The submission says, "For the last year, people have been wondering - how to make money off podcasts?" But Apple said when they first released podcasting support in iTunes that there would be support for podcasts you'd have to pay for. So really, nobody's been wondering this for the last year.
They do come with new ideas, you just don't recognize them as such. Everything comes in incremental changes, tiny steps.
Yeah, I'm sure the Spotlight-alike dropdown menu widget just came from thin air. And that Start menu ripoff that appears in both KDE and GNOME...I wonder where that came from? Hmmmmmm. And the "taskbar"...
Name one true 'original idea' according to your definition and I'll name you ten similarly new ideas in KDE.
What will you cite me back, 20 different sidebars and checkbox widgets? Pretty much everything in Gnome and KDE is traced back to either Windows or Mac.
Yeah, completely overwhelming users by packing the interface with 20 sidebars is way better than "crippling" by providing one or two really good ways. It's not like Apple ever got anywhere with that philosophy in OS X or anything.
Yep, I'd rather spend 30 minutes navigating tab after tab of checkboxes and configuring my desktop environment instead of just USING it. And I must adopt the use of the word "crippling," even though any good artists knows it's just as important to take away from something as it is to add.
It's geek speak. A lot of times programmers think they're being hip and funny with some goofy name (like Kompete or GIMP). These poor project names convey a certain non-professional attitude that makes some people leery of trying things out. A pro-level desktop environment should act like one.
A "desktop environment" on Linux is really a third-rate desktop emulator hacked on top of various libraries hacked on top of crappy old X11. The fragmentation is the worst part--to this day, to run an app that happens to be written for KDE, I have to have an entire other "desktop environment" installed. So now I get to waste disk space and memory with redundant libraries from two major projects. Wonderful.
I'm still wondering why people aren't concentrating their efforts on GNUStep. It's vastly superior programming environment would enable so many new apps for Linux.
I also really don't understand what you mean about knocking off OSX.
From drop shadows on windows to the vector-based imaging to the Spotlight knock-off menu widget, Gnome has been the biggest OS X offender compared to KDE, who seems to be more concerned with ripping off Windows.
Meanwhile, nobody comes up with original ideas of their own. It's really pathetic and annoying. If I get modded down for saying so, that's fine; it's my opinion after following these projects since the 90s.
Because that would be lying; Aqua's designers aren't "collaborating" with the Gnome designers.
OS X is using like 50 GNU programs straight off, source and everything.
Even if it was that many (OS X is actually using the tools that come with FreeBSD and OpenBSD), what does that have to do with anything? The tools were released under an open source license which Apple follows. What do command tools have to do with the Aqua interface? What do GNU programs have to do with creating a Spotlight knock-off menu item that even organizes its results in its pulldown menu exactly the same way? Get an original thought, guys.
Gnome (Which is part of GNU) is borrowing some ideas, but not code from OS X.
Ripping off ideas is more like it.
"Knocking off" seams like a bad thing when both GNU and Apple are using eachohers ideas and it's probably benifitial for both projects.
Aqua's designers isn't using design ideas from GNU. At most, OS X is using the GCC compiler and a few other command-line tools that ship with the BSD subsystem, whose code is freely available. While it is true that a number of GNU utilities are used in FreeBSD, they comprise fewer than 8% of the utilities and 15% of the libraries, and that was the stat back in 1999. Please, oh please, stop the spinning.
And Gnome had better start getting a little more careful, since Apple is well-known for protecting the Aqua look-and-feel legally, as is their right. After being ripped off since 1984, even down to the Trash can and pulldown menus that Windows and Gnome are using, I don't blame them.
So let me get this straight. Based on most of the +5 comments right now, it's bad for Apple to protect their property and go after people who would crack OS X for generic PCs (the inevitable outcome being that the cracked version is thrown up on all the torrent sites so that freeloaders don't have to pay Apple for it).
And yet, when a company violates the GPL of some arcane open source code, Slashdotters sing a completely different tune and get raving mad, suggesting legal action against the infringers and throwing out calls to boycott.
Anyone else highly amused at this self-serving contradiction?
