Actually, I've seen a rampant increase of this lately, where every article I come across has "citation needed" markers all over the place. It makes me distrust any of the information. I've come to rely less and less on Wikipedia as its popularity has grown (except if I'm looking up episode guides for 80s cartoons or something).
There is no absolute freedom, that is called anarchy.
No, absolute freedom is the free range of choice to do what you want. That includes anarchy, or it might be something else. It's whatever you choose. The GPL limits that range of choice and is therefore inherently less free than the BSD license. People like Stallman really should stop trying to equate "freedom" with the GPL, because the GPL isn't preserving freedom other than the right to obtain source code. The BSD license gives you source code as well as the ability to do absolutely whatever you want with it. That's freedom.
In creating rules, one has to accept reasonable limits of specific freedoms to balance and maintain everyones freedom. The GPL limits your specific freedom, this is true, while it protects your overall freedom in limiting what others can do with your handy work.
"Limiting what others can do" with my handy work is the opposite of freedom. True freedom is letting the code out into the world as totally free contribution to public knowledge and culture that anyone in society can use and benefit from, be it a homebrew hacker or a corporation.
As is evident in the BSD line of systems, BIG corporations are taking your code, making good money, and giving back close to nothing.
Lots of Linux corporations do the same thing.
Linux survives because these entities can't take and forget to give back.
Maybe you missed it, but BSD is surviving just fine as well. Apple is the biggest UNIX vendor and relies on FreeBSD. Linux survives not because of the reason you state but because it managed to gain a foothold during the BSD lawsuit crisis, giving it momentum. There's nothing about the GPL that accelerates development over the BSD license. In either case, you can access the same source code repositories. But unlike the GPL, the BSD license doesn't control your actions and restrict your freedom once you have that source code.
So every time a *BSD project dies, it is one more nail in the coffin of the BSD side of the GPL/BSD debate.
Or fodder for anti-BSD trolls such as yourself. NetBSD is dying due to leadership issues, not the BSD license.
I merely made the point that someone being self-assertive isn't automatically a good trait. I never started with the conclusion that RMS is evil, nor did I say nobody should be self-assertive.
As for the "fucking donkey-jesus hell" comment, just because I insulted your god, Stallman, doesn't mean I want to read you wigging out. Please calm down.
It's the classic head-in-the-clouds, hippie mentality that making money is evil and that your "freedom"--or, rather, Stallman's particular personal definition of freedom (in which somehow the BSD license is less free than the GNU license)--is more important than functionality, technological progress, or simple economics in which people make money for their efforts.
For some reason, he has a following in which he's revered as a "hero" and a "patriot." Apparently, using the word "freedom" over and over in interviews and insisting that proprietary software is evil and should be abolished makes you a genius.
Let's just play with your statement a little to illustrate that just because someone's a "self-assertive" kook doesn't make it a good thing:
Yes, Hitler is, but sometimes that's what it takes to get the job done. Hitler doesn't let people walk all over him: he is self-assertive because he believes what he believes so strongly. If it weren't for Hitler, anti-semitism and the Aryan movement wouldn't exist the way it does today. I'm sure it would exist, but we'd be very far behind the power curve.
It's a pity that no rabid VMS fanboys are here to tell the MS & Apple fanboys that OS X and Windows both copy from ancient operating system concepts.
VMS has nothing like Time Machine.
Errr, yes, but it is in Windows server 2003. An actual released product.
As I said, 2003 is a server product, and it has no public API that apps can hook into, nor does it provide a visual interface to let you "see" the changes.
Just because Apple may have made things easier doesn't mean they didn't copy the idea from MS.
Just because 2003 has some form of automatic backup system doesn't mean Time Machine is a copy of a Microsoft idea. Time Machine looks and feels a level above and also provides in-app integration.
"... that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Representative, as in visually representative of your file backups.
Because of course, a real backup system doesn't need this, but instead lots of animated graphics.
