Perhaps consider a change to Slashdot that will allow the end-user to select a different design, based on their preferences. If you want to be strict about it, provide a list of "pre-approved" designs (from minimalist to spectacular), where your selection is saved in your profile.
My understanding was that your obligation to release under GPL was based on your intended usage of said modifcation. For example, if I develop a hack to this, but intend only for internal/private use, then I'm under no obligation to hand this out publicly.
The only time I would be obligated to submit this under public GPL would be if I intended to redistribute it.
Oh cripes! Haven't we had enough of the "older" Star Trek. They've dragged their feet for the longest time, made several serious mistakes which did some serious damange to the Star Trek franchise.
It's time for something new and innovative.
I love Star Trek, of course; however, it's time for a change. They should take a few steps back to understand why other shows failed, apply that understanding to newer directions that appeal to our current society. And for God sakes, hire new writers and creators!
Make it interesting, not a constant re-telling of old, dated material.
This approach would be very difficult to enforce, unless they plan on deploying more Big Brother Watching departments? Rrrrright, under the guise of Anti-Terrism, of course.
Seriously, though... I can see the want for some "identification" but posting it on the site itself is a bit of an encroachment upon free speech and expression. Shall we also place stickers on artwork that has nudity, too? And what else shall we label while we're at it? Such an action would set a dangerous legal precedent for similar activities.
Though I don't believe this would fly (in any form), the better route would be to identify in the XHTML via META-TAGs, and have software utilize that information (if so desired by the individual) to mitigate the display.
Are there some defined comparisons about performance with Ubuntu, versus other common distros? Identification of where and why, etc. Would be interesting reading.
Hands down, OSX/Apple has a mature desktop. If Apple were to completely open source it's operating system, or those portions that they are able to do so without license encumberance (we also have Darwin), the community could not only learn from Apple, but integrate that knowledge into other projects.
That would almost certainly create more competition for Microsoft. And I think all would agree THAT is a good thing, given the state of affairs these days.
Doing so may also prove dangerous to Apple as, afterall, it's a specialized product for specialized/controlled hardware. Their operating system is at the core of their products; they don't have a hardware market share such as Sun (who open sourced Solaris, OpenSolaris), so the risk is clearly greater. That alone may be too risky for the present time, strictly as a business decision.
Either way, I think it's an interesting idea... at least.
I believe our chances of getting abducted by a UFO are much greater than Apple going completely open source GRIN.
I'm not really sure, but that's probably a good analogy. I just find it rather crude that something so basic as push/pull of content could be "patented" and cause as much legal drama as it has.
It is a "method" but one that isn't entirely original. It's really a basic functionality of many different subsystems.
From my understanding, the patent in dispute here has to do with the ability to "push" email content to a device. RIM's solution to this was, as I understand, to change their methodology so that the client software asks "Do you want to read this?" and then PULLS the message instead.
If my understanding of it is correct, that's one helluva frivilous patent.
This concept has been entertained in the past by Apple; they decided not to. There are siginficant reasons why they may not re-consider this.
Apple is a hardware manufacturer - they want you to use and enjoy OSX on "their" hardware (of course they would!). For them to release OSX for "any" PC would require an expansion in their support infrastructure, and potentially other operations - and that wouldn't come cheaply.
It may affect the stability of the product, but who's to say - we have people booting OSX on standard PC's now. Apple is surely watching that situation. They may reconsider this for that very reason - they will have a hard time foiling the use of OSX on non-Apple hardware, so why not make a market for it if there's sufficient demand?
That said, if Apple were to take this direction, I would certainly buy it.
I've had my Shuffle replaced 2 times since purchase a year ago. It brings into question the defects reported, and perhaps these are more rampant (and thus cost Apple more to handle).
Presumably, the engineering lessons learned are incorporated into newer devices. At least, I would certainly hope so.
The Nano is nice; however, for me, a "screen" in the gym is a potentially bad combination;-) So I do appreciate the versatility of the original iPod Shuffle.
Though, Apple needs to pay more attention to design where devices are used in athletics - sweat and electronics do NOT mix very well!:-)
I'm wondering why Apple doesn't port their kernel to the i386 architecture, providing a version of their OS for that market - I understood this was a consideration a long time ago. They would be wise to reconsider it, and think about how this could compete against MS.
I'd been considering the same - only I also have "floaters" in both of my eyes, so it's more complex.
I understand the new "Zyoptix" method is superior to whatever has been offered. It maps more of the real cornea, individually. In the recent past (and possibly present) some athletes have been using a similar procedure to better their eyes (baseball, etc).
I agree with the others that recommend you find a good doctor, and check him/her out first... these are your eyes we're talking about;-)
Regards...
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps consider a change to Slashdot that will allow the end-user to select a different design, based on their preferences. If you want to be strict about it, provide a list of "pre-approved" designs (from minimalist to spectacular), where your selection is saved in your profile.
Something like that.
That is hilariously petty, on the part of the Miro family.
They should be more appreciative of the acknowledgment, not spitefully ungrateful.
