a set of special resource files that you put in your home directory.
PatchburnII takes care of the rest of the iApps by writing the driver for you.
If you install a third-party supplied Pioneer A04 internally, you can burn directly from all of the iApps without any additional drivers/hacks.
Well, normally you have to use an installer even though the method you describe (copy.app folder to Applications) was the way Apple intended it to work.
Nope. Adobe Photoshop uses an installer as does the extras for MS Office X but MS Office X itself is a drag and drop install.
Usually you only need an installer package if you are installing frameworks/libraries on a system level which requires authentication to temporarily enable root level access via the GUI.
Most OS X binaries of Open source software (eg. VLC) are already compiled as.apps and if you download the source specific to OS X, you will get an.app at the end of it anyway assuming the software is GUI based.
Perhaps you are confused. Both BSD licenced software and GPLed software are both Free software and Open Source. The key point of Open source is that source is available to the public to view. Neither of those two concepts are exclusive to any particular licence model. There are many Open source licences out there. Some are compatible with GPL and some are not.
I personally consider GPL to be less free than BSD-ish licences. Freedom is meant for individuals and freedom cannot be imposed.
Except that is not the same thing as userland tools. There are significant portions related to IPC derived from BSD in the kernel. Darwin is neither Mach or BSD.
Don't know anything about UML or Analysis and Design do you? Actors in analysis speak can represent a user, the system or a system component when you are trying to describe a use case (workflow).
They run on a Mach kernel with some BSD userland tools.
Yes and no. There is some BSD code in the kernel.
See below.
http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_xnu.html
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously you are using non-GPL'd software or at-least a re-implementation of BSD software.
BTW. I use OSX which includes bash and other GNU software. *gasp*
Would you guys prefer closed source companies pushing closed/proprietary software interfaces?
How is the GPL protecting the enduser? What if the enduser is a programmer? Fascist? Have you read the GPL? Are you telling me that if I give you free code and say that you can do whatever you want with it is somehow fascist? I did not realize freedom was evil. BSD is true socialism (good) because contributing code back to the community is completely voluntary. That is true freedom. If you are forced to do something, you are no-longer free. Where do you get you figures from? Your arse? I work for a company producing inhouse software and I can tell you that 90% of the products we make do make it into production in our company and our partners which I cannot name for obvious reasons. We might not sell to the general public but the software is in use. Me whine? Chill out dude. You'll live longer.
I'll give you a prime example. TCP/IP. If it had not been released under a BSD license, TCP/IP might not have become the standard for all OSes (Commercial proprietary and Open source).
Imagine if you can MS pushing a Netbeui derivative, Novel pushing pushing IPX etc... We would not have the internet as we have now. Now while it is true that companies can create close-source implementations, the open source versions and other competing closed source implementations seem to encourage adhering to an agreed upon "open standard". You might not be able to see the code anymore but the external interface should be the same non the less to ensure compatibility.
Ok the, you should not be adverse to paying for a license for DVD decoders then if someone released a legal one since you code for a living.
Ok that sounds reasonable. i personally support the OSS movement but i do have concerns with the GPL and how it might hinder linux acceptance. I'm of the opinion that kernel modules (drivers) should be free to use whatever license they wish. If I was to release Open Source software, I would release it with a BSD license. Why? I would view my software as a gift to the community. I don't believe gifts should have strings attached. GPL has strings attached so a GPL'd product is no-longer a free gift to the community since a gift cannot have conditions attached to it. If you want to control how your software is used, might as well release it as proprietary software.
What's with you people? Get off your butts and get jobs. You cannot be a "professional student" forever.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
That commercial player is legal because it includes the price of a license for the mpeg2 decoder. Your "free" player does not have a legal decoder license. Go look up to license fees for decoders. Apple users get a legal DVD player with their OS as well as other goodies.
Let me guess. You are and academic? You see, us programmers who don't have rich parents and don't want to live in our parents basement need to get paid for our work. I hate M$ as much as the next guy but attitudes like yours will hurt rather than help the linux cause. Proprietary software has it's place. Don't like it? Move to cuba. I hear they are still communist. Proprietary software is not necessarily evil. If you want linux to succeed on the non-geek desktop, you will have to give us programmers the ability to earn a living. Open source and proprietary software can live together if you have "open standards". Sorry to burst your bubble. The "give away stuff for free and think of a business plan later" dot com era ended a few years ago.
Except you are still part of the problem than the solution. You are not supporting other formats/players by using it. You are also still a part of the MS desktop lockin by using windows. If you are going to use windows, at least support third-party formats/players.
Umm. Palestinians are semetic people as well.
http://www.lifescapeinc.com/picasa/ These guys are not only ripping off the interface of iPhoto but charging money for it.
and RTCW, Jedi Academy, UT2k3, UT2k4, Halo and a whole slew of other recent 3d games. Not as many as the PC but many of the good ones.
Since when do you run a computer without an OS? :) Benchmarks are nice for comparing new revisions of the same processor family but are entirely useless for determining if a computer (OS and hardware) will perform well with everyday tasks.
I am speaking as a developer on the Win32/.NET platform and home mac laptop/eMac user.
My 12" pbook feels faster than my work P4 2.2 Ghz desktop.
Have fun with viruses. LOL. These games are more than good enough to play the latest mac ports of the games. Have you ever looked at the spec sheets of mac ports? Their minimum reqs are usually way below the minimum reqs on the PC side. Direct X is a pig and NT (XP) cannot task switch/manage memory with a damn. I play WCIII and WCIIIFT just fine on my first generation 12" pbook and I burn/author DVD's just fine too.
What software comes with that? Does it include any multimedia apps similar to the included iApps?
That's not true. There is a hack for iDVD which let's you use it with any external or internal DVD burner. Actually, it's just a set of special resource files that you put in your home directory. PatchburnII takes care of the rest of the iApps by writing the driver for you. If you install a third-party supplied Pioneer A04 internally, you can burn directly from all of the iApps without any additional drivers/hacks.
But people would stare and wonder what that bulge in my pants was. :)
Well, normally you have to use an installer even though the method you describe (copy .app folder to Applications) was the way Apple intended it to work.
Nope. Adobe Photoshop uses an installer as does the extras for MS Office X but MS Office X itself is a drag and drop install.
Usually you only need an installer package if you are installing frameworks/libraries on a system level which requires authentication to temporarily enable root level access via the GUI.
Most OS X binaries of Open source software (eg. VLC) are already compiled as .apps and if you download the source specific to OS X, you will get an .app at the end of it anyway assuming the software is GUI based.
And that is the problem and this is why you don't have commercial developers releasing binary builds for linux.
Perhaps you are confused. Both BSD licenced software and GPLed software are both Free software and Open Source. The key point of Open source is that source is available to the public to view. Neither of those two concepts are exclusive to any particular licence model. There are many Open source licences out there. Some are compatible with GPL and some are not. I personally consider GPL to be less free than BSD-ish licences. Freedom is meant for individuals and freedom cannot be imposed.
Except that is not the same thing as userland tools. There are significant portions related to IPC derived from BSD in the kernel. Darwin is neither Mach or BSD.
Don't know anything about UML or Analysis and Design do you? Actors in analysis speak can represent a user, the system or a system component when you are trying to describe a use case (workflow).
They run on a Mach kernel with some BSD userland tools. Yes and no. There is some BSD code in the kernel. See below. http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_xnu.html