Why would I care about the BIOS? For all intents and purpose it just the first stage bootstrap system for the hardware.
First, I think open firmware is important for developers and interoperability. It may not be important to your everyday use for those reasons, but most people don't ever make a change to Linux, but they do benefit from the results of its code being open. Second, and this seems to be the most overlooked part of this, is this is a way to let legacy hardware without Linux drivers, run Linux. That may make a difference to you if you happen to acquire the hardware on their list.
Okay that limits the scope of this project to primarily legacy hardware?
And OpenFirmware is difficult for add-on card makers to support.
Okay, so ignore the old PPC macs laying around as Linux already has drivers.
LinuxBIOS sort of sidesteps the issue by supporting the necessary hardware directly...
So this is a replacement for BIOS on legacy machines allowing Linux to run on them even if the Linux drivers for the boards were never written. That makes sense as a way to breath new life into old hardware using Linux. i wish the summary had made this clear. Half the comments here seem to be trying to figure this out.
First, the Website seems to be slashdotted, but anyone interested can get the basics about LinuxBIOS from the wikipedia page.
After reading said page it looks like this is an attempt to make a fast, barebones BIOS replacement without all the cruft of traditional BIOSes. Like others, however, I'm not sure I see the use for this on servers and workstations when compared to EFI or Open Firmware, both of which are already deployed. My current laptop boots via EFI. What disadvantage is there to me that this project is supposed to be solving?
The goal is manipulation of the local environment in such a way that it's favorable to an organism and its kin, which seems to occurr (Dimethyl Sulfide and cloud seeding, as mentioned).
That goal applies to a given organism, not to the planet as a whole. Okay, given that goal for an organism, and the situation that so many years ago an organism adapted in such a way that it could (potentially) affect the earth's environment in a way favorable to that creature. What is the mechanism that makes it more likely that one creature will survive to breed and thus take over a significant chunk of the gene pool? Obviously one, or even several creatures with a mutation won't be able to change the climate within their lifespan so how does this trait make them more likely to be genetically successful?
So you have a discrepency in the data (heat of early earth). You have a mechanism to explain it. Now it's your turn to describe a better mechanism.
You've missed the point. We're not arguing if the environment was changed by this genetic development of these creatures. It is irrelevant. Assume for the sake of argument they did. That does nothing to bolster the theory that this is in some way a macro-evolutionary process that tends to keep the earth stable for life. Life adapts to changing conditions via known mechanisms. Survival of the fittest and genetically inherited traits from survivors. The planet does not stay in in some stable state for life by some known mechanism and until someone can explain how they think that is happening without resorting to religion, it is not science.
My first encounter with Gaia theory was from a professor who worked as a researcher at McMurdough station, Antarctica, during an environmental science class back in college. That doesn't mean it's TRUE of course. People learn a lot of junk in school. But it's not just currency among hippies, either.
It's really sad that the "Gaia" theory can even pass muster with someone who calls themselves a scientist. People place so much emphasis on degrees and experience in the field, but a scientist is simply someone who applies the scientific method, a method greatly under-stressed in most educational institutes. A hypothesis with a big black hole in the middle of it alternately filled with "perhaps somehow" and "mystical intelligence" is not something to be taken seriously unless it is describing something we can't otherwise explain. What Lovelock proposes does nothing of the sort.
To make an analogy, why is the sky blue? We have some perfectly reasonable and well tested theories to explain the mechanisms by which blue light is emitted from the sky. What if, however, those mechanisms are in place because the world tends towards the color blue because of some mechanism? The sky is blue. The ocean is blue. That's a lot of the earth. Perhaps the earth has a lot of blue because Vishnu likes it blue of because blue planets are less likely to be destroyed by cosmic events for some reason. We won't go into that. The important thing is because there is so much blue there is likely to be a mechanism, right? WRONG.
That is not science and neither is the "Gaia theory."
Lovelock presents some arguments that individual adaptation to maintain homeostasis can have the effect of promoting worldwide homeostasis within to ranges suitable for life.
Yeah, I've read some of his stuff. It's entertaining as sci-fi, but his "Gaia" theories are science only in very loose terms, as far as I can tell. Certainly organisms can effect the environment in detrimental and beneficial ways for life, but aside from intelligent intervention (intelligence is the product of evolution) there is no way in which such a change can feed back in a process that would allow it to evolve towards some "goal" and there is no "goal" inherent in the process. With evolution, life works towards propagation of its own code in a feedback loop. Arbitrarily claiming that the earth is evolving to maintain its current state, with no way that its current state is beneficial to that process does not track.
The sun used to be 30% hotter, but global temperatures were not proportoinally hotter. Unicellular marine life release Dimethyl Sulfoxide to increase their cloud cover and keep them cooler.
So when you can show the mechanism by which the latter could be said to be the result of the former, we can talk. Otherwise, it is simply coincidental.
The notion that the biosphere may employ some homeostatic processes with an effect on global climate is a legitimate (though debated) scientific theory.
I've heard it from hippies who use "science" as some sort of misguided appeal to authority. I've never heard it seriously debated by anyone aside from Mr. Lovelock and do not see reason as the foundation for the hypothesis, but rather an attempt to use science to bolster emotive and religious beliefs. Not be overly harsh, but I really don't see the merit of such a hypothesis.
Evolution did equip life with the tools to affect global climactic change for our own benefit. That tool is "reason." It's a result of our big brains. The problem is it may not have been supplied in sufficient quantity as it is not as effective a way to promote breeding as other mechanisms. (As evidenced by the comments of humanity on the topic.)
One take could be that the Earth's climate changes are a way to "Cleanse" the Earth from certain things (pollution being the first to come to mind). It could be the equivalent of an immune system in beings that we know of. The Earth is sick literally from our contamination and is trying to heal itself. Of course there is no proof _YET_ to an idea of such, but it's definitely possible.
I think you are anthropomorphizing. People have immune systems and heal for a reason. Evolution and natural selection are a process by which survival traits that lead to increased breeding are encouraged. If the earth becomes polluted and all life on it dies and it heats up and becomes a burning, empty rock in space, does that mean it is less likely to breed with another planet and pass on its genetics and therefor its ancestors are likely to have developed such traits and passed them on?
While it makes for a dramatic analogy, it does not follow logically. The earth is not an organism and its climate is not the result of genetically coded, inherited survival traits.
The easiest way to prove that global warming exists is to point out the fact that we are not living in the ice age. Since the time the world was almost completely frozen over, it has gotten warmer. It would seem the earth goes through a cycle of warming and cooling and we just happen to be around while the earth is warming up some. Even if we are contributing, the amount that we are is insignificant at best.
This is the logical fallacy, non sequitur paired with proof by example. You have made empty assertions. Because the earth has warmed and cooled in the past in no way proves that the current warming is the result of or not the result of human interference. You assert that if we are contributing that contribution must be be insignificant, but you provide no support for that assertion and, if you look at the most reliable data we have to date, you'll notice that both of your assertions seem to contradict that data.
