Apple re-architecting their home launcher to support widgets would be a pretty huge change, but certainly not out of the realm of possibility. Also, I've had no OS-level instability with my Xoom. Browser, market, and launcher crashes, yes, but I've yet to have an issue requiring a reboot. And finally, the question is not one of difficulty anyway. I'm merely pointing out that these products aim to do different things.
If Lion OS X is any indication, they will have a separate space for widgets rather than cluttering up the homescreen unnecessarily. It might be accessible via an app stub or some screen gestures in a future iOS iteration.
these devices do things an iPad can not and will not ever do.
Like having a non-functioning SD card slot in the cause of the Xoom?
Working SD card slot built into a device could be seen as a liability by corporate security especially if apps could save arbitrary data on it. Corporate security hates having removable storage. The camera connection kit is not a liability in a corporate environment because it can only be used to transport photos.
My Xoom is faster and has better integration with my work applications than the iPad2. Why would I want to dumb down the way I work to buy an iPad2? This is after all "The Big Leagues" and facts matter as opposed to believing advertising hype. From my perspective, for people that actually use their tablets for work related tasks, only someone who likes to work more slowly and inefficiently would purchase an iPad2.
Would you care to elaborate on this because it sounds like hyperbole. The main browser on Android uses webkit and webkit is maintained by Apple. The frameworks offered by Apple and third parties for iOS are far more robust. Do you mean to tell us that you use flash for "work" applications? Really? So you guys never heard of CSS, Javascript and HTML? Regardless, you could simply publish whatever apps you need via something like citrix and have it available to other remote clients and not just mobile. The apps would be nicely sandboxed too so you would have less worry about having to us a VPN and could just have an RSA token login scheme on the firewall.
I found that I was spending money on 3G on my iPad when I could just wait to upgrade my iPhone to the new model coming this year and tether a Wifi iPad to it when there was no wifi available.
I saved money on the device and the extra monthly fee that I was paying for data service on top of my iPhone voice and data plan.
Apple's market cap exceeds Microsoft's but OS X still represents less than 10% of the desktop market and Android has comfortably eclipsed iOS on smart phones.
Sorry but are you comparing mobile OSes or phones running the mobile OSes? Because if you are comparing Android to iOS, it is iOS that comfortably eclipses Android when you count iPhones, iPod Touch and iPad. They all run iOS and all can run most of the same apps.
Do you remember how they all had sharper corners and thin bezels and how nerds on slashdot criticized the iPad initially for having a wide bezel? The pre-ipad slates also had flat backs instead of curving ones. One could also talk about how the UI of honeycomb mimics the UI controls of iOS for the iPad especially in the calendar and email apps.
Finally, look at the dock connector and sync cable. It is basically a copy of the ipod/iPhone/iPad connector but with the pins reversed.
The problem with pay as you go data in the US and Canada is that tourists visiting have to pay through the nose whether they decide to roam or try to go "pay as you go" during their short trip.
It would be much better if the AT&T and the HSPA carriers in Canada offers day passes for tourists or even some sort of week pass at a reasonable price with a "rental" sim like you can get in Japan.
Nobody who is poor or living paycheque to paycheque NEEDS mobile data. I would argue they don't need cell phones at all but that's neither here nor there.
Tell me, where is the nearest payphone booth? I don't know what it is like where you live but here in Canada, the only payphones that seem to still exists are in airports and shopping malls. It is expected that almost anyone can have a talk and text cell phone. Mobile data is not something that the poor should consider even using.
'Our motivation for bringing this litigation was to protect our intellectual property and our consumers.'
If SCEA was ever interested in protecting consumers, they never would have brought suit against GeoHot in the first place.
Why don't you stuff it? They are interested of course in protecting their own IP and the IP or their partners and looking out for their consumers. The average consumer is not affected by the lack of linux or not being able to run hombrew/pirated games. Let use be honest here, most people bothering to hack their PS3 are interested in pirated games. That is their primary motivation. Consumers "consume" by buying games and media which earns Sony and their partners money.
Let us also admit that GeoHot does not represent the average consumer either.
