So you only run software on your machine where the code is available for viewing. I suppose you have read all that source code for "bad stuff?" After each time the code is updated?
You probably won't like this, but Yahoo (as a big business) has more to lose for having "bad stuff" in their code than any open source project does.
Preaching to the choir. Save your fingers. I know market share is meaningless. I just find it amusing how this analogy comes up every single time--although I did enjoy how Porsche was used in place of BMW; that was a nice touch.
Well, of course. I wouldn't claim every single port works perfectly. That is obviously dependent upon many things including how open the hardware is, how many developers are working on the port, the interest there is in the port, what hardware has been donated, etc etc.
I think this is fairly obvious. The great-grandparent was, however, putting down every single port and I simply pointed out that he's terribly mistaken (about both the quality of the ports and how the NetBSD foundation works.
You are either a really bad troll or you have no clue what you're talking about. Each NetBSD port has its own set of developers who work to keep the kernel compatible and to make sure all the latest devices drivers are written (and updated) for their port.
Depends on what you mean by the rest of the world. If you world consists of the open source 'community,' then yes the world is switching. However, that's a very very small percentage of the people in my world, where the vast majority just stick with what they know.
Well, methinks there is still hope for Sony yet. It was only a few years ago when Steve Jobs had to step up onto the MacWorld Expo keynote stage and admit that Apple totally 'missed the boat' with regards to CD-RW drives. He promised that the error would be corrected, and today they're a major contender in online music and portable music players. Perhaps Jobs didn't have this all planned out, but it's still not a bad comeback. The playstation proved that Sony had very good marketing people, so they should bounce back from this bad decision well enough.
No, I'm not defending Apple at all. In my opinion, the Apple employees under NDA are in the wrong. I'm merely pointing out that the case isn't nearly as cut-and-dry as "who signed an NDA and who didn't."
Just a bit of a problem with your analogy. It's fairly obvious that an Apple employee didn't just 'let slip' any NDA'd information, intentionally or otherwise. The problem is that the ThinkSecret guy was explicitly soliciting them for information. Quite a different story.
So, your approach to communication is to uncritically repeat Apple marketing claims and then insist that other people have the obligation to prove you wrong. Well, that's what makes you a zealot.
Um, no... Like I said in my very first response; I based my answers an real-world experience, not on Apple marketing. Keep up sparky.
Verifying Apple marketing claims is particularly important since Apple apparently has a problem with facts: for example, for years... blah blah blah.
Again, that's why I don't base my opinions on any company's marketing. I don't know in how many ways you want me to repeat this. Again, everything I said is based on my experiences relating to what we're talking about.
About the quartz, duh the console will be slow. I already said quartz has no optimized text rendering. The argument is that generally, QE makes for a faster desktop experience than X11 w/ XDI. Again, this is based on my own experiences (perhaps I should repeat this every other sentence so you remember) and no that doesn't mean that I think Quartz is the fastest and best thing in every possible way.
Okay so in summary, if you find X11 fast and can stand KDE or Gnome then keep using it. It's free, so why not. I get no benefit from you 'switching' to anything else and I never suggested you do so. Use whatever you want (yeah, I sound like such a zealot). Your silly accusations of me being a zealot are boring me and have led me to consider you as somewhat of a troll so I don't think I'll be spending anymore time toward this enlightening conversation. Take care, friend.
I don't call "anybody" who disagrees with me a "zealot", I call people who behave like zealots "zealots". People like Zelet and you.
However when you review my original response, you should note that all I did was disagree with you and point out possible misstatements. So again, if you consider a zealot to be anyone who disagrees with you, then you're right on the money; I'm a zealot.
X11 server implementations have had hardware acceleration for graphics since the 1980's. In fact, a lot of hardware has been specifically designed to support X11 graphics, and is to this day.
Got a link? Here's mine. If you do, then great; I don't mind being proven wrong. [I don't think you'll find a real 'zealot' by most people's standards to make such a statement.]
Quartz's use of hardware acceleration is very limited; it doesn't even accelerate all the graphics operations that are accelerated in a good X11 server, and it shows in Quartz's sluggish performance.
Quantz is limited, not very limited as you say, but obviously it has limits. Odd limits, too; for example text rendering is dog-slow--not optimized at all. Obviously there is room for improvement. I didn't say everything about Quartz made Aqua automatically faster than X11 implementations anymore than I said everything about Aqua itself is better than X11 desktop environments. All I can say is generally, QE has done a better job of speeding up desktop rendering than X11 with its DRI, based on my own experiences.
