OS X is not a threat to Microsoft like Linux is simply because it does not run on Intel hardware (that and the biases of IT people around the world - but thats changing).
No, it's not a threat because it's a close platform.
If the OS runs everything from GNU/Linux and the BSDs, but requires Apple hardware, you are locked into buying from who?
Oh, yah. Apple.
The power of the open OSes is that you can pretty much pick any piece of hardware and not have to worry about if it'll run on it. (Sure it runs NetBSD) And that you don't have to worry about your desktops not running on that new hardware. (XFCE 4 runs great on my FreeBSD laptop and my Gentoo desktop)
Sorry. But Apple is no where near to being open when it continually prevents the "clone" market for Apple-compatable PPC systems. And I think that honestly has more to do with it not being a "threat."
Oh no! Not politicians using free software to advance their goals.
Everyone knows that should exclusively be the realm of businesses including, but not limited to; IBM, RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake, Lindows, and various embedded system creators.
I mean, god. It's almost like everyone's allowed to use this software for what they want.
This means an end-user killer application that runs on Linux only.
Which is largely impossible.
The innovation would most likely come from the commercial sector. They like to hit large markets.
Or, the innovative app will be for the big install base, not GNU/Linux.
OK. Let's say a open-source killer app is developed. How long, if it's a killer app, do you think it is until it's ported.
In other words, it won't be a killer app that someone "must" run GNU/Linux to run. It won't.
But what could it be? Could it be exactly what made GNU/Linux and the BSDs strong in the server-room? Could it be doing what's already being done, but doing it in a open way that's more stable and secure?
or in other words:
Stop worrying. It will happen eventually anyway. Relax and watch it happen.
- Recompiling the kernel in a `while true' loop - Recompiling a 100,000 Java project in a `while true' loop - Playing mp3s with mpg123 - Untarring a kernel tarball, then deleting it, in another loop - Using Mozilla to hit locally-hosted Tomcat servlets, which make heavy use of the local MySQL server, which has pretty large tables (biggest 2 tables are 1.6G and 400M) - Reading/. in Opera:)
Your also giving your computer a nervous breakdown. I've seen ferrets on speed with less activity then that.
They stay for the same reason many people stay in these types of games:
THeir contacts all play They still have friends in the game, that they don't have outside it Boredom Addiction...
I'd go as far to venture that many people playing, if given the option not to, would stop today, but a habit of playing keeps them going for "just one more month."
Then when the bills come, they ask it again, and just rationalize it.
Honestly, the game stopped being fun when the rares were taken out. Now it's just the same old 'crawl, and for little real treasure if any.
Microsoft invented user switching to begin with back in 1995, long before that sort of thing was added to Mac, or even to Linux.
I think there are some UNIX labs that'd like to have some words with that.
Unless SCO owns that. And MS owns SCO. Then it'd be MS for user switching in 3 degrees. And SCO sounds like Balto, which is a animated movie with the voice of, you guessed it, Kevin Bacon.
If someone's using Xbox Live!s for DDoS attacks, that's a error in the Live! software allowing them to take over, not a reason someone else who just wants to use their own hardware for their own goals should be barred from doing so.
Personally, I think that the tinkering is a good thing. It'll most likely be the work of those hackers that get exploits that allow cheaters, DDoSers, what have you, from being able to use those boxes by getting the exploits out in the open before something bad can happen.
Because if you say "well, Xbox hackers shouldnt' be allowed to tinker with the Xbox," your also saying "well, PC hackers should be allowed to keep coding free OSes, writing programs, creating web browsers, or anything that some large corperation does not control in whole, because... My gods, what if some kid out there decided to try and 0wnz a box?"
What's more, Xbox Live! is on the net. It's already open to attacks. Someone who really wanted to cheat is not going to sit there and just say "oh well, guess I can't. Darn." No. They'd set up some funky man-in-the-middle attacks. They'd start getting even more sneaky. Simply put, security through obscurity maintains neither after awhile.
Personally, I don't find the Xbox hacks worthwile as of yet, but I'd never want to be the one who said that shouldn't be allowed to tinker with their own hardware. Even if it does mean that "Live!" may theoretically one day possibly maybe see someone potentially cheat.
