Parasites too have their uses. Leeches are useful for medical treatment. Tapeworms are a great way to lose weight.
Unfortunately for you, ignorance isn't a parasite, virus, cancer or anything else, but hopefully you're ignorance will still result in your life being shortened to the point that you stop wasting useful energy and oxygen.
Copyleft is designed to be incompatible with a lot of shit.
Copyleft is not the definition of open source.
Many of us use ACTUAL open licenses that interestingly enough, seem to have no issues.
Of course, the author of software isn't bound by GPL so while I can't publish someone elses software on the app store, the author can, if they choose to, so again, Apple isn't doing anything to prevent GPL apps from appearing on the app store, GPL prevents them from appearing there unless the original authors put it there.
You should look in the mirror when you start talking about spin.
but it does mean the people that put them there are violating the GPL.
Please don't speak.
I publish my app, which I license to others under GPL. 100% legal and not in violation of anything. You are bound by the GPL when using MY GPL software, I am not. I can do what the fuck ever I want with my source, making it GPL doesn't take ANYTHING away from MY rights, only YOURS.
So FreeBSD isn't free software? The BSD license isn't free? The Apache License? MIT? X11? All of the hundreds of others that aren't part of Stallman's hippie political agenda... those all aren't free software licenses?
Plenty of OSS software works in commercial environments, on the other hand Stallman regularly makes it clear he's all about making sure no one can make any money from GPL.
GPL software can't effectively be sold, as once you sell one copy, the new owner can give it away to everyone, so you can't sell software.
Its rather difficult to sell support as you can just Google for the answer, 9 times out of 10, and in other situations, its cheaper to contract a temporary developer than to deal with a 'support vendor'.
You can't show me anyone making money off GPL software. Red hat makes a profit because they are an investment firm thanks to the massive chunk of cash from their IPO being well invested, that accounts for about 50% of their total revenue. From the remaining 50% you have to take out ALL of their proprietary offerings, and theres another 40% or so, that remaining 10% isn't even worth mentioning how its broken down.
IBM makes money by selling you proprietary software to make Linux useful in various environments.
SUSE failed. Ubuntu is a money sink of one rich man.
Show me someone making money on GPL software, please. Or at least come back from your silly little fantasy world.
No, GPL was DESIGNED to cause this EXACT 'problem'.
It is 100% intentional. Again, it was DESIGNED to NOT ALLOW for working with things like the app store. For fucks sake, GPLv3 discussions were recently enough that you should fucking KNOW this is an intentional design by GPL... you know... the whole anti-tivoziation thing... which again shows it was DESIGNED to restrict itself from being used in these situations.
Apple did not INTEND to cut GPL software off and in fact there are several GPL software packages ON THE APP store, but only because the original copyright holders (the authors) are allowed to put it up there and are not bound by the GPL restrictions themselves.
I'm fairly certain that Apple does not give one flying fuck about what happens to GPL software on their store, considering they use GPL software themselves (well, at least till the can get away from it).
I'm not 'blaming' anyone for it, I'm simply pointing out GPL is working AS DESIGNED and that Apple didn't actually make any effort to restrict open source since you know... GPL (and similar copyleft licenses) are the only licenses effected in the way you speak of. Pretty much every other license, OSS or otherwise, doesn't have any problem.
GNU and the GPL has been around since Apple was still selling 8-bit computers.
You need to check your dates and stop being such an ignorant douche.
GPL was created in 1989, at which point Apple was using 68000 processors, which are most certainly NOT 8 bit.
Provide a common place for Apps that meet a certain level of professionalism.
You can buy pretty much anything you want from some random website somewhere, but Apple and Microsoft are doing a bit of vetting before unleashing it on the world. Its not the end all be all of protecting users from rogue apps, but its a start in the right direction.
Grandma doesn't know how to Google for some random app, but she can probably figure out the OSX app store fairly easy, and she can safely assume that the really bad evil shit is weeded out from the start, all thats left is apps that sneak something in, and those get terminated as soon as someone notices.
Its the opposite of a virus scanner. Virus and Malware tools blacklist code, the App stores are more like a whitelist of reasonably safe apps in one consolidated location with a specific set of common guidelines so its easier to compare and contrast them.
While there are plenty of little craplets out there, you can get pretty much any app you want on the mac app store except for a few notable exceptions. I go look there first, and if not go somewhere else. You won't find too many Adobe products on the Mac AppStore as Adobe simply isn't capable of producing quality applications that meet Apples requirements, but pretty much everyone else does.
Well, you could say that... except you'd be wrong, as GPLv3 almost certainly doesn't allow for being uploaded to MSes store, GPLv2 is another story since its not nearly as 'make sure all software has 0 monetary value!' like GPLv3.