Anyone who sells something that connects to itunes and is about the size of a book will win. Anyone whom sells a similar sized piece of glass and plastic with some computer chips will not win.
I should hope that people would like a tablet that DOESN'T connect to iTunes. That NOT having to continuously run iTunes software (or helpers) is actually a selling point. It's kind of ironic that people buy svelte wafers to play music / vids and then are forced to sync them with a piece of bloatware. Not only that, but said bloatware deliberately obstructs users and limits what files they're allowed to copy to their own device.
By all means tablets should bundle sync software but there should be no compulsion to use it.
Bloated? It might not be svelte but it should work fine. If you are whining about the helpers then you either:
1. Have hardware that is inadequate for running the latest windows OS and applications like iTunes. or
2. Suffer from OCD to the point that you bother looking at Perf mon when your system is running fine freaking out from the memory usage.
Why is is that IT professional like me have no problem running iTunes on windows (at work) and why do the majority of iOS device owners (windows users) seem to have no problems?
Maybe your problem is more psychological than technical and you need to learn to let go a little. If iTunes is not leaking memory then there is no problem as long as you have a reasonable amount of ram.
Also, windows 7 should be able to handle programs line iTunes much better than previous versions of windows since it has better process and vm management.
Sure, but there are about a magnitude more Android phone models out there versus iPhone models so one would EXPECT more sales
According to Apple, bringing out dozens of phone models confuses users, fragments the platform, and therefore hurts sales.
Factor in the fact that Apple itself holds about 51% of all profits for global smartphone sales and I doubt they really care. To them, having potentially less sales but clearly far more profit is to them more important.
Apple has done that before with Macs and they almost went bankrupt from it; it's not a long-term viable strategy.
Apple almost went bankrupt because clone sales were undercutting their own mac sales but Apple's support costs continued to rise because they were having to provide support not only for owners of "genuine" macs but also clones.
Apple has been growing their mac market share at a rate that outpaces the overall industry growth while still maintaining a healthy profit margin.
In the mobile space, Apple is dominating on both price and profit share because they have been able to leverage economies of scale through large purchases or flash storage and other components months in advance on a scale that none of their competitors have dared to do. They have enviable profit margins while having some of the lowest prices on tablets like the iPad 2.
The only way a competitor can approach competing on price is to take a loss on each unit sold or cut down the features and size.
OK, there is this long discussion above about freedom.
The creators of the GPL(v3) have one party in mind when they talk about freedom. It is not the developers, it is not the businesses. It is about the users of the software. They want to give as much freedom to the user first. This means the user of the software should always get the source of the software he is using so he/she does not depend on one vendor. There are some clauses about patents too, but they are also about giving the users of the software the ability to take the source and go to an other developer and having them add or remove other functions the original developer didn't want to do.
The BSD-license is about giving the developer the most freedom. They can sell it commercially, adopt it as something new and don't give anyone else the source.
Apparently Apple isn't about giving users the most freedom, but I guess you already knew that.;-)
The FOSS movement does not seem to understand the "users" != interested third parties. The end users just wants to "USE" the software. They have zero interest in the source code or running build script. As long as the FOSS movement continues to treat users as if they should be fellow developer its products will continue to falter in the mass market. This "freedom" the GPL Version 3 claims to give users is something they don't want. It is interested third parties who want access to the code, not users.
This mistaken mentality has caused so much software to lack in usability because the devs just ASSUMED that end users would get out their compiler and fix what they thought was broken. WRONG. If software is not usable, they will complain to the devs and then look for something else.
Apple is very USER focused and they understand what a USER. They have not mistaken users for being interested third parties or developers.
Apple is the enemy of open source? Really? Is that why they decided to fork KHTML as Webkit instead of rolling their own? Really? Is that way they open sourced their streaming server? Is that why they contributed to dozens of open source projects over the years? Do you hate webkit which powers WebOS and the majority of browsers on mobile devices? Are you that myopic that you cannot see the forest for the trees?