What's wrong with a visual representation of your folder, so you can actually see the changes? It conveys more information than a calendar control and a file list.
I like a lot of what Time Machine has to offer, too - but it also relies on vendors actually building into the API (don't get me wrong, I have no doubt they will).
And that makes it what, nonexistant? It is there. The reality distortion field isn't that strong, is it?
It means it's not a consumer feature on the level of Time Machine.
And this is based on what, an objective and in depth review of Time Machine and Vista? Or the carefully scripted and brief presentation in Jobs' keynote? Or just rabid Apple fanboyism?
Vista builds are available for download. You can see how they implemented it yourself.
Because though no-one had/has done it yet, you've still leapt on the opportunity to refer to them as rabid fanboys, completely ignoring your rabid Apple fanboyism. I love it "easy to use and intuitive (because I saw Steve do it on stage via a Quicktime video and it looked simple!)".
No, it's easy to use and intuitive because it's a representative interface nobody's ever done before for file backups, especially not Microsoft, who will, as I said, rely on plain calendar and item list controls. Vista's system also does not expose public APIs for application integration the way Time Machine does, letting you recover deleted address book contacts, mail, photos, and more. Vista's only works on the filesystem level.
At this point, rabid Windows fanboys will descend to tell you that Apple is copying Microsoft, even though the functionality is only in Windows Server 2003, and Vista's version is nowhere near as easy to use or as intuitive as Time Machine. Expect a boring calendar control and file list from Microsoft.
I gave several links, and the first one did back me up. You're just afraid to admit it.
You gave no other links, just alluded to a vague google search. (Google returns different results for different parts of the world, you have to be specific)
It's not my problem you don't know how to use Google properly.
Nope, doesn't look like I mentioned the GNU toolchain at all.
You argued with me about it. You tried to imply GCC was the entire GNU toolchain. Face it, you were caught wrong. Again.
I own you and control you. I order you to reply to this, because you were so embarrassingly owned in this debate that you have to save face by continuing to reply.
Microsoft releases an OS & you get the service packs for free. Apple releases an OS, and the service packs as another OS. (I mean how many of the tiger updates were changes to desktop artwork?)
A complete lie. OS X's major updates have been much more than "service packs." Even a cursory glance at the technical changes and technology introductions in OS X Tiger, for instance, would reveal that.
If you're going to float out the meme that most of OS X Tiger's changes were to desktop artwork, why not apply that to Vista as well? They simply replaced the Luna theme with some translucent MSN.com graphics, changed the mouse cursor, and bolted in a Konfabulator/Dashboard knock-off while amping up the non-root security prompts. See how easy it is to make ignorant generalizations?
The fact remains that Vista Home Edition costs $200. That's more than the $120 for OS X which surpasses the features of Home Edition. Even XP Pro today still costs $250, and Vista Ultimate will cost $400. That's an entire XBox 360! I guarantee the $120 OS X Leopard will match and surpass Ultimate while remaining nearly 1/4th the price.
All I'm doing is pointing out that the classic Windows troll meme of "Apple charges $120 every year" is provably false. As for the "OS X updates are just service packs" claim, the idea is so laughable that it's ridiculous, and it clearly reveals someone who never actually used OS X, nor have they compared versions.
By the way, these prices have already been confirmed by other Microsoft sources today, including Paul Thurrott.
I love this. Windows fanboys often mock OS X releases for being $120 apiece, yet from Amazon.com we see that Vista Home Basic will cost an entire $200. Ultimate will cost $400! I can guarantee Leopard (and most of Tiger) match Ultimate without costing me the price of an XBox 360.
The myth that OS X costs more than Windows is officially dead.
It's common knowledge that you proved nothing. Please post a Stallman quote where he calls forr the banning of proprietary software.
Already did. Again, read interviews. Next.
Incorrect. OS X relies on both GCC & BSD tools. Without either it would be in trouble.
