Being real with you for a moment, because I feel surprisingly close to you for some reason...I'm a software pirate, I pay for nothing.
I see and judging from your posts, you are also a flaming homosexual (since you seem to be such an expert on them), live in your mother's basement and source your food from the local food bank.
Re:Why replace something that works well (PS/2)?
on
Leopard Vs. Vista
·
· Score: 1
Have you tried plugging in a PS/2 mouse or keyboard in the back of your machine without looking at it? Compare the two plugs and tell me which is easier. USB will either go in one way or the other so it is easy to get it in without looking at it.
I'm subscribed to Apple's Developer Connection, and they recently sent me an email "Start innovating now with the Leopard Early Start Kit". After a few clicks, it turns out you have to be a Premier member to see that content. Costs $3,500 / year.
That is equivalent to MSFT partner programs which cost a lot more than three and a half grand. It gives you access to compatibility labs at Apple and other perks including discounts on hardware and early access to the next version of OS X seeds. None of MSFT's programs offer that.
Compare that to Microsoft's approach to developers, which is reflected by Steve Ballmer's comic "DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!" dance. Eg. Microsoft gives away free versions of Visual Studio.NET, you can downlad all the SDKs for free, etc. Visual Studio is by far the best IDE out there. The other ones don't come close to it in long-term usability (as Carmack said on his blog some years ago).
Right.... MSFT gives away lite versions of their expensive VS.NET product which you cannot be used for large projects. Apple includes gcc, all the SDKs for shipping and previous releases of OS X, Xcode and interface builder with every release of OS X on the DVD. Anyone can sign up for a free account to download free updates to the tools and SDKs.
Speaking of MSDN:
Visual Studio 2005 Professional Edition with MSDN Premium subscription: $2,499 (renewal: $1,999)
Sorry, but you are going to have to try harder. I have the top tier MSDN subscription through work.
Re:SW vs. HW/Users vs. Enthusiasts
on
Leopard Vs. Vista
·
· Score: 1
Nice hardware, careful assembly and configuration make for a "forget the hardware" attitude.
I agree. That is why I bought a MBP back in February making it my third mac. OS X runs great and so does Vista RTM. I spend most of my time in OS X though when I'm at home on my mac.
Have fun with your Dell
I don't have a Dell. If I had one, I would not have a good user experience.
What do you use everyday? Do you use the software or the hardware? I don't know about you, but I don't sit there all day looking a the BIOS screen.
Software quality and software interoperability matters the most to computer users. Hardware enthusiasts are more interested in building system than actually using them. If you care about what hardware you have more than how well the software works, then you are not a computer user. Building machines might be a fun hobby for you but you really do not have a clue about how to actually "use" the machine and whether or not the "user experience" is a positive one or not since that is not your main interest.
BS. Don't forget to ground yourself when you open up the case again.
Dude, I stopped reading after the first paragraph. Learn to express yourself more concise and post links instead of long quotes. Copyright exists in order to prove an incentive for people to create new content.
If you were to create something creative, would you not expect people to respect your copyright?
Exactly. I don't know where these slashdotters got it into their heads that the GPL somehow magically removed all copyrights. The GPL does not remove any rights from the copyright holders and the copyright holders can at any time remove their source from public view and cancel use of any code they write in the future under the GPL.
For example, if someone created a project under GPL and they were the sole contributor or had all contributors assign their rights to them as the main contributor to the project, that person could at any time take their source and walk away announcing that any future source they would write would not be GPL'ed. Say that someone decided to continue the GPL'ed code, that person would not have any right to include any source written by the original author after they revoked the license in their GPL'ed project. It would be copyright infringement if they did.
Look at the dual licensed software out there. Copyright owners have a right to license as they see fit. Abusing the spirit of the APSL by distributing patches that allowed for patching pirated versions of OS X with Darwin code would be the same as taking any additional documentation supplied in a dual licensed situation and including it with the Open Sourced code.
This kernel hacker was violating the copyrights of Apple. It does not matter what license they used, their copyrights remain intact. Circumventing the dual licensed MySQL would be just a illegal as what this guy was doing.
Where in that definition does it say that any open source license removes to right of copyright owners to protect their rights? Go read up on the GPL, nowhere does it remove the copyright from the original authors. These licenses are merely a way of extending certain rights to others who would otherwise not have such rights but they do not reduce or diminish in any way the copyright of the original authors.