The rate of climate change is orders of magnitude faster than any natural change indicated by indicators from the past. This implies that the process is being influenced by a factor different than what has happened naturally in the past. Something has changed. The rate of global change correlates to the rise of human industrialization and (contrary to what you might have read) correlation suggests a possible causation.
Does this prove that global warming is caused by human influences? No. But because we have both a logical hypothesis as to how global warming could be caused by human influence (greenhouse effect) and because the scientific method to date has supported that hypothesis more than any other presented, it is the most likely cause. As a result a logical person, a scientist who objectively considers the issue, would conclude that the most reasonable course of action should be based upon the likelihood that humans are the cause and look to potential solutions based upon that.
If products could be packaged such that they get compiled during install, but in the background with the user being none the wiser, then it might fly. Like say your installer went out and did all the work on its own of gathering the required libraries while the user only ever saw a wizard with a next button.
I think modern package management is weak on every platform, but by combining several into the OS would bring the benefits you crave. I'm a huge fan of OpenStep/GNUStep/OS X where applications are folders ending in ".app" with a specific structure. This allows for multiple binaries for different platforms in one "file" that can just be copied and run anywhere. There is an increase in size, but given modern hard drives it is tiny, especially since all resources can be shared rather than duplicated. And having those resources separate is great for those of us that want to grab a song or image used in some game we have. The portability and lack of an installation step is really, really nice, especially for novice users.
To get back to your specific point, I see no reason why source code and build instructions cannot likewise be included in this package. Add a little "build custom binary" option for each application and you have the ability to do just what you ask, but without the drawback of having to wait for an install process. In fact, the OS could automatically schedule the compiling of a custom binary the first time a program is run. There is no need for a wizard at all. Drag the program where you want it and double click. There's no need for dependency checking either since needed libraries are in the package. I really think this level of simplicity would benefit everyone.
What they need to do is make a Muti-Core NATIVE OS, so even single-thread apps can use more then 1 core...
There are limits to this of course. One interesting step is OS X 10.5's ability to spawn a special GPU feeder process for OpenGL apps. The idea is for some OpenGL libraries and some things that are OS functions to automatically become their own thread, running on another core, thus speeding up programs that are CPU bound but have not been reworked/recompiled to take advantage of multiple cores. At least that is my understanding. In a perfect storm it could double the speed of an OpenGL app.
Re:The War of the News & Products
on
The Zune Cometh
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Well, while the idea of the ipod going the way of netscape scares me, I really hope that the X-Box has taught us that Microsoft is not as sucessful at the "embrace, extend, extinguish" game as it once was.
It usually takes Microsoft about three versions to go from half-assed to usable and take the market. The monopoly abuse with the Xbox and Windows is also a bit weaker than other markets they have tried to take over and their competitors larger and smarter. MS's plan is to make ActiveX all there is and make it easy to build a game with tools they provide that runs on Windows and the Xbox with no fuss. Ideally, they'd also like it to run on other consoles as well, but they may not be able to manage that. This means they get more games from independent developers and they've already bought a pile of them in order to "set the standard" for the industry.
I'm not sure this could be described as MS being worse at embracing markets, rather they are about the same as ever, but are tackling larger targets and are still early in the process.
This could be a bigger boon than a lot of people realize. The licensing differences between Solaris and Linux are one of several factors slowing them from adopting ideas and code from one another. OpenSolaris users could benefit from ease of importing more cutting edge features from Linux. Linux could benefit by having access to some of the cleaner implementation ideas from Solaris. I've felt for some time that much of what holds linux back is the unwillingness to adopt newer and better features out of a fear that a given distribution will be less compatible with others and because Linux is trying to wear many hats. Too many decisions are made to benefit its use as a server or make it easier to use on a portable, while leaving it behind others for a workstation.
I'm willing to bet it was human error. I bet he screwed up his own ballet.[sic]
And the other 8 people who said they voted for him also screwed up or are lying?
Re:The War of the News & Products
on
The Zune Cometh
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This goes back to simple capitalistic theory, with competition being good for the consumer. Two major corporations in control of the vast majority of the market, fighting to make the better product. This is an unusual viewpoint here on slashdot, but honestly, so long as they stick to bettering each other through competition rather than belittling each other, I'm all for it.
That would be nice, but I wouldn't count on it. Microsoft does not believe in playing fair. They have already tied their player to the Windows OS monopoly via a proprietary format and the WMP software. So while two companies competing for the market is great, don't count on it to last. Once MS manages a "good enough" player it will take the market regardless of whether or not it is innovative or even as good as the iPod. Apple's dominance may hold them off for a while, but not forever. And with the fall of the iPod, digital music and DRM will be dominated by Microsoft for the foreseeable future.
When one company decides to launch whole hearted smear campaigns rather than improve their product, or, even worse, decides it's more cost effective to buy out the competition, that's where I get worried, and in honesty, most major corporations have done one, if not both.
Neither of these bother me so long as the advertising is not factually incorrect, but portrayed as such. The free market and our society can and does deal with misleading ads and buyouts. What it can't deal with is antitrust abuse when the justice department looks the other way.
So, when you say my argument is based upon my notion of what success is, you ought to realize that yes, I'm writing my opinion on Apple's open source effectiveness and how it falls short of how the BSDs do it.
I think this is our major disconnect. I've been talking about BSD licensed code in general, while you seem to be thinking more of certain BSD licensed OS projects in particular. I think maybe a lot of people saw the Darwin code and thought, "cool we can build an OS using what Apple has here." The problem is, not enough people were interested in such a project and Apple was not particularly interested in it either as they were already building OS X on Darwin.
Realistically, most of what came of Darwin is what Apple cared about. They wanted to make OS X development easier. There is nothing inherently stopping other people from taking the code and running with it, but there also aren't a lot of advantages to doing so versus working on an existing, established OS like Linux or FreeBSD. Especially, there was not a lot of commercial reasons to build on it and realistically it is commercial interests that do a lot of the work on existing OS's.
Feel free to "correct" me in saying that Apple's doing a damn fine job with the Darwin project. Please. Because as much as I'd rather Darwin succeeded with flying colors, I just don't see that as where it's going.
Apple is doing a fine job with Darwin, from their perspective. It is doing what they want and need fairly well. It could be managed even better in a way so as to elicit more contributions from the community, but that is not a priority for Apple. I think the problem you have is that Darwin is not useful for what you want.
Especially in light of such open source projects like FreeBSD. Darwin has no hopes of being a standalone OS anymore and although that may not mean anything to you, that is a crushing reality to a lot of people who had hoped for and had worked for that.
I agree it does not have much hope of ever being that, but I never really thought it did. FreeBSD has a well stated mission and unique features that provide developers with incentive to work on it. It makes a great foundation for a lot of specialty devices and workstations. It is a good platform for experimentation and educational projects. What does Darwin bring to the table for a stand-alone OS? Why would people want to work on it over already established projects?
It didn't help that Apple led them on.
I'm not sure it's fair to say Apple lead anyone on. The code is there if someone wants to fork it and build an OS. They can even pull in new features from Apple as Apple finishes them. Apple didn't kill OpenDarwin. Lack of interest did.