My understanding was that your obligation to release under GPL was based on your intended usage of said modifcation. For example, if I develop a hack to this, but intend only for internal/private use, then I'm under no obligation to hand this out publicly.
The only time I would be obligated to submit this under public GPL would be if I intended to redistribute it.
Is that not correct?
Oh cripes! Haven't we had enough of the "older" Star Trek. They've dragged their feet for the longest time, made several serious mistakes which did some serious damange to the Star Trek franchise.
It's time for something new and innovative.
I love Star Trek, of course; however, it's time for a change. They should take a few steps back to understand why other shows failed, apply that understanding to newer directions that appeal to our current society. And for God sakes, hire new writers and creators!
Make it interesting, not a constant re-telling of old, dated material.
This approach would be very difficult to enforce, unless they plan on deploying more Big Brother Watching departments? Rrrrright, under the guise of Anti-Terrism, of course.
Seriously, though... I can see the want for some "identification" but posting it on the site itself is a bit of an encroachment upon free speech and expression. Shall we also place stickers on artwork that has nudity, too? And what else shall we label while we're at it? Such an action would set a dangerous legal precedent for similar activities.
Though I don't believe this would fly (in any form), the better route would be to identify in the XHTML via META-TAGs, and have software utilize that information (if so desired by the individual) to mitigate the display.
That would indeed be very clever.
Microsoft would shit an iron brick.
I wonder of any copyright issues associated with this.
Yet, we have the product by Codeweavers that allows certain Windows-based products to run on UNIX/Linux and, as far as I know, they've not been sued.
Would this all be protected under "Fair Use"?
Are there some defined comparisons about performance with Ubuntu, versus other common distros? Identification of where and why, etc. Would be interesting reading.
Hands down, OSX/Apple has a mature desktop. If Apple were to completely open source it's operating system, or those portions that they are able to do so without license encumberance (we also have Darwin), the community could not only learn from Apple, but integrate that knowledge into other projects.
That would almost certainly create more competition for Microsoft. And I think all would agree THAT is a good thing, given the state of affairs these days.
Doing so may also prove dangerous to Apple as, afterall, it's a specialized product for specialized/controlled hardware. Their operating system is at the core of their products; they don't have a hardware market share such as Sun (who open sourced Solaris, OpenSolaris), so the risk is clearly greater. That alone may be too risky for the present time, strictly as a business decision.
Either way, I think it's an interesting idea... at least.
I believe our chances of getting abducted by a UFO are much greater than Apple going completely open source GRIN.
I'm not really sure, but that's probably a good analogy. I just find it rather crude that something so basic as push/pull of content could be "patented" and cause as much legal drama as it has.
It is a "method" but one that isn't entirely original. It's really a basic functionality of many different subsystems.
From my understanding, the patent in dispute here has to do with the ability to "push" email content to a device. RIM's solution to this was, as I understand, to change their methodology so that the client software asks "Do you want to read this?" and then PULLS the message instead.
If my understanding of it is correct, that's one helluva frivilous patent.
How about MythTV and any other open source project of similiar functionality. Will this be next on their lawsuit list?
Sounds slightly reminiscent of the CODA filesystem, though more simplified. In terms of many copies and one server to replicate to.
This concept has been entertained in the past by Apple; they decided not to. There are siginficant reasons why they may not re-consider this.
Apple is a hardware manufacturer - they want you to use and enjoy OSX on "their" hardware (of course they would!). For them to release OSX for "any" PC would require an expansion in their support infrastructure, and potentially other operations - and that wouldn't come cheaply.
It may affect the stability of the product, but who's to say - we have people booting OSX on standard PC's now. Apple is surely watching that situation. They may reconsider this for that very reason - they will have a hard time foiling the use of OSX on non-Apple hardware, so why not make a market for it if there's sufficient demand?
That said, if Apple were to take this direction, I would certainly buy it.
I've had my Shuffle replaced 2 times since purchase a year ago. It brings into question the defects reported, and perhaps these are more rampant (and thus cost Apple more to handle).
Presumably, the engineering lessons learned are incorporated into newer devices. At least, I would certainly hope so.
The Nano is nice; however, for me, a "screen" in the gym is a potentially bad combination ;-) So I do appreciate the versatility of the original iPod Shuffle.
Though, Apple needs to pay more attention to design where devices are used in athletics - sweat and electronics do NOT mix very well! :-)
I'm wondering why Apple doesn't port their kernel to the i386 architecture, providing a version of their OS for that market - I understood this was a consideration a long time ago. They would be wise to reconsider it, and think about how this could compete against MS.
I'd been considering the same - only I also have "floaters" in both of my eyes, so it's more complex. I understand the new "Zyoptix" method is superior to whatever has been offered. It maps more of the real cornea, individually. In the recent past (and possibly present) some athletes have been using a similar procedure to better their eyes (baseball, etc). I agree with the others that recommend you find a good doctor, and check him/her out first... these are your eyes we're talking about ;-)
Regards...