Unfortunately distributing non-GPLd software with Linux is asking for trouble.
Could you elaborate on this point with an example and an explanation? I fail to see how the GPL makes distributing non-GPL'd software with Linux any different than distributing non-GPL'd software with Windows or OS X. Indeed, the demo of UT2K3 was actually integrated into Gentoo Live CDs. I haven't heard of any OS release from Apple or Microsoft that has integrated major 3rd party software products into the install media itself beyond trivial OEM branding in icons and explorer enhancements.
Even in Soviet Russia you did not have to be a member of the Communist Party. However, that meant settling for low-level jobs and general discrimination.
Wow. The other day I was reading about the anti-gay marriage protesters in San Francisco. One apparently brandished a sign that read "I hate faggots, but love AIDS." I felt bad for those couples that have had to face that kind of hateful public censure until I read your post. Everything is in perspective now. It must really suck to be as oppressed as you.
My experience has been the opposite. I've found the 2.6.x releases to be very stable on x86 and ppc. I think I hit one oops in the -beta-foo days but haven't seen another one since. This is of course a YMMV type of situation. I just want to add a counter anecdote to the discussion because my impression has been that pains were taken to give 2.6 a better birthing than 2.4 had and (to me at least) it shows.
No sweat. I had actually started a really long response that outlined a kind of short circuiting of the standard debian stable install but got distracted by dinner and such. Then I noticed that "unstable" boot cd and figured it could self-document the whole idea much better than my half-assed memory of installer options.
Have things worked out for your installation? Everything you seek is there, but would require bumping up to unstable for 2.6 and the latest KDE (IIRC). That's why I suggested the mini.iso.
Yeah, you could spot one in the background of a tune played on a crystal radio kit. There's an irony in there somewhere. It's an instrument designed to mimic other instruments or make sounds that physical instruments can't, yet always sounds kinda the same no matter how it's programmed.
Not only is it not going to work right(and LinuxPPC doesn't work nearly as well, just on a features basis, as OS X), but it'll be slow...
This is patently untrue. On my TiBook at least there is no loss of hardware functionality whatsoever under Linux and the difference in performance is obvious. There's nothing wrong with preferring OS X to Linux so why not just say so?
That's not it. They know that some or even most of the chips coming out of such and such a bin could be clocked higher but it is cheaper to simply test and rate a few of them for such and such a frequency. Intel has a brand name to protect and a market to cultivate. It is cheaper for them (and us) to guarantee that P4-foo will run forever at bar-GHz even if it or it's bretheren could run faster. To quote Gracian, "It's better to not miss once than to strike a thousand times." It's also statistially more efficient to test 10% of a bin and sell all of them at the lowest successfull clock than risk a bum performance.
Gee, a post that doesn't find that OS X is the Fastest, Most Ultimate Operating System -- Dude!!! -- gets modded as "Flamebait". What a surprise.
Do you guys think that maybe, just maayybeee running BSD on top of (or integrated with by now?) Mach might make Darwin a less than optimal performer? Isn't it possible that Apple -- being a consumer OS creator -- chose a kernel design that emphasized ease of development, and stability for it's creators and userland developers over performance? Do you think they set out to make Darwin competitive with AIX, Solaris, Linux, or FreeBSD? It was written for iMacs for Christ's sake not Akamai. There's nothing intrinsically shameful about Darwin being a suboptimal performer. It serves a different purpose.
Decide what you want and then live with it. If you don't like the fact that others find fault with what you laud then put those faults in context if they're valid, but can we drop the whole "if you're not with us you're against us" thing that infects everything Apple on Slashdot?
Fuck.
I remember when Katz became the irritation to avoid around here. Now it's having to declare yourself a Mac owner in order to critizise (or even joke about) Apple technology.
Apple can NOT provide that same advantage using cobbled-together x86 components thrown together and hope the end user experience "just works" for the average consumer.
Well, they couldn't do that with "PPC" components just cobbled together either. I don't think you necessarily meant to imply that x86 PCs are inherintly half-assed, but let's not forget that Apple, or anyone else for that matter could put the same amount of care, thoughtfullness, and integration into a x86 based PC. In fact, it does happen. Apple's hardware development (excluding iPods, etc...) centers on the chipsets/motherboard they've made to support the cpu and the OpenFirmware that goes into everything else. Beyond that (and the design sense) there isn't anything different on a fundamental level between Mac hardware and x86 PCs. Let me qualify that before I'm destroyed here. I'm only saying that what Apple does for it's desktops and laptops isn't intrinsically impossible to do for x86 PCs. It just looks more apparent in a Mac because Jobs has (wisely) kept a hammer-lock on the platform.
What makes you think that? We're just tapping a large, finite, natural resource. It's no different than running a subway off of a mountain sized battery that was charged "for free" eons ago. It could take ten gallons of gas to make one so long as the refinery can charge itself 1/10th of the consumer price per gallon. Since they're making it they wouldn't have to charge themselves anything beyond the lion's share of their raw materials -- and that waste cost gets passed on to us. Understand, I doubt refining crude oil is that inefficient, but I don't think the logic you've applied works here because sustainability isn't a part of the equation. We're tapping solar energy that hit the Earth millions of years ago, not last year.
Slashdot Mirror
Could you elaborate on this point with an example and an explanation? I fail to see how the GPL makes distributing non-GPL'd software with Linux any different than distributing non-GPL'd software with Windows or OS X. Indeed, the demo of UT2K3 was actually integrated into Gentoo Live CDs. I haven't heard of any OS release from Apple or Microsoft that has integrated major 3rd party software products into the install media itself beyond trivial OEM branding in icons and explorer enhancements.