Are the volunteer developers for FreeBSD nothing more than hobbyists to you?
No. There are a lot of people working on BSD for a variety of reasons in education and industry. There could be a variety of people doing the same on OpenDarwin, but there aren't. Apple doesn't spend resources supporting the FreeBSD project except when it also happens to help Apple. The same goes for OpenDarwin. Expect companies to work on their projects and if you want to use part of that, great but you better have enough people to do the rest of it or it won't get done.
Is the spirit of BSD solely to be open source to aid developers for their respective platforms?
The "spirit of BSD" is for people to work on what they want or need and contribute to the pool of code, when it benefits them. Developers certainly license BSD code for their own benefit more than anything else.
And I have been saying this entire time that should Apple ever lower itself to supporting a project such as FreeBSD, Good Things(tm) will happen and they as well as others will benefit greatly from such efforts.
So here's the thing, Apple does help FreeBSD and Linux and a lot of other projects that use open source code. Like most other companies, they do this for thei
However, it is my most humble and honest opinion that the BSDs are successful due in part to the openness that they have achieved.
The adoption of the network stack in Windows from BSD licensed code is a success as far as advocates of the BSD code are concerned. It is in no way open. For some reason a lot of people who are GPL advocates see it as a failure and a reason why BSD licensing is flawed, as though it was not doing exactly what the developers intended.
This entire argument is based upon your notion of what a success is. That is entirely subjective and not a point worth arguing.
In the "spirit" of open source, giving someone the code is only half the battle. Providing them with the tools to contribute and supporting that in a sustainable manner is, in my opinion, one of the most important technical goals of OSS.
I think that collaboration between a given user of some code and other users and the community can be very valuable. That does not, however, mean it is the goal of licensing code. Apple doesn't keep Darwin open so that they can get collaboration from hobbyists. They keep it open as a way to aid developers for OS X make things work better on OS X and understand bugs.
That may not be what you wish they would do, but that does not make it antithetical to the goals of those who licensed their code as BSD in the first place.
Come on, when did I say anyone was a moron? I have the utmost respect for the developers of the BSDs (and even a few at Apple). I'm merely pointing out in a rather dramatic style that taking from BSD without giving back is not cool, though legal.
And in doing so you're assuming you know better than those who wrote and licensed the code in question. The coders here wanted people to be able to take their code, close it, and never contribute any code back. Those developers were paid for their work, not with the potential of other code (as with the GPL) but with the affect their code has on those projects. From their perspective, taking BSD code, closing it, and integrating it into a project is cool. That was what they wanted. Just because you don't understand the payoffs or like the payoff is irrelevant.
If you want to write a third of a kernel and license it GPL, then great. Probably, however, no one will use it since we already have Linux for that.
Apple says they are open source, and they are in the strictest sense of the notion, but they are not behind it (yet?).
Apple is not open source. Some projects Apple works on are open source. The problem is that you seem to want open source to mean something that it does not. Open source simply means the source is open to all to see. Maybe you want Apple to produce free (libre) software. That is something else.
I have an unfortunately pristine picture of what a corporate legal department considers a non-starter for proposals and contracts; needless to say, BSD is a stretch and the GPL doesn't even have a snowball's chance in the Sahara.
Funny. I'm slacking off from working at a corporation on a project built largely on GPL software. The corporate lawyer I consult is a sharp guy, but we're by no means the only corporation to adopt GPL software (Linux anyone) in our products. We also contribute quite a bit to various BSD projects (I think we have 4 OpenBSD developers on staff). Maybe you need to find a different company?
Please explain how that's not relevant when that's the entire point of my guilt-trip ridden comment?
Apple's support for open source software and the OS/computer industry mostly has nothing to do with their kernel code. They contribute to a lot of open source projects and have founded a number of them. They help author and drive the adoption of standards that benefit the entire industry. Thus, Apple does help the industry, but the kernel code they post is not a significant part of that. It is mostly useless to those not planning on working on OS X.
Apple is not a software company. They write software - some of it quite good - but they are a hardware company.
Apple is a personal computer company. They write both software and build hardware, but they are both simply components. Microsoft is a software company. They create one component of a PC, which is assembled by Dell or someone.
Arguing that Apple should open source their operating system is like arguing that one of the car manufacturers should open up their engine-control software - it removes a core advantage of their hardware and makes you less likely to buy it.
Hmm, I'd say it is more like arguing Mitsubishi should give away their engines for free to promote sales of their cars. They are competing in the PC space against Dell and HP. No one sells OS's to end users (in real quantities). They are sold to corporations and OEMs that put together systems for end users.
Now if you want to argue that it is in Apple's best interest to become a software company, you'd have plenty of company. Personally, I think it would be nuts to try to compete with Microsoft and all of the various UNIX-type OSes out there.
The only way to compete with a monopoly is to sell a complete vertical chain of components including the one they sell as well as other products. Apple sells OS's, but only bundled with hardware and other software. Thus they don't currently compete with Microsoft (which is pretty impossible unless the courts step in). I agree it would be dumb for them to risk everything on such a venture.
That's because Microsoft is honest about their position towards FOSS and Apple isn't. At least you know where you stand with Microsoft, but with Apple, they do the bare minimum with FOSS -- just enough to let the Apple fanboys use the argument "Apple DOES do Open Source!
Microsoft has been promoting their software as open for years with their "shared source" initiative. Apple has been producing and selling both open and closed source software for years as it fits with their business interests. The situation is only unlcear if you try to oversimplify as "Microsoft..closed...bad, Apple...open..good." The real world does not work that way. Apple releases a lot of software as open because they recognize the advantages of open source and believe in that model. This is not philanthropy, it is good business. The same goes for IBM. Nothing forced Apple to release their zeroconf implementation as open source, or even to help port it to Linux. They didn't do it because they want people to like them either. They did it to promote the technology and interoperability and new standards. We all benefit, and so does Apple. That is how open source is supposed to work.
What it isn't open ENOUGH for you? Fanatic.
I think anyone arguing here that Apple is screwing people over is probably a fanatic. Apple is in compliance with the license chosen by the people who wrote the code. Anyone who thinks they know better than those coders and everything should be treated like GPL is being fanatical.
Not that I don't think people should not complain about what Apple is doing if they want to or try to convince them to be less restrictive (although in this case I don't care). Just be clear that whiners don't have some sort of moral high ground here. It is just as ethical for Apple to close their kernel as it is for them to keep it open. Anyone who wants it released one way or another is arguing their own (perceived) best interest, and nothing more. I'd like Apple to give me 10 million bucks, but I don't think they have a moral obligation to do so.
Well, they wrote the IO kit component entirely. The Next developers wrote the majority of Mach 3.0, from my understanding, before being acquired. The BSD portion (that is the POSIX part) was partially written by them but mostly by others. Those people, however, licensed it is such a way that others could close the source if they wanted to (which Apple hasn't) or otherwise restrict it (which Apple has). Those developers felt that it was more important to promote adoption of the code than to promote keeping a branch of the code open. As a result, their code has become more widely adopted than it would otherwise, promoting standards and providing several other benefits to those authors.
