no no, it's still nothing if this one is lost, if software patents become valid in europe as well as well as the US, where do we have left to look to? Asia? If this is lost having some minor voice in the shitstorm that follows is near meaningless. The shitstorm must be stopped before it ever begins, otherwise the result will be some sort of mythical comprise that amounts to the software corporations in europe doing the same as here in the US... powerdering before ramming a watermelon up the people's arse.
ummm yes, and non technology people have no idea what a gigabyte is, other than that it's bigger than a megabyte! The truth is the non technological have no idea what their getting however it's labeled, their interestes are protected simply by making 1gb mean the same thing every time... for them it does matter what "the same thing" is, so long as it's always the same number.
For our sake however, us who care and who need drives the same for raids and such, that standard better be a count of the drive in 2's.
anti-aliased fonts while using computer power at least serve a function, they make text easier to read.
Most people with things like HotBar and the huge desktop image don't actually want them. If you explained to them that those things are why their computer runs like dogshit and are the reason for all thier problems they'll get rid of them or ask you to.
Just out of curiousity... if you administrate a network, why on earth do you allow users to install programs and things like hotbar? Don't explain to the users now that I think about it, explain to the boss that the employee's are installing crap that makes every piece of work they do on the computer take twice as long and therefore makes them half as productive and him/her to pay for double the staff to get the same amount of work done. See what the boss thinks about keeping that crap on the desktop.
You love your desktop eyecandy, woot for you. Explain to me again why the solution to that problem isn't disabling that eyecandy by default and making those who want their computers to chug along go out of THIER way to get rid of it?
More and more typical desktop computers are handling video editing tasks. I'd venture to say that most computer users want things to run faster in general. There are at least as many gamers as their are "web and email grannies" and the web and email grannies are a relic of the past.... they will get older and die off, the younger generations DON'T just use their machine to browse the web. True they still don't utilize it on average the way a tech will utilize his home machine, but that's mostly because they don't know many capabilities exist or have the first clue how to utilize them if they do... that will continue to change.
Right now if I take a pentium 1 233, put about 96mb of EDO ram in it, and a promise controller with a modern hard drive and install win98 on it, that machine will comfortably sit next to a low end p4 with 256mb ddr running winxp and be every bit as snappy or in some cases faster than the p4 (this doesn't hold true in more intense processing of course or number crunching). That is sick. Hardware doesn't get faster so that software can get more bloated and the end result is a system that runs the same speed. Computers get faster so that the system can get faster!
ummm yup, the next time you open a menu in macos tell me if you can even do that much without the system displaying and processing in ways that aren't needed to implement that concept in a graphical environment.
"I like and appreciate beauty in design, so for me the MacOS X GUI is a big winner now that it doesn't slow the machine down, as it used to in older machines."
Perhaps a difference in mindset, to me beauty in design has nothing to do with graphics, it has to do with efficient functionality. Efficient functionality in the UI means intuitive, it means being able to do as much as possible with as little overhead as possible.
What you seem to be missing is the entire point of my post. The macOS GUI DOES slow down your machine, just because the machine is not as slow as your older machines and therefore runs the gui faster as well as everything else. Doesn't mean that the gui couldn't be more efficient and that same machine faster yet.
Offloading graphics isn't morally wrong persay, designing a gui that is so bloated this is neccesary is the problem. Graphics tasks should be offloaded, things like rendering, and games, and image manipulation and various video related tasks... yes these should be offloaded. The gui itself should such a small insignifanct factor compared to the speed of a G4 that the performance gained shouldn't be visible should it be offloaded!
Mac's are fine machines, they are examples of both the things we want a computer to be, and that we definately don't. They highly proprietary, that is the thing we want nothing to do with. They have powerful risc processors and other bells and whistles that handle graphics, that's the part we do want. But the only real excuse for loading macOS is to demonstrate how powerful the machine really is... I mean it takes some kind of horsepower to load an app as system intensive as the desktop in MacOS!
p2p systems were a tool of the quasi-elite teenager back in the day (a year or two ago, if not longer!), alot has happened since those years long past... Today p2p is a typical tool in every house equipped with a pc. Everybody has morpheus or kazaa, bearshare, etc.
Today p2p filesharing is the equivelent to having a pair of scissors in the house, or a fork, or a hammer. It's not something worth thinking about anymore, it's taken for granted. I don't see p2p filesharing going anywhere.
I used to love mac hardware but nowdays macs are basically pc's with a sweet risc processor and same bloated OS. I guess I'm the oddball, I never found anything intuitive about dragging the cd-rom to the trash can to eject the cd. I never found anything appealing about a system that was "user friendly" at the sacrifice of performance.