This would be all well and good if one could actively change the code of the games, but at best this opens the window for a GameShark-like device if and only if someone found a way to execute Xbox-game code after the exploit is executed.
The mod chips, OTOH, have all be disernable, and have lead to people being banned from the Xbox Live service.
Especially since I paid for the product too, and I'm using it for its intended purposes while you're not?
If someone bought it with the intent to tinker, then they are, in fact, using it for the intended purpose. ^_~
Which brings me to my point: just how far should your right to tinker extend?
As far as one's mind can take it. Just because some kids might use it to cheat does not give anyone the right to say "you have no right to even attempt to do something clever with this hardware."
XFree 4.3 even comes with some default cursor sets that are shadowed. The development versions even used them as defaults on my Gentoo box, and look great on my Free BSD laptop.
The RIAA is a group that enforces the copyrights of a large group of people. Think of it like a union working for a large band of rich CEOs who make their money off people who own no copyright or any-right to their own creations anymore. Because they're "works for hire."
Or think of it like Voltron. A evil, unholy Voltron. With Sony as the head.
First, denial. "Oh, there's no WAY I can make money off that. You and your funny licenses. Take your hats, red and you ideals, and FLEE!" Second, anger. "Grr.... if only I had though of something like that sooner.." Third, guilt. "I'm running a OS with a demon as it's mascot. I'm going to hell." Forth, ??????. "...." And finally, acceptance. "Hey, you CAN make a profit off this."
Is it reasonable to expect a company to check the entire code of every release to see if there are some trade secrets of theirs embedded?
Yes, it is.
This isn't relevent to this case, but as a general law senario, consider this:
Let's assume a software vendor makes a great little program. They make millions on it. It brings fame and finacial freedom to all involved...
Only one problem. It's based on a wee bit of "IP" from someone who never OKed it's distro.
The owners find out. The new rich software designers didn't check the code. Who's at fault? Who's going to get that massive law suit against them, and lose all that finacial freedom. And most likely a first born or two?
As a business, expectally one so conserned about IP, it would be hoove them to check all source before they release a product.
Isn't IP fun.
The reason people have lawyers to do IP and "trade secret" work is because all they do is spend their time looking for any and everything that can be a infringment. The fact that their distro passed the law department, and that they released GPLed software that maybe have contained IP that SCO claims to exist makes said claim invalid, as they have now made the code GPLed by their own distrobution of it.
Only one desktop on GNU/Linux and other free NIXes... I can't think of anything worse.
It'll also never happen.
Please remember that all this software is mostly coded by volunteers who do things because they find them interesting, and add pieces here and there.
Sure, there's been a lot of commerical interest in them lately, but at the core, they're still for the most part "just" things being done for fun by volunteers who do it because they like to code things.
With the OpenDesktop standards, programs should be moving more to a place where they have standards that both desktops can use. THIS is what we need - more standards so that things can interoperate. Not just mandating one desktop.
And what we also need is less people "pushing" for GNU/Linux to take over the desktop. It'll happen. Quit being in such a hurry. Sit back, code, and enjoy the ride. And check out XFCE4. It's a slick little desktop, complies with the OpenDesktop standards, and looks slick to boot.
Slashdot Mirror
Half the point of going to Kinkos is to be able to put a CD in the tray!
And on the 20041234th day, the LORD spoketh, and said "let there be USB drives with long cables."
And the LORD looked upon IT's creation, and saw that they were slower then the internal model... But otherwise good.
The record company your looking for is Hollywood Records, who had ICP and Danzig on their lable for a whole week.
You should have read the page linked. There's a link to a pre-compiled SVG-enabled GNU/Linux binary on the page.
It even includes instructions to build it from source.
OS X is not a threat to Microsoft like Linux is simply because it does not run on Intel hardware (that and the biases of IT people around the world - but thats changing).
No, it's not a threat because it's a close platform.
If the OS runs everything from GNU/Linux and the BSDs, but requires Apple hardware, you are locked into buying from who?
Oh, yah. Apple.