Finally someone on here with some common sense. There is the patent indemnification problem but also the issue with trusting signed binaries. Apple wants to be able to ensure that any binary signed with their signature comes from them and not some other untrustworthy third party. Third parties should have to sign with their own certificate so that they cannot masquerade as someone they are not. Requiring distribution of certificates endangers the end user populace because the certificates are no longer unique.
I don't see the problem with the IOS appstore terms. All Apple is asking for is a relatively small annual fee to distribute apps on the app store. If you are allowed to charge for GPL'd software then why can't apple charge to the ability to sign apps for distribution? The barrier imposed by the terms of the GPL Version 3 are far more intrusive in my opinion than what Apple imposed. Most end users have zero interest in compiling let alone modifying code.
I would rather have code signing than having to worry about the trustworthiness of an application on a portable device. It is bad enough that people have to worry about trojans on their desktops and laptops.
I should repackage Samba for the 10.7 and set up donations, like the way Xming does it. The more Apple removes software from its OS, the more development opportunities, right?
What would be the point? Why would anyone care? End users would not care if there is a replacement that works as well or better than Samba for the needed they require built into the OS already.
Uhm, Samba is INCLUDED in OSX. Its been there for years, its what gets enabled if you check 'file sharing' in the sharing preference panel. They never hid the fact.
$ smbd --version Version 3.0.28a-apple $ nmbd --version Version 3.0.28a-apple
I'm hoping that the the Anon Coward was referring to the replacement to Samba and not thinking that the GPL V2 branch was never in OS X because it was.
I think it is possible that Apple implemented the CIFS protocol from documentation or licensed the tech from MSFT directly.
This is close to an admission by Apple that they have copied Samba code in OSX.
It would be interesting to do a bitwise comparison of Samba compiled code to OSX. How much is copied? Where is it?
Just Curious.
Really? It would be interesting to get some CITATION instead of some random speculation from an anonymous coward. I might be more inclined to listen if you bothered signing up for a slashdot account.
Are you aware that Apple licensed Active Sync for both iOS and OS X? It is possible that Apple has licensed SMB from MSFT. Alternatively they could have reverse engineered the calls in a similar fashion to how SAMBA was written by observing the network traffic.
Maybe you can explain what the problem is with providing the source modifications to Samba, I don't get the problem.
The problem is not with providing source modifications to Samba (GPL V2) but supplying certificates for code signing to Samba. End users do not compile things. The FOSS does not seem to understand that END USERS are not the same thing as INTERESTED third parties.
End users do not require access to the source or the ability to create signed binaries. I would argue that giving anyone the ability to sign a binary as "APPLE" would be a serious security flaw. You should be forced to obtain your own damn certificate to distribute a signed binary and not be able to sign a new binary as if it was from another entity. RMS seems to be on an ideological crusade and has completely become divorced from all reality and reason.
Signed binaries have their place and one use case is for securing a platform from malware and trojans that masquerade as a "trusted" binary from a trustworthy source. This is precisely why certificates should never ever be shared and the GPL Version 3 trying to force sharing is IMHO extremely irresponsible.
I want to use VLC on it, but can't because of GPL over the distribution method.
False. If you jailbroke it and installed it yourself, you could. The problem comes with distribution via the App Store, which places additional restrictions on you that violate the GPL.
Jailbreaking requires destruction of BSD jails which means that third party code no longer runs in a secure sandbox environment leaving the iOS device far more remote exploits and malware installed from untrusted repositories. Your "solution" to the problem is to force people to destroy the fundamental security model. How is that freedom of choice if I would have to compromise my device in order to access software?
The GPL version 3 places additional restrictions/requirements on the end user which are unreasonable. The end user does not give a crap about the GPL. It is a license covering the work (that being the source code), not the binary. I do not agree with the concept that binaries are derivative works. Derivative works would require extension/changes to code but simply taking the source code and running it through a compiler creates a binary. That is what compilers do. The binary is the logical outcome of a compile. The copyright of the "code" still remains with the authors of that code but the binary belongs to whomever created it.
If you don't want to share code then simply don't share the code. It is that bloody simple.