Apple knows that once OS X is cracked, all the warez monkeys will put it up on the torrent sites so that nobody will have to pay for it, all the while Slashdotters will pretend it's a-okay and try to justify it with inane reasonings the way they do with music piracy ("The RIAA made me do it!") and game piracy ("The publishers made me do it!") and movie piracy ("The MPAA made me do it!"). So Apple is doing what they can to protect the seven years of hard work they put into OS X from people who would rip them off.
But why do I bother? This is the same website that cries foul and suggests legal action when companies violate the GPL. But when anyone else tries to protect their property, it's immoral and bad!
You're right, and people who've been in prison have no right to tell kids to stay out of prison...just because someone did something 30 years ago doesn't mean they can't preach against it. Cute poem, though.
It's really difficult to take your position seriously since you're so angry and raving and insulting. Do you possess any social skills as far as holding a mature debate goes?
And no, artificially tying the product to their lackluster hardware offerings is NOT acceptable.
Sure, it is. Gillette can make razor blades that only fit their razor. Apple can make operating system specifically for their hardware.
Why should the OS vendor get to make all of my hardware choices for me?
If you don't like their "bland hardware" that kicks the butt of anything in the break-in-six-months PC world, don't buy it! Another whiney issue solved with personal choice.
You and other people on Slashdot just want OS X to be cracked for generic PCs so that you can pirate it and not pay Apple for a dime. All this distraction to try to portray Apple as the immoral one is a red herring to distract from that fact.
Microsoft's XBox 360 doesn't have OOE either. That's why someone reveals their ignorance when they say "IBM put 3+Ghz G5s in the XBox, why didn't Apple wait?" Removing things like OOE makes it easier to jack up clockspeed.
If you contract with a company to provide the OS for your computers, and those very cheap computers start to flood the markets that company profits from, what is the only rational choice for that company?
Apple isn't in the $100 laptop market. They're in the high-end, high-quality market and always will be.
(we don't actually know what his offer was exactly, for what term, and on what terms).
Yes, we do. Steve Jobs offered OS X totally free with no strings attached. It would have been the best thing for the target audience of these laptops, but now they get to experience the "fun" of spending 30 minutes getting a soundcard to work.
becasue the point of the laptop is to give as much control as possible to the people using it, no strings attached.
Which is a goal only idealistic OSS leaders have, not normal users who would have been better served with OS X. The underlying UNIX of OS X is all open source, and users would have been able to do plenty of hacking with gcc and bash.
Yes, I am sure Red Hats donation, and giving away there product was done for greed. How are they making money giving something away? oh right, volume.
Well, yeah. And it's not like they don't give their product away for free already. It's Linux.
Also, you're missing the point that this would have been an easily copyable version of a generic x86 OS X. Cough.
There's been plenty of trouble with HP hardware, especially the cheaper models you referred to. I also love how you complete dismiss the benefits of OS X, its suite of applications, and its built-in security, and, instead of addressing my points, call me an "Apple zealot" without even knowing me. That pretty much tells me I won that little debate. Next.
And watch it break down in six months due to being cheap quality hardware, plagued with malware in the meantime, with no iLife or other bundled apps or other software and hardware features. And no OS X.
OS X on commodity hardware? Steve Jobs offered OS X completely free for the $100 laptop project, but the organizers rejected it because OS X wasn't "free" enough. Then instead went with Red Hat, who--surprise--were large donors to the project.
We could have had $100 Macs. D'oh! So it seems the OSS community's leaders just aren't interested in OS X on commodity hardware as much as one would think.
Slashdot Mirror
The submission says, "For the last year, people have been wondering - how to make money off podcasts?" But Apple said when they first released podcasting support in iTunes that there would be support for podcasts you'd have to pay for. So really, nobody's been wondering this for the last year.
Because I love nothing more than to host two entire redundant sets of widget and infrastructure libraries to run one app.
They do come with new ideas, you just don't recognize them as such. Everything comes in incremental changes, tiny steps.
Yeah, I'm sure the Spotlight-alike dropdown menu widget just came from thin air. And that Start menu ripoff that appears in both KDE and GNOME...I wonder where that came from? Hmmmmmm. And the "taskbar"...