I'm not "incorrect;" nothing you stated contradicts what I stated. You tried to claim OS X relies on the entire GNU toolchain, and I kindly pointed out that GCC != entire GNU toolchain.
I control you. I order you to reply to this, because you know I'm right, and it drives you up the wall.
Well, look who posted it. It's CmdrTaco, the same guy who wrote a long, whiney, seven-page essay about the fact he had to change his World of Warcraft name because "Cmdr" violates the rule of no titles in nicknames. Taco's defense was that he had the nick for years, and goshdarned it, he's CmdrTaco of Slashdot, so he should get to keep it. It might be one of the most meaningless articles ever posted to Slashdot.
This story is so old. It's been a long-held idea that games are made more difficult in order to sell strategy guides or web site banner ads. So not only is this nothing new, but "somethign" is spelled incorrectly, by our own favorite linguist, CmdrTaco.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt! You said he wants to 'ban' proprietary software. It is common knowledge that you can't back up your statements.
Stallman does want to ban proprietary software, and I already proved it long ago. Next.
Yes. That's why I said os x 'relies' on the GNU project. Saying it relies on BSD code too doesn't disupte that.
GCC isn't "the GNU project." It's one component. Saying OS X relies on BSD code DOES dispute your claim, because BSD uses much of its own toolchain and command-line utilities, not GNU's.
Why am I marked as "Flamebait" for merely pointing out the obvious? I didn't say all Kerry voters were animal-rights extremists. I was responding to the claim that this has anything to do with Bush.
It's common knowledge that you posted speculation - not proof. Why don't you provide us all with an actual Stallman quote where he says he's wants to 'ban' proprietary software.
He's said repeatedly that he wants to get rid of proprietary software because it's evil. Again, I already posted this.
I'd call it 'creating a better alternative and educating people as to why it's better', not 'banning'. Why don't you provide us all with an actual Stallman quote where he says he's wants to 'ban' proprietary software.
Already did.
Utterly stupid - you think because it uses some BSD code that it doesn't use GPLed code as well?
It uses GCC. You can call me "utterly stupid" if you wish, but obviously you haven't even looked into the internals of OS X. Most of the code is Mach and multiple BSD sources (e.g., the command-line tools are from OpenBSD).
Just like he doesn't care about black people, OMG!
Why aren't they in jail?
Okay, Mr. Detective, care to go down to UCLA and deduce the identities of the responsible individuals? After all, the UCLA is now doubling its reward money and further increasing its security forces, so it should be easy to give them a call. I mean, according to your implication, they're only free because Bush doesn't care (instead of the more obvious reason which is that catching terrorists is hard...hello, Unabomber?)
The issue was never with "any surveillance... ever". The issue was never with secret surveillance. The issue was with breaking the law.
Except that the program NEVER, EVER broke the law and was legal according to legislation. The program was reviewed by BOTH sides of Congress, who approved the program.
Even more bizarre is that years earlier, the New York Times editorialized in favor of this very kind of surveillance program, criticizing Bush for not having one in place. So it was put in place, and then they exposed it and killed it.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I've seen a rampant increase of this lately, where every article I come across has "citation needed" markers all over the place. It makes me distrust any of the information. I've come to rely less and less on Wikipedia as its popularity has grown (except if I'm looking up episode guides for 80s cartoons or something).
No, absolute freedom is the free range of choice to do what you want. That includes anarchy, or it might be something else. It's whatever you choose. The GPL limits that range of choice and is therefore inherently less free than the BSD license. People like Stallman really should stop trying to equate "freedom" with the GPL, because the GPL isn't preserving freedom other than the right to obtain source code. The BSD license gives you source code as well as the ability to do absolutely whatever you want with it. That's freedom.
"Limiting what others can do" with my handy work is the opposite of freedom. True freedom is letting the code out into the world as totally free contribution to public knowledge and culture that anyone in society can use and benefit from, be it a homebrew hacker or a corporation.