To make it as clear as possible to you, if I, as an end user download a binary, I am only bound by the distribution terms from the person or organization that supplied me the binary and neither the GPL or BSD licenses have any control over what I do with that binary since it is not an end user license. I could in theory do an end run around an author at least temporarily by having a third party compile a binary for me, and I could sign it with a developer key and put it on the appstore. The original authors of the source code could do a taken down based on copyright but I would not be in violation of the GPL because I was the recipient of the binary and not the source code. The GPL might give me the right to have access to the source but it cannot force me to download the source.
Summary says "GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially" but I don't understand that at all. My understanding was that the GPL does not prohibit commercial use. Can someone explain why GPLv3 would prevent Apple from using code commercially?
It prohibits code signing and DRM which effectively prohibits some commercial use. I really hope the Version 3 of the license of GPL gets struck down by a court case challenge because I feel that it oversteps the bounds of copyright law. Once a binary is produced, the GPL should have no enforcement other than requiring contribution of code changes. Anyone should be free to take that binary and sign it with a key as required by some platforms.
GPL Version 3 is not compatible with copyright law IMHO.
Nothing in the GPLv3 prohibits using the software commercially, unless that means taking software that others wrote and released and making it unfree.
Really? What does DRM and keys have to do with the source code? If you take a binary created by GPL'ed code and then sign in with a key, what does that have to do with the original source? How is that different that compiling a binary, saving it in a password projected zip file? If you contribute any changes made to the actual code the binary is based on, shouldn't that be enough? I would argue that GPLV3 is a violation of copyright law. I should be free to take GPL'ed code, compile it into a binary, burn it onto a CD, defecate on that CD and then run over it with a truck if I want to. I would argue that how the binary is packaged is of no business to the original copyright lowers and it is an overreach of their rights under copyright law. I should be allowed to package it how I see fit as long as I contribute any source code changes needed to compile the same binary.
I would argue that there is no need for GPL Version 3 and that Version 2 is the better license. GPL Version 3 will the the undoing of many projects in the FOSS movement as more companies realize that they have been screwed over by the projects they contributed to in good faith when it was under GPL Version 2.
BSD= people must be free to do what they want with the code
Code is property and as such, it has no rights. Stop it with this "code must be free" bullshit. This is not about the code but rather about the original authors reaping the fruits of not only their labour but that of others downstream. The GPL is about exchanging your freedom for access to the code.
The problem here is not GPL in general but specifically Version 3 which is anti-commercial. This license will be the undoing of many projects. Companies like Apple will stop contributing to projects which will cause them to languish and die out. Switching to Version 3 is also denying the rights of those employees of Apple who contributed to the codebase in the past. I would argue that Version 3 is a violation of copyright as it prevents corporate contributors from having access to code that they contributed to.
Is RMS completely ignorant of the fact that many of these projects received a lot of commercial support in the past and that Version 3 is basically a big middle finger directed at them? Is he out to destroy the FOSS movement by alienating some of its largest contributors?
You do understand what "copyright" is, right? The copies of the code are being restricted. These copies are the result of the work of the upstream authors. The fruits of their labor are being closed. Presumably, they are fine with this, but acting like it's not happening is dishonest.
Yes, that is what can happen when you "give" physical property away. You lose control over what happens to it. The GPL is not really "giving" something away since it restrict what you can do with it. GPL is not really "free" software. It has very strict terms and conditions which I would argue violates the inherent "copyright" of contributors downstream. Those people have their rights limited by the GPL license because of the viral nature of the license. The fruits of their labour would still exists under a BSD license but they would not necessarily gain the fruits of the labour of others downstream unless if they also chose to give it away. The BSD license is about freedom of choice whereas the GPL is basically stealing the fruits of the labour of people downstream through force of the license rather than receiving it through goodwill sharing.
Java is immensely easier to develop with than any flavor of C because of garbage collection and lack of pointers. If you do not understand why then please do not come anywhere near my C code.
That said, I personally prefer to put in the extra work and develop in C++ because the result usually starts faster and performs better. And I absolutely detest JNI.
Since you seem to think that garbage collection is magical and never causes problems, I assume that you have never worked with file handles or network sockets.