Name one true 'original idea' according to your definition and I'll name you ten similarly new ideas in KDE.
What will you cite me back, 20 different sidebars and checkbox widgets? Pretty much everything in Gnome and KDE is traced back to either Windows or Mac.
Yeah, completely overwhelming users by packing the interface with 20 sidebars is way better than "crippling" by providing one or two really good ways. It's not like Apple ever got anywhere with that philosophy in OS X or anything.
Yep, I'd rather spend 30 minutes navigating tab after tab of checkboxes and configuring my desktop environment instead of just USING it. And I must adopt the use of the word "crippling," even though any good artists knows it's just as important to take away from something as it is to add.
After all, the first thing I want to do when I install a desktop environment is to spend an hour configuring it, instead of using it.
The Linux desktop is finally coming into it's own
Said every year on Slashdot since 1998. When will it be done coming into its own is what I want to know.
It's geek speak. A lot of times programmers think they're being hip and funny with some goofy name (like Kompete or GIMP). These poor project names convey a certain non-professional attitude that makes some people leery of trying things out. A pro-level desktop environment should act like one.
A "desktop environment" on Linux is really a third-rate desktop emulator hacked on top of various libraries hacked on top of crappy old X11. The fragmentation is the worst part--to this day, to run an app that happens to be written for KDE, I have to have an entire other "desktop environment" installed. So now I get to waste disk space and memory with redundant libraries from two major projects. Wonderful.
I'm still wondering why people aren't concentrating their efforts on GNUStep. It's vastly superior programming environment would enable so many new apps for Linux.
I also really don't understand what you mean about knocking off OSX.
From drop shadows on windows to the vector-based imaging to the Spotlight knock-off menu widget, Gnome has been the biggest OS X offender compared to KDE, who seems to be more concerned with ripping off Windows.
Meanwhile, nobody comes up with original ideas of their own. It's really pathetic and annoying. If I get modded down for saying so, that's fine; it's my opinion after following these projects since the 90s.
Why not call it collaboration instead.
Because that would be lying; Aqua's designers aren't "collaborating" with the Gnome designers.
OS X is using like 50 GNU programs straight off, source and everything.
Even if it was that many (OS X is actually using the tools that come with FreeBSD and OpenBSD), what does that have to do with anything? The tools were released under an open source license which Apple follows. What do command tools have to do with the Aqua interface? What do GNU programs have to do with creating a Spotlight knock-off menu item that even organizes its results in its pulldown menu exactly the same way? Get an original thought, guys.
Gnome (Which is part of GNU) is borrowing some ideas, but not code from OS X.
Ripping off ideas is more like it.
"Knocking off" seams like a bad thing when both GNU and Apple are using eachohers ideas and it's probably benifitial for both projects.
Aqua's designers isn't using design ideas from GNU. At most, OS X is using the GCC compiler and a few other command-line tools that ship with the BSD subsystem, whose code is freely available. While it is true that a number of GNU utilities are used in FreeBSD, they comprise fewer than 8% of the utilities and 15% of the libraries, and that was the stat back in 1999. Please, oh please, stop the spinning.
And Gnome had better start getting a little more careful, since Apple is well-known for protecting the Aqua look-and-feel legally, as is their right. After being ripped off since 1984, even down to the Trash can and pulldown menus that Windows and Gnome are using, I don't blame them.
And so, everyone finally catches up to where Apple was five years ago.
It's Kewl, but for me to answer would require five more sidebars and eight new checkboxes.
You're so wrong on this that I printed your comment as a PDF in OS X just to spite you.
In file-sharing, copyright law restricts the freedom of the file.
WRT the GPL, copyright law enhances the freedom of the file.
That's spin. The GPL restricts the freedom of the file too, or else there wouldn't be any hooplah over companies using GPL code any way they want.
So let me get this straight. Based on most of the +5 comments right now, it's bad for Apple to protect their property and go after people who would crack OS X for generic PCs (the inevitable outcome being that the cracked version is thrown up on all the torrent sites so that freeloaders don't have to pay Apple for it).
