"This is just as much "hijacking" as the Free Software group."
Don't be ridiculous. The meaning of words predates software entirely. If you can't accept common language then you aren't qualified to participate in discussion.
"What you missed is that there's a difference between "free" and "open source." As you noted, RMS is all about Free Software yet you ignore this distinction as quibbling."
It is only a distinction according to FSF people and that is exactly their quibbling. RMS changes the definitions of words so that he can argue his point.
"The GPL protects any actual innovator better than BSD style licenses because it stops free riders. See Zed Shaw's explanation of why he uses the GPL: http://zedshaw.com/blog/2009-07-13.html [zedshaw.com]."
That is nonsense and, if true, it would be ironic that a license that claims to be the champion of freedoms "stops free riders".
"But the GPL itself was written to protect software freedom..." No, it was written to protect "freedom" as the FSF defines it. Software is "free" under a BSD-style license---even more so than under GPL. The GPL was written to effect software that is derived from free software. That software, though, can in no way effect the freedom of anything other than itself. It would be more accurate to say that the GPL was written to EXPAND software freedom. It's easy to see that from its restrictions and the motivations of its proponents.
Hardly for the last 8 years, but that's beside the point. Apple doesn't make an OS, they make a complete system of which the OS is a part. They can't possibly dethrone Windows with that strategy nor is it their goal to.
That's all complete nonsense, and I'm old enough to say so. When I turned 45 I gave up my 200 dpi 22" display. It's not that I couldn't use it but that it's advantages were no longer compelling over a 30" display set further away. I have no problem using a 1920x1200 notebook at either 15.4" or 17" sizes. Machines should get higher resolution, not lower, and it's laziness from the OS vendors that causes that to not be so.
"I find that the most important dimension when it comes to whether or not a computer is comfortable or is awkward and annoying when I'm carrying it loose is thickness, not length or width."
Just what Apple told you to say.
"Same when it is in a backpack, as I use a backpack that has a padded divider to separate the computer from the other items in the backpack. The thickness of the computer is the only dimension that determines how much space the computer takes up in the backpack."
That's true as long as the other dimensions are small enough. When they get too large the computer doesn't fit at all. I think you need to think about that some more.
"... all of Apple's MacBook Pros... get 7 or 8 hours (verified as accurate by various third party reviews, so not the standard industry "under imaginary conditions" you see with most notebooks). Most netbooks would be hard-pressed to get half that."
Wow, that is massively not true. Under real use the new MBP barely get half that as well. My 17 gets 5.5 hours when doing essentially nothing.
Your garbage is more of a myth than what you accuse the Bayer sensor of.
Bater sensors offer full luminance resolution. Chroma resolution varies but is less important. The common rule of thumb is that a 12MP Bayer sensor offers comparable overall performance to an 8MP full-color sensor, much greater than the 3MP you claim. There is boatloads of test data available if you would simply look with an open mind.
"That makes the source code particularly unusable, except as a programming example to aspiring iPhone developers." Source code is "particularly unusable" to anyone other than developers regardless of platform. This is your mistake.
The GPL doesn't require that the tools necessary to compile the source be freely available. Furthermore, the GPL doesn't promise that you won't lose $99 if you choose to modify the source. Finally, you clearly have a complaint with Apple, but they aren't involved in complying with the GPL in this case. "The problem is that you cannot modify it or redistribute binaries. You also are require to provide all the necessary things to compile it. And I don't think he's providing an SDK license." You are, of course, wrong on these points.
"Do you have freedom to distribute copies of it to other iPhone users?" Yes, you do.
"Can you change the software and run your changed version?" Yes, you can.
"It's pretty clear that people who buy it from the App Store don't have these freedoms..." No, it's not at all clear. These freedoms can be granted by the license even if exercising them is made inconvenient by Apple. iPhone users have accepted being treated that way by Apple.
"...but here most users cannot." Sure they can. Fact is, most users of any program, GPL or not, on any platform do not have the skills or tools to modify and run it and the license itself has never done ANYTHING to address that. iPhone owners have some special requirements necessary to run their own software, but so what? Every platform has requirements.
"So there is certainly room for interpretation." There's room for plenty of wrong ones, like yours.
The OP implied that the SATA 2 transfer rate is, in practice, only capable of 1/4 of its theoretical maximum. That is clearly nonsense. We don't know what the sustained transfer rate of the drive will be, but SATA 2 won't have anything to do with it.
You guys can choose to be as stupid as you please, of course.
I think you will have a very hard time supporting that claim, particularly once you define what you mean by "better". PowerPC was never intended to be faster than x86, it was intended to be comparable in performance at a much smaller die size and lower subsequent cost. Those costs were never realized by the consumer, though, and PowerPC quickly lost performance parity because of Motorola's incompetence.
Likewise, your mouse claims are nothing more than Apple spin. 1 button mice were always stupid.
Whether you are a distributor or not isn't determined by your margins or your business plan. The fact that you have a business plan at all means you probably are one.
Slashdot Mirror
"This is just as much "hijacking" as the Free Software group."
Don't be ridiculous. The meaning of words predates software entirely. If you can't accept common language then you aren't qualified to participate in discussion.
"What you missed is that there's a difference between "free" and "open source." As you noted, RMS is all about Free Software yet you ignore this distinction as quibbling."
It is only a distinction according to FSF people and that is exactly their quibbling. RMS changes the definitions of words so that he can argue his point.