So while Apple did nto write all their kernel, they did write a lot and the rest they are using in accordance with the author's wishes. Where's the problem? Unless you're a zealot who thinks everything should be GPL, even if the people who actually did all the work did not think so, I can't see why anyone would argue that Apple has screwed the coders here.
Oh wait, what's that? News flash, Apple borrows FreeBSD code to base their kernel on and what does the Open Source community get for it?
I won't argue the accuracy of your statement because it is irrelevant, but I think it important to answer your question. The "Open Source Community" and specifically the developers who wrote the BSD licensed code Apple adopted for their OS got exactly what they asked for. They got their code more widely used and on a lot more desktops than they could otherwise have hoped for. They helped define the standard, promoted interoperability, and gained in reputation.
The BSD license doesn't force you to keep the source open, but for fuck's sake, you got it for free.
You seem to be of the opinion that those who developed the code were morons. They intended to license their code as GPL, but they were just too dumb, or they copy and pasted the wrong thing or some such thing. They really wanted the code to remain open to all, even if that made companies like Apple choose something else. I submit that you're assuming that the "community" should ethically be able to restrict code and keep it open, even when the developers who put in all the hard work specifically licensed it otherwise.
You're saying you wouldn't at all feel obligated to support the industry that provided you with the basis of your entire wildly popular operating system?
Apple supports the "industry" but that is not relevant here. Apple supported the individuals who developed the code they used in exactly the way those developers asked them to. They have kept it open in that people can see it and suggest modifications/fixes which is a huge step up on some other possibilities. It also keeps them in step with the rest of the industry. Because they have some of the same underlying code it means developers can target both OS X and FreeBSD more easily with less work.
If you have a beef, bring it up with the people who wrote the code and licensed it via a BSD license. They did all the work and make all the rules. Your assumption that the rules they chose are wrong is presumptuous.
Because it is often more efficient to generate power in a large, dedicated facility than it is in a hundred little boxes, even when you account for distribution costs.
Solar panels are the way to put power generation into the hands of the people. When I look out at all the rooftops in the area - houses, office buildings, Super S-Marts and their enormous un-covered parking lots, all I can think of...
When I look at all of those roofs, etc, I think, "gee those are all covered with snow and would suck as locations for solar power. I wish someone would build a long power line that stretched all the way to the desert so all the solar power hitting there could be converted to electricity and brought here."
Have we learned nothing from decentralized computing?
Yes, that both centralized and decentralized systems have inherent advantages and disadvantages. It important not to ignore either or assume that just because your use case seems better suited to one, that everyone else's use case will be the same.
This is getting worse than Zune news. No one writing about this knows any more of the details than what was released to the press.
I know it is not normal to RTFA, but if you did you'd see it was a press release about the license MS released with regard to their promise not to sue open source hobbyists over patent violations. It is not about the Novell deal, despite the fact that every comment thus far (except my previous one) seems to be assuming otherwise. So people do know more than was published in the press release, just not about what you seem to have thought this article was about.
Note, this article is not talking about the deal with Novell as almost every post thus far has assumed. It mentions that deal, as something still being researched. This is about MS's recent promise/contract to not sue hobbyists for patent violations.
I find this idea a bit scary. HTML, Flash, and PDF do two completely different things, and attempting to combine them is not going to end with a super-browser but with a monstrous train-wreck something like Acrobat Viewer, which inserts buttons in my excel toolbar without asking, takes forever to load and is generally a waste of space.
There's not a lot of point in integrating tools that do the same thing. The functions of Flash, PDF, and HTML are complementary. Not that it means any given toolset to work with them is going to be a good one, but really the Web right now is already built on these formats along with the scripting they're throwing their weight behind. Allowing (but not requiring) the integration of these might be a real boon
Given Adobe's recent purchase of their main competitor, their sluggish response to market changes like OS X Intel, and the general bloat in their flagship products...
I agree the last item here is an issue, but the first two are not really. I'd rather there was more competition, but none of this was anything that undermines the free market. It just changes the players. As for the "sluggish" response to OS X on Intel, it could have been faster, but given that they were in the middle of a major merger, I'd say the ports haven't been too slow. Adobe's customers are somewhat conservative, and a slight wait for full speed is not a huge deal to most of them.
It's too easy for them to translate control over one of the main browsers into an irresistible push for the internet in the direction that they want it to go.
If you hadn't noticed, a monopoly has already done that. IE has determined the direction of internet technologies, and basically made sure they went nowhere.
A web platform owned by Adobe.
I don't see Adobe successfully embracing and extending HTML/CSS. PDF is open and widely used. Javascript is likewise open and Java is moving there. That pretty much leaves Flash as their lock-in. I'm really not seeing how you expect Adobe to grab the ball and run here. This partnership with the Firefox team, current partnerships with Opera, and adoption of WebKit leaves them pretty firmly committed to Web standards at least for HTML and CSS. The opening of this scripting engine is another good sign. I remain skeptical of your theory... not that I'd put it past them to try if they thought they could, but I think they know it wouldn't fly and aren't even going to try.
It's the same story with Apple and the iTMS, and I guess it works sometimes, but surely long-term people always see through this attempt to create a walled garden?
Apple is providing a service, application, and device all neatly tied together. This is a great way to compete against an established monopoly. You build a separate, vertical chain to mitigate the monopoly abuse. It has worked well for them in the PC/OS space and they just applied it to the portable digital music player space in its infancy. For a lot of people one or more pieces of that chain make sense, and as a result the whole chain makes sense. For some a walled garden is the best choice, even knowing it is a walled garden. For others this is not the case. For me, I always ask "how high are the walls?"
So the claim that access to broadband means higher incomes is at best "not proven".
Who said broadband meant higher incomes? I argued that ubiquitous broadband provides the potential for long term employment rate and economic benefits, given the changing nature of the global market. The practical benefits will take many years to become apparent for such a project and will be indirect enough that the correlation will never be 100% clear.
If you look at US exports and the trend in US exports, you''ll be able to make some very easy predictions about where the globalized market is moving. The US is exporting culture and intellectual property as a significant amount of our economy and in increasing proportions. If high speed internet is ubiquitous in France years before the US, the technologies it enables will likely be deployed in France years before the US. The experts in the technology and the innovation will be happening where it is practical to bring things to market. If every french citizen has video on demand with competition and the accompanying innovation for years before the US, when and if the US ever catches up in high speed, reliable access, we'll still be playing catchup in the already established market and early adopters from the US will have a vested interest and brand recognition with foreign companies. If we don't stay ahead, we lose the first mover advantage that has been keeping the US a center for both education and technology.
... if I'm not mistaken, China may have added far more broadband lines, but those are federally funded - you know, the whole socialist thing - and heavily censored, at that. It wouldn't surprise me if, in nearly all countries that beat the US in broadband penetration, those connections are supported much more by taxes than here in the US.