It's hard to be clear if the whole "EFI only boots Windows" scandal was real and Microsoft backed down or if it was simply a misinterpretation
Whats hard about it? At no point did anyone say it would be windows only, nor did anyone imply it. Some ignorant people made stupid assumptions. These are the same people who are continually making excuses for why Linux isn't the desktop dominator.
Its also a rather stupid assumption that mobo manufactures would all capitulate and not give an option to boot another OS. Non-Windows OSes are rather common OUTSIDE of the desktop, they aren't going to cut off a massive portion of income to play with Microsoft.
You really have a slanted view on the world if you ever think there was any doubt as to what is going to happen.
Funny, you say they are setup to restrict GPL... I'm fairly certain you've no idea what you're talking about.
Perhaps you should read the discussions that have taken place while GPL was being created, and especially the ones related to GPLv3.
GPL was designed to not allow for this sort of thing. Why are you ignoring the fact that this outcome was designed intentionally into GPL before Apple even had an app store?
And for the record, there are multiple GPL software packages on the app store put up by the authors themselves. The only people that get fucked are people who use software by douchebags who are anti-apple and refuse to put their apps on the app store... and thats their choice of course, but its in no way Apples fault that they choose not to do business with Apple.
GPL is most certainly allowed, Apple doesn't care. No where do they say 'NO GPL SOFTWARE!'
In fact, I know of several GPL software packages ON THE APP STORE.
On the otherhand, ignorant GPL zealots seem to forget that it was designed to fail in these situations so that users maintained 'freedoms' they couldn't otherwise.
So you got your freedom, you are free to not have apps on an iPhone, or you can change GPL to allow for it, but lets be realistic, you're just going to FUD it up instead and pretend its someone elses fault you can't always get your way.
So what you're saying is that GPL is incompatible with the app store, not that the app store is incompatible with open source.
GPL is designed to not work with things like the app store, its funny when it works as intended people blame the other guy for the fact that its a rather restrictive license.
You can have an internal gateway on private address space and still talk to the Internet using your public one.
This is extremely common, you give your customer a real address so they can do anything they want on the Internet, but you put ALL of your own internal infrastructure that doesn't have to directly communicate with external hosts on private address space. Makes it far harder for external entities to talk to your network equipment directly and saves you a lot of address space and reassignment issues as blocks need to be moved around.
the 10/8 network being private is a imaginary thing, theres nothing that prevents it from being fully routable other than no one is announcing it out via BGP... and if they did, others would just filter it out (big/competent ISPs already DO filter out these nets to prevent problems)
Windows 7 requires you to configure the firewall on first run, right off the bat. Its initially on until that step, and what happens after that step is up to you. Its not labeled as such, Windows asks you what type of net you're connected to, Work, Home, Public, and picks some basic settings based on which one you choose.
Well considering Photoshop worked that way before Linux existed, I'd argue that he was not making Photoshop look like GiMP. He didn't say he made it look like a fat 1970s interface designed by people who think inventing their own everything is a good idea.
Awe, look at the cute little newbie who thinks DLL hell is exclusive to Windows and doesn't effect EVERY OS that uses shared libraries extensively.
And for the record, 9 times out of 10, with modern distros and any decent hardware, you do have to go hack something somewhere, you've just become so used to the sillyness you don't even notice it anymore.
Uhm, blocking GPS functionality is extremely trivial. I assure you, every home in america (and probably most of the first world) has devices that are more than capable of knocking out GPS with only minor trivial changes than ANY RF engineer or EE could do.
It was never designed to be interference free, thats a silly notion in the first place. It is rather impractical to try and block it however, as it takes massive infrastructure to do it over a large area... and well, its basically cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Its more useful to the Chinese to have it working when they invade than it is for them to break it.
I'm fairly certain you don't know what the word corruption means.
Being that its fairly obvious MOST mods are not related to the companies or governments involved, calling it corruption shows you have no idea what the word means.
Slashdot Mirror
Parasites too have their uses. Leeches are useful for medical treatment. Tapeworms are a great way to lose weight.
Unfortunately for you, ignorance isn't a parasite, virus, cancer or anything else, but hopefully you're ignorance will still result in your life being shortened to the point that you stop wasting useful energy and oxygen.
And when you go into the EFI settings and turn off secure boot ... what is locked down again?
Lets follow your ignorant statements one step further.
GPL software is software.
Apple restricts GPL software, therefore Apple restricts software!
Yes, thats how fucking stupid your statement is.