X11-based desktops are far more responsive on the same hardware as Aqua.
I assume this comment is based on perceived speed and not measured benchmarks--unless you can provide a link. Keep in mind that Aqua has more [complex] eye-candy than do X11 desktop enviroments. Perhaps you should try again after turning off Aqua's fancy effects for a more fair comparison.
You know, most people wouldn't give a damn about what you think about your Macintosh. But people like you and Zelet should stop badmouthing and spreading FUD about Linux and X11 and making exaggerated claims about Macintosh technology: the Macintosh is a decent desktop machine, but that's all.
I don't care who gives a damn about what I think about what. I believe you should reevaluate your zealot-detecting methods so you don't embarrass yourself in the future. I've been a X11 (KDE) user for longer than I've been an OS X user and am quite the opposite of a zealot. I'm very open to new technologies and what people have to say about them, and you should probably be the same. All I've done is give you an alternate point of view. You should probably not mistake FUD for "just another random guy's experiences." It makes you look silly.
Actually, I do use KDE on my NetBSD box and have been for more than a 'couple weeks.' You don't gain credibility by calling anyone who disagrees with you a 'zealot.' Desktop experience is, after all, a matter of ones own personal preference. If you think KDE & Gnome are better desktops than Aqua, good for you. Personally, I don't even think they are quite up to Windows' standards.
Apart from that, there are places where you are are completely wrong. X11 is a standard, so it makes little sense to say it has hardware acceleration when it's really a network-based protocol. Ignoring that, X.org is definitely not hardware accelerated either. No, those little video card driver hacks that gain 1% performance increase aren't really what I had in mind. I'm talking about real hardware acceleration on par with Quartz Extreme.
Haha. Did you just say Gnome/KDE is probably more integrated and consistent than Aqua? Oh boy... And what's so great about X.org? It just added eye candy and Aqua has been able to do that since its release in 2001. It's even been hardware accelerated for a couple years now and X.org isn't even close to that.
Don't believe the Macintosh marketing FUD: Gnome and KDE are excellent desktops.
While it's great if Gnome & KDE work for you, but your comments about Aqua are misguided and show that you've probably never or have had very little use of Aqua. It's not a matter of Apple's marketing, it's a matter of real-world user experience.
Being able to sit down with a program you've never used and automatically know how to use it is a powerful thing, my friend.
Yes, that's a very good page you linked to. What it says is that "when we say 'free' when don't really mean true freedom, but rather that you can modify the source blah blah blah, but our GPL actually does set forth limits but we use the word 'free' because people like it and software under the GPL is almost free so we figure that's good enough." I'm not talking about their interpretation of the word. I'm talking about truly free. I don't need to try to change it because it's already the case. All anyone can do it help people see that their supposedly "free" software under the GPL isn't free. It's "open" and it gives people some freedoms, but that doesn't mean "free." And I'm afraid if you don't know it by now you probably have your head too far up a penguin's ass and you're not worth any more of my time. Good day.
Actually, most "free" software projects are using the GPL which is not about competition, it's about making sure the code stays "free".
Actually, I'm well aware about what you mean by "free" (notice I keep using quotes). Free as in beer relates to cost (money) and I'm not sure how you got that out of my post so I'll just ignore that and move onto your other misguided comment.
Projects which use the GPL aren't about keeping their code "free," they're about keeping their code open. When I talk about "free" I'm talking about complete freedom and both closed-sounce (Windows) and the GPL (Linux) simply do not provide complete freedom. Sure Linux is "open" (the code is viewable), but you need to figure out soon that there is a difference between "open" and "free." That's why I am not arguing that the GPL isn't an open-source license; it obviously is. But again, that doesn't make code under the GPL truly "free" (even though many people like to think it does).
The major problem with OS X Style program installation (and windows installers most of the time) is that they all contain every library they use.
Actually this is only partly true. Programs can include every single library they use inside the application "bundle," but it certainly isn't a requirement to duplicate. This is only usually an issue with drag-n-drop installed apps. Programs which are installed using a helper installer program usually install libraries in a global place. And either way, the installation is "easy."
So in other words let's fight anti-competitiveness with anti-competitiveness. The "Microsoft won't let me have their source code so I won't let them have mine either" sort of mindset, eh?
Well if that's your goal then go have fun with it. That doesn't make your software "free."