The underlying OS is now Unix and that is a major plus for the mac, but they still have a bloated gui. Don't mention graphics processing enhancements to the system, because those enhancements DO make the gui much snappier, they would make it ungodly fast if weren't so bloated. Such a waste of a good machine.
You can put video, work, and internet all in a MacOS and do well now, of course you can do the same with a pc, you can certainly do the same with a mac or pc running a *nix OS without the bloated GUI.
lol I guess I have a fan club nowdays;) While the above post WAS actually a bit of a troll, it's interesting that NEITHER of the posts you link to are;)
Get on with your life, surely you have something better to do than shadow my posts.
I'm taking a wild shot in the dark here and assuming you are talking about decompiled code? Nope it's a two way street, the decompiled output could theoretically be recompiled back into the original application.
You cannot turn an md5 sum back into the original program... an md5 sum is simply a number, a simple number is not copyrightable no matter how it's derived. I can write a number which also happens to be the md5 sum for ms office on the walls all day long and they can do nothing more than a tire company could if I should choose to write pi on te walls all day... because their copyright is on office, numbers themselves are in the public domain.
Most importantly however, an md5 sum isn't truely unique AFAIK, it's possible (though not likely) for too pieces of different code to generate the same sum. Kind of like DNA for identification, although the odds are slim, statistically there should be 3 or 4 people walking the earth who will match with the best dna criteria we can currently manage.
Of course decompiling is a just a virtually automated method of reverse engineering the functionality of a program... the output isn't TRUELY a derivative at all (in fact it generally is NOT compilable to the original program), it's so easy in fact that lots of closed source programmers were able to successfully lobby because it was easy to see their program was constructed. What's next, saying one can't view the source of an html document or a perl script because that makes it too simple to see how it functions?
most of this information is discovered through open collaboration and discussion. And what on earth makes you think that SCO's public statements are somehow hidden from the courtroom? They can be admitted as evidence, particularly in Redhat's case where a big chunk of the case is ABOUT their public statements. Once SCO makes a statement, they can't take it back, things like the letter from McBride, which are filled with outright lies... the kind which redhat's lawyers can easily prove he knew were outright lies when publically issuing it, will give him a nice ram up the arse.
What it really boils down to though, is that things which are determined through open collaboration, can't exactly be kept quiet... that's kind of why they call it OPEN.
The sysv code is what is being called proprietary, not the code that was supposedly copied into the linux kernel. Despite sco's claims, even if copying had occured I'm pretty sure not ALL of Sco Unix was donated to the linux kernel.
except that according to SCO millions of lines were copied VERBATIM into linux.
Verbatim would give a matching md5 sum, sysv code isn't tough to get your hands on (especially since IBM has it, as well as their own code they supposedly contributed). Making the md5 hashes will be a breeze.
It would be wrong for their to be laws assuming your guilty because you do not provide the hashes... that doesn't mean it wouldn't be FUCKING STUPID for the rest of the world not to know the implication.
The problem with that theory is this... they have made their legal stance clear, in their filings, in their public statements, all of which are documented. Each time they change their story to cover some new hole pointed out in it they lose credibility and generate evidence which can be presented in court.
ideas are covered by patents, copyrights don't cover ideas. I can read your post and rewrite it in my own words... and publish it with a commentary explaining that this is exactly what I did and I'd be legally untouchable. Copyright lets me steal your ideas all day long, just not your implementation of that idea. Patents are supposed to work the same way with tangible things but alas THEY have been broadened to the point where they cover the idea itself now.
By all records novell still owns the unix patents... any patents for ibm's coding that was contributed would belong to ibm regardless of agreements concerning the code itself. SCO, MIGHT have recieved the copyrights for the SysV code in their agreement with Novell... this is not even 100% proven.
no, they just hated windows that much... were you actually around when that project became popular? That was basically the number 1 sentiment of it all, they all hated win95.
except that FreeDOS was born as a way to run old DOS apps without paying for DOS. And for those who hated windows so much they wanted to stick with DOS... not by those with affection for MS
Woz created the machine, Woz has copyrights to it and Woz gave the OK. Basically, this guy needs look no further. If apple came down on this guy I'm fairly sure Woz would give jobs a call and put a stop to it since his old buddy jobs IS the CEO of apple last I checked.
no, not really, take your pick. In reality you have two choices in any election... either choice will result in either your nuts being chopped off, or a watermelon rammed up your arse. Not much of choice, and one of the two is inevitable. Personally, I'd rather not be a part in choosing either.
Slashdot Mirror
no no, it's still nothing if this one is lost, if software patents become valid in europe as well as well as the US, where do we have left to look to? Asia? If this is lost having some minor voice in the shitstorm that follows is near meaningless. The shitstorm must be stopped before it ever begins, otherwise the result will be some sort of mythical comprise that amounts to the software corporations in europe doing the same as here in the US... powerdering before ramming a watermelon up the people's arse.
ummm yes, and non technology people have no idea what a gigabyte is, other than that it's bigger than a megabyte! The truth is the non technological have no idea what their getting however it's labeled, their interestes are protected simply by making 1gb mean the same thing every time... for them it does matter what "the same thing" is, so long as it's always the same number.