That might have some weight if the US had not spent over 200 billion subsidizing our broadband internet development over the last few years. The US has spent a great deal more in taxes, per person, than countries that have completely free networks via socialist programs.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would I care about the BIOS? For all intents and purpose it just the first stage bootstrap system for the hardware.
First, I think open firmware is important for developers and interoperability. It may not be important to your everyday use for those reasons, but most people don't ever make a change to Linux, but they do benefit from the results of its code being open. Second, and this seems to be the most overlooked part of this, is this is a way to let legacy hardware without Linux drivers, run Linux. That may make a difference to you if you happen to acquire the hardware on their list.
LinuxBIOS targets pre-EFI machines.
Okay that limits the scope of this project to primarily legacy hardware?
And OpenFirmware is difficult for add-on card makers to support.
Okay, so ignore the old PPC macs laying around as Linux already has drivers.
LinuxBIOS sort of sidesteps the issue by supporting the necessary hardware directly...
So this is a replacement for BIOS on legacy machines allowing Linux to run on them even if the Linux drivers for the boards were never written. That makes sense as a way to breath new life into old hardware using Linux. i wish the summary had made this clear. Half the comments here seem to be trying to figure this out.
First, the Website seems to be slashdotted, but anyone interested can get the basics about LinuxBIOS from the wikipedia page.
After reading said page it looks like this is an attempt to make a fast, barebones BIOS replacement without all the cruft of traditional BIOSes. Like others, however, I'm not sure I see the use for this on servers and workstations when compared to EFI or Open Firmware, both of which are already deployed. My current laptop boots via EFI. What disadvantage is there to me that this project is supposed to be solving?
The goal is manipulation of the local environment in such a way that it's favorable to an organism and its kin, which seems to occurr (Dimethyl Sulfide and cloud seeding, as mentioned).
That goal applies to a given organism, not to the planet as a whole. Okay, given that goal for an organism, and the situation that so many years ago an organism adapted in such a way that it could (potentially) affect the earth's environment in a way favorable to that creature. What is the mechanism that makes it more likely that one creature will survive to breed and thus take over a significant chunk of the gene pool? Obviously one, or even several creatures with a mutation won't be able to change the climate within their lifespan so how does this trait make them more likely to be genetically successful?
So you have a discrepency in the data (heat of early earth). You have a mechanism to explain it. Now it's your turn to describe a better mechanism.
You've missed the point. We're not arguing if the environment was changed by this genetic development of these creatures. It is irrelevant. Assume for the sake of argument they did. That does nothing to bolster the theory that this is in some way a macro-evolutionary process that tends to keep the earth stable for life. Life adapts to changing conditions via known mechanisms. Survival of the fittest and genetically inherited traits from survivors. The planet does not stay in in some stable state for life by some known mechanism and until someone can explain how they think that is happening without resorting to religion, it is not science.
My first encounter with Gaia theory was from a professor who worked as a researcher at McMurdough station, Antarctica, during an environmental science class back in college. That doesn't mean it's TRUE of course. People learn a lot of junk in school. But it's not just currency among hippies, either.
It's really sad that the "Gaia" theory can even pass muster with someone who calls themselves a scientist. People place so much emphasis on degrees and experience in the field, but a scientist is simply someone who applies the scientific method, a method greatly under-stressed in most educational institutes. A hypothesis with a big black hole in the middle of it alternately filled with "perhaps somehow" and "mystical intelligence" is not something to be taken seriously unless it is describing something we can't otherwise explain. What Lovelock proposes does nothing of the sort.
To make an analogy, why is the sky blue? We have some perfectly reasonable and well tested theories to explain the mechanisms by which blue light is emitted from the sky. What if, however, those mechanisms are in place because the world tends towards the color blue because of some mechanism? The sky is blue. The ocean is blue. That's a lot of the earth. Perhaps the earth has a lot of blue because Vishnu likes it blue of because blue planets are less likely to be destroyed by cosmic events for some reason. We won't go into that. The important thing is because there is so much blue there is likely to be a mechanism, right? WRONG.
That is not science and neither is the "Gaia theory."
Lovelock presents some arguments that individual adaptation to maintain homeostasis can have the effect of promoting worldwide homeostasis within to ranges suitable for life.
Yeah, I've read some of his stuff. It's entertaining as sci-fi, but his "Gaia" theories are science only in very loose terms, as far as I can tell. Certainly organisms can effect the environment in detrimental and beneficial ways for life, but aside from intelligent intervention (intelligence is the product of evolution) there is no way in which such a change can feed back in a process that would allow it to evolve towards some "goal" and there is no "goal" inherent in the process. With evolution, life works towards propagation of its own code in a feedback loop. Arbitrarily claiming that the earth is evolving to maintain its current state, with no way that its current state is beneficial to that process does not track.
The sun used to be 30% hotter, but global temperatures were not proportoinally hotter. Unicellular marine life release Dimethyl Sulfoxide to increase their cloud cover and keep them cooler.
So when you can show the mechanism by which the latter could be said to be the result of the former, we can talk. Otherwise, it is simply coincidental.
The notion that the biosphere may employ some homeostatic processes with an effect on global climate is a legitimate (though debated) scientific theory.
I've heard it from hippies who use "science" as some sort of misguided appeal to authority. I've never heard it seriously debated by anyone aside from Mr. Lovelock and do not see reason as the foundation for the hypothesis, but rather an attempt to use science to bolster emotive and religious beliefs. Not be overly harsh, but I really don't see the merit of such a hypothesis.
Evolution did equip life with the tools to affect global climactic change for our own benefit. That tool is "reason." It's a result of our big brains. The problem is it may not have been supplied in sufficient quantity as it is not as effective a way to promote breeding as other mechanisms. (As evidenced by the comments of humanity on the topic.)
One take could be that the Earth's climate changes are a way to "Cleanse" the Earth from certain things (pollution being the first to come to mind). It could be the equivalent of an immune system in beings that we know of. The Earth is sick literally from our contamination and is trying to heal itself. Of course there is no proof _YET_ to an idea of such, but it's definitely possible.
I think you are anthropomorphizing. People have immune systems and heal for a reason. Evolution and natural selection are a process by which survival traits that lead to increased breeding are encouraged. If the earth becomes polluted and all life on it dies and it heats up and becomes a burning, empty rock in space, does that mean it is less likely to breed with another planet and pass on its genetics and therefor its ancestors are likely to have developed such traits and passed them on?
While it makes for a dramatic analogy, it does not follow logically. The earth is not an organism and its climate is not the result of genetically coded, inherited survival traits.
The easiest way to prove that global warming exists is to point out the fact that we are not living in the ice age. Since the time the world was almost completely frozen over, it has gotten warmer. It would seem the earth goes through a cycle of warming and cooling and we just happen to be around while the earth is warming up some. Even if we are contributing, the amount that we are is insignificant at best.
This is the logical fallacy, non sequitur paired with proof by example. You have made empty assertions. Because the earth has warmed and cooled in the past in no way proves that the current warming is the result of or not the result of human interference. You assert that if we are contributing that contribution must be be insignificant, but you provide no support for that assertion and, if you look at the most reliable data we have to date, you'll notice that both of your assertions seem to contradict that data.