No license be it LGPL, GPL, or APSL removes any right (copyrights) from the original copyright owner(s). You cannot use any license as a defence of wilfully violating the copyright of the authors of any software regardless of the license used.
The GPL doesn't limit this sort of thing - you're permitted to use the code for anything, but there are certain limitations on how the resulting work may be distributed. The distinction is subtle, but real.
The GPL prevents you from releasing binaries only to the public. That is a hard limitation since you cannot use GPL'ed code with in house developed proprietary code without being forced to release it as GPL as well giving away any competitive advantage your company may have had over the competition.
I think most slashdotters do not have a bloody clue how business works. Their only inkling of knowledge comes from the Underpant Gnome College of Business.
"Once you pay for a product, according to first sale law, you are permitted to make modifications to it.
Yes, if you buy a product, you can make modifications to it but it does not give you the right of sale of copies of either the modified product or original. In the case of software, you are not purchasing a product but rather a license to use the software. It does not matter whether you received it as physical media or a download.
Apple is both relying on the legal validity of a shrink-wrap license which you do not sign, AND doing all they can to take away your first sale rights.
Let me make this clear. You do not purchase the product but rather a license to use the software. You do have a right of first sale of the license. It does not matter whether you have signed the license because it is the license which you are purchasing. You do not own the software, the copyright owner owns the software.
"oh fucking PLEASE. you should know by now to link to proof before making such claims here on slashdot. how exactly do they KNOW the gulf stream changed as the result of some small deforestation, because let me make it clear - the Mayans could did not have the technology to deforest anything near what would be required to effect climate even on a local level."
Here is a suggestion. Get out of your chair in your mother's basement and go to the library and look it up.
I traveled to the Yucatan peninsula this past summer to discover first hand what happened to the Mayan civilization. The Yucatan peninsula has an average soil depth of less than 25 cm and underneath that soil there is a thick layer of limestone throughout most of the peninsula. The Mayan traditional agricultural process involved first slashing and burning the forest in preparation of the soil for growing their traditional crops of Agave, Corn and a third crop that I cannot recall. This process was seen as necessary due to the poor soil conditions and because they were not aware of crop rotation theories which the Europeans discovered in the middle ages.
If you are too lazy to go out into the world yourself, you could at least make the effort to Google it yourself to verify or disprove my claims instead of resorting to expletives and dismissing what I said out of hand.
Yes they did. As a result of deforestation caused by the Mayan empire, the Gulf Stream did change its path dramatically to what it is today. The Mayan empire collapsed around 900AD but before this collapse occurred, the Yucatan pennisula was deforested at an alarming rate. This change in the Gulf stream was also partially responsible for the formation of the Sahara desert in Africa as weather patterns were dramatically disrupted by this change in the path of the Gulf stream.
It is generally believed that there are no living polar bear subspecies. In fact, because polar bears bred with brown bears have produced fertile hybrids, it can be argued that polar bears are a subspecies of Brown Bear.
Google Earth Community + searches = Free intel
on
Google and the CIA?
·
· Score: 1
Have you ever used the Google Earth Community feature in Google Earth? It is a treasure trove of free intelligence organized by GPS co-ordinates for anyone including the CIA to use.
The general public is now doing the foot work for the CIA by marking out useful intel in foreign countries.
You can be sure that the NSA and CIA are scanning through the search statistics as well.
So by your logic, MSFT has a monopoly on Xbox, Sony has a monopoly on PS and PS/2 and Nintendo has a monopoly on GameCube. Do you expect to have interoperability between game consoles as well?
When I was referring to backwards compatibility, I was referring to the ability of the new release to run binaries compiled against a previous release of OS X (ie applications compiled against 10.3 should run on 10.4). If a developer chooses to compile in and use features of an existing API or to use an API new to 10.4, it will obviously not run in 10.3 on earlier. When you see software requiring 10.2 or greater, that means they are using features not present in previous releases. I cannot think of what changed exactly in 10.2 but I think it might have had something to do with changes to Core Audio. I know that 10.2 brought OS X hardware accelerated compositing in the form of Quartz Extreme. IIRC, 10.0 was a paid release and 10.1 was a free upgrade for anyone who had bought 10.0 since 10.0 was still basically beta.