Real "free" software projects don't care who takes their code. They're not afraid of being snubbed out by competition; they welcome competition. That's what "free" really is and it seems to be working pretty well for BSD & Apache, etc.
Hell, HP sells five server processors (Xeon, Itanium, Alpha, PA-RISC, Opteron) and four operating systems (Windows, VMS, HP-UX, Linux). What will it be tommorow or a year from now? Another processor? Another OS?
Maybe. Maybe not. Who cares? As far as individual devices go (we are talking about DVRs & PVRs) if Windows does work and it's more profitable to use it than other solutions then why not use it? On the other hand, if in another sitution (or in the same situation in the future) Linux or something else would work better to increase profits, then they should go ahead and use Linux. I don't think there's any reason why a company would have to stay loyal to an operating system or processor. In HP's case, Linux is a cheap investment anyway compared to what they've already put into Windows.
If they're not idiots (they may be) then their 'platform' is built on top of whatever OS and processor combination they use.
HP is a whore like IBM. They'll sell anything to get your money. They don't care if it's Windows, Linux, UNIX, x86, RISC, mainframe, whatever. If it sends bucks their way, it'll be in their catalog.
Yes, you're right. How dare these rotten companies try to earn money! We have too many businesses trying to sell stuff to consumers in order to make money. The nerve! What whores.
Seriously though, you are a moron. Why should companies care about what software their devices run but for the fact of profit. That's what companies strive to do (make profit) and it doesn't make them whores for doing so (at least not in America). If a company thinks that by using Windows (or anything else) they will get a higher profit then it should be expected that it's the "right" and logical choice, especially considering that choosing Windows is neither illegal or immoral.
If you as the consumer have a problem with a product (i.e. it runs Windows) then that's your own bias and it doesn't make the company a "whore" (except perhaps in your own biased mind). The choice you can make is to not buy the product (perhaps to try to punish them), but if the company has a decent market research staff, they will have seen it coming.
This would matter if anyone could say for sure whether one or two (or more) buttons were actually better than anything else, but the fact is that it's just a matter of opinion. Some find one button & control clicking natural and just as easy as two buttons.
One button just so happens to be what Apple typically ships with and other companies typically ship with two button mice. Big deal. If you think it's stupid then you can write Apple about it.
Slashdot Mirror
So you only run software on your machine where the code is available for viewing. I suppose you have read all that source code for "bad stuff?" After each time the code is updated?
You probably won't like this, but Yahoo (as a big business) has more to lose for having "bad stuff" in their code than any open source project does.
You'll need to work in "BSD is dying" somewhere in your sig.
Take it easy, buddy. We're all friends here.
Preaching to the choir. Save your fingers. I know market share is meaningless. I just find it amusing how this analogy comes up every single time--although I did enjoy how Porsche was used in place of BMW; that was a nice touch.
Well, of course. I wouldn't claim every single port works perfectly. That is obviously dependent upon many things including how open the hardware is, how many developers are working on the port, the interest there is in the port, what hardware has been donated, etc etc. I think this is fairly obvious. The great-grandparent was, however, putting down every single port and I simply pointed out that he's terribly mistaken (about both the quality of the ports and how the NetBSD foundation works.
You are either a really bad troll or you have no clue what you're talking about. Each NetBSD port has its own set of developers who work to keep the kernel compatible and to make sure all the latest devices drivers are written (and updated) for their port.
Depends on what you mean by the rest of the world. If you world consists of the open source 'community,' then yes the world is switching. However, that's a very very small percentage of the people in my world, where the vast majority just stick with what they know.
Well, methinks there is still hope for Sony yet. It was only a few years ago when Steve Jobs had to step up onto the MacWorld Expo keynote stage and admit that Apple totally 'missed the boat' with regards to CD-RW drives. He promised that the error would be corrected, and today they're a major contender in online music and portable music players. Perhaps Jobs didn't have this all planned out, but it's still not a bad comeback. The playstation proved that Sony had very good marketing people, so they should bounce back from this bad decision well enough.
No, I'm not defending Apple at all. In my opinion, the Apple employees under NDA are in the wrong. I'm merely pointing out that the case isn't nearly as cut-and-dry as "who signed an NDA and who didn't."
Just a bit of a problem with your analogy. It's fairly obvious that an Apple employee didn't just 'let slip' any NDA'd information, intentionally or otherwise. The problem is that the ThinkSecret guy was explicitly soliciting them for information. Quite a different story.