For our sake however, us who care and who need drives the same for raids and such, that standard better be a count of the drive in 2's.
anti-aliased fonts while using computer power at least serve a function, they make text easier to read.
Most people with things like HotBar and the huge desktop image don't actually want them. If you explained to them that those things are why their computer runs like dogshit and are the reason for all thier problems they'll get rid of them or ask you to.
Just out of curiousity... if you administrate a network, why on earth do you allow users to install programs and things like hotbar? Don't explain to the users now that I think about it, explain to the boss that the employee's are installing crap that makes every piece of work they do on the computer take twice as long and therefore makes them half as productive and him/her to pay for double the staff to get the same amount of work done. See what the boss thinks about keeping that crap on the desktop.
You love your desktop eyecandy, woot for you. Explain to me again why the solution to that problem isn't disabling that eyecandy by default and making those who want their computers to chug along go out of THIER way to get rid of it?
More and more typical desktop computers are handling video editing tasks. I'd venture to say that most computer users want things to run faster in general. There are at least as many gamers as their are "web and email grannies" and the web and email grannies are a relic of the past.... they will get older and die off, the younger generations DON'T just use their machine to browse the web. True they still don't utilize it on average the way a tech will utilize his home machine, but that's mostly because they don't know many capabilities exist or have the first clue how to utilize them if they do... that will continue to change.
Right now if I take a pentium 1 233, put about 96mb of EDO ram in it, and a promise controller with a modern hard drive and install win98 on it, that machine will comfortably sit next to a low end p4 with 256mb ddr running winxp and be every bit as snappy or in some cases faster than the p4 (this doesn't hold true in more intense processing of course or number crunching). That is sick. Hardware doesn't get faster so that software can get more bloated and the end result is a system that runs the same speed. Computers get faster so that the system can get faster!
ummm yup, the next time you open a menu in macos tell me if you can even do that much without the system displaying and processing in ways that aren't needed to implement that concept in a graphical environment.
"I like and appreciate beauty in design, so for me the MacOS X GUI is a big winner now that it doesn't slow the machine down, as it used to in older machines."
Perhaps a difference in mindset, to me beauty in design has nothing to do with graphics, it has to do with efficient functionality. Efficient functionality in the UI means intuitive, it means being able to do as much as possible with as little overhead as possible.
What you seem to be missing is the entire point of my post. The macOS GUI DOES slow down your machine, just because the machine is not as slow as your older machines and therefore runs the gui faster as well as everything else. Doesn't mean that the gui couldn't be more efficient and that same machine faster yet.
Offloading graphics isn't morally wrong persay, designing a gui that is so bloated this is neccesary is the problem. Graphics tasks should be offloaded, things like rendering, and games, and image manipulation and various video related tasks... yes these should be offloaded. The gui itself should such a small insignifanct factor compared to the speed of a G4 that the performance gained shouldn't be visible should it be offloaded!
Mac's are fine machines, they are examples of both the things we want a computer to be, and that we definately don't. They highly proprietary, that is the thing we want nothing to do with. They have powerful risc processors and other bells and whistles that handle graphics, that's the part we do want. But the only real excuse for loading macOS is to demonstrate how powerful the machine really is... I mean it takes some kind of horsepower to load an app as system intensive as the desktop in MacOS!
p2p systems were a tool of the quasi-elite teenager back in the day (a year or two ago, if not longer!), alot has happened since those years long past... Today p2p is a typical tool in every house equipped with a pc. Everybody has morpheus or kazaa, bearshare, etc.
Today p2p filesharing is the equivelent to having a pair of scissors in the house, or a fork, or a hammer. It's not something worth thinking about anymore, it's taken for granted. I don't see p2p filesharing going anywhere.
I used to love mac hardware but nowdays macs are basically pc's with a sweet risc processor and same bloated OS. I guess I'm the oddball, I never found anything intuitive about dragging the cd-rom to the trash can to eject the cd. I never found anything appealing about a system that was "user friendly" at the sacrifice of performance.
The underlying OS is now Unix and that is a major plus for the mac, but they still have a bloated gui. Don't mention graphics processing enhancements to the system, because those enhancements DO make the gui much snappier, they would make it ungodly fast if weren't so bloated. Such a waste of a good machine.
You can put video, work, and internet all in a MacOS and do well now, of course you can do the same with a pc, you can certainly do the same with a mac or pc running a *nix OS without the bloated GUI.