You should NEVER rely on garbage collection to deal with resources such as files and network sockets. Both should always be closed explicitly when they are no longer needed. I would hate to see your code.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple re-architecting their home launcher to support widgets would be a pretty huge change, but certainly not out of the realm of possibility. Also, I've had no OS-level instability with my Xoom. Browser, market, and launcher crashes, yes, but I've yet to have an issue requiring a reboot. And finally, the question is not one of difficulty anyway. I'm merely pointing out that these products aim to do different things.
If Lion OS X is any indication, they will have a separate space for widgets rather than cluttering up the homescreen unnecessarily. It might be accessible via an app stub or some screen gestures in a future iOS iteration.
these devices do things an iPad can not and will not ever do.
Like having a non-functioning SD card slot in the cause of the Xoom?
Working SD card slot built into a device could be seen as a liability by corporate security especially if apps could save arbitrary data on it. Corporate security hates having removable storage. The camera connection kit is not a liability in a corporate environment because it can only be used to transport photos.
My Xoom is faster and has better integration with my work applications than the iPad2. Why would I want to dumb down the way I work to buy an iPad2? This is after all "The Big Leagues" and facts matter as opposed to believing advertising hype. From my perspective, for people that actually use their tablets for work related tasks, only someone who likes to work more slowly and inefficiently would purchase an iPad2.
Would you care to elaborate on this because it sounds like hyperbole. The main browser on Android uses webkit and webkit is maintained by Apple. The frameworks offered by Apple and third parties for iOS are far more robust. Do you mean to tell us that you use flash for "work" applications? Really? So you guys never heard of CSS, Javascript and HTML? Regardless, you could simply publish whatever apps you need via something like citrix and have it available to other remote clients and not just mobile. The apps would be nicely sandboxed too so you would have less worry about having to us a VPN and could just have an RSA token login scheme on the firewall.
I found that I was spending money on 3G on my iPad when I could just wait to upgrade my iPhone to the new model coming this year and tether a Wifi iPad to it when there was no wifi available.
I saved money on the device and the extra monthly fee that I was paying for data service on top of my iPhone voice and data plan.
Apple's market cap exceeds Microsoft's but OS X still represents less than 10% of the desktop market and Android has comfortably eclipsed iOS on smart phones.
Sorry but are you comparing mobile OSes or phones running the mobile OSes? Because if you are comparing Android to iOS, it is iOS that comfortably eclipses Android when you count iPhones, iPod Touch and iPad. They all run iOS and all can run most of the same apps.
Do you remember how they all had sharper corners and thin bezels and how nerds on slashdot criticized the iPad initially for having a wide bezel? The pre-ipad slates also had flat backs instead of curving ones. One could also talk about how the UI of honeycomb mimics the UI controls of iOS for the iPad especially in the calendar and email apps.
Finally, look at the dock connector and sync cable. It is basically a copy of the ipod/iPhone/iPad connector but with the pins reversed.
The problem with pay as you go data in the US and Canada is that tourists visiting have to pay through the nose whether they decide to roam or try to go "pay as you go" during their short trip.
It would be much better if the AT&T and the HSPA carriers in Canada offers day passes for tourists or even some sort of week pass at a reasonable price with a "rental" sim like you can get in Japan.
Nobody who is poor or living paycheque to paycheque NEEDS mobile data. I would argue they don't need cell phones at all but that's neither here nor there.
Tell me, where is the nearest payphone booth? I don't know what it is like where you live but here in Canada, the only payphones that seem to still exists are in airports and shopping malls. It is expected that almost anyone can have a talk and text cell phone. Mobile data is not something that the poor should consider even using.
'Our motivation for bringing this litigation was to protect our intellectual property and our consumers.'
If SCEA was ever interested in protecting consumers, they never would have brought suit against GeoHot in the first place.
Why don't you stuff it? They are interested of course in protecting their own IP and the IP or their partners and looking out for their consumers. The average consumer is not affected by the lack of linux or not being able to run hombrew/pirated games. Let use be honest here, most people bothering to hack their PS3 are interested in pirated games. That is their primary motivation. Consumers "consume" by buying games and media which earns Sony and their partners money.