About the quartz, duh the console will be slow. I already said quartz has no optimized text rendering. The argument is that generally, QE makes for a faster desktop experience than X11 w/ XDI. Again, this is based on my own experiences (perhaps I should repeat this every other sentence so you remember) and no that doesn't mean that I think Quartz is the fastest and best thing in every possible way.
Okay so in summary, if you find X11 fast and can stand KDE or Gnome then keep using it. It's free, so why not. I get no benefit from you 'switching' to anything else and I never suggested you do so. Use whatever you want (yeah, I sound like such a zealot). Your silly accusations of me being a zealot are boring me and have led me to consider you as somewhat of a troll so I don't think I'll be spending anymore time toward this enlightening conversation. Take care, friend.
Actually, I do use KDE on my NetBSD box and have been for more than a 'couple weeks.' You don't gain credibility by calling anyone who disagrees with you a 'zealot.' Desktop experience is, after all, a matter of ones own personal preference. If you think KDE & Gnome are better desktops than Aqua, good for you. Personally, I don't even think they are quite up to Windows' standards.
Apart from that, there are places where you are are completely wrong. X11 is a standard, so it makes little sense to say it has hardware acceleration when it's really a network-based protocol. Ignoring that, X.org is definitely not hardware accelerated either. No, those little video card driver hacks that gain 1% performance increase aren't really what I had in mind. I'm talking about real hardware acceleration on par with Quartz Extreme.
Being able to sit down with a program you've never used and automatically know how to use it is a powerful thing, my friend.
Yes, that's a very good page you linked to. What it says is that "when we say 'free' when don't really mean true freedom, but rather that you can modify the source blah blah blah, but our GPL actually does set forth limits but we use the word 'free' because people like it and software under the GPL is almost free so we figure that's good enough." I'm not talking about their interpretation of the word. I'm talking about truly free. I don't need to try to change it because it's already the case. All anyone can do it help people see that their supposedly "free" software under the GPL isn't free. It's "open" and it gives people some freedoms, but that doesn't mean "free." And I'm afraid if you don't know it by now you probably have your head too far up a penguin's ass and you're not worth any more of my time. Good day.
Projects which use the GPL aren't about keeping their code "free," they're about keeping their code open. When I talk about "free" I'm talking about complete freedom and both closed-sounce (Windows) and the GPL (Linux) simply do not provide complete freedom. Sure Linux is "open" (the code is viewable), but you need to figure out soon that there is a difference between "open" and "free." That's why I am not arguing that the GPL isn't an open-source license; it obviously is. But again, that doesn't make code under the GPL truly "free" (even though many people like to think it does).
Actually, ther real way to install things is probably the Mac OS X way...
Click. Drag. Drop. Done.
So in other words let's fight anti-competitiveness with anti-competitiveness. The "Microsoft won't let me have their source code so I won't let them have mine either" sort of mindset, eh?
Well if that's your goal then go have fun with it. That doesn't make your software "free."
Real "free" software projects don't care who takes their code. They're not afraid of being snubbed out by competition; they welcome competition. That's what "free" really is and it seems to be working pretty well for BSD & Apache, etc.
That's why I used BSD (I wonder how many 'bsd is dying' responses this will generate). The whole idea behind the GPL is just stupid, not "free."
Of course I use BSD for more reasons than just the license. Linux just feels like a hack-job thrown together by my 12-year-old neighbor.
But at least we can be thankful we have choices... for now.
It is open source and it certainly isn't a mess at all (the grandparent was trolling).
And I do care because I am an OS X developer.
If they're not idiots (they may be) then their 'platform' is built on top of whatever OS and processor combination they use.
Seriously though, you are a moron. Why should companies care about what software their devices run but for the fact of profit. That's what companies strive to do (make profit) and it doesn't make them whores for doing so (at least not in America). If a company thinks that by using Windows (or anything else) they will get a higher profit then it should be expected that it's the "right" and logical choice, especially considering that choosing Windows is neither illegal or immoral.
If you as the consumer have a problem with a product (i.e. it runs Windows) then that's your own bias and it doesn't make the company a "whore" (except perhaps in your own biased mind). The choice you can make is to not buy the product (perhaps to try to punish them), but if the company has a decent market research staff, they will have seen it coming.
This would matter if anyone could say for sure whether one or two (or more) buttons were actually better than anything else, but the fact is that it's just a matter of opinion. Some find one button & control clicking natural and just as easy as two buttons.
One button just so happens to be what Apple typically ships with and other companies typically ship with two button mice. Big deal. If you think it's stupid then you can write Apple about it.