Thats a pretty serious vulnerability... patching now.
lol I guess I have a fan club nowdays ;) While the above post WAS actually a bit of a troll, it's interesting that NEITHER of the posts you link to are ;)
Get on with your life, surely you have something better to do than shadow my posts.
I'm taking a wild shot in the dark here and assuming you are talking about decompiled code? Nope it's a two way street, the decompiled output could theoretically be recompiled back into the original application.
You cannot turn an md5 sum back into the original program... an md5 sum is simply a number, a simple number is not copyrightable no matter how it's derived. I can write a number which also happens to be the md5 sum for ms office on the walls all day long and they can do nothing more than a tire company could if I should choose to write pi on te walls all day... because their copyright is on office, numbers themselves are in the public domain.
Most importantly however, an md5 sum isn't truely unique AFAIK, it's possible (though not likely) for too pieces of different code to generate the same sum. Kind of like DNA for identification, although the odds are slim, statistically there should be 3 or 4 people walking the earth who will match with the best dna criteria we can currently manage.
Of course decompiling is a just a virtually automated method of reverse engineering the functionality of a program... the output isn't TRUELY a derivative at all (in fact it generally is NOT compilable to the original program), it's so easy in fact that lots of closed source programmers were able to successfully lobby because it was easy to see their program was constructed. What's next, saying one can't view the source of an html document or a perl script because that makes it too simple to see how it functions?
most of this information is discovered through open collaboration and discussion. And what on earth makes you think that SCO's public statements are somehow hidden from the courtroom? They can be admitted as evidence, particularly in Redhat's case where a big chunk of the case is ABOUT their public statements. Once SCO makes a statement, they can't take it back, things like the letter from McBride, which are filled with outright lies... the kind which redhat's lawyers can easily prove he knew were outright lies when publically issuing it, will give him a nice ram up the arse.
What it really boils down to though, is that things which are determined through open collaboration, can't exactly be kept quiet... that's kind of why they call it OPEN.
That's one of many things which makes the SCO claims hilarious of course.
The sysv code is what is being called proprietary, not the code that was supposedly copied into the linux kernel. Despite sco's claims, even if copying had occured I'm pretty sure not ALL of Sco Unix was donated to the linux kernel.
checksums cannot be a derivative of the source for an app, since checksums are NOT source for a modified app.
except that according to SCO millions of lines were copied VERBATIM into linux.
Verbatim would give a matching md5 sum, sysv code isn't tough to get your hands on (especially since IBM has it, as well as their own code they supposedly contributed). Making the md5 hashes will be a breeze.
It would be wrong for their to be laws assuming your guilty because you do not provide the hashes... that doesn't mean it wouldn't be FUCKING STUPID for the rest of the world not to know the implication.
yes but in SCO's case there isn't much choice, IBM and a few thousand other individuals, institutions, and corporations all have the SysV code.
The problem with that theory is this... they have made their legal stance clear, in their filings, in their public statements, all of which are documented. Each time they change their story to cover some new hole pointed out in it they lose credibility and generate evidence which can be presented in court.
ideas are covered by patents, copyrights don't cover ideas. I can read your post and rewrite it in my own words... and publish it with a commentary explaining that this is exactly what I did and I'd be legally untouchable. Copyright lets me steal your ideas all day long, just not your implementation of that idea. Patents are supposed to work the same way with tangible things but alas THEY have been broadened to the point where they cover the idea itself now.
By all records novell still owns the unix patents... any patents for ibm's coding that was contributed would belong to ibm regardless of agreements concerning the code itself. SCO, MIGHT have recieved the copyrights for the SysV code in their agreement with Novell... this is not even 100% proven.
no, they just hated windows that much... were you actually around when that project became popular? That was basically the number 1 sentiment of it all, they all hated win95.
except that FreeDOS was born as a way to run old DOS apps without paying for DOS. And for those who hated windows so much they wanted to stick with DOS... not by those with affection for MS
Woz created the machine, Woz has copyrights to it and Woz gave the OK. Basically, this guy needs look no further. If apple came down on this guy I'm fairly sure Woz would give jobs a call and put a stop to it since his old buddy jobs IS the CEO of apple last I checked.
WHEN DID SCO COME BACK ONLINE????!!!
If your on windows it can be verified by opening a command prompt and typing:
ping www.sco.com -t
if in linux, open up a shell and... if your on linux you already know how to ping. Oh wait, mac users, open up a shell and type:
ping www.sco.com
Either way, you need to let this run for at least an hour, maybe two or three of them to verify they are REALLY back up.
cmdrtaco implemented the damn wait 20seconds thing, he just lost my 30,000 votes :(
no, not really, take your pick. In reality you have two choices in any election... either choice will result in either your nuts being chopped off, or a watermelon rammed up your arse. Not much of choice, and one of the two is inevitable. Personally, I'd rather not be a part in choosing either.