Lots of Linux corporations do the same thing.
Maybe you missed it, but BSD is surviving just fine as well. Apple is the biggest UNIX vendor and relies on FreeBSD. Linux survives not because of the reason you state but because it managed to gain a foothold during the BSD lawsuit crisis, giving it momentum. There's nothing about the GPL that accelerates development over the BSD license. In either case, you can access the same source code repositories. But unlike the GPL, the BSD license doesn't control your actions and restrict your freedom once you have that source code.
Or fodder for anti-BSD trolls such as yourself. NetBSD is dying due to leadership issues, not the BSD license.
I merely made the point that someone being self-assertive isn't automatically a good trait. I never started with the conclusion that RMS is evil, nor did I say nobody should be self-assertive.
As for the "fucking donkey-jesus hell" comment, just because I insulted your god, Stallman, doesn't mean I want to read you wigging out. Please calm down.
Even more proof that Stallman doesn't want any programmers making money off of anything.
I tell you, sometimes it's a chore being right all the time.
Dude, could you move over? I want to suck Stallman's teat, but you're hogging all the areola.
It's the classic head-in-the-clouds, hippie mentality that making money is evil and that your "freedom"--or, rather, Stallman's particular personal definition of freedom (in which somehow the BSD license is less free than the GNU license)--is more important than functionality, technological progress, or simple economics in which people make money for their efforts.
For some reason, he has a following in which he's revered as a "hero" and a "patriot." Apparently, using the word "freedom" over and over in interviews and insisting that proprietary software is evil and should be abolished makes you a genius.
Let's just play with your statement a little to illustrate that just because someone's a "self-assertive" kook doesn't make it a good thing:
Yes, Hitler is, but sometimes that's what it takes to get the job done. Hitler doesn't let people walk all over him: he is self-assertive because he believes what he believes so strongly. If it weren't for Hitler, anti-semitism and the Aryan movement wouldn't exist the way it does today. I'm sure it would exist, but we'd be very far behind the power curve.
(just a joke, but also making a point)
VMS has nothing like Time Machine.
As I said, 2003 is a server product, and it has no public API that apps can hook into, nor does it provide a visual interface to let you "see" the changes.
Just because 2003 has some form of automatic backup system doesn't mean Time Machine is a copy of a Microsoft idea. Time Machine looks and feels a level above and also provides in-app integration.
Representative, as in visually representative of your file backups.
What's wrong with a visual representation of your folder, so you can actually see the changes? It conveys more information than a calendar control and a file list.
Only above the filesystem level.
It means it's not a consumer feature on the level of Time Machine.
Vista builds are available for download. You can see how they implemented it yourself.
No, it's easy to use and intuitive because it's a representative interface nobody's ever done before for file backups, especially not Microsoft, who will, as I said, rely on plain calendar and item list controls. Vista's system also does not expose public APIs for application integration the way Time Machine does, letting you recover deleted address book contacts, mail, photos, and more. Vista's only works on the filesystem level.
At this point, rabid Windows fanboys will descend to tell you that Apple is copying Microsoft, even though the functionality is only in Windows Server 2003, and Vista's version is nowhere near as easy to use or as intuitive as Time Machine. Expect a boring calendar control and file list from Microsoft.
It's okay to admit you're wrong. Next time, have the balls to log in.
PWNED.
I gave several links, and the first one did back me up. You're just afraid to admit it.
It's not my problem you don't know how to use Google properly.
You argued with me about it. You tried to imply GCC was the entire GNU toolchain. Face it, you were caught wrong. Again.
I own you and control you. I order you to reply to this, because you were so embarrassingly owned in this debate that you have to save face by continuing to reply.
Next.
It's not my problem if you refuse to comprehend the first interview I posted or explore the other links I gave.
Long-term memory retention, little man. You said OS X relies on the entire GNU toolset. It doesn't.