The rate of climate change is orders of magnitude faster than any natural change indicated by indicators from the past. This implies that the process is being influenced by a factor different than what has happened naturally in the past. Something has changed. The rate of global change correlates to the rise of human industrialization and (contrary to what you might have read) correlation suggests a possible causation.
Does this prove that global warming is caused by human influences? No. But because we have both a logical hypothesis as to how global warming could be caused by human influence (greenhouse effect) and because the scientific method to date has supported that hypothesis more than any other presented, it is the most likely cause. As a result a logical person, a scientist who objectively considers the issue, would conclude that the most reasonable course of action should be based upon the likelihood that humans are the cause and look to potential solutions based upon that.
If products could be packaged such that they get compiled during install, but in the background with the user being none the wiser, then it might fly. Like say your installer went out and did all the work on its own of gathering the required libraries while the user only ever saw a wizard with a next button.
I think modern package management is weak on every platform, but by combining several into the OS would bring the benefits you crave. I'm a huge fan of OpenStep/GNUStep/OS X where applications are folders ending in ".app" with a specific structure. This allows for multiple binaries for different platforms in one "file" that can just be copied and run anywhere. There is an increase in size, but given modern hard drives it is tiny, especially since all resources can be shared rather than duplicated. And having those resources separate is great for those of us that want to grab a song or image used in some game we have. The portability and lack of an installation step is really, really nice, especially for novice users.
To get back to your specific point, I see no reason why source code and build instructions cannot likewise be included in this package. Add a little "build custom binary" option for each application and you have the ability to do just what you ask, but without the drawback of having to wait for an install process. In fact, the OS could automatically schedule the compiling of a custom binary the first time a program is run. There is no need for a wizard at all. Drag the program where you want it and double click. There's no need for dependency checking either since needed libraries are in the package. I really think this level of simplicity would benefit everyone.
What they need to do is make a Muti-Core NATIVE OS, so even single-thread apps can use more then 1 core...
There are limits to this of course. One interesting step is OS X 10.5's ability to spawn a special GPU feeder process for OpenGL apps. The idea is for some OpenGL libraries and some things that are OS functions to automatically become their own thread, running on another core, thus speeding up programs that are CPU bound but have not been reworked/recompiled to take advantage of multiple cores. At least that is my understanding. In a perfect storm it could double the speed of an OpenGL app.
Well, while the idea of the ipod going the way of netscape scares me, I really hope that the X-Box has taught us that Microsoft is not as sucessful at the "embrace, extend, extinguish" game as it once was.
It usually takes Microsoft about three versions to go from half-assed to usable and take the market. The monopoly abuse with the Xbox and Windows is also a bit weaker than other markets they have tried to take over and their competitors larger and smarter. MS's plan is to make ActiveX all there is and make it easy to build a game with tools they provide that runs on Windows and the Xbox with no fuss. Ideally, they'd also like it to run on other consoles as well, but they may not be able to manage that. This means they get more games from independent developers and they've already bought a pile of them in order to "set the standard" for the industry.
I'm not sure this could be described as MS being worse at embracing markets, rather they are about the same as ever, but are tackling larger targets and are still early in the process.
This could be a bigger boon than a lot of people realize. The licensing differences between Solaris and Linux are one of several factors slowing them from adopting ideas and code from one another. OpenSolaris users could benefit from ease of importing more cutting edge features from Linux. Linux could benefit by having access to some of the cleaner implementation ideas from Solaris. I've felt for some time that much of what holds linux back is the unwillingness to adopt newer and better features out of a fear that a given distribution will be less compatible with others and because Linux is trying to wear many hats. Too many decisions are made to benefit its use as a server or make it easier to use on a portable, while leaving it behind others for a workstation.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
I'm willing to bet it was human error. I bet he screwed up his own ballet.[sic]
And the other 8 people who said they voted for him also screwed up or are lying?
This goes back to simple capitalistic theory, with competition being good for the consumer. Two major corporations in control of the vast majority of the market, fighting to make the better product. This is an unusual viewpoint here on slashdot, but honestly, so long as they stick to bettering each other through competition rather than belittling each other, I'm all for it.
That would be nice, but I wouldn't count on it. Microsoft does not believe in playing fair. They have already tied their player to the Windows OS monopoly via a proprietary format and the WMP software. So while two companies competing for the market is great, don't count on it to last. Once MS manages a "good enough" player it will take the market regardless of whether or not it is innovative or even as good as the iPod. Apple's dominance may hold them off for a while, but not forever. And with the fall of the iPod, digital music and DRM will be dominated by Microsoft for the foreseeable future.
When one company decides to launch whole hearted smear campaigns rather than improve their product, or, even worse, decides it's more cost effective to buy out the competition, that's where I get worried, and in honesty, most major corporations have done one, if not both.
Neither of these bother me so long as the advertising is not factually incorrect, but portrayed as such. The free market and our society can and does deal with misleading ads and buyouts. What it can't deal with is antitrust abuse when the justice department looks the other way.
So, when you say my argument is based upon my notion of what success is, you ought to realize that yes, I'm writing my opinion on Apple's open source effectiveness and how it falls short of how the BSDs do it.
I think this is our major disconnect. I've been talking about BSD licensed code in general, while you seem to be thinking more of certain BSD licensed OS projects in particular. I think maybe a lot of people saw the Darwin code and thought, "cool we can build an OS using what Apple has here." The problem is, not enough people were interested in such a project and Apple was not particularly interested in it either as they were already building OS X on Darwin.
Realistically, most of what came of Darwin is what Apple cared about. They wanted to make OS X development easier. There is nothing inherently stopping other people from taking the code and running with it, but there also aren't a lot of advantages to doing so versus working on an existing, established OS like Linux or FreeBSD. Especially, there was not a lot of commercial reasons to build on it and realistically it is commercial interests that do a lot of the work on existing OS's.
Feel free to "correct" me in saying that Apple's doing a damn fine job with the Darwin project. Please. Because as much as I'd rather Darwin succeeded with flying colors, I just don't see that as where it's going.
Apple is doing a fine job with Darwin, from their perspective. It is doing what they want and need fairly well. It could be managed even better in a way so as to elicit more contributions from the community, but that is not a priority for Apple. I think the problem you have is that Darwin is not useful for what you want.
Especially in light of such open source projects like FreeBSD. Darwin has no hopes of being a standalone OS anymore and although that may not mean anything to you, that is a crushing reality to a lot of people who had hoped for and had worked for that.
I agree it does not have much hope of ever being that, but I never really thought it did. FreeBSD has a well stated mission and unique features that provide developers with incentive to work on it. It makes a great foundation for a lot of specialty devices and workstations. It is a good platform for experimentation and educational projects. What does Darwin bring to the table for a stand-alone OS? Why would people want to work on it over already established projects?
It didn't help that Apple led them on.
