What do you mean by "compatability"? If you mean being able to run plain-jane Cocoa (AKA OpenStep) applications, then yes. If you mean, "applications that take advantage of DPDF" (AKA Quartz) then no. Aqua uses Quartz, which is a PDF-based window server/client. Most OpenStep applications abstract all lowlevel stuff away, so ordinary (read, doesn't use any lowlevel tricks) applications should compile and run under Linux, *BSD, Windows, Solaris, etc. with GNUstep You could also use XFree 4.0 and GNUstep under Darwin. It should work without too much trouble.
What can I say, except "Amen"? Have you had a look at GNUstep? We're cloning PB and IB (CVS). Things are kind of slow going right now, but I'm going to finish the IB palettes over Christmas break.
Well, the dock is from NeXTSTEP. (It's one of the few things the Mac zealots would let us keep. Geez, I wish they'd have stuck with a more NeXTish look.)
I'm pretty sure that the core GNUstep developers would be interested in auditing their code for security. The question is how to educate third-parties on the auditing process. I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts on this.
There are steps underway to get GNUstep running on OpenBSD. (It can be done even now, but it's difficult). GNUstep is really starting to pick up speed and acquire some end-user applications. I'd say it should make a killer desktop environment in the next couple of years, especially when people start to write applications for MOSX.
That no one has made a humorous comment on the "qui tollis peccata mundi" thing yet. Like the fact that someone on the/. staff knows a Latin phrase...or the fact that someone on the/. staff can spell it. <grin>
Well, I just don't agree. For one thing, I don't think many of Apple's customers will care one way or the other; most will just use graphical tools. Second, I installed BASH on my OpenBSD system the other day, and it took about a minute. Not so bad. I just can't see this as an evil attack on humanity.
AFAIK the person that buys my product is allowed to modify my code and redistribute it. That's not acceptable.
I don't mind it but if it bothers you, don't use it. I still don't see how this makes the GPL "evil" or how it stops you from developing proprietary software for Linux. But whatever; to each his own, as it were.
I suspect that this is a troll, but just in case it isn't, I'll inform you.Apple is about to release a new OS, MacOS X, which is based on FreeBSD. But there's no bash. Why? Because the OS isn't GPL. So the user (or developer) has to manually install it afterwards.
So? How does this destroy business and hurt people? If you want it, install it yourself. If Apple falls apart and goes bust, it won't be because of the GPL.
I'm a software developer. I need to get money from my programs. But I can't develop for Linux because of the GPL.
Nothing in the GPL prevents you from charging for your software. I mean, the FSF charges an incredible amount for their stuff. Secondly, how does writing software for Linux force you to use the GPL? Plenty of people release non-GPLd software for Linux.
No. It means if you write a program that runs over the Internet (like a Java or WebObjects program or something) and you license it under the GPL, and someone else modifies it and hosts it, then they have to provide their modifications. It has nothing to do with running server software. As the Internet matures, more applications will be written to run only as distributed systems. The problem with this is that if people no longer download and run software on their own system, this blurs the issue of the "binary only" limitation in the GPL.
Communism is a whole lot more than just complete public ownership. There are also the all important theories of the Party, economics as the foundation and glue of society, social evolution, and the Revolution. The GPL says nothing about any of this and therefore is not Communism.
Seems like there's not much left to do after something like this. I suppose some nuts will try to set a new record by having sex while they jump from 31 mi. up.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget OmniWeb. It's definitely not a port from the Windows world...it's a port from the NeXT world!
What do you mean by "compatability"? If you mean being able to run plain-jane Cocoa (AKA OpenStep) applications, then yes. If you mean, "applications that take advantage of DPDF" (AKA Quartz) then no. Aqua uses Quartz, which is a PDF-based window server/client. Most OpenStep applications abstract all lowlevel stuff away, so ordinary (read, doesn't use any lowlevel tricks) applications should compile and run under Linux, *BSD, Windows, Solaris, etc. with GNUstep You could also use XFree 4.0 and GNUstep under Darwin. It should work without too much trouble.
We also have a Workspace.app and some other applications.
It's good underneath too. I wish they'd kept more of the NeXT look though.
I'd like to nominate this as the most insightful comment of the decade.
Only if we're lucky.
You forgot the "pissed off NeXTSTEP users."
Well, the dock is from NeXTSTEP. (It's one of the few things the Mac zealots would let us keep. Geez, I wish they'd have stuck with a more NeXTish look.)
Brilliant...bravo!
I'm pretty sure that the core GNUstep developers would be interested in auditing their code for security. The question is how to educate third-parties on the auditing process. I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts on this.
There are steps underway to get GNUstep running on OpenBSD. (It can be done even now, but it's difficult). GNUstep is really starting to pick up speed and acquire some end-user applications. I'd say it should make a killer desktop environment in the next couple of years, especially when people start to write applications for MOSX.
That no one has made a humorous comment on the "qui tollis peccata mundi" thing yet. Like the fact that someone on the /. staff knows a Latin phrase...or the fact that someone on the /. staff can spell it. <grin>
I remember this! AOL started out running on GEOS too.
Whistler vs. WindowMaker? *I* know who would win...
This post is a repeat of about a billion other ones just like it. Group behavior is funny.
I think the whole "National Security" thing is bogus, too. So, that makes at least one American on your side!
Well, I just don't agree. For one thing, I don't think many of Apple's customers will care one way or the other; most will just use graphical tools. Second, I installed BASH on my OpenBSD system the other day, and it took about a minute. Not so bad. I just can't see this as an evil attack on humanity.
AFAIK the person that buys my product is allowed to modify my code and redistribute it. That's not acceptable.
I don't mind it but if it bothers you, don't use it. I still don't see how this makes the GPL "evil" or how it stops you from developing proprietary software for Linux. But whatever; to each his own, as it were.
The point I am making is that community ownership is not enough to call something Communist.
I suspect that this is a troll, but just in case it isn't, I'll inform you.Apple is about to release a new OS, MacOS X, which is based on FreeBSD. But there's no bash. Why? Because the OS isn't GPL. So the user (or developer) has to manually install it afterwards.
So? How does this destroy business and hurt people? If you want it, install it yourself. If Apple falls apart and goes bust, it won't be because of the GPL.
I'm a software developer. I need to get money from my programs. But I can't develop for Linux because of the GPL.
Nothing in the GPL prevents you from charging for your software. I mean, the FSF charges an incredible amount for their stuff. Secondly, how does writing software for Linux force you to use the GPL? Plenty of people release non-GPLd software for Linux.
No. It means if you write a program that runs over the Internet (like a Java or WebObjects program or something) and you license it under the GPL, and someone else modifies it and hosts it, then they have to provide their modifications. It has nothing to do with running server software. As the Internet matures, more applications will be written to run only as distributed systems. The problem with this is that if people no longer download and run software on their own system, this blurs the issue of the "binary only" limitation in the GPL.
Communism is a whole lot more than just complete public ownership. There are also the all important theories of the Party, economics as the foundation and glue of society, social evolution, and the Revolution. The GPL says nothing about any of this and therefore is not Communism.
Smoke a cigarette?
Not in my book. For one thing, they're meant to be used anyway. For another, they're not physical things (like your hypothetical car).
Seems like there's not much left to do after something like this. I suppose some nuts will try to set a new record by having sex while they jump from 31 mi. up.
That Bill Gates will try to claim responsibility for this.