Even in Soviet Russia you did not have to be a member of the Communist Party. However, that meant settling for low-level jobs and general discrimination.
Wow. The other day I was reading about the anti-gay marriage protesters in San Francisco. One apparently brandished a sign that read "I hate faggots, but love AIDS." I felt bad for those couples that have had to face that kind of hateful public censure until I read your post. Everything is in perspective now. It must really suck to be as oppressed as you.
Uhh, you mean a linux using judge would be the next to last item in a list of ironies? And if so, would that really be considered irony?
My experience has been the opposite. I've found the 2.6.x releases to be very stable on x86 and ppc. I think I hit one oops in the -beta-foo days but haven't seen another one since. This is of course a YMMV type of situation. I just want to add a counter anecdote to the discussion because my impression has been that pains were taken to give 2.6 a better birthing than 2.4 had and (to me at least) it shows.
Got anything that works under a user account? The parent post made it sound trivial to lean on the system until it breaks.
Best... ObviousGuy post...
ever...
Go for it. Post it here. I'll run it and tell you if my machine crashes. This is only half a joke, because I don't believe you.
Should the need arise, would we be required to do the "Fish Dance" at that time?
No sweat. I had actually started a really long response that outlined a kind of short circuiting of the standard debian stable install but got distracted by dinner and such. Then I noticed that "unstable" boot cd and figured it could self-document the whole idea much better than my half-assed memory of installer options.
Have things worked out for your installation? Everything you seek is there, but would require bumping up to unstable for 2.6 and the latest KDE (IIRC). That's why I suggested the mini.iso.
Go here and grab the "mini.iso". It's only 3.2 MB and should get you everything you want.
Yeah, you could spot one in the background of a tune played on a crystal radio kit. There's an irony in there somewhere. It's an instrument designed to mimic other instruments or make sounds that physical instruments can't, yet always sounds kinda the same no matter how it's programmed.
I've heard someone once wrote "Pong" for OF. Anyone here up for adding Reiserfs support to it?
This is patently untrue. On my TiBook at least there is no loss of hardware functionality whatsoever under Linux and the difference in performance is obvious. There's nothing wrong with preferring OS X to Linux so why not just say so?
Read his post again. He did disable his Linux box.
What makes you feel that OS X is "so much more refined" than Linux?
What, was it arranged in the 80's? Someone must really like DX7s since they always sound like... DX7s...
No one "watches" a DJ. They go to dance.
Sounds pretty dead on to me.
That's not it. They know that some or even most of the chips coming out of such and such a bin could be clocked higher but it is cheaper to simply test and rate a few of them for such and such a frequency. Intel has a brand name to protect and a market to cultivate. It is cheaper for them (and us) to guarantee that P4-foo will run forever at bar-GHz even if it or it's bretheren could run faster. To quote Gracian, "It's better to not miss once than to strike a thousand times." It's also statistially more efficient to test 10% of a bin and sell all of them at the lowest successfull clock than risk a bum performance.
Do you guys think that maybe, just maayybeee running BSD on top of (or integrated with by now?) Mach might make Darwin a less than optimal performer? Isn't it possible that Apple -- being a consumer OS creator -- chose a kernel design that emphasized ease of development, and stability for it's creators and userland developers over performance? Do you think they set out to make Darwin competitive with AIX, Solaris, Linux, or FreeBSD? It was written for iMacs for Christ's sake not Akamai. There's nothing intrinsically shameful about Darwin being a suboptimal performer. It serves a different purpose.
Decide what you want and then live with it. If you don't like the fact that others find fault with what you laud then put those faults in context if they're valid, but can we drop the whole "if you're not with us you're against us" thing that infects everything Apple on Slashdot?
Fuck.
I remember when Katz became the irritation to avoid around here. Now it's having to declare yourself a Mac owner in order to critizise (or even joke about) Apple technology.
Wasn't there a Simpsons where Bart gets an earring, and Lisa calls it, "...individualistic... in a conformist sort of way."?
Cool. I've got some investing to do.
Well, they couldn't do that with "PPC" components just cobbled together either. I don't think you necessarily meant to imply that x86 PCs are inherintly half-assed, but let's not forget that Apple, or anyone else for that matter could put the same amount of care, thoughtfullness, and integration into a x86 based PC. In fact, it does happen. Apple's hardware development (excluding iPods, etc...) centers on the chipsets/motherboard they've made to support the cpu and the OpenFirmware that goes into everything else. Beyond that (and the design sense) there isn't anything different on a fundamental level between Mac hardware and x86 PCs. Let me qualify that before I'm destroyed here. I'm only saying that what Apple does for it's desktops and laptops isn't intrinsically impossible to do for x86 PCs. It just looks more apparent in a Mac because Jobs has (wisely) kept a hammer-lock on the platform.
Uh, again, they could burn ethanol?
What makes you think that? We're just tapping a large, finite, natural resource. It's no different than running a subway off of a mountain sized battery that was charged "for free" eons ago. It could take ten gallons of gas to make one so long as the refinery can charge itself 1/10th of the consumer price per gallon. Since they're making it they wouldn't have to charge themselves anything beyond the lion's share of their raw materials -- and that waste cost gets passed on to us. Understand, I doubt refining crude oil is that inefficient, but I don't think the logic you've applied works here because sustainability isn't a part of the equation. We're tapping solar energy that hit the Earth millions of years ago, not last year.
No shit. I can't believe that point keeps coming up.