I'm not sure it's fair to say Apple lead anyone on. The code is there if someone wants to fork it and build an OS. They can even pull in new features from Apple as Apple finishes them. Apple didn't kill OpenDarwin. Lack of interest did.
Are the volunteer developers for FreeBSD nothing more than hobbyists to you?
No. There are a lot of people working on BSD for a variety of reasons in education and industry. There could be a variety of people doing the same on OpenDarwin, but there aren't. Apple doesn't spend resources supporting the FreeBSD project except when it also happens to help Apple. The same goes for OpenDarwin. Expect companies to work on their projects and if you want to use part of that, great but you better have enough people to do the rest of it or it won't get done.
Is the spirit of BSD solely to be open source to aid developers for their respective platforms?
The "spirit of BSD" is for people to work on what they want or need and contribute to the pool of code, when it benefits them. Developers certainly license BSD code for their own benefit more than anything else.
And I have been saying this entire time that should Apple ever lower itself to supporting a project such as FreeBSD, Good Things(tm) will happen and they as well as others will benefit greatly from such efforts.
So here's the thing, Apple does help FreeBSD and Linux and a lot of other projects that use open source code. Like most other companies, they do this for thei
However, it is my most humble and honest opinion that the BSDs are successful due in part to the openness that they have achieved.
The adoption of the network stack in Windows from BSD licensed code is a success as far as advocates of the BSD code are concerned. It is in no way open. For some reason a lot of people who are GPL advocates see it as a failure and a reason why BSD licensing is flawed, as though it was not doing exactly what the developers intended.
This entire argument is based upon your notion of what a success is. That is entirely subjective and not a point worth arguing.
In the "spirit" of open source, giving someone the code is only half the battle. Providing them with the tools to contribute and supporting that in a sustainable manner is, in my opinion, one of the most important technical goals of OSS.
I think that collaboration between a given user of some code and other users and the community can be very valuable. That does not, however, mean it is the goal of licensing code. Apple doesn't keep Darwin open so that they can get collaboration from hobbyists. They keep it open as a way to aid developers for OS X make things work better on OS X and understand bugs.
That may not be what you wish they would do, but that does not make it antithetical to the goals of those who licensed their code as BSD in the first place.
Come on, when did I say anyone was a moron? I have the utmost respect for the developers of the BSDs (and even a few at Apple). I'm merely pointing out in a rather dramatic style that taking from BSD without giving back is not cool, though legal.
And in doing so you're assuming you know better than those who wrote and licensed the code in question. The coders here wanted people to be able to take their code, close it, and never contribute any code back. Those developers were paid for their work, not with the potential of other code (as with the GPL) but with the affect their code has on those projects. From their perspective, taking BSD code, closing it, and integrating it into a project is cool. That was what they wanted. Just because you don't understand the payoffs or like the payoff is irrelevant.
If you want to write a third of a kernel and license it GPL, then great. Probably, however, no one will use it since we already have Linux for that.
Apple says they are open source, and they are in the strictest sense of the notion, but they are not behind it (yet?).
Apple is not open source. Some projects Apple works on are open source. The problem is that you seem to want open source to mean something that it does not. Open source simply means the source is open to all to see. Maybe you want Apple to produce free (libre) software. That is something else.
I have an unfortunately pristine picture of what a corporate legal department considers a non-starter for proposals and contracts; needless to say, BSD is a stretch and the GPL doesn't even have a snowball's chance in the Sahara.
Funny. I'm slacking off from working at a corporation on a project built largely on GPL software. The corporate lawyer I consult is a sharp guy, but we're by no means the only corporation to adopt GPL software (Linux anyone) in our products. We also contribute quite a bit to various BSD projects (I think we have 4 OpenBSD developers on staff). Maybe you need to find a different company?
Please explain how that's not relevant when that's the entire point of my guilt-trip ridden comment?
Apple's support for open source software and the OS/computer industry mostly has nothing to do with their kernel code. They contribute to a lot of open source projects and have founded a number of them. They help author and drive the adoption of standards that benefit the entire industry. Thus, Apple does help the industry, but the kernel code they post is not a significant part of that. It is mostly useless to those not planning on working on OS X.
So let me get t
Apple is not a software company. They write software - some of it quite good - but they are a hardware company.
Apple is a personal computer company. They write both software and build hardware, but they are both simply components. Microsoft is a software company. They create one component of a PC, which is assembled by Dell or someone.
Arguing that Apple should open source their operating system is like arguing that one of the car manufacturers should open up their engine-control software - it removes a core advantage of their hardware and makes you less likely to buy it.
Hmm, I'd say it is more like arguing Mitsubishi should give away their engines for free to promote sales of their cars. They are competing in the PC space against Dell and HP. No one sells OS's to end users (in real quantities). They are sold to corporations and OEMs that put together systems for end users.
Now if you want to argue that it is in Apple's best interest to become a software company, you'd have plenty of company. Personally, I think it would be nuts to try to compete with Microsoft and all of the various UNIX-type OSes out there.
The only way to compete with a monopoly is to sell a complete vertical chain of components including the one they sell as well as other products. Apple sells OS's, but only bundled with hardware and other software. Thus they don't currently compete with Microsoft (which is pretty impossible unless the courts step in). I agree it would be dumb for them to risk everything on such a venture.
That's because Microsoft is honest about their position towards FOSS and Apple isn't. At least you know where you stand with Microsoft, but with Apple, they do the bare minimum with FOSS -- just enough to let the Apple fanboys use the argument "Apple DOES do Open Source!
Microsoft has been promoting their software as open for years with their "shared source" initiative. Apple has been producing and selling both open and closed source software for years as it fits with their business interests. The situation is only unlcear if you try to oversimplify as "Microsoft..closed...bad, Apple...open..good." The real world does not work that way. Apple releases a lot of software as open because they recognize the advantages of open source and believe in that model. This is not philanthropy, it is good business. The same goes for IBM. Nothing forced Apple to release their zeroconf implementation as open source, or even to help port it to Linux. They didn't do it because they want people to like them either. They did it to promote the technology and interoperability and new standards. We all benefit, and so does Apple. That is how open source is supposed to work.
What it isn't open ENOUGH for you? Fanatic.
I think anyone arguing here that Apple is screwing people over is probably a fanatic. Apple is in compliance with the license chosen by the people who wrote the code. Anyone who thinks they know better than those coders and everything should be treated like GPL is being fanatical.
Not that I don't think people should not complain about what Apple is doing if they want to or try to convince them to be less restrictive (although in this case I don't care). Just be clear that whiners don't have some sort of moral high ground here. It is just as ethical for Apple to close their kernel as it is for them to keep it open. Anyone who wants it released one way or another is arguing their own (perceived) best interest, and nothing more. I'd like Apple to give me 10 million bucks, but I don't think they have a moral obligation to do so.
its[sic] not Their[cp] code.
Well, they wrote the IO kit component entirely. The Next developers wrote the majority of Mach 3.0, from my understanding, before being acquired. The BSD portion (that is the POSIX part) was partially written by them but mostly by others. Those people, however, licensed it is such a way that others could close the source if they wanted to (which Apple hasn't) or otherwise restrict it (which Apple has). Those developers felt that it was more important to promote adoption of the code than to promote keeping a branch of the code open. As a result, their code has become more widely adopted than it would otherwise, promoting standards and providing several other benefits to those authors.