"The GPL protects any actual innovator better than BSD style licenses because it stops free riders. See Zed Shaw's explanation of why he uses the GPL: http://zedshaw.com/blog/2009-07-13.html [zedshaw.com] ."
That is nonsense and, if true, it would be ironic that a license that claims to be the champion of freedoms "stops free riders".
"But the GPL itself was written to protect software freedom..."
No, it was written to protect "freedom" as the FSF defines it. Software is "free" under a BSD-style license---even more so than under GPL. The GPL was written to effect software that is derived from free software. That software, though, can in no way effect the freedom of anything other than itself. It would be more accurate to say that the GPL was written to EXPAND software freedom. It's easy to see that from its restrictions and the motivations of its proponents.
Hardly for the last 8 years, but that's beside the point. Apple doesn't make an OS, they make a complete system of which the OS is a part. They can't possibly dethrone Windows with that strategy nor is it their goal to.
Screen dpi has everything to do with text size. It shouldn't but it does.
That's all complete nonsense, and I'm old enough to say so. When I turned 45 I gave up my 200 dpi 22" display. It's not that I couldn't use it but that it's advantages were no longer compelling over a 30" display set further away. I have no problem using a 1920x1200 notebook at either 15.4" or 17" sizes. Machines should get higher resolution, not lower, and it's laziness from the OS vendors that causes that to not be so.
Eyesight doesn't start to go at 40 either.
"I find that the most important dimension when it comes to whether or not a computer is comfortable or is awkward and annoying when I'm carrying it loose is thickness, not length or width."
Just what Apple told you to say.
"Same when it is in a backpack, as I use a backpack that has a padded divider to separate the computer from the other items in the backpack. The thickness of the computer is the only dimension that determines how much space the computer takes up in the backpack."
That's true as long as the other dimensions are small enough. When they get too large the computer doesn't fit at all. I think you need to think about that some more.
"... all of Apple's MacBook Pros ... get 7 or 8 hours (verified as accurate by various third party reviews, so not the standard industry "under imaginary conditions" you see with most notebooks). Most netbooks would be hard-pressed to get half that."
Wow, that is massively not true. Under real use the new MBP barely get half that as well. My 17 gets 5.5 hours when doing essentially nothing.
Your garbage is more of a myth than what you accuse the Bayer sensor of.
Bater sensors offer full luminance resolution. Chroma resolution varies but is less important. The common rule of thumb is that a 12MP Bayer sensor offers comparable overall performance to an 8MP full-color sensor, much greater than the 3MP you claim. There is boatloads of test data available if you would simply look with an open mind.
"That makes the source code particularly unusable, except as a programming example to aspiring iPhone developers."
Source code is "particularly unusable" to anyone other than developers regardless of platform. This is your mistake.
The GPL doesn't require that the tools necessary to compile the source be freely available. Furthermore, the GPL doesn't promise that you won't lose $99 if you choose to modify the source. Finally, you clearly have a complaint with Apple, but they aren't involved in complying with the GPL in this case.
"The problem is that you cannot modify it or redistribute binaries. You also are require to provide all the necessary things to compile it. And I don't think he's providing an SDK license."
You are, of course, wrong on these points.
"Do you have freedom to distribute copies of it to other iPhone users?"
Yes, you do.
"Can you change the software and run your changed version?"
Yes, you can.
"It's pretty clear that people who buy it from the App Store don't have these freedoms..."
No, it's not at all clear. These freedoms can be granted by the license even if exercising them is made inconvenient by Apple. iPhone users have accepted being treated that way by Apple.
"...but here most users cannot."
Sure they can. Fact is, most users of any program, GPL or not, on any platform do not have the skills or tools to modify and run it and the license itself has never done ANYTHING to address that. iPhone owners have some special requirements necessary to run their own software, but so what? Every platform has requirements.
"So there is certainly room for interpretation."
There's room for plenty of wrong ones, like yours.
yes, of course, those are the only differences. That and an entirely different UI...
Here's a benchmark summary of interface testing. It does not include the current Seagate 7200.4 drives:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2.5-hard-drive-charts/Interface-Performance,682.html
Obviously, hard drives are capable of utilizing far more than 1/4 of SATA 2's theoretical bandwidth.
Where is your data to support that claim? Even the last generation Macbook Pro 17 supported 12.5mm drives. They aren't as rare as you think.
The OP implied that the SATA 2 transfer rate is, in practice, only capable of 1/4 of its theoretical maximum. That is clearly nonsense. We don't know what the sustained transfer rate of the drive will be, but SATA 2 won't have anything to do with it.
You guys can choose to be as stupid as you please, of course.
Got any data to back that up?
I think you will have a very hard time supporting that claim, particularly once you define what you mean by "better". PowerPC was never intended to be faster than x86, it was intended to be comparable in performance at a much smaller die size and lower subsequent cost. Those costs were never realized by the consumer, though, and PowerPC quickly lost performance parity because of Motorola's incompetence.
Likewise, your mouse claims are nothing more than Apple spin. 1 button mice were always stupid.
"Apple's appeal is that OSX is a generally better OS than Windows, particularly in the area of usability."
I agree, though not particularly in the area of usability. The big advantages of OS X aren't not usability ones.
"Rotating media is what RAID was invented for."
Poor grammar aside, you need an education on what RAID was really developed to address.
Not only is that nonsense, but it hardly proves the point regarding "all proprietary licenses".
talk about an insight-free post...
Whether you are a distributor or not isn't determined by your margins or your business plan. The fact that you have a business plan at all means you probably are one.
I think it's best that you remain asleep.