Yeah, you are missing something. Release versions have nothing to do with how big a release is in terms of new functionality. Keeping the Major version number the same signifies a level of binary compatibility for the API. If Apple were to radically change the API (like they did between 9.x and 10.x) you would see virtually all binaries breaking. Apple did get around this by providing Carbon as a bridge API but the native Cocoa API and related frameworks would not be backwards compatible to Mac OS 9.x nor were non-Carbon apps compatible directly in OS X.
I really would suggest first RTFA, as it explains some of the updates being provided to the core of the OS for developers to harness. Each so-called point release of OS X has provided us with a full version kernel revision and although Apple tries to maintain some backwards compatibility, many drivers written against previous release fail to work in the new release. Sometimes all that is needed is a recompile while at other times, the drivers have to be modified.
I've written about this subject many times on Slashdot and elsewhere that I almost feel like I should write up a FAQ on what version number mean. Had MSFT marketed Windows 2000 Pro NT 5.0 and XP as NT 5.1 would you all be crying about paying for a point release? Open up the About Windows dialog on a Win2k Pro machine and on an XP machine and tell me what version you see.
In a nutshell, the 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5 monikers are just names for marketing purposes and to denote compatibility.
So you are saying HP, Dell and the rest are are also not in the hardware business?
Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs
on
School Bans 'Tag'
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
What was that? All I hear was "Baah, Baah, Baah". You still do not get it do you? The Colonel was not just talking about military but also paramilitary forces such as police and fire departments. I see that you have been brainwashed quite throughly but did you ever stop to think why they are called public servants? They do the job that the average citizen is either unwilling or unable to do themselves.
For those who think that sheepdogs are irrelevant, let me ask you, what would you do to protect yourself from the wolves?
It's a homophobic joke. Metrosexuality and all that I guess.
Sorry but wouldn't metrosexual be a redundant term if it referred to gay people? Metrosexuals are straight males who are comfortable enough with themselves to display their sense of style and taste to the world. Hot women, especially celebrities, like metrosexual men partly because they want someone that looks good on their arm and because those guys tend to be rich.
The 17th, 18th and 19th century were full of what could be called metrosexual upper class men. This insecure bullshit is a fairly modern phenomenon.
Re:Add feature when they can make them work.
on
Jobs Unfazed by Zune
·
· Score: 1
If I or you wanted FM radio, there is a third-party add-on that adds that functionality to iPods and Apple supplied firmware hooks to integrate it into the UI. My questions to you are: Why should people like me who do not want that feature pay extra for something we do not want or need? Why should I be encumbered by additional UI entries I have no need for? Why should Apple incorporate this feature if third-parties are already supplying a solution for it?
One of the iPods strengths has been the third party
The WiFi feature is basically useless in its current form. You cannot sync your Zune wirelessly with your computer, you cannot purchase songs from your Zune either and the shared songs can only be played for three days or three plays (whichever comes first). A thirty second exchange of pressing buttons on sending and acceptance/confirmation dialogs plus a 10 second transmission sounds way too geeky to be appealing to the mass market. It requires two people to have Zunes and for them to be interested in sharing music.
As for you sexism, please stop with your fake righteous indignation. It makes you look effeminate or hypocritical. Sharing an earbud is far more practical and social than clicking on a bunch of impersonal dialog boxes. You sound like you have trouble with personal contact. Does the though of sharing an earbud bother you? Are you germ-phobic?
Explain to me how you are supposed to get video on the Zune other than finding an encoder converting the files yourself. As it stands, the Zune will not be compatible with any of the "plays for sure" services so where are average joes/janes supposed to get legal video from easily? iTMS offers video content on their site and they have integrated easy syncing/conversion of video blogs for the iPod Video as well. Where do we see these types of features in WMP 11 and the Zune?
I mentioned 80211.n because syncing wirelessly will require a lot of bandwidth to perform quickly. If Apple does implement wireless features into the iPod in the future, they will need to have a ratified 80211.n standard and a low power chipset to make it feasible to at least sync wirelessly if not purchase songs directly from the iPod without significantly affecting battery life.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you tried plugging in a PS/2 mouse or keyboard in the back of your machine without looking at it? Compare the two plugs and tell me which is easier. USB will either go in one way or the other so it is easy to get it in without looking at it.