Let us also admit that GeoHot does not represent the average consumer either.
I hope the Zune is excluded in your statement, because it had/has a pretty nice GUI that exactly fits its purpose.
The Zune is dead. It is just a PMP and does not run third party apps.
Anyone who sells something that connects to itunes and is about the size of a book will win. Anyone whom sells a similar sized piece of glass and plastic with some computer chips will not win.
I should hope that people would like a tablet that DOESN'T connect to iTunes. That NOT having to continuously run iTunes software (or helpers) is actually a selling point. It's kind of ironic that people buy svelte wafers to play music / vids and then are forced to sync them with a piece of bloatware. Not only that, but said bloatware deliberately obstructs users and limits what files they're allowed to copy to their own device.
By all means tablets should bundle sync software but there should be no compulsion to use it.
Bloated? It might not be svelte but it should work fine. If you are whining about the helpers then you either:
1. Have hardware that is inadequate for running the latest windows OS and applications like iTunes. or
2. Suffer from OCD to the point that you bother looking at Perf mon when your system is running fine freaking out from the memory usage.
Why is is that IT professional like me have no problem running iTunes on windows (at work) and why do the majority of iOS device owners (windows users) seem to have no problems?
Maybe your problem is more psychological than technical and you need to learn to let go a little. If iTunes is not leaking memory then there is no problem as long as you have a reasonable amount of ram.
Also, windows 7 should be able to handle programs line iTunes much better than previous versions of windows since it has better process and vm management.
According to Apple, bringing out dozens of phone models confuses users, fragments the platform, and therefore hurts sales.
Apple has done that before with Macs and they almost went bankrupt from it; it's not a long-term viable strategy.
Apple almost went bankrupt because clone sales were undercutting their own mac sales but Apple's support costs continued to rise because they were having to provide support not only for owners of "genuine" macs but also clones.
Apple has been growing their mac market share at a rate that outpaces the overall industry growth while still maintaining a healthy profit margin.
In the mobile space, Apple is dominating on both price and profit share because they have been able to leverage economies of scale through large purchases or flash storage and other components months in advance on a scale that none of their competitors have dared to do. They have enviable profit margins while having some of the lowest prices on tablets like the iPad 2.
The only way a competitor can approach competing on price is to take a loss on each unit sold or cut down the features and size.
OK, there is this long discussion above about freedom.
The creators of the GPL(v3) have one party in mind when they talk about freedom. It is not the developers, it is not the businesses. It is about the users of the software. They want to give as much freedom to the user first. This means the user of the software should always get the source of the software he is using so he/she does not depend on one vendor. There are some clauses about patents too, but they are also about giving the users of the software the ability to take the source and go to an other developer and having them add or remove other functions the original developer didn't want to do.
The BSD-license is about giving the developer the most freedom. They can sell it commercially, adopt it as something new and don't give anyone else the source.
Apparently Apple isn't about giving users the most freedom, but I guess you already knew that. ;-)
The FOSS movement does not seem to understand the "users" != interested third parties. The end users just wants to "USE" the software. They have zero interest in the source code or running build script. As long as the FOSS movement continues to treat users as if they should be fellow developer its products will continue to falter in the mass market. This "freedom" the GPL Version 3 claims to give users is something they don't want. It is interested third parties who want access to the code, not users.
This mistaken mentality has caused so much software to lack in usability because the devs just ASSUMED that end users would get out their compiler and fix what they thought was broken. WRONG. If software is not usable, they will complain to the devs and then look for something else.
Apple is very USER focused and they understand what a USER. They have not mistaken users for being interested third parties or developers.
Apple is the enemy of open source? Really? Is that why they decided to fork KHTML as Webkit instead of rolling their own? Really? Is that way they open sourced their streaming server? Is that why they contributed to dozens of open source projects over the years? Do you hate webkit which powers WebOS and the majority of browsers on mobile devices? Are you that myopic that you cannot see the forest for the trees?
Finally someone on here with some common sense. There is the patent indemnification problem but also the issue with trusting signed binaries. Apple wants to be able to ensure that any binary signed with their signature comes from them and not some other untrustworthy third party. Third parties should have to sign with their own certificate so that they cannot masquerade as someone they are not. Requiring distribution of certificates endangers the end user populace because the certificates are no longer unique.