The power of the open OSes is that you can pretty much pick any piece of hardware and not have to worry about if it'll run on it. (Sure it runs NetBSD) And that you don't have to worry about your desktops not running on that new hardware. (XFCE 4 runs great on my FreeBSD laptop and my Gentoo desktop)
Sorry. But Apple is no where near to being open when it continually prevents the "clone" market for Apple-compatable PPC systems. And I think that honestly has more to do with it not being a "threat."
But here's the bad part.
What do they sue for?
In these cases, AFAIK IANAL NFL CBS NIN, you can only sue for damages under copyright laws.
In other words, someone could sue maybe for the "damages" of ill-begotten licenses, but they'd have to wait for people to buy licenses....
Again, IANAL IMHO OMFG ABS standard.
No.
GNU/Linux is the kernel with the GNU tools, together as a OS.
Linux is just the kernel.
This is a call to the kernel developers, not the whole GNU/Linux userbase.
Oh no! Not politicians using free software to advance their goals.
Everyone knows that should exclusively be the realm of businesses including, but not limited to; IBM, RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake, Lindows, and various embedded system creators.
I mean, god. It's almost like everyone's allowed to use this software for what they want.
This means an end-user killer application that runs on Linux only.
Which is largely impossible.
The innovation would most likely come from the commercial sector. They like to hit large markets.
Or, the innovative app will be for the big install base, not GNU/Linux.
OK. Let's say a open-source killer app is developed. How long, if it's a killer app, do you think it is until it's ported.
In other words, it won't be a killer app that someone "must" run GNU/Linux to run. It won't.
But what could it be? Could it be exactly what made GNU/Linux and the BSDs strong in the server-room? Could it be doing what's already being done, but doing it in a open way that's more stable and secure?
or in other words:
Stop worrying. It will happen eventually anyway. Relax and watch it happen.
And if I might add, 'yo.'
- Recompiling the kernel in a `while true' loop /. in Opera :)
- Recompiling a 100,000 Java project in a `while true' loop
- Playing mp3s with mpg123
- Untarring a kernel tarball, then deleting it, in another loop
- Using Mozilla to hit locally-hosted Tomcat servlets, which make heavy use of the local MySQL server, which has pretty large tables (biggest 2 tables are 1.6G and 400M)
- Reading
Your also giving your computer a nervous breakdown. I've seen ferrets on speed with less activity then that.
*poing*
They stay for the same reason many people stay in these types of games:
THeir contacts all play
They still have friends in the game, that they don't have outside it
Boredom
Addiction...
I'd go as far to venture that many people playing, if given the option not to, would stop today, but a habit of playing keeps them going for "just one more month."
Then when the bills come, they ask it again, and just rationalize it.
Honestly, the game stopped being fun when the rares were taken out. Now it's just the same old 'crawl, and for little real treasure if any.
Microsoft invented user switching to begin with back in 1995, long before that sort of thing was added to Mac, or even to Linux.
I think there are some UNIX labs that'd like to have some words with that.
Unless SCO owns that. And MS owns SCO. Then it'd be MS for user switching in 3 degrees. And SCO sounds like Balto, which is a animated movie with the voice of, you guessed it, Kevin Bacon.
If someone's using Xbox Live!s for DDoS attacks, that's a error in the Live! software allowing them to take over, not a reason someone else who just wants to use their own hardware for their own goals should be barred from doing so.
Personally, I think that the tinkering is a good thing. It'll most likely be the work of those hackers that get exploits that allow cheaters, DDoSers, what have you, from being able to use those boxes by getting the exploits out in the open before something bad can happen.
Because if you say "well, Xbox hackers shouldnt' be allowed to tinker with the Xbox," your also saying "well, PC hackers should be allowed to keep coding free OSes, writing programs, creating web browsers, or anything that some large corperation does not control in whole, because... My gods, what if some kid out there decided to try and 0wnz a box?"
What's more, Xbox Live! is on the net. It's already open to attacks. Someone who really wanted to cheat is not going to sit there and just say "oh well, guess I can't. Darn." No. They'd set up some funky man-in-the-middle attacks. They'd start getting even more sneaky. Simply put, security through obscurity maintains neither after awhile.