So while Apple did nto write all their kernel, they did write a lot and the rest they are using in accordance with the author's wishes. Where's the problem? Unless you're a zealot who thinks everything should be GPL, even if the people who actually did all the work did not think so, I can't see why anyone would argue that Apple has screwed the coders here.
Oh wait, what's that? News flash, Apple borrows FreeBSD code to base their kernel on and what does the Open Source community get for it?
I won't argue the accuracy of your statement because it is irrelevant, but I think it important to answer your question. The "Open Source Community" and specifically the developers who wrote the BSD licensed code Apple adopted for their OS got exactly what they asked for. They got their code more widely used and on a lot more desktops than they could otherwise have hoped for. They helped define the standard, promoted interoperability, and gained in reputation.
The BSD license doesn't force you to keep the source open, but for fuck's sake, you got it for free.
You seem to be of the opinion that those who developed the code were morons. They intended to license their code as GPL, but they were just too dumb, or they copy and pasted the wrong thing or some such thing. They really wanted the code to remain open to all, even if that made companies like Apple choose something else. I submit that you're assuming that the "community" should ethically be able to restrict code and keep it open, even when the developers who put in all the hard work specifically licensed it otherwise.
You're saying you wouldn't at all feel obligated to support the industry that provided you with the basis of your entire wildly popular operating system?
Apple supports the "industry" but that is not relevant here. Apple supported the individuals who developed the code they used in exactly the way those developers asked them to. They have kept it open in that people can see it and suggest modifications/fixes which is a huge step up on some other possibilities. It also keeps them in step with the rest of the industry. Because they have some of the same underlying code it means developers can target both OS X and FreeBSD more easily with less work.
If you have a beef, bring it up with the people who wrote the code and licensed it via a BSD license. They did all the work and make all the rules. Your assumption that the rules they chose are wrong is presumptuous.
Why all the talk of centralized power generation?
Because it is often more efficient to generate power in a large, dedicated facility than it is in a hundred little boxes, even when you account for distribution costs.
Solar panels are the way to put power generation into the hands of the people. When I look out at all the rooftops in the area - houses, office buildings, Super S-Marts and their enormous un-covered parking lots, all I can think of...
When I look at all of those roofs, etc, I think, "gee those are all covered with snow and would suck as locations for solar power. I wish someone would build a long power line that stretched all the way to the desert so all the solar power hitting there could be converted to electricity and brought here."
Have we learned nothing from decentralized computing?
Yes, that both centralized and decentralized systems have inherent advantages and disadvantages. It important not to ignore either or assume that just because your use case seems better suited to one, that everyone else's use case will be the same.
This is getting worse than Zune news. No one writing about this knows any more of the details than what was released to the press.
I know it is not normal to RTFA, but if you did you'd see it was a press release about the license MS released with regard to their promise not to sue open source hobbyists over patent violations. It is not about the Novell deal, despite the fact that every comment thus far (except my previous one) seems to be assuming otherwise. So people do know more than was published in the press release, just not about what you seem to have thought this article was about.
Note, this article is not talking about the deal with Novell as almost every post thus far has assumed. It mentions that deal, as something still being researched. This is about MS's recent promise/contract to not sue hobbyists for patent violations.
I find this idea a bit scary. HTML, Flash, and PDF do two completely different things, and attempting to combine them is not going to end with a super-browser but with a monstrous train-wreck something like Acrobat Viewer, which inserts buttons in my excel toolbar without asking, takes forever to load and is generally a waste of space.
There's not a lot of point in integrating tools that do the same thing. The functions of Flash, PDF, and HTML are complementary. Not that it means any given toolset to work with them is going to be a good one, but really the Web right now is already built on these formats along with the scripting they're throwing their weight behind. Allowing (but not requiring) the integration of these might be a real boon
Given Adobe's recent purchase of their main competitor, their sluggish response to market changes like OS X Intel, and the general bloat in their flagship products ...
I agree the last item here is an issue, but the first two are not really. I'd rather there was more competition, but none of this was anything that undermines the free market. It just changes the players. As for the "sluggish" response to OS X on Intel, it could have been faster, but given that they were in the middle of a major merger, I'd say the ports haven't been too slow. Adobe's customers are somewhat conservative, and a slight wait for full speed is not a huge deal to most of them.
It's too easy for them to translate control over one of the main browsers into an irresistible push for the internet in the direction that they want it to go.
If you hadn't noticed, a monopoly has already done that. IE has determined the direction of internet technologies, and basically made sure they went nowhere.
A web platform owned by Adobe.
I don't see Adobe successfully embracing and extending HTML/CSS. PDF is open and widely used. Javascript is likewise open and Java is moving there. That pretty much leaves Flash as their lock-in. I'm really not seeing how you expect Adobe to grab the ball and run here. This partnership with the Firefox team, current partnerships with Opera, and adoption of WebKit leaves them pretty firmly committed to Web standards at least for HTML and CSS. The opening of this scripting engine is another good sign. I remain skeptical of your theory... not that I'd put it past them to try if they thought they could, but I think they know it wouldn't fly and aren't even going to try.
It's the same story with Apple and the iTMS, and I guess it works sometimes, but surely long-term people always see through this attempt to create a walled garden?
Apple is providing a service, application, and device all neatly tied together. This is a great way to compete against an established monopoly. You build a separate, vertical chain to mitigate the monopoly abuse. It has worked well for them in the PC/OS space and they just applied it to the portable digital music player space in its infancy. For a lot of people one or more pieces of that chain make sense, and as a result the whole chain makes sense. For some a walled garden is the best choice, even knowing it is a walled garden. For others this is not the case. For me, I always ask "how high are the walls?"
So the claim that access to broadband means higher incomes is at best "not proven".
Who said broadband meant higher incomes? I argued that ubiquitous broadband provides the potential for long term employment rate and economic benefits, given the changing nature of the global market. The practical benefits will take many years to become apparent for such a project and will be indirect enough that the correlation will never be 100% clear.
If you look at US exports and the trend in US exports, you''ll be able to make some very easy predictions about where the globalized market is moving. The US is exporting culture and intellectual property as a significant amount of our economy and in increasing proportions. If high speed internet is ubiquitous in France years before the US, the technologies it enables will likely be deployed in France years before the US. The experts in the technology and the innovation will be happening where it is practical to bring things to market. If every french citizen has video on demand with competition and the accompanying innovation for years before the US, when and if the US ever catches up in high speed, reliable access, we'll still be playing catchup in the already established market and early adopters from the US will have a vested interest and brand recognition with foreign companies. If we don't stay ahead, we lose the first mover advantage that has been keeping the US a center for both education and technology.
That might have some weight if the US had not spent over 200 billion subsidizing our broadband internet development over the last few years. The US has spent a great deal more in taxes, per person, than countries that have completely free networks via socialist programs.