I don't see the problem with the IOS appstore terms. All Apple is asking for is a relatively small annual fee to distribute apps on the app store. If you are allowed to charge for GPL'd software then why can't apple charge to the ability to sign apps for distribution? The barrier imposed by the terms of the GPL Version 3 are far more intrusive in my opinion than what Apple imposed. Most end users have zero interest in compiling let alone modifying code.
I would rather have code signing than having to worry about the trustworthiness of an application on a portable device. It is bad enough that people have to worry about trojans on their desktops and laptops.
I should repackage Samba for the 10.7 and set up donations, like the way Xming does it. The more Apple removes software from its OS, the more development opportunities, right?
What would be the point? Why would anyone care? End users would not care if there is a replacement that works as well or better than Samba for the needed they require built into the OS already.
Uhm, Samba is INCLUDED in OSX. Its been there for years, its what gets enabled if you check 'file sharing' in the sharing preference panel. They never hid the fact.
$ smbd --version
Version 3.0.28a-apple
$ nmbd --version
Version 3.0.28a-apple
I'm hoping that the the Anon Coward was referring to the replacement to Samba and not thinking that the GPL V2 branch was never in OS X because it was.
I think it is possible that Apple implemented the CIFS protocol from documentation or licensed the tech from MSFT directly.
This is close to an admission by Apple that they have copied Samba code in OSX.
It would be interesting to do a bitwise comparison of Samba compiled code to OSX. How much is copied? Where is it?
Just Curious.
Really? It would be interesting to get some CITATION instead of some random speculation from an anonymous coward. I might be more inclined to listen if you bothered signing up for a slashdot account.
Are you aware that Apple licensed Active Sync for both iOS and OS X? It is possible that Apple has licensed SMB from MSFT. Alternatively they could have reverse engineered the calls in a similar fashion to how SAMBA was written by observing the network traffic.
Maybe you can explain what the problem is with providing the source modifications to Samba, I don't get the problem.
The problem is not with providing source modifications to Samba (GPL V2) but supplying certificates for code signing to Samba. End users do not compile things. The FOSS does not seem to understand that END USERS are not the same thing as INTERESTED third parties.
End users do not require access to the source or the ability to create signed binaries. I would argue that giving anyone the ability to sign a binary as "APPLE" would be a serious security flaw. You should be forced to obtain your own damn certificate to distribute a signed binary and not be able to sign a new binary as if it was from another entity. RMS seems to be on an ideological crusade and has completely become divorced from all reality and reason.
Signed binaries have their place and one use case is for securing a platform from malware and trojans that masquerade as a "trusted" binary from a trustworthy source. This is precisely why certificates should never ever be shared and the GPL Version 3 trying to force sharing is IMHO extremely irresponsible.
False. If you jailbroke it and installed it yourself, you could. The problem comes with distribution via the App Store, which places additional restrictions on you that violate the GPL.
Jailbreaking requires destruction of BSD jails which means that third party code no longer runs in a secure sandbox environment leaving the iOS device far more remote exploits and malware installed from untrusted repositories. Your "solution" to the problem is to force people to destroy the fundamental security model. How is that freedom of choice if I would have to compromise my device in order to access software?
The GPL version 3 places additional restrictions/requirements on the end user which are unreasonable. The end user does not give a crap about the GPL. It is a license covering the work (that being the source code), not the binary. I do not agree with the concept that binaries are derivative works. Derivative works would require extension/changes to code but simply taking the source code and running it through a compiler creates a binary. That is what compilers do. The binary is the logical outcome of a compile. The copyright of the "code" still remains with the authors of that code but the binary belongs to whomever created it.
If you don't want to share code then simply don't share the code. It is that bloody simple.