GPL is not the definition of open source, in fact to A LOT OF PEOPLE it IS NOT considered truly free in the libre sense.
Copyleft is designed to be incompatible with a lot of shit.
Copyleft is not the definition of open source.
Many of us use ACTUAL open licenses that interestingly enough, seem to have no issues.
Of course, the author of software isn't bound by GPL so while I can't publish someone elses software on the app store, the author can, if they choose to, so again, Apple isn't doing anything to prevent GPL apps from appearing on the app store, GPL prevents them from appearing there unless the original authors put it there.
You should look in the mirror when you start talking about spin.
but it does mean the people that put them there are violating the GPL.
Please don't speak.
I publish my app, which I license to others under GPL. 100% legal and not in violation of anything. You are bound by the GPL when using MY GPL software, I am not. I can do what the fuck ever I want with my source, making it GPL doesn't take ANYTHING away from MY rights, only YOURS.
So FreeBSD isn't free software? The BSD license isn't free? The Apache License? MIT? X11? All of the hundreds of others that aren't part of Stallman's hippie political agenda ... those all aren't free software licenses?
You're an idiot.
If by protect you mean 'they get no choice and can't use it at all' then sure, they are protected.
Otherwise to me, it looks like its restricting users just as much as anyone else.
GPL most certainly is against, OSS not so much.
Plenty of OSS software works in commercial environments, on the other hand Stallman regularly makes it clear he's all about making sure no one can make any money from GPL.
GPL software can't effectively be sold, as once you sell one copy, the new owner can give it away to everyone, so you can't sell software.
Its rather difficult to sell support as you can just Google for the answer, 9 times out of 10, and in other situations, its cheaper to contract a temporary developer than to deal with a 'support vendor'.
You can't show me anyone making money off GPL software. Red hat makes a profit because they are an investment firm thanks to the massive chunk of cash from their IPO being well invested, that accounts for about 50% of their total revenue. From the remaining 50% you have to take out ALL of their proprietary offerings, and theres another 40% or so, that remaining 10% isn't even worth mentioning how its broken down.
IBM makes money by selling you proprietary software to make Linux useful in various environments.
SUSE failed. Ubuntu is a money sink of one rich man.
Show me someone making money on GPL software, please. Or at least come back from your silly little fantasy world.
No, GPL was DESIGNED to cause this EXACT 'problem'.
It is 100% intentional. Again, it was DESIGNED to NOT ALLOW for working with things like the app store. For fucks sake, GPLv3 discussions were recently enough that you should fucking KNOW this is an intentional design by GPL ... you know ... the whole anti-tivoziation thing ... which again shows it was DESIGNED to restrict itself from being used in these situations.
Apple did not INTEND to cut GPL software off and in fact there are several GPL software packages ON THE APP store, but only because the original copyright holders (the authors) are allowed to put it up there and are not bound by the GPL restrictions themselves.
I'm fairly certain that Apple does not give one flying fuck about what happens to GPL software on their store, considering they use GPL software themselves (well, at least till the can get away from it).
I'm not 'blaming' anyone for it, I'm simply pointing out GPL is working AS DESIGNED and that Apple didn't actually make any effort to restrict open source since you know ... GPL (and similar copyleft licenses) are the only licenses effected in the way you speak of. Pretty much every other license, OSS or otherwise, doesn't have any problem.
GNU and the GPL has been around since Apple was still selling 8-bit computers.
You need to check your dates and stop being such an ignorant douche.
GPL was created in 1989, at which point Apple was using 68000 processors, which are most certainly NOT 8 bit.
Evil may be the wrong word, unless you consider any other virus evil, as thats essentially what GPL is.
I don't think its evil, but its certainly not about being open and unrestricted.
Provide a common place for Apps that meet a certain level of professionalism.
You can buy pretty much anything you want from some random website somewhere, but Apple and Microsoft are doing a bit of vetting before unleashing it on the world. Its not the end all be all of protecting users from rogue apps, but its a start in the right direction.
Grandma doesn't know how to Google for some random app, but she can probably figure out the OSX app store fairly easy, and she can safely assume that the really bad evil shit is weeded out from the start, all thats left is apps that sneak something in, and those get terminated as soon as someone notices.
Its the opposite of a virus scanner. Virus and Malware tools blacklist code, the App stores are more like a whitelist of reasonably safe apps in one consolidated location with a specific set of common guidelines so its easier to compare and contrast them.
While there are plenty of little craplets out there, you can get pretty much any app you want on the mac app store except for a few notable exceptions. I go look there first, and if not go somewhere else. You won't find too many Adobe products on the Mac AppStore as Adobe simply isn't capable of producing quality applications that meet Apples requirements, but pretty much everyone else does.