And yet, when a company violates the GPL of some arcane open source code, Slashdotters sing a completely different tune and get raving mad, suggesting legal action against the infringers and throwing out calls to boycott.
Anyone else highly amused at this self-serving contradiction?
Apple knows that once OS X is cracked, all the warez monkeys will put it up on the torrent sites so that nobody will have to pay for it, all the while Slashdotters will pretend it's a-okay and try to justify it with inane reasonings the way they do with music piracy ("The RIAA made me do it!") and game piracy ("The publishers made me do it!") and movie piracy ("The MPAA made me do it!"). So Apple is doing what they can to protect the seven years of hard work they put into OS X from people who would rip them off.
But why do I bother? This is the same website that cries foul and suggests legal action when companies violate the GPL. But when anyone else tries to protect their property, it's immoral and bad!
You're right, and people who've been in prison have no right to tell kids to stay out of prison...just because someone did something 30 years ago doesn't mean they can't preach against it. Cute poem, though.
It's really difficult to take your position seriously since you're so angry and raving and insulting. Do you possess any social skills as far as holding a mature debate goes?
And no, artificially tying the product to their lackluster hardware offerings is NOT acceptable.
Sure, it is. Gillette can make razor blades that only fit their razor. Apple can make operating system specifically for their hardware.
Why should the OS vendor get to make all of my hardware choices for me?
If you don't like their "bland hardware" that kicks the butt of anything in the break-in-six-months PC world, don't buy it! Another whiney issue solved with personal choice.
You and other people on Slashdot just want OS X to be cracked for generic PCs so that you can pirate it and not pay Apple for a dime. All this distraction to try to portray Apple as the immoral one is a red herring to distract from that fact.
Microsoft's XBox 360 doesn't have OOE either. That's why someone reveals their ignorance when they say "IBM put 3+Ghz G5s in the XBox, why didn't Apple wait?" Removing things like OOE makes it easier to jack up clockspeed.
If you contract with a company to provide the OS for your computers, and those very cheap computers start to flood the markets that company profits from, what is the only rational choice for that company?
Apple isn't in the $100 laptop market. They're in the high-end, high-quality market and always will be.
(we don't actually know what his offer was exactly, for what term, and on what terms).
Yes, we do. Steve Jobs offered OS X totally free with no strings attached. It would have been the best thing for the target audience of these laptops, but now they get to experience the "fun" of spending 30 minutes getting a soundcard to work.
The operating system beneath Aqua IS open source. It's called Darwin and is available for free at OpenDarwin.org.
And your #2 item has things that don't require a totally open source operating system, like "write interesting applications for it." Come on.
proprietry software is a way of keeping the third world enslaved.
Oh, God, you're one of THOSE people. Proprietary software isn't "enslaving" anybody. Get a grip on reality.
becasue the point of the laptop is to give as much control as possible to the people using it, no strings attached.
Which is a goal only idealistic OSS leaders have, not normal users who would have been better served with OS X. The underlying UNIX of OS X is all open source, and users would have been able to do plenty of hacking with gcc and bash.
Yes, I am sure Red Hats donation, and giving away there product was done for greed.
How are they making money giving something away? oh right, volume.
Well, yeah. And it's not like they don't give their product away for free already. It's Linux.
Also, you're missing the point that this would have been an easily copyable version of a generic x86 OS X. Cough.
There's been plenty of trouble with HP hardware, especially the cheaper models you referred to. I also love how you complete dismiss the benefits of OS X, its suite of applications, and its built-in security, and, instead of addressing my points, call me an "Apple zealot" without even knowing me. That pretty much tells me I won that little debate. Next.
And watch it break down in six months due to being cheap quality hardware, plagued with malware in the meantime, with no iLife or other bundled apps or other software and hardware features. And no OS X.
OS X on commodity hardware? Steve Jobs offered OS X completely free for the $100 laptop project, but the organizers rejected it because OS X wasn't "free" enough. Then instead went with Red Hat, who--surprise--were large donors to the project.
We could have had $100 Macs. D'oh! So it seems the OSS community's leaders just aren't interested in OS X on commodity hardware as much as one would think.