To make it as clear as possible to you, if I, as an end user download a binary, I am only bound by the distribution terms from the person or organization that supplied me the binary and neither the GPL or BSD licenses have any control over what I do with that binary since it is not an end user license. I could in theory do an end run around an author at least temporarily by having a third party compile a binary for me, and I could sign it with a developer key and put it on the appstore. The original authors of the source code could do a taken down based on copyright but I would not be in violation of the GPL because I was the recipient of the binary and not the source code. The GPL might give me the right to have access to the source but it cannot force me to download the source.
Summary says "GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially" but I don't understand that at all. My understanding was that the GPL does not prohibit commercial use. Can someone explain why GPLv3 would prevent Apple from using code commercially?
It prohibits code signing and DRM which effectively prohibits some commercial use. I really hope the Version 3 of the license of GPL gets struck down by a court case challenge because I feel that it oversteps the bounds of copyright law. Once a binary is produced, the GPL should have no enforcement other than requiring contribution of code changes. Anyone should be free to take that binary and sign it with a key as required by some platforms.
GPL Version 3 is not compatible with copyright law IMHO.
Nothing in the GPLv3 prohibits using the software commercially, unless that means taking software that others wrote and released and making it unfree.
Really? What does DRM and keys have to do with the source code? If you take a binary created by GPL'ed code and then sign in with a key, what does that have to do with the original source? How is that different that compiling a binary, saving it in a password projected zip file? If you contribute any changes made to the actual code the binary is based on, shouldn't that be enough? I would argue that GPLV3 is a violation of copyright law. I should be free to take GPL'ed code, compile it into a binary, burn it onto a CD, defecate on that CD and then run over it with a truck if I want to. I would argue that how the binary is packaged is of no business to the original copyright lowers and it is an overreach of their rights under copyright law. I should be allowed to package it how I see fit as long as I contribute any source code changes needed to compile the same binary.
I would argue that there is no need for GPL Version 3 and that Version 2 is the better license. GPL Version 3 will the the undoing of many projects in the FOSS movement as more companies realize that they have been screwed over by the projects they contributed to in good faith when it was under GPL Version 2.
GPL = code must be free
BSD= people must be free to do what they want with the code
Code is property and as such, it has no rights. Stop it with this "code must be free" bullshit. This is not about the code but rather about the original authors reaping the fruits of not only their labour but that of others downstream. The GPL is about exchanging your freedom for access to the code.
The problem here is not GPL in general but specifically Version 3 which is anti-commercial. This license will be the undoing of many projects. Companies like Apple will stop contributing to projects which will cause them to languish and die out. Switching to Version 3 is also denying the rights of those employees of Apple who contributed to the codebase in the past. I would argue that Version 3 is a violation of copyright as it prevents corporate contributors from having access to code that they contributed to.
Is RMS completely ignorant of the fact that many of these projects received a lot of commercial support in the past and that Version 3 is basically a big middle finger directed at them? Is he out to destroy the FOSS movement by alienating some of its largest contributors?
You do understand what "copyright" is, right? The copies of the code are being restricted. These copies are the result of the work of the upstream authors. The fruits of their labor are being closed. Presumably, they are fine with this, but acting like it's not happening is dishonest.
Yes, that is what can happen when you "give" physical property away. You lose control over what happens to it. The GPL is not really "giving" something away since it restrict what you can do with it. GPL is not really "free" software. It has very strict terms and conditions which I would argue violates the inherent "copyright" of contributors downstream. Those people have their rights limited by the GPL license because of the viral nature of the license. The fruits of their labour would still exists under a BSD license but they would not necessarily gain the fruits of the labour of others downstream unless if they also chose to give it away. The BSD license is about freedom of choice whereas the GPL is basically stealing the fruits of the labour of people downstream through force of the license rather than receiving it through goodwill sharing.
Java is immensely easier to develop with than any flavor of C because of garbage collection and lack of pointers. If you do not understand why then please do not come anywhere near my C code.
That said, I personally prefer to put in the extra work and develop in C++ because the result usually starts faster and performs better. And I absolutely detest JNI.
Since you seem to think that garbage collection is magical and never causes problems, I assume that you have never worked with file handles or network sockets.
You should NEVER rely on garbage collection to deal with resources such as files and network sockets. Both should always be closed explicitly when they are no longer needed. I would hate to see your code.