That is equivalent to MSFT partner programs which cost a lot more than three and a half grand. It gives you access to compatibility labs at Apple and other perks including discounts on hardware and early access to the next version of OS X seeds. None of MSFT's programs offer that.
Compare that to Microsoft's approach to developers, which is reflected by Steve Ballmer's comic "DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!" dance. Eg. Microsoft gives away free versions of Visual Studio.NET, you can downlad all the SDKs for free, etc. Visual Studio is by far the best IDE out there. The other ones don't come close to it in long-term usability (as Carmack said on his blog some years ago).
Right.... MSFT gives away lite versions of their expensive VS.NET product which you cannot be used for large projects. Apple includes gcc, all the SDKs for shipping and previous releases of OS X, Xcode and interface builder with every release of OS X on the DVD. Anyone can sign up for a free account to download free updates to the tools and SDKs.
Speaking of MSDN:
Sorry, but you are going to have to try harder. I have the top tier MSDN subscription through work.I agree. That is why I bought a MBP back in February making it my third mac. OS X runs great and so does Vista RTM. I spend most of my time in OS X though when I'm at home on my mac.
Have fun with your Dell
I don't have a Dell. If I had one, I would not have a good user experience.
Software quality and software interoperability matters the most to computer users. Hardware enthusiasts are more interested in building system than actually using them. If you care about what hardware you have more than how well the software works, then you are not a computer user. Building machines might be a fun hobby for you but you really do not have a clue about how to actually "use" the machine and whether or not the "user experience" is a positive one or not since that is not your main interest.
BS. Don't forget to ground yourself when you open up the case again.
If you were to create something creative, would you not expect people to respect your copyright?
For example, if someone created a project under GPL and they were the sole contributor or had all contributors assign their rights to them as the main contributor to the project, that person could at any time take their source and walk away announcing that any future source they would write would not be GPL'ed. Say that someone decided to continue the GPL'ed code, that person would not have any right to include any source written by the original author after they revoked the license in their GPL'ed project. It would be copyright infringement if they did.
This kernel hacker was violating the copyrights of Apple. It does not matter what license they used, their copyrights remain intact. Circumventing the dual licensed MySQL would be just a illegal as what this guy was doing.
Where in that definition does it say that any open source license removes to right of copyright owners to protect their rights? Go read up on the GPL, nowhere does it remove the copyright from the original authors. These licenses are merely a way of extending certain rights to others who would otherwise not have such rights but they do not reduce or diminish in any way the copyright of the original authors.
No license be it LGPL, GPL, or APSL removes any right (copyrights) from the original copyright owner(s). You cannot use any license as a defence of wilfully violating the copyright of the authors of any software regardless of the license used.
The GPL prevents you from releasing binaries only to the public. That is a hard limitation since you cannot use GPL'ed code with in house developed proprietary code without being forced to release it as GPL as well giving away any competitive advantage your company may have had over the competition.
I think most slashdotters do not have a bloody clue how business works. Their only inkling of knowledge comes from the Underpant Gnome College of Business.
Yes, if you buy a product, you can make modifications to it but it does not give you the right of sale of copies of either the modified product or original. In the case of software, you are not purchasing a product but rather a license to use the software. It does not matter whether you received it as physical media or a download.
Apple is both relying on the legal validity of a shrink-wrap license which you do not sign, AND doing all they can to take away your first sale rights.
Let me make this clear. You do not purchase the product but rather a license to use the software. You do have a right of first sale of the license. It does not matter whether you have signed the license because it is the license which you are purchasing. You do not own the software, the copyright owner owns the software.
Here is a suggestion. Get out of your chair in your mother's basement and go to the library and look it up.
I traveled to the Yucatan peninsula this past summer to discover first hand what happened to the Mayan civilization. The Yucatan peninsula has an average soil depth of less than 25 cm and underneath that soil there is a thick layer of limestone throughout most of the peninsula. The Mayan traditional agricultural process involved first slashing and burning the forest in preparation of the soil for growing their traditional crops of Agave, Corn and a third crop that I cannot recall. This process was seen as necessary due to the poor soil conditions and because they were not aware of crop rotation theories which the Europeans discovered in the middle ages.
If you are too lazy to go out into the world yourself, you could at least make the effort to Google it yourself to verify or disprove my claims instead of resorting to expletives and dismissing what I said out of hand.