Personally, I don't find the Xbox hacks worthwile as of yet, but I'd never want to be the one who said that shouldn't be allowed to tinker with their own hardware. Even if it does mean that "Live!" may theoretically one day possibly maybe see someone potentially cheat.
This would be all well and good if one could actively change the code of the games, but at best this opens the window for a GameShark-like device if and only if someone found a way to execute Xbox-game code after the exploit is executed.
The mod chips, OTOH, have all be disernable, and have lead to people being banned from the Xbox Live service.
Especially since I paid for the product too, and I'm using it for its intended purposes while you're not?
If someone bought it with the intent to tinker, then they are, in fact, using it for the intended purpose. ^_~
Which brings me to my point: just how far should your right to tinker extend?
As far as one's mind can take it. Just because some kids might use it to cheat does not give anyone the right to say "you have no right to even attempt to do something clever with this hardware."
Are you kidding? I useify that work all the time.
* Supports DRI and OpenGL
You mean I might actually get to use DRI and OpenGL on my Free BSD laptop.
This is great news!
Has anyone has any luck getting them to compile yet?
Soon?
We already do. Just have to get the right theme.
XFree 4.3 even comes with some default cursor sets that are shadowed. The development versions even used them as defaults on my Gentoo box, and look great on my Free BSD laptop.
The RIAA is a group that enforces the copyrights of a large group of people. Think of it like a union working for a large band of rich CEOs who make their money off people who own no copyright or any-right to their own creations anymore. Because they're "works for hire."
Or think of it like Voltron. A evil, unholy Voltron. With Sony as the head.
Why o why does everybody and their grandma have to resort to analogies,
Well, that's a interesting question.
You see, analogies are like the string that binds together the langu-
Hmmm... 5 stages?
First, denial.
"Oh, there's no WAY I can make money off that. You and your funny licenses. Take your hats, red and you ideals, and FLEE!"
Second, anger.
"Grr.... if only I had though of something like that sooner.."
Third, guilt.
"I'm running a OS with a demon as it's mascot. I'm going to hell."
Forth, ??????.
"...."
And finally, acceptance.
"Hey, you CAN make a profit off this."
argues that that gung-ho millionaires are more free to take risks because they 'don't represent a nation; [they] represent humanity
*Watches "Shuttle Donald Trump" go up in flames*
Oh, the humanity!
Is it reasonable to expect a company to check the entire code of every release to see if there are some trade secrets of theirs embedded?
Yes, it is.
This isn't relevent to this case, but as a general law senario, consider this:
Let's assume a software vendor makes a great little program. They make millions on it. It brings fame and finacial freedom to all involved...
Only one problem. It's based on a wee bit of "IP" from someone who never OKed it's distro.
The owners find out. The new rich software designers didn't check the code. Who's at fault? Who's going to get that massive law suit against them, and lose all that finacial freedom. And most likely a first born or two?
As a business, expectally one so conserned about IP, it would be hoove them to check all source before they release a product.
Isn't IP fun.
The reason people have lawyers to do IP and "trade secret" work is because all they do is spend their time looking for any and everything that can be a infringment. The fact that their distro passed the law department, and that they released GPLed software that maybe have contained IP that SCO claims to exist makes said claim invalid, as they have now made the code GPLed by their own distrobution of it.
Only one desktop on GNU/Linux and other free NIXes... I can't think of anything worse.
It'll also never happen.
Please remember that all this software is mostly coded by volunteers who do things because they find them interesting, and add pieces here and there.
Sure, there's been a lot of commerical interest in them lately, but at the core, they're still for the most part "just" things being done for fun by volunteers who do it because they like to code things.
With the OpenDesktop standards, programs should be moving more to a place where they have standards that both desktops can use. THIS is what we need - more standards so that things can interoperate. Not just mandating one desktop.
And what we also need is less people "pushing" for GNU/Linux to take over the desktop. It'll happen. Quit being in such a hurry. Sit back, code, and enjoy the ride. And check out XFCE4. It's a slick little desktop, complies with the OpenDesktop standards, and looks slick to boot.
Everytime there's a backdoor or exploit, people always use it to kill my team.
And if there's lag, OH boy.
Give them a hour.
It's true! Just take a look at this!
The dead have risen and are taking over the net!