Well, you could say that ... except you'd be wrong, as GPLv3 almost certainly doesn't allow for being uploaded to MSes store, GPLv2 is another story since its not nearly as 'make sure all software has 0 monetary value!' like GPLv3.
GPL IS a cancer, well, its more virus like than like cancer, but its still very parasitic none the less.
It's hard to be clear if the whole "EFI only boots Windows" scandal was real and Microsoft backed down or if it was simply a misinterpretation
Whats hard about it? At no point did anyone say it would be windows only, nor did anyone imply it. Some ignorant people made stupid assumptions. These are the same people who are continually making excuses for why Linux isn't the desktop dominator.
Its also a rather stupid assumption that mobo manufactures would all capitulate and not give an option to boot another OS. Non-Windows OSes are rather common OUTSIDE of the desktop, they aren't going to cut off a massive portion of income to play with Microsoft.
You really have a slanted view on the world if you ever think there was any doubt as to what is going to happen.
...
Funny, you say they are setup to restrict GPL ... I'm fairly certain you've no idea what you're talking about.
Perhaps you should read the discussions that have taken place while GPL was being created, and especially the ones related to GPLv3.
GPL was designed to not allow for this sort of thing. Why are you ignoring the fact that this outcome was designed intentionally into GPL before Apple even had an app store?
And for the record, there are multiple GPL software packages on the app store put up by the authors themselves. The only people that get fucked are people who use software by douchebags who are anti-apple and refuse to put their apps on the app store ... and thats their choice of course, but its in no way Apples fault that they choose not to do business with Apple.
Uhm, no, thats not a fact.
GPL is most certainly allowed, Apple doesn't care. No where do they say 'NO GPL SOFTWARE!'
In fact, I know of several GPL software packages ON THE APP STORE.
On the otherhand, ignorant GPL zealots seem to forget that it was designed to fail in these situations so that users maintained 'freedoms' they couldn't otherwise.
So you got your freedom, you are free to not have apps on an iPhone, or you can change GPL to allow for it, but lets be realistic, you're just going to FUD it up instead and pretend its someone elses fault you can't always get your way.
So what you're saying is that GPL is incompatible with the app store, not that the app store is incompatible with open source.
GPL is designed to not work with things like the app store, its funny when it works as intended people blame the other guy for the fact that its a rather restrictive license.
You can have an internal gateway on private address space and still talk to the Internet using your public one.
This is extremely common, you give your customer a real address so they can do anything they want on the Internet, but you put ALL of your own internal infrastructure that doesn't have to directly communicate with external hosts on private address space. Makes it far harder for external entities to talk to your network equipment directly and saves you a lot of address space and reassignment issues as blocks need to be moved around.
the 10/8 network being private is a imaginary thing, theres nothing that prevents it from being fully routable other than no one is announcing it out via BGP ... and if they did, others would just filter it out (big/competent ISPs already DO filter out these nets to prevent problems)
NAT is by definition, ONE to ONE.
It is NETWORK ADDRESS translation.
What you are refering to is PAT:
PORT and ADDRESS TRANSLATION.
But hey, why know what you're speaking about when telling others how it is.
Windows 7 requires you to configure the firewall on first run, right off the bat. Its initially on until that step, and what happens after that step is up to you. Its not labeled as such, Windows asks you what type of net you're connected to, Work, Home, Public, and picks some basic settings based on which one you choose.
Well considering Photoshop worked that way before Linux existed, I'd argue that he was not making Photoshop look like GiMP. He didn't say he made it look like a fat 1970s interface designed by people who think inventing their own everything is a good idea.
App Menu -> Preferences is 'never visible' ... only if you have your eyes closed.
Awe, look at the cute little newbie who thinks DLL hell is exclusive to Windows and doesn't effect EVERY OS that uses shared libraries extensively.
And for the record, 9 times out of 10, with modern distros and any decent hardware, you do have to go hack something somewhere, you've just become so used to the sillyness you don't even notice it anymore.
Uhm, blocking GPS functionality is extremely trivial. I assure you, every home in america (and probably most of the first world) has devices that are more than capable of knocking out GPS with only minor trivial changes than ANY RF engineer or EE could do.
It was never designed to be interference free, thats a silly notion in the first place. It is rather impractical to try and block it however, as it takes massive infrastructure to do it over a large area ... and well, its basically cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Its more useful to the Chinese to have it working when they invade than it is for them to break it.
I'm fairly certain you don't know what the word corruption means.
Being that its fairly obvious MOST mods are not related to the companies or governments involved, calling it corruption shows you have no idea what the word means.