Yes they did. As a result of deforestation caused by the Mayan empire, the Gulf Stream did change its path dramatically to what it is today. The Mayan empire collapsed around 900AD but before this collapse occurred, the Yucatan pennisula was deforested at an alarming rate. This change in the Gulf stream was also partially responsible for the formation of the Sahara desert in Africa as weather patterns were dramatically disrupted by this change in the path of the Gulf stream.
Oh Really?
Admiral Adama? Is that you?
The general public is now doing the foot work for the CIA by marking out useful intel in foreign countries.
You can be sure that the NSA and CIA are scanning through the search statistics as well.
I wish I had mod point right now. That was one of the most insightful post I've seen in a while on slashdot.
So by your logic, MSFT has a monopoly on Xbox, Sony has a monopoly on PS and PS/2 and Nintendo has a monopoly on GameCube. Do you expect to have interoperability between game consoles as well?
When I was referring to backwards compatibility, I was referring to the ability of the new release to run binaries compiled against a previous release of OS X (ie applications compiled against 10.3 should run on 10.4). If a developer chooses to compile in and use features of an existing API or to use an API new to 10.4, it will obviously not run in 10.3 on earlier. When you see software requiring 10.2 or greater, that means they are using features not present in previous releases. I cannot think of what changed exactly in 10.2 but I think it might have had something to do with changes to Core Audio. I know that 10.2 brought OS X hardware accelerated compositing in the form of Quartz Extreme. IIRC, 10.0 was a paid release and 10.1 was a free upgrade for anyone who had bought 10.0 since 10.0 was still basically beta.
I really would suggest first RTFA, as it explains some of the updates being provided to the core of the OS for developers to harness. Each so-called point release of OS X has provided us with a full version kernel revision and although Apple tries to maintain some backwards compatibility, many drivers written against previous release fail to work in the new release. Sometimes all that is needed is a recompile while at other times, the drivers have to be modified.
I've written about this subject many times on Slashdot and elsewhere that I almost feel like I should write up a FAQ on what version number mean. Had MSFT marketed Windows 2000 Pro NT 5.0 and XP as NT 5.1 would you all be crying about paying for a point release? Open up the About Windows dialog on a Win2k Pro machine and on an XP machine and tell me what version you see.
In a nutshell, the 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5 monikers are just names for marketing purposes and to denote compatibility.
So you are saying HP, Dell and the rest are are also not in the hardware business?
For those who think that sheepdogs are irrelevant, let me ask you, what would you do to protect yourself from the wolves?
Sorry but wouldn't metrosexual be a redundant term if it referred to gay people? Metrosexuals are straight males who are comfortable enough with themselves to display their sense of style and taste to the world. Hot women, especially celebrities, like metrosexual men partly because they want someone that looks good on their arm and because those guys tend to be rich.
The 17th, 18th and 19th century were full of what could be called metrosexual upper class men. This insecure bullshit is a fairly modern phenomenon.
One of the iPods strengths has been the third party The WiFi feature is basically useless in its current form. You cannot sync your Zune wirelessly with your computer, you cannot purchase songs from your Zune either and the shared songs can only be played for three days or three plays (whichever comes first). A thirty second exchange of pressing buttons on sending and acceptance/confirmation dialogs plus a 10 second transmission sounds way too geeky to be appealing to the mass market. It requires two people to have Zunes and for them to be interested in sharing music.
As for you sexism, please stop with your fake righteous indignation. It makes you look effeminate or hypocritical. Sharing an earbud is far more practical and social than clicking on a bunch of impersonal dialog boxes. You sound like you have trouble with personal contact. Does the though of sharing an earbud bother you? Are you germ-phobic?
Explain to me how you are supposed to get video on the Zune other than finding an encoder converting the files yourself. As it stands, the Zune will not be compatible with any of the "plays for sure" services so where are average joes/janes supposed to get legal video from easily? iTMS offers video content on their site and they have integrated easy syncing/conversion of video blogs for the iPod Video as well. Where do we see these types of features in WMP 11 and the Zune?
I mentioned 80211.n because syncing wirelessly will require a lot of bandwidth to perform quickly. If Apple does implement wireless features into the iPod in the future, they will need to have a ratified 80211.n standard and a low power chipset to make it feasible to at least sync wirelessly if not purchase songs directly from the iPod without significantly affecting battery life.