A complete lie. OS X's major updates have been much more than "service packs." Even a cursory glance at the technical changes and technology introductions in OS X Tiger, for instance, would reveal that.
If you're going to float out the meme that most of OS X Tiger's changes were to desktop artwork, why not apply that to Vista as well? They simply replaced the Luna theme with some translucent MSN.com graphics, changed the mouse cursor, and bolted in a Konfabulator/Dashboard knock-off while amping up the non-root security prompts. See how easy it is to make ignorant generalizations?
The fact remains that Vista Home Edition costs $200. That's more than the $120 for OS X which surpasses the features of Home Edition. Even XP Pro today still costs $250, and Vista Ultimate will cost $400. That's an entire XBox 360! I guarantee the $120 OS X Leopard will match and surpass Ultimate while remaining nearly 1/4th the price.
All I'm doing is pointing out that the classic Windows troll meme of "Apple charges $120 every year" is provably false. As for the "OS X updates are just service packs" claim, the idea is so laughable that it's ridiculous, and it clearly reveals someone who never actually used OS X, nor have they compared versions.
By the way, these prices have already been confirmed by other Microsoft sources today, including Paul Thurrott.
I love this. Windows fanboys often mock OS X releases for being $120 apiece, yet from Amazon.com we see that Vista Home Basic will cost an entire $200. Ultimate will cost $400! I can guarantee Leopard (and most of Tiger) match Ultimate without costing me the price of an XBox 360.
The myth that OS X costs more than Windows is officially dead.
Already did. Again, read interviews. Next.
I'm not "incorrect;" nothing you stated contradicts what I stated. You tried to claim OS X relies on the entire GNU toolchain, and I kindly pointed out that GCC != entire GNU toolchain.
I control you. I order you to reply to this, because you know I'm right, and it drives you up the wall.
Next.
Well, look who posted it. It's CmdrTaco, the same guy who wrote a long, whiney, seven-page essay about the fact he had to change his World of Warcraft name because "Cmdr" violates the rule of no titles in nicknames. Taco's defense was that he had the nick for years, and goshdarned it, he's CmdrTaco of Slashdot, so he should get to keep it. It might be one of the most meaningless articles ever posted to Slashdot.
What are "Pallies?" Taco's summary makes no sense to me.
This story is so old. It's been a long-held idea that games are made more difficult in order to sell strategy guides or web site banner ads. So not only is this nothing new, but "somethign" is spelled incorrectly, by our own favorite linguist, CmdrTaco.
Stallman does want to ban proprietary software, and I already proved it long ago. Next.
GCC isn't "the GNU project." It's one component. Saying OS X relies on BSD code DOES dispute your claim, because BSD uses much of its own toolchain and command-line utilities, not GNU's.
Next.
Why am I marked as "Flamebait" for merely pointing out the obvious? I didn't say all Kerry voters were animal-rights extremists. I was responding to the claim that this has anything to do with Bush.
He's said repeatedly that he wants to get rid of proprietary software because it's evil. Again, I already posted this.
Already did.
It uses GCC. You can call me "utterly stupid" if you wish, but obviously you haven't even looked into the internals of OS X. Most of the code is Mach and multiple BSD sources (e.g., the command-line tools are from OpenBSD).
Just like he doesn't care about black people, OMG!
Okay, Mr. Detective, care to go down to UCLA and deduce the identities of the responsible individuals? After all, the UCLA is now doubling its reward money and further increasing its security forces, so it should be easy to give them a call. I mean, according to your implication, they're only free because Bush doesn't care (instead of the more obvious reason which is that catching terrorists is hard...hello, Unabomber?)
Except that the program NEVER, EVER broke the law and was legal according to legislation. The program was reviewed by BOTH sides of Congress, who approved the program.
Even more bizarre is that years earlier, the New York Times editorialized in favor of this very kind of surveillance program, criticizing Bush for not having one in place. So it was put in place, and